TEAMS AND TEAM MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP:KEY SUCCESS FACTORS FOR EFFECTIVE TEAMS

KEY SUCCESS FACTORS FOR EFFECTIVE TEAMS

Teamwork is not a simplistic, mechanistic work organization technique that can be applied easily with immediate results. To the contrary, it can be a complex management approach that demands well-planned support in all its phases to be effective. Teamwork is not a panacea and is not suitable to all organizational contexts.

Some basic insights into the suitability of teams can be derived from Kanter’s (1983) thoughts on participatory management. Mutatis mutandis, the use of teamwork (participation) is appropriate for situations related to staying ahead of change, gaining new sources of expertise, involving all who know something about the subject, achieving consensus in controversial matters, building commit- ment, dealing with problems belonging to no one by organizational assignment, balancing vested interests, avoiding hasty decisions, handling conflicting views, and developing and educating people through their participation. On the other hand, teamwork can be inadequate when a solution for the problem is already available, when nobody really cares about the issue, and when there is no time for discussion.

Kanter (1983) suggests that for participation to be effective, the following elements are required: leadership (particularly for the initiation of the process), a clearly designed management structure, assignment of meaningful and feasible tasks with clear boundaries and parameters, a time frame, scheduling of reports and accountability, information and training for participants, recognition and rewards for teams’ efforts (extrinsic rewards), delegation of control but no abdication of responsibility, and a clear process of formation of the participatory groups as well as their evolution and ending and the transfer of learning from them.

Management support has been widely recognized as the fundamental condition for the imple- mentation of teamwork initiatives (Carr and Litman 1993; Hyman and Mason 1995; Kocham et al. 1984). Without continued support and commitment from management, team efforts are doomed to failure. The role of top management is to initiate the teamwork process, setting up policy and guide- lines, establishing the infrastructure for team functioning, providing resources, promoting participa- tion, guidance, and cooperation, and assigning a meaningful and feasible task. Tang et al. (1991) report a relationship between upper-management attendance and team members’ participation and between middle-management attendance and teams’ problem-solving activities. In a study of 154 QC applications from 1978 to 1988, Park and Golembiewski (1991) found middle-management attitude to be the strongest predictor of team success. Employees who are involved in team projects that receive low levels of management support may become frustrated due to lack of resources and cooperation. This may in turn result in negative attitudes, not only towards the project itself, but also towards the job and organization.

Hackman (1990) points out that unclear or insufficient authority or mandate, which relate to the lack of support from top management, are critical impediments to team achievement. Hackman in- dicates some consequential issues for teams with regard to group authority. First, the team needs to have authority to manage its own affairs. Second, teams need a stable authority structure. Finally, the timing and substance of interventions by authoritative figures. Interventions by authoritative fig- ures can be most effective as the beginning of team development and can be particularly harmful if done on concerns that the group sees as theirs.

For ad hoc teams in particular, the clarity and importance of the team charge also play an important role in the definition and achievement of success. The team charge should be specific and relevant from the participants’ and organization’s perspectives.

Time limits are powerful organizing factors that shape team performance, particularly for ad hoc teams (Gersick and Davis-Sacks 1990). The available time guides the pace of work and the selection of strategies employed by teams. The lack of clear timelines can cause problems for teams making adopted strategies inadequate and impacting negatively the members’ motivation. Time landmarks can in some situations be provided to the team through other avenues, such as a training delivery schedule (Taveira 1996).

The careful definition of team composition is emphasized as an essential aspect of team success in the literature (Carr and Littman 1993; Larson and LaFasto 1989; Scholtes 1988; Kanter 1983). These authors indicate that the absence of members with key expertise or critical organizational linkages can be a sticking point for teams. Both technical and organizational aspects need to be observed in team composition.

The team leader role is essential as an external linkage between the group and upper management, as a promoter of involvement, and as a coordinator and facilitator of communication inside the group (Taveira 1996; Scholtes 1988). Another facet of the team leader’s position, serving as a role model, is highlighted by Bolman and Deal’s (1992) symbolic tenet: ‘‘example rather than command holds a team together.’’ The diligence of the leader in his effort of coordinating and supporting the team can motivate members to volunteer for work assignments and ease the distribution of assignments.

Training is considered to be the one of the most essential resource for team success. It can provide fundamental principles and procedures for its functioning. Training can impart ground rules, guide- lines for internal and external communication, and favored ways to make decisions. Training sessions can provide opportunities to discuss and learn with other teams and be conducive to a perception of support and predictability about oncoming tasks and group development. It can introduce the team to a number of procedures and behaviors that enhance communication and involvement (Taveira 1996). Training in problem solving, data collection and analysis, and group decision making is necessary for employees to fully contribute to the group process.

Training is seen as fundamental for giving the team structure for a sound internal process (Hack- man 1990). In the specific case of ‘‘one-project’’ teams, where a nonroutine task is undertaken by a new mix of people, training may be critical. Since such groups are unlikely to have established routines for coordinating members’ efforts or for determining how work and influence will be dis- tributed among them, training may provide vital guidelines (Gersick and Davis-Sacks 1990).

Moreland and Levine (1992) define commitment as an emotional bond between a person and a group. These authors point out two prevalent theories on commitment: (1) people are committed to a group insofar as it generates more rewards and fewer costs than do other groups to which they already belong or that they could join; (2) commitment depends primarily on how important a group is to someone’s social identity. This second theory implies that a need for self-enhancement leads people to feel more committed to groups that seem more successful. A logical extension could be that early success increases the member’s commitment to the group.

Correspondingly, Hackman (1990) asserts that groups that begin well and achieve some early wins often trigger a self-sustained upward trend in performance. Hackman delineates a two-factor hypothesis in this regard. The first factor is the quality of the group’s initial design, and the second is the occurrence of positive or negative events that trigger the spiral.

Consensus is frequently referred to as the preferred decision-making strategy for teams. Shared definitions of consensus and clear procedures to put this mode of decision making in place are needed. Consensus is defined by Scholtes (1988) as a process of finding a proposal that is acceptable enough that all members can support it and no member opposes to it. Consensus requires time and active participation from team members (Carr and Littman 1993). It demands mutual respect (listening), open-mindedness, and effort at conflict resolution.

Amason et al. (1995) characterize the management of conflicts as ‘‘the crux of team effectiveness.’’ They assert that effective teams manage conflict in a way that contributes to its objective. Less- effective teams either avoid conflict, which leads to compromised decisions, or let it seriously disrupt the group process. The authors divide conflict into two types of cognitive and affective. Cognitive conflict focuses on the substance of the issues under discussion. Examination, comparison, and con- ciliation of opinions characterize it. Cognitive conflict is useful because it invites team members to consider their perspectives from different angles and question underlying assumptions. It can improve members’ understanding and commitment to the team’s objectives. Affective conflict focuses on disagreements on personal matters and contributes to distrust, bitterness, cynicism, and indifference among team members. Amason et al. believe that task orientation, an inclusive strategy, and open communications are the key elements in fostering cognitive conflict, while avoiding affective conflict.

Nemeth (1992), analyzing the role of dissent on groups, highlights the importance of a vocal minority. According to Nemeth, the expression of disagreeing views, even when they are wrong, encourages attention and thought processes that enable the identification of new facts and solutions and promotes the quality of group decision making and performance. Disagreement may preclude precipitated action (Kanter 1983) and the occurrence of ‘‘groupthink’’ (Janis 1982), in which alter- native courses of action are not considered. Minority views stimulate divergent thought processes, adoption of multiple perspectives, and the use of multiple strategies for problem solution.

Gersick and Davis-Sacks (1990) postulate that the challenge of the group is to find the correct equilibrium of independence from and sensitivity to outsiders. The authors add that balancing the relationship between the team and the outside context becomes more complicated when outsiders have dissimilar expectations. The team’s composition also influences this balancing since it represents a specific aggregate of dispositions toward, and information about, those stakeholders.

References can be found in the literature to the idea that styles of participatory management should match the organizational culture. Locke et al. (1986) state that the ‘‘manager’s natural style of leadership’’ (including decision making, autonomy, and employee control) must also be considered. Similarly, the goals of participatory management should be matched with employee knowledge, skills, and ability. Assessment of the organization’s characteristics and needs concerning the implementation of participatory management is fundamental. Particularly, a careful training plan must be developed aimed at motivating and preparing people for teamwork.

Additionally, that an organization that has historically promoted from within and has good em- ployee relations may benefit from more from teamwork than an organization that has high employee turnover rates and does not invest in long-term development of human resources.

There may be other drawbacks to participation in teams. Divided loyalties between the group and the organizational segments to which the members belong may result in peer pressure against par- ticipation. Coercion and retaliation against team members by management is a possibility. Members may also be frustrated if team recommendations are not acted upon or if their efforts are not rec- ognized by top management.

Duffy and Salvendy (1997, 1999) using a survey of 103 electronic component manufacturers using concurrent engineering, reached conclusions extremely consistent with the experience of groups working in other organizational contexts. Their findings confirmed the importance of team members’ proximity for success in product development and concurrent engineering efforts. Physical proximity increases communication frequency, and teams are likely to be more successful if they communicate more frequently. Successful group work was found to be dependent on a reward structure that reflects group achievement as well as individual achievement. Team size, problem-solving effectiveness, and technical training were also found to contribute to success. The perceived value of communication between different concurrent engineering functions / roles was found to be significantly related to quality of communication and concurrent engineering success.

The implementation of teamwork demands organizational resources, not only in financial terms, but also in time and organizational effort required for planning, training, meetings, and other activities. Therefore, resources must be allocated, and contrary to what some believe, effective teamwork is not free, and spontaneity is not the only driving force behind it.