Teamwork
Team efforts have always been crucial to the completion of major tasks. Take for example the construction of a building. A team of workers would naturally be able to do the task much faster and with better results than a single person. In a similar way, an organization is built up with teamwork and cooperation amongst employees and their managers.
A team has been defined by Katzenbach and Smith (1993, p. 45, cited in Moorhead & Griffin, 2004, p. 314) as “a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, common performance goals and an approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable.” Therefore a number of teams working within an organization, by virtue of their having goals that are similar to the organizations’, can help it to reach the pinnacle of success. Naturally then, management these days is looking more and more towards teams to get work done in the organisation as this is believed to deliver more than the individual effort. (Fincham & Rhodes, 2005).
Since teams consist of a small number of persons, the question that comes to mind is ‘what really causes these individuals to come together?’
This essay attempts to examine the advantages and disadvantages of working in teams by first briefly describing teams, the reasons for their formation, their structures and norms. Since team efforts can also be detrimental to the success of the organisation, the essay will also try to analyse ways in which the disadvantages may be mitigated or avoided.
Teams are formed for Functional purposes, in order to get a certain organisational task finished. Some teams are formed by organisations simply for improving on aspects such as quality or productivity. (Moorhead & Griffin, 2004). They may also be formed for Psychological purposes which involve the employee satisfying certain needs. (Moorhead & Griffin, 2004). The psychological aspect has a particularly profound impact on the individual as it helps the person find out how he or she relates to others (Hogg & Abrams, 1988).
Organisations rely heavily on teams in order to solve different problems. Hence, different types of teams can be said to exist in the organisation (Moorhead & Griffin, 2004). The first type is Quality Circles, which are small groups and meet regularly in order to discuss certain workplace problems such as quality issues. The second type is Work Teams, which actually perform the daily work unlike the Quality Circles, which are merely advisory in nature. The third type is Problem Solving Teams, which exist on a temporary basis in order to attack certain problems within the organisation. The fourth type of team is known as the Management Team which is relatively permanent and consists of managers. Its main task is to coach other teams into becoming self-managing and coordinating work amongst interdependent work teams. Finally, there are the Product Development Teams, which are a combination of work and problem solving teams. These are in order to design new products and/or services for customers. They are also temporary in nature, since once the task is completed, they are disbanded.
The team has a structure amongst its members which reflects the team identity. (Fincham & Rhodes, 2005). This includes, first and foremost, a team leader, often seen as the most competent member with regard to the task to be accomplished and as someone who is able to take command of the group. At the next level are the team members themselves who have agreed to come together in order to achieve group goals. Deviates comprise the third level of the team structure and are members who have personal goals that do not coincide with the overall team goals. The last level is that of isolates who are deviates, isolated from the team (perhaps psychologically and even physically) because of their failure to adhere towards the common group goals (Fincham & Rhodes, 2005).
Since teams are a rather close knit group, certain norms dictate the member’s behaviour whilst he or she works within a group. A norm can be defined as “a standard against which the appropriateness of behaviour is judged.” (Moorhead & Griffin, 2004, p. 294). Norms indicate the expected behaviour from the different constituent members and serve to regulate the behaviour amongst group members and make their behaviour more predictable.
Despite their complexity vis-�-vis their structure and behaviour, it is possible for us to list out some of the advantages of using teams (Moorhead & Griffin, 2004). The first of these advantages is enhanced performance which can be displayed in a variety of forms ranging from productivity and quality (Scholtes, 1988) to customer service. This simply means that working in teams will help to reduce wastage of effort, errors and will also help to increase output as a ratio of employee input. For example, General Electric’s North Carolina plant was able to achieve a twenty percent increase in productivity after a team system was implemented there (Orsburn, Moran, Musselwhite & Zenger, [n.d], cited in Moorhead & Griffin, 2004, p. 318).
The second advantage of teamwork relates to employee benefits (Moorhead & Griffin, 2004). Employees often look for ways to develop on the job, manage and make their own decisions and acquire a feeling of self worth and self fulfillment in an organisation. Teams are especially good at helping employees to achieve these since it does away with the reliance on the traditional hierarchical system and provides the employees with the freedom needed for self growth. For example Milwaukee Mutual was able to reduce the number of employees who required assistance by 40% owing to the application of a team system (Manz & Sims, 1993, cited in Moorhead & Griffin, 2004, p. 319).
Thirdly, firms may benefit (by using teams) from reduced costs owing to reduction in errors, absenteeism and even employee turnover. This is because team members are actively engaged in their teams and are willing to make their contributions shown. For example, Wilson Sporting Company reported saving ten million dollars by switching to a team based system (Moorhead & Griffin, 2004).
A fourth advantage (and one of the characteristics) of a team is Group Cohesiveness which is defined as “the resultant of all forces acting on the members to remain in the group” (Festinger, 1950, p 274, cited in Social Identifications, 1988, p. 95). Cohesiveness has a positive impact on groups. For example it has been known to enhance productivity (Schacter, Ellertson, Mcbride & Gregory, 1951, cited in Social Identifications, 1988, pg ).
Another advantage of teams is the synergy that characterises them i.e. the phenomenon wherein groups repeatedly discuss the task at hand in order to come up with different, perhaps even better alternatives. Decision making within a team has been seen to have overwhelming advantage in terms of the experience of all the members and the different, fresh viewpoints team members bring to the discussion table. (Fincham & Rhodes, 2005)
Lastly, teams benefit organisations by helping to reduce redundant layers of bureaucracy in the organisation and allowing the employees to be in closer contact with top management. For example, a team in Motorola was able to convince top management to change a policy regarding supplier inspection and thus helped to reduce cycle times and improve deliveries (Moorhead & Griffin, 2004).
The flipside of the coin however is that teams also have disadvantages for the organisations (Moorhead & Griffin, 2004). First and foremost, the fundamental problem that an organisation choosing to adopt a team structure faces is in implementing it. Forming teams means that managers in the organisation tend to become more like ‘coaches or facilitators’ rather than managers (or leaders of the employees) in the true sense of the word (Moorhead & Griffin, 2004, p. 321). Often, managers feel as though they are working themselves out of a job since more and more of their duties are handed out to teams (Manz & Simz, 1993, cited in Moorhead and Griffin, 2004, p. 321).
Secondly, it takes a lot of time (often two to five years) for a team to fully develop and grow into an efficient and effective body. Thus impatient managers may not wait for this to happen and scrap the entire team structure, which will result in significant losses in time and money to the organisation. Employees may also end up losing trust with top management decision making which can be disastrous for the company.
Thirdly, Groupthink is a situation when decisions are taken unanimously without considering their correctness. (Janis, 1972). It occurs in highly cohesive groups on account of ingroup pressures which blur group members’ judgments and forces them to make incorrect decisions. Clearly then, taking a unanimous stand on an issue without debate on any other alternatives is a disadvantage of teams. The Bay of Pigs fiasco is a clear example of this, since, the decision taken by President Kennedy and his advisors was unanimous without considering possibilities such as the fact that their army was outnumbered 140 to 1 (Janis, 1972, cited in Principles Of Organisational Behaviour, 2005, pg. 293).
Lastly, due to the number of teams present in an organisation conflict between groups, is inevitable (Fincham & Rhodes, 2005). This conflict could arise from functional reasons when, one team within the organisation considers another team within the same organisation as a threat to achieving its goals. The second reason for conflict amongst teams in an organisation is Social Identity Theory. This theory assumes that groups have a shared social identity (Tajfel 1978,cited in Principles Of Organisational Behaviour, 2005, pg. 298). In other words, a ‘need for self esteem’ (Fincham and Rhodes, 2005, p. 299) is what drives certain cognitive processes and allows us to assess and compare our self esteem in groups that we belong to, with those in other groups (Fincham & Rhodes, 2005).
This conflict may lead to teams seeing each other as hindrances to their achieving their goals leading to unhealthy competition between them. It may lead to factionalism and obstructions by the creation of distinct group identities (Fincham & Rhodes, 2005, pg. 305).
Theorists have suggested ways for mitigating the disadvantages that characterize team work within the organisation. One of these is the shift a team based structure that can be accomplished through five basic steps or phases (Moorhead & Griffin, 2004). The Phase one is referred to as Start Up and is simply that stage at which team members are chosen and trained to work with each other. Phase two is Reality and Unrest wherein the team and their managers are frustrated regarding possible ambiguities with their new responsibilities. Phase three is Leader Centered Teams and is when team members become more comfortable with the idea of working in teams and refocus on team goals. Phase four is known as Tightly Formed teams, when teams become close knit and focused on their goals. Intergroup rivalries often begin at this stage. The fifth and last phase of implementation is Self Managing Teams and is when the team works as an effective and efficient body. These five phases also provide an indicator of what stage a team is at and thus managers need not lose patience as they will be able to effectively gauge at what stage a team is and therefore how long it will take the team to fully develop.
Groupthink can be easily avoided too. It is suggested that group members actively search out information whether or not it’s contrary to the group’s opinion. Also, the group may assign one member with the role of ‘devil’s advocate’ to ensure that other alternatives are discussed (Janis, 1972, cited in Principles Of Organisational Behaviour, 2005, p. 293). Thus mitigating groupthink could yield better solutions and hence better results.
Intergroup Conflict may be mitigated by, firstly, emphasising super ordinate goals, that is, putting organisational goals before group goals. Secondly, there must be increased communication between different groups and perhaps groups can also consist of members from different backgrounds such as sales or finance. Thirdly, the organisation can implement a rotation system whereby members of each team are rotated between different teams. Lastly, organisations should work as hard as possible to provide teams with adequate resources so that they don’t have to compete for these (Fincham & Rhodes, 2005).
In conclusion, we may state that teams are a complex system of interactions amongst its members. These interactions are governed by certain norms, structures and team processes. Despite having certain major disadvantages such as intergroup conflict or groupthink, teams continue to enjoy overwhelming popularity amongst managers today for some of their positive aspects, principally, enhanced performance, reduced costs and employee development. Thus, the phrase, ‘the sum is greater than the parts’, holds true for teams and teamwork.
Reference List:
- Fincham, R. and Rhodes, P. (2005). Principles Of Organisational Behaviour. Fourth Edition. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
- Hogg, M.A. and Dominic, A. (1988). Social Identifications. London: Routledge
- Moorhead, G. and Griffin, R W. (2004). Organisational Behaviour-Managing People and Organisations. Seventh Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company
- Scholtes, P. (1988). The Team Handbook: How To Use Teams To Improve Quality. Madison WI: Joiner Associates