Home > Management essays > Utm university

Essay: Utm university

23 July 202414 June 2012 by Essay Sauce

Essay details and download:

Text preview of this essay:

This page of the essay has 2 words.

1.Introduction

There has been increasing evidence, proved through diverse research in diverse management fields conducted in the past which indicate that there is a strong correlation between teamwork and productivity irrespective of the types of organisations (Benders et al., (1999), Glassop (2002), Wageman (1995), Eden (1990), Doorewaard et al., (2002); Dunphy and Bryant (1996), all also cited in Delarue, Gryp and Van Hootegem (2003), and also as mentioned in Sethi (1996). Absence of teamwork (or collaboration) or even poorly coordinated teamwork may result in lower performance in any organisation as is probably the case of the University of Technology- Mauritius (UTM). This has a direct impact on the results as well as the reputation of the University which, in itself, is a source of concern for Management. There is evidence, however that when staffs have worked in teams or groups, the output has increased, nevertheless as shall be reviewed, this is not necessarily always the case and several elements need to be in place for such positive outcome to be observed.

2. Research Context: Background to the study

The UTM is a young university, set-up in September 2000 as the second university in Mauritius. It is the first fee-paying University of Mauritius set up to increase access to Tertiary Education in the island besides what was already being provided by the University of Mauritius (the first national university) set up in 1967) and which is free since 1989. The setting up of the UTM is also meant to reduce financial burden on the state in providing the increasing need and demand for tertiary education in Mauritius all by putting pressure on the University of Mauritius to become more market-oriented and cost-efficient.

The UTM was created by integrating the assets and staff of the ex-Mauritius Institute of Public Administration and Management and the ex-State Informatics Training Company Ltd both of which were government owned training institutions but not academic institutions. The integration had been a painful one for managerial, training/lecturing and administrative staffs of both organisations. For managerial staff, it was painful as a new breed of managers were required to head the University and for training/lecturing staff the pain was even more acute as these staff who had already worked for more than 10 years were not prepared for research-oriented career in a University set-up.

Some new academic staff recruited found an opportunity to join the University with the latent objective of taking the top jobs in the UTM by outperforming the existing staff in as short a time as possible. The majority of other new recruits, however, joined the University as Lecturers not because they understand what an academic career implies, rather it could be about getting a prestigious job, relatively well paid in the Mauritian context. And since the UTM was seen as being a new University with a new culture no University of Mauritius academic staffs were recruited for fear that they may transpose the University of Mauritius culture in the new University which was called upon to operate along commercial lines.

Soon after its setting up the question of the international recognition of UTM awarded degrees became an issue as students queried about same. The Association of Commonwealth Universities was sceptical to give recognition to UTM degrees as it did not employ enough PhD holders, and there were not enough research papers if any published by staff of the UTM. The UTM was also not known enough in other countries and by other universities.

Although several researches have been conducted on the impact on teamwork on performance and productivity in different types of organisations, those related to the academic world that is more readily accessible are mainly focused on the medical sector. Of those researches conducted within the education background and which will be reviewed below , there have been several researchers arriving at similar conclusions but others that arrive at contrasting conclusions with either certain gaps or shortcomings noted, or assumptions made, which in a way are not conclusive and thus cannot be generalized. Thus this research will aim to identify these gaps taking into consideration the past researchers undertaken and make an attempt to answer those research questions that have not been answered. Thus it is expected that this study shall contribute to the existing knowledge on team work among academics in universities.

3. The Research Problem

Although this part of the study should very brief, it is very important for the researcher at this stage to provide a detailed review of the existing problem including the basics and historical past of the UTM and how the challenges and obstacles were initially originated. This will not only provide any reader with a background of the problem but also provide an indication of where the problem really exists and how the above will be tackled. This will also provide a reading and inquisitive interest in further research to address how teamwork and collaboration in the academic world in third world countries as well as the developed nations can be addressed.

The academic world is different from most of the types of organisation in the sense that traditionally, it has been considered a world of individualistic and highly competitive nature. Yet there is no denying the fact that a team culture can considerably increase output and productivity at the University of Technology-Mauritius, as in other organisations. This study will investigate into the problematic and obstacles of developing a team work and benefiting from a team work culture for improved productivity and also make appropriate recommendations including strategies that could be adopted by the Management of the University of Technology-Mauritius to ensure that the objectives can be put in place and also sustained in the long run.

The challenge has since the past 6 years been to make the UTM leapfrog from a ‘teaching university’ to a university recognised as being one where research is done. The problem becomes a big one for a university which depends only on a small market, low paying capacity of its students, lack of infrastructure, its history, the academic staff pool it acquired from the ex-MIPAM and the ex-SITRAC and the quality of its own recruitment and the politics of existing staff preventing the recruitment of seasoned academics at higher levels. The pool of academic staff that was recruited also was not large enough given the resources available to the University. Hence there is a heavy dependence on part-time resource persons.

This is when then the UTM budgeted some money for academics writing papers to have the opportunity to seek funding from the university to present their papers in international conferences. There is evidence that the policies put in place to promote research did give a boost to research but this was not adequate and only a few ambitious and self-motivated staffs seem to have taken advantage of same. There is also evidence through such ‘informal groups’ that research got a serious boost when some people started writing papers in group not necessarily to say in teams. At the same time there seems to be a lot of frustrations which prevent further team research and consultancies. Individualism seems to supersede the nascent teamwork culture – the force of gravity towards individualism seemingly being very strong.

Since there is evidence of group working increasing quantity and quality of output, it goes without saying that a team-working culture can give a serious boost to research, consultancies and community services, both in terms of quantity and quality in the higher interest in the UTM. Similarly, a teamwork culture may create a healthier environment reduce frustrations and sense of failure of those who are far from the realities of the research world.

The Output expected of academic staff in a University set-up like the UTM are as indicated in the left column below while in the right column one can see how teamwork may tangibly increase measurable outputs:

Criteria Expected Outcome of Team working

Teaching Increased teaching load per staff

Research More publications both in terms of quantity and quality

Consultancy More collaborative consultancy projects

Community Service More staff actively engaged in community service activities

Other than teaching which is individual based, more, newer, value-added and multi-disciplinary programmes can be developed if academics put aside their individual differences and see value in complementing each others area of knowledge and competence (rather than pursue individual goals of being ahead of one’s colleagues. And, it is new and multi-disciplinary programmes which attract more students to the university who should feel comfortable that the programmes will make them marketable in the job market.

As per the recently published quality audit report by the Tertiary Education Commission (2009), the UTM should encourage staff to conduct multi-disciplinary research. This is normally possible when academic staffs of different areas of specialisation cooperate rather than compete unhealthily against each other.

Universities’ ratings and recognition worldwide are normally based on quantity and quality of research outputs of the University. Academic staff working in groups can collectively write more and higher quality papers per unit of time frame than if they work individually – especially that when people work alone, there is little peer pressure to perform. Networks giving access to publishing opportunities are also greatly enhanced when people with different networks in the academic world share information and opportunities.

Internally as well internationally, the trend is towards team-based multi-disciplinary researches that solve the problems of society and/or create business opportunities. Accumulated frustrations find their way in the local media spoiling the name and image of the University. A team culture where everyone has the opportunity to grow may be expected to reduce the frustrations which take the form of publicly debated industrial disputes.

4.
Aim of the Study

The aim of this study is to analyse the factors of teamwork that affect productivity, and the obstacles faced in team working, among academic staff at the University of Technology-Mauritius in order to provide Management, as well as other policy makers and stakeholders of the University, with recommendations based on this study to enable them to take appropriate measures to achieve the expected results.

5.
Research Objectives

The overall aim of this study can be broken down to the following objectives:-

Investigate upon the impact of teamwork among academic staff on the overall productivity at UTM.

Investigate the obstacles to team work among academics at UTM.

Make recommendations for the implementation of team work among academic staff at the UTM to improve overall productivity.

6.
Research Questions

The research questions to be addressed directly linked to the aim and objectives of the study are as follows:

• What is the impact of team work among academic staff on the overall productivity at UTM?
• What are the obstacles to team work among academics at UTM?
• What recommendations can be made for improved team-working at the UTM for improved productivity?

7. Significance of the Study

This study is significant for several reasons. This study will primarily benefit the management and academics of the UTM both directly as well as those indirectly involved in this study to solve the existing problems due to lack of, or poorly coordinated, teamwork including how the obstacles can be overcome to promote the collaboration of the academicians in order to increase productivity. Stakeholders inclusive of the Government as well as the school administrators will also benefit from the result of this study if the number and quality of research and other publications increase due to teamwork as the local and international reputation of the university will rise and gain from recognition. This research is also intended to serve and enhance interest for further researches to be conducted in this interesting field of study.

8. Literature Review

Teams- What are they?

Despite research on teams having gained momentum and greater interest during the past fifty years, teams and its underlying concepts have existed even a hundred thousand years ago when humans used to hunt and gather food in teams (Robbins and Finley (2000)). Nevertheless, the understanding of teams and teamwork and the way they operate have since, undergone tremendous changes.

Robins and Finley (2000) in their work provide a comprehensive understanding of how in the 1700s, with the Industrial Revolution that took place, the common model for many businesses underwent tremendous changes and by the early 1900s, emphasis was mainly on ways of operating (mainly in manufacturing and assembly line settings), that laid emphasis on people working in teams being more productive. Thus even during those times, working in team was already being viewed as a fundamental concept to enhance productivity.

Robins and Finley (2000) further elaborate of how Frederick Taylor, who is still referred to as the “father of Scientific Management” tried to optimize the productivity of organizations through teams designated in order of their hierarchy within the organization. Through the 1970s every individual irrespective of his/her position in the company, was made a part of the company team. And that team’s mission was continuous improvement of processes. The introduction of the Total Quality Management (TQM) and its concepts led to further enhancements in team work. By the year 2000, teams were being part of solutions to issues of strategic focus, cost containment, restructuring, productivity, training and connectivity. Even after 2000, teams and teamwork have continued to evolve especially with the use of technology as a key instrument.

Today, more than ever before, the way we work are undergoing fundamental changes and transformations at a phenomenal pace. Organisations including the structure and their empirical design are facing complex and dynamic changes in view of the increased competitive environment as pointed out by Scott & Tiessen (1999). This inevitably is leading to a review of the way we work. Indeed, as pointed out in Hill (2005), the technological changes and falling barriers to trade brought about by globalisation is affecting the organisational structure, its strategy implications and this inevitable has a direct impact on the concept and structure of teams in order for firms to be able to solve complex problems in a more professional and timely manner as clearly explained in Thompson, Strickland and Gamble (2008). Organisations are now are no longer constrained within cultural or physical boundaries and thus we are now even seeing virtual organizations that are wholly team-based especially with the evolution of the internet and E-Business tools and the new network generation becoming the new norm with intense teaming style. Nowadays, people even often refer to “virtual teams” who collaborate from different regions of the world and with differing cultural backgrounds and achieve tremendous results. If organisations and their teams are not adaptive to the changing requirements of the market, organizations face the threat of extinction even if they have existed for several decades!

Teams and teamwork definition

Several definitions of teams exist and a simple search done on the internet using common search engines such as yahoo or google, reveals over 1000 pages of definitions. However, one generally agreed upon and often used definition is that teams are “a small number of people with complementary skills that are committed to a common purpose, performance goals and approach for which they hold themselves accountable” (Katzenbach and Smith (1993) cited in Baguant (2005).) Ioerger (2003) also though phrased differently, has provided a definition which boils to the same underlying definition. Another more recent but somewhat similar definition given by Salas, Prince, Baker and Shrestha (1995) cited in Salmon, Stanton, Houghton, Rafferty, Walker and Jenkins (2008) define a team as “a distinguishable set of two or more people who interact dynamically, interdependently and adaptively toward a common and valued goal, who have each been assigned specific roles or functions to perform and who have a limited life span of membership.” Teams have a range of distinct characteristics that distinguish them from small groups, for example Salas (2004) suggests that characteristics of teams include meaningful task interdependency, coordination among team members, specialised member roles and responsibilities, and intensive communication while Paris, Salas & Canon-Bowers (2000) suggest that team characteristics include multiple sources of information besides task interdependencies, coordination among team members, common and valued goals, specialised member roles and responsibilities, task relevant knowledge, intensive communication and adaptive strategies for responding to change. Thus there is coherence and similarities between the different characteristics cited by different authors.

Teamwork is defined as “a multi dimensional, dynamic construct that refers to a set of interrelated cognitions, behaviours and attitudes that occur as team members perform a task that results in a coordinated and synchronised collective action.” (Wilson, Salas, Priest and Andrews (2007) cited in Salmon et al. (2008)).

We note here several keywords such as interrelated cognitions, behaviour and attitudes as well as coordinated and synchronised collective action, are commonly addressed in the various definitions and also is instrumental in any teamwork and this is what we shall try to identify in the case of the UTM. However as reported in a report by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and working Conditions in 2007, teamwork may have different meanings in different cultural settings and in different countries and whenever analysis on teamwork is done, it may not be clear what respondents understand by what teamwork actually is and in these circumstances quantitative analysis on its own may not be enough and a qualitative analysis may be required to complement the survey for clarification. It is thus crucial whenever a research is undertaken, it is ensured that the participants actually what teams really are and what they understand by teamwork.

Teamwork Modelsand Principles of Effective Teamwork

Different models of teamwork have been formulated and been described by many authors such as Flieshman & Zaccaro (1992), Helmreich & Foushee (1993), McIntyre & Dickinson (1992), Morgan et al., (1986), Olmsted (1992), Salas et al.,(2005), Zsambok, Klein, Kyne & Klinger (1993) and to date over 130 models of teamwork models have been identified to date as indicated in Salmon et al.,(2008)).

Prabhakar (2008) also cited other models not mentioned above including the earliest and probably most widely known model which is that of Tuckman developed in 1965 and named the” team stages model.” This model views teamwork comprising of 4 stages namely (1) Forming (2) Storming (3) Norming and finally (4) performing. Tuckman’s model is famous as being the basis for effective team building and leadership. Used extensively and verified by extensive research, the model recognizes teams do not become effective overnight and that different stages and processes are essential which the individuals have to undergo before a fully fledged and fully functional teams providing results could be obtained. .
Tuckman’s teamwork theory is illustrated below graphically and the axes represent the link between group relationships (the horizontal axis) and task focus (the vertical axis). The optimal or "performing" position is reached when relationships have developed within the group and it has started delivering with a clear focus on the task.

Tuckman’s model as well as Tubb’s theory and Fisher’s model are all known as Linear Models of Group Development as mentioned by Borchers (1999).
Other models that exist are illustrated in the table below cited from Salmon et al. (2008)). One additional model presented in the research by Sycara and Sukthankar (2006) is important to consider as this model not only is a recent one but also one that moves away from the traditional pure human and individual collaboration approach to one more modern which evolves on the human-agent model which places emphasis on the nature of human-agent interactions and the importance of having teamwork agents but also requiring software agents as facilitators. Thus human interaction is somehow being replaced by informatics although through continued emphasis on teamwork but in a virtual framework.

Source: Salmon et al. (2008)

Most recently De Meuse (2009) proposed the Korn/Ferry T7 Model of Team Effectiveness and compared it with the following 5 models of:-

• Rubin, Plovnick, and Fry (1977)
• Katzenbach and Smith (1993)
• LaFasto and Larson (2001)
• Hackman (2002)
• Lencioni (2005)

Although providing details of each of the above models would be beyond the scope of this literature review, we need to note that De Meuse (2009) clearly identified similarities within all the models as shown in the table below and which show that all the models examine issues related to:-(a) thrust, (b) trust, and (c) teaming skills. Four of the five models also identify member talent as an important factor in team effectiveness. Likewise, four of the five models indicate that team-leader fit needs to be considered. The table clearly highlights the similarities and differences among the five models of team effectiveness relative to the T7 Model. Both factor-level and dimension-level comparisons are provided.

Goals and goal setting activities have been recognized as a key ingredient to high performance. Other essential components are mutual trust and open communication, how one resolves conflicts, makes decisions, and deals with resource issues would be highly related to team effectiveness.

Along these lines, The LaFasto and Larson (2001) and Katzenbach and Smith (1993) models most closely mirror the T7 Model. LaFasto and Larson address all seven factors of the T7 Model as well as 17 out of the 20 dimensions. Katzenbach and Smith examine five of the seven factors and 16 of the 20 dimensions. The Lencioni (2005) model has the least correspondence with the T7 Model, with four common factors and 11 common dimensions.

Table 1: Comparing the T7 Model with other Team Effectiveness Models in the Literature

In fact, Kolb and Sandmeyer (2007) also identified the properties of effective teams including those already cited above and include Hackman (1990), Hirokawa & Keyton (1995), Jehn & Mannix (2001),Katzenbach & Smith (1993),Kolb (1996), LaFasto & Larson (2001) and Larson & LaFasto (1989). What is very important for us to understand is that irrespective of the model being considered, certain features and characteristics are essential and commonly found in the models which makes team effective as described in the above models. These include emphasis on having “clear, elevating goal results-driven structure; competent team members; unified commitment; collaborative climate; standards of excellence; external support and recognition; and principled leadership.” In addition LaFasto & Larson (2001) discovered that one of five key dynamics present in successful teams is an organizational environment that promotes collaboration and teamwork. The other four key dynamics are: collaborative team members, positive team relationships, productive group problem-solving, and leadership that encourage collective achievement. Leadership may be internal, external, or both. In looking specifically at the problem-solving dynamic, they found that teams that were able to solve problems creatively and effectively were those in which team members were focused in their efforts, operated within a positive climate, and practiced open communication. In research reported the same year, Jehn and Mannix (2002) reinforced the value of communication and the importance of open discussion. Kolb (1996) likewise identified appropriate communication systems as well as clear project goals and defined individual member roles, responsibilities, and accountability as team characteristics necessary for effective functioning. Another important characteristic important for effective teamwork is the degree of autonomy provided within the team.

According to LSA Global (2007), effective teamwork can help drive true business result but there are certain key principles which need be met. These are indicated in the table below:

Make sure you are clear about where you are going before you decide how you are going to get there (ends before means). Establish a set of working norms and enforce them in a clear but low-key way. Don’t confuse the content with the process (what vs. how). Share leadership. Begin with the assumption that the others are trustworthy. It’s hard to earn trust, but even harder to get it back once you’ve lost it. Clarify roles and responsibilities, but change them from time to time. Listen actively to one another. Ask for opinions and ideas – don’t assume a silent member has nothing to say. Encourage diversity of opinion. Separate the generation of ideas from decision-making. Let other team members know what you need from them. Agree on a clear process for making decisions, solving problems, and resolving conflicts BEFORE you have to make a decision, solve a problem or resolve a conflict. Make clear agreements and keep them or change them while there is time to find an alternative. Always ask for commitment to agreements, deliverables, and obligations and hold one another to those commitments. Put agreements in writing and send summaries of agreements to all members. Deal directly with any member with whom you have an issue, don’t “triangle.” Support one another; work out differences within the team, speak with one voice outside of it on team decisions..Make a commitment to learning from both success and failure as a team.

Benefits of Teamwork

Benefits reaped from teamwork include increased motivation, better productivity, make work more meaningful and give sense of unity and belonging and provides answers to the challenges to competition globally Shah (2010).

Management also better appreciates how teamwork can unify the power of people. Teamwork unleashes their creativity, encourages synergy, and satisfies social needs. It also boosts confidence, better networking, learning how to be a leader and acquire leadership skills and better cooperation and friendship among the individuals. Mattick and Miller (2006) also assert that teamwork affects profits of organizations and they even emphasized the importance of knowing how to measure the effectiveness of teamwork (they in fact worked on the Kirkpatrick 4 step evaluation model!)

Teamwork and its impact on Productivity

Having reviewed the various definitions as well as the main aspects of teamwork, it is now important to understand how teamwork affects productivity especially in the academic world. Kolb and Sandmeyer (2007) in their work have produced empirical evidence based on findings of Ostermann (1994), that indicated that in 700 organisations worked on, over 50% used teams and according to Lawler, Mohrman, and Ledford (1995), they found that 60 percent of the 313 organizations they studied intended to increase or greatly increase their use of teams over the next decade and by Cohen and Bailey (1997) whose research indicated that organizations with more than 100 employees used teams over 80 percent of the time. The main reasons for this increase in teamwork are as expected output, productivity and result oriented.

Another important research reported in Kuipers and C. de Witte (2005), based on an empirical study carried out on actual team performance but rather closely examined the contribution of autonomous teams to continuous improvement (product and process development) and concluded that teams made a clear contribution to the continuous improvement of the organization in terms of observations, ideas and suggestions towards improving production, quality (of both product and process). However, concrete improvement in production, quality and QWL was not studied. Almost 6000 organizations within Europe were involved in the EPOC survey by Benders et al., (2001) and were divided into different grades of team organization from weak ‘group-delegalion" to ‘team based". The survey examined how the degree of teamwork affected team performance. The conclusion of the study stated that "the reported economic effects are significant and are stronger the more intensely group delegation is applied’.

Kyzlinková, Dokulilová and Kroupa of the Research Institute for Labour and Social Affairs more recently undertook a comparative overview of teamwork based on the European Working Conditions Survey in (published in the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (2007)), the same correlation between teamwork and productivity was noted in high performance/productivity work organisation’ (HPWO) when incorporated into the company’s overall strategy. Thus as indicated in the works of Kyzlinková et al. (2007), teamwork is an important instrument of new forms of work organisations, should contribute to a better quality of working life for employees, as well as improve productivity. Hardre and Cox (2009), carrying out work on the faculty productivity in research universities by reviewing the faculty performance evaluation and review processes including promotion tenure standards in 23 research universities in 13 US states were examined and the close link amongst team work and performance reviewed and once again demonstrated similar correlations between teamwork and productivity.

Teamwork and Productivity in the Academic world

It is important to emphasise at this stage that the academic world, especially teamwork among academics, although being different from that of say a manufacturing company, the difference does not lie in the theory itself but in what constitutes the output itself. In a manufacturing organisation for example, we may refer to the output as the end product as measured, say the number of timber produced during a specific period. These are tangible products which are easily measurable and also visible. In the academic world, especially as in the case of the UTM, the output we are referring to is not tangible and refers to the research papers, better education capabilities or other high quality works achieved through teamwork and collaboration including social works benefiting the community at large.

An article by Bush (2004) illustrates how the Great Britain Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) elaborate the need for academics to co-operate for funding bids. EPSRC asserts that Academics looking to fund electronics research need to act as a unified unit when applying for Government cash rather than competing amongst themselves. In order words, emphasis is on teamwork and collaboration. As is the case for the University of Technology, Mauritius, the EPSRC too operates within an established Government system and needs to secure funding in this case, for engineering and physics. It therefore has to compete with the likes of biological and medical sectors for its slice of the Government research budget. In order words, just as this the case in Mauritius, the budget for publishing research work is limited and thus requires quality work to be produced by academics and this can only be achieved if the individuals collaborate and work as a team. Thus teamwork through enhanced collaboration within one unit and competing between other academicians may result in enhanced productivity and research of high quality. As also mentioned by Bethany (2008), scientific teamwork produce the highest impact papers.

Leadership is also an important aspect of improved productivity at universities. Amanda (2009) blended both a quantitative and qualitative review on a longitudinal dataset and arrived at the much agreed conclusion that academic productivity improves after a few years it appoints a scholar leader. However as pointed out by Nastanski and Kolossova (2009), academic leadership and assigning departmental chairs are complex and may have conflicting insights that are not easy to resolve.

Li, Millwater and Hudson (2008) in their research cite “a nation’s overall capacity being considerably dependant on its research.” Furthermore they argue that “Universities, as centres of knowledge production and generation, play a critical role in the national research and the capacity of its research works and given the prominent role it plays in the overall national research efforts, university research is an indicator of performance and educational growth. In the last two decades, the desire to hold higher education accountable and the need to receive value for money have sparked government efforts to evaluate the research performance of their universities and academics in many countries. The results of these evaluations form the basis of the resource allocation decision of government funding bodies. Changes like these pose great challenges to higher education institutions and academics, particularly the role research plays in assessing their performances. Government funding, and international ranking and status drive higher education institutions to strive for research excellence. Institutional pursuit of a strong research capacity has led to managerial efforts to encourage and support research. Incentive systems have also been established to reward research.”

Research capacity enhancement has had considerable impact on academics that are expected to conduct extensive value added research and produce research publications of highest quality. Besides research, Watters and Diezmann (2005) cited in Luzeckyj and Badger (2008) also stress the importance of universities are to remain relevant, they need to be effective knowledge disseminators through service and teaching activities. Alenzi and Salem (year unknown) are also of the same opinion whereby they argue that the academician must integrate teaching and research into a seamless activity. Houston, Meyer and Paewai (2006) also evoke that universities are the only organisations that focus on dual functions of teaching and research.

According to Dunkin (2005), despite the introduction of new technologies that assist the teaching and administrative processes of a university, the critical input to a successful university is its people – their knowledge, expertise and skills and the extent to which they are actively engaged with the academic processes of the university. The keynote address by Baroness Warwick placed emphasis on the growing competitiveness for academics not only between universities, but also between countries. It makes the point that this international competition emanates not just from the developed countries, but increasingly from Asian and developing countries. It has suggested that the recent funding shortages put many universities at a disadvantage in that competition, with limitations on capacity to pay individuals and to provide the environments increasingly sought by academics and students alike. It also makes the point that the increased accountability demanded of individual academics and universities for outcomes to the broader community and governments is something that must be accommodated within this competitive environment.

The same conclusions have been noted in the work of O’Shea, Allen, O’Gorman, and Roche (2004) who worked more on the spin off effects of universities. These factors are explained in greater detail below.

Morrison, Dobbie and Mc Donald (2003) reviewed several models of collaboration among academics. The primary model of research collaboration in the literature views collaboration as a logical response to the hierarchical structure of science, arguing that collaboration serves as a means of professional mobility (Beaver & Rosen, 1979).

The most recent of work on author collaboration and productivity is that undertaken by Akakandelwa (2009) who at first starts by investigating the validity of Lotka’s Law which is was developed in the 1920’s and describes the frequency of publication by authors in a given field. According to Lotka’s Law of scientific productivity, “only six percent of the authors in a field will produce more than 10 articles.”

This law has been found to be robust and universal in its applicability, extending beyond the world of scholarly publishing to even describe the productivity of software developers in open source systems (Newby, Greenberg and Jones, 2003).

Multiple-authorship is widely considered as an indication of research collaboration. The underlying assumption is that the authors involved carried out the research leading to the paper in collaboration. Furthermore, author collaboration can be regarded as an indication of communication among scientists. The research process includes active communication among scientists through conversation, exchange of ideas through e-mail and letters, sharing equipment, writing articles, communicating research results or information, co-publishing, and joint-presentation of papers at conferences and seminars.

Collaboration is a significant factor in scholarly productivity. Just as the format of publication and the number of publications vary by discipline, so do collaborations and co-authorships (Bordons and Gomez, 2000;Meadows, 1998). Solo research is the norm in some disciplines, particularly in the humanities and in mathematics, while collaborative research is typical of most scientific disciplines.

Informetric studies of collaboration generally conclude that the amount of collaboration between scholars, as evidenced by the number of co-authors, is growing and that the degree of collaboration continues to vary greatly by field (Arunachalam, 2000; Bordons and Gomez, 2000; Meadows, 1998; Pao, 1992; Russell, 2000). Borgman and Furner (2001) observe that the reasons for the growth in collaboration are many. One is the increasing specialisation within disciplines such that multiple partners are often needed to tackle complex research problems. Another is economics, given the need to amortize expensive laboratory equipment, computers, data, and other resources across multiple researchers and projects. Yet, another is sources of funding that encourage larger projects (Bordons and Gomez, 2000). Higher rates of collaboration are usually associated with higher productivity, although counts will vary based on the method of allocating authorship (e.g. one credit for each publication vs partial credit based on number of authors, etc.).

Hou, Kretschmer and Liu (2006) report that since the pioneering work of De Solla Price (1963) and Beaver and Rosen (1978, 1979a, 1979b), a large number of scholars have stressed different forms and roles of scientific collaboration in different scientific fields. Glanzel (2002) and Kretschmer (2004) observe that the investigations of these researches were at micro level (individuals), meso level (institutions), and macro level (countries).

The results of collaboration can be measured in terms of co-authored works. A scientific document is co-authored if it has more than one author. It is institutionally co-authored if it has more than one author address. Other types of outputs as a result of collaboration are patents and personal contacts.

In a nutshell, the work carried out Akakandelwa (2009) during 2002-2007, revealed that the increase in the number of multiple authored publications was observed, though at a somewhat slower pace than that predicted by De Solla Price (1963) and that multiple-authored publications were more prominent in certain fields as was referred initially by Subramanyam (1983), Bayer (1986) and Bayer and Smart (1988). The study has also established a positive relationship between author productivity and author collaboration. The more collaborative an author is, the more productive that author is. Finally, the study has observed a growing collaboration between University of Zambia researchers and other researchers in the Southern African universities. A similar finding has also been found inA brief narrative description of the journal article, document, or resource. the January-February 2009 issue of "Academe," whereby Jennifer I. Friend and Juan Carlos Gonzales suggested that first-year tenure-track faculty "form a writing group," which they describe as merely a process of helping each other on individual projects instead of teamwork writing. In this article, the authors suggest that faculty should join together to "collabo-write." In many settings, the authors have co-written and published more than seven hundred items, including books and notes, traditional scholarship and commercial fiction, and they have found the co-writing process to be very effective. The authors share the pleasures and rewards of writing together and offer a guide to how "collabo-writing" can boost one’s productivity while sharpening one’s skills (and subjugating one’s ego).

From the above review, one can conclude that productivity through teamwork and collaboration can be very productive for all academicians yet scientific research reveals that different academic fields have differing results and hence in many cases the above interpretation of teamwork as always resulting in increase productivity cannot be generalised. In many cases, certain of the characteristics identified earlier are essential ingredients for success while other cases, other variables are at work which need be viewed.

Dangers of Teamwork

Although so far, we have seen the positive sides of teamwork, it is also important to note the dangers associated with teamwork especially when it becomes counter-productive. Though this is contradiction of what is being researched here, it is crucial to note that when members of a team on a continuous basis operate together and share the same mindset, the teams tend to become homogenised and everyone tends to think alike thus, new ideas, new concepts or better formulation of ways to work better becomes hard to come by as everyone is on the same wavelength. This thus renders the teams to be less productive than they could have been. Other dangers noted and as pointed out in Group behaviour (authors not known: 2005) written by the Indira Gandhi National Open University School of Management Studies is when the conflicts between team members is prolonged and not resolved which leads to the team members being antagonist towards each other as well as there being perceptual distortion and absence of communication. Unless these conflicts are resolved, the teams will be counter-productive.

Furthermore, although larger teams can generate more outputs because they consist of more resources and skills, they can also increase a team processing demand which has an impact on output. For example, it has been theorized that larger teams can cause coordination problems (Bass (1982) cited in Morgan & Lassiter (1992)) and communication errors (Morgan & Lassiter (1992)) due to increases in the number of team member interactions. Therefore, the more resources that are directed towards interacting and coordinating with teams members, the less time is directed toward the actual task at hand. Even having additional resources because of increased team size can actually be detrimental to team performance due to potential problems of communication, coordination, and integration. Moreover, large team sizes have also been related to social loafing and the diffusion of responsibility as the size of the team may provide a shield for team members that are not performing at high levels as noted by Bowers, Pharmer and Salas (2000).

Gaps in teamwork studies

So far, we have only examined the main characteristics of teams and teamwork as well as how certain characteristics are important to enhance productivity as according different researches and theories as a means to assist in finding how these may be applicable to explain the teamwork among academic staff at the UTM. However empirical researches as described in Adams (2006) tend to show a different picture. Benders et al., (1999) for example clearly argue that various methodologies have been applied on different populations of employers and employees but only a few studies allow for reasonably reliable comparisons. In addition, given the high costs involved in data collection, there should be more standardisation to make results comparable. Furthermore, it is noted that empirical work is never perfect, and one could also decide to concentrate on what the data do say rather than what their limitations are, thus there is an element of results being biased as to what the researcher actually wants to conclude. Glassop (2002) also in his findings on their work on the “Organisational benefits of Teams” although point out that firms with team structures have higher labor productivity, they also make it clear that the findings were inconclusive in certain aspects.

Adams (2006) indeed emphasizes that characteristic of the team, the task, and team processes are all important influences on team performance. However, exactly how each of these factors influences team performance is often dependent on other factors too. Moreover, the majority of the existing team research carried out so far is limited in that it has not generally been conducted in realistic settings as argues Adams (2006). For example, Macmillan et al., (2004) studied team structure and its impact on team performance as well as determined whether coordination and team performance were affected by divisional versus functional team structures. The research examining the relationship between team structure and team performance is relatively sparse. Despite its relevance, however, it is important to point out that this research tests some aspects of team process and performance within varying team structures, but does not explore the extent to which teams adapt to varying structure at a very pragmatic level.

Adams (2006) also notes that although teams are becoming increasingly distributed, within the main stream team literature there is still relatively little research examining team performance in distributed versus co-located environments. Researchers have concluded that there still are critical gaps in the team literature in relation to team composition. As Bowers et al. (2006, p. 4) point out (cited in Adams (2006)) “There is a significant need for understanding the role of individualdifferences and other team composition effects.”

Furthermore, although research on team diversity has been conducted for decades, significant gaps in the team literature still exist. As Bowers et al., (2000, p. 310) have argued (cited inAdams (2006)), “There is surprisingly little research on the effects of homogeneity ofpersonality composition on team performance.”

One specific area in need of further research concerns the link between team diversity and team process. For instance, research has demonstrated that gender diversity is associated with difficulties in communication because males and females may exhibit different communication behaviours.

Research needs to determine how diversity affects the various team processes and which processes in particular are most susceptible to the effects of diversity. The literature has touched on various moderators that could alter the relationship between diverse team and team performance, but more factors also need to be considered. For instance, the organizational within which the team operates could ameliorate or hinder the performance of diverse teams.

Another theoretical article by Day et al., (2004) has argued that a critical need in the area of understanding leadership and team performance. Understanding how leaders can be effective in both co-located and distributed contexts is certainly likely to be a critical area of research for the future. The few studies that have examined leadership have found that transformational leadership is positively associated with team performance, however, there is little if any research investigating why or how transformational leadership and/or transactional leadership is related to performance. And, although there is a vast amount of literature examining the relationship between leadership and individual performance, the research pertaining to the effect of leadership on team performance within the target domain (e.g. multinational and interagency teams) appears to be especially limited. Given that leadership can have such a large impact on team performance, full understanding of how to develop successful leaders in a way that maximizes team performance is of utmost importance.

The literature review showed task complexity, workload, and task interdependence to be the most common task characteristics noted in research. However, although there is agreement that task factors are important variables in team effectiveness, the research on task type and task characteristics is often noted to be relatively scarce (e.g. Espinosa et al., 2004). The majority of task characteristics have been studied as moderating variables and there is therefore scope for considerable work left to do in understanding the relationships between task characteristics and teams.

Another key finding is through the empirical research exploring the actual relationship between communication and performance which also reveals relatively mixed results. There is some empirical evidence that communication and coordination may be highly interdependent and that reducing the need for coordination reduces the need for communication (MacMillan et al., (2004)).When this happens, communication becomes more efficient and performance may improve (MacMillan et al.,(2004)). In general, however, in this area (as in many others), there is little equivocal research that can speak definitively to the relationship between team communication and team performance. Unfortunately, however, most of this team communication research has been done in relative isolation of the mainstream team literature, although there is some hopeful evidence that these two areas of research are converging more (e.g. Driskell (2006)).

Several critical gaps exist in this literature. It is troublesome that there does not appear to be a validated way to measure coordination as a distinct construct. Rather, researchers tend to assume it is evidenced by communication behaviours (i.e. MacMillan et al.,(2004) or imply that it is generated by interdependence (i.e. MacMillan et al., (2004) and Marks et al., (2005)).

Obstacles to Teamwork

Having reviewed the need for teamwork in the academic world especially its impact on productivity, it would be generally assumed that teamwork should most often be smoothly flowing and taken for granted as occurring amongst academicians. However, the truth is somewhat different as in reality, teamwork and collaboration do not occur naturally. In fact, the formation of teams especially amongst academics often faces obstacles and a lot of effort as well as determination from not only the academics but also the supporting surrounding is required.

Akakandelwa (2009) in his work provides evidence that frequency of publication correlates significantly with frequency of citation and professional reputation (Merton, 1988), and that being part of a stimulating, privileged intellectual environment is a necessary condition for being productive. Thus independent of talent, authors require the right conditions to become productive: they need the confidence that feeds on success, access to research grants, freedom from teaching and administration, the esteem of their peers, access to specialist equipment, the stimulation of teams of fellow researchers, and a supportive and well managed research culture (David, 1994; Bozeman and Lee, 2003). These resources are all in scarce supply, and because publishing itself carries certain rewards (like credibility, standing), then there is a virtuous circle whereby these necessary resources flow disproportionately to those that publish more. But since competition for resources is so tough, only a few manage to break away from the rest of the pack. This does discourage others from working in teams as they view there work would not be valued enough.

Maclean, Warr and Pyett (2009) whose main objective was to conduct Collaborative and Participatory Research (CPR) through a small qualitative study by interviewing 23 participants comprising of university based researches could not come up with any conclusive finding and noted many problems in their works for CPR including managing community sensitivities, difficulty securing funding, and a concern that CPR may be detrimental to academic careers.

Indeed, Karakus and Töremen (2008) in their recent study identified the important levels of obstacles to teamworkin the academic world especially in the view of teachers in order to inspire school leaders and administrators/management to remove these obstacles and to make teamworkmore effective. Their work was based on a survey-based descriptive scanning model which was performed in Elazig city centre during the 2006-2007 academic year. The tool used was a four-dimensional and 32-itemed "ordering questionnaire" which was administered to 424 teachers working at primary schools- They identified the most significant factors for the effectiveness of teamwork and classified these in four dimensions namely leadership actions, structural characteristics of work group, individual characteristics of members, and interrelationships among members. The findings of the survey clearly indicated that Administrators’ inequitable applications, lack of a group climate in which each teacher is appreciated and valued, teachers’ lack of motivation, competitive and not cooperative relationships were sorted by teachers as being the most important obstacles to teamwork. In addition, the survey also revealed that there were meaningful differences among teachers’ views according to the gender and tenure variables. These findings although pertaining to primary schools clearly has similarities in the obstacles identified for the universities such as UTM namely poor coordination and absence of teamwork and collaboration amongst the other elements identified.

Another commonly found obstacle to teamwork is the issue arising due to misunderstanding or confusion amongst both researchers and teachers as to copyright ownership in the materials they produce and as identified in the works of Gadd, Loddington and Oppenheim (2007) in their “comparison of academics’ attitudes towards the rights protection of their research and teaching materials” which focused on 2 independent surveys namely on (1) the rights protection required by academic authors sharing their research outputs in an open-access environment and (2) on the rights protection required by authors sharing their teaching materials in the same way. The data when compared clearly revealed that researchers were more restrictive about the permissions they would allow, but were liberal about terms and conditions while on the other hand teachers would allow many permissions, but under stricter terms and conditions. The study concludes that a single rights solution could not be used for both research and teaching materials. This conflicting view is a major obstacle and serves as a major impediment for teamwork. However, through team building exercises and other tools, these differences and barriers can be overcome. However, this needs the voluntary participation and willingness to see the positive attributes of cooperation.

In another independent work undertaken by Bedi, Goldberg and Gullett (2007), it has also been illustrated that research work among academics is becoming increasing isolated resulting in low effectiveness, increased academic dissatisfaction thus leading to high labour turnover which is yet another major obstacle for teamwork. The literature explicitly demonstrates that there exists a wealth of knowledge and experience of the academic colleagues in the universities learning organization yet many universities barely resemble learning organizations (as is the case of the UTM) and rekindling the spirit and remove this obstacle demands real effort ( Bowman 2002 quoted in Bedi, Goldberg and Gullett (2007))

One more important aspect which is comparable to the obstacles and problems promoting teamwork at UTM is the need to increase full time managers and academic lecturers. As indicated in the works of Bedi, Goldberg and Gullett (2007), full time staffs are able to work more collaboratively as they have an increased incentive for working in teams and being more productive. At the UTM too, as was mentioned earlier only 40 full timers are currently employed while the other academicians are part timers who may be less committed to teamwork if they are only teaching say 2-3 hrs per week at most.

Added to the above problems are those also indicated in the review of Mutala (2009) whereby obstacles identified for proper work especially in the African Continent included lack of funding, heavy teaching load and lack of time on the part of supervisors and other academicians for proper coordination and collaboration works.

One important attribute of the study carried by Kyzlinková, Dokulilová and Kroupa (2007) is the varying cultural context in countries may influence understanding of the term ‘teamwork’, due to different experiences in using the term in everyday language and experiences from a person’s own work, and the influence of the media and public debate which can all create obstacles to the formation of teamwork.

In his review, Doning (2002), emphasis was placed on the dual tasks of academicians of teaching and conducting research as change agents for the students and social context in which they operate and how this was being challenged with the momentum of pressure taking place in the UK and in Australia and concluded that this was leading to decrease in teaching time and time for research work to be undertaken thus hindering the academic role of the universities. Though not mentioned in the literature, this clearly would seem to have a direct impact on the academicians overall throughput and even more on their willingness to collaborate and work in teams with the limited time and extensive pressure upon them.

9. Research Design and Methodology

9.1 Research Methodology

In this study, a quantitative methodology will be used to obtain the primary data. This methodology is deemed appropriate for this research as quantitative research is associated with analytical research, and its purpose is to arrive at a universal statement from an analysis of the data that is collected. We are thus dealing with a positivist framework whereby the research questions will be answered through the concepts identified in the literature review and the variables to be used as indicators are measurable.

A research instrument [questionnaire] will be compiled to collect the primary data for this study. This method is considered suitable because it would be administered to 40 full time academic staff as well as 150 part-timers. In view of the time constraints as well as the large sample size, it would not be appropriate to conduct interviews or other methods for collecting the primary data. It is also deemed inappropriate to conduct face to face interviews or meetings to collect the data as it may affect the response from the participants who, primarily may doubt the anonymous nature of the data collection and may fear the use of the response for actions against them.

A time frame will be provided and also the participants requested to submit their questionnaires in a box kept directly in the UTM administration Office. Since time is of essence, this is the method deemed more adequate for this research. Posting will be time consuming will e-mailing would require accessing e-mail addresses of all participants which may not be made available. The survey questionnaires will be based on the questions found important based on the research objectives, research questions and those deemed important from the literature review.

For the purpose of this study, a research instrument shall be administered on a representative sample of the population. The sample size shall be determined using the proportionate stratified sampling method.

9.2
Sampling Strategy

The probability sampling strategy using the stratified sampling method will be used for this research. Since the UTM consists of 40 full timers and 250 part timers and our research is on the impact of teamwork on productivity as well as the obstacles the teamwork faces, it is presumed that the response to teamwork of a full time academic staff will not be the same that say of a part timer giving only 1-2 hrs lecture per week. It is thus deemed necessary to select a sample from the total population that will assure that sub-groups (or strata) of the population are represented in proportion to their numbers in the total population hence ensuring that the profile of the sample matches the profile of the population. The results from the different strata will be combined and weighted. This method has the advantage of giving the researcher control on the sample size in strata and also allows flexibility on the use of different methods in strata.

9.3 Data Analysis

Once the data has been gathered, the analysis of the data will be undertaken. The basic steps to be followed are: Categorizing data. Coding dataCalculating appropriate statistics [ descriptive or inferential statistics]

Categorizing data is concerned with actual assigning of data into different categories. Data about managers can be categorized by personality style, age, gender etc.

Coding is the process of identifying and classifying each answer with a numerical score or other character symbol. Coding is used for converting data or responses to numerical numbers so that they can be tabulated and appropriate statistics can be applied.

Descriptive statistics uses measures of central tendency:

Mean [average score]

Median [ the midpoint]

Mode [value that occurs most often] Inferential statistics is used for making inferences or judgments about a population on the bases of a sample. It is used for hypothesis testing.

9.4 Pilot Study

A pilot study will be undertaken with 5 full timers and 25 part-timers which will be sufficient to evaluate whether the research instrument has been appropriately conceived and prepared and whether the participants are having difficulties to understand the questions in the survey. In view of responses, the research instrument (questionnaire) may have to be revised so as to make as comprehensive and easily understood by the participants.

10. Ethical Considerations

For the purpose of this research the following is being ensured:-

The research is scientifically sound and valid.

11. Chapter Organization

MBA Research Proposal

12. Proposed Time-Table

The proposed tentative time table is indicated below. However the time taken is the maximum and all work as from steps 3 onwards may be shortened based on the feedback for the proposal from MANCOSA and action required. Also, in case required to meet the deadline, approval for leave from office has already been sought thus the timetable is realistic. Thus assuming the proposal is sent to MANCOSA (South Africa) by end of March 2010, the expected completion of the dissertation is end of Jul 2010 at latest.

Step

Action/Work Carried Out

Last week March 10

Week I April 10

Week II April 10

Week III April 10

Week IV April 10

Week I May 10

Week II May 10

Week III May 10

Week IV May 10

Week I June 10

Week II June 10

Week III June 10

Week IV June 10

Week I July 10

Week II July 10

Week III July 10

Week IV July 10

Week I Aug 10

1

Send proposal to MANCOSA in South Africa for review

2

Start work on Chapters I and 2 of the dissertation

3

Expected receipt of feedback from MANCOSA on proposal

4

Make corrections and amendments based on feedback on proposal. In parallel, correct the 3 chapters of the dissertation

5

Resubmit proposal after correction

6

Start research work by administering research instrument to participants

7

Receive feedback from participants

8

Start working on data analysis and other statistical work for final dissertation

9

Prepare the final chapters of the dissertation and review with supervisor for any corrections required

10

Submit the dissertation to MANCOSA for review

11

Receive feedback from MANCOSA

12

Re submit final copies