Home Uncategorized Jeff Bezos and Teamwork

Uncategorized

Jeff Bezos and Teamwork

Leader is Jeff Bezos’; chapter 9 and 10 are attached

Review Jeff Bezos’ leader organization and assess what the group behavior was like under this leader (Chapter 9). How were teams implemented in the leader’s organization? Were they successful? What could have been done better? (Chapter 10)

Be sure to use actual examples from the literature and cite your sources appropriately. Be sure to include extensive research outside the textbook and also to cite the textbook correctly including page numbers. You are expected to use at least two academic or business sources other than your textbook.

CASE STUDY: MICROECONOMIC ANALYSIS: SUPPLY AND DEMAND 5

Crushed by the Herd

Answer quickly: If you were an employee of this car’s manufacturer and could have prevented the accident that killed two people and injured a third, would you?

No doubt you answered “yes” automatically, but if we took a few minutes to think about it, we might have to honestly answer “maybe.” When we are members of groups as powerful as those in General Motors (GM), it can be very difficult to predict our behavior. Our perceptions of right and wrong can become skewed, making even straightforward ethical decisions like this one confusing.

Courtland Kelley of GM (which made the Chevrolet Cobalt in the photo) learned firsthand the pressures groups can exert on an individual. As the leader of GM’s U.S. safety inspection program, he expected his workgroups to act upon the serious safety flaws he found in the vehicle. Instead, “Group after group and committee after committee within GM that reviewed the issue failed to take action or acted too slowly,” a later report noted. Kelley’s colleague, auditor William McAleer, agreed that management refused to acknowledge safety issues with vehicles. “Any time you had a problem, you ran into resistance,” he said. “Nobody owns [the] defect. And the plant can say, ‘It was working when it left here.’ And the supplier can say, ‘My part was good.’ It relieves everybody of responsibility.”

When Kelley pushed harder to have the Cobalt’s faulty ignition switch addressed, management actively discouraged his efforts. The group ordered him to stay quiet about defects and rename them as mere convenience issues. At one point, his direct supervisor forbade him to share data on serious defects with McAleer and threatened to transfer him to a lesser position on the outskirts of town, while the management group tried to stifle the information. Kelley said, “I heard them have many discussions about not wanting to notify the government, not putting voice mails out to dealers, because the government could get them” and learn of the defects.

When Kelley couldn’t be silenced, the group pressured him into toning down the wording in his reports and shuffled him into less responsible jobs. McAleer, who suffered similar circumstances until he was laid off in 2004, observed, “The system acts as if raising a safety issue internally were an act of corporate treason.” Kelley landed off the organization chart in a “special assignment job,” where he was told to “come up with charts, predict warranty for the vehicle, but not find every problem that GM might have.” McAleer said of Kelley, “He still has a job—he doesn’t have a career. He has no possibility of promotion.” Kelley was not fired likely only because he brought lawsuits against GM.

On the positive side, Kelley’s efforts have doubtlessly saved lives. After 13 deaths and 54 crashes, 2,084,000 Cobalts were recalled, as were almost 70,000 other vehicles with defects he found. From this standpoint, the battle he fought and his years in a “GM purgatory” job have been worth it. “I felt morally responsible to fix a problem that I found in a vehicle,” he said of his work on the Chevy Trailblazer. However, his heroic efforts have cost him many court battles, and he has developed chest pains, panic attacks, depression, and insomnia. “I clearly saw him age drastically,” his doctor, Van Alstine, said. “You just knew he was under a tremendous amount of stress. . . . It shook him to the core.”

Sources: G. Gutierrez and R. Gardella, “‘Willful Ignorance’ Ex-Auditor Blasts GM for Cutting Safety Program,” NBC News, July 9, 2014,

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/gm-recall/willful-ignorance-ex-auditor-blasts-gm-cutting-safety-program-n152311

; T. Higgins and N. Summers, “If Only They Had Listened,” Bloomberg Businessweek, June 2014, 48–53; and S. McEachern, “General Motors ‘Whistleblower’ Was Told to Back Off after Finding Safety Flaws,” GM Authority, June 19, 2014,

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2014/06/general-motors-whistleblower-was-told-to-back-off-after-finding-safety-flaws/

The story of Courtland Kelley’s attempts to counter the effects of group pressure provides us with a powerful example of the ways groups can (mis)behave. Even though Kelley resisted for all the right ethical reasons, sometimes countering group pressure can mean costly consequences for the individual, as he found.

Groups have their place—and their pitfalls. Some groups can exert a powerful positive influence, and others can be tragically negative. The objectives of this chapter and

Chapter 10

are to familiarize you with group and team concepts, provide you with a foundation for understanding how groups and teams work, and show you how to create effective working units. Let’s begin by defining a group.

Defining and Classifying Groups

1. 1 Distinguish between the different types of groups.

In organizational behavior, a

group

is two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve particular objectives. Groups can be either formal or informal. A

formal group

is defined by the organization’s structure, with designated work assignments and established tasks. In formal groups, the behaviors team members should engage in are stipulated by and directed toward organizational goals. The six members of an airline flight crew are a formal group, for example. In contrast, an

informal group

is neither formally structured nor organizationally determined. Informal groups in the work environment meet the need for social contact. Three employees from different departments who regularly have lunch or coffee together are an informal group. These types of interactions among individuals, though informal, deeply affect their behavior and performance.

Social Identity

People often feel strongly about their groups partly because, as research indicates, shared experiences amplify our perception of events.

Also, according to research in Australia, sharing painful experiences, in particular, increases our felt bond and trust with others.

Why do people form groups, and why do they feel so strongly about them? Consider the celebrations that follow when a sports team wins a national championship. The winner’s supporters are elated, and sales of team-related shirts, jackets, and hats skyrocket. Fans of the losing team feel dejected, even embarrassed. Why? Even though fans have little to do with the actual performance of the sports team, their self-image can be wrapped up in their identification with the group. Our tendency to personally invest in the accomplishments of a group is the territory of

social identity theory

Jeffrey Webster, director of human resources at a Nissan plant in Mississippi, also serves as the director of the plant’s gospel choir. Choir members are a diverse group of employees who identify with each other as they all share a love of singing and performing for fellow workers, company executives, state officials, and community events.

Source: Rogelio V. Solis/AP Images

Social identity theory proposes that people have emotional reactions to the failure or success of their group because their self-esteem gets tied to whatever happens to the group.

When your group does well, you bask in reflected glory, and your own self-esteem rises. When your group does poorly, you might feel bad about yourself, or you might reject that part of your identity like “fair-weather fans.” Furthermore, if your group is devalued and disrespected, your social identity might feel threatened, and you might endorse deviant behaviors to “get even” and restore your group’s standing.

Social identities can even lead people to experience pleasure as a result of seeing another group suffer. We often see these feelings of schadenfreude in the joy fans experience when a hated team loses.

People develop many identities through the course of their lives. You might define yourself in terms of the organization you work for, the city you live in, your profession, your religious background, your ethnicity, and/or your gender. Over time, some groups you belong to may become more significant to you than others. A U.S. expatriate working in Rome might be very aware of being from the United States, for instance, but doesn’t give national identity a second thought when transferring from Tulsa to Tucson.

We may thus pick and choose which of our social identities are salient to the situation, or we may find that our social identities are in conflict, such as the identities of business leader and parent.

Our social identities help us understand who we are and where we fit in with other people, and research indicates they bring us better health and lower levels of depression because we become less likely to attribute negative situations to internal or insurmountable reasons.

However, to experience these good outcomes, we need to feel our social identities are positive.

Until now, we’ve discussed social identities primarily in a cultural context. However, the identity we may feel with respect to our organization is only one aspect of our work-related identities (see OB Poll). Within our organizations and workgroups, we can develop many identities through: (1) relational identification, when we connect with others because of our roles, and (2) collective identification, when we connect with the aggregate characteristics of our groups. Often, our identification with our workgroups is stronger than with our organizations, but both are important to positive outcomes in attitudes and behaviors. Additionally, if we have low identification in relation to the group, there may be increased among by group members. If we have low identification with our organizations, we may experience decreased satisfaction and engage in fewer organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs).

OB Poll Most People Report Drinking with Coworkers Is Acceptable

note: Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) survey of 501 individuals and how drinking is viewed in their organization at a range of work-related activities.

Source: Based on S. M. Heathfield, “To Drink or Not to Drink: Does Alcohol Drinking Mix Safely with Work Events?” About.com Guide, 2013,

http://humanresources.about.com/od/networking/qt/drink_i3.htm

Ingroups and Outgroups

Ingroup favoritism

occurs when we see members of our group as better than other people, and people not in our group as all the same. Recent research suggests that people with low openness and/or low agreeableness are more susceptible to ingroup favoritism.

Whenever there is an ingroup, there is by necessity an

outgroup

, which is sometimes everyone else, but is usually an identified group known by the ingroup’s members. For example, if my ingroup is the Republican party in U.S. politics, my outgroup might be anyone in the world who is not a Republican, but it’s more likely to be the other U.S. political parties, or perhaps just Democrats.

When there are ingroups and outgroups, there is often animosity between them. One of the most powerful sources of ingroup–outgroup feelings is the practice of religion, even in the workplace. One global study, for instance, found that when groups became heavily steeped in religious rituals and discussions, they became especially discriminatory toward outgroups and aggressive if the outgroups had more resources.

Consider an example from another study of a U.K. Muslim organization that supported Al-Qaeda and identified moderate U.K. Muslims as its outgroup. The Al-Qaeda ingroup was not neutral toward the moderate outgroup; instead, the ingroup denounced the moderates, denigrating them as deviant and threatening outward aggression.

Social Identity Threat

Ingroups and outgroups pave the way for social identity threat, which is akin to stereotype threat (see

Chapter 6

). With social identity threat, individuals believe they will be personally negatively evaluated due to their association with a devalued group, and they may lose confidence and performance effectiveness. One study found, for example, that when subjects from high and low socioeconomic backgrounds took a high-pressure math test, the low-status subjects who felt social identity threat could be as confident as the high-status subjects only when they were first deliberately encouraged about their abilities.

Stages of Group Development

1. 2 Describe the punctuated-equilibrium model of group development.

Watch It!

If your professor has assigned this, go to the Assignments section of

mymanagementlab.com

to complete the video exercise titled
Witness.org: Managing Groups & Teams
.

Temporary groups with finite deadlines pass through a unique sequencing of actions (or inaction): (1) Their first meeting sets the group’s direction, (2) the first phase of group activity is one of inertia and thus slower progress, (3) a transition takes place exactly when the group has used up half its allotted time, (4) this transition initiates major changes, (5) a second phase of inertia follows the transition, and (6) the group’s last meeting is characterized by markedly accelerated activity.

This pattern, called the

punctuated-equilibrium model

, is shown in

Exhibit 9-1

Exhibit 1

The Punctuated-Equilibrium Model

Let’s discuss each stage of the model. At the first meeting, the group’s general purpose and direction is established, and then a framework of behavioral patterns and assumptions through which the group will approach its project emerges, sometimes in the first few seconds of the group’s existence. Once set, the group’s direction is solidified and is unlikely to be reexamined throughout the first half of its life. This is a period of inertia—the group tends to stand still or become locked into a fixed course of action even if it gains new insights that challenge initial patterns and assumptions.

One of the most interesting discoveries in studies was that groups experienced a transition precisely halfway between the first meeting and the official deadline—whether members spent an hour on their project or 6 months. The midpoint appears to work like an alarm clock, heightening members’ awareness that their time is limited and they need to get moving. This transition ends phase 1 and is characterized by a concentrated burst of changes, dropping of old patterns, and adoption of new perspectives. The transition sets a revised direction for phase 2, a new equilibrium or period of inertia in which the group executes plans created during the transition period.

The group’s last meeting is characterized by a final burst of activity to finish its work. In summary, the punctuated-equilibrium model characterizes groups as exhibiting long periods of inertia interspersed with brief revolutionary changes triggered primarily by members’ awareness of time and deadlines. This is not the only model of group stages by far, but it is a dominant theory with strong support. Keep in mind, however, that this model doesn’t apply to all groups but is suited to the finite quality of temporary task groups working under a time deadline.

Group Property 1: Roles

1. 3 Show how role requirements change in different situations.

Workgroups shape members’ behavior, and they also help explain individual behavior as well as the performance of the group itself. Some defining group properties are roles, norms, status, size, cohesiveness, and diversity. We’ll discuss each in the sections that follow. Let’s begin with the first group property, roles.

Shakespeare said, “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players.” Using the same metaphor, all group members are actors, each playing a

role

, a set of expected behavior patterns attributed to someone occupying a given position in a social unit. We are required to play a number of diverse roles, both on and off our jobs. As we’ll see, one of the tasks in understanding behavior is grasping the role a person is currently playing.

Bill is a plant manager with EMM Industries, a large electrical equipment manufacturer in Phoenix. He fulfills a number of roles—employee, member of middle management, and electrical engineer. Off the job, Bill holds more roles: husband, father, Catholic, tennis player, member of the Thunderbird Country Club, and president of his homeowners’ association. Many of these roles are compatible; some create conflicts. How does Bill’s religious commitment influence his managerial decisions regarding layoffs, expense padding, and provision of accurate information to government agencies? A recent offer of promotion requires Bill to relocate, yet his family wants to stay in Phoenix. Can the role demands of his job be reconciled with the demands of his husband and father roles?

Different groups impose different role requirements on individuals. Like Bill, we all play a number of roles, and our behavior varies with each. But how do we know each role’s requirements? We draw upon our role perceptions to frame our ideas of appropriate behaviors, and learn the expectations of our groups.

Role Perception

Our view of how we’re supposed to act in a given situation is a

role perception

. We get role perceptions from stimuli all around us—for example, friends, books, films, and television, as when we form an impression of politicians from House of Cards. Apprenticeship programs allow beginners to watch an expert so they can learn to act as they should.

Role Expectations

Role expectations

are the way others believe you should act in a given context. A U.S. federal judge is viewed as having propriety and dignity, while a football coach is seen as aggressive, dynamic, and inspiring to the players.

In the workplace, we look at role expectations through the perspective of the

psychological contract

: an unwritten agreement that exists between employees and employers. This agreement sets out mutual expectations.

Management is expected to treat employees justly, provide acceptable working conditions, clearly communicate what is a fair day’s work, and give feedback on how well an employee is doing. Employees are expected to demonstrate a good attitude, follow directions, and show loyalty to the organization.

Les Hatton, manager of a Recreational Equipment, Inc., store in Manhattan, pumps up employees before the store’s grand opening. Part of the psychological contract between REI and its employees is the expectation that salespeople will display enthusiasm and generate excitement while welcoming and serving customers.

Source: Matt Payton/AP Images

What happens if management is derelict in its part of the bargain? We can expect negative effects on employee performance and satisfaction. One study among restaurant managers found that violations of the psychological contract were related to greater intentions to quit, while another study of a variety of different industries found psychological contracts were associated with lower levels of productivity, higher levels of theft, and greater work withdrawal.

There is evidence that perceptions of psychological contracts vary across cultures. In France, where people are individualistic and power is more asymmetric, contracts are perceived as self-interested yet favoring the more powerful party. In Canada, where people are individualistic but power is more symmetric, contracts are perceived as self-interested yet focused on balanced reciprocity. In China, where people are collectivistic and power is more asymmetric, contracts are perceived as going beyond the work context into employees’ lives. And in Norway, where people are collectivistic but power is more symmetric, contracts are perceived as more relational and based on trust.

Role Conflict

When compliance with one role requirement may make it difficult to comply with another, the result is

role conflict

At the extreme, two or more role expectations may be contradictory. For example, if as a manager you were to provide a performance evaluation of a person you mentored, your roles as evaluator and mentor may conflict. Similarly, we can experience

interrole conflict

when the expectations of our different, separate groups are in opposition. An example can be found in work–family conflict, which Bill experiences when expectations placed on him as a husband and father differ from those placed on him as an executive with EMM Industries. Bill’s wife and children want to remain in Phoenix, while EMM expects its employees to be responsive to the company’s needs and requirements. Although it might be in Bill’s financial and career interests to accept a relocation, the conflict centers on choosing between family and work role expectations. Indeed, a great deal of research demonstrates that work–family conflict is one of the most significant sources of stress for most employees.

Within organizations, most employees are simultaneously in occupations, workgroups, divisions, and demographic groups, and these identities can conflict when the expectations of one clash with the expectations of another.

During mergers and acquisitions, employees can be torn between their identities as members of their original organization and of the new parent company.

Multinational organizations also have been shown to lead to dual identification—with the local division and with the international organization.

Role Play and Assimilation

The degree to which we comply with our role perceptions and expectations—even when we don’t agree with them initially—can be surprising. One of the most illuminating role and identity experiments was done a number of years ago by psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his associates.

They created a “prison” in the basement of the Stanford psychology building; hired emotionally stable, physically healthy, law-abiding students who scored “normal average” on personality tests; randomly assigned them the role of either “guard” or “prisoner”; and established some basic rules.

It took little time for the “prisoners” to accept the authority positions of the “guards” and for the mock guards to adjust to their new authority roles. Consistent with social identity theory, the guards came to see the prisoners as a negative outgroup, and they developed stereotypes about the “typical” prisoner personality type. After the guards crushed a rebellion attempt on the second day, the prisoners became increasingly passive. Whatever the guards “dished out,” the prisoners took. The prisoners actually began to believe and act like they were inferior and powerless. Every guard, at some time during the simulation, engaged in abusive, authoritative behavior. One said, “I was surprised at myself. . . . I made them call each other names and clean the toilets out with their bare hands. I practically considered the prisoners cattle, and I kept thinking: ‘I have to watch out for them in case they try something.’” Surprisingly, during the entire experiment—even after days of abuse—not one prisoner said, “Stop this. I’m a student like you. This is just an experiment!” The researchers had to end the study after only 6 days because of the participants’ pathological reactions.

What can we conclude from this study? Like the rest of us, the participants had learned stereotyped conceptions of guard and prisoner roles from the mass media and their own personal experiences in power and powerless relationships gained at home (parent–child), in school (teacher–student), and in other situations. This background allowed them easily and rapidly to assume roles and, with a vague notion of the social identity of their roles and no prior personality pathology or training for the parts they were playing, to execute extreme forms of behavior consistent with those roles.

MYTH OR SCIENCE?

Gossip and Exclusion Are Toxic for Groups

This is not necessarily true. But it’s certainly counterintuitive, so let’s explore the conditions.

What is gossip? Most of us might say gossip is talking about others, sharing rumors, and speculating about others’ behaviors; gossip affects a person’s reputation. We might also say gossip is malicious, but according to researchers, it can serve positive social functions, too. Prosocial gossip can expose behavior that exploits other people, which can lead to positive changes. For example, if Julie tells Chris that Alex is bullying Summer, then Chris has learned about Alex’s poor behavior through gossiping. Chris might refuse to partner with Alex on a work project, which might limit Alex’s opportunities with the organization, preventing him from bullying more people. Alternatively, as the gossip spreads, Alex might feel exposed for his behavior and conform to group expectations against bullying behavior. In fact, according to research, Alex is likely to cooperate with the group in response to the gossip, and others hearing and spreading the gossip are likely also to cooperate by not acting on their impulses toward bad behavior.

What about excluding Alex? There are two types of exclusion in the workplace: leaving someone out of a group, and ostracizing an individual. Both lead to the same end—the person isn’t part of the group—but while simply leaving someone out of a group might not send a message of exclusion, ostracism certainly does. Ostracism is more of a felt punishment than gossip since it is more direct. Research indicates that ostracized individuals cooperate to a greater degree when they are around the group to show a willingness to conform, hoping to be invited back into the group.

Can gossip and ostracism work together? Yes, according to a recent study. When subjects were given an opportunity to gossip about the work of another subject, that subject cooperated more than before; when the opportunity to gossip was paired with the ability to ostracize, that subject cooperated to a much greater degree.

Thus, gossip and exclusion may provide groups with benefits, at least when the gossip is confined to truthful work-related discussion, when the opportunity still exists to rejoin the group with full standing, and when the group norms are positive.

Sources: M. Cikara and J. J. Van Bavel, “The Neuroscience of Intergroup Relations: An Integrative Review,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 9, no. 3 (2014): 245–74; M. Feinberg, R. Willer, and M. Schultz, “Gossip and Ostracism Promote Cooperation in Groups,” Psychological Science 25, no. 3 (2014): 656–64; and I. H. Smith, K. Aquino, S. Koleva, and J. Graham, “The Moral Ties That Bind…Even to Out-Groups: The Interactive Effect of Moral Identity and the Binding Moral Foundations,” Psychological Science (2014): 1554–62.

A follow-up reality television show was conducted by the BBC.

The BBC results were dramatically different from those of the Stanford experiment, partially because the show used a less intense simulated prison setting. The “guards” were far more careful in their behavior, limiting their aggressive treatment of “prisoners” and expressing concerns about how their actions might be perceived. In short, they did not fully take on their authority roles, possibly because they knew their behavior was being observed by millions of viewers. These results suggest that less intense situations evoke less extreme behavior, and abuse of roles can be limited when people are made conscious of their behavior.

Group Property 2: Norms

1. 4 Demonstrate how norms exert influence on an individual’s behavior.

Did you ever notice that golfers don’t speak while their partners are putting? Why not? The answer is norms.

All groups have established

norms

—acceptable standards of behavior shared by members that express what they ought and ought not to do under certain circumstances. It’s not enough for group leaders to share their opinions—even if members adopt the leaders’ views, the effect may last only 3 days!

When agreed to by the group, norms influence behavior with a minimum of external controls. Different groups, communities, and societies have different norms, but they all have them.

Let’s discuss the levels of influence norms can exert over us, starting with our emotions.

Norms and Emotions

Have you ever noticed how the emotions of one member of your family, especially strong emotions, can influence the emotions of the other members? A family can be a highly normative group. So can a task group whose members work together on a daily basis, because frequent communication can increase the power of norms. A recent study found that, in a task group, individuals’ emotions influenced the group’s emotions and vice versa. This may not be surprising, but researchers also found that norms dictated the experience of emotions for the individuals and for the groups—in other words, people grew to interpret their shared emotions in the same way.

As we discovered in

Chapters 5

and
6
, our emotions and moods can shape our perspective, so the normative effect of groups can powerfully influence group attitudes and outcomes.

Norms and Conformity

As a member of a group, you desire acceptance by the group. Thus, you are susceptible to conforming to group norms. Considerable evidence suggests that groups can place strong pressures on individual members to change their attitudes and behaviors to match the group’s standard.

The impact that group pressures for

conformity

can have on an individual member’s judgment was demonstrated in studies by Solomon Asch and others.

Asch made up groups of seven or eight people who were asked to compare two cards. One card had one line, and the other had three lines of varying length, one of which was identical to the line on the one-line card, as

Exhibit 9-2

shows. The difference in line length was obvious; in fact, under ordinary conditions, subjects were incorrect less than 1 percent of the time in announcing which of the three lines matched the single line.

Exhibit 2

Examples of Cards Used in Asch’s Study

An Ethical Choice

Using Peer Pressure as an Influence Tactic

We’ve all experienced peer pressure, and it can be hard to behave differently from your friends and coworkers. As more work in organizations is performed in groups and teams, the possibilities and pitfalls of such pressure have become an increasingly important ethical issue for managers.

Peer pressure can be a positive force in some ways. In groups where high effort and performance are the norms, peer pressure from coworkers, whether direct or indirect, can encourage high performance from those not meeting expectations. A group with a norm toward behaving ethically could also use peer pressure to minimize negative behavior. Thus, peer pressure can promote all sorts of good behaviors, from donating to charity to volunteering at the local soup kitchen.

However, peer pressure can also be destructive. It can create a feeling of exclusion in those who do not go along with group norms and can be very stressful and hurtful for those who don’t see eye-to-eye with the rest of the group. Peer pressure itself can be an unethical practice that unduly influences workers’ behavior and thoughts. And while groups might pressure others into good behavior, they can just as easily sway them to bad behavior.

Should you use group peer pressure? As a leader, you may need to. One survey found that only 6 percent of leaders reported being able to successfully influence their employees on their own. Peer pressure hastens a group toward consensus, and levels of peer pressure predict how much the leader can control the group. If you use peer pressure to encourage individuals to work toward team goals and behave consistently with organizational values, it can enhance ethical performance. But your behavior should emphasize acceptance and rewarding of positive behavior, rather than rejection and exclusion, as a means of getting everyone to behave consistently in the group.

Sources: E. Estrada and E. Vargas-Estrada, “How Peer Pressure Shapes Consensus, Leadership, and Innovations in Social Groups,” Scientific Reports 3 (2013), article number 2905; A. Verghese, “The Healing Power of Peer Pressure,” Newsweek, March 14, 2011,

www.newsweek.com

; J. Meer, “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? Peer Pressure in Charitable Solicitation,” Journal of Public Economics 95, no. 7–8 (2011): 926–41; and L. Potter, “Lack Influence at Work? Why Most Leaders Struggle to Lead Positive Change,” Yahoo, May 14, 2013,

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/lack-influence-why-most- leaders-121500672.html

The experiment began with sets of matching exercises. Everyone gave the right answers. On the third set, however, the first subject, who was part of the research team, gave an obviously wrong answer—for example, saying “C” in
Exhibit 9-2
. The next subject, also on the research team, gave the same wrong answer, and so forth. Now the dilemma confronting the subject, who didn’t know any of the subjects were on the research team, was this: publicly state a perception that differed from the announced position of the others, or give an incorrect answer that agreed with the others.

The results over many experiments showed 75 percent of subjects gave at least one answer that conformed—that they knew was wrong but was consistent with the replies of other group members—and the average conformer gave wrong answers 37 percent of the time. This suggests that we feel the pressure toward conformity with group norms. Other recent research with moral decision making indicated an even stronger effect of conformity when subjects found the nonconforming ideas not just incorrect but objectionable.

Does that mean we are mere robots? Certainly not. The flip side of the 37 percent of conforming responses is the 63 percent of independent responses, and 95 percent gave the correct (nonconforming) response at least once. Therefore, we feel the pressure to conform, but it is not a perfect predictor of what we will do. Furthermore, we don’t tend to like the pressure. Asch wrote, “Those who participated in this challenging experiment agreed nearly without exception that independence was preferable to conformity.”

Do individuals conform to the pressures of all groups to which they belong? Obviously not, because people belong to many groups, and their norms vary and sometimes are contradictory. People conform to their

reference groups

, in which a person is aware of other members, defines himself or herself as a member or would like to be a member, and feels group members are significant to him or her. The implication, then, is that all groups do not impose equal conformity pressures on their members.

Norms and Behavior

Norms can cover any aspect of group behavior.

As we’ve mentioned, norms in the workplace significantly influence employee behavior. This may seem intuitive, but full appreciation of the influence of norms on worker behavior did not occur until the Hawthorne Studies conducted between 1924 and 1932 at the Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne Works in Chicago.

From studies of employees at the Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne Works in Chicago, researchers gained valuable insights into how individual behavior is influenced by group norms. They also learned that money was less of a factor in determining worker output than were group standards, sentiments, and security.

Source: Hawthorne Museum of Morton College

In the studies, the researchers first examined the relationship between the physical environment and productivity. As they increased the light level for the experimental group of workers, output rose for that unit and the control group. But as they dropped the light level, productivity continued to increase. In fact, productivity in the experimental group decreased only when the light intensity had been reduced to that of moonlight, leading researchers to believe that group dynamics, rather than the environment, influenced behavior.

The researchers next isolated a small group of women assembling telephones so their behavior could be more carefully observed. Over the next several years, this small group’s output increased steadily, and the number of personal and sick absences was approximately one-third of that in the regular production department. It became evident this group’s performance was significantly influenced by its “special” status. The members thought they were in an elite group, and that management showed concern about their interests by engaging in experimentation. In essence, workers in both the illumination and assembly experiments were really reacting to the increased attention they received.

A wage incentive plan was then introduced in the bank wiring observation room. The most important finding was that employees did not individually maximize their output. Rather, their role performance became controlled by a group norm. Members were afraid that if they significantly increased their output, the unit incentive rate might be cut, the expected daily output might be increased, layoffs might occur, or slower workers might be reprimanded. So the group established its idea of a fair output—neither too much nor too little. Members helped each other ensure their reports were nearly level, and the norms the group established included a number of behavioral “don’ts.” Don’t be a rate-buster, turning out too much work. Don’t be a chiseler, turning out too little work. Don’t squeal on any of your peers. The group enforced its norms with name-calling, ridicule, and even punches to the upper arms of violators. It thus operated well below its capability, using norms that were tightly established and strongly enforced.

Positive Norms and Group Outcomes

One goal of every organization with corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives is for its values to hold normative sway over employees. After all, if employees aligned their thinking with positive norms, these norms would become stronger and the probability of positive impact would grow exponentially. We might expect the same outcomes from political correctness (PC) norms. But what is the effect of strong positive norms on group outcomes? The popular thinking is that to increase creativity in groups, for instance, norms should be loosened. However, research on gender-diverse groups indicates that strong PC norms increase group creativity. Why? Clear expectations about male-female interactions reduce uncertainty about group expectations,

which allows the members to more easily express their creative ideas without combatting stereotype norms.

Positive group norms may well beget positive outcomes, but only if other factors are present, too. For instance, in a recent study a high level of group extraversion predicted helping behaviors more strongly when there were positive cooperation norms.

As powerful as norms can be, though, not everyone is equally susceptible to positive group norms. Individual personalities factor in, too, as well as the level of a person’s social identity with the group. Also, a recent study in Germany indicated that the more satisfied people were with their groups, the more closely they followed group norms.

Negative Norms and Group Outcomes

LeBron is frustrated by a coworker who constantly spreads malicious and unsubstantiated rumors about him. Lindsay is tired of a member of her workgroup who, when confronted with a problem, takes out his frustration by yelling and screaming at her and other members. And Mi-Cha recently quit her job as a dental hygienist after being sexually harassed by her employer.

What do these illustrations have in common? They represent employees exposed to acts of deviant workplace behavior.

As we discussed in

Chapter 3

, counterproductive work behavior (CWB) or

deviant workplace behavior

(also called antisocial behavior or workplace incivility) is voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and, in so doing, threatens the well-being of the organization or its members.

Exhibit 9-3

provides a typology of deviant workplace behaviors, with examples of each.

Exhibit 3

Typology of Deviant Workplace Behavior

Sources: S. H. Appelbaum, G. D. Iaconi, and A. Matousek, “Positive and Negative Deviant Workplace Behaviors: Causes, Impacts, and Solutions,” Corporate Governance 7, no. 5 (2007): 586–98; and R. W. Griffin, and A. O’Leary-Kelly, The Dark Side of Organizational Behavior (New York: Wiley, 2004).

Few organizations will admit to creating or condoning conditions that encourage and maintain deviant behaviors. Yet they exist. For one, as we discussed before, a workgroup can become characterized by positive or negative attributes. When those attributes are negative, such as when a workgroup is high in psychopathy and aggression, the characteristics of deceit, amorality, and intent to harm others are pronounced.

Second, employees have been reporting an increase in rudeness and disregard toward others by bosses and coworkers in recent years. Workplace incivility, like many other deviant behaviors, has many negative outcomes for the victims.

Nearly half of employees who have suffered this incivility say it has led them to think about changing jobs; 12 percent actually quit because of it.

Also, a study of nearly 1,500 respondents found that in addition to increasing turnover intentions, incivility at work increased reports of psychological stress and physical illness.

Third, research suggests that a lack of sleep, which is often caused by heightened work demands and which hinders a person’s ability to regulate emotions and behaviors, can lead to deviant behavior. As organizations have tried to do more with less, pushing their employees to work extra hours, they may indirectly be facilitating deviant behavior.

Like norms in general, employees’ antisocial actions are shaped by the group context within which they work. Evidence demonstrates deviant workplace behavior is likely to flourish where it’s supported by group norms.

For example, workers who socialize either at or outside work with people who are frequently absent from work are more likely to be absent themselves.

Thus when deviant workplace norms surface, employee cooperation, commitment, and motivation are likely to suffer.

What are the consequences of workplace deviance for groups? Some research suggests a chain reaction occurs in groups with high levels of dysfunctional behavior.

The process begins with negative behaviors like shirking, undermining coworkers, or being generally uncooperative. As a result of these behaviors, the group collectively starts to have negative moods. These negative moods then result in poor coordination of effort and lower levels of group performance.

Norms and Culture

Do people in collectivist cultures have different norms than people in individualist cultures? Of course they do. But did you know that our orientation may be changed, even after years of living in one society? In a recent experiment, an organizational role-playing exercise was given to a neutral group of subjects; the exercise stressed either collectivist or individualist norms. Subjects were then given a task of their personal choice or were assigned one by an ingroup or outgroup person. When the individualist-primed subjects were allowed personal choice of the task, or the collectivist-primed subjects were assigned the task by an ingroup person, they became more highly motivated.

Group Property 3: Status

, and

Group Property 4: Size and Dynamics

1. 5 Show how status and size differences affect group performance.

We’ve discussed how the roles we play and the norms we internalize tend to dictate our behavior in groups. However, those are not the only two factors that influence who we are in a group and how the group functions. Have you ever noticed how groups tend to stratify into higher- and lower-status members? Sometimes the status of members reflects their status outside the group setting, but not always. Also, status often varies between groups of different sizes. Let’s examine how these factors affect a workgroup’s efficacy.

Group Property 3: Status

Status

—a socially defined position or rank given to groups or group members by others—permeates every society. Even the smallest group will show differences in member status over time. Status is a significant motivator and has major behavioral consequences when individuals perceive a disparity between what they believe their status is and what others perceive it to be.

WHAT DETERMINES STATUS? According to

status characteristics theory

, status tends to derive from one of three sources:

1. The power a person wields over others. Because they likely control the group’s resources, people who control group outcomes tend to be perceived as high status.

2. A person’s ability to contribute to a group’s goals. People whose contributions are critical to the group’s success tend to have high status.

3. An individual’s personal characteristics. Someone whose personal characteristics are positively valued by the group (good looks, intelligence, money, or a friendly personality) typically has higher status than someone with fewer valued attributes.

STATUS AND NORMS Status has some interesting effects on the power of norms and pressures to conform. High-status individuals may be more likely to deviate from norms when they have low identification (social identity) with the group.

They also eschew pressure from lower-ranking members of other groups. For instance, physicians actively resist administrative decisions made by lower-ranking medical insurance company employees.

High-status people are also better able to resist conformity pressures than their lower-status peers. An individual who is highly valued by a group but doesn’t need or care about the group’s social rewards is particularly able to disregard conformity norms.

In general, bringing high-status members into a group may improve performance, but only up to a point, perhaps because these members may introduce counterproductive norms.

Aaron Rodgers has high status as the quarterback of the Green Bay Packers football team. His status derives from his ability to contribute to his team’s success in winning games. Rodgers’s teammates and coaches value his character, leadership skills, expertise in calling plays, and ability to accurately throw touchdown passes on the move.

Source: Matt Ludtke/AP Images

STATUS AND GROUP INTERACTION People tend to become more assertive when they seek to attain higher status in a group.

They speak out more often, criticize more, state more commands, and interrupt others more often. Lower-status members tend to participate less actively in group discussions; when they possess expertise and insights that could aid the group, failure to fully utilize these members reduces the group’s overall performance. But that doesn’t mean a group of only high-status individuals would be preferable. Adding some high-status individuals to a group of mid-status individuals may be advantageous because group performance suffers when too many high-status people are in the mix.

STATUS INEQUITY It is important for group members to believe the status hierarchy is equitable. Perceived inequity creates disequilibrium, which inspires various types of corrective behaviors. Hierarchical groups can lead to resentment among those at the lower end of the status continuum. Large differences in status within groups are also associated with poorer individual performance, lower health, and higher intentions for the lower-status members to leave the group.

Groups generally agree within themselves on status criteria; hence, there is usually high concurrence on group rankings of individuals. Business executives may use personal income or the growth rate of their companies as determinants of status. Government bureaucrats may use the size of their budgets, and blue-collar workers may use their years of seniority. Managers who occupy central positions in their social networks are typically seen as higher in status by their subordinates, and this position actually translates into greater influence over the group’s functioning.

Groups generally form an informal status order based on ranking and command of needed resources.

Individuals can find themselves in conflicts when they move between groups whose status criteria are different, or when they join groups whose members have heterogeneous backgrounds. Cultures also differ in their criteria for conferring status upon individuals. When groups are heterogeneous, status differences may initiate conflict as the group attempts to reconcile the separate hierarchies. As we’ll see in
Chapter 10
, this can be a problem when management creates teams of employees from varied functions.

STATUS AND STIGMATIZATION Although it’s clear that your own status affects the way people perceive you, the status of people with whom you are affiliated can also affect others’ views of you. Studies have shown that people who are stigmatized can “infect” others with their stigma. This “stigma by association” effect can result in negative opinions and evaluations of the person affiliated with the stigmatized individual, even if the association is brief and purely coincidental. Of course, many of the foundations of cultural status differences have no merit in the first place. For example, men interviewing for a job were viewed as less qualified when they were sitting next to an obese woman in a waiting room. Another study looking at the effects of being associated with an overweight person found that even when onlookers were told the target person and the overweight person were unrelated, the target person was still devalued.

GROUP STATUS Early in life, we acquire an “us and them” mentality.

You may have correctly surmised that if you are in an outgroup, your group is of lower status in the eyes of the associated ingroup’s members. Culturally, sometimes ingroups represent the dominant forces in a society and are given high status, which can create discrimination against their outgroups. Low-status groups, perhaps in response to this discrimination, are likely to leverage ingroup favoritism to compete for higher status.

When high-status groups then feel the discrimination from low-status groups, they may increase their bias against the outgroups.

With each cycle, the groups become more polarized.

Group Property 4: Size and Dynamics

Does the size of a group affect the group’s overall behavior? Yes, but the effect depends on what dependent variables we examine. Groups with a dozen or more members are good for gaining diverse input. If the goal is fact-finding or idea-generating, then, larger groups should be more effective. Smaller groups of about seven members are better at doing something productive.

One of the most important findings about the size of a group concerns

social loafing

, the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than when alone.

Social loafing directly challenges the assumption that the productivity of the group as a whole should at least equal the sum of the productivity of the individuals in it, no matter what the group size.

What causes social loafing? It may be a belief that others in the group are not carrying their fair share. If you see others as lazy or inept, you can reestablish equity by reducing your effort. But simply failing to contribute may not be enough for someone to be labeled a “free rider.” Instead, the group must believe the social loafer is acting in an exploitive manner (benefitting at the expense of other team members).

Another explanation for social loafing is the diffusion of responsibility. Because group results cannot be attributed to any single person, the relationship between an individual’s input and the group’s output is clouded. Individuals may then be tempted to become free riders and coast on the group’s efforts.

The implications for OB are significant. When managers use collective work situations, they must also be able to identify individual efforts. Furthermore, greater performance diversity creates greater social loafing the longer a group is together, which decreases satisfaction and performance.

Social loafing appears to have a Western bias. It’s consistent with individualist cultures, such as the United States and Canada, that are dominated by self-interest. It is not consistent with collectivist societies, in which individuals are motivated by group goals. For example, in studies comparing U.S. employees with employees from China and Israel (both collectivist societies), the Chinese and Israelis showed no propensity to engage in social loafing and actually performed better in a group than alone.

Young employees of Alibaba’s Tmall online shopping site celebrate their group’s achievement of increasing the volume of sales orders during China’s “Singles Day” shopping event. Although social loafing is consistent with individualistic cultures, in collectivist societies such as China, employees are motivated by group goals and perform better in groups than they do by working individually.

Source: Han Chuanhao Xinhua News Agency/Newscom

Research indicates that the stronger an individual’s work ethic is, the less likely that person is to engage in social loafing.

Also, the greater the level of conscientiousness and agreeableness in a group, the more likely that performance will remain high whether there is social loafing or not.

There are ways to prevent social loafing: (1) set group goals, so the group has a common purpose to strive toward; (2) increase intergroup competition, which focuses on the shared group outcome; (3) engage in peer evaluations; (4) select members who have high motivation and prefer to work in groups; and (5) base group rewards in part on each member’s unique contributions.

Recent research indicates that social loafing can be counteracted by publicly posting individual performance ratings for group members, too.

Although no magic bullet will prevent social loafing, these steps should help minimize its effect.

Group Property 5: Cohesiveness

, and

Group Property 6: Diversity

1. 6 Describe how issues of cohesiveness and diversity can be integrated for group effectiveness.

For a group to be highly functioning, it must act cohesively as a unit, but not because all the group members think and act alike. In some ways, the properties of cohesiveness and diversity need to be valued way back at the tacit establishment of roles and norms—will the group be inclusive of all its members, regardless of differences in backgrounds? Let’s discuss the importance of group cohesiveness first.

Group Property 5: Cohesiveness

Groups differ in their

cohesiveness

—the degree to which members are attracted to each other and motivated to stay in the group. Some workgroups are cohesive because the members have spent a great deal of time together, the group’s small size or purpose facilitates high interaction, or external threats have brought members close together.

Cohesiveness affects group productivity. Studies consistently show that the relationship between cohesiveness and productivity depends on the group’s performance-related norms.

If norms for quality, output, and cooperation with outsiders are high, a cohesive group will be more productive than a less cohesive group. But if cohesiveness is high and performance norms are low, productivity will be low. If cohesiveness is low and performance norms are high, productivity increases, but less than in the high-cohesiveness/high-norms situation. When cohesiveness and performance-related norms are both low, productivity tends to fall into the low-to-moderate range. These conclusions are summarized in

Exhibit 9-4

Exhibit 4

Relationship Between Group Cohesiveness, Performance Norms, and Productivity

What can you do to encourage group cohesiveness? (1) Make the group smaller, (2) encourage agreement with group goals, (3) increase the time members spend together, (4) increase the group’s status and the perceived difficulty of attaining membership, (5) stimulate competition with other groups, (6) give rewards to the group rather than to individual members, and (7) physically isolate the group.

Group Property 6: Diversity

The final property of groups we consider is

diversity

in the group’s membership, or the degree to which members of the group are similar to, or different from, one another. Overall, studies identify both costs and benefits from group diversity.

Diversity appears to increase group conflict, especially in the early stages of a group’s tenure; this often lowers group morale and raises dropout rates. One study compared groups that were culturally diverse and homogeneous (composed of people from the same country). On a wilderness survival test, the groups performed equally well, but the members from the diverse groups were less satisfied with their groups, were less cohesive, and had more conflict.

Another study examined the effect of differences in tenure on the performance of 67 engineering research and development groups.

When most people had roughly the same level of tenure, performance was high, but as tenure diversity increased, performance dropped off. There was an important qualifier: Higher levels of tenure diversity were not related to lower performance for groups when there were effective team-oriented human resources (HR) practices. More specifically, groups in which members’ values or opinions differ tend to experience more conflict, but leaders who can get the group to focus on the task at hand and encourage group learning are able to reduce these conflicts and enhance discussion of group issues.

Gender diversity can also be a challenge to a group, but if inclusiveness is stressed, group conflict and dissatisfaction are lowered.

You may have correctly surmised that the type of group diversity matters. Surface-level diversity—in observable characteristics such as national origin, race, and gender—alerts people to possible deep-level diversity—in underlying attitudes, values, and opinions. One researcher argues, “The mere presence of diversity you can see, such as a person’s race or gender, actually cues a team that there’s likely to be differences of opinion.”

Surface-level diversity may subconsciously cue team members to be more open-minded in their views.

For example, two studies of MBA student groups found surface-level diversity led to greater openness. The effects of deep-level diversity are less understood. Research in Korea indicates that putting people with a high need for power with those with a low need for power can reduce unproductive group competition, whereas putting individuals with a similar need for achievement may increase task performance.

Although differences can lead to conflict, they also provide an opportunity to solve problems in unique ways. One study of jury behavior found diverse juries were more likely to deliberate longer, share more information, and make fewer factual errors when discussing evidence. Altogether, the impact of diversity on groups is mixed. It is difficult to be in a diverse group in the short term. However, if members can weather their differences, over time diversity may help them be more open-minded and creative and to do better. But even positive effects are unlikely to be especially strong. As one review stated, “The business case (in terms of demonstrable financial results) for diversity remains hard to support based on the extant research.”

Yet, other researchers argue that we shouldn’t overlook the effects of homogeneity, many of which can be detrimental.

Personal Inventory Assessments

Communicating Supportively

Are you a supportive person? Take this PIA to find out if you communicate supportively.

One possible side effect in diverse teams—especially those that are diverse in terms of surface-level characteristics—is

faultlines

, or perceived divisions that split groups into two or more subgroups based on individual differences such as sex, race, age, work experience, and education.

For example, let’s say group A is composed of three men and three women. The three men have approximately the same amount of work experience and backgrounds in marketing. The three women have about the same amount of work experience and backgrounds in finance. Group B has three men and three women, but they all differ in terms of their experience and backgrounds. Two of the men are experienced, while the other is new. One of the women has worked at the company for several years, while the other two are new. In addition, two of the men and one woman in group B have backgrounds in marketing, while the other man and the remaining two women have backgrounds in finance. It is thus likely that a faultline will result in subgroups of males and females in group A but not in group B, based on the differentiating characteristics.

Research on faultlines has shown that splits are generally detrimental to group functioning and performance. Subgroups may compete with each other, which takes time away from core tasks and harms group performance. Groups that have subgroups learn more slowly, make more risky decisions, are less creative, and experience higher levels of conflict. Subgroups may not trust each other. Finally, satisfaction with subgroups is generally high, but the overall group’s satisfaction is lower when faultlines are present.

Are faultlines ever a good thing? One study suggested that faultlines based on differences in skill, knowledge, and expertise could be beneficial when the groups were in organizational cultures that strongly emphasized results. Why? A results-driven culture focuses people’s attention on what’s important to the company rather than on problems arising from subgroups.

Another study showed that problems stemming from strong faultlines based on gender and educational major were counteracted when their roles were cross-cut and the group as a whole was given a common goal to strive for. Together, these strategies force collaboration between members of subgroups and focus their efforts on accomplishing a goal that transcends the boundary imposed by the faultline.

Overall, although research on faultlines suggests that diversity in groups is potentially a double-edged sword, recent work indicates they can be strategically employed to improve performance.

Group Decision Making

1. 7 Contrast the strengths and weaknesses of group decision making.

The belief—characterized by juries—that two heads are better than one has long been accepted as a basic component of the U.S. legal system and those of many other countries. Many decisions in organizations are made by groups, teams, or committees. We’ll discuss the advantages of group decision making, along with the unique challenges group dynamics bring to the decision-making process. Finally, we’ll offer some techniques for maximizing the group decision-making opportunity.

Groups versus the Individual

Decision-making groups may be widely used in organizations, but are group decisions preferable to those made by an individual alone? The answer depends on a number of factors. Let’s begin by looking at the strengths and weaknesses of group decision making.

STRENGTHS OF GROUP DECISION MAKING Groups generate more complete information and knowledge. By aggregating the resources of several individuals, groups bring more input as well as heterogeneity into the decision process. They offer increased diversity of views. This opens up the opportunity to consider more approaches and alternatives. Finally, groups lead to increased acceptance of a solution. Group members who participate in making a decision are more likely to enthusiastically support and encourage others to accept it later.

WEAKNESSES OF GROUP DECISION MAKING Group decisions are time-consuming because groups typically take more time to reach a solution. There are conformity pressures. The desire by group members to be accepted and considered an asset to the group can squash any overt disagreement. Group discussion can be dominated by one or a few members. If they’re low- and medium-ability members, the group’s overall effectiveness will suffer. Finally, group decisions suffer from ambiguous responsibility. In an individual decision, it’s clear who is accountable for the final outcome. In a group decision, the responsibility of any single member is diluted.

EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY Whether groups are more effective than individuals depends on how you define effectiveness. Group decisions are generally more accurate than the decisions of the average individual in a group, but less accurate than the judgments of the most accurate person.

In terms of speed, individuals are superior. If creativity is important, groups tend to be more effective. And if effectiveness means the degree of acceptance of achievable solutions, the nod again goes to the group.

But we cannot consider effectiveness without also assessing efficiency. With few exceptions, group decision making consumes more work hours than having an individual tackle the same problem. The exceptions tend to be instances in which, to achieve comparable quantities of diverse input, the single decision maker must spend a great deal of time reviewing files and talking to other people. In deciding whether to use groups, then, managers must assess whether increases in effectiveness are more than enough to offset the reductions in efficiency.

In summary, groups are an excellent vehicle for performing many steps in the decision-making process and offer both breadth and depth of input for information gathering. If group members have diverse backgrounds, the alternatives generated should be more extensive and the analysis more critical. When the final solution is agreed on, there are more people in a group decision to support and implement it. These pluses, however, may be more than offset by the time consumed by group decisions, the internal conflicts they create, and the pressures they generate toward conformity. We must be careful to define the types of conflicts, however. Research in Korea indicates that group conflicts about tasks may increase group performance, while conflicts in relationships may decrease performance.

In some cases, therefore, we can expect individuals to make better decisions than groups.

Career OBjectives

Can I fudge the numbers and not take the blame?

I’ve got a great workgroup, except for one thing: the others make me omit negative information about our group’s success that I’m in charge of as the treasurer. They gang up on me, insult me, and threaten me, so in the end I report what they want. They say omitting the negative information is not really wrong, and it doesn’t violate our organization’s rules, but on my own I would report everything. I need to stay in the group or I’ll lose my job. If we are called out on the numbers, can I just put the blame on the whole group?

— Jean-Claude

Dear Jean-Claude:

The short answer is that, since you are in a leadership role in the group, you may not have the option of blaming the others. Further, you may be held individually accountable as a leader for the outcomes of this situation.

Your dilemma is not unusual. Once we think of ourselves as part of a collective, we want to stay in the group and can become vulnerable to pressures to conform. The pressure you’re getting from multiple members can make you aware that you’re in the minority in the group, and taunting can make you feel like an outsider or lesser member; therefore threats to harm your group standing may feel powerful.

So you have a choice: Submit to the pressure and continue misrepresenting your group’s success, or adhere to the responsibility you have as the treasurer and come clean. From an ethical standpoint, we hope you don’t consider the first option an acceptable choice. To make a change, you may be able to use social identification to your advantage. Rather than challenging the group as a whole, try meeting with individual group members to build trust, talking to each as fellow members of a worthy group that can succeed without any ethical quandaries. Don’t try to build a coalition; instead, build trust with individuals and change the climate of the group to value ethical behavior. Then the next time you need to report the numbers, you can call upon the group’s increased ethical awareness to gain support for your leadership decisions.

Sources: M. Cikara and J. J. Van Bavel, “The Neuroscience of Intergroup Relations: An Integrative Review,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 9, no. 3 (2014): 245–74; M. A. Korsgaard, H. H. Brower, and S. W. Lester, “It Isn’t Always Mutual: A Critical Review of Dyadic Trust,” Journal of Management 41, no. 1 (2015): 47–70; R. L. Priem and P. C. Nystrom, “Exploring the Dynamics of Workgroup Fracture: Common Ground, Trust-With-Trepidation, and Warranted Distrust,” Journal of Management 40, no. 3 (2014): 674–795.

The opinions provided here are of the managers and authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations. The authors or managers are not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of this information. In no event will the authors or managers, or their related partnerships or corporations thereof, be liable to you or anyone else for any decision made or action taken in reliance on the opinions provided here.

Groupthink and Groupshift

Two by-products of group decision making, groupthink and groupshift, can affect a group’s ability to appraise alternatives objectively and achieve high-quality solutions.

Groupthink

relates to norms and describes situations in which group pressures for conformity deter the group from critically appraising unusual, minority, or unpopular views. Groupthink attacks many groups and can dramatically hinder their performance.

Groupshift

describes the way group members tend to exaggerate their initial positions when discussing a given set of alternatives to arrive at a solution. In some situations, caution dominates and there is a conservative shift, while in other situations groups tend toward a risky shift. Let’s look at each phenomenon in detail.

GROUPTHINK Groupthink appears closely aligned with the conclusions Solomon Asch drew in his experiments with a lone dissenter. Individuals who hold a position different from that of the dominant majority are under pressure to suppress, withhold, or modify their true feelings and beliefs. As members of a group, we find it more pleasant to be in agreement—to be a positive part of the group—than to be a disruptive force, even if disruption would improve effectiveness. Groups that are more focused on performance than learning are especially likely to fall victim to groupthink and to suppress the opinions of those who do not agree with the majority.

Does groupthink attack all groups? No. It seems to occur most often when there is a clear group identity, when members hold a positive image of their group they want to protect, and when the group perceives a collective threat to its positive image.

One study showed that those influenced by groupthink were more confident about their course of action early on;

however, groups that believe too strongly in the correctness of their course of action are more likely to suppress dissent and encourage conformity than groups that are more skeptical about their course of action.

What can managers do to minimize groupthink?

First, they can monitor group size. People grow more intimidated and hesitant as group size increases, and although there is no magic number that will eliminate groupthink, individuals are likely to feel less personal responsibility when groups get larger than about 10 members. Managers should also encourage group leaders to play an impartial role. Leaders should actively seek input from all members and avoid expressing their own opinions, especially in the early stages of deliberation. In addition, managers should appoint one group member to play the role of devil’s advocate, overtly challenging the majority position and offering divergent perspectives. Yet another suggestion is to use exercises that stimulate active discussion of diverse alternatives without threatening the group or intensifying identity protection. Have group members delay discussion of possible gains so they can first talk about the dangers or risks inherent in a decision. Requiring members to initially focus on the negatives of an alternative makes the group less likely to stifle dissenting views and more likely to gain an objective evaluation.

GROUPSHIFT OR GROUP POLARIZATION There are differences between group decisions and the individual decisions of group members.

In groups, discussion leads members toward a more extreme view of the position they already held. Conservatives become more cautious, and more aggressive types take on more risk. We can view this group polarization as a special case of groupthink. The group’s decision reflects the dominant decision-making norm—toward greater caution or more risk—that develops during discussion.

The shift toward polarization has several explanations.

It’s been argued, for instance, that discussion makes the members more comfortable with each other and thus more willing to express extreme versions of their original positions. Another argument is that the group diffuses responsibility. Group decisions free any single member from accountability for the group’s final choice, so a more extreme position can be taken. It’s also likely that people take extreme positions because they want to demonstrate how different they are from the outgroup.

People on the fringes of political or social movements take on ever-more-extreme positions just to prove they are really committed to the cause, whereas those who are more cautious tend to take moderate positions to demonstrate how reasonable they are.

So how should you use the findings on groupshift? Recognize that group decisions exaggerate the initial position of individual members, that the shift has been shown more often to be toward greater risk, and that which way a group will shift is a function of the members’ pre-discussion inclinations.

We now turn to the techniques by which groups make decisions. These reduce some of the dysfunctional aspects of group decision making.

Group Decision-Making Techniques

The most common form of group decision making takes place in

interacting groups

. Members meet face to face and rely on both verbal and nonverbal interaction to communicate. But as our discussion of groupthink demonstrated, interacting groups often censor themselves and pressure individual members toward conformity of opinion. Brainstorming and the nominal group technique can reduce problems inherent in the traditional interacting group.

BRAINSTORMING

Brainstorming

can overcome the pressures for conformity that dampen creativity

by encouraging any and all alternatives while withholding criticism. In a typical brainstorming session, a half-dozen to a dozen people sit around a table. The group leader states the problem in a clear manner so all participants understand. Members then freewheel as many alternatives as they can in a given length of time. To encourage members to “think the unusual,” no criticism is allowed, even of the most bizarre suggestions, and all ideas are recorded for later discussion and analysis.

Brainstorming may indeed generate ideas—but not in a very efficient manner. Research consistently shows individuals working alone generate more ideas than a group in a brainstorming session. One reason for this is “production blocking.” When people are generating ideas in a group, many are talking at once, which blocks individuals’ thought process and eventually impedes the sharing of ideas.

NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE The

nominal group technique

may be more effective. This technique restricts discussion and interpersonal communication during the decision-making process. Group members are all physically present, as in a traditional meeting, but they operate independently. Specifically, a problem is presented and then the group takes the following steps:

1. Before any discussion takes place, each member independently writes down ideas about the problem.

2. After this silent period, each member presents one idea to the group. No discussion takes place until all ideas have been presented and recorded.

3. The group discusses the ideas for clarity and evaluates them.

4. Each group member silently and independently rank-orders the ideas. The idea with the highest aggregate ranking determines the final decision.

The chief advantage of the nominal group technique is that it permits a group to meet formally but does not restrict independent thinking. Research generally shows nominal groups outperform brainstorming groups.

Each of the group-decision techniques has its own set of strengths and weaknesses. The choice depends on the criteria you want to emphasize and the cost–benefit trade-off. As

Exhibit 9-5

indicates, an interacting group is good for achieving commitment to a solution, brainstorming develops group cohesiveness, and the nominal group technique is an inexpensive means for generating a large number of ideas.

Exhibit 5

Evaluating Group Effectiveness

Summary

We can draw several implications from our discussion of groups. First, norms control behavior by establishing standards of right and wrong. Second, status inequities create frustration and can adversely influence productivity and willingness to remain with an organization. Third, the impact of size on a group’s performance depends on the type of task. Fourth, cohesiveness may influence a group’s level of productivity, depending on the group’s performance-related norms. Fifth, diversity appears to have a mixed impact on group performance, with some studies suggesting that diversity can help performance and others suggesting the opposite. Sixth, role conflict is associated with job-induced tension and job dissatisfaction.

Groups can be carefully managed toward positive organizational outcomes and optimal decision-making. The next chapter will explore several of these conclusions in greater depth.

CASE STUDY: MICROECONOMIC ANALYSIS: SUPPLY AND DEMAND 5

10 Understanding Work Teams

At SmugMug, an online photo sharing company, every day is a photo opportunity. If you’re hired there, you might be expected to enjoy photography, have extensive Web knowledge, and be willing to work in teams. You might even be expected to become a subject in photos the organization posts. But would you anticipate having to crawl through muddy trenches under barbed wire with your team as these employees have? They’ve just finished the hard-core 10–12-mile obstacle course experience provided by Tough Mudder, an organization that creates physical challenges for organizational teams like those at SmugMug.

The mission of Tough Mudder is simple: solidify teams through a shared experience. Co-founder Chris MacAskill said, “You get muddy and tired and beat up. It is like the Marines and boot camp. The more athletic help the less athletic because you want to finish together as a team. At the end, you are arm in arm, and there are big smiles and high-fives.” Tough Mudder events like the one pictured here teach values like mental grit by providing fun, success, and thrills. It seems to work, according to Lynn Gruber of Fortune, who remarked, “The teamwork and camaraderie out there was amazing.” To date, the organization boasts a track record of over 100 events, 1.5 million participants, 4,000 Tough Mudder tattoos, and a 95 percent participation rate.

Is Tough Mudding not your cup of tea? Then perhaps you should consider employment at Grid Connect Inc., a software firm in Illinois. The game there is ping pong, and “Everybody plays, nobody can opt out. You can take your frustrations out playing ping pong. When you aren’t playing, you can root for the underdogs,” said founder and CEO Mike Justice. He is the trophy holder and his father is the official scorekeeper, but still, he says, the organization’s tournaments enhance team building for his employees. “It’s a real confidence booster. It was one of the best things we ever did for morale.”

Perhaps old-fashioned athletic leagues are more your thing? Most companies have leagues for organized sports, which may or may not enhance their work teams. At Offerpop, a social-marketing firm, “The sports teams help to make everyone more comfortable with each other,” said CEO Wendell Landsford, although he says the real team building happens during postgame drinks. Jerry Schranz of public-relations agency Beckerman personally learned an important job skill while captain of the softball team. He observed, “It is very difficult to give up the ball as a starting pitcher, where you think that no one can pitch as well as you. It was something I had to learn to do: delegate to others and let it unfold.”

For all the good that intentional team-building recreation can do, note that programs such as Tough Mudder’s may be more successful than off-hours sports leagues. John Pinkham of PAN Communications Inc. was in charge of the Boston PR firm’s casual soccer team. He said, “Turns out the fun league we signed up for was super competitive, with ex-college players and Europeans who kicked the ball faster than I thought was possible.” In response, losers either tried to out-strategize the perpetual winners or quit. Those that stayed tried to have fun no matter the score. Pinkham said, “I think everyone was glad they played, and it brought us more together as colleagues and friends—just maybe not as teammates.”

Sources: B. Haislip, “Play Ball!” The Wall Street Journal, June 12, 2014, R4; M. L. Shuffler, D. DiazGranados, and E. Salas, “There’s a Science for That: Team Development Interventions in Organizations,” Current Directions in Psychological Science 20, no. 6 (2011): 365–72; and Tough Mudder website,

www.toughmudder.com

, accessed June 23, 2015.

Do teams that play together stay together, as the opening discussion suggests? There is definitely an upside to shared experiences, as we will find in this chapter. There may also be something about unique, unexpected challenges that bring teams together, as Tough Mudder claims. We are, however, cautioned to consider the effects of these “play” exercises, including possible discrimination against employees who are disabled or physically unfit. We will consider more types of team-building strategies, and teams in general, in this chapter.

Why Have Teams Become So Popular?

1. 1 Analyze the continued popularity of teams in organizations.

Why are teams popular? In short, because we believe they are effective. “A team of people happily committed to the project and to one another will outperform a brilliant individual every time,” writes Forbes publisher Rich Karlgaard.

In some ways, he’s right. Teams can sometimes achieve feats an individual could never accomplish.

Teams are more flexible and responsive to changing events than traditional departments or other forms of permanent groupings. They can quickly assemble, deploy, refocus, and disband. They are an effective means to democratize organizations and increase employee involvement. And finally, research indicates that our involvement in teams positively shapes the way we think as individuals, introducing a collaborative mindset about even our personal decision making.

The fact that organizations have embraced teamwork doesn’t necessarily mean teams are always effective. Team members, as humans, can be swayed by fads and herd mentality that can lead them astray from the best decisions. What conditions affect their potential? How do members work together? Do we even like teams? Maybe not, according to the OB Poll. To answer these questions, let’s first distinguish between groups and teams.

OB Poll Is Teamwork a Good Thing?

Source: “University of Phoenix Survey Reveals Nearly Seven-in-Ten Workers Have Been Part of Dysfunctional Teams,” downloaded on June 9, 2013, from

Differences Between Groups and Teams

1. 2 Contrast groups and teams.

Groups and teams are not the same thing. In

Chapter 9

, we defined a group as two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who work together to achieve particular objectives. A

workgroup

is a group that interacts primarily to share information and make decisions to help each member perform within his or her area of responsibility.

Workgroups have no need or opportunity to engage in collective work with joint effort, so the group’s performance is merely the summation of each member’s individual contribution. There is no positive synergy that would create an overall level of performance greater than the sum of the inputs. A workgroup is a collection of individuals doing their work, albeit with interaction and/or dependency.

work team

, on the other hand, generates positive synergy through coordination. The individual efforts result in a level of performance greater than the sum of the individual inputs.

In both workgroups and work teams, there are often behavioral expectations of members, collective normalization efforts, active group dynamics, and some level of decision making (even if just informally about the scope of membership). Both may generate ideas, pool resources, or coordinate logistics such as work schedules; for the workgroup, however, this effort will be limited to information-gathering for decision makers outside the group.

Whereas we can think of a work team as a subset of a workgroup, the team is constructed to be purposeful (symbiotic) in its member interaction. The distinction between a workgroup and a work team should be kept even when the terms are mentioned interchangeably in differing contexts.

Exhibit 10-1

highlights the differences between them.

The definitions help clarify why organizations structure work processes by teams. Management is looking for positive synergy that will create increased performance. The extensive use of teams creates the potential for an organization to generate greater outputs with no increase in employee headcount. Notice, however, that we said potential. There is nothing magical that ensures the achievement of positive synergy in the creation of teams. Merely calling a group a team doesn’t automatically improve its performance. As we show later, effective teams have certain common characteristics. If management hopes to gain increases in organizational performance through the use of teams, their teams must possess these characteristics.

Types of Teams

1. 3 Contrast the five types of team arrangements.

Teams can make products, provide services, negotiate deals, coordinate projects, offer advice, and make decisions.

In this section, first we describe four common types of teams in organizations: problem-solving teams, self-managed work teams, cross-functional teams, and virtual teams (see

Exhibit 10-2

). Then we will discuss multiteam systems, which utilize a “team of teams” and are becoming increasingly widespread as work increases in complexity.

Exhibit 2

Four Types of Teams

Problem-Solving Teams

Quality-control teams have been in use for many years. Originally seen most often in manufacturing plants, these were permanent teams that generally met at a regular time, sometimes weekly or daily, to address quality standards and any problems with the products made. Also, the medical field in particular has recently implemented quality teams to improve their services in patient care.

Problem-solving teams

like these rarely have the authority to unilaterally implement their suggestions, but if their recommendations are paired with implementation processes, some significant improvements can be realized.

Self-Managed Work Teams

As we discussed, problem-solving teams only make recommendations. Some organizations have gone further and created teams that also implement solutions and take responsibility for outcomes.

Self-managed work teams

are groups of employees (typically 10 to 15 in number) who perform highly related or interdependent jobs; these teams take on some supervisory responsibilities.

Typically, the responsibilities include planning and scheduling work, assigning tasks to members, making operating decisions, taking action on problems, and working with suppliers and customers. Fully self-managed work teams even select their own members who evaluate each other’s performance. When these teams are established, former supervisory positions take on decreased importance and are sometimes eliminated.

Research results on the effectiveness of self-managed work teams have not been uniformly positive. Some research indicates that self-managed teams may be more or less effective based on the degree to which team-promoting behaviors are rewarded. For example, one study of 45 self-managing teams found that when team members perceived that economic rewards such as pay were dependent on input from their teammates, performance improved for both individuals and the team as a whole.

A second area of research focus has been the impact of conflict on self-managed work team effectiveness. Some research indicates that self-managed teams are not effective when there is conflict. When disputes arise, members often stop cooperating and power struggles ensue, which lead to lower group performance.

However, other research indicates that when members feel confident they can speak up without being embarrassed, rejected, or punished by other team members—in other words, when they feel psychologically safe—conflict can be beneficial and boost team performance.

Thirdly, research has explored the effect of self-managed work teams on member behavior. Here again the findings are mixed. Although individuals on teams report higher levels of job satisfaction than other individuals, studies indicate they sometimes have higher absenteeism and turnover rates. One large-scale study of labor productivity in British establishments found that although using teams improved individual (and overall) labor productivity, no evidence supported the claim that self-managed teams performed better than traditional teams with less decision-making authority.

On the whole, it appears that for self-managing teams to be advantageous, a number of facilitating factors must be in place.

Cross-Functional Teams

Starbucks created a team of individuals from production, global PR, global communications, and U.S. marketing to develop the Via brand of instant coffee. The team’s suggestions resulted in a product that would be cost-effective to produce and distribute, and that was marketed with a tightly integrated, multifaceted strategy.

This example illustrates the use of

cross-functional teams

, made up of employees from about the same hierarchical level but different work areas who come together to accomplish a task.

Harley-Davidson Motor Company uses cross-functional teams at all levels of its organization in creating new products, such as its first electric motorcycle, shown here. From product conception to launch, cross-functional teams include Harley employees from product planning, engineering, design, marketing, manufacturing, and purchasing.

Cross-functional teams are an effective means of allowing people from diverse areas within or even between organizations to exchange information, develop new ideas, solve problems, and coordinate complex projects. However, due to the high need for coordination, cross-functional teams are not simple to manage. First, it makes sense for power shifts to occur as different expertise is needed because the members are at roughly the same level in the organization, which creates leadership ambiguity. A climate of trust thus needs to be developed before shifts can happen without undue conflict.

Second, the early stages of development are often long, since members need to learn to work with higher levels of diversity and complexity. Third, it takes time to build trust and teamwork, especially among people with different experiences and perspectives.

Organizations have used horizontal, boundary-spanning teams for decades, and we would be hard-pressed to find a large organization or product launch that did not use them. Major automobile manufacturers—Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW, GM, Ford, and Chrysler—currently use this form of team to coordinate complex projects, as do other industries. For example, Cisco relies on specific cross-functional teams to identify and capitalize on new trends in several areas of the software market. Its teams are the equivalent of social-networking groups that collaborate in real time to identify new business opportunities in the field and then implement them from the bottom up.

In sum, the strength of traditional cross-functional teams is the collaborative effort of individuals with diverse skills from a variety of disciplines. When the unique perspectives of these members are considered, these teams can be very effective.

Virtual Teams

The teams described in the preceding section do their work face-to-face, whereas

virtual teams

use computer technology to unite physically dispersed members and achieve a common goal.

They collaborate online—using communication links such as wide-area networks, corporate social media, videoconferencing, and e-mail—whether members are nearby or continents apart. Nearly all teams do at least some of their work remotely.

Virtual teams should be managed differently than face-to-face teams in an office, partially because virtual team members may not interact along traditional hierarchical patterns. Because of the complexity of interactions, research indicates that shared leadership of virtual teams may significantly enhance team performance, although the concept is still in development.

For virtual teams to be effective, management should ensure that (1) trust is established among members (one inflammatory remark in an e-mail can severely undermine team trust), (2) progress is monitored closely (so the team doesn’t lose sight of its goals and no team member “disappears”), and (3) the efforts and products of the team are publicized throughout the organization (so the team does not become invisible).

It would be a mistake to think virtual teams are an easy substitute for face-to-face teams. While the geographical reach and immediacy of online communication make virtual teams a natural development, managers must make certain this type of team is the optimal choice for the desired outcome and then maintain an oversight role throughout the collaboration.

Multiteam Systems

The types of teams we’ve described so far are typically smaller, standalone teams, though their activities relate to the broader objectives of the organization. As tasks become more complex, teams often grow in size. Increases in team size are accompanied by higher coordination demands, creating a tipping point at which the addition of another member does more harm than good. To solve this problem, organizations use

multiteam systems

, collections of two or more interdependent teams that share a superordinate goal. In other words, multiteam systems are a “team of teams.”

To picture a multiteam system, imagine the coordination of response needed after a major car accident. There is the emergency medical services team, which responds first and transports the injured to the hospital. An emergency room team then takes over, providing medical care, followed by a recovery team. Although the emergency services team, emergency room team, and recovery team are technically independent, their activities are interdependent, and the success of one depends on the success of the others. Why? Because they all share the higher goal of saving lives.

An Ethical Choice

The Size of Your Meeting’s Carbon Footprint

Despite being in different countries, or even on different continents, many teams in geographically dispersed locations communicate without regularly meeting face-to-face, and may never meet each other in person. Although the merits of face-to-face versus electronic communication have been debated, there may be a strong ethical argument for virtual teams.

Keeping team members where they are, as opposed to having them travel every time they need to meet, may be in line with corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. A very large proportion of airline, rail, and car transport is for business purposes and contributes greatly to global carbon dioxide emissions. When teams are able to meet virtually rather than face-to-face, they dramatically reduce their carbon footprint.

In a globally connected world, how might you minimize your organization’s environmental impact from business travel? Several tips might get you started thinking about ways that virtual teams can be harnessed for greater sustainability:

1. Encourage all team members to think about whether a face-to-face meeting is really necessary. Try to utilize alternative communication methods whenever possible.

2. Communicate as much as possible through virtual means. This includes e-mail, telephone calls, and videoconferencing.

3. When traveling to team meetings, choose the most environmentally responsible travel methods possible. Also, check the environmental profile of hotels before booking rooms.

4. If the environmental savings are not enough motivation to reduce travel, consider the financial savings. According to one survey, businesses spend about 8 to 12 percent of their entire budget on travel. Communicating electronically can therefore result in two benefits: (1) it’s cheaper and (2) it’s good for the environment.

Sources: P. Tilstone, “Cut Carbon . . . and Bills,” Director, May 2009, 54; L. C. Latimer, “6 Strategies for Sustainable Business Travel,” Greenbiz, February 11, 2011,

www.greenbiz.com

; and F. Gebhart, “Travel Takes a Big Bite out of Corporate Expenses,” Travel Market Report, May 30, 2013, downloaded June 9, 2013, from

www.travelmarketreport.com

Some factors that make smaller, more traditional teams effective do not necessarily apply to multiteam systems and can even hinder their performance. One study showed that multiteam systems performed better when they had “boundary spanners” whose jobs were to coordinate with members of the other subteams. This reduced the need for some team member communication, which was helpful because it reduced coordination demands.

Leadership of multiteam systems is also much different than for standalone teams. While leadership of all teams affects team performance, a multiteam leader must both facilitate coordination between teams and lead each team. Research indicated teams that received more attention and engagement from the organization’s leaders felt more empowered, which made them more effective as they sought to solve their own problems.

In general, a multiteam system is the best choice either when a team has become too large to be effective, or when teams with distinct functions need to be highly coordinated.

Creating Effective Teams

1. 4 Identify the characteristics of effective teams.

Teams are often created deliberately but sometimes evolve organically. Take the rise of team “hives” over the past 5 years, for an organic example. Freelancing is typically the solo work of people who are highly specialized in their fields and can provide expertise to organizations on a short-term basis. The difficulty is for the freelancers to effectively market themselves to organizations, and for organizations to find freelancers who fit their needs. To bridge this gap, freelancers form teams with other freelancers from complementary specialties to present a cohesive working unit—a hive—to clients. This team-based approach has proven very successful.

Many people have tried to identify factors related to team effectiveness. To help, some studies have organized what was once a large list of characteristics into a relatively focused model.

Exhibit 10-3

summarizes what we currently know about what makes teams effective. As you’ll see, it builds on many of the group concepts introduced in
Chapter 9
.

Exhibit 3

Team Effectiveness Model

In considering the team effectiveness model, keep in mind two points. First, teams differ in form and structure. The model attempts to generalize across all varieties of teams but avoids rigidly applying its predictions to all teams.

Use it as a guide. Second, the model assumes teamwork is preferable to individual work. Creating “effective” teams when individuals can do the job better is like perfectly solving the wrong problem. Third, let’s consider what team effectiveness means in this model. Typically, team effectiveness includes objective measures of the team’s productivity, managers’ ratings of the team’s performance, and aggregate measures of member satisfaction.

We can organize the key components of effective teams into three general categories. First are the resources and other contextual influences that make teams effective. The second relates to the team’s composition. Finally, process variables are events within the team that influence effectiveness. We will explore each of these components next.

Team Context: What Factors Determine Whether Teams Are Successful?

The four contextual factors most significantly related to team performance are adequate resources, effective leadership, a climate of trust, and a performance evaluation and reward system that reflects team contributions.

ADEQUATE RESOURCES Teams are part of a larger organization system; every work team relies on resources outside the group to sustain it. A scarcity of resources directly reduces the ability of a team to perform its job effectively and achieve its goals. As one study concluded after looking at 13 factors related to group performance, “perhaps one of the most important characteristics of an effective work group is the support the group receives from the organization.”

This support includes timely information, proper equipment, adequate staffing, encouragement, and administrative assistance.

LEADERSHIP AND STRUCTURE Teams can’t function if they can’t agree on who is to do what and ensure all members share the workload. Agreeing on the specifics of work and how they fit together to integrate individual skills requires leadership and structure, either from management or from team members themselves. In self-managed teams, members absorb many of the duties typically assumed by managers. A manager’s job then becomes managing outside (rather than inside) the team.

As we mentioned before, leadership is especially important in multiteam systems. Here, leaders need to delegate responsibility to teams and play the role of facilitator, making sure the teams work together rather than against one another.

CLIMATE OF TRUST Trust is the foundation of leadership; it allows a team to accept and commit to the leader’s goals and decisions. Members of effective teams exhibit trust in their leaders.

They also trust each other. Interpersonal trust among team members facilitates cooperation, reduces the need to monitor each other’s behavior, and bonds individuals through the belief that members won’t take advantage of them. Members are more likely to take risks and expose vulnerabilities when they can trust others on their team. The overall level of trust in a team is important, but the way trust is dispersed among team members also matters. Trust levels that are asymmetric and imbalanced between team members can mitigate the performance advantages of a high overall level of trust—in such cases, coalitions form that often undermine the team as a whole.

Trust is a perception that can be vulnerable to shifting conditions in a team environment. Also, trust is not unequivocally desirable. For instance, recent research in Singapore found that, in high-trust teams, individuals are less likely to claim and defend personal ownership of their ideas, but individuals who do still claim personal ownership are rated as lower contributors by team members.

This “punishment” by the team may reflect resentments that create negative relationships, increased conflicts, and reduced performance.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND REWARD SYSTEM Individual performance evaluations and incentives may interfere with the development of high-performance teams. So, in addition to evaluating and rewarding employees for their individual contributions, management should utilize hybrid performance systems that incorporate an individual member component to recognize individual contributions and a group reward to recognize positive team outcomes.

Group-based appraisals, profit-sharing, small-group incentives, and other system modifications can reinforce team effort and commitment.

Team Composition

Maria Contreras-Sweet, head of the U.S. Small Business Administration, said, “When I’m building a team, I’m looking for people who are resourceful. I need people who are flexible, and I really need people who are discreet. . . . Discreetness also speaks to integrity.”

These are good qualities, but not all that we should consider when staffing teams. The team composition category includes variables that relate to how teams should be staffed: the abilities and personalities of team members, allocation of roles, diversity, cultural differences, size of the team, and members’ preferences for teamwork. As you can expect, opinions vary widely about the type of members leaders want on their teams.

ABILITIES OF MEMBERS It’s true we occasionally read about an athletic team of mediocre players who, because of excellent coaching, determination, and precision teamwork, beat a far more talented group. But such cases make the news precisely because they are unusual. A team’s performance depends in part on the knowledge, skills, and abilities of individual members.

Abilities set limits on what members can do and how effectively they will perform on a team.Members of a research team at the innovation lab of Swiss bank UBS are testing digital, virtual reality, and other new technologies to attract a young generation of investors and to help current clients visualize complex investment portfolios. Team members have the technical expertise and skills needed to function as a high-ability team.

Source: Arnd Wiegmann/Reuters

Research reveals insights into team composition and performance. First, when solving a complex problem such as reengineering an assembly line, high-ability teams—composed of mostly intelligent members—do better than lower-ability teams. High-ability teams are also more adaptable to changing situations; they can more effectively apply existing knowledge to new problems.

MYTH OR SCIENCE?

Team Members Who Are “Hot” Should Make the Play

Before we tell you whether this statement is true or false, we need to take a step back and ask: “Can individuals go on ‘hot’ streaks?” In teams, and especially in sports, we often hear about players who are on a streak and have the “hot hand.” Basketball player LeBron James scores five baskets in a row, golfer Rory McIlroy makes three birdies in a row for the European Ryder Cup team, and tennis player Serena Williams hits four aces in a row during a doubles match with her sister Venus. Most people (around 90 percent) believe LeBron, Rory, and Serena score well because they are on a hot streak, performing above their average.

Although people believe in the hot hand, the scores tell the story. About half the relevant studies have shown that the hot hand is possible, while the remaining half show it is not. But perception can influence reality, so perhaps the more important question is whether belief in the hot hand affects teams’ strategies. One study of volleyball players showed that coaches and players allocate more balls to players who are believed to have the hot hand. Is this a good strategy? If the hot player’s performance is actually lower than her teammates’, then giving her more balls to hit will hurt the team because the better players aren’t getting enough chances to hit, while she gets more chances to perform.

Considering the research to date, then, the opening statement appears to be false.

Sources: M. Raab, B. Gula, and G. Gigerenzer, “The Hot Hand Exists in Volleyball and Is Used for Allocation Decisions,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 18, no. 1 (2012): 81–94; T Gilovich, R. Vallone, and A. Tversky, “The Hot Hand in Basketball: On the Misperception of Random Sequences,” Cognitive Psychology 17 (1985): 295–314; and M. Bar-Eli, S. Avugos, and M. Raab, “Twenty Years of ‘Hot Hand’ Research: The Hot Hand Phenomenon: Review and Critique,” Psychology, Sport, and Exercise 7 (2006): 525–53.

Finally, the ability of the team’s leader matters. Smart team leaders help less intelligent team members when they struggle with a task. A less intelligent leader can, conversely, neutralize the effect of a high-ability team.

PERSONALITY OF MEMBERS We demonstrated in

Chapter 5

that personality significantly influences individual behavior. Some dimensions identified in the Big Five personality model are particularly relevant to team effectiveness.

Conscientiousness is especially important to teams. Conscientious people are good at backing up other team members and sensing when their support is truly needed. Conscientious teams also have other advantages—one study found that behavioral tendencies such as organization, achievement orientation, and endurance were all related to higher levels of team performance.

Team composition can be based on individual personalities to good effect. Suppose an organization needs to create 20 teams of 4 people each and has 40 highly conscientious people and 40 who score low on conscientiousness. Would the organization be better off (1) forming 10 teams of highly conscientious people and 10 teams of members low on conscientiousness, or (2) “seeding” each team with 2 people who scored high and 2 who scored low on conscientiousness? Perhaps surprisingly, evidence suggests option 1 is the best choice; performance across the teams will be higher if the organization forms 10 highly conscientious teams and 10 teams low in conscientiousness. The reason is that a team with varying conscientiousness levels will not work to the peak performance of its highly conscientious members. Instead, a group normalization dynamic (or simple resentment) will complicate interactions and force the highly conscientious members to lower their expectations, thus reducing the group’s performance.

What about the other traits? Teams with a high level of openness to experience tend to perform better, and research indicates that constructive task conflict enhances the effect. Open team members communicate better with one another and throw out more ideas, which makes teams composed of open people more creative and innovative.

Task conflict also enhances performance for teams with high levels of emotional stability.

It’s not so much that the conflict itself improves performance for these teams, but that teams characterized by openness and emotional stability are able to handle conflict and leverage it to improve performance. The minimum level of team member agreeableness matters, too: teams do worse when they have one or more highly disagreeable members, and a wide span in individual levels of agreeableness can lower productivity. Research is not clear on the outcomes of extraversion, but a recent study indicated that a high mean level of extraversion in a team can increase the level of helping behaviors, particularly in a climate of cooperation.

Thus the personality traits of individuals are as important to teams as the overall personality characteristics of the team.

ALLOCATION OF ROLES Teams have different needs, and members should be selected to ensure all the various roles are filled. A study of 778 major league baseball teams over a 21-year period highlights the importance of assigning roles appropriately.

As you might expect, teams with more experienced and skilled members performed better. However, the experience and skill of those in core roles who handled more of the workflow of the team, and were central to all work processes (in this case, pitchers and catchers), were especially vital. In other words, put your most able, experienced, and conscientious workers in the most central roles in a team.

We can identify nine potential team roles (see

Exhibit 10-4

). Successful work teams have selected people to play all these roles based on their skills and preferences.

(On many teams, individuals will play multiple roles.) To increase the likelihood team members will work well together, managers need to understand the individual strengths each person can bring to a team, select members with their strengths in mind, and allocate work assignments that fit with members’ preferred styles.

DIVERSITY OF MEMBERS In
Chapter 9
, we discussed the effect of diversity on groups. How does team diversity affect team performance? The degree to which members of a work unit (group, team, or department) share a common demographic attribute, such as age, sex, race, educational level, or length of service in the organization, is the subject of

organizational demography

. Organizational demography suggests that attributes such as age or the date of joining should help predict turnover. The logic goes like this: Turnover will be greater among those with dissimilar experiences because communication is more difficult and conflict is more likely. Increased conflict makes membership less attractive, so employees are more likely to quit. Similarly, the losers of a conflict are more apt to leave voluntarily or be forced out.

The conclusion is that diversity negatively affects team performance.

Many of us hold the optimistic view that diversity should be a good thing—diverse teams should benefit from differing perspectives. Two meta-analytic reviews show, however, that demographic diversity is essentially unrelated to team performance, while a third review suggests that race and gender diversity are actually negatively related to team performance.

Other research findings are mixed. One qualifier is that gender and ethnic diversity have more negative effects in occupations dominated by white or male employees, but in more demographically balanced occupations, diversity is less of a problem. Diversity in function, education, and expertise are positively related to team performance, but these effects are small and depend on the situation.

Proper leadership can improve the performance of diverse teams.

For example, one study of 68 teams in China found that teams diverse in knowledge, skills, and ways of approaching problems were more creative, but only when their leaders were transformational (see

Chapter 12

for definition) and inspiring.

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES We have discussed research on team diversity regarding a number of differences. But what about cultural differences? Evidence indicates cultural diversity interferes with team processes, at least in the short term,

but let’s dig a little deeper: what about differences in cultural status? Though it’s debatable, people with higher cultural status are usually in the majority or ruling race group of their nations. Researchers in the United Kingdom found that cultural status differences affected team performance, whereby individuals in teams with more high cultural-status members than low cultural-status members realized improved performance . . . for every member.

This suggests not that diverse teams should be filled with individuals who have high cultural status in their countries, but that we should be aware of how people identify with their cultural status even in diverse group settings.

In general, cultural diversity seems to be an asset for tasks that call for a variety of viewpoints. But culturally heterogeneous teams have more difficulty learning to work with each other and solving problems. The good news is that these difficulties seem to dissipate with time.

SIZE OF TEAMS Most experts agree that keeping teams small is key to improving group effectiveness.

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos uses the “two-pizza” rule, saying, “If it takes more than two pizzas to feed the team, the team is too big.”

Psychologist George Miller claimed “the magical number [is] seven, plus or minus two,” as the ideal team size.

Author and Forbes publisher Rich Karlgaard writes, “Bigger teams almost never correlate with a greater chance of success” because the potential connections between people grow exponentially as team size increases, complicating communications.

Career OBjectives

Is it wrong that I’d rather have guys on my team?

Please don’t call me sexist; women are great colleagues and equally effective managers, but I’d rather have men on my team. It’s more relaxing for me, and for the other guys I think, because we naturally understand each other and can talk freely. The teams with all men that I’ve been in have all been very productive.

— Jorge

Dear Jorge,

With all the talk currently focused on gender diversity in organizations, your viewpoint is refreshingly honest. And your preferences are not uncommon. Researchers who studied 8 years of employee surveys from a large U.S. organization found that individuals were happier on teams mainly of their own gender, whereas those on diverse teams reported less happiness, trust, and cooperation. Researcher Sara Fisher Ellison noted, “People are more comfortable around other people who are like them.”

In some ways, the preference for our own gender in teams is an ugly truth. After all, if there hadn’t been gender diversity initiatives and protections, a majority of professional positions may still be closed to women in masculine cultures like Japan, Austria, and Venezuela (see Hofstede’s cultural values in
Chapter 5
). The value system in many countries has fortunately changed, with increased recognition of team diversity’s potential for higher morale, trust, and satisfaction. Notice that these are values, as opposed to the reported reality from the paragraph above. Ellison concluded that there is a “mismatch between the kind of workplace people think they would like and the actual workplace that would make them happier.”

Don’t think this is your ticket to male-only teams, though. Happiness aside, this study found that diverse teams realized significantly greater revenues, productivity, and performance. Other research in Spain indicated that gender-diverse teams realize novel solutions and radical innovation at a greater rate. Still other research suggested that gender-diverse teams perform better than male-dominated ones in sales and profits. The contextual climate is key, though. One meta-analysis found that gender equality and collectivism were important conditions for task performance in diverse teams; a Danish study indicated that diverse top management teams realized higher financial performance only when the structure supported cross-functional team work; and a study in South Korea indicated that cooperative group norms can lower the negative effects of gender diversity.

What all this means for you is that, while you may naturally prefer to work with men, it’s not good for business. You would be better off putting your efforts into creating an egalitarian atmosphere and choosing your teammates based on what they can contribute to your team.

Sources: C. Diaz-Garcia, A. Gonzalez-Moreno, and F. Jose Saez-Martinez, “Gender Diversity within R&D Teams: Its Impact on Radicalness of Innovation,” Innovation-Management Policy & Practice 15, no. 2 (2013): 149–60; S. Hoogedoorn, H. Oosterbeek, and M. van Praag, “The Impact of Gender Diversity on the Performance of Business Teams: Evidence from a Field Experiment,” Management Science 59, no. 7 (2013): 1514–28; N. Opstrup and A. R. Villadsen, “The Right Mix? Gender Diversity in Top Management Teams and Financial Performance,” Public Administration Review, 2015, 291–301; M. Schneid, R. Isidor, C. Li, et al., “The Influence of Cultural Context on the Relationship between Gender Diversity and Team Performance: A Meta-Analysis,” International Journal of Human Resource Management 26, no. 6 (2015): 733–56; J. Y. Seong and D.-S. Hong, “Gender Diversity: How Can We Facilitate Its Positive Effects on Teams?” Social Behavior and Personality 41, no. 3 (2013): 497–508; and R. E. Silverman, “Do Men and Women Like Working Together?” The Wall Street Journal, December 16, 2014, D2.

Generally speaking, the most effective teams have five to nine members. Experts suggest using the smallest number of people who can do the task. Unfortunately, managers often err by making teams too large. It may require only four or five members to develop an array of views and skills, while coordination problems can increase as team members are added. When teams have excess members, cohesiveness and mutual accountability decline, social loafing increases, and people communicate less. Members of large teams have trouble coordinating with one another, especially under time pressure. When a natural working unit is larger and you want a team effort, consider breaking the group into subteams.

A Japanese nurse (left) served on a seven-member medical team formed by the International Committee of the Red Cross and deployed to the Philippines after a typhoon hit Mindanoa Island. The small team of health care workers had the capacity to respond quickly and effectively in providing patients with emergency medical care.

Source: Kyodo/AP Images

MEMBER PREFERENCES Not every employee is a team player. Given the option, many employees will select themselves out of team participation. When people who prefer to work alone are required to team up, there is a direct threat to the team’s morale and to individual member satisfaction.

This suggests that, when selecting team members, managers should consider individual preferences along with abilities, personalities, and skills. High-performing teams are likely to be composed of people who prefer working as part of a group.

Team Processes

The final category related to team effectiveness includes process variables such as member commitment to a common purpose, establishment of specific team goals, team efficacy, team identity, team cohesion, mental models, a managed level of conflict, and minimized social loafing. These will be especially important in larger teams and in teams that are highly interdependent.

Why are processes important to team effectiveness? Teams should create outputs greater than the sum of their inputs.

Exhibit 10-5

illustrates how group processes can have an impact on a group’s actual effectiveness.

Teams are often used in research laboratories because they can draw on the diverse skills of various individuals to produce more meaningful research than researchers working independently—that is, they produce positive synergy, and their process gains exceed their process losses.

Exhibit 5

Effects of Group Processes

COMMON PLAN AND PURPOSE Effective teams begin by analyzing the team’s mission, developing goals to achieve that mission, and creating strategies for achieving the goals. Teams that consistently perform better have a clear sense of what needs to be done and how.

This sounds obvious, but many teams ignore this fundamental process.

Members of successful teams put a tremendous amount of time and effort into discussing, shaping, and agreeing on a purpose that belongs to them collectively and individually. This common purpose, when accepted by the team, becomes what GPS is to a ship captain: It provides direction and guidance under any conditions. Like a ship following the wrong course, teams that don’t have good planning skills are doomed, executing the wrong plan.

Teams should agree on whether their purpose is to learn about and master a task or simply to perform the task; evidence suggests that differing perspectives on learning versus performance lead to lower levels of team performance overall.

Effective teams show

reflexivity

, meaning they reflect on and adjust their purpose when necessary. A team must have a good plan, but it needs to be willing and able to adapt when conditions call for it.

Interestingly, some evidence suggests that teams high in reflexivity are better able to adapt to conflicting plans and goals among team members.

SPECIFIC GOALS Successful teams translate their common purpose into specific, measurable, and realistic performance goals. Specific goals facilitate clear communication. They help teams maintain their focus on getting results.

Consistent with the research on individual goals, team goals should be challenging. Difficult but achievable goals raise team performance on those criteria for which they’re set. So, for instance, goals for quantity tend to increase quantity, goals for accuracy increase accuracy, and so on.

TEAM EFFICACY Effective teams have confidence in themselves; they believe they can succeed. We call this

team efficacy

Teams that have been successful raise their beliefs about future success, which, in turn, motivates them to work harder. In addition, teams that have a shared knowledge of individual capabilities can strengthen the link between team members’ self-efficacy and their individual creativity because members can more effectively solicit informed opinions from their teammates.

What can management do to increase team efficacy? Two options are helping the team achieve small successes that build confidence, and providing training to improve members’ technical and interpersonal skills. The greater the abilities of team members, the more likely the team will develop confidence and the ability to deliver on that confidence.

TEAM IDENTITY In
Chapter 9
, we discussed the important role of social identity in people’s lives. When people connect emotionally with the groups they’re in, they are more likely to invest in their relationship with those groups. It’s the same with teams. For example, research with soldiers in the Netherlands indicated that individuals who felt included and respected by team members became more willing to work hard for their teams, even though as soldiers they were already called upon to be dedicated to their units. Therefore, by recognizing individuals’ specific skills and abilities, as well as creating a climate of respect and inclusion, leaders and members can foster positive

team identity

and improved team outcomes.

Organizational identity is important, too. Rarely do teams operate in a vacuum—more often teams interact with other teams, requiring interteam coordination. Individuals with a positive team identity but without a positive organizational identity can become fixed to their teams and unwilling to coordinate with other teams within the organization.

TEAM COHESION Have you ever been a member of a team that really “gelled,” one in which team members felt connected? The term

team cohesion

means members are emotionally attached to one another and motivated toward the team because of their attachment. Team cohesion is a useful tool to predict team outcomes. For example, a large study in China recently indicated that if team cohesion is high and tasks are complex, costly investments in promotions, rewards, training, and so forth yield greater profitable team creativity. Teams with low cohesion and simple tasks, on the other hand, are not likely to respond to incentives with greater creativity.

Product Hunt founder Ryan Hoover (on computer) and his entrepreneurial team are highly cohesive. The company describes itself as a “tight-knit team” whose members share a love of new tech products, care about people, and are passionate about building communities that celebrate tech creations.

Source: LiPo Ching/Bay Area News Group/TNS/Landov

Team cohesion is a strong predictor of team performance such that when cohesion is harmed, performance may be, too. Negative relationships are one driver of reduced cohesion. To mitigate this effect, teams can foster high levels of interdependence and high-quality interpersonal interactions.

MENTAL MODELS Effective teams share accurate

mental models

—organized mental representations of the key elements within a team’s environment that team members share.

(If team mission and goals pertain to what a team needs to be effective, mental models pertain to how a team does its work.) If team members have the wrong mental models, which is particularly likely in teams under acute stress, their performance suffers.

One review of 65 independent studies found that teams with shared mental models engaged in more frequent interactions with one another, were more motivated, had more positive attitudes toward their work, and had higher levels of objectively-rated performance.

If team members have different ideas about how to do things, however, the team will fight over methods rather than focus on what needs to be done.

Individuals who normally function in action teams—teams with specialists engaged in intense, interdependent, and unpredictable tasks—are likely to share mental models. Even though they are often under acute stress, their performance levels can be high because the stress has been normalized through the expected context. These action teams have learned that the best way to share mental models is to voice them. An anesthetic team in a hospital is one example of an action team with shared mental models. For example, research in Switzerland found that anesthetic teams communicated two distinct types of messages while in an operation: vocally monitoring each others’ performance (not to criticize but to keep a vocal record of events), and “talking to the room” (announcements to everyone such as “Patient’s blood pressure is dropping”). The study found that high- and low-performing teams communicated in these ways equally often; what mattered to performance was the sequencing of the communication to maintain a shared mental model. High-performing teams followed up monitoring dialogue with assistance and instructions, and talking-to-the-room dialogue with further team dialogue.

The message seems simple: to maintain shared mental models, share conversation about what is happening while the team is in operation!

CONFLICT LEVELS Conflict has a complex relationship with team performance, and it’s not necessarily bad. Relationship conflicts—those based on interpersonal incompatibility, tension, and animosity toward others—are almost always dysfunctional. However, when teams are performing nonroutine activities, disagreements about task content—called task conflicts—stimulate discussion, promote critical assessment of problems and options, and can lead to better team decisions. According to one study conducted in China, moderate levels of task conflict during the initial phases of team performance were positively related to team creativity, but both very low and very high levels of task conflict were negatively related to team performance.

In other words, both too much and too little disagreement about how a team should initially perform a creative task can inhibit performance.

The way conflicts are resolved can make the difference between effective and ineffective teams. A study of ongoing comments made by 37 autonomous work groups showed that effective teams resolved conflicts by explicitly discussing the issues, whereas ineffective teams had unresolved conflicts that were focused more on personalities and the way things were said.

Which teams are more likely to have conflicts than others? It’s not a simple answer. While we may presume that diversity increases conflicts, the answer is likely to be much more subtle than that. For example, recent research in Spain found that when individual team members varied greatly in their perceptions of organizational support, task conflict increased, communication decreased, and ultimately team performance suffered.

If the researchers had instead compared only the average level of organizational support given to the team, rather than how members perceived the support, they would have missed the correct causal links. Thus we need to be careful not to overgeneralize.

SOCIAL LOAFING As we noted earlier, individuals can engage in social loafing and coast on the group’s effort when their particular contributions (or lack thereof) can’t be identified. Effective teams undermine this tendency by making members individually and jointly accountable for the team’s purpose, goals, and approach.

Therefore, members should be clear on what they are individually and jointly responsible for on the team.

Personal Inventory Assessments

Team Development Behaviors

Take this assessment to learn more about behavior in teams.

Turning Individuals into Team Players

1. 5 Explain how organizations can create team players.

We’ve made a case for the value and growing popularity of teams. But many people are not inherently team players, and many organizations have historically nurtured individual accomplishments. Teams often fit well in countries that score high on collectivism, but what if an organization wants to introduce teams into a work population of individuals born and raised in an individualistic society?

Here are options for managers trying to turn individuals into team players.

Selecting: Hiring Team Players

Some people already possess the interpersonal skills to be effective team players. When hiring team members, be sure candidates can fulfill their team roles as well as technical requirements.

Creating teams often means resisting the urge to hire the best talent no matter what. For example, the New York Knicks professional basketball team pays Carmelo Anthony well because he scores a lot of points for his team; but statistics show he takes more shots than other highly paid players in the league, which means fewer shots for his teammates.

As a final consideration, personal traits appear to make some people better candidates for working in diverse teams. Teams made of members who like to work through difficult mental puzzles also seem more effective and able to capitalize on the multiple points of view that arise from diversity in age and education.

Training: Creating Team Players

Training specialists conduct exercises that allow employees to experience the satisfaction teamwork can provide. Workshops help employees improve their problem-solving, communication, negotiation, conflict-management, and coaching skills. L’Oréal, for example, found that successful sales teams required much more than a staff of high-ability salespeople. “What we didn’t account for was that many members of our top team in sales had been promoted because they had excellent technical and executional skills,” said L’Oréal’s senior VP David Waldock. As a result of introducing purposeful team training, Waldock says, “We are no longer a team just on paper, working independently. We have a real group dynamic now, and it’s a good one.”

An effective team doesn’t develop overnight—it takes time.

New engineering employees of India’s Tata Consultancy Services work in teams to construct paper boats during a team-building exercise at the firm’s training center. Creating team players is essential to the success of TCS as employees must collaborate and work cohesively in providing IT consulting services and business solutions for global clients.

Source: Namas Bhojani/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Rewarding: Providing Incentives to Be a Good Team Player

A traditional organization’s reward system must be reworked to encourage cooperative efforts rather than competitive ones.

Hallmark Cards Inc. added to its basic individual-incentive system an annual bonus based on the achievement of team goals. Whole Foods directs most of its performance-based rewards toward team performance. As a result, teams select new members carefully so they will contribute to team effectiveness (and, thus, team bonuses).

It is usually best to set a cooperative tone as soon as possible in the life of a team. As we already noted, teams that switch from competitive to cooperative do not immediately share information, and they still tend to make rushed, poor-quality decisions.

Apparently, the low trust typical of the competitive group will not be readily replaced by high trust with a quick change in reward systems.

Promotions, pay raises, and other forms of recognition should be given to individuals who work effectively as team members by training new colleagues, sharing information, helping resolve team conflicts, and mastering needed new skills. This doesn’t mean individual contributions should be ignored; rather, they should be balanced with selfless contributions to the team.

Finally, don’t forget the intrinsic rewards, such as camaraderie, that employees can receive from teamwork. It’s exciting to be part of a successful team. The opportunity for personal development of self and teammates can be a very satisfying and rewarding experience.

Beware! Teams Aren’t Always the Answer

1. 6 Decide when to use individuals instead of teams.

Teamwork takes more time and often more resources than individual work. Teams have increased communication demands, conflicts to manage, and meetings to run. So, the benefits of using teams have to exceed the costs, and that’s not always possible.

How do you know whether the work of your group would be better done in teams? You can apply three tests.

First, can the work be done better by more than one person? Good indicators are the complexity of the work and the need for different perspectives. Simple tasks that don’t require diverse input are probably better left to individuals. Second, does the work create a common purpose or set of goals for the people in the group that is more than the aggregate of individual goals? Many service departments of new-vehicle dealers have introduced teams that link customer-service people, mechanics, parts specialists, and sales representatives. Such teams can better manage collective responsibility for ensuring customer needs are properly met.

The final test is to determine whether the members of the group are interdependent. Using teams makes sense when there is interdependence among tasks—the success of the whole depends on the success of each one, and the success of each one depends on the success of the others. Soccer, for instance, is an obvious team sport. Success requires a great deal of coordination among interdependent players. Conversely, except possibly for relays, swim teams are not really teams. They’re groups of individuals performing individually, whose total performance is merely the aggregate summation of their individual performances.

Summary

Few trends have influenced jobs as much as the massive movement of teams into the workplace. Working on teams requires employees to cooperate with others, share information, confront differences, and sublimate personal interests for the greater good of the team. Understanding the distinctions between problem-solving, self-managed, cross-functional, and virtual teams as well as multiteam systems helps determine the appropriate applications for team-based work. Concepts such as reflexivity, team efficacy, team identity, team cohesion, and mental models bring to light important issues relating to team context, composition, and processes. For teams to function optimally, careful attention must be given to hiring, creating, and rewarding team players. Still, effective organizations recognize that teams are not always the best method for getting the work done efficiently. Careful discernment and an understanding of organizational behavior are needed.

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Jeff Bezos and Teamwork ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Hire a Writer

Client Reviews

4.9

Sitejabber

4.6

Trustpilot

4.8

Our Guarantees

100% Confidentiality

Information about customers is confidential and never disclosed to third parties.

Original Writing

We complete all papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report.

Timely Delivery

No missed deadlines – 97% of assignments are completed in time.

Money Back

If you're confident that a writer didn't follow your order details, ask for a refund.

New to Your Trusted Assignment Help Service? Sign up & Save

Calculate the price of your order

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

You will get a personal manager and a discount.

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at

Total price:

$0.00

Power up Your Academic Success with the
Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.

Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.

Order Now Order Now