Chapter 9 Developing Teamwork

Chapter 9 Developing Teamwork KnowledgeBank #1, p. 257

Advantages and Disadvantages of Group Work and Teamwork Groups have always been the building blocks of organizations. Yet groups and teams have grown in importance during the past decade as fundamental units of organization structure. In an attempt to adapt to rapidly changing environments, many work organizations have granted teams increased autonomy and flexibility. Cross-functional teams have been formed in many firms to achieve a broader perspective on problem solving and simultaneously to help downplay intergroup rivalries. Teams are also asked to span traditional boundaries by working more closely with groups from other disciplines. Furthermore, teams are often required to work more closely with customers and suppliers. The increased acceptance of teams suggests that group work offers many advantages. Nevertheless, it is useful to specify several of these advantages and also to examine the potential problems of groups. Advantages of Group Work and Teamwork Group work and group decision making offer several advantages over individual effort. If several knowledgeable people are brought into the decision-making process, a number of worthwhile possibilities may be uncovered. It is also possible to achieve synergy, whereby the group’s total output exceeds the sum of the various individuals’ contribution. For example, it would be a rare person working alone who could build an automobile. Group decision making is also helpful in gaining acceptance and commitment, as described in the context of the normative decision model in Chapter 5. Group members often evaluate one another’s thinking, so the team is likely to avoid major errors. One member might detect a major flaw in a project that might otherwise have slipped by the group. When planning the opening of restaurants in foreign cultures, the Burger King Corporation solicits the opinion of a person from that culture, who becomes a temporary member of the planning team. The intent is to avoid mistakes such as featuring hamburgers in a culture that is opposed to eating animal carcasses. Top management teams, as well as teams at lower levels in the organization, can often produce results superior to those attributed to individual managers. Milan Moravec notes that a group of top executives becomes a resource that is often richer, more textured and diverse, and more accessible than an individual leader could be.1 At the executive level, team structures have streamlined management to some extent. Many companies have done away with the job of the chief operating officer, and instead top executives execute strategy themselves. James M. Citrin, a management consultant, explains that in some circumstances the COO is another layer of bureaucracy that separates CEOs from their business.2 To avoid this problem, top-level management teams often take up the COO role: making spending decisions for various business units, streamlining production, and executing strategy that can change suddenly. In a fluid structure, all executive leaders need an external focus and skill in operations.3 Working in groups also enhances many members’ job satisfaction. Being a member of a work group makes it possible to satisfy more needs than if one worked alone. Among these needs are needs for affiliation, security, self-esteem, and self-fulfillment. For example, playing a key role in a successful team effort can be fulfilling because of the job challenge and the recognition. Disadvantages of Group Activity Group activity has some potential disadvantages for both organizations and individuals. A major problem is that members face pressure to conform to group standards of performance and conduct. Some work groups might ostracize a person who is much more productive than his or her coworkers. Shirking of individual responsibility is another problem frequently noted in groups. Unless work is assigned carefully to each group member, an undermotivated person can often squeeze by without contributing his or her fair share to a group effort. Social loafing is the psychological term for shirking individual responsibility in a group setting. The social loafer risks being ostracized by the group but may be willing to pay the price rather than work hard. Loafing of this type is sometimes found in groups

1 Cited in Ellen Hart, “Top Teams,” Management Review, February 1996, p. 90. 2 Diane Brady, “An Executive Whose Time Has Gone,” BusinessWeek, August 28, 2000, p. 125. 3 Ibid. such as committees and project teams. Many students who have worked on team projects have encountered a social loafer. A major potential problem with groups and teams is that they can waste considerable time through having too many meetings, lengthy debates, and striving for consensus over obvious issues. A capable person working alone can often accomplish more than a team in a much shorter time. Nordstrom Inc., a department store chain that developed a reputation for excellent customer service, encountered a sales decrease in the late 1990s. Some of their problems were attributed to an extreme form of consensus management among a group of six brothers and cousins who held the title of co-president. Taking so long to develop new marketing and operation strategies resulted in lost momentum.4 A well-publicized disadvantage of group decision making is groupthink, a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment in the interest of group solidarity. Simply put, groupthink is an extreme form of consensus. The group atmosphere values getting along more than getting things done. The group thinks as a unit, believes it is impervious to outside criticism, and begins to have illusions about its own invincibility. As a consequence, the group loses its own powers of critical analysis.5 Groupthink apparently took place among executives at several of the energy and telecommunications firms charged with financial fraud in 2002. As teams of executives discovered that their company was about to sustain substantial losses, they told company employees to hold on to the stock. At the same time, members of the executive team cashed in their stock options at a substantial profit. Furthermore, the executive team at these firms awarded themselves bonuses, such as sharing $100 million, while employee pensions lost about 90 percent of their value. Groupthink was involved because one executive acting alone probably could not be that diabolical—he needed support from the group! Another possible example of groupthink took place during a riot to the war with Iraq. The CIS and its director George J. Tenet emphasized the Iraqi threat of have

4 Seanna Browder, “Great Service Wasn’t Enough,” BusinessWeek, April 19, 1999, p. 127. 5 Irving L. Janus, Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign Policy Decisions and Fiascoes (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972); Glen Whyte, “Groupthink Reconsidered,” Academy of Management Review, January 1989, pp. 40–56. weapons of mass destruction despite the ambiguity of the intelligence. The CIA leaders failed to critically examine the hazards of making such a decision. An alternative explanation is that the White House and Pentagon generated a climate that encouraged arriving at a decision about Iraq’s weapons based on incomplete information.6 Another concern about teams is that teamwork is an unstable arrangement because team leaders soon revert to exercising most of the authority. As Kenneth Labich observes, “All too often team leaders revert to form and claim the sandbox for themselves, refusing to share authority with the other kids. Everyone else, meanwhile, sets to bickering about peripheral things like who gets credit for what the team produces. Old habits cling to life.”7 An effective tactic for capitalizing on the advantages of teams while minimizing their disadvantages is to rely on teams only when the task is suited for a team. Alan B. Drexler and Russ Forrester point out that teams can result in wasted effort when people are forced to form and act like a team when a team is not needed. Among the types of work not suited for teams are retail selling, making small loans, and teaching. One key criterion for a group or team approach is the need to collectively produce something, such as a group of people developing a product. Another criterion is interdependence or interlocking of work, such as developing a strategic plan that calls for input from different business functions.8

6 David Johnson, “It’s Unclear if White House Influenced CIA Findings,” The New York Times syndicated story, July 10, 2004.

7 Kenneth Labich, “Elite Teams,” Fortune, February 19, 1996, p. 90. 8 Alan B. Drexler and Russ Forrester, “Teamwork—Not Necessarily the Answer,” HR Magazine, January 1998, pp. 55–58. Chapter 9 Developing Teamwork KnowledgeBank #2, p. 261

How to Generate Cooperation Within the Group 1. The sensitive and effective leader knows how to obtain cooperation. He or she must understand that he or she probably does not have all the facts and opinions in a given situation. 2. The dynamic leader understands that he or she is able to work with any group member. 3. The effective leader acquires the capacity to empathize with others. Rather than demand the cooperation of others, he or she knows how to sell the advantages of cooperating. 4. The organized leader carefully plans projects and chooses the moment and the place where his or her ideas have the best chance of being accepted. He or she then presents these ideas clearly and concisely. 5. The successful leader recognizes that the other person is probably at least partially correct. Consequently, he or she does not let personal prejudices prevent him or her from accepting counterpropositions and valuable ideas. The leader knows that the group members are a little preoccupied with the ideas they think of, or use. So he or she keeps an open mind to these ideas, and gains the cooperation of others. SOURCE: Translated from Serge Rioux, “Avez-Vous du Leadership en Tant Que Gestionnaire?” Réunions, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2004, p. 8. (Group Americor Inc., 2160 de la Montagne, bureau 740, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H3G 2T3, [email protected].) Chapter 9 Developing Teamwork KnowledgeBank #3, p. 268

Holding a Powwow An informal approach to laying the groundwork for cooperation among people who will be working together as a team is to hold a powwow. Disney Studios began using the term when Walt Disney was asked if he conducted brainstorming sessions. He answered that he preferred to hold a powwow in which people “get together, beat the drum, light a fire, smoke a pipe, and socialize.” As practiced at Disney, the powwow is intentionally informal, friendly, and unstructured. It is intended to lay the groundwork for a cooperative working relationship among team members assigned to a new project. Each powwow has three parts. A skills inventory gives each group member a chance to describe his or her task-relevant skills, experience, and aptitudes. An interest inventory gives group members an opportunity to describe their off-the-job interests. The interests revealed can serve as connectors among group members. During the data dump, each group member expresses his or her thoughts and feelings about the project. Other members listen without interrupting the person dumping data. An effective data dump reduces complaining because each member of the group has an opportunity to air any concerns about the project. Powwows give each group member an opportunity to be heard, thus establishing open communication.[1] As a consequence, the group of people assigned to the project takes an important step toward becoming a team.

Soliciting Feedback on Team Effectiveness. Yet another approach to building teamwork is for the team to receive feedback on how well it is performing. Performance standards are set at the outset, following other suggestions here for building teamwork. Then the group establishes a team critique procedure, including self-evaluation by the team and evaluation by those who use the team’s output, such as other units and customers. Once a month, about one hour is set aside for the team to evaluate its progress and compare it to the performance standards. [2] When the feedback is positive, the team may experience a spurt of energy to keep working together well. Negative feedback, so long as it is not hostile, might bring the team together to develop action plans for improvement. The head of a maintenance team in a nuclear power plant told his team, “The ratings I have here tell us our performance in making repairs on time is next to last in the corporation. Will you join me in the challenge to improve?” His challenge was greeted with cheers of approval.

[1] Mike Vance and Diane Deacon, Think Outside the Box (Franklin Lakes, N.J.: Career Press, 1995). [2]Anthony R. Montebello, “How to Jump the 5 Barriers to Good Teamwork,” a supplement to The Pryor Report Management Newsletter, 1995.