Groups don't become teams because that is what someone calls them. Nor do teamwork values by themselves ensure team performance. So what is a team? How can managers know when the team option makes sense and what they can do to ensure team success? In this article, drawn from their recent book The Wisdom of Teams, McKinsey partners Jon Katzenbach and Douglas Smith answer these questions and outline the discipline that makes a real team. The essence of a team is shared commitment. Without it, groups perform as individuals; with it, they become a powerful unit of collective performance. The best teams invest a tremendous amount of time shaping a purpose that they can own. The best teams also translate their purpose into specific performance goals. And members of successful teams pitch in and become accountable with and to their teammates. The fundamental distinction between teams and other forms of working groups turns on performance. A working group relies on the individual contributions of its members for group performance. But a team strives for something greater than its members could achieve individually. In short, an effective team is always worth more than the sum of its parts. Katzenbach and Smith identify three basic types of teams: teams that recommend things--task forces or project groups; teams that make or do things--manufacturing, operations, or marketing groups; and teams that run things--groups that oversee some significant functional activity. For managers, the key is knowing where in the organization real teams should be encouraged. Team potential exists anywhere hierarchy or organizational boundaries inhibit good performance.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Six hundred fifty-two employees composing 51 work teams participated in a study exam-ining relationships among team composition (ability and personality), team process (social cohesion), and team outcomes (team viability and team performance). Mean, variance, minimum, and maximum were 4 scoring methods used to operationalize the team composition variables to capture the team members ' characteristics. With respect to composition variables, teams higher in general mental ability (GMA), conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, and emotional stability received higher supervisor ratings for team performance. Teams higher in GMA, extraversion, and emotional stability received higher supervisor ratings for team viability. Results also show that extraversion and emotional stability were associated with team viability through social cohesion. Implica-tions and future research needs are discussed. The use of work teams has been described as pivotal to organizational transformation and renaissance (Goodman, Ravlin, & Schminke, 1987; Sundstrom, De Meuse, & Futrell, 1990). Yet, even with an increasing number of organizations structuring work through the use of teams, we know relatively tittle about how the individuals com-prising a team affect intragroup processes and outcomes. This lack of understanding suggests that contemporary work organizations may not be obtaining the maximal benefits from work teams. The dominant way of thinking about teams is the input-process-output model (Gladstein, 1984; Guzzo & Shea, 1992; Hackman, 1987; McGrath, 1964). The model posits that a variety of inputs combine to influence intragroup processes, which in turn affect team outputs. Inputs have been grouped into three categories (Hackman, 1987): in-dividual-level factors (e.g., team-member attributes),
This paper presents a model of team learning and tests it in a multimethod field study. It introduces the construct of team psychological safety—a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking—and models the effects of team psychological safety and team efficacy together on learning and performance in organizational work teams. Results of a study of 51 work teams in a manufacturing company, measuring antecedent, process, and outcome variables, show that team psychological safety is associated with learning behavior, but team efficacy is not, when controlling for team psychological safety. As predicted, learning behavior mediates between team psychological safety and team performance. The results support an integrative perspective in which both team structures, such as context support and team leader coaching, and shared beliefs shape team outcomes.
The increasing reliance on teams in organizations raises the question of how these teams should be formed. Should they be formed completely of engineers or should they include a range of specialists? Should they be made up to people who have long tenure in the organization, or those with a wide range of experience? As teams increasingly get called upon to do more complex tasks and to cross functional boundaries within the organization, conventional wisdom has suggested that teams be composed of more diverse members. This study suggests that the answer may not be so simple. Using 409 individuals from 45 new product teams in five high-technology companies, this study investigates the impact of diversity on team performance. We found that functional and tenure diversity each has its own distinct effects. The greater the functional diversity, the more team members communicated outside the team's boundaries. This communication was with a variety of groups such as marketing, manufacturing, and top management. The more the external communication, the higher the managerial ratings of innovation. Tenure diversity had its impact on internal group dynamics rather than external communications. Tenure diversity is associated with improved task work such as clarifying group goals and setting priorities. In turn, this clarity is associated with high team ratings of overall performance. Yet diversity is not solely positive. While it does produce internal processes and external communications that facilitate performance, it also directly impedes performance. That is, overall the effect of diversity on performance is negative, even though some aspects of group work are enhanced. It may be that for these teams diversity brings more creativity to problem solving and product development, but it impedes implementation because there is less capability for teamwork than there is for homogeneous teams. These research findings suggest that simply changing the structure of teams (i.e. combining representatives of diverse function and tenure) will not improve performance. The team must find a way to garner the positive process effects of diversity and to reduce the negative direct effects. At the team level, greater negotiation and conflict resolution skills may be necessary. At the organization level, the team may need to be protected from external political pressures and rewarded for team, rather than functional, outcomes.
Teams of people working together for a common purpose have been a centerpiece of human social organization ever since our ancient ancestors first banded together to hunt game, raise families, and defend their communities. Human history is largely a story of people working together in groups to explore, achieve, and conquer. Yet, the modern concept of work in large organizations that developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is largely a tale of work as a collection of individual jobs. A variety of global forces unfolding over the last two decades, however, has pushed organizations worldwide to restructure work around teams, to enable more rapid, flexible, and adaptive responses to the unexpected. This shift in the structure of work has made team effectiveness a salient organizational concern. Teams touch our lives everyday and their effectiveness is important to well-being across a wide range of societal functions. There is over 50 years of psychological research-literally thousands of studies-focused on understanding and influencing the processes that underlie team effectiveness. Our goal in this monograph is to sift through this voluminous literature to identify what we know, what we think we know, and what we need to know to improve the effectiveness of work groups and teams. We begin by defining team effectiveness and establishing the conceptual underpinnings of our approach to understanding it. We then turn to our review, which concentrates primarily on topics that have well-developed theoretical and empirical foundations, to ensure that our conclusions and recommendations are on firm footing. Our review begins by focusing on cognitive, motivational/affective, and behavioral team processes-processes that enable team members to combine their resources to resolve task demands and, in so doing, be effective. We then turn our attention to identifying interventions, or "levers," that can shape or align team processes and thereby provide tools and applications that can improve team effectiveness. Topic-specific conclusions and recommendations are given throughout the review. There is a solid foundation for concluding that there is an emerging science of team effectiveness and that findings from this research foundation provide several means to improve team effectiveness. In the concluding section, we summarize our primary findings to highlight specific research, application, and policy recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams.
OBJECTIVE: We highlight some of the key discoveries and developments in the area of team performance over the past 50 years, especially as reflected in the pages of Human Factors. BACKGROUND: Teams increasingly have become a way of life in many organizations, and research has kept up with the pace. METHOD: We have characterized progress in the field in terms of eight discoveries and five challenges. RESULTS: Discoveries pertain to the importance of shared cognition, the measurement of shared cognition, advances in team training, the use of synthetic task environments for research, factors influencing team effectiveness, models of team effectiveness, a multidisciplinary perspective, and training and technological interventions designed to improve team effectiveness. Challenges that are faced in the coming decades include an increased emphasis on team cognition; reconfigurable, adaptive teams; multicultural influences; and the need for naturalistic study and better measurement. CONCLUSION: Work in human factors has contributed significantly to the science and practice of teams, teamwork, and team performance. Future work must keep pace with the increasing use of teams in organizations. APPLICATION: The science of teams contributes to team effectiveness in the same way that the science of individual performance contributes to individual effectiveness.
:A global virtual team is an example of a boundaryless network organization form where a temporary team is assembled on an as-needed basis for the duration of a task and staffed by members from different countries. In such teams, coordination is accomplished via trust and shared communication systems. The focus of the reported study was to explore the antecedents of trust in a global virtual-team setting. Seventy-five teams, consisting of four to six members residing in different countries, interacted and worked together for eight weeks. The two-week trust-building exercises did have a significant effect on the team members’ perceptions of the other members’ ability, integrity, and benevolence. In the early phases of teamwork, team trust was predicted strongest by perceptions of other team members’ integrity, and weakest by perceptions of their benevolence. The effect of other members’ perceived ability on trust decreased over time. The members’ own propensity to trust had a significant, though unchanging, effect on trust. A qualitative analysis of six teams’ electronic mail messages explored strategies that were used by the three highest trust teams, but were used infrequently or not at all by the three lowest trust teams. The strategies suggest the presence of “swift” trust. The paper advances a research model for explaining trust in global virtual teams.
ABSTRACT This paper examines learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Research on team effectiveness has focused primarily on single‐discipline teams engaged in routine production tasks and, less often, on interdisciplinary teams engaged in discussion and management rather than action. The resulting models do not explain differences in learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Members of these teams must coordinate action in uncertain, fast‐paced situations, and the extent to which they are comfortable speaking up with observations, questions, and concerns may critically influence team outcomes. To explore what leaders of action teams do to promote speaking up and other proactive coordination behaviours – as well as how organizational context may affect these team processes and outcomes – I analysed qualitative and quantitative data from 16 operating room teams learning to use a new technology for cardiac surgery. Team leader coaching, ease of speaking up, and boundary spanning were associated with successful technology implementation. The most effective leaders helped teams learn by communicating a motivating rationale for change and by minimizing concerns about power and status differences to promote speaking up in the service of learning.
A longitudinal study of the functioning of top management teams in 27 hospitals examined relationships between group and organizational factors and team innovation. A model of group inputs, processes, and outputs was used, and it was predicted that group size, resources, team tenure, group processes, and proportion of innovative team members would affect the level and quality of team innovation. The results suggested that group processes best predict the overall level of team innovation, whereas the proportion of innovative team members predicts the rated radicalness of innovations introduced. Resources available to teams do not predict overall team innovation. The quality of team innovation (radicalness, magnitude, and novelty) may be determined primarily by the composition of the team, but overall level of innovation may be more a consequence of the team's characteristic social processes.
This paper identifies and evaluates rationales for team participation and for the effects of team composition on productivity using novel data from a garment plant that shifted from individual piece rate to group piece rate production over three years. The adoption of teams at the plant improved worker productivity by 14 percent on average. Productivity improvement was greatest for the earliest teams and diminished as more workers engaged in team production, providing support for the view that teams utilize collaborative skills, which are less valuable in individual production. High-productivity workers tended to join teams first, despite a loss in earnings in many cases, suggesting nonpecuniary benefits associated with teamwork. Finally, more heterogeneous teams were more productive, with average ability held constant, which is consistent with explanations emphasizing mutual team learning and intrateam bargaining.
Over the past few decades, a great deal of research has been conducted to examine the complex relationship between team diversity and team outcomes. However, the impact of team diversity on team outcomes and moderating variables potentially affecting this relationship are still not fully answered with mixed findings in the literature. These research issues were, therefore, addressed by quantitatively reviewing extant work and provided estimates of the relationship between team diversity and team outcomes. In particular, the effects of task-related and bio-demographic diversity at the group-level were meta-analyzed to test the hypothesis of synergistic performance resulting from diverse employee teams. Support was found for the positive impact of task-related diversity on team performance although bio-demographic diversity was not significantly related to team performance. Similarly, no discernible effect of team diversity was found on social integration. The implications of the review for future research and practices are also discussed.
In multidisciplinary teams in the oil and gas industry, we examined expertise diversity's relationship with team learning and team performance under varying levels of collective team identification. In teams with low collective identification, expertise diversity was negatively related to team learning and performance; where team identification was high, those relationships were positive. Results also supported nonlinear relationships between expertise diversity and both team learning and performance. Finally, team learning partially mediated the linear and nonlinear relationships between diversity and performance. Findings broaden understanding of the process by which and the conditions under which expertise diversity may promote team performance.
This book compiles state-of-the-art commentary on teamwork, team training, and team performance. It provides both practical and down-to-earth information on what we currently know about these topics from a research-based perspective, and foward-looking, theoretical views on where the field is going. The book focuses on three major topics: how teams are organized and function, the empirical research base, and applications of teamwork skills. This volume also discusses team taxonomic issues, the performance of individual team members, team performance evaluation, mathematical models, Petri nets, teamwork guidelines, and both military and civilian teamwork applications.
The influence of teammates' shared mental models on team processes and performance was tested using 56 undergraduate dyads who "flew" a series of missions on a personal-computer-based flight-combat simulation. The authors both conceptually and empirically distinguished between teammates' task- and team-based mental models and indexed their convergence or "sharedness" using individually completed paired-comparisons matrices analyzed using a network-based algorithm. The results illustrated that both shared-team- and task-based mental models related positively to subsequent team process and performance. Furthermore, team processes fully mediated the relationship between mental model convergence and team effectiveness. Results are discussed in terms of the role of shared cognitions in team effectiveness and the applicability of different interventions designed to achieve such convergence.
We examined the antecedents, consequences, and mediational role of team empowerment using 111 work teams in four organizations. The results indicated that the actions of external leaders, the production/service responsibilities given to teams, team-based human resources policies, and the social structure of teams all worked to enhance employee team empowerment experiences. More empowered teams were also more productive and proactive than less empowered teams and had higher levels of customer service, job satisfaction, and organizational and team commitment.
1. Introduction: At the Intersection of Team Effectiveness and Decision Making(Richard A. Guzzo) 2. Measuring and Managing for Team Performance: Lessons from Complex Environments(Robert M. Mcintyre, Eduardo Salas) 3. Computer--Assisted Groups: A Critical Review of the Empirical Research(Andrea B. Hollingshead, Joseph E. Mcgrath) 4. Cooperation Theory, Constructive Controversy, and Effectiveness: Learning from Crisis(Dean Tjosvold) 5. Raising an Individual Decision Making Model to the Team Level: A New Research Model and Paradigm(Daniel R. Ilgen, Debra A. Major, John R. Hollenbeck, Douglas J. Sego) 6. Innovations in Modeling and Stimulating Team Performance: Implications for Decision Making(Michael D. Coovert, J. Philip Craiger, Janis A. Cannon--Bowers) 7. Understanding the Dynamics of Diversity in Decision Making Teams(Susan E. Jackson, Karen Ae May, Kristina Whitney) 8. Teamwork Stress Implications for Team Decision Making(Ben B. Morgan, Jr., Clint A. Bowers) 9. Staffing for Effective Group Decision Making: Key Issues in Matching People and Teams(Richard Klimoski, Robert G. S. Jones,) 10. Defining Competencies and Establishing Team Training Requirements,(Janis A. Cannon--Bowers, Scott I. Tannenbaum, Eduardo Salas, Catherine E. Volpe) 11. Conclusion: Common Themes Amongst the Diversity(Richard A. Guzzo)
Executive Overview Managers are challenged to develop strategically flexible organizations in response to increasingly competitive marketplaces. Fortunately, a new generation of information and telecommunications technology provides the foundation for resilient new organizational forms that would have not been feasible only a decade ago. One of the most exciting of these new forms, the virtual team, will enable organizations to become more flexible by providing the impressive productivity of team-based designs in environments where teamwork would have once been impossible. Virtual teams, which are linked primarily through advanced computer and telecommunications technologies, provide a potent response to the challenges associated with today's downsized and lean organizations, and to the resulting geographical dispersion of essential employees. Virtual teams also address new workforce demographics, where the best employees may be located anywhere the world, and where workers demand increasing technological sophistication and personal flexibility. With virtual teams, organizations can build teams with optimum membership while retaining the advantages of flat organizational structure. Additionally, firms benefit from virtual teams through access to previously unavailable expertise, enhanced cross-functional interaction, and the use of systems that improve the quality of the virtual team's work.
This study provides a meta-analysis of research on the associations between relationship conflict, task conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction. Consistent with past theorizing, results revealed strong and negative correlations between relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction. In contrast to what has been suggested in both academic research and introductory textbooks, however, results also revealed strong and negative (instead of the predicted positive) correlations between task conflict team performance, and team member satisfaction. As predicted, conflict had stronger negative relations with team performance in highly complex (decision making, project, mixed) than in less complex (production) tasks. Finally, task conflict was less negatively related to team performance when task conflict and relationship conflict were weakly, rather than strongly, correlated.
Like all teams, knowledge teams must acquire and manage critical resources in order to accomplish their work. The most critical resource for knowledge teams is expertise, or specialized skills and knowledge, but the mere presence of expertise on a team is insufficient to produce high-quality work. Expertise must be managed and coordinated in order to leverage its potential. That is, teams must be able to manage their skill and knowledge interdependencies effectively through expertise coordination, which entails knowing where expertise is located, knowing where expertise is needed, and bringing needed expertise to bear. This study investigates the importance of expertise coordination through a cross-sectional investigation of 69 software development teams. The analysis reveals that expertise coordination shows a strong relationship with team performance that remains significant over and above team input characteristics, presence of expertise, and administrative coordination.
Information sharing is a central process through which team members collectively utilize their available informational resources. The authors used meta-analysis to synthesize extant research on team information sharing. Meta-analytic results from 72 independent studies (total groups = 4,795; total N = 17,279) demonstrate the importance of information sharing to team performance, cohesion, decision satisfaction, and knowledge integration. Although moderators were identified, information sharing positively predicted team performance across all levels of moderators. The information sharing-team performance relationship was moderated by the representation of information sharing (as uniqueness or openness), performance criteria, task type, and discussion structure by uniqueness (a 3-way interaction). Three factors affecting team information processing were found to enhance team information sharing: task demonstrability, discussion structure, and cooperation. Three factors representing decreasing degrees of member redundancy were found to detract from team information sharing: information distribution, informational interdependence, and member heterogeneity.