what are the empirical and theoretical reasons for ...

WARWICK BUSINESS SCHOOL IB230 FOUNDATIONS OF ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR

WHAT ARE THE EMPIRICAL AND THEORETICAL REASONS FOR ORGANISING WORK AROUND GROUPS AND TEAMS? INCLUDE CRITICAL REFLECTION ON THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUPS AND TEAMS AND THE ‘ROMANCE OF TEAMS’.

STUDENT ID: 1423422 WORD COUNT: 2190 WORDS

Introduction Groups and teams are central to our species development (West et al., 2004), and there is an optimistic formation of teams in organisations in the US economy (Adler 1993 cited in Durant, Stewart & Castillo, 1999). It is believed by many that teams and work groups are effective in contributing to an effective organizational performance (Sinclair, 1992). This trend is not fading away as many other management fads do (Parker, 2008), and this is supported by Buchanan (1994 pp204-25)’s point of view that it “emerged from quite fundamental considerations about the way in which work should be organized” and hence there are many reasons, theoretically and empirically to support this. Teams and groups might be perceived as being similar to each other, but they are different. A team consists of individuals with a strong degree of interdependence heading toward the achievement of a goal (Parker, op. cit.) whereas a group consists of two or more people who see themselves as members of one similar social category (Turner, 1982, cited in Forsyth, 2006). In this essay, I will be using groups and teams interchangeably since there is no significant difference between both of them (Stott and Walker, 1995). In this paper, firstly, I will describe the empirical reasons for implementing teams in real life organisations. Then, I will analyse the reasons for organizing work around groups theoretically. Next, I will discuss critically and reflect the differences between groups and teams and the ‘romance of teams’ and lastly, this essay will arrive at a short conclusion, including suggestions about the use of teams.

Empirical reasons In the early days, Fordism and Taylorism method of organizing work were popular as they improve productivity and efficiency. These scientific management approach works as managers analyse tasks and determines the best possible way to complete it (Stimpson, 2011). These methods are heavily practiced in production lines especially in the US and

Europe (Benders and Van Hootegem, 2000). However, this method of working has become irrelevant over time as they have neglected certain qualitative aspects such as the welfare of the workers and customer service (Levi, 2013). The Japanese, on the other hand, became superior in manufacturing methods (Durand, Steward & Castillo, 1999) when they introduced the lean production method (Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard Park, 2006). The focus of this method is on efficiency of the organisation, maximising the use of labour and the important component was teamwork (Womack et al 1990 cited in Wergin, 2003). Since then, a lot of automobile industry adopted the use of teams in organisations (Roth 1996 cited in ibid). One of the companies are NUMMI, the joint venture between General Motors and Toyota (Shook, 2010). A result of this is that there was a dramatic decrease in absenteeism and lower turnover apart from an increase in productivity (ibid). Other than that, too, more work these days revolve around non-routine work (Mohrman, Cohen, & Mohrman, 1995 cited in Levi, op. cit.). There has been a “significant negative relationship between the percentage of staff working in teams and mortality in hospitals” (Carletta et al. 1999 p8). This evidence shows that aside from saving many lives from having teams, hospitals can also save costs as it is now more efficient and this can also promote good patient care (Eggert, et al. 1991, cited in West et al. 2004). Motorola created a team of engineers with the mission to create an innovative design of mobile phone, and they have managed to create the best-selling product of all time (Collins, 2007). Honeywell become a monopoly in their market and gains profit that is 200% above target after switching to teamwork (Chance, 1989 cited in Parker, op. cit.). All of this empirical evidences shows that teamwork does boost the organisation’s performance, providing that teams ensure the management apply it the right way.

Theoretical reasons i.

Social needs

Organising work around groups and teams fulfills the social needs of the employees (West, 2007). According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, people are motivated by the existence of several essential needs (Stimpson, op cit.). Among the needs that are fulfilled when being grouped are mainly social needs and esteem needs. Self-actualization can also happen with “the right amount of sense of self-control, human dignity, identification with work, and a sense of self-worth and self-fulfillment” (Moorhead, Griffin, 2005 p273). Hawthorne experiment shows that the feeling, of belonging to a team is more important than monetary rewards (Contu, 2011). Workers are usually more close to their work groups compared to the organization (Riketta & van Dick, 2004). Interacting with one another gave them a chance to improve their skills, sharing ideas and knowledge, and increase their job satisfaction that is shown towards the alignment to the company. This, in the long term, can improve productivity and reduce absenteeism which eventually “reduce organisational costs and improve an organisation’s knowledge base” (Kirkman & Shapiro, 1997 pp730-757). ii.

Minimize bureaucracy Managements create and use teams in order to decentralize the decision making so

that there will be flatter organisations. “Many influential theorists argued that decentralized, participative, and more democratic systems of control offer the most viable alternatives to the bureaucracy's confining routines and rules” (Follett, 1941;Lewin, 1948 cited in Barker, op. cit. 4). Teams integrate and improve formal structures and processes (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993 pp5). Barker (op. cit.) mentioned that groups and team members have a more efficient control over each other rather than bureaucratic means. Indirectly, this causes the workers to become more independent, as they have been given job empowerment which is by selfmanaging themselves. Teams with a high degree of autonomy is more effective (Beekun, 1989 cited in West, Griffin & Patterson, 2001). These autonomous groups are a form of shared leadership revolving decision-making (William, Parker, & Turner, 2010 p4). As they are

allowed to do trial and error and come up with strategies during work, their organizational learning is improved (Wageman, 1997) and this is especially important in the knowledgeintensive economy. The work done is also more productive as members are more aware when being in a self-managing team. The group might also become more cohesive as they set their own rules. Group cohesiveness is related to better group performance (Gully et al, 1995 cited in Norbert L. Kerr Dong-Heon Seok, 2011). However, in order to make teams work, teams need to be given enough resources especially when they are facing objectives (Walton 1985 cited in Hackman 1990 pp253). Critical reflection on the differences The growing trend of implementing teams especially in this era has led to many believing that it can be a remedy for all organizational ills. “Romance of team” is discussed by Allen and Hecht’s (2004 p439) which means that there is a “faith in the effectiveness of teambased work that is not supported by or is even inconsistent with, relevant empirical evidence”. They have also argued that the reason for this faith would be due to “socio-emotional and competence related benefits” (ibid). To what extent is this true? What differs ‘groups and teams’ and the ‘romance of teams’? Are teams just merely a construct of the mind that exists in the mind of the managers as an ideal way to solve organizational problems? Hackman (1990) discusses that team’s performance is usually compared to a conventional unit and these are interpretively ambiguous. Steiner (1972 cited in Hackman, op. cit. p246) suggested that there is no empirical evidence shown that process gain exist as referred to the famous equation – “Actual Productivity = Potential Productivity – Process Losses” and this is consistent with the claim of romance of teams. However, research by (Hertel et al., 2000), (Brodbeck et al 2000) and (Liang et al., 1995) cited in West et al., 2004) demonstrates that teams process gain which shows that teams is in fact, has a productive output. Lee, Seo, and Lee (2011) states that knowledge sharing in groups have a positive relationship with individual creativity. Knowledge sharing activity can be demonstrated through many processes, one of them includes

brainstorming. However, group brainstorming has been mentioned to generate fewer ideas than individual brainstorming (Connolly , Routhieaux, & Schneider, 1993). This is so because of production blocking, and it happens when each person takes turn to give an idea and get influenced by others’ ideas (ibid). They are influenced by the member who has stated their idea before them, and this further supports the empirical evidence on view that teams are not effective. However, brainstorming requires a lot of creativity rather than interdependent activity, thus, although teams doesn’t perform well under brainstorming activity, it does not mean that teams are generally not effective (West et al., 2004). It is better to identify which kind of activity is suited to use groups and teams as many of them don’t perform at their best because they are not given suitable tasks (Hackman, op. cit.). Thus, in situations where the “real-time combination of many skills, experiences, and judgments are needed, a team gets better results than individuals operating within confined job roles and responsibilities” (Katzenbach and Smith 1993 p15). In conclusion, to apply groups and teams in the workplace, managers need to understand the nature of a task. ‘Romance of teams’ argued that members of a group make biased evaluation about themselves when being in a group in order to make themselves feel competent (Allen and Hecht, 2004). This is to say some members take credit from others’ success (ibid). Belbin’s team role theory proposed that in order for a group or a team to function, each member of the group must be reminded of their roles in the organisations (Fisher, Hunter, & Macrosson, 1998). By knowing one’s role that has its own strengths and weaknesses, teams can run smoothly and efficiently as everyone is responsible about their role. However, McCrimmon (1995) said that the act of assigning roles using this theory disregards creativity. It may cause avoidance to do something else that they can contribute, and a member might feel threatened by other members who are taking this role (ibid). Other than that, if there are people who are not required in the group or do not have roles, they tend to reduce their effort (Karau & Williams, 1993 cited in Allen and Hecht 2004). As there are some group members that cannot adapt to working in teams, some of them might end up social loafing, which is an act of doing

less work while working in a group (Earley, 1989). Thus, the effectiveness of teams really depends on the attitude of members and how committed they are to being a team player. There is a sense of cohesiveness can be felt among the members while being in a team. This is related to social-emotional and competence related benefits. Group cohesion, which is a strength of closeness appeared to “transcend individual differences and motives” (Owen, 1985 p416), and is linked to good performance (Beal et al., 2003). However, it is not necessarily true as cohesiveness have two types of which are “socio-emotional cohesiveness and instrumental cohesiveness” (Corbett & Roberts, 2009 p159). Socio-emotional cohesiveness revolves around satisfaction in terms of emotion while being with others, whereas instrumental cohesiveness is about depending on each other to get the work done (Corbett & Roberts, 2009). Mullen and Copper (1995) findings show that groups performance is positively related to cohesiveness when there is high instrumental cohesiveness and low socio-emotional cohesion. Socio-emotional cohesive groups are more likely to bring teams to experience groupthink. Groupthink is a phenomenon where members of the group striving for unanimity overlooks other alternative actions due to pressure to conform (Janis, 1982 cited in Whyte 1989). Persson (2006) mentioned that teams with temporary member has a stronger good effect on knowledge sharing than teams with fixed team members, and thus, by this it is important in a team for the member to get the right type of cohesiveness, and by having a high amount of commitment while being in the group. The effort must be coordinated, or else the team itself is not proactive (Williams, Parker, & Turner, op. cit.). To say that, teams are perceived as effective because of social-emotional benefits, is not fully true as in teams, there can be conflict, too. Cohesiveness and conflict can be good or bad, depending on how the group utilize it.

Conclusion To sum up, groups and teams are not a new concept, but in fact, it has already existed since the civilization of man. However, it is also not a quick remedy for solving organizational problems. Cummings (1982 cited in Durand et al. 1999) stated that to determine whether teams are effective or not depends on the degree of the interdependence. The romance of teams view pointed out that teams aren’t effective, and this is evident with the empirical evidence is not completely true, as there are still so teams, although not plenty, that are very successful. Perhaps, rather than arguing on the use of teams, organisations must focus on how to work on building teams aware of the limitations of implementing groups and teams, as it is not an overnight process. Nonetheless, teams are still beneficial as it’s important for workers to be able to work with different kinds of people in this globalized world.

REFERENCES Adler P.S (1993) The new ‘learning bureaucracy’: New United Motors Manufacturing, Inc. In Staw B. Allen, N.J. and Hecht, T.D. (2004). The ‘romance of teams’: Toward an understanding of its psychological underpinnings and implications. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77 (4), pp. 439-461 Barker, (1993). Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 3. (Sep., 1993), pp. 408-437. Beal, D.J., Cohen, R.R., Burke, M.J. and Mclendon, C.L. (2003). Cohesion and Performance in Groups: A Meta--‐Analytic Clarification Of Construct Relations. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 88 (6), pp. 989--‐1004. Beekun R. I. (1989). Assessing the effectiveness of sociotechnical interventions: antidote or fad Human relations 42: 877-879 Benders, J. and Hootegem, G.V. (2000). How the Japanese got teams. In: Procter S. and Mueller, F, eds. Teamworking. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 43-59. Buchanan D, (1994), ‘Cellular Manufacture and the Role of Teams’ in Storey J. (ed.) New Wave Manufacturing Strategies, London : Paul Chapman, pp 204-25 Carletta J, Borril C., Carter, A., Dawson J., Garrod, S., Rees A., Richards A., Shapiro D., West M., (1999). The Effectiveness of Health Care Teams in the National Health Service. Report. Aston Centre for Health Services Organisational Research. Aston University, University of Glasgow, University of Leeds. Collins, K. (2007). “The Team with RAZR’s edge”. Chapter 8: Teamwork and Communications in Exploring Business. Pearson. Connolly, Routhieaux, & Schneider (1993). On the Effectiveness of Group Brainstorming. Test of One Underlying Cognitive Mechanism. Small Group Research, Vol. 24 no 4, 4 November 1993 490-503 Sage publications Contu, A. (2011). Understanding Organisational Behaviour 2nd edition. London: McGraw Hill Custom Publications. Corbett, Roberts (2009) Understanding Organisational Behaviour IB1230. McGraw Hill Custom Publications pp. 159 Cummings T. (1982) Designing work for productivity and quality of work life. Outlook, Vol 6, 35-39 Dahlgaard, J.J. and Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. (2006). Lean production, six sigma quality, TQM and company culture. The TQM Magazine, 18 (3), pp. 263-281. Durand, Steward, Castillo (1999). Teamwork In the automobile industry. London: MacMillan Press Limited. Pp1, Earley, P.C. (1989). Social Loafing and Collectivism: A Comparison of the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34 (4), pp. 565-581. Eggert, G. M., Zimmer, J. G., Hall, W. J., & Friedman, B. (1991). Case management: A randomized controlled study comparing a neighbourhood team and a centralized individual model. Health Services Research, 26, 471–507.

Fisher, Hunter, Macrosson. (1998). The structure of Belbin’s team role. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology. 71, 283-288 Printed in Great Britain 28 3 © 1998 The British Psychological Society Forsyth, D. R (2006), Group Dynamics, 4th edition. United States of America: Thomson Wadsworth pp4 Hackman, J. R. (1990). Groups that work (and those that don’t). San Francisco: JosseyBass. Janis I. L (1982). Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Lee, K. C., Chae, S. W., & Seo, Y. W. (2010). Exploring individual creativity from network structure perspective: Comparison of task force team and R&D team. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 124, 70–78. Levi, D (2013). Group Dynamics for teams. 4th edition. SAGE Publications, Inc Lewin, Kurt (1948). Resolving Social Conflicts: Selected Papers on Group Dynamics. New York: Harper & Row. Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681–706. Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K. (1993). The Wisdom of Teams. 1st edition. New York: The McGraw Hill Companies pp. 5 Kirkman, B.L. & Shapiro, D.L. (1997), ‘The Impact of Cultural Values on Employee Resistance to Teams: Toward a Model of Globalised Self-Managing Work Team Effectiveness’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 730-757. McCrimmon, (1995),"Teams without roles: empowering teams for greater creativity", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 14 Iss 6 pp. 35 – 41 Moorhead, Griffin (2005). Chapter 9 in Fundamentals of organizational behavior. Houghton Mifflin Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210–227. Norbert L. Kerr Dong-Heon Seok, (2011),"“… with a little help from my friends”: friendship, effort norms, and group motivation gain", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 26 Iss 3 pp. 205 – 218 Owen, W. Foster (1985), ‘Metaphor analysis of Cohesiveness in Small Discussion Groups’, Small Group Research, p. 416 Parker, (2008) Team Players and Teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. pp1 Persson, M. (2006). The impact of operational structure, lateral integrative mechanisms and control mechanisms on intra-MNE knowledge transfer. International Business Review, 15(5), 547–569. Riketta, M. & Van Dick, R. (2005). Foci of attachment in organisations: A metaanalytic comparison of the strength and correlates of workgroup versus organisational identification and commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 490-510. Sinclair (1992)

Roth Sigfried (1996), “Wiederentdeckung der eigenen Stärke? – Lean Production-Konzepte in der deutschen Automobilindustrie”, in: KISSLER, Leo (Ed.), Toyotismus in Europa: schlanke Produktion und Gruppenarbeit in der deutschen und französischen Automobilindustrie, Frankfurt am Main, Campus, pp.109-139. Shook, J. (2010). How to change a culture: lessons from NUMMI. MITSloan Management Review. Available at: http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-to-change-a-culture-lessonsfrom-nummi [Accessed: 29 December 2014] Stimpson and Smith (2011), Chapter 2: Human Resource, Business Management for IB Diploma. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Pp143 Sinclair, A. (1992). ‘The Tyranny of a Team Ideology’, Organisation Studies, 13 (4): 611-26 Stott, K. & Walker, A. (1995). Teams: Teamwork and Teambuilding, Prentice Hall,New York. pp1-215 Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press. Wageman, R., (1997), ‘Critical Success Factors for Creating Superb Self-managing Teams, Organisational Dynamics, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 49-60. (Williams, Parker, Turner, 2010). Proactively performing teams: The role of work design, transformational leadership, and team composition. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2010), 83, 301–324q 2010 The British Psychological Society pp2 Wergin, N. E. (2003). Teamwork in the Automobile Industry – An Anglo-German Comparison. European Political Economy Review ISSN 1742-5697 Vol. 1, No. 2 (Autumn 2003), pp. 152-190 West, Griffin, Patterson, (2001). Job satisfaction and teamwork: the role of supervisor support. Journal of organizational behavior.22, 537-550 West, et al (2004) Does romance of teams exist? The effectiveness of teams in experimental and field settings. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology. 77. pp. 467-473 West, M. (2007). The effectiveness of organisational teams: A meta-analysis: Full Research Report. ESRC End of Award Report, RES-000-22-1313. Swindon: ESRC Womack, James P et al. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World, New York, NY, Rawson Associates. Whyte, Glenn (1989). Groupthink Reconsidered. Academy of Management Review. 1989, Vol 14 No. 1, 4-056