The Myths and Realities of Work
Teams
by Michelene Malosh
You just spent three hours in a long, detail-laden, flow chart-driven staff meeting. The
company is about to embark on implementing the latest new-and-improved product, service,
policy or procedure. While the ink of your doodles are still fresh on your note pad, the
company president comes over to YOU and says "Let’s get a committee together to
further study the situation. In fact, I want you to lead this group, make it into an
interdepartmental Work Team and get this VERY important initiative activated throughout
the company!"
OK. Here’s your chance to score points, BIG points, with your company’s top
executive. As an individual worker, you know what it takes for you to get something
accomplished. But in getting together a group of individuals with different personalities,
perspectives, styles and agendas, there are many more unpredictable variables and dynamics
in motion than when you work on a project yourself.
"Team building", "self-managed teams", "high performance
teams", and "cross functional teams" have been fashionable in the 90’s
work place. Behind this trend is the theory that by drawing together people with different
jobs or functions - marketing, manufacturing, finance, etc. - you obtain different
perspectives on the business and can solve problems quickly, effectively and innovatively.
Additionally, teams are perceived as fun, as a channel for esprit de corpses and generally
fit in with the prevalent American sports team preoccupation.
When you’ve got to, or when you want to, teams at work can be established for the
purpose of addressing a problem, implementing a change, or accomplishing a goal. But, how
do you make a Work Team really work? In theory, the old adage "None of Us Is As Smart
As All of Us" makes sense. But, in practice, is the team approach really more
effective? In reality, is it worth the bother, time and effort to take workers away from
their "regular" duties and work routines to attend (more!) meetings? What are
the truths and myths about Work Teams?
When establishing Work Teams, many people see the possibilities but not the realities.
Presented is the perspective of two professionals in the Harrisburg area who have
extensive experience in the development and facilitation of teams in their work
organizations: Tony Oliveri, Training Director of the Public School Employees Retirement
System, Harrisburg, PA and Lee Riley, Quality Consultant, Pennsylvania Blue Shield, Camp
Hill.
When you decide you want to start Work Teams at your company, there are three
basic principles of group dynamics that are important to consider first:
1) What makes a "team" a "team" (verses a
"group")?
A group is a collection of individuals who share a common interest or participate in a
common function. A team is more formally organized and recognized by its members. A team
has a purpose. Teams have a deliberate formation, have a commonly defined purpose,
procedures, time frames, and goals, and have members with commitment and with specific
roles (defined and assumed). Therefore, when establishing your Work Team, be sure to be
systematic about its formation and process.
2) ALL "teams" have both "content" AND
"process" activities.
Many Work Teams focus the majority of their energy on the "content" matters (the
WHAT - the goal, the work, the activities, the outcomes - the task) and not enough time on
the "process" (the HOW - the maintenance of the group mechanisms, the reactions
and feelings of the members). Both content and process are of equal importance. In fact,
in order for a Work Team to be highly effective and productive, attention to group process
throughout the life of the group is essential!
3) All teams go through 5 developmental stages :
Forming - the preliminary attempts to delineate goals and procedures
Storming - conflict amongst the members and/or leader. Questioning and
challenging authority, structure, procedures, objectives, responsibilities, time-frames,
etc.
Norming - Focus is on working efficiently together. Structure is in
place. Norms established and modified in earlier stages. Trust evolved following conflict
resolution.
Performing - Group identity grows. Team works at both product and
process simultaneously (and ineffective teams over focus on either product or process at
the exclusion of the other). Give-and-take and maintain open communication throughout.
Terminating - When the group has completed its mission, it formally
disbands and the efforts of its’ members are acknowledged.
All healthy and effective teams go though these stages. Some teams that get stuck at a
stage are rarely productive and usually develop disharmony.
Having background basics of team dynamics, and how groups of individuals work together,
let’s explore some of the MYTHS and the accompanying REALITIES of the actual workings
of Work Teams. According to our two team development specialists Tony Oliveri and Lee
Riley:
Common MYTHS and assumptions
about teams, include:
All groups produce a synergetic effect.
Synergy is the phenomenon that there is a force created in a group that makes the whole
greater than the sum of its individual parts. Yes, using a group of people to generate and
implement ideas generally leads to increased diversity and a better product. However, a
phenomenon that can also occur is "Group Think". This is the tendency of the
group to run in one direction just because "it’s the thing to do". The
group loses sight of "Doing the Right Thing" and just collectively engages in
"Doing".
This case of "Doing the Wrong Thing - Better" can be avoided by the awareness
that being part of a group gives members a strong feeling of power, which at times can be
a false illusion. It’s often difficult for individuals to stand up to a group and be
different, especially when a group takes off - full steam ahead. Therefore, the awareness
that this phenomena can happen makes it less likely to happen when members periodically
check out what they are doing, why, and if there are any strong individual misgivings.
Everyone wants to be involved on a team.
Not only are there people who do not enjoy working on a team but not everyone works well
in a team environment. There are skills (i.e. communication) that can be developed to a
certain extent, but we all have our own style and approach (and attitude) toward working
and working with others and there are just some people who "want to work alone"
and can be disruptive and annoying otherwise.
Awareness of the various communication and working styles of the membership is important
for groups to flow and be optimally productive. Generally, a team containing members with
a variety of styles and approaches will provide multiple perspectives to the problem, and
will usually come up with the better product. However, the more diverse the group, the
more time and energy is needed in group process. Additionally, some groups may have a
majority of members who enjoy the process (brainstorming, discussing) and have difficulty
focusing on task and product (or conversely, a group that avoids process and just wants to
do the task). Training director Tony Oliveri states that teams need a balance of both
product and process so there needs to be a mechanism in place to keep the group from
becoming unbalanced in its approach and activities.
All teams are highly productive.
Work teams CAN be productive, but it takes a lot of time for a work group to become highly
productive. For work teams to be effective and for the individual members to work AS A
TEAM, there is a learning process and learning curve. There are stages of development to
get through, and there are process issues to deal with throughout the life of the group.
However, many management systems want things done NOW (or yesterday) and are not willing
to invest the time required to develop a fully functioning, synergetic team.
Work teams are self-directed.
All teams need direction and a BUSINESS OBJECTIVE from upper management. Lee Riley, who
has developed work teams formally at Pennsylvania Blue Shield since 1989, has witnessed a
lot of excitement and high expectations when putting teams together. Why? There are high
expectations of making a significant contribution to the organization. The reality is that
unless there is someone from upper management to give specific expectations and goals that
relate to the company’s objectives, the group will not achieve a meaningful product
that the company cares about and can use. Without direction, the team may work very hard
yet not make a recognized accomplishment, which in turn will demoralize the team members.
Team members can develop their own process, "how" they accomplish their task,
but a clear business-related objective must underlie their work. Ideally, members should
consider an outside facilitator for gatekeeping the process and to insure the team stays
on-task. Minimally, a member appointed in the role as "gatekeeper" could also
keep track of group activities.
Work teams have been around for centuries. Some famous ones that come to mind are Jesus
Christ and his Apostles and King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table. Work teams are
here to stay and are even trendier in today's corporate "doing more with less"
environment. The benefits of using work teams are obvious. They can produce better, more
diversified, quality products; increase company "buy-in"; promote open
communications; create better flexibility in dealing with emerging, complex problems;
develop employee leadership and problem solving skills, etc. However, the Work Team is not
a panacea; it is a tool. And like all tools, in order for Work Teams to work properly, and
do exactly what you want them to, you must examine your preconceived ideas, determine your
desired results concretely, and by all means study the operations manual before you begin.
|
