Developing High-Performance Teams

Transcript Developing High-Performance Teams

C H A P T E R: T E N

Developing High-Performance Teams

McGraw-Hill Ryerson

Celestica’s High-Performance Teams

Don Golding These rework team members at Celestica’s manufacturing facility in Toronto completely redesigned the cell’s work process, reflecting their company’s movement toward self-directed work teams.

McShane/ Canadian OB 6e

Self-Directed Teams Defined

Don Golding Formal groups that complete an entire piece of work requiring several interdependent tasks and have substantial autonomy over the execution of these tasks .

McShane/ Canadian OB 6e

Self-Directed Work Team Attributes

Completes an entire piece of work Receives team level feedback and rewards

Self-Directed Work Teams

Responsible for correcting problems Team assigns tasks to members Controls work input, flow, and output

Sociotechnical Systems Elements

Primary work unit  completes an entire work process  fairly independent from other work units Sufficient autonomy  freedom to divide up and coordinate work  empowers team members Control key variances  team controls factors affecting work quality/quantity Joint optimization  balancing social and technical systems

SDWTs at Standard Motor Products

Standard Motor Products successfully introduced self directed work teams (SDWTs) at its Kansas plant, but some supervisors had difficulty changing from a command-and-control to mentor/facilitator management style.

Courtesy of Standard Motor Products

Challenges to SDWTs

Cross-cultural issues  Difficult to implement in some cultures Management resistance  Concerned about losing power, status, jobs  Shift from command/control to mentor/facilitator Employee and labour union resistance  Employees uncomfortable with new roles, skills  Union concerns: More stress, lost work rules

Virtual Teams Defined

Teams whose members operate across space, time, and organizational boundaries and are linked through information technologies to achieve organizational tasks.

McShane/ Canadian OB 6e

Why Virtual Teams?

Increasingly possible because of  Information technologies  Knowledge-based work Increasingly necessary because of  Knowledge management  Globalization

McShane/ Canadian OB 6e

High-Performance Virtual Teams

Virtual teams perform better with Team Environment • Creative combination of communication channels Team Tasks • Structured tasks • Moderate interdependence Team Size

McShane/ Canadian OB 6e

• Smaller size than traditional team performing similar tasks 10 more

High Performance Virtual Teams (con’t)

Virtual teams perform better with Team Composition • Good communication and cross cultural skills in team members Team Processes • Some face-to-face meetings to assist team development Team Trust • Important in all teams, but especially virtual teams

Trust Defined

A psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intent or behaviour of another person.

McShane/ Canadian OB 6e

Three Levels of Trust

High

Identity-based Trust Knowledge-based Trust

Low

McShane/ Canadian OB 6e

Calculus-based Trust 13

Three Levels of Trust

(con’t)

Calculus-based trust  Based on deterrence  Fragile, limited, dependent on punishment Knowledge-based trust  Based on predictability and competence  Fairly robust, develops over time Identification-based trust  Based on common mental models and values  Increases with person’s social identity with team

Propensity to Trust

Some people are inherently more willing to trust others Propensity to trust influenced by personality, values, and socialization experiences Also varies with emotions at the moment

McShane/ Canadian OB 6e

Swift Trust in Teams

People typically join a virtual or conventional team with a moderate or high level of trust Explanations for this swift trust:  people usually believe their teammates are reasonably competent (knowledge-based trust)  people tend to develop some degree of social identify with the team But swift trust is fragile

Team Decision Making Constraints

Time constraints   Time to organize/coordinate Production blocking Evaluation apprehension  Belief that other team members are silently evaluating you Conformity to peer pressure  Suppressing opinions that oppose team norms

Team Constraints: Groupthink

Tendency in highly cohesive teams to value consensus at the price of decision quality More common when the  Team is highly cohesive      Team is isolated from outsiders Team leader is opinionated Team faces external threat Team has recent failures Team lacks clear guidance

Team Constraints: Group Polarization

Tendency for teams to make more extreme decisions than individuals alone Riskier options usually taken because of prospect theory effect fallacy -- dislike losing more than they like winning

McShane/ Canadian OB 6e

Group Polarization Process

High risk Individual opinions before meeting Low risk

Team discussion processes

High risk Social support Persuasive arguments Shifting responsibility Individual opinions after meeting Low risk

General Guidelines for Team Decisions

• Team norms should encourage critical thinking • Sufficient team diversity • Ensure neither leader nor any member dominates • Maintain optimal team size • Introduce effective team structures

NASA Encourages Constructive Conflict

Courtesy of Johnson Space Center NASA replaced the assigned seating rectangular table at the Johnson Space Center with a C-shaped arrangement where people sit wherever they want (shown in photo). The table is intended to avoid hierarchy so NASA managers can have more constructive debate.

McShane/ Canadian OB 6e

Constructive Conflict

Courtesy of Johnson Space Center Occurs when team members debate their different perceptions about an issue in a way that keeps the conflict focused on the task rather than people.

Problem: constructive conflict easily slides into personal attacks

McShane/ Canadian OB 6e

Rules of Brainstorming

1. Speak freely 2. Don’t criticize 3. Provide as many ideas as possible 4. Build on others’ ideas

McShane/ Canadian OB 6e

Evaluating Brainstorming

Strengths     Produces more innovative ideas Strengthens decision acceptance and team cohesiveness Sharing positive emotions encourages creativity Higher customer satisfaction if clients participate Weaknesses    Production blocking exists Evaluation apprehension exists in many groups Fewer ideas generated than when people work alone

Electronic Brainstorming

 Participants share ideas using software  Usually in the same room, but may be dispersed  Question posted, then participants submit their ideas or comments on computer  Comments/ideas appear anonymously on computer screens or at front of room

Evaluating Electronic Brainstorming

Strengths     Less production blocking Less evaluation apprehension More creative synergy More satisfaction with process Weaknesses     Too structured Technology-bound Candid feedback is threatening Not applicable to all decisions

Nominal Group Technique

Individual Activity

Describe problem Write down possible solutions

Team Activity

Possible solutions described to others

Individual Activity

Vote on solutions presented

McShane/ Canadian OB 6e

Team Building

 Any formal intervention directed toward improving the development and functioning of a work team  Accelerates team development  Applied to existing teams that have regressed in team development

McShane/ Canadian OB 6e

Types of Team Building

Role definition Goal setting Problem solving Interpersonal process

McShane/ Canadian OB 6e

Making Team Building Effective

Some team building activities are successful, but just as many fail because: Team-building activities need to target

specific

team problems Team building is a

continuous

process, not a one-shot inoculation Team building needs to occur

on-the-job

, not just away from the workplace

C H A P T E R: T E N