Transcript Slides for Kogan Page Making Sense of Change Management

TEAM CHANGE
• What is a group and when is it a team?
• Why do you need teams?
• What types of organizational teams are there?
• How do you improve team effectiveness?
• What does team change look like?
• How do individuals affect team dynamics?
© Esther Cameron and Mike Green (2009).
This resource is part of a range offered free to academics using Making Sense of Change Management as
part of their course. For more academic resources, please visit www.koganpage.com/resources.
Differences Between Groups and Teams
GROUP
TEAM OR WORK GROUP
Indeterminate size
Restricted in size
Common interests
Common overarching objectives
Sense of being part of something or seen as being
part of something
Interaction between members to accomplish
individual and group goals
Interdependent as much as individuals might wish
to be
Interdependency between members to accomplish
individual and group goals
May have no responsibilities other than a sense of
belonging to the group
Shared responsibilities
May have no accountabilities other than
‘contractual’ ones
Individual accountabilities
A group doesn’t necessarily have any work to do or
goals to accomplish
The team works together, physically or virtually
© Esther Cameron and Mike Green (2009).
This resource is part of a range offered free to academics using Making Sense of Change Management as
part of their course. For more academic resources, please visit www.koganpage.com/resources.
Why Teams are Important During Change
Team
mode
Co-operative
mode
Little teamwork
needed
Working with considerable
uncertainty
Working with some
uncertainties
Status Quo
Work full of certainty
© Esther Cameron and Mike Green (2009).
This resource is part of a range offered free to academics using Making Sense of Change Management as
part of their course. For more academic resources, please visit www.koganpage.com/resources.
Different Teams in Change
Work
Management
Parallel
Matrix
GROUP
Network
Virtual
Change
Project
© Esther Cameron and Mike Green (2009).
This resource is part of a range offered free to academics using Making Sense of Change Management as
part of their course. For more academic resources, please visit www.koganpage.com/resources.
Team Effectiveness Profile
Team Interpersonal
Relationships
Glaser and Glaser (1992)
© Esther Cameron and Mike Green (2009).
This resource is part of a range offered free to academics using Making Sense of Change Management as
part of their course. For more academic resources, please visit www.koganpage.com/resources.
Effective and Ineffective Teams
ELEMENT
Team mission,
planning and
goal setting
O
U
T
C
O
M
E
Team more
effective,
adaptive and
change
oriented
Team less
effective,
less
adaptive and
change
oriented
Team roles
Team operating
processes
Team
interpersonal
relationships
Inter-team
relations
Clarity of goals and
clear direction lead
to greater task
accomplishment
and increased
motivation.
Clear roles and
responsibilities
increase individual
accountability and
allow others to work
at their tasks.
Problem solving and
decision making are
smoother and faster.
Processes enable task
accomplishment
without undue
conflict.
Open data flow and
high levels of team
working leading to
task
accomplishment
in a supportive
environment.
Working across
boundaries ensures
that organizational
goals are more
likely to be achieved.
Lack of purpose
and unclear goals
result in dissipation
of energy and effort.
Unclear roles and
responsibilities lead
to increased conflict
and reduced
accountability.
Unclear operating
processes increase
time and effort
needed to progress
task achievement.
Dysfunctional
team working
causes tensions,
conflict, stress and
insufficient focus
on task
accomplishment.
Teams working
in isolation or
against other teams
reduce the
likelihood of
organizational goal
achievement.
© Esther Cameron and Mike Green (2009).
This resource is part of a range offered free to academics using Making Sense of Change Management as
part of their course. For more academic resources, please visit www.koganpage.com/resources.
Team Change
Interdependence
Performing
People
Cohesion
Norming
Storming
Conflict
Dependency
Forming
Orientation
Open
data flow
Organization
Problem
solving
Task
Adapted from Table 2.4 and Table 5.4
Tuckman (1965) and Jones and Bearley (1986)
© Esther Cameron and Mike Green (2009).
This resource is part of a range offered free to academics using Making Sense of Change Management as
part of their course. For more academic resources, please visit www.koganpage.com/resources.
Tuckman
(1965)
Forming
Attempt at establishing primary
purpose, structure, roles, leader, task
and process relationships, and
boundaries of the team.
Storming
Arising and dealing of conflicts
surrounding key questions from
Forming stage
Norming
Settling down of team dynamic and
stepping into team norms and
agreed ways of working
Schutz
(1982)
In or Out
Members decide whether they are part of the
team or not
Modlin &
Faris
(1958)
Structuralism
Attempt to recreate previous power
structures within new team
Unrest
Attempt to resolve power and
interpersonal issues
Change
Roles emerge based on task and
people needs
Sense of team emerges
Whittaker
(1970)
Preaffiliation
Sense of unease, unsure of team
engagement, which is superficial
Power and Control
Focus on who has power and
authority within the team
Attempt to define roles
Intimacy
Team begins to commit to task and
engage with one another
Hill and
Gruner
(1973)
Orientation
Structure sought
Exploration
Exploration around team roles and relations
Production
Clarity of team roles and team cohesion
Bion
(1961)
Dependency
Team members invest the leaders with all the
power and authority
Fight or Flight
Team members challenge the leaders or other members
Team members withdraw
Pairing
Team members form pairings in an attempt to
resolve their anxieties
Scott Peck
(1990)
Pseudocommunity
Members try and fake teamliness
Top or Bottom
Focus on who has power and authority within the team
Chaos
Attempt to establish pecking order
and team norms
Performing
Team is now ready and enabled to
focus primarily on its task whilst
attending to individual and team
maintenance needs
Near or Far
Finding levels of commitment and engagement
within their roles
Emptiness
Giving up of expectations,
assumptions and hope of achieving
anything
Integration
Team purpose and structure emerge
and accepted, action towards team
goals
Differentiation
Ability to be clear about individual
roles and interactions become
workmanlike
Community
Acceptance of each other and focus
on the task
© Esther Cameron and Mike Green (2009).
This resource is part of a range offered free to academics using Making Sense of Change Management as
part of their course. For more academic resources, please visit www.koganpage.com/resources.
Belbin Team Types
• Plant
Creative, imaginative, unorthodox. Solves difficult
problems.
• Resource Investigator
Extrovert, enthusiastic, communicative. Explores
opportunities. Develops contacts.
• Co-ordinator
Mature, confident. Clarifies goals. Brings other people
together to promote team discussions.
• Shaper
Challenging, dynamic, thrives on pressure. Has the drive
and courage to overcome obstacles.
© Esther Cameron and Mike Green (2009).
This resource is part of a range offered free to academics using Making Sense of Change Management as
part of their course. For more academic resources, please visit www.koganpage.com/resources.
• Monitor Evaluator
Serious minded, strategic and discerning. Sees all options.
Judges accurately.
• Team Worker
Co-operative, mild, perceptive and diplomatic. Listens, builds,
averts friction.
• Implementer
Disciplined, reliable, conservative in habits. A capacity for
taking practical steps and actions.
• Completer Finisher
Painstaking, conscientious, anxious. Searches out errors and
omissions. Delivers on time.
• Specialist
Single-minded, self-starting, dedicated. Provides knowledge
and skills in rare supply.
© Esther Cameron and Mike Green (2009).
This resource is part of a range offered free to academics using Making Sense of Change Management as
part of their course. For more academic resources, please visit www.koganpage.com/resources.
Personality and Teams
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”
“let’s just do it”
“let’s think ahead”
“Let’s change it”
• The more similar the team the
sooner they will reach common
understanding.
• The more disparate the team, the
slower it takes for understanding to
occur.
• The more similar the team the
quicker the decision will be made,
but the greater the possibility of
error through exclusion of some
possibilities.
• The more disparate the team the
longer the decision-making process,
but the more views and opinions are
taken into account.
© Esther Cameron and Mike Green (2009).
This resource is part of a range offered free to academics using Making Sense of Change Management as
part of their course. For more academic resources, please visit www.koganpage.com/resources.