OB6

TATION

AARHUS UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

Organisational Behaviour Lecture 6: Groups and teams

Mette Strange ([email protected])

Department of Business Administration

mailto:[email protected]

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


Agenda

Different types of groups Stages of group and team development Different roles in groups/teams High performance and autonomous teams Conflicts and competition in and between groups/teams

2

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


Groups and teams Groups:

Schein: a group is any number of people

Who interact with one another

Who are psychologically aware of one another

Who perceive themselves to be a group

Teams:

Katzenbach: a team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable.

Self-directed

Self-managed teams

3

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


Why gather in groups/teams? Company dimension:

Parker (1990): Use of teams leads to:

Greater productivity

More effective uses of resources

Better decisions

Better problem solving

Better quality products/services

Increased innovation and creativity

4

Human dimension:

Sense of belonging

We are social animals

Need input from and social interaction with others

Most people belong to several groups both in and out of work

Each providing different benefits to their members and satisfying various needs

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


Organizational forms of groups, and their functions Formal groups: Are established in a planned way either

permanently or temporarily. Their purpose is to help solve specific problems derived from the goals of the organization

Function:

To solve complex tasks To produce creative ideas To coordinate across departments To increase decision-making ability To facilitate implementation To ease socialization and training

5

Informal groups: Are spontaneously created. They can be

aimed at problem-solving purposes, but more often fulfill the group members pychological needs

Function:

To fulfill affiliation needs

To develop and maintain a common identity

To establish and test social reality

To reduce fear and insecurity

To accomplish tasks

.

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


6

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


Tabel 8.6: Common types of teams

7

Quality circles Virtual teams Self-managed

teams

Type advice Advice or project Production, project

or action

Empowerment consultation Consultation,

participation or

delegation

Delegation

Members Production/service

personnel

Managers and

technical specialists

Production/service,

technical specialists

Basis of membership Voluntary Assigned (voluntary) Assigned

Relationship to

organisation structure

Parallel Parallel or integrated Integrated

Amount of face-to-

face communication

Face-to-face Periodic to none Varies

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


Self-directed and self-managed teams Starting point: Swedish car manufacturing industry experimented with

autonomous work groups in 1970s Each group decided for themselves how their work was to be distributed and

scheduled Productivity increased, labor turnover dropped, product quality improved and

absenteeism fell

Organisations with self-directed teams differ in terms of: Fewer layers of managers and supervisors Reward systems are often skill or team based, rather than seniority based Leaders may be elected by the team The leader as a coach and facilitator Employees learn all the jobs required of the team Information is shared with the employees.

8

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


Figur 8.5

9

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


Self-directed teams: a gift to organizations? Typical pitfalls: The difficulty of removing the system, once it is established and experienced by the workers

Varying levels and degrees of resistance by elements in the organisation

Increasing peer pressure and its consequences.

10

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


Figur 8.3 Team effectiveness

11

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


Building and maintaining effective teams No quick and easy way

The key to success does not always appear to lie in the selection of team members (talented individuals can work poorly as a team)

The size of a group as an important moderating factor in its ability to be effective: between 5 and 8 members (Handy)

Effectiveness is a function of group members orientation and attitude, not simply the behaviour of the leader.

12

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


High performing teams

Necessary that the team is thinking we instead of I, and that cooperation in the group is characterized by: Trust to the other members of the team Loyalty to the decisions made Initiative to carry out decisions Responsibility work and cooperation Reliability in all situations Energy - everybody must contribute Respect we are all different Commitment - results Evaluation improvement.

13

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


Tuckman: Team Developoment

14

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


Team Development (2) Other steps?

De-norming ( members move in different directions as interests and expectations change)

De-storming (prioritizing comes to forefront again)

De-forming (members interest in group/tasks less than own interests)

Leadership style and group/team productivity:

A result-oriented leadership styles may be best in the early phases, but likely to have a

negative effect on cohesiveness and quality of work later on

An employee-oriented leadership style may be less desirable in early phases, but highly

compatible with the later phases of development

15

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


Roles vs. relations

Roles: Focus on competences Relations: Not focus on what you know, but who you know and how well you know them

If a network consists of people who know each other More trust More redundancy Speak the same language, about the same things more

consensus Less surprises and perhaps less innovation.

16

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


Schein: roles gone bad

Role overload

When the expectations of others are far greater than the

employee can manage ( stress)

Role conflict

When there are many, often conflicting, expectations

Role ambiguity

When there is poor communication about expectations

(e.g. Unclear job description or performance management)

17

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


18

Plant

The role was so-called because

one such individual was

planted in each team. They

tended to be highly creative

and good at solving problems

in unconventional ways

Monitor Evaluator

was needed to provide a

logical eye, make impartial

judgements where required

and to weigh up the teams

options in a dispassionate way

Specialist

an individual

with in-depth

knowledge of a

key area

Implementer

needed to plan a

practical, workable

strategy and carry it out

as efficiently as possible

Shaper

provided the necessary

drive to ensure that

the team kept moving

and did not lose focus

or momentum

Completer-finisher

most effectively used at

the end of a task, to

polish and scrutinise

the work for errors,

subjecting it to the highest

standards of quality

control

Ressource investigator

provided inside knowledge on

the opposition and made sure

that the teams idea would

carry to the world outside the

team

Teamworker

helped the team to gel, using

their versatility to identify the

work required and complete it

on behalf of the team

Co-ordinator

needed to focus on the

teams objectives, draw

out team members and

delegate work

appropriately

Social Roles Think-roles

Do-roles

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


Why teams dont work: Hackman You might produce magic (but maybe not)

Teams need boundaries (and members need to know what they are)

Teams must have a direction (and someone willing to determine it)

Teamwork doesnt necessarily lead to satisfaction (but good performance does)

Bigger is better

Diversity isnt always a plus

Teams need a devils advocate (even if they dont want one)

19

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


Figur 8.4 Why teams fail

20

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


Intra- and intergroup conflicts Intra-group (in the group):

Extreme personalities in the same

group/team

The members compete for (limited)

resources

For instance sales people, real

estate

Some members are free riders (social loafing)

21

Inter-group (between groups):

Some competition between groups is

good

But right balance between friendly

competition and cooperation

between the groups is needed

Competition between groups in an

organisation leads to greater

motivation, but be aware of potential

consequences

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


Intra- and inter-group consequences of competition Intra-group consequences: Increased loyalty within group

Increased formalisation Focus on the job/task (and not social activities)

Acceptance of one taking the control

Members must conform to the group norms

22

Inter-group consequences:

Identification of enemies We and them Strong selective perception and single loop-learning

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


Inter-group competition: Loser and winner reactions Winner reactions: Increased group solidarity More focus on social aspects (having a nice time)

Increased interest in the individual member: situation and problems

No focus on experiences/ single-loop learning

23

Loser reactions:

It is not our fault; question the result

Who to blame? The group seems to break up Some groups try to work their way out of the problems

Double-loop learning

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


Reducing negative consequences of inter-group competition

Finding common external enemies, e.g. competitor on the market

Re-establish the contact between the competing groups and encourage negotiations about common concerns

Launch new joint goals that call for cooperation between the groups, e.g. develop a new product/service

Initiate various kinds of organization-developing activities and training, e.g. confrontation meetings, rotation systems, inter-group sessions.

24

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


Reducing/preventing inter-group conflict

Inter-group competition and conflict will often be directly related to a companys organizational structure Establish an evaluating system that offers rewards in

proportion to the results of the entire organization Use problem-solving and decision-making procedures that

increase the contact and communication between the various groups

Introduce rotation systems and similar organizational activities Reduce the basis for loser/winner situations, e.g. avoid

competition for common scarce resources/career opportunities.

25

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


The Asch effect

Based on laboratory experiments Soloman Asch

revealed a negative side of group dynamics

Perception test: seven to nine college students

look at 12 pairs of cards to identify the line that was

the same length as the standard line

Surprising results

26

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


Groupthink

Even in a strongly cohesive group, pressure is placed on members to fall into line and conform to the group norms

Groupthink: a mode of thinking in which people engage when they are deeply involved in a cohesive group, in which strivings for unanimity override motivations to realistically appraise alternative courses of action (Brooks, p. 136).

27

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


Figur 7.5: Symptoms & Consequences of Groupthink

28

AARHUS UNIVERSITY


Next lecture

Culture

Sinding, chapter 12: Organisational and

international culture (main focus: organisational

culture)

29

OB6

Documents

teams groups

social sciences groups

group teams

social sciences selfdirected

social sciences tabel

social animals

social reality

social interaction