Date post: | 03-Oct-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | andrei-firte |
View: | 216 times |
Download: | 1 times |
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
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
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
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
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
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
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
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
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
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
6
AARHUS UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
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
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
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
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Figur 8.5
9
AARHUS UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
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
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Figur 8.3 Team effectiveness
11
AARHUS UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
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
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
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
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Tuckman: Team Developoment
14
AARHUS UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
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
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
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
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
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
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
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
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
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
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Figur 8.4 Why teams fail
20
AARHUS UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
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
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
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
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
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
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
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
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
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
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
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
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
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
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Figur 7.5: Symptoms & Consequences of Groupthink
28
AARHUS UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Next lecture
Culture
Sinding, chapter 12: Organisational and
international culture (main focus: organisational
culture)
29