TEAMS GROUPS LEADERSHIP TEAM ROLE THEORY

GROUPS SHAW Three or more persons who are interacting with one another in such a manner that each person influences and is influenced by each other person. Reciprocal influence leader & followers Group members interact and influence one another Not constrained to one group DYAD = Two persons interacting together.

GROUP PERFORMANCE Additive Task – group’s output simply involves the combination of individual outputs. Interactive Effects – to what extent should group members be similar / dissimillar or compatible / incompatible?

GROUP PERFORMANCE Process Loss – inefficiencies created by more and more people working together. Social Loafing – reduced work effort by people when not individually accountable. Social Facilitation – increased work effort due to the presence of others. Hawthorne Effect – artificial change in behavior because group is being studied

GROUP PERFORMANCE TUCKMAN’s 4 STAGES Forming – superficial information, low trust Storming – conflict, status differentiation Norming – emergence of leader, development of norms, cohesiveness Performing – interdependent roles to perform group’s tasks

GROUP ROLES BENNE & SHEATS Sets of expected behaviors associated with particular jobs or positions. Task roles – getting task done Relationship (Maintenance) roles – supporting relationships within the group Dysfunctional roles – self-serving behavior

GROUP NORMS Informal rules groups adopt to regulate and regularize group members’ behavior. Facilitate group survival Make predictable expected behavior Avoid embarrassing interpersonal problems Express central values of the group Clarify group’s identity Easier for outsider to identify

GROUP COHESION Sum of forces that attract members to a group, provide resistance to leaving, motivate active membership. Group glue. Overbounding – overly cohesive group erects barriers to outside resources Groupthink – suppression of dissent, critical thinking in highly cohesive groups Ollieism – illegal action by overzealous members Abilene Paradox – go along with the group when no one wants to

GROUPS V TEAMS Mutual interaction, Reciprocal influence + Stronger sense of identification Common goals or tasks Greater task interdependence Differentiated and specialized roles

EFFECTIVE TEAMS Task Clear mission, high standards Take stock of resources Assess technical skills of team members Secure resources Plan and organize Maintenance High levels of communication Minimal interpersonal conflict

4 Required Initial Components EFFECTIVE TEAMS HACKMAN/GINNETT 4 Required Initial Components Task Structure – unambiguous, autonomy Group Boundaries – enough skills, interpersonal skills, diversity Norms – support objectives Authority – match demands of situation

GROUPS & PERSONALITY Issues Mann (1959) and Shaw (1981) noted that small group researchers had used over 500 different measures of personality Less than a quarter used the same measure. Numerous tasks used as measure of group performance. Personality is additive as well as interactive

GROUPS & PERSONALITY Personality is additive input. Treat as resource which combines additively to directly affect group performance. Personality is interactive. Affects group processes.

PERSONALITY INTERACTIONS TWO DISTINCT APPROACHES Process gain or loss that results when teammembers’ personalities interact characterized by two distinct approaches. COMPATIBILITY APPROACH vs. PROFILE HETEROGENEITY APPROACH Agreeableness vs. Dominance

COMPATIBILITY APPROACH Social Compatibility Approach emphasizes Extraversion and Agreeableness. Process gain results when groups are homogeneously high in terms of Agreeable- ness Skewed in terms of the assertiveness facet of Extraversion with one dominant rest low Enhanced group process by reduced conflict. Conscientiousness and Openness additive

HETEROGENEITY APPROACH Heterogeneity per se not any additive personality combination is required for success. Heterogeneous groups have a greater variety of perspectives. Standard Deviation most important. Conflict causes issues to be challenged and assumptions examined.

TEAM ROLE THEORY R. Meredith Belbin Cambridge Professor “Management Teams: Why They Succeed of Fail” Management College Henly Total Enterprise Simulations Role Playing Examined personality characteristics of successful and unsuccessful teams with regard to Cattell’s 16PF

TEAM ROLE THEORY Successful teams have a complete and balanced distribution of nine team roles. Unsuccessful teams have voids or overlaps. Voids – teams that lack a team role. Overlaps – Unconstructive Friction

TEAM ROLE THEORY Team Role describes a pattern of behavior characteristic of the way in which one team member interacts with another where his performance serves to facilitate the progress of the team as a whole.

TEAM ROLE THEORY PLANT RESOURCE INVESTIGATOR CO-ORDINATOR SHAPER MONITOR-EVALUATOR TEAM WORKER IMPLEMENTER COMPLETER-FINISHER SPECIALIST

PLANT Idea person, Introverted Source of creativity, Unorthodox Individualistic, Serious minded Looks outside of the box Pros: Genius, imaginative, intellect, knowledge Cons: Up-in-the-clouds, disregard practical details

RESOURCE INVESTIGATOR Extraverted, Curious, Enthusiastic, Communicative Inquisitive, Social, Extraverts, Low Anxiety Explores and reports on ideas, resources outside the group. Pros: Capacity for networking, ability to respond to challenge. Cons: Lose interest once the initial fascination has passed.

CO-ORDINATOR Stable, Extravert, Natural Leader Calm, self-confident, controlled Controls team by making best use of team resources. Unifier pulls group together to pursue common objective Pros: Treats and welcomes all participants Clear sense of objectives, 9.9. leader Cons: Ordinary in intellect and creativity

SHAPER Extraverted, Unstable (dynamic) Goads group into action. Mover and shaker. Imposes shape on group discussion and on the outcome of the group. Pros: Drive, readiness to challenge inertia Cons: Proneness to provocation, irritation, and impatience 9.1.

MONITOR-EVALUATOR Sober, Discerning, Prudent, Unemotional Capacity to make shrewd judgments that takes all factors into account. Analyzes problems, evaluates ideas and suggestions. Pros: Judgment, discretion, hard-headedness Cons: Lacks inspiration or the ability to motivate others.

TEAM WORKER Extraverted, Agreeable, low Assertiveness Strong interest in people and communication, sensitive Supports members in their strengths, improves communication, fosters team spirit. Pros: Ability to respond to people and situations Cons: Indecisiveness at moments of crisis

IMPLEMENTER Disciplined, Reliable, Practical, Conscien tious, Dutiful, Practical Turns concepts and plans into practical working procedures. Carries out plans systematically and efficiently. Conservative, dutiful, predictable. Pros: Organizing ability, practical common sense, hard-working, self-disciplined. Cons: Lack of flexibility, unresponsive to unproven ideas

COMPLETER-FINISHER Conscientious, Anxious, Disciplined, Self- controlled, Orderly, Introverted Ensures that the team is protected from mistakes of both omission and commission. Pros: Perfectionist Cons: Tendency to worry about small things. Difficulty in letting go.

SPECIALIST Introverted, has narrow special knowledge Technical expert Dedicated, single minded

BENNE & SHEETS 1948 TASK ROLES Initiator-contributor – suggests new ideas Information seeker – seeks relevant facts Elaborator – spells out solutions/rationales Coordinator – pulls ideas/actions together Orienter – defines group’s position Evaluator-critic – imposes a standard Energizer – prods group to action Procedural technician – does things for group

BENNE & SHEETS 1948 MAINTENANCE ROLES Encourager – provides warmth, acceptance Harmonizer – mediates differences Compromiser – suggests solutions to problems Gate-Keeper – keeps communication open Ego Ideal – applies standards in evaluating group processes Follower – goes with the flow of the group