© 2005 Prentice-Hall 8-1 Understanding Work Teams Chapter 8 Essentials of Organizational Behavior, 8/e Stephen P. Robbins

© 2005 Prentice-Hall 8-2 Why have teams become so popular? Outperform on tasks requiring multiple skills, judgment, and experience Better utilization of employee talents More flexible and responsive to changing events

© 2005 Prentice-Hall 8-3 Why have teams become so popular? Facilitate employee participation in operating decisions Effective in democratizing the organization and increasing employee motivation

© 2005 Prentice-Hall 8-4 Work Group A group who interacts primarily to share information and to make decisions to help one another perform within each member’s area of responsibility

© 2005 Prentice-Hall 8-5 Work Team Generates positive synergy through coordinated effort Individual efforts result in a level of performance that is greater than the sum of those individual inputs

© 2005 Prentice-Hall 8-6 Comparing Work Groups and Work Teams Share information Neutral (sometimes negative) Individual Random and varied Collective performance Positive Individual and mutual ComplementaryGoalSynergyAccountabilitySkills Work groups Work teams

© 2005 Prentice-Hall 8-7 Four Types of Teams

© 2005 Prentice-Hall 8-8 Problem-Solving Teams Share ideas or offer suggestions on how work processes and methods can be improved

© 2005 Prentice-Hall 8-9 Problem-Solving Teams Rarely given authority to unilaterally implement any of their suggested actions Typically composed of 5-12 hourly employees from the same department Example: Quality Circles

© 2005 Prentice-Hall 8-10 Self-Managed Work Teams Collectively control pace of work Determine work assignments Organize breaks

© 2005 Prentice-Hall 8-11 Self-Managed Work Teams Collectively choose inspection procedures Select their own members and evaluate each other’s performance Generally composed of people

© 2005 Prentice-Hall 8-12 Cross-Functional Teams Members from diverse areas within and between organizations Exchange information Develop new ideas and solve problems

© 2005 Prentice-Hall 8-13 Cross-Functional Teams Coordinate complex projects Development is time-consuming due to complexity and diversity Examples: Task Force and Committees

© 2005 Prentice-Hall 8-14 Virtual Teams Computer technology ties physically dispersed members together to achieve a common goal

© 2005 Prentice-Hall 8-15 Virtual Teams Differentiating factors from other teams –Absence of para-verbal and non- verbal cues –Limited social context –Ability to overcome time and space constraints

© 2005 Prentice-Hall 8-16 Creating Effective Teams Effectiveness of teams is defined by: –Objective measures of the team’s productivity –Manager’s ratings of team performance –Aggregate measures of member satisfaction

© 2005 Prentice-Hall 8-17 Key Components of Teams Context Composition Work Design Process

© 2005 Prentice-Hall 8-18 Context Presence of adequate resources Effective leadership Climate of trust Performance evaluation and reward system that reflects team contributions

© 2005 Prentice-Hall 8-19 Composition Abilities of members Personality Allocating roles Diversity Size of teams Member flexibility Member preferences

© 2005 Prentice-Hall 8-20 Work Design Freedom & Autonomy Skill variety Task identity Task significance

© 2005 Prentice-Hall 8-21 Process Member commitment to a common purpose Establishment of specific team goals Team efficacy Managed level of conflict Minimizing social loafing

© 2005 Prentice-Hall 8-22 Shaping Team Players Selection Training Rewards

© 2005 Prentice-Hall 8-23 Teams and Quality Management Teams provide the natural vehicle for employees to share ideas and to implement improvements

© 2005 Prentice-Hall 8-24 Teams should: (1) be small enough to be efficient and effective (2) be properly trained in the skills their members will need (3) be allocated enough time to work on the problems they plan to address Teams and Quality Management

© 2005 Prentice-Hall 8-25 Teams should: (4) be given the authority to resolve the problems and implement corrective action (5) have a designated “champion” Teams and Quality Management

© 2005 Prentice-Hall 8-26 How do you know if the work of your group would be better done in teams? Can the work be done better by more than one person? Does the work create a common purpose or set of goals for the people in the group? Are the members of the group interdependent?