Quizzes Housekeeping Team building Tuckman model Groups vs. Teams Why do teams fail? What makes teams work? Background on TB Team time for TB presentation Analysis of team meetings Reflective learning & team process

QUIZ!

Team Development And Performance

Difference between good and poor teams Think of teams, committees, task forces, groups, etc., that you have been a member of… What are the differences between “good” and “poor” teams? What needs to happen to make a difference if you want to develop good teams?

Team Building “You Americans have caught on to our secret of productivity in Japan– teams! But we will still win. You think all you need to do is to put people together in groups and something will happen. We know that’s only the beginning.” -- President of Matsushita

What’s the difference between “good” and “poor” teams?

Teams in the workplace In 1980 an estimated 250 worksites used teams; by 1988 it had increased to 67% and by 1990 to 83%. Nearly all workplaces have introduced teams to some degree at this time 80% of Fortune 500 companies have half their employees working in teams 56% of large companies with over 5,000 employees use virtual teams Industry Week reports that 68% of small companies use teams, with over 25% having 25-99% of employees in teams

Advantages of Teams— Team wins! Shenandoah Life improved case handling time from 27 to 2 days Sherwin-Williams lowered costs by 45% and reduced returned goods by 75% Tavistock Coal increased output by 25% and reduced absenteeism by 75% Proctor & Gamble had 30-50% lower manufacturing costs Kodak improved SPC by 228%, safety by 67%, output by 12%, and decreased cost by 11% GE improved productivity by 250% Westinghouse reduced cycle time from 17 days to 1 week Ford had lower defect rate than most Japanese competitors General Mills had productivity 40% higher than in its traditional plants American Transtech reduced costs by and processing time by 50% Honeywell increased output 280%, and quality stepped up from 82% to 99.5% A GM battery plant reported a productivity savings of 30-40% OVERALL-- In a study of SDWT’s in 7 countries: 93% increased productivity, 86% lowered operating costs, 86% enhanced quality, 70% improved employee attitudes

When it just doesn’t work our the way you planned— The failure of teams… 6 out of 10 work teams fail It may take a year or more for new teams to reach pre-team performance levels SDWT’s work least well during downsizing (when most needed) 58% of executives express frustration in developing and sustaining team motivation >50% of teams fail due to unclear or changing objectives, lack of accountability or management support Managers report limiting effort on 56% of their teams

When Team Members Give Up In a study of 569 managers, they reported that they limited their efforts or input in over 56% of the teams in which they participated. The major causes for giving up were cited as: Presence of someone with expertise (73%)--I wasn't needed Presentation of compelling argument (62%)--I didn't have other information for an argument Lack of confidence in ability to contribute (61%)--I wasn't prepared or there were other "high power" people. Unimportant or meaningless decision (52%)--why waste my time? Pressures to conform to team decision (46%) --groupthink at its best! Dysfunctional decision making climate (39%)--you want me to risk what?!

When Teams Fail Lack of skills on task or as team members Missing basic talents: abstract thinking, social intelligence, emotional resilience, work attitude Lack of energy due to low meaningfulness, respect, or trust Lack of clear focus: mission, vision, values, strategy, tactical goals Unclear, inconsistent, conflicting, or overloaded roles Uncertain measures of performance for team & individual Lack of timely feedback with accountability & coaching

Differences between teams and individuals– what we know from research & practice Social facilitation: people are more motivated to perform better with others, especially on motor tasks, when comfortable, well-trained, & good work habits Learning: Teams learn faster than individuals when there is division of labor, contributions are additive, feedback is available & accepted Judgment: Teams can be superior due to broader knowledge & more inputs; trained individuals better than untrained groups; confidence unrelated to quality with untrained

More differences between teams and individuals– Risky Decisions: Greater risk taken with teams that are excessively cohesive (groupthink), under great pressure to decide, norms against reflection, & diffusion of responsibility Problem Solving: teams produce more and better quality solutions, based on interest in task, most skilled members, and error checking Time Efficiency: Teams usually take more time to complete a task (e.g., Braess Paradox) Idea Production: Teams continue to produce after individuals run dry, especially with training and cohesion (trust & spring-boarding)

Guidelines: In general, teams should be chosen over individuals when: There is sufficient time available. Members are adequately trained in their specialization areas as well as in team membership skills. Wide diversity of information and inputs are necessary. A high quality decision is required; the decision is so important that judgment of several qualified people is a must. The problem is poorly structured (e.g., unclear objectives, vague alternatives, uncertain outcomes). Commitment to the plan is important and would be gained by team decision. Team representation of many stakeholders would facilitate organizational acceptance of the decision or plan.

What is team-building? What’s the difference between team building and team development? When can team building be done? What interpersonal mechanisms are the focus of TB (e.g., group “dynamics”)?

Team Presentations Identify the nature of the team describe the activity & why you selected it explain the behaviors and mechanisms in the activity that contribute to team building indicate what you would expect participants to learn

Risk-Taking

Considerations for Team Building Background History, norms, culture Context of current request Why now (not 6 months earlier/later?) What happens if TB is not done? What do you want to be different? What’s prevented this from happening until now? Design Sufficient time (2-3 hours); protected time (retreat) Homework, preparation Legitimacy, authorization, support Materials (handouts, surveys, facilities, A-V, etc.) Structured exercises & processing Evaluation What are the immediate, short and long term indications that TB was successful? (e.g., Kirkpatrick Model)

Tuckman Stages of Team Development 3. Norming 2. Storming Differences, influence, power, conflict, complementing Team cohesion, norms, conformity, groupthink risk, team espirit Low  Social Emphasis  High 4. Performing 1. Forming Acquaintance, goals, roles, procedures, constraints, resources, schedule, etc. High performing team: Task focus, quality, productive, reflective, espirit, etc. Adjourning Low Task Emphasis High Joining Reforming

Laboratory Education or T-group (Training Group) X Positive experiences X X X X X X X X Key incidents Negative experiences 16 weeks Microlab # # # # # # # # # Sequence of structured exercises 3 hours

Stage 1: Forming Stage 2: Storming Stage 3: Norming Stage 4: Assessing resources & setting direction What is our understanding of the goals and objectives which this team was organized to achieve? How can we ensure we are all going in the same direction? What special skills, information, backgrounds, and expertise do each of us bring to this team? What structure, format, style and schedule do we prefer for our meetings? What roles do each of us prefer on a team? What are our strong and weak roles? Which do we over/underuse? What are our preferred styles of working and relating? How can these differences be used to complement each other, and be sequenced for more effective problem solving? What stresses each of us? How might our styles change under pressure? What can we look for as signs of stress? How can we give useful and acceptable feedback and support at these times? About what are we most likely to disagree? What are our preferred modes of conflict and conflict resolution? How can we disagree constructively? What can we do to enhance the identity and cohesiveness of this team? How can we create our own team culture? What norms do we bring from other team experiences? What norms would we like to explicitly include or avoid? How can we ensure a team culture in which we can freely question and update restrictive norms? How can we best monitor and discuss our team processes so we can continue to develop and improve? Stage 2: Storming Positioning, influence, conflict, complemen- tarity Stage 3: Norming Identity, cohesion, monitor norms Stage 4: Performing Maintain high performance

For Week 3: Your team task is to— Assume you are a consultant to a particular group. Observe a team meeting or committee meeting. In class, describe the stages of the meeting and interpersonal dynamics (see “what to observe in a group” web article What did they do that was effective and ineffective; explain the dynamics that led to such behavior; make recommended changes Teams will make a brief (10-15”) presentation in class next week

The Reflective Learning Cycle

Team Processing (reflecting on interactions and processes) Category Description Possible interpretation & implications Interventions Communication (for example) One person spoke more than others Members directed most communication to most frequent talker Topic change was initiated by primary talker Primary talker initiated moving to decision Emergence of leader Potential imbalance of introvert and extravert Risk of dominance or development of passive norms High task orientation Possible under-development and utilization of member’s skills Encourage “leader” to be “gatekeeper” Distribute leadership to others Leader attend late and empower others to begin work Discuss interaction and implications of styels

Possible interpretation & implications So… add other categories of what to observe and continue elaborating on the chart Category Description Possible interpretation & implications Interventions Communication (for example) One person spoke more than others Members directed most communication to most frequent talker Topic change was initiated by primary talker Primary talker initiated moving to decision Emergence of leader Potential imbalance of introvert and extravert Risk of dominance or development of passive norms High task orientation Possible under-development and utilization of member’s skills Encourage “leader” to be “gatekeeper” Distribute leadership to others Leader attend late and empower others to begin work Discuss interaction and implications of styels

The “Learning Organization”: Reflective learning on all three levels: Individual, team, organization–

3S Team Reflection STAY: What did we do that worked well for us and we should continue? STOP: What did we do that got in our way and we should discontinue? START: What didn’t we do that would make us more effective and we should start?