Team Effectiveness

A group is defined as two or more interdependent individuals working toward a common goal.¹ A work team has the same characteristics but with a greater degree of interdependence, and the senior leaders (including outside supporting leaders) who enacted the team are hoping for increased coordination and improved achievements.¹ Teams are formed for the express purpose of accomplishing critically important goals, but a team is not a panacea; its formation does not automatically lead to enhanced performance. In fact, without significant and ongoing nurturing by the leadership of an organization, teams can actually make things worse.

It is helpful to understand the building blocks required for a team’s success. Robbins and Judge (2012) describe a three-dimensional model that articulates its foundation: ²

Dimension 1 relates to the importance of Context:¹ Organizations need to support the construction and sustainability of a team (i.e. not a laissez-faire approach), and the team itself requires an environment of comfort for its members; psychological safety³ is essential so members can feel free to speak up and engage without ridicule. Performance feedback and motivational systems (e.g. additional pay for excellent work or recognition) must also be in place.¹

Dimension 2 suggests Composition is vital:¹ In addition to knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) of its membership (i.e. teams must be able to do the work assigned), the leader needs to focus on the people components as well.¹ Do the members have the disposition to work with others? Do they have the traits that enable team effectiveness (e.g. conscientiousness)?¹ Are all of the foundational work and team roles covered? For example, some people like to drive for the accomplishment of a task whereas others prefer a coordinating role acting as the glue that holds the group together.^{4 & 5}

Dimension 3 reveals Process is important: Teams must have clear purpose and specific goals. It is hard to motivate without all members having a clear idea of the direction the unit is heading (what does the end state look like?). In addition, mechanisms and agreements must be in place to deal with conflicts that arise and/or the members who are not “getting it done.” This suggests the need for conflict and general management training.

It is difficult to claim any of these as more important than the other. For example, if team members do not feel psychologically safe,³ then coordination and integration of knowledge among members is diminished. A negative climate also defeats the purpose of the team’s formation.  

It is also quite clear that if the team does not have the necessary KSAs, then it cannot complete its work. There are also people who have a very difficult time working in a group; these individual contributors are best left out of the group experience. Teams should also, at regular intervals, debrief its own functioning and discover what is working and can be improved; it is up to the group to seek and enact continuous improvement. 

Some could argue that “process” is the most important of the three dimensions. A team or even individuals need clear purpose and objectives to channel their energies; a team needs this or it can find itself going nowhere fast.

There are a few other issues of importance. For example, creating a consistent degree of psychological safety is required and when conflict turns toxic (personal rather than task focused), the leader needs to intervene to get things back on track. Inside and outside, supporting leaders need to be vigilant about what is happening in the group. Attentiveness like this comes from ongoing monitoring and observing what is occurring (see the last publication) and then taking any necessary corrective action. This is not always enjoyable but it must happen because team effectiveness is paramount.

Another example is about the membership.  From time to time, an unsuitable worker is placed on a team. This needs to be addressed; a weak link tends to drag the team down and even the stronger members may be unable to overpower the influence of the weaker. The leader is responsible for appointing and maintaining the strongest group possible – if a member is not appropriately engaged, he or she should be relieved of that responsibility; painful but necessary.

The leader also needs to be certain that all of the proper team roles are enacted and keep on top of how the team is doing. Some may feel this is touchy-feely, but studies have shown that “team checkups” can help it maintain momentum and performance. If this does not take place, a team can veer off course and, eventually, productivity and outcomes may be diminished.

Finally, a leader is always responsible for establishing the goals and objectives of the group; clear goals and strategies are more effective than “do your best” goals.⁵ This not only applies to teams but also to individuals; it is very difficult to reach a level of exemplary performance if the leaders of the organization have not taken the time to define its focus. Team members should also feel empowered to alert others when performance may be hindered. This is because it is up to the collective to make sure performance objectives are met, and all members must be prepared to act as a leader. 

Since teams are a dominant feature in organizations, its effectiveness is paramount to the success of the business. To that end, leaders must understand the dimensions that make a team successful and then work diligently to make it happen. In addition, when teams derail, mechanisms must be in place to bring it back to life; it is the leaders’ responsibility to make it happen.

Please feel free to make comments.

References

¹ Robbins, S.P., Judge, T.A. (2012), Essentials of Organizational Behavior, 11^th edition, Boston: Pearson

² Robbins, S.P., Judge, T.A. (2012), Essentials of Organizational Behavior, 11^th edition, Boston: Pearson. Team effectiveness model came from the works of M.A. Campion, E.M. Papper and J.G. Medscar; Hyatt and Ruddy; J.R. Hackman

³ Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383. 

⁴ Belbin, R.M. (2000). Team Roles at Work. Woburn, Mass: Butterworth-Heinemann.

⁵ Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2011). Organizational Behavior (14th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.