Understand underlying premises in definition and their deductions. For teamwork to be good to organisations and persons, squads should ever be efficient and effectual and have ideal consequence on motive and undertakings.
Katzenbach and Smith, 1993 define a squad as “ a little figure of people with complementary accomplishments who are committed to a common intent, set of public presentation ends, and attack for which they hold themselves reciprocally accountable. ”
Team-members are non entirely motivated by working in squads or holding common ends. Harmonizing to Maslow ‘s hierarchy of demands ( Maslow, 1943 ) team-members have other demands that may be their primary motive factor. Need for belongingness will be satisfied easy in a squad if other team-members accept the member. Individual work is non rewarded or recognized in a squad. When a squad succeeds, full squad gets the benefit. There may be people who feel they have contributed more to the success of the squad ( Swenson, 1997 ) . They feel they do non acquire acknowledgment and wagess for their attempts. In a squad, it is really hard to mensurate single ‘s public presentation and satisfy person ‘s demand for accomplishment. This may thwart some people and they may non work to their fullest in the squad.
Leadership may attest otherwise in a squad, its presence can non be denied. The leader will assist the squad arrive at a solution, motivate members to lend more and back up them. Leader will assist the squad understand the environmental complexness and recognize its full potency ( Sinclair, 1992 ) . Lack of apprehension of leading in a squad hence, by non act uponing it, organisations will non be able to do the squad beneficial. Leadership can assist in implementing norms good to organisations.
Teams and Organizations
Teams within organisations function within context of the organisation. In order for them to be successful and therefore good to organisations, certain conditions need to be satisfied. ( expand )
Goals and aims of the squad may non be clear to all members ( Drew and Mcmaster, 1997 ) . Team-members may come from different backgrounds and have different readings of aims therefore demoing an semblance of consensus ( Janis, 1972 ) .
Teams may go stray from organisation by developing their ain private linguistic communication and alone intent taking to formation of subcultures. They may work towards their ain sub-goals fring sight of organisational ends ( Bensimon and Neumann, 1993 ) .
Organization can make up one’s mind diverseness and accomplishments of team-members but it can non command their interactions, dealingss and influence. Therefore, seeking to advance an effectual undertaking behaviour ( Hackman, 1987 ) will non be easy. Norms are formed in the squad after ramping phase. There is a possibility that norms formed might implement low productiveness where team-members spend their clip in non-productive treatments. Norms formed may advance societal idleness and consequence in slippage in public presentation ( Hackman, 1987 ) . It will be hard for the administration which is external to the squad to do certain that result of procedures such as norming are ever good to it.
Invention, problem-solving and determinations
Teams are more originative than single workers as the figure of people lending is more. This brings more point of positions ; members oppose each other hence conveying out best solution possible. Team-members may non hold necessary accomplishments to work out the job. At times no 1 may hold, even if they do the ground may be based on power, influence, demand to conform or presume consensus between members therefore, may non ensue in the best solution.
Perceived high ability of some team-members makes them communicating centres. They dominate group activity ( position differential consequence ) ( Salomon and Globerson, 1989 ) . This leads to less interaction between members. The squad does non recognize its optimum learning process and is non good for invention and job resolution as everyone looks at one individual for solutions and does non do an attempt to larn.
In squads everyone participates in determination devising procedure, feels ownership hence are more acute to implement the determinations. There is a possibility that the lone one or some team-members make the determinations ( Bensimon and Neumann, 1993 ) . Here, non all team-members may lend every bit, one individual may go so influential that point of position of other members is non considered. The team-members may non oppugn positions and determinations of certain influential team-members, which leads to presume consensus ( groupthink ) ( Bensimon and Neumann, 1993 ) . This is non good for the squad and the organisation.
When more figure of people are involved different point of positions and frames of mentions ( Davidson, 2002 ) are involved as people come from different backgrounds. This may decelerate down determination devising procedure, hence where speedy determinations are required teamwork may non be utile ( Bensimon and Neumann, 1993 ) . For illustration during a war major and concluding determinations should be made by commanding officer in charge, utilizing a squad here may decelerate down determination devising procedure.
Peoples and undertakings
In teamwork, people will hold to give up personal acknowledgment for shared achievements, yield personal penchants to team consensus, and displacement from self-denial to pull offing multiple relationships and shared duties ( Swenson, 1997 ) . This may non suite certain civilizations or persons. Therefore, fit between civilization of people and teamwork demands to be considered for squads to be good.
Teamwork will be less suited for undertakings that require single part, e.g. foreign exchange and securities trading in fiscal establishment ( Drew and Mcmaster, 1997 ) , originative authorship and commission studies ( Hackman, 1997 ) . In surveies conducted by Drew and Mcmaster, 1997 teamwork was significantly less of import in constructing close dealingss with clients because clients may happen it easier to link to an person instead than full squad.
Teams are affected more by forces turnover, as there is no structural buffering due to imparting of information through supervisors. Hierarchies are better for treating strictly collateral information ( Georges and Romme, 1996 ) .
Each team-member ‘s work quality affects quality of full teamwork. Hence, everyone in a squad should execute good to be successful. In a squad there are no supervisors therefore no 1 will mensurate quality of work of persons and supply feedback ( Griffin et al, 2001 ) . If person takes up this duty, other members might non wish this. These factors will impact public presentation.
Therefore, before utilizing teamwork it necessary to understand if teamwork tantrums with peculiar ends and undertakings merely so teamwork will be good to organisation.
Power and political relations
Harmonizing to McClelland, 1976 people have a demand for power and control. Hence, presence of power in squads is inevitable. In a squad, there are people who provide solutions all the clip, take determinations and do most of the work. This can be a manifestation of their demand for power in squad ( Sinclair, 1992 ) . Ways in which team-members achieve power may be different. They may organize confederations among one or two other members in a squad. When a team-member ‘s position is non considered they may go defensive. The fact that team-members arrive at a consensus may be to avoid statements or fright of being friendless. Sometimes teams decide on footing of bulk, but this may non be the right manner to work out jobs in an organisation. Team-members have emotions that may be hurt when their point of positions are non agreed on or non considered, such members may halt lending. Team-members may hold struggles with each other and may invariably oppose each other ‘s positions therefore non taking to productive work. If team-members find that one member is inexorable on their position and is non ready to alter, they may compromise on the best solution to the job depending on the power and influence of the team-member. Team-members frequently avoid struggles with other members depending on position of the member and to maintain harmoniousness in the squad. Not work outing interpersonal jobs openly does non do them travel off, they may attest in other ways that affect squad productiveness and work quality. Therefore, power, political relations and struggles exist in squads but may be in different signifiers.
When a squad is non successful at a undertaking, they may fault each other. By making, this they do non happen existent ground for failure, hence forestalling them from making better following clip. However, when a squad is successful everyone takes recognition even free riders.
If one team-member does non execute their duty, work load of other members additions and quality of work suffers. Common answerability is non easy to implement in a squad. This may depend on norms formed. Team-members are all at same authorization degree, there is no supervising therefore there may be no effects for non executing. Team-members may non desire to keep other members accountable as bulk of them may non work or they may non desire to portray a negative ( important ) image of themselves. Other terminal would be when team-members hold each other accountable and do certain all members perform, in this instance, many persons instead than one supervise an person. This puts a batch of force per unit area on every team-member to execute and conform to the squad. Teams can be looked at an effort by organisations to command persons with lesser resources ( Sinclair, 1992 ) . Depending on civilization in the squad, team-members may concentrate on their ain work and non back up or acknowledge jobs faced by other members. Therefore, working in teams involves managing interpersonal dealingss, squad force per unit area and assorted signifiers of political relations and struggles that exist, therefore increasing the anxiousness in persons.
Harmonizing to surveies done by Griffin et Al ( 2001 ) it was found that occupation satisfaction in squads which consequences from occupation enrichment and increased liberty may be offset by decrease in supervisory support experienced by employees. In a squad there may be no public presentation criterions, no manner to mensurate an person ‘s public presentation, force per unit area from team-members may be beginnings of uncertainness and tenseness. Interaction with team-members and struggles involved will be nerve-racking for team-members. Surveies conducted by Salomon and Globerson, 1989 show that during squad work team-members spent more mental attempt which was non directed at the undertaking as their work improved less but attempt was more. This shows that teamwork involves a batch of anxiousness where team-members have to cover with many issues non related to the undertaking.
Teams can besides be topographic points to get away work. Team-members can conceal behind attempts put by others. Some team-members may non lend believing that other more gifted and motivated members will make the work ( free rider consequence ) ( Salomon and Globerson, 1989 ) . Difficult working team-members may experience they are being taken advantage of hence, they may cut down their attempt and parts ( chump consequence ) ( Salomon and Globerson, 1989 ) . Therefore, this may overload one or a few team-members and a smaller figure of thoughts and positions will be available, impacting quality of teamwork.
Some team-members may experience that a peculiar undertaking is of import or may wish making it and others may non, in this instance, they resolve their struggles by the subscribing to the least attempt solution ( ganging up on the undertaking ) ( Salomon and Globerson, 1989 ) . Therefore, the team-members may happen ways of accomplishing the end by seting in the least attempt.
We use teamwork to make assignments at the concern school ; ideally, everyone should lend and larn from teamwork. Therefore, profiting all, but this does non go on in world. Therefore, there are single assignments after teamwork, to understand how much each individual has gained, contributed and therefore learned.
In order for teamwork to be good to organisations and persons there are so many factors that need to be aligned with each other. It is non possible for organisations to do certain that squad ever map in the expected ideal mode. Teamwork is traveling to be effectual and good merely in certain instances depending on the undertakings, civilization and other factors. Politicss and the power factors between persons will ever act upon team-members. An organisation can non command and act upon all these factors. In a squad determinations may non be made by all, ends may non be clear, groupthink may be and norms formed may non be of high productiveness these factors will non do teamwork ever good to organisations. Teamwork will non be good to persons in instances such as the free rider consequence, chump consequence, when team-members feel their point of positions are non considered and when coercion is used under the pretense of common answerability. Teams will be more originative, make more work than an single and convey more thoughts but they will non ever be good to organisations or persons involved.
Bensimon, E. , & A ; Neumann, A. ( 1993 ) . Redesigning collegial leading. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
Drew, S. and Coulson-Thomas, C. ( 1996 ) . Transformation through Teamwork, the way to the new administration? Management Decision, 34 ( 1 ) , pp. 7-17.
Georges A. and Romme L. ( 1996 ) . A Note on the Hierarchy-Team Debate. Strategic Management Journal, 17 ( 5 ) , pp. 411-417.
Hackman, R. H. ( 1987 ) . The design of work squads. In: Lorsch J. L. , eds. Handbook of organiza-tional behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 315-342.
Hackman, J. R. ( 1998 ) . Why squads do n’t work. In: R. S. Tindale, L. Heath, & A ; J. Edwards ( Eds. ) , Theory and research on little groups. New York: Plenum, pp. 245-267.
Hoegl, M. and Gemuenden, H. G. ( 2001 ) . Teamwork Quality and the Success of Advanced Undertakings: A Theoretical Concept and Empirical Evidence. Organization Science, 12 ( 4 ) , pp. 435-449.
Katzenbach, J. R. and Smith D.K. ( 1993 ) . The Discipline of Teams. Harvard Business Review, 71 ( 2 ) , pp.111-20.
Salomon, G. and Globerson T. ( 1989 ) . When squads do non work the manner they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13 ( 1 ) , pp.89-99.
Sinclair, A. ( 1992 ) . The dictatorship of a squad political orientation. Organization Studies, 13 ( 4 ) , pp. 611-626.
Swenson, D.X. ( 1997 ) . Needed conditions for squad authorization. Authorization in Organizations, 5 ( 1 ) , pp. 16-25.
Job Satisfaction and Teamwork: The Role of Supervisor Support Author ( s ) : Mark A. Griffin, Malcolm G. Patterson, Michael A. West Beginning: Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22, No. 5 ( Aug. , 2001 ) , pp. 537-550 Published by: John Wiley & A ; Sons Stable URL: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.jstor.org/stable/3649557 Accessed: 27/12/2009 16:46
Maslow, A.H. ( 1943 ) ‘A theory of human motive ‘ , Psychological Review 1: 370-396
Davidson, E. J. ( 2002 ) . Technology frames and framing: A socio-cognitive probe of demands finding. MIS Quarterly, 26 ( 4 ) , 329-358.
Janis, Irving L. Victims of Groupthink. Boston. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1972, page 9
McClelland, D. C. ( 1985 ) . HumanMotivation. New york: Cambridge University Press.