84-85). Likewise, behavioral measures of assertiveness in team settings can be measured through peer or supervisory ratings of on-the-job performance; in addition, these metrics can be obtained through the conduct of situational exercises (Salas et al.).
A model described by Bryant and Albring (2006) includes two factors, (a) performance measures (e.g., extrinsic factors including the quality, speed and number of errors in the outcome), and (b) other outcomes, to help measure how well a team is performing, as shown in Table 1 below.
Performance measures and other outcome metrics for measuring team performance.
Type of Metric
1) How professional-looking is the final product? (Quality)
2) Is the project turned in on time? (Speed)
3) How accurate is the final product compared with the model solution? (Accuracy)
While these may differ from team to team, these outcome metrics general include:
1) Member satisfaction
2) Group cohesiveness
3) Attitude change, and 4) Sociometric structures
The foregoing metrics are intended to measure individual team member characteristics and attitudes following the completion of the project.
Source: Bryant & Albring, p. 242.
Developing Successful Teams.
Having established the general characteristics of an effective team and what developmental approaches are recommended, the development of successful teams naturally follows these steps but there is more involved as well. Indeed, Cleary and Rice (2005) emphasize that, "Developing successful teams is a critical element of leadership" (p. 31). While the developmental exercises and approaches described above represent a good start to promoting successful teams, establishing criteria by which a team's success will be measured should also be included as described above. For example, a successful team in a small- to medium-sized enterprise competing in the hardware industry might be considered one that accomplishes its assigned goals for developing a new hammer handle in a year or two; by sharp contrast, a comparable team in an organization competing in the semiconductor industry might be regarded as wholly unsuccessful is they require this much time to accomplish their goals.
According to Bauer (2003), an important first step in developing successful teams in virtually any organizational setting is the need to eliminate misconceptions about what such teams actually do and how they go about doing it. In this regard, Bauer advises, "One misconception we need to discard is that team members need to love each other. Believe it or not, we do not need to appreciate each other's personality to operate successfully. What we need to do is appreciate each group member's specific approach and to understand how it helps to get the job done" (p. 50). Once this step is accomplished, the next step to developing successful teams is to forego individual needs and desires when the team is formulating its plans. As Bauer emphasizes, "The key to group success is to be yourself, act normally but responsibly, and recognize and appreciate what each group member naturally brings to the table. This knowledge will help you develop teams comprised of individuals with the mix of approaches and orientations necessary to achieve success" (p. 50).
Bauer, D.G. (2003). The 'how to' grants manual: Successful grantseeking techniques for obtaining public and private grants. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Biech, E. (2001). The Pfeiffer book of successful team-building tools: Best of the annuals. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Brannick, M.T., Salas, E. & Prince, C. (1997). Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bryant, S.M. & Albring, S.M. (2006). Effective team building: Guidance for accounting educators. Issues in Accounting Education, 21(3), 241.
Burke, R.J. & Cooper, C.L. (2004). Reinventing human resources management: Challenges and new directions. New York: Routledge.
Cleary, B. & Rice, R. (2005). Nursing workforce development: Strategic state initiatives. New York: Springer.
Douglas, C., Martin, J.S. & Krapels, R.H. (2006). Communication in the transition to self- directed work teams. The Journal of Business Communication, 43(4), 295-296.
Dubois, D. & Rothwell, W. (2004, April). Competency-based or a traditional approach to training? A new look at ISD models and an answer to the question, what's the best approach? T&D, 58(4), 46.
Golembiewski, R.T. (2000). Handbook of organizational consultation. New York: Marcel Dekker.
May, G.L. & Gueldenzoph, L.E. (2006). The effect of social style on peer evaluation ratings in project teams. The Journal of Business Communication, 43(1), 4-5.