Linking employee confidence to performance in self-managing service teams

¶ … De Jong, de Ruyter and Wetzels (2006) review the specific variables which can impact the overall performance of self-managed teams or SMTs. According to these authors, self-managed teams represent a unique opportunity for the organization to provide enhanced service delivery. For this reason, the specific factors that contribute to the success of these teams must be effectively delineated. Using this as a basis for investigation, de Jong and coworkers consider the link between "employee confidence belief and performance" (p. 576). Specifically, the authors consider the variables of employee confidence -- i.e. team efficacy and group potency -- in context with customer perceived service quality and performance of the organization. The authors are able to demonstrate that team efficacy has a reciprocal relationship with customer perceived service quality why group potency does not have a casual relationship with service revenues. Further, the results indicate that customer perceived service quality will impact group potency; however this relationship is not reciprocal.

Conducting Research

In order to effectively carry out research on this subject, de Jong and coworkers first established clear links between the variables selected for investigation. By defining the variables, the authors are able to effectively establish a means for measuring them and a framework for interpreting the results. After establishing a clear framework for examining the variables, the authors report that they utilized a large European Bank with 848 self-managed teams. They randomly chose 100 to examine. In order to measure outcomes, the authors further, operationalized team efficacy by measuring the collective ability of the group to deliver service. A six-item scale was developed to measure this variable. Customer perceived service quality was measured using six items from the SERVQUAL instrument. Quantitative data on the financial service performance of the employees was also collected. The measures were employed on two separate occasions to provide a comparative analysis of the results.

Personal Experience

The results provided in the investigation suggest that team efficacy had a positive impact on both customer perceived service quality and financial performance of the team. In short, team efficacy was important for bolstering customer satisfaction and the overall performance of the team. Placing these results in the context of personal experience, it seems reasonable to argue that the team efficacy that is generated will have marked implications for how the team operates. When teams are not able to function in a cohesive manner, they are not able to provide a high level of service. Given that, in the research provided by de Jong and coworkers, the end result of service is financial performance, it is not surprising to find that improved cohesion and cooperation in the team environment will have a positive impact on financial outcomes. As customers receive better customer service, they will have a greater propensity to provide the organization with more business and referrals.

Although the data provided by de Jong and coworkers clearly elucidates the importance of efficacy in the development of the team, personal experience in teams suggests that achieving a high level of efficacy -- i.e. one that promotes improved customer satisfaction and financial performance -- is a notable challenge. There are a host of barriers that can inhibit the ability of the team to work together as a collective whole. Interpersonal issues, team communication, differences on views and opinions can all impact the willingness of the team to function effectively and efficiently. Thus, while team efficacy can clearly improve outcomes, achieving this position in the team is a significant challenge for team members and members of management working to develop these teams.

Comparison of Ideas

The final issue that must be considered in the context of this investigation is how the data provided by de Jong, et al., compares and/or contrasts with that provided by the textbooks utilized in class. Considering first the work of LaFasto and Larson (2001) it seems reasonable to argue that these authors would agree with the conclusions drawn by de Jong and coworkers. To illustrate this point, one only needs to consider what these authors note about the success of teams. According to LaFasto and Larson, "Individuals who are capable of managing their egos, surfacing problems and creating a safe environment in which these problems can be addressed and solved give teams the basic competence they need to succeed" (p. 14). What this effectively suggests is that team members that are willing to work cooperatively with one another to resolve issues and reduce conflict will be able to improve the very integrity of the team structure, facilitating successful outcomes.

Placing this in the context of de Jong and coworkers work, it is evident that the central focus of the investigation is to delineate what serve as the basis for success in self-managed teams. Of particular importance to de Jong, et al., is team efficacy. As reported by these authors, team efficacy refers to "collective or group-based beliefs that a team can perform a specific task successfully" (p. 577). In order to achieve team efficacy, the team must achieve a specific level of cooperation and success. If this basic ingredient is missing the team will not have the resources or ability to overcome problems and improve outcomes for the organization. LaFasto and Larson clearly support the idea that teams must be developed internally such that they posses the capabilities needed to create cooperation and team efficacy. Although LaFasto and Larson do not specifically utilize the term team efficacy, the basic premise of the argument made by these authors is similar to that of de Jong and coworkers.

In addition to examining the work of de Jong and coworkers in the context of LaFasto and Larson's text, Lencioni's (2002) work on team dysfunction must also be considered. Here again, it seems reasonable to argue that Lencioni would agree with the results garnered by de Jong and coworkers. In the introduction of the text, Lencioni asserts that: "Not finance. Not strategy. Not technology. It is teamwork that remains the ultimate competitive advantage, both because it is so power and so rare" (p. 1). De Jong and coworkers are able to effectively demonstrate the power of teamwork by showing a direct link between team efficacy and customer service and team efficacy and improved financial performance. When a team is able to work cohesively and cooperatively, the end result for the organization will be a positive change, which should provide a considerable advantage for the organization.