Project teams: structure, dynamics, and effectiveness

Teams: Discussion

Several months ago, I was amongst those elected into a team set up to look into ways of enhancing interdepartmental cooperation. The team comprised of 7 individuals -- each representing a department. The key mandate of the team was to come up with strategies of enhancing cooperation between departments so as to enhance overall organizational efficiency. With regard to the various types of teams Landy and Conte (2013) identify, this particular team could be described as a project team. A project team in the words of Landy and Conte (2013, p. 521) is that kind of a "team that is created to solve a particular problem or set of problems and is disbanded after the project is completed or the problem is solved."

In this particular team, I was the Human Resource Department representative. Amongst other things, I was charged with soliciting views from member of my department on how best to implement interdepartmental cooperation. I was also the department's conveyor of the deliberations that took place during team meetings. The issue the team in question sought to address was that of enhancing interdepartmental cooperation. The team operated with clear timelines, with the official presentation of its recommendations to the Chief Executive Officer marking the end of its mandate.

Members participating in this undertaking did not undergo any form of official or formal training. Selection on this front was largely an arbitrary process -- with heads of departments being asked to forward names of representatives. The team had a secretary who was responsible for organizing meetings the keeping records of all the deliberations at the team level, and a team leader who was essentially the team moderator. To ensure that each member of the team made contributions, the team made use of the peer evaluation approach -- team members gauged each others contributions to the overall goal of the team.

At times, the team experienced difficulties when it came to making decisions. This was more so the case when team members chose to rigidly adhere to their stands or positions during crucial decision making moments. Poor communication was yet another challenge the group encountered. For instance, some members of the team would go silent whenever they disagreed with certain recommendations -- thus failing to air their concerns. Some members would also, from time to time, keep the team in a loop by failing to update the team on their progress on certain issues. The team also lacked effective conflict resolution mechanisms. In some instances, conflict would not be addressed in good time, resulting in heightened tensions. Groupthink was also a challenge to the extent that, in some cases, critical thinking and objective deliberations were affected. According to Jordan, Lawrence, and Troth (2006), group think has been identified as a key contributor for negative team performance.

It is however important to note that team members were dedicated to the task at hand. This is particularly the case given that team meeting non-attendance rates were particularly low. In addition to being innovative, members also had feelings of mutual accountability to each other. This enhanced team cohesion.