Team efficacy and performance in self-managed 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.

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.

Further examining the information provided in Lencioni's text, it is evident that the specific dynamics that occur in the context of the team environment will have a direct impact on how the team works together. In particular, Lencioni makes the argument that, "Great teams do not hold back with one another... They are unafraid to air their dirty laundry. They admit their mistakes, their weaknesses, and their concerns without fear of reprisal" (p. 44). De Jong and coworkers in their analysis of the results garnered in their investigation argue that what occurs at the individual level clearly has repercussions for how the team operates and how effective they are at performing their job. By providing a direct link between team performance and clear quantitative measures, de Jong, et al., codify the importance of internal team development in improving outcomes for the organization. Thus, while the focus of de Jong and coworker's research is not the internal dynamics that lead to team efficacy, there is strong support for the ideas expressed by Lencioni with respect to what is needed to create team efficacy and improved organizational outcomes.