Team dynamics and organizational performance

Teams

Analysis of Self-Managed Work Teams

The autonomy of work teams has increasingly become a necessity in many enterprises who rely on a depth of expertise, experience and wealth of knowledge that their knowledge-rich employees provide (Roper, Phillips, 2007). Given how complex, diverse and deep specific areas of expertise are in the core functional areas of any business, it isn't possible for a single manager or leader to have an expert-level command of all expertise. This makes the formation and successful functioning of a team even more critical, as a leader must create a culture of trust, openness and shared communication and collaboration. This is accentuated and made clear in the empirical studies of exceptional leadership of virtual teams across diverse cultural and geographic locations (Muthusamy, Wheeler, Simmons, 2005). The intent of this analysis is to critically evaluate the role of compensation programs for teams, the pros and cons of work teams and validate the belief that teams reduce the number of managers required by an organization.

Analysis of Team Compensation Programs

There are a myriad of potential approaches of defining and delivering compensation programs, with the unique needs of large virtual teams emerging as a catalyst that is transforming the entire area. The greater the autonomy a given self-managed work team has the greater the accountability for results that require tight collaboration and communication across a geographically diverse set of team members (Power, Waddell, 2004). Team compensation therefore is becoming more attuned to the cross-functional, collaborative and highly communicative needs of self-managed teams. The traditional approaches of defining job-based pay which is only focused on outcomes, person-based pay that is predicated on competency or skill sets, or variable pay based on individual and share project collaboration and attainment of objectives are the three dominant approaches to team compensation today. There are a myriad of approaches to managing the combining and synthesis of these specific approaches, varying by the type of company using them, their corporate cultural norms and values, and the relative pace of their business models and value chains (Power, Waddell, 2004).

What all these team compensation programs have in common however is the providing of a foundation for autonomy, mastery and purpose to be included in each team members' roles and responsibilities throughout their organizations. The combining of autonomy, mastery and purpose are essential foundational elements for long-term learning and motivation to continually grow over time in an individual's role and career (Leavy, 2012). . The most effective team compensation programs reinforce individual accountability regarding performance while making it clear that continual improvement in communication, collaboration and shared responsibility for team advancement are shared across any team, whether it is virtual or in the same office or physical location (Muthusamy, Wheeler, Simmons, 2005). Examples of successfully managed teams using these approaches are the software development departments and divisions at Google, who has several hundred developers throughout India and Asia, and the IBM Global Services business unit that has over two thousands contributors across sixteen nations worldwide (Power, Waddell, 2004).

Pros and Cons of Work Teams

Comparing the pros and cons of working in team illustrates how challenging it can be to overcome their inherent limitations and still accomplish significant results. The pros or benefits of work teams is the potential to bring together a varied series of experts who can combine their insights and intelligence to solve complex, difficult problems In a shorter period of time it would take anyone working alone (Muthusamy, Wheeler, Simmons, 2005). The ability to combine the collective experience, intelligence and insights into a solid foundation for solving complex problems is another advantage of work teams (Power, Waddell, 2004). Additional benefits include the ability to align goals and objectives more effectively than if every contributor was left entirely on their own, or treated as separate contributors and not part of the group. Researchers have determined this aspect of group indeitn8ifcation and membership can increase the performance of a work team by over 60% when there are shared accountability and responsibility for performance (Power, Waddell, 2004). In the highest performing teams, significant innovation is fueled through continual interactions and discussion, and the open sharing of ideas (Roper, Phillips, 2007).

The cons or disadvantages of work teams include the tendency to abdicate risk and decision-making which often leads to "analysis-paralysis" or the tendency to get into cycles of continually research alternatives (Muthusamy, Wheeler, Simmons, 2005). Too much reliance on team consensus, lack of productivity from no clear accountability for performance and a lack of focus on lasting, not just politically acceptable solutions, can also lead to teams being highly ineffective. When there is a lack of trust between team members, a work team will be ineffective in accomplishing challenging goals and objectives that require concerted, focused effort at a collaborative level between every member of the team.

Teams Reduce the Number of Managers Required in an Organization