Teamwork and the promotion of collaborative workplaces

Teamwork: The Promotion of a Collaborative Workplace

Review of the Relevant Literature

Types of Teams.

According to Recardo and Jolly (1997), "There are so many different types of teams that the first challenge for managers after concluding that teams support the business strategy is to select the most appropriate type" (p. 4). While there are in fact a large number of types of teams, a basic team can be defined as "a distinguishable set of two or more people who interact, dynamically, interdependently, and adaptively toward a common and valued goal/objective / mission, who have each been assigned specific roles or functions to perform" (Burke & Cooper, 2004, p. 135). Teams in organizational settings can be categorized in a number of ways, including one of five major team types: (a) action and negotiation teams; (b) advice and involvement teams; - production and service teams; (d) self-managing teams; and, (e) project and development teams (Burke & Cooper).

Other authorities suggest that there are still other categories of teams. For instance, Golembiewski (2000) reports that, "Teams differ substantially by type, and that the type of team matters for determinants of effectiveness. Four types of teams can be identified in organizations today: (a) work teams, (b) parallel teams, - project teams, and (d) management teams" (p. 220). This author notes, though, that other authorities use different categories for team types as well (Golembiewski). In this regard, May and Gueldenzoph (2006) identify three additional and increasingly popular types of teams that use membership configuration and task complexity for categorization purposes. These three fundamental types of teams are described further below:

Work and service teams. Intact work and service teams engage in routine manufacturing or service tasks.

Project teams. Project teams assemble for a specific purpose and expect to disband once their task is complete.

Network teams. Network teams are virtual; geographically dispersed members collaborate through a combination of telecommunications and information technologies.

According to May and Gueldenzoph, it is possible - and likely - that staff will become part of one, both or all three of these types of teams in many organizational settings today: "In today's business environment, an employee can be simultaneously involved in all three types of teams" (p. 4).

Characteristics of Effective Teams.

Just as measuring the effectiveness of teams (discussed further below) can be problematic, gauging the effectiveness of different types of teams in meaningful ways can be problematic because of the various methods used for this purpose. According to Burke and Cooper, "Certain knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs) that support teamwork are common to successful performance in virtually all work teams" (p. 135). As Golembiewski points out, though, "Different types of teams vary in how they measure effectiveness" (p. 220). Of the organizations analyzed by Golembiewski, approximately 50% of the work, team studies, and parallel team studies, and virtually all of the management team studies employed objective metrics to measure team effectiveness; however, none of the project teams investigated used such metrics (Golembiewski). According to this author, "Effectiveness was typically assessed at the group level for work, parallel, and project teams, and at the organizational level for management teams" (Golembiewski, p. 220).

Researchers have attempted to identify specific characteristics of effective teams, with the following representing the common factors generally involved:

They must have a clear sense of purpose;

There must be broad participation of team members in decision making;

Specific teamwork skills must be developed;

Consensus must be achieved;

There must be an environment of open communication and trust;

Team members must have clearly defined roles but share leadership functions;

They must be able to relate to other elements of the organization outside the team (because the team's purpose is to accomplish organizational objectives); and,

Teams must be able to assess themselves and practice self-improvement (Roney, 2004, p. 251).

Team Development.

Just as training represents an essential element in employee development, so too do team's need developmental exercises that can help them achieve their goals in more efficient ways. Likewise, just as every individual is unique, every team will have its own specific needs for developmental purposes. According to Biech (2001), "Although few teams consciously follow the process of their own development, certain characteristics have been found to be common to long-term high performance. For example, in such a team there is a 'chemistry' formed in which the members contribute on the basis of their individual strengths" (p. 87). In addition, successful and effective team development approaches are well coordinated and targeted on the team's goals (Biech).

A study by Douglas, Martin and Krapels (2006) found that organizational managers who used so-called "soft" persuasive tactics to influence team growth during the team developmental process were viewed as being more effective by the team members; in addition, team communication was shown to have a significant positive effect on team members' participation in such developmental exercises. According to these researchers, "Team communication, information shared by team members to conduct daily activities, is important to team development. A positive communication relationship characterized by trust, mutual respect, and openness between superiors and subordinates as well as among coworkers also should be present in a collaborative environment" (Douglas et al., p. 295). Taken together, the foregoing suggest that there is no "one-size-fits-all" approach to team development that will be effective all of the time; however, Dubois and Rothwell suggest that a competency-based model for work-team development can be a highly effective approach using the following seven steps:

Team performance is examined against exemplary teams.

A team competency model is developed that includes behavioral indicators for exemplary team performance.

Team members are assessed against the team competency model using a 360-degree competency assessment or other method such as performance tests.

The ratings of the entire team are compiled and used as a foundation for planning the training of individual members. That may result in a work-team development plan to narrow the gap between the team's current performance and the performance level of an exemplary team.

Team members implement the plan by accessing available training (and other developmental experiences) to build on identified competencies.

Team members periodically compare team competency development to the model.

Team members modify their targeted goals to ensure that they are building their competence (Dubois & Rothwell, p. 47).

Whatever approach is used for team developmental purposes, Dubois and Rothwell (2004) recommend that certain steps be followed to ensure that the team receives the type of developmental training needed to help it achieve its organizational goals, including the following:

What are the working conditions in which people will be expected to apply what they learn in training, and how will those conditions affect the application of training?

What are the job or work requirements, and how dearly do people understand what results are expected of them?

To whom is the training targeted, and what reasonable assumptions can be made about what they already know about the topic of the training? (Dubois & Rothwell, p. 47).

Measuring Team Performance.

Measuring the effectiveness of a given team's performance is complicated by the fact that there are so many different types of teams involved but the need for such measurements is clear. According to Brannick, Salas and Prince (1997), "At the simplest level, it should be useful to those measuring team performance in training as a means to ensure that important aspects of team performance are being assessed and remediated" (p. 59). Moreover, the effectiveness of a given team's performance can be a highly subjective analysis unless established and quantifiable metrics are established to help gauge improvements and advancements toward the achievement of a specific team goal. As Brannick and his associates (1997) emphasize, "The challenge of measuring team performance is a formidable one -- it presents a complex problem that requires a complex solution. Moreover, because performance measurement information can serve several purposes (e.g., selection, performance appraisal, training), it is likely that multiple approaches to team performance measurement are required" (p. 45).

While multiple approaches may provide useful and timely information concerning team performance, identifying appropriate sources of this measurement information also remains challenging. In this regard, May and Gueldenzoph advise, "The pervasive use of various types of teams is causing a parallel change in employee performance appraisal processes. Given the diverse nature of teams and the increased span of control from restructuring, managers and supervisors often are not in a position to perform the traditional supervisor-employee performance appraisal. In many situations, peers may be the only ones who can provide relevant information about group outcomes" (emphasis added) (p. 5).

Other types of measurements used to gauge team performance include self-report measures and behavioral assessments (Salas, Bowers & Eden, 2001). According to Salas and his colleagues, self-report types of measures are frequently used to evaluate team members' willingness to demonstrate assertiveness in a team setting, with some of these measures containing items that request that respondents reflect on past behaviors: "I almost always argue my opinion when I feel I am correct" (p. 84). Other measures used in self-report approaches are designed to evaluate team members' beliefs concerning the appropriateness of assertiveness in various hypothetical settings: "If a team is making a wrong choice, team members should make their opinions heard" (pp. 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.

Table 1.

Performance measures and other outcome metrics for measuring team performance.

Type of Metric