Rick Marriner
Monday MBA 670
Double Journal Entries 3
Work Presented: Stephen P. Robbins, 1998, Organizational Behavior - Chapter 8 "Understanding Work Teams" pp. 282-307, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Objective Points |
Subjective Points |
| Summary: This is a more didactic chapter seeking to provide the reader with a few simple observations and instructions in the development of a group into a team. As with groups there are as many types of teams as there are combinations of people, but this chapter endeavors to draw light on a few more frequently develped ones. | I liken teamwork to all the other ideals that an organization strives for. Ideals as hard to grasp as loyalty and ethical behavior. In my experience I have never seen a group of individuals become more than the sum of their abilities. The chemistry is just too complex and too critical to neatly create a "typical flow chart for the development of teams. Even in groups that have "synergistic" qualities the members, in my experience, have always said," I don’t know what happened we just clicked and walla." Hardly a science. I reserve judgment on the practicality of the effectiveness of teams eagerly awaiting hard examples. |
| Point 1: What is the difference between a group and a team? A team is a group that through coordinated efforts creates a synergy raising the level of performance of the group. | I would be so bold as to say that 1) Individuals working independently rarely work up against their potential. 2) Groups can either lower that individual’s performance or raise it. And therefore 3) a synergistic team is not creating the fantasy of improving a groups performance ABOVE its ability sum, but only closer to each individuals own potential thus raising the relative sum. I like this better since my mathematical mind does not allow for 2+2 =5. I must think about this hypothesis further. |
| Point 2: Three types of teams include: Problem solving teams, self-managed work teams and cross functional teams. | I have a greater experience with the
first and last team type than with the middle type.
Problem solving teams can erupt quickly, solve a problem
and adjourn. Taking the abilities of many and focusing it
on a problem is very effective. As a matter of opinion
they are arithmetically more effective than one person
working alone. Of cross-functional teams that I have been
part of, most have been a mess of hidden agendas and
wasted time and effort. Often there have been ego’s
and old war grudges lingering in the silence of the phone
conferences and meeting rooms. The worst one that I was
even a part of was one where the bosses of each
department were manipulating the employees in the team
that worked for them and thus disrupted the entire group’s
ability to function even though they weren’t there
physically. Self-Managed work teams are seemingly too
progressive for my industry. We need hierarchy t seems.
Imagine running a ship with a committee. Imagine this
conversation on the bridge, "OK mates lets all
decide iI have a greater experience with the first and
last team type than with the middle type. Problem solving
teams can erupt quickly, solve a problem and adjourn.
Taking the abilities of many and focusing it on a problem
is very effective. As a matter of opinion they are
arithmetically more effective than one person working
alone. Of cross-functional teams that I have been part
of, most have been a mess of hidden agendas and wasted
time and effort. Often there have been ego’s and old
war grudges lingering in the silence of the phone
conferences and meeting rooms. The worst one that I was
even a part of was one where the bosses of each
department were manipulating the employees in the team
that worked for them and thus disrupted the entire group’s
ability to function even though they weren’t there
physically. Self-Managed work teams are seemingly too
progressive for my industry. We need hierarchy it seems.
Imagine running a ship with a committee. Imagine this
conversation on the bridge, "OK mates lets all
decide if we should use hard left or 20 degrees left to
avoid this iceberg… |
| Point 3: High-performance teams have common attributes according to the author. These include three necessary abilities of the group (technical, social adeptness and problem solving), designated roles, vision, goals, leadership and discipline, accountability, evaluation and mutual trust. | Save mutual trust (which could be translated to self-trust) all of these categories of team factors can be transmuted to the individual. Thus I would conjecture that a team is effective proportional to the quality of each member. The key then is not the development of the team, but as the author indicates, the selection or training of individual members to live up to the teams needs for their abilities. I particularly like the explanation of teams not allowing social loafing, a damper of human potential. |
| Question: If in fact teams can never create more than the sum of their components, what is the critical factor of team performance: Input or throughput? (Input being the members that make up the team or throughput being the process of interaction they use?) | The implications of this question hinge on the fact that people live in a world where nothing is created from thin air. Output is a function of input. If the critical component of teamwork raising the relative abilities of people is the people themselves then the proper selection of people is our primary goal as manager. If processes within the group are the critical factor then our goal should be to train the people how to work with a group and what tools they have to raise their own output. I like this question. |
Designed 08/18/98 |
© All Rights Reserved, MCE |