Individuals, Groups and Teams

A Short Introduction to the Development of a Positive Team Culture and Organisational Effectiveness.

David Byrne November 2012

Arguably the efficiency and the effectiveness of work performance within an organisation will be determined significantly by human factors. Maslow (1992) in his theory of human motivation, proposes a hierarchy concerning physiological, security, emotional and self-actualisation needs. His idea was that only when base level needs are satisfied can the individual grow psychologically to gain emotional and social stability, feelings of high self esteem and confidence through self fulfilment. Organisations employ people who step from the hierarchy at different levels, thereby, bringing into the work environment individual personalities, priorities and performance capabilities.

In developing this theory, McGregor (1992) discounted the scientific management ideas of Taylor in the 1920s and the assertion that workers were inherently lazy and need to be directed and controlled. The presumption was that it is work organisations and management philosophies that are flawed. McGregors ideas were consistent with those of Maslow and his resulting Theory Y stated that management held responsibility for work organisation and the development of people. In particular he advocated the creation of an environment that would be conducive to the development of positive behavioural traits, motivating employees to take responsibility and identify with the objectives of the organisation through their own efforts. Such considerations would certainly be supportive of enhanced personnel performance in a group or team environment.

Groups are formed in order to perform the many tasks required for the functioning of the organisation. Individuals are selected on the basis of their education, skills and abilities in order to manage, supervise, co-ordinate key processes to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of business activities. Formal groups tend to be task orientated with formal structures focused on achieving group organisational goals.

Mullins (2005) defines the essential characteristics of groups in terms of membership, shared purpose, interdependency and interaction.

Handy (1999) commenting on the work of Belbin and his synergistic roles for fully effective groups, agrees that if individuals have the same objectives, effectiveness will result.

However, common issues that underline potential weaknesses concerning group size, focus on the leader, open selection and potential inter-group conflict. They can be self-seeking with the chance that individual priorities obtain, knowledge is not shared and territory is rigorously defended. However, it must be noted that Belbins team role theory has been criticised, Buchanan et al (2004) for being too subjective with little evidence to support his assertions.

By way of contrast, the same authors propose that teams are different, although there are similarities within group roles. They state that teams are about collaboration and sharing. In essence, to achieve a balance of member types, which provide a balance of attributes in areas of chairmanship, practical and theoretical skills, assertiveness, humour and all other positive reinforcing characteristics.

Teams are favoured owing to a focus upon the careful selection of individuals, small team size, shared leadership, implicit trust, mutual knowledge and understanding common goals and purpose. All this being focused upon the vision, values, aims and objectives of the organisation.

According to Piczak (1996) effective teams will have a mix of personality types and traits that will provide for the diversity of roles and responsibilities needed for optimum functioning in a self-directing team environment.

Pre-requisites necessitate that the organisation is flexible, responsive to rapid changes, employ efficient and effective internal processes and have a top management that is supportive and that leads by example and the functioning of teams that take responsibility for their performance.

Potentially, teams can be selected that will work well together and work well with other groups, demonstrate high levels of motivation in positive, well managed, empathetic organisations. This can only be achieved through team development and training with support that confers empowerment and the ability to self manage, make decisions and have a high level of autonomy (and responsibility) for the production or service process. This leads to enhanced morale and greater job satisfaction.

Owners of work processes are most likely to be the instigators of process improvements. These improvements are considered to be more practical and relevant Clemmer (1992) because the process owners are the experts, not Supervisors or Managers, necessarily. This new organisational paradigm compares the current management style with that needed to implement the new pattern of team-based working.

Providing a similar argument, Hoover (1995) in discussing employee involvement and teamwork, emphasises that teams will not perform unless top management is prepared to be proactive, committed and disposed towards listening to ideas and accepting team decisions. The overall dynamic within the system is the continuous improvement of production quality and output with an unswerving focus upon the customer, be he internal or external. This being the essential culture of teamworking compared with a top down, autocratic style that cannot delegate and hand over ownership of the process and in so doing, adversely affecting motivation and morale. The issue of morale and job satisfaction is supported by Elton Mayos early work at the Western Electrical Company (Hawthorne Studies) in the 1920s Mullins (2005) concluded that the satisfaction of employee social needs was of paramount importance in the work environment. Experiments showed the effects of informal

group influences in controlling work output through the threats and punishment when the formal organisation failed to control. One may consider the advantages of such a group characteristic where advice, trust and communication networks are poor in an exploitative situation with the group

protecting itself from poor remuneration, excessive hours and poor working conditions.

Certainly, there exists much evidence to support the view that teams, rather that random groups focusing on discrete tasks, are the best way to achieve high levels of organisational performance and continuous improvement.

Teams succeed by way of fixing upon shared priorities for the integration of information and work activity, the management of resources and uncertainty, process related decision making and the optimisation of skill levels, competence and leadership. This has been found to lead to high levels of motivation, job satisfaction and a preparedness to accept responsibility and be accountable for outcomes.