chap10 developing high-performance teams hsm14

5/21/2018 Chap10 Developing High-Performance Teams HSM14

1/46

McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

10

Developing

High-Performance Teams


2/46

McShane/Von Glinow OB4e 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 10-2

Self-Directed Work Teams at Chrysler

Chrysler CEO Tom La Sorda is

pushing the automaker into an

era of smart manufacturing

which relies more on self-

directed work teams (SDWTs).

This photo shows La Sorda

meeting employees at the

companys plant in Saltillo,

Mexico, which has already

introduced SDWTs.


3/46


Self-Directed Work Teams Defined

Formal groups that

complete an entire piece of

work requiring several

interdependent tasks andhave substantial autonomy

over the execution of these

tasks.


4/46


Self-Directed Work Team Attributes

1. Complete an entire piece of work

requiring interdependent tasks

Clusters team members together

Minimal interdependence with other

teams

2. Substantial autonomy over

execution of the teams tasks

Control most work inputs, flow, and

outputs

Little or no supervision


5/46


Sociotechnical Systems Theory

Introduced during the 1940s at Britains Tavistock Institute, studying theeffects of technology on coal mining in the United Kingdom.

The researchers observed:

the new coal mining technology led to lower, not higher, job performance. \

They analyzed the causes of this problem and found that

organizations need joint optimization between the social and technical

systems of the work unit.

Tavistock group also concluded that:

teams should be sufficiently autonomousso that they can control the

main variances in the system.

i.e. that the team must control the factors with the greatest impact on

quality, quantity, and the cost of the product or service.


6/46McShane/Von Glinow OB4e 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 10-6

Sociotechnical Systems Theory & SDWTs

From this overview of STS, we can identify four main conditionsfor high-performance SDWTs

Responsible for entire work process

Make entire product, component, or provide service

fairly independent from other work units

Sufficient autonomy

freedom to divide up and coordinate work

empowers team members

Control key variances

team controls factors affecting work quality/quantity

Joint optimization

balancing social and technical systems



SDWTs at Standard Motor Products

Standard Motor Products

successfully introduced self-

directed work teams (SDWTs) at

its Kansas plant, but somesupervisors had difficulty

changing from a command-and-

control to mentor/facilitator

management style.

Courtesy of Standard Motor Products



Challenges to SDWTs

Cross-cultural issues Difficult in some cultures

Management resistance Concerned about losing power, status, job

security

Shift from command/control to mentor/facilitator

Employee and labor union resistance

Employees uncomfortable with new roles, skills Union concerns -- more stress, lost work rules

Courtesy of Standard Motor Products



PricewaterhouseCoopers Virtual Teams

Peter Nicolas (shown in photo)

and many employees at

PricewaterhouseCoopers spend

much of their time working in

virtual teams. Virtual teaming is

the norm for us, says Nicolas, a

Learning Solutions manager at

the accounting firms offices in

New Jersey.

Courtesy of PricewaterhouseCoopers



Virtual Teams Defined

Teams whose members

operateacross space, time,

and organizational boundaries

and

are linked through information

technologies

to achieveorganizationaltasks.

Courtesy of PricewaterhouseCoopers



Why Virtual Teams?

Increasingly possible because of: Information technologies

Knowledge-based work

Increasingly necessary because of: Knowledge management

Globalization



Designing High-Performance Virtual Teams

Team Tasks

Team Size

Structured tasks

Moderate interdependence

Smaller size than traditional

team performing similar tasks

Team

Environment Creative combination of

communication channels

Virtual teams perform better with:

more



Team

Processes

Team Trust

Some face-to-face meetings to

assist team development

Important in all teams, but

especially virtual teams

Team

Composition Good communication and cross-

cultural skills in team members

Virtual teams perform better with:

High-Performance Virtual Teams (cont)



Team Trust

Any relationship (including the relationship among virtual team

members) depends on a certain degree of trust between the

parties

Trust:

Positive expectations one person has of another person in

situations involving risk



Three Levels of Trust

I di id l Diff i T t



Individual Differences in TrustPropensity to Trust

The level of trust depends on a persons general

propensity to trust:

Some people are more willing to trust others

Propensity to trust influenced by personality, values,

and socialization experiences

Also varies with emotions at the moment



Dynamics of Trust in TeamsSwift Trust in Teams

People typically join a virtual or conventional team with

a moderate or high level of trust

Explanations for this swift trust:

people usually believe their team-mates are reasonably

competent (knowledge-based trust)

people tend to develop some degree of social identify with

the team

But swift trust is fragile



Team Decision-Making

Self-directed work teams, virtual teams, and practically all othergroups are involved to some degree in making decisions.

Under certain conditions teams are more effective than

individuals at identifying problems, choosing alternatives, and

evaluating their decisions.

To leverage these benefits, however, we first need to

understand the constraints on effective team decision making.

Then we look at specific team structures that try to overcome

these constraints.



Team Decision-MakingConstraints

Time constraints Time to organize/coordinate

Production blocking

Evaluation apprehension Belief that others are silently evaluating you

Peer pressure to conform

Suppressing opinions that oppose team norms

Groupthink

Tendency in highly cohesive teams to value consensus at the price

of decision quality

Concept losing favorconsider more specific features



ConstraintsGroup Polarization

Tendency for teams to make more extreme

decisions than individuals alone

Riskier options usually taken because of prospect

theory effect fallacy -- dislike losing more than theylike winning



Group Polarization Process

Social support

Persuasivearguments

Shiftingresponsibility

Individual opinions

before meeting

Individual opinions

after meeting

Team discussion

processes

Low riskLow risk

High risk High risk



Group Polarization

Risky CautiousNeutral

Group Polar ization- tendency to shi f t toward more

extreme positions after group discussion

Social support:

team members become comfortable with more extreme positions when they realize that co-workers also generally support the same position.

Persuasive arguments:

favoring the dominant position convince doubtful members and help form a consensus around the

extreme option.

Shifting responsibility:

individuals feel less personally responsible for the decision consequences because the decision ismade by the team.

T St t t I



Team Structures to Improve

Creativity and Decision Making

Team members need: confident in their decision making, but not soconfident that they collectively feel invulnerable.

Team norms need: encourage critical thinking as well as team

membership that maintains sufficient diversity.

Team leaders and other powerful members can sway the rest of thegroup, so checks and balances need to be in place to avoid the adverse

effects of this power.

Team size: The group should be large enough that members possess

the collective knowledge to resolve the problem, yet small enough thatthe team doesnt consume too much time or restrict individual input.

Team structures: Five team structures potentially improve creativity and

decision making in team settings: constructive conflict, brainstorming,

electronic brainstorming, Delphi method, and nominal group technique.


24/46


NASA Encourages Constructive Conflict

NASA replaced the assigned seating rectangular table at the

Johnson Space Center with a C-shaped arrangement where

people sit wherever they want (shown in photo). The table isintended to avoid hierarchy so NASA managers can have

more constructive debate.

Courtesy of Johnson Space Center/NASA


25/46


Constructive Conflict

Occurs when team members debate their different

perceptions about an issue in a way that keeps theconflict focused on the task rather than people.

Problem: constructive conflict easily slides into

personal attacks

Courtesy of Johnson Space Center/NASA


26/46


The best way how to have a good idea is to have

many ideas

Alex F. Osborne, 1939

method of thinkingup solutions, concepts, ideas in

problem solving

using the brain to stormnew ideas ingroups

It is easier to tone down a wild idea than to think up anew one.

Brainstorming

B i t i


27/46


Brainstorming

Osborn believed that these rules encourage

divergent thinking while minimizing evaluation

apprehension and other team dynamics problems:

Speak freelyDont criticize

Provide as many ideas as possible

Build on others ideas

E l ti B i t i


28/46


Evaluating Brainstorming

Strengths

Produces more innovative ideas

Strengthens decision acceptance and team cohesiveness

Sharing positive emotions encourages creativity Higher customer satisfaction if clients participate

Weaknesses

Production blocking still exists Evaluation apprehension exists in many groups

Fewer ideas generated than when people work alone

El t i B i t i


29/46


Electronic Brainstorming

Participants share ideas using software

Usually in the same room, but may be dispersed

Question posted, then participants submit their

ideas or comments on computer

Comments/ideas appear anonymously on

computer screens or at front of room

E l ti El t i B i t i


30/46


Evaluating Electronic Brainstorming

Strengths Less production blocking

Less evaluation apprehension

More creative synergy

More satisfaction with process

Weaknesses

Too structured

Technology-bound

Candid feedback is threatening

Not applicable to all decisions

Delphi Techniq e


31/46


Delphi Technique

Pools the collective knowledge of experts

Make decision, predict future, identify opposing

views (dissensus)

Group does not meet face-to-faceoften dont

know each others identity

Group members submit solutions to a centralconvener; compiled results returned for second

round of commentsprocess is repeated until

consensus (or dissensus) emerges

N i l G T h i


32/46


Describe

problem

Individual

Activity

Team

Activity

Individual

Activity

Write down

possible

solutions

Possible

solutions

described

to others

Vote on

solutions

presented

Nominal Group Technique

Face-to-face without full interaction

--team is nominal

-- a team in name only

N i l G T h i


33/46


Effectiveness of Nominal Group Technique

-- More and better ideas than interacting groups

-- Structure maintains high task focus

-- Voting lowers potential conflict

-- Minimal social interaction reduces team cohesiveness

-- Still some production blocking and evaluation apprehension

Nominal Group Technique


34/46


Team Building

Any formal intervention directed towardimproving the development and functioning of a

work team

Accelerates team development

Applied to existing teams that have regressed in

team development


35/46


Types of Team Building

Role definition

Goal setting

Problem solving

Interpersonal process

Making Team Building Effective


36/46


Some team building activities are successful,but just as many fail because:

Making Team Building Effective

Team-building activities need to target specificteam

problems Team building is a continuousprocess, not a one-shot

inoculation

Team building needs to occur on-the-job, not just

away from the workplace


37/46


Brainstorming Exercise:The Peanut


38/46


Look at your peanut.

How is this peanut likeyou?


39/46


Can you come up with 10 answers in3 minutes?


40/46


Lets hear your creative ideas.


41/46


How is this peanut like you?

Its wrinkled, like me.

Its brown, like me.

It cracks under pressure.

What you see is not always what you get.Everyone is different.

It just sits in class.


42/46


How is this peanut like going to

college?

Lets use some synergy and worktogether on this one.


43/46


How many answers can we come upwith in 5 minutes?

You can steal other peoples ideas.

H i thi t lik i t


44/46


How is this peanut like going to

college?

There are 2 nuts inside. One is the teacher

and one is the student.

Were all nuts to a degree!College drives me nuts!

Its rough.

We both went to class today.


45/46


BRAINSTORMING EXERCISE

Suggest safe playground equipment that could be

made from old cars.


46/46

10

Developing

High-Performance Teams

chap10 developing high-performance teams hsm14

Documents

highperformance teams

teams tasks

mcgrawhill companies

work inputs

mcshanevon glinow ob4e

entire work process

supervision5212018 chap10

entire product