January 10th, 2018
Where Teams Beat Workgroups in Generating Favorable Performance
Unlike a group set up where individuals are only responsible for their personal results, a team confers the responsibility of ensuring the overall team performance to every member (The People Development Practice, 2008). This characteristic is, perhaps,what brings about the success of a team as opposed to that of the group. For instance, the emergence of self-managing teams has been instrumental in driving many an organization’s success. One such example was provided by an experimental project by General Foods in 1971 to build a new manufacturing entity at Topeka to satisfy the increasing market of its dog food brand (Cohen 2004). During that period manufacturing organizations were faced with a problem of employee alienation resulting into such problems as “absenteeism, product waste, and work stoppages” (Cohen, 2004, p. 17). By creating a system of teamwork where employees were adequately empowered and motivated through various rewards, the Topeka plant was able to significantly reduce employee turnover at the company (Cohen, 2004). Team works thus offer an efficient alternative to groups in ensuring the organization’s success.
Success in a team is however subject to a number of determinant factors. One of these as noted by Cohen (2004) is empowering the teams to make independent decisions without top management interference. Such decisions include having a say in the incorporation of new members to the team, and selecting members who would act as team leaders and those who would get promotion and training whenever such opportunities arise (The People Development Practice, 2008). Through such involvement in decisions that affect the composition and working of the team, members would be less tolerant to individuals who went against the team spirit thus ensuring member’s conformity to the team values and eventual cooperation (The People Development Practice, 2008).
The large nature of modern day organizations has made it impossible for organizations to generate favorable by focusing on individuals’ rather than the group’s performance. Entities are faced with the challenge of developing the right work environment that promotes employee interactions hence their productivity. This paper thus sought to evaluate the importance of understanding group dynamics in a business setting by assessing aspects such as positive interdependence, group cohesiveness, team functioning and concerns with group dynamics research that attracts wide criticism.
Structuring groups into teams that offer shared responsibility for the entity’s performance has been noted to bring better outcomes to the entity. Through such groups; tasks can be structured to derive cohesiveness hence satisfaction and commitment to the overall group’s performance. This is especially brought out in teams that are adequately empowered to make certain decisions without management interference with rightful motivation being provided to influence behavior. Such a setup enables the development of leadership skills at lower levels of the organization which is important in ensuring the success of the entity. The weakness of such a model however lies with the characteristic of modern day firms being too enormous to allow effective interaction of leaders with lower staff thus curtailing the degree of leader influence.
Cohen, A (2004). Building a company of leaders. Leader to Leader, fall 2004, 16-20. Retrieved March 28, 2010, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/109667888/PDFSTART
Collazos, C. A., Guerrero, L. A., Pino, J. A. & Ochoa, S. F. (2003). Collaborative scenarios to promote positive interdependence among group members. Retrieved March 28, 2010, from http://www.dcc.uchile.cl/~luguerre/papers/CRIWG-03a.pdf
Janssen, O., Van De Vliert, E. & Veenstra, C. (1999). How task and person conflict shape the role of positive interdependence in management teams. Journal of Management, 25(2), 117-142. DOI: 10.1177/014920639902500201
Kratzer, J., Leenders, R. A. J., & van Engelen, J. M. L. (2004). A delicate managerial challenge: How cooperation and integration affect the performance of NPD teams. Team Performance Management, 10(1/2), 20-25. DOI 10.1108/13527590410527559.
Mullen, B. & Copper, C. (1994). The relationship between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210-227. Retrieved March 28, 2010 http://psicologia-uniroma4.it/mist/dispense/zelli/Mullen%20and%20Copper%2094.pdf
Nowak, A., Vallacher, R. R. & Miller, M. E. (2003). Social influence and group dynamics. In T. Millon, M. J. Lerner & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Personality and social psychology (volume 5, pp. 383-418). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
People Development Practice [UK] (2008). Team vs. Group: Implications for leaders. Retrieved March 28, 2010, from http://www.leadership-development-coaching.com/team-vs-group.html
Pillai, R. & Williams, E. A. (2004). Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment and performance. Journal of Organization Change, 17(2), 144-159. DOI 10.1108/09534810410530584.
Wendt, H. Euwema, M. C. & van Emmerik, I. J. H. (2009). Leadership and team cohesiveness across cultures. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 358-370. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.005
Zaccaro, S. J., & Horn, Z. N. J. (2003). Leadership theory and practice: Fostering an effective symbiosis. The Leadership Quarterly 14,769 – 806. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.009.