Psiho Team

Groups and Teams performance improvement

THREE FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE PERFORMANCE OF GROUPS OR TEAMS IN THE ORGANIZATION

Abstract

Thousands of organizations have recently made the move to restructure work around groups rather than individuals.
But teams are not automatic productivity tenancies. They can also be disappointments for management. Fortunately, recent research provides insight into the primary characteristics and factors related to effective teams.
Factors like cohesiveness and familiarity, diversity of membership, and organizational context have an important influence on the performance of the groups and teams.

Introduction

A growing trend in organizations is to give more responsibility for important activities to teams rather than individuals. Teams are small task groups in which members have a common purpose, interdependent roles, complementary skills, and considerable discretion about how to do their work.
Since groups are fundamental feature of organizations around the world, it is imperative that their effectiveness is understood.
In this paper project we want to analyze three factors that influence the performances of groups and teams, such as cohesiveness and familiarity, diversity of membership, and organizational context.

Chapter I
Groups and Teams

Lawson and Shen (1998) sustain that, in general groups and teams are similar constructs because they embrace the idea of people in social interaction, people influencing each other, and people sharing some common purpose, but still have some differences between them.
Unlike groups, in which performance depends on the work of individual members, in teams, performance requires both individual contributions and collective work products.
The many definitions of group usually include the following features: two or more individuals who are interdependent, interact with each other over time, share a common goal or purpose, and perceive themselves as being a group (Robbins, 1994).
There are many different kinds of groups; groups in organizations can be classified as functional, task, or informal. A functional group is created by the organizations to accomplish a range of goals with an indefinite time horizon. A task group is created by the organizations to accomplish a limited number of goals within a stated or implied time. An informal group is also called an interest group and is created by the members of the organizations for purpose that may or may not be related to the organization (Fleet, 1988).
Teams have been defined as interdependent collections of individuals who share responsibility for specific outcomes for their organizations and as individuals who see themselves and who are seen by others as a social entity interdependent, embedded in one or more larger social systems (community, organizations), and who perform tasks that affect others such as customers or co-workers (Yukl, 1998).
Teams have a number of unique features, including being organized around work processes, rather than specific functions like marketing, production, or sales (Lawson and Shen, 1998). We have different types of teams like: cross – functional teams, which are used to improve coordination among different parties involved in carrying out a joint project. Self – managed teams perform on – going work and are responsible for producing a distinct product or service.
The teams are delegated most of the responsibility and authority traditionally vested in first – line supervisors. Self – defining teams represents an extreme form of empowerment and distributed leadership. The team can determine its mission, regulate its internal processes, and negotiate relationships with other parts of the organization and outsiders (Yukl, 1998).
In conclusion, we understand that there are similarities and differences between groups and teams, nothing that these relationships are more a matter of degree than of kind and we indicate that we will use the terms interchangeable because we will analyze the common factors that influence the performance of groups and teams.
A leader who wants to improve a group performance needs to understand the determinants or performance. A number of factors that influence the performance of groups or teams have been studied extensively: cohesiveness and familiarity, composition, and the context.

Chapter II
Group cohesiveness

Cohesiveness is one of the most important factors that influence teams’ performance.
Cohesiveness it is a measure of the interpersonal attraction among members of a group and their attraction to the group as a whole (Wagner III & Hollenbeck, 1992; Stoner & Freeman, 1992).
The more cohesive the group – the more strongly members feel about belonging to it - the greater its influence. If the members of a group feel strongly attached to it, there are not likely to violate its norms.
In a very cohesive group there is a high degree of mutual friendship and esteem, and the group provides satisfaction of its members’ social needs.
Cohesiveness is usually stronger when the group is small, membership is stable, members interact regularly, members have shared goals, members have similar values and background, membership is exclusive and limited, and the group has high status in the organization (Yukl, 1998).
The importance of cohesiveness is accentuated when we consider it in the context of group norms. A norm is a standard of behavior that the groups develop for its members (Fleet, 1988).
Some of this norms are carried over from society in general, such as dressing „properly“ for work or showing up on time. Other are particular to the group and its special goals, such as questioning „traditional ideas“ in a task group charged with launching a new product.
And because the members are very concerned about group acceptance, cohesive groups have a strong basis for exerting social pressure on anybody who deviates from group norms. The effect of cohesiveness on group performance depends on the group norms for performance. When performance norms and cohesiveness are both high, the manager has a powerful vehicle of achieving high levels of performance (Fleet, 1988).
Yukl (1998) also indicate that cohesiveness facilitates high performance if the group values task achievement and sets high norms for member performance.
We have a variety of items that encourage group cohesiveness. Among the most important are the following:
1. Shared personal attitudes, values, or interests. People who share the same attitudes, values, or interests are likely to be attracted to each other.
2. Agreement on group goals. Shared group goals encourage members to work together. When group members participate in determining their purpose and goals, the get to know and influence each other.
3. Frequency of interaction. Frequent interaction and the physical closeness this affords encourages group members to develop the mutual understanding and intimacy that characterize cohesiveness.
4. Group size. Smaller groups are more likely to cohesive than larger groups, because the physical proximity makes it easier for their members to interact.
5. Group rewards. Cooperative group rewards that encourage interaction can also stimulate cohesiveness, especially when group members are performing interdependent tasks.
6. Favorable evaluation. Recognition given a group for effective performance can reinforce feelings of pride in group membership and group performance (Wagner III & Hollennbeck, 1992).
In addition, managers must strive to create a sense of outcome interdependence. If the members or a group do not share some common fate, they will have little sense of belonging. Group bonuses or peer evaluation can help create this sense of common fate.
Also, Lawson and Shen (1998) sustain that cohesiveness can be a double edge sword in that when it becomes the primary focus of the team, the opportunity for group think, leads to premature decisions without a full consideration of a variety of alternative solutions for the task or problem before the team.
Other researchers have found that lower level of familiarity among members were associated with lower levels of productivity (Fleet, 1988; Lawson & Shen, 1998).
It appears that teams that are composed of members who are familiar with each other are more effective than are teams composed of strangers.
In contrast, a group with a low level of cohesiveness is one in which members do not know each other, do not like to be together, do not work well together, and would causally leave the group if an opportunity arose.
In conclusion, the managers need to realize the importance of group cohesiveness. As we have noted, cohesiveness can be a powerful force in organizations, especially when combined with different levels of performance norms. The manager should therefore work to enhance cohesiveness and establish high performance norms, when it is in the best interest of the organization. Small size, frequent interaction, clear goals, and success tend to foster cohesiveness; their opposites tend to lead to a breakup of the group.

Chapter III
Group composition

The critical challenge of each person and each organization around the world is to learn that diversity is a bridge to finding deeper similarities and interests among all human beings.
As the global workforce becomes increasingly diverse, organizations are realizing from their experiences that diversity uniquely shapes the experiences of individuals and groups. In other words, diversity has a wide influence on a variety of domains of human experience, including the psychological and the social (sense of belonging, relationships among persons from different groups) (Lawson & Shen, 1998).
Diversity is a fundamental feature of organizations, and the effect of the diversity of membership on the performance of teams has been studied extensively.
In general, the research suggests that diversity of background and perspective improves the quality of the strategic decisions made by a team facing a turbulent, uncertain environment (Yukl, 1998).
Members with a different functional background usually develop different values and attitudes that affect their interpretation of the environment, preference for particular types of strategy, and capacity to generate innovative solutions to problems.
Two heads are frequently better than one. Groups made up of individuals from different backgrounds and with different experiences often see things that homogeneous groups don’t. Therefore, the use of diverse teams may result in more innovative ideas and better decisions than might arise if individual alone made the decisions (Robbins, 1994).
Sesa and Jackson (1995) (from Lawson & Shen 1998), suggested that there are two different perspectives and consequences of diversity for organizations, in general, and teams, in particular. According to the horizontal perspective of diversity, different types of diversity such as gender, age, ethnicity and race yield about equal performances outcomes. Therefore, one type of diversity is as good as any other, and thus as long as a team is diversified, it is assumed that the factors of diversity will yield enhanced performances of decision - making and problem - solving teams.
In contrast, the vertical differences perspective assumes that diversity serves as the marker to assign members to positions in a hierarchy of asymmetrical power relationship (high and low status members). Hence, under vertical differentiation, team participation is moderated by the hierarchical relationships among members, so the members’ voices are not equal and team outcomes are compromised.
As a team leader, we should always promote the principles that team members are different yet similar in their commitment so as to focus on the team members’ performance, positive intent, and regard for each other and the organization.
Magjuka and Baldwin (1991) (from Lawson & Shen, 1998) found that greater within – team heterogeneity in the types of jobs held by team members was positively associated with the effectiveness of teams. Similarly, after they examined a broad array of studies Jackson, May and Whitney (1995) (from Lawson & Shen, 1998) concluded that heterogeneity (defined as a mix of personalities, gender, race and experience) is positively related to creativity and effective decision making in teams.
The leader should provide sustain support for diverse teams, especially during the early stages of their development. There is probably nothing more influential for shaping the performance of diverse teams than for the members to observe firsthand that they can work effectively and efficiently on a common task with clearly identifiable rules or norms and specific group goals.
If organizations have diverse members who do not understand, appreciate, respect, and harness their differences from and similarities to other members, the workforce will not be committed to the organization, its products or services, and its customers or clients. This lack of commitment will eventually lead to decreased competitiveness and ultimately to organizational failure.
It is important to plan and implement programs to harness diversity, to promote values, beliefs, and norms in support of diversity, teamwork, quality, and individual responsibility for the organization. This important endeavor can bring out the best in all people by eliminating the walls within them that keep them apart (Lawson & Shen, 1998).
In conclusion, we have understood the challenges and advantages of the multicultural organization and managing diversity as a strategic action to enhance organizational productivity and financial measures. Workforce diversity is a challenge for all organizations in the world, and specific strategies can be applied in a variety of organizations to enhance harmony and productivity around the differences and similarities among people.

Chapter IV
Group context

The effectiveness of teams is influenced substantially by the context, which includes such elements as organizational culture, mission, issues related to team autonomy, rewards and recognition, and physical environment. For example, an organizational culture that promotes innovations and shared expectations of success fosters effective teams (Lawson & Shen, 1998).

4.1. Organizational culture

Organizational culture refers to norms of behavior and shared values and beliefs among the people items which can be changed to increase the performance of an organization. Effective organizations have strong, clear cultures that are consistent with their strategies (Fleet, 1988).
The underlying beliefs representing the culture of a group or organization are learned responses to problems of survival in the external environment and problems of internal integration.
All organizations need to solve problems of internal integration as well as problem of external adaptation. Objectives and strategies cannot be achieved effectively without cooperative effort and reasonable stability of membership in the organization.
Internal problems include the criteria for determining membership in the organization, the basis for determining status and power, criteria and procedures of allocating rewards and punishments, an ideology to explain unpredictable and uncontrollable events, rules or customs about how to handle aggression and intimacy and a shared consensus about the meaning of words and symbols.
The beliefs that develop about these issues serve as the basis for role expectation to guide behavior, we need to let the people know what is proper and improper and help them maintain comfortable relationship with each other (Yukl, 1998).

4.2. Groups autonomy

Also, issues involving autonomy, which is important for the effectiveness of the team, and revolve mainly around the level of power and responsibility associated with the team.
Thus, for example, semiautonomous groups are led by supervisors, members of self – regulating teams elect their leaders and control the division of labor within their teams, and members of self – designing teams define themselves and relations outside the group. In short, the clearer the organization context is about where the buck, lire, ruble, or whatever stops relative to teams, the more likely the yield will be the teams’ enhanced effectiveness (Lawson & Shen, 1998).
The most robust influence on the effectiveness of a team will probably be an organizational context that provides appropriate support for the team’s design (the specific about membership, composition, roles, and goals) and process (the specifics about decision making, rules of operation, and conflict – management strategies). When it comes to team, we need to promote a context that is as specific as possible.

4.3. Members motivation

Member motivation is another important factor that affects group productivity and that can be managed to avoid or minimized process loss. Group members must be sufficiently motivated to reach the highest level of group productivity that their abilities permit.
Rewards contingent on specific achievement also help to motivate groups. There are two fundamentally different types of rewards. Cooperative group rewards means that group rewards are distributed in such a way that each member receives an equal reward in exchange for the successful performance of the group.
And the competitive group rewards which means that group rewards are distributed in such a way that members receive equitable rewards in exchange for successful performance as individuals in a group.
We have a definition of motivation in Lawson and Shen (1998): „we define motivation as forces within or outside the individual or group that initiate, direct, and sustain action toward a goal or set of goals“(Lawson and Shen, 1998).
Also, they believe that the situational and dispositional forces determine the level of motivation that organizational members relentlessly pursue individual and organizational goals, and the motivation operates as a system in which outcomes provide feedback that influences subsequent motivational levels.
Also, Kotter (1999), says that motivation and inspiration energize people, not by pushing them in the right direction as control mechanism do but by satisfying basic human needs for achievement, a sense of belonging, recognition, self-esteem, a feeling of control over one’s life, and the ability to live up to one’s ideals (Kotter, 1999).
We believe that such feelings touch us deeply and elicit a powerful response. In the same direction Sofia Chirica in „Psihologie Organizationala“(Chirica, 1996) says that if an individual has a good image about himself he is strongly motivated by the success satisfaction.
To conclude we are convinced that motivation is a force, which can be used when a person has appropriate abilities and skills to produce high-quality and competitive services and products. A good and correct understanding of motivation and strategies to enhance motivational levels can help managers get to know their colleagues fully and harness these motivational forces to enhance the effectiveness of individual members and teams.
We have understood that the effectiveness of teams is influenced substantially by the context, which includes organizational culture, issues related to team autonomy, rewards and recognition to motivate the members of the organization to be more effective at the work place.

Conclusion

In conclusion to this paper project we have understood that there are similarities and differences between groups and teams, nothing that these relationships are more a matter of degree than of kind.
All organizations have to deal with teams, and we have understood that there are several factors that increase the performance of the teams in organizations.
Cohesiveness can be a powerful force in organizations, especially when is combined with different levels of performance norms.
Workforce diversity is a challenge for all organizations in the world, and specific strategies can be applied in a variety of organizations to enhance harmony and productivity around the differences and similarities among people.
The effectiveness of teams is influenced substantially by the context too, which includes such elements as organizational culture, issues related to team autonomy, rewards and recognition, to motivate the members of the organization to be more effective at the work place.
Teams have become increasingly popular in organizations because they free up management to think more strategically, permit faster decision making, facilitate work force diversity, and increase the performance of the organization.

REFERENCES

_____Chirica, S. (1996). Psihologie Orgainzationala. Cluj-Napoca: Casa de Editura si Consultanta
_____Fleet, Van. (1988). Contemporary Management. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company
_____Kotter, P.J. (1999). What Leaders Really Do. USA: Harvard Press.
_____Lawson, R.B. & Shen, Z. (1998). Organizational Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press
_____ Robbins, P. Stephen, (1994). Management -fourth edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall
_____Stoner, A. James & Freeman, R. Edward, (1992). Management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
_____Wagner III, A. John & Hollenbeck, R. John. (1992). Management of Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
_____Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in Organizations. (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

copyright © Sorin Balogh
www.psihoteam.com