Team working: part 2 how are teams chosen and developed?

Malcolm McGreevy

Malcolm McGreevy is a Freelance Management Consultant based in Cardiff, UK

Abstract Purpose This is the second of two articles on teamwork which aim to deals with the selection and formation of teams, team leadership, team roles and team development. Design/methodology/approach The paper builds on the rst article which covered such issues as the reasons for moving to team working for improving performance, improving quality and encouraging innovation, promoting and exploiting technological advances and as a means of improving motivation. The article also looks at how teams are chosen and developed. Best practice as outlined by the UK Advisory, conciliation and arbitration service (ACAS) is used together with the personal experience of the author. Findings The rst thing to recognize is that organizations will be at different points in their evolution in team working terms. Teams that need to work within and across an organization such as sales, marketing, purchasing, personnel and nance nd that team working fosters a collaborative rather than a competitive or adversarial approach. It is vital that teams must be capable of doing the job for which they have been selected and this clearly implies that the membership should include people able to contribute towards the completion of task. Originality/value It is important that management, trade unions and employees ensure they know how team working will contribute to their business strategy and that it is likely to involve a long-term transformation. Keywords Teams, Teambuilding, Organizational change, Organizational culture Paper type Research paper

his is the second of two articles on the subject of team working. The rst established what a team is, the characteristics of effective and ineffective team and the benets of team working in terms of productivity, quality, the introduction of new technology and motivation. It highlighted the need for managerial commitment to team working if it is to succeed and the potential impact on organizational culture if it is introduced successfully.

In the rst article reference was made to the distinction made by David Casey between a team and a group i.e. that in a team, unlike in a group, each individual contributes their knowledge or expertise to the solving of a jointly owned problem which no one member could solve on his or her own. Adair (2002) describes it in these terms a team is made up, like a jig saw puzzle, of complementary parts tting perfectly together and Whitmore (2003) quotes Katzenbach and Smiths denition that a team is a small number of people with complementarity skills committed to a common purpose, performance goals and ways of working for which they hold themselves mutually accountable. So how do you go about introducing or developing teamwork in an organization? The rst thing to recognize is that organizations will be at different points in their evolution in team working terms. For some it may be an organizational norm as in the NHS whilst for others it may be a totally new concept, for example in an SME that has grown from the initial enthusiasm and energy of the owner/ proprietor to the point where he needs to let go of the reins through delegation to individuals or teams. Where organizations have operated

DOI 10.1108/00197850610704561

VOL. 38 NO. 7 2006, pp. 365-370, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 0019-7858

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING

PAGE 365

 . . . it is important to recognize that it makes little sense for one part of an organization to adopt a team working approach while the rest of the organization functions along traditional lines since this will almost inevitably create a clash of cultures in transactions involving different departments.

through teams or groups working in the past they will have some experience of team working, good, bad or indifferent. Whatever the situation, organizations inevitably have to start from where they are, not necessarily where they would like to be, and have to work with the people they have and the culture that exists in those organization right now. So what can we learn about how introduce, maintain or develop teams in organizations? How can we extend team working throughout an organization in order to realize its full potential. How can we give teams ownership of a distinct product, part of a process, or service and how can we select members so that the team is capable of carrying out the full range of tasks? Perhaps most important of all, how do we develop the independence of teams to improve performance? As already indicated, the term team can be applied in many different contexts and tends to be used loosely to describe many different groupings. A variety of labels are given to the types of teams but the Tavistock Institute, provides a useful starting point for organizations by suggesting there are three types of teams: 1. operational teams; 2. service teams; and 3. cross-functional teams. Operational teams may be dened as permanent groups of workers with a range of skills organized to produce a product either for internal or external customers. In some instances the team has complete responsibility for converting raw material into a nished product. Alternatively a teams product may involve completion of a segment of the production process. Many different names are given to operational teams, including primary teams, shop-oor teams, autonomous work groups, cells or cellular teams and self-managed teams. Service teams are likely to be based on the need to service a particular client or group of clients or to provide a particular product or service to a wide range of customers. Cross-functional teams are made up of representatives from various functions and disciplines. They tend to be set up to look at particular problems or issues either on a part-time basis or full-time for a xed duration. Issues commonly dealt with by cross-functional teams are quality improvement and product development. They are made up of representatives from various functions and disciplines. Frequently members of cross-functional teams will also be members of other teams. This is a useful starting point but it is important to recognize that it makes little sense for one part of an organization to adopt a team working approach while the rest of the organization functions along traditional lines since this will almost inevitably create a clash of cultures in transactions involving different departments. The commitment to team working should therefore be organization wide, hence the need for managerial commitment, for once team working has begun, it becomes almost inevitable that it will be extended throughout the organization. Teams that need to work within and across an organization such as sales, marketing, purchasing, personnel and nance nd that team working fosters a collaborative rather than

PAGE 366 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING VOL. 38 NO. 7 2006

a competitive or adversarial approach, which has an important impact on productivity. Indeed many organizations that have developed and practiced internal team working for some time, and have experienced the benets of doing so, and are keen to extend the concept beyond their own organization into relationships with customers and suppliers. It is now fairly common to hear reference made to partner organizations where there is an open book approach in nance and purchaser / supplier relationships are characterized by shared technology and the jointly funded development of products and services as a result. For the potential benets of team working to be realized in this way, it is clear that particular attention has to be given to the make up of the teams to ensure that each team produces a distinct product or service or part of a process for which they have ownership, which may mean rethinking the relationships between people, machinery and the tasks to be carried out. Membership of a team, for example, may and probably should be based on the contribution a individual can make to the working of the team rather than on the basis of rank, role or status or a feeling that the individual would lose out in some way if they were not seen to be part of the team.

Selection of teams
So how should teams be selected? It is vital that teams must be capable of doing the job for which they have been selected and this clearly implies that the membership should include people able to contribute towards the completion of task. So specic expertise, knowledge or experience are vital but equally it is important that the members of the team also have the skills necessary to operate within the team if the team is to work and of course at least one member of the team will need leadership skills and be able to run team meetings and group activities. In this connection the work of Dr Meredith Belbin is informative. Quite apart from identifying the team role preferences of the individual members of a team in terms of acting in the roles as coordinator (CO), plant (PL), monitor-evaluator (ME), resource investigator (Rl), team worker (TW), implementer, (IM), shaper (SH), specialist (Sp), completer nisher (CF) he points out that:
B B

imperfect people can make perfect teams; and the roles, skills and contributions of individual members of a team are complementary.

The importance of this can be seen in Table I which seeks to show which people with particular team role preferences would work well together and which would not. This may seem to some as somewhat esoteric and theoretical but some organizations utilize it as the basis for the creation of project teams or cross functional teams on the basis that a team consisting entirely of plants who think up the ideas would have no practical use if there were no completer nishers to bring the ideas into practice. Equally a team full of team workers would no doubt create a pleasant working environment but would be unlikely to come up with anything new. Interestingly in my work in the Business School I nd that most of Table I
Works well with Colleague TW, IM, Sp TW, RI, CO RI IM IM, TW TW, PL CO, IM RI, CF CO, ME Would tend to work less well with Boss Colleague Staff TW SH, TW TW CF CF TW SH, ME TW TW IM, PL ME, PL PL RI CF SH CF, ME IM, PL SH SH, RI CO RI SH SH ME PL, RI

Team role preference Coordinator (Co) Plant (PI) Shaper (SH) Complete nisher (CF) Resource investigator (RI) Team worker (TW) Monitor evaluator (ME) Specialist (Sp) Implementer (IM)

Boss

Staff PL, Sp ME, TW TW TW CF TW IM CF, TW TW

SH, Sp, PL CO, TW CO, ME RI, PL, SH SH SH CO CO CF, SH, PL

VOL. 38 NO. 7 2006 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING PAGE 367

the MBA students are team workers, which makes me wonder sometimes what this might presage for the future management of the companies they will work for. On a more practical level maybe, I have found that understanding the team role preferences of each member of a team can allow the coordinator to capitalize on the respective strengths of each team member and allow them all to contribute their part to a jointly owned problem in the way that Casey (1985) suggests. Similar conclusions are being drawn by Oxford Psychology Press into the way an understanding of peoples respective Myers Briggs personality type inventory can assist in the development of effective team working. Except when a new site is being opened, organizations seldom have the luxury of being able to select team members from scratch. Where teams are being created from existing workers, the emphasis will generally have to be on training and development of existing staff. Many companies take the view that the majority of employees can acquire the necessary skills and abilities with appropriate training. It is therefore quite useful to consider some of the concepts that lie behind the development of teams. Teams are unlikely to develop their potential without a struggle. Tuckman for example suggests that a teams development may be viewed in four distinct phases, which he describes as forming, storming, norming and performing. First is the forming phase when the team is in reality still a collection of individuals dealing with procedural issues and the atmosphere is often articially polite. Enthusiasm for and commitment to the new team is high but competence is low. Second is the storming phase when the team members begin to experiment and ex their muscles. Relationships become stormier both between members and between the team and other groups, and members question outside inuences such as set procedures. As the team struggles to nd the best way to work together, members may experience a temporary lapse in commitment. Third is the norming phase where the team is beginning to achieve its potential. It has developed its own way of working that is producing results. Fourth is the performing phase where the team is fully mature and effective. It deals with change in an open and exible way, constantly challenges itself but avoids damaging conicts. When the team moves into the performing stage, most people tend to think it has succeeded and that this is a wholly desirable state particularly if the team is what is now termed a high performing team. However a performing team, desirable though it may sound, may paradoxically not be something to maintain in the long term. When I say this to students or participants in my training, session, I get quizzical looks as though I have lost my marbles until I get them to consider where a high performing team goes next and invariably I get the answer down, amongst many others, Indeed the fact that a team is performing can be its downfall because of the potential for complacency. Robertson makes the point that the fact that the high of success makes itself felt is actually the rst signal that decline is imminent and he quotes Bemado Bertolucci who describes it in these terms decline of which you are unaware, the decline of those that look but do not see, who listen but do not hear; of those who do not know how to judge themselves or to others. To avoid the success trap, an organization must constantly be ready to reinvent itself even when it appears to be thriving and its teams performing. Robertson suggests we should always change a winning team and companies such as Shell have coined idioms such as if it aint broke, break it. To return to Tuckmans model for a moment we should constantly be thinking about reforming otherwise we will be adjourning or mourning The idea of teamwork as the most appropriate form of work organization for shop-oor production or the delivery of services assumes the long-term contribution of teams. It would be unrealistic to expect a teams performing phase to continue indenitely and consequently most teams enter a fth phase. Some teams may be terminated at this stage but most will enter a phase of renewal that will probably involve beginning the development cycle again. Development of team members is a high priority. They can get stuck in the early stages if members are too polite and not prepared to challenge the status quo. Teams may also become complacent after they reach an acceptable level of performance. If teams stagnate

PAGE 368 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING VOL. 38 NO. 7 2006

or encounter problems that they cannot overcome from their own resources, they will need help from management. This may include clarifying objectives, providing additional resources, training and team building exercises. More than anything they will need team leadership ACAS/Tavistock Institute point to the inuence and usefulness of team leaders which they believe come, not from the delivery of traditional supervisory and control methods, but from their ability to lead from the front and in training, coaching and counseling their team members to high standards of performance usually built on their ability to carry out most of the tasks themselves. They also need to be able to co-ordinate and evaluate ideas for operational improvement coming from the shop oor. Above all, the team leaders need to be capable of facilitating the process of change. Team leaders are generally selected by management, although the views of the team or group can usually be accommodated. In some organizations team leaders are elected by team members or have their appointment endorsed by an election. The rst step when choosing team leaders is to decide the type of leadership to be adopted. There are three basic ways of dealing with team leadership: 1. The team leader is a supervisor outside the team. 2. The team leader is a working team member with the main responsibility for direct liaison with management. 3. The team operates without a designated leader inside or outside the team the self-managed team. Leadership and liaison with management are dealt with by various members of the team according to the task. The type of team leadership adopted will, to some extent, determine selection criteria and training needs. Those organizations that choose to have a team leader operating from outside the team may select from existing supervisors or operatives and train them to fulll the new role. Team leaders working within the team are more likely to be recruited from operatives and will need full leadership training. Where teams have no designated leader, there will be a particular need for ongoing training for team members to help them manage group dynamics including conict and decision-making.

Team development
Self-regulation is necessary if the potential of team working is to be realized. Teams will always be subject to management direction of some degree or another and it is important that the boundaries of their authority are understood. Nevertheless Acas/Tavistock research indicates that self-regulation was lacking in those teams that were not performing to their full potential. It is important to remember, however, that self-regulation will not happen automatically but must be developed. The task of management is to oversee the development of teams and provide the necessary support and training. There will also be a need for managers to accept that mistakes will be made as teams are given more responsibility. The emphasis should be on learning from mistakes rather than establishing blame. Unless teams are prepared to take reasonable risks, they are unlikely to develop independence and the ability to innovate. Self-regulation often begins within the team as members decide on the order in which tasks should be tackled and their distribution among members. As teams develop, they can take on more responsibility for quality, production methods, hours and times of work and the selection of, or discipline of, team members. Mature teams may also manage their own

Imperfect people can make perfect teams.

VOL. 38 NO. 7 2006 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING PAGE 369

relationships with other teams and take on responsibility for dealing with the wider organization in such matters as the provision of nance and resources.

Conclusion
The introduction of team working is a major step for an organization to take. It is important that management, trade unions and employees ensure they know how team working will contribute to their business strategy and that it is likely to involve a long-term transformation. Even when they are in place, teams will need constant monitoring and development if they are not to stagnate. The early challenge and excitement of establishing teams may fade and it is easy for organizations to accept a level of performance that is short of the optimum. Team working is not a nite project but a process of continuous improvement and innovation. In order to achieve high performance, teams require regular changes and challenges. These may include: changes to team personnel; new tasks; re-examining the contribution the team makes to the overall business aims; and ensuring that the team has regular dealings with other teams. The concept of autonomous teams may be misleading as teams will always be answerable to management and rely on the provision of resources and other support. Nevertheless one of the best ways to ensure that teams continue to develop is to move towards self-regulation an important way of monitoring the progress of teams is to assess the level of dependence on management It is for management to encourage progress by helping the teams develop greater independence. Reorganizing the workforce into teams is not easy but when successfully developed, team working has been shown to be a way of improving competitiveness and at the same time enhancing the quality of working life for employees.

References
Adair, J. (2002), Inspiring Leadership, 1st ed., Thoroughgood, London. Casey, D. (1985), When is a team not a team?, Personnel Management, January. Whitmore, J. (2003), Coaching for Performance, 3rd ed., Nicholas Brealy Publishing, London.

Further reading
ACAS (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service) (2005), Teamwork: Success Through People, ACAS B14, London. Belbin, M. (1993), Team Roles at Work, Butterworth Heineman, Oxford. Robertson, P.R. (2003), Always Change a Winning Team, Marshall Cavendish, Singapore. Tuckman, B.W. (1965), Development sequence in small groups, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 63 No. 6.

About the author

Malcolm McGreevy is a freelance management consultant living in Cardiff. He is an Honorary Lecturer at Cardiff University and acts as a tutor on the HR modules of the MBA and DBA programmes in Cardiff Business School. He can be contacted at: Mcgreevy03@aol.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

PAGE 370 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING VOL. 38 NO. 7 2006