All jobs should be designed around groups.

Groups, not individuals, are the ideal building blocks for an organization.

600249618 Anuradhi Patricia Dharmawardena

Introduction
In this essay we will critically analyze how and why group work would help to build up an organization rather than using individuals. In order to do so we will need to critically analyze the effects, both positive and negative, of using individuals as well as working in groups. To get a clear and a more concise picture of the situation we would firstly be looking at the definition of a group and a team. The Merriam Webster online dictionary defines the word group as a number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship. And a team is defined as a number of persons associated together in work or activity. A team can be a part of a group. For example, group of employees sent to carry out a survey of customer behaviour. To get to more customers they are divided into smaller groups. All the employees have the same goal in mind. However, to make things more efficient they divide into teams. Guzzo (1986) further goes on to add that a team is a group of individuals who see themselves and are seen by others as a social entity, which is interdependent because of the tasks performed as members of a group. They are embedded in one or more larger social systems, performing tasks that affect others. The key to work teams is that they are interdependent, and this is the major factor that distinguishes a "team" from a "group. As we go along we would also be looking into more of the benefits and drawbacks of using individuals as opposed to using groups for organizations operations and its various activities. When analyzing this statement we must also keep in mind that an organization has different activities and while some could be done better by using groups, some of the activities that need to be done might require individual people rather than groups as a whole. We will further discuss these issues as we go along in the essay.

Burke et al (2005, p. 1) states in their article in the Theoretical Issues of Ergonomics Science that the modern organizations operate in complex, dynamic and even ambiguous environment and they further go along to say that In response , many organizations have turned to the use of teams and employ a highly proactive strategy to business. This means that by using teams as part of their strategy they have brought about a more positive outlook for organizations. There are many advantages to having self-managed work teams in organizations. Teams can enable a company to execute activities and ideas quicker than using individuals, and changes are
2

made more easily, allowing the company flexibility (Mohrman, Cohen & Mohrman, 1995). This is due in part to increased communication and employee involvement in decision-making. Information flow is better because of increased communication and horizontal, rather than just vertical, flow of information. Because of this, consistency in organizational environment, strategy and design is increased (West, Borril & Unsworth, 1998). Each member of a group adds more information, perspective, experience and competencies (Gmelch, 1983). Organizations as a whole are able to learn more effectively as well as retain gained knowledge. If each member participates in problem solving, the potential ways a problem can be solved is increased. Employees also feel better about decisions they make themselves, and are more likely to stick to the implementations that they have created for themselves, as opposed to those forced upon them (West, et al., 1998). Furthermore, it will also give them self confidence as all employees would be involved in activities and decision making. Also, there is a reduction in communication difficulties and in supervision needs if the same group of people implements the solution that solved it (Gmelch, 1983). It is more cost effective to have teams, while retaining high quality (West et al., 1998). Businesses report improved productivity, safety, absenteeism, employee attitude and cost quality when teams are implemented (Beyerlein & Harris, 1998). We can further go along to say that teams are an important aspect of lean manufacturing. If the team or the group members are enthusiastic and motivated then success would be well assured. A website I visited mentions that to be able to successfully use tools like work cells, pull scheduling, we need very strong team sprits within the organization. If even a single person is not functioning correctly, the whole system will collapse. One might say that this would be a disadvantage of an organization working in teams. All group or team members must be committed, focused and they all must give their hundred percent to the task at hand. Its a bit like a circuit. If one switch or one bulb fails then the entire circuit is useless and it is disrupted. Goals are set for teams instead of individuals. This allows the employees to think like a team. Recognition is given in teams. This might be considered as a plus point as well as a negative point. Different people might be putting in different levels of effort and the person who puts a lot of effort would be getting the same amount of credit as the one who doesnt put in any effort at all. This might be demotivating for the employees and they may even choose not to put in too
3

much of an effort in future projects or assignments as they would get the same amount of credit or the same amount of blame as everyone else. When working in teams individual efforts are not recognized. (Leanmanufacturingconcepts, 2008) one might even say organizations hire individuals and teams and groups come as an after thought to make things more efficient. This website further goes on to say, There will be formal teams to carryout specific tasks. For an example quality circles are formally formed cross functional teams meant to improve the quality of the products. These teams will consist of managers, workers and other influencing parties. Teams will be strengthened with team building exercises. As an organization, at the end of the day what is important is the final outcome, not the individual performances. We will now move along to discuss how we can avoid or minimize the problems mentioned above. Participation should be emphasized and all ideas should be listened to without domination by a strong group member or by a supervisor. Some groups find it helpful to have a devils advocate, who constantly reminds the group of how things could go wrong, thereby keeping the group open to creativity and thinking everything through thoroughly. The team should have clearly defined goals to which all team members are committed. The group itself should set the goals; they should not be imposed upon the group by a supervisor. The individuals in the group should also have goals, which are linked to the groups goals so the members work together in achieving. One way to ensure motivation is the use of rewards. It is stressed that reward should be given in a manner that promotes team cohesiveness. If given in the correct manner, they will likely increase potency, or the belief that the team will perform effectively in the future. Potency can be linked to various other factors including both internal factors (member skills and abilities) and external factors (reputation, resources, leadership). Leadership should be a shared group responsibility, not a delegated position. Each member should feel responsible for the team goals and they should also feel that the task at hand is important and will have an impact outside of the team. Because team members have different skills and abilities, the leadership role will likely change as the goals and dynamics of the team changes. Also, it is critical that the team is selfmanaged; management may act as a facilitator, but should not undermine the goals and direction the group has made for itself. (Waddell et al, 2007) Job design refers to the themes relating to motivation, including self-management, participation, task variety, task significance, and task identity (Hackman, 1990). Self-management enhances
4

effectiveness by increasing responsibility and ownership because all members participate in decision-making. Employees who implement their own ideas are more likely to feel ownership and implement ideas aggressively. Task variety and participation allow each member in the group to perform a number of tasks, motivating members to use different skills, as well as rotating less desirable tasks. Effectiveness is also increased when members of the group feel their work has repercussions outside of the group. This concept is called task significance. Finally, task identity is necessary, meaning "the degree to which a group completes a whole and separate task (Campion, et al., pg. 826, 1993). Interdependence is one of the most crucial elements for teams to exist and to be effective. One form of this is task interdependence, which involves members of the team depending on one another to accomplish goals. Goal interdependence refers not only to a group having a goal, but also to the fact that group members goals should be linked. Interdependent feedback and rewards are necessary, as all of the interdependency characteristics, to promote motivation in the team.

As mentioned above an organization has different tasks that require the need for teams or creates an environment where teams can operate in. for example, there are teams that recommend things like the task forces, teams that make or do things like the sales and marketing teams, and there are also teams a bit higher up in the hierarchy like the management teams that run things at various levels of an organization. Therefore, teams are necessary and beneficial for the smooth operation of the organizations. One could also say that a group consists of different people, and each of them have a different skill levels. They do say many heads are better than one. If a problem arises there would be different ideas and different mean to help solve the problem. And one could come up with many solutions to one problem giving many alternatives in case one solution fails. This means that they would have a contingency plan in case things turn sour. And this would also enable the employees to learn different skills from each other making them more competent to perform a task in case someone is not present. On the flip side, if one person is trying to figure out a solution for a problem then that person would have to put a lot of thought into it and would have to rely on his or her memory a lot and they would tend to keep things in mind and try to remember things for the future if necessary. However, if it problems were sorted out in groups then there is a chance that too many ideas might fly around. Some people might not
5

even agree with some of the ideas that have been put through and there are chances of a conflict of interest existing. Too many ideas might make a simple thing more complicated. Too many cooks spoil the broth would be a saying that might be best used to describe this situation. And at times the senior management might play favourites with members of the group and only get them involved and take their ideas into account when making decisions which might lead to resentment and demotivation within the group. Furthermore, since its a lot of team members the team members might not put too much effort to remember things because they might think the other one would remember it for them. (Katzenbach and Smith 1993) Some say that group work at the top of the hierarchy might be more difficult and in these cases it is much better if a single individual carried out tasks that needs to be done at the top. This is because management at the top must deal with long term challenges, heavy demands on executive time, and many senior people in organizations act individually and might even conspire against teams that work at the top. In addition to this, executives actions often conflicts with effective team performance. And this results with the existence of fewer groups at the top of larger organizations and in the event that a group might exist at the top they tend to have very few people in them if any. This may have been caused by misplaced assumptions. (Katzenbach and Smith 1993)

Conclusions
I conclude this analysis by stating that although teams are not appropriate for every organization or project, they do have many advantages. These include increased flexibility, better information flow and higher quality outputs. However, teams are not the solution for an organizations current and future needs. And they will not solve all the problems that exist within an organization. Furthermore, it can actually cause more harm than good if used inappropriately. However, many do tend to believe that teams tend to outperform individuals and they represent one of the best ways to support the broad- based volatility of the current organizational environment. Katzenbach (1993, pp 24- 25) mentions that executives who really believe that behaviorally based characteristics like quality, innovation, cost effectiveness, and customer service will help build sustainable competitive advantage will give top priority to the
6

development of team performance As mentioned earlier in the body of the analysis, groups and teams are indeed necessary for the smooth operations of an organization. They make things more efficient, produces work of higher quality, creates motivation and reduces absenteeism etc. some might even say groups are indispensable for the operation of a successful organization and might create a more harmonized work force which might be useful considering the diversification of the modern workforce. However, organizations cannot operate solely with groups. In certain instances there are occasions that certain jobs can be done better by an individual as opposed to a group or a team. And using groups for certain jobs might only create chaos in the organizations. And one must also keep in mind that in order for groups to be effective and help in the success of an organization one must come up with suitable remedies for any kinks or resistance that might arise within the group.

Bibliography

Burke, C. S., Wilson, K. A., Salas. E. (2005) The use of a team-based strategy for organizational transformation: guidance for moving toward a high reliability organization. Theoretical Issues of Ergonomics Sciences ; Nov2005, Vol. 6 Issue 6, p509-530, 22p Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J. & Higgs, A. C. (1993) Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850.

Gmelch, W. H. (1984) Productivity Teams: Beyond Quality Circles. Toronto, Canada: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Guzzo, R. A., Campbell, R. J. & Shea, G. P. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology,31,87-106

Hackman, J. R. (1990) Groups that work (and those that dont). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Katzenbach, J. R & Smith, D. K (1993). The Wisdom of Teams Creating the high Performance Organization. Harvard Business School Press

Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G. & Mohrman, Jr., A. M. (1995). Designing team-based organizations: New forms for knowledge work, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

West, M.A., Borrill, C. S. & Unsworth, K. L. (1998) Team effectiveness in Organizations. Sheffield, England.