Work Teams: Three Models of Effectiveness

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract

What is a team? What are the advantages and disadvantages of having teams
in organizations? What does it take to make a team effective? This paper
examines the theme of effectiveness in teams. A work group is defined as a
group of individuals who are seen by themselves and others as a social
entity, which is interdependent because of the tasks performed as members
of a group. First, the paper briefly examines the advantages and potential
pitfalls of having teams in an organization. Then, three models of work
group effectiveness are presented. These models are from Campion, Guzzo and
Hackman. Implications of these models for teams are discussed, and then the
models are synthesized into a checklist of characteristics needed for
effective teams.

Work Teams:Three Models of Effectiveness

Groups became a new focus of attention in the 1940‘s after the Hawthorne
studies were published (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939). One of the
discoveries outlined in that report is that informal work groups are formed
by workers inside of classic Theory X organizations. In recent years the
use of work teams in organizations has been increasing substantially, and
this trend is expected to continue (Katzenbach, 1998). Eighty percent of
organizations with over 100 employees report 50% of their employees are in
at least one team (Beyerlein & Harris, 1998). To remain competitive, it is
important for organizations to create and maintain teams which are as
effective as possible.

A work team will be defined for the purposes of this paper by a definition
borrowed from Guzzo (1986) as follows. 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,"
although both terms will be used in this paper.

There are many advantages to having self-managed work teams in
organizations. Teams can enable a company to execute more quickly, and
changes are 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, 1984). 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). 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 also 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). There are
also many other advantages to having teams that are not listed above.

However, not every organization or task is best organized in a team-based
model. Companies who should not implement teams include those who view this
as an organizational strategy to down-size, those who will not plan for or
institute a nurturing climate where teams can thrive, or those who will not
take the time to design and support teams properly (Johnson, 1998).

Even organizations that are better served by a team model find
disadvantages. These include an increase in time to communicate, poor
communication between members and groups, poor coordination between group
members, and competing objectives (West, et al., 1998). Some self-managed
teams never reach their full potential or fail to be functional altogether,
because they were not set up correctly and the other aforementioned
negative results occur. Other teams increase productivity and quality in
organizations. There are many potential risks and opportunities involved in
a team-based organization. What characteristics, then, are essential to
having effective teams?

Effectiveness can be defined according to Campion, Medsker & Higgs (1993)
in terms of productivity, employee and customer satisfaction and manager
judgements. According to that model job design, interdependence,
composition, context and process are the themes that contribute to the
above effectiveness criteria.

See Campion’s (1993) Model of Effectiveness

Guzzo Model

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 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 (Johnson, 1998). 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 member’s goals should be linked. Interdependent feedback
and rewards are necessary, as all of the interdependency characteristics,
to promote motivation in the team.

Another component of the Campion, et al. (1993) model is the Composition of
groups, which includes heterogeneity in both experiences and abilities.
Heterogeneity contributes to effectiveness due to the possibility of group
members learning from each other, thereby increasing flow of information.
Flexibility of job assignments allows workers to fill in where needed, so
absence of a member does not create delays or chaos. Relative size means
that groups should be large enough to get work done, but not too large for
coordination or involvement of members. Also, employees who have a
preference for group work are expected to add cohesiveness to the group
composition.

Context is essential in effective work groups and includes training in
various areas from how groups should function to technical knowledge.
Another contextual component is managerial support. It is important that
managers act not as traditional managers, but as supporters of the group
without undermining it. It is also crucial that top management is
supportive of the team, or it will eventually be devoured by the
organization (Katzenbach, 1998). Lastly, communication and cooperation
between groups are essential. Groups should be integrated with the rest of
the organization by maintaining effective dialogue with other groups.
Often, one employee is a member of a number of various related groups.

The final characteristic of Campion’s model is Process, which describes the
inter-workings and social interaction of a group. Potency falls under this
category, and refers to the "belief by a group that it can be effective"
(Campion et al., pg. 830, 1993). This is further discussed later in the
paper. Social support is the part of process that includes members having
positive social interaction by helping each other, thereby making boring
tasks more interesting. Another task which helps keep motivation up is
workload sharing.

Campion et al. (1993) have tested the above model in an empirical study and
found that almost all of the design characteristics of work groups listed
above related to the three criteria of effectiveness (also outlined above.)
Potency was found to be the strongest predictor of all characteristics and
related to all three effectiveness criteria, thus supporting those who
assert that it is one of the most important characteristics of a work team
(Guzzo, Campbell & Shea, 1993). This issue is further discussed later in
this paper.

Hackman Model

Many of Campion’s ideas outlined above can be traced back to work done by
Richard Hackman, who has slightly different views of effectiveness.
Hackman’s definition of effectiveness is defined in a three dimensional
definition: the group’s output meeting quality standards, the group’s
ability to work interdependently in the future, and the growth and well
being of team members (Hackman, 1990). This definition is much more complex
than Campion’s in that it looks at both social and personal criteria in a
more in-depth way. Hackman’s model of effectiveness, summarized in Table 2
below, is also more complex than the Campion model in that it offers more
than simple input-output relationships. Hackman offers the advice that no
strategy for performance will work equally well for different teams, and
teams will create their own reality. Focus should be on setting up
conditions favorable to allow success in the team. What, then, are the
conditions for effectiveness?

See Hackman’s (1986) Model for Enhancing Group Task
Effectiveness

The first element in Hackman prescribes is clear, engaging direction which
implies that although tasks are clear, they should also allow room for the
group to "tailor the objectives to fit with member’s own inclinations"
(Hackman & Walton, pg. 81, 1986.) The success or failure to achieve goals
should be a direct consequence of the group’s actions, and it should be
clear to the group that their work will have a substantial impact on
organizations. This creates an environment where members will experience
personal growth and feel more empowered as a result of having more
responsibility.

Hackman’s second ingredient for success is an enabling performance
situation. He sites three general conditions that must be surmounted for a
team to be successful. The first of the triad of the process criteria is
ample effort to accomplish the task at hand in an acceptable manner. The
second is that members have sufficient knowledge and skills and the third
hurdle is the employment of task-appropriate performance strategies. When
there is a problem in the group, these three criteria can be examined to
determine what is wrong- effort, talent and strategy problems constitute
major flaws in groups, preventing effectiveness.

The three points of leverage that Hackman identifies are a group structure
that promotes competent work on the task, an organizational context that
supports and reinforces excellence, and available coaching and process
assistance. The first, a group structure that promotes competent work on
the task, has three components. Firstly, the task structure must be clear
and provide motivating potential (Hackman and Oldman, 1980). The Group
Composition must be correct. The group must be the correct size (not too
large or small), contain the correct talents, and have members
heterogeneous enough to learn from one another. At the same time, there
should exist core norms that regulate member behavior. This allows
activities among members to be coordinated, behavior to be regulated and
planning of strategies to be active (Hackman, 1986).

The second point of leverage Hackman discusses is an organizational context
that supports and reinforces excellence. This entails a reward system,
which provides team recognition for excelling without giving individuals
incentives to "break apart" from the group. The context also includes
providing the group with an educational system so members can expand their
knowledge, skills and abilities. An information system will provide the
group with the data it needs to set goals.

Available, expert coaching and process assistance should be in place to
direct members how to operate interdependently with others on the team, as
this is a very crucial yet difficult skill to attain. Specific areas that
should be focused on by coaches and assistants include promoting individual
effort through motivation and appropriate assessment of individuals and
ideas. Creating and implementing ideas appropriately is also important.
Managers and consultants can be of help wherever experts on team
functioning are needed (Hackman, 1990).

It is clear in the above model that Hackman has both intermediate and
ultimate indicators of group effectiveness, which makes clear that the
connection between processes and outcomes is not always certain. According
to Guzzo (1986), this is especially important in decision-making. For
example, a group can make mistakes in decision-making and still adopt a
plan that is beneficial. Likewise the reverse is true; a group with an
excellent decision-making process can adopt inferior solutions.

Guzzo Model

Guzzo’s model (Guzzo, 1986) differs considerably from the two
aforementioned models. He does, however, define effectiveness in the same
general terms that Hackman does. In his view, effectiveness is defined by
measurable group-produced outputs, consequences the group has for members
and the enhancement of a team’s capability to perform well in the future.
His model, as depicted in Figure 3, shows the three variables he considers
essential for effectiveness: task interdependence, outcome interdependence
and potency. These three variables, through task-related interaction,
affect the group’s task effectiveness and can be influenced by either group
members or people outside the group. In this model, task-related
interaction process refers specifically to the behaviors of members that
directly or indirectly affect task accomplishment.

See Guzzo’s (1984) Model for Group Task Effectiveness

Task interdependence means the amount of task-required cooperation in a
group. When a group is high in task-interdependence members must share
resources in order to attain goals and their actions are closely
coordinated. When task interdependence is low, members work more
independently (without collaboration). It is important that tasks the group
undertakes are not over- or under-orchestrated. Then, members become more
involved in the outcomes, creating a sense of ownership (Mohrman et al.,
1995).

Outcome interdependence is influenced in part by task interdependence and
refers to the "degree to which important rewards are contingent on group
performance (Guzzo, 1986)." A group with a high level of outcome
interdependence has the most valuable rewards given because of group
accomplishments as opposed to individual achievement. Rewards that are
distributed non-competitively when the group is high in task
interdependence are expected to increase effectiveness because of the
cohesion this fosters. It should be noted that rewards are provided by a
source outside of the group itself (Hall & Harris, 1998).

The third and possibly most significant variable in Guzzo’s model of
effectiveness is potency. As mentioned above, this refers to the belief
held by a group that it can be effective, and it is characterized by a
sense of likely success and ability to meet challenges (Guzzo, Campbell &
Shea 1993). Potency is affected by several variables including management
support, availability of resources, knowledge of past effectiveness and
perceptions of fellow members as being skilled and competent. Potency is a
variable that is linked to performance by the feedback a group receives.
Positive feedback from management and customers may cause a group to
believe it will be more effective in the future (Hall & Harris, 1998).

Guzzo and Campbell (1990) have found that groups that are characterized as
having a strong sense of potency tend to be effective. Potency can be used
as an indicator of effectiveness (Guzzo et al., 1993), but it is possible
that groups with high esteem can make bad or ineffective decisions (Guzzo,
1986). However, when combined with the alignment of team goals with
organizational goals, rewards for team accomplishments and availability of
resources, potency can be an excellent predictor of team effectiveness
(Guzzo & Campbell, 1990).

In Guzzo’s model of effectiveness, task interdependence, outcome
interdependence and potency all combine to determine how the task-related
interactions in groups works. All three of these characteristics must be
present in the correct amount; for example, if a group is working on a
project that does not require cooperation among group members (low task
interdependence), they will most likely not be effective. If rewards are
distributed to individuals on a team based on their individual performance
(low outcome interdependence), the group is expected to be ineffective.
Also, if group members perceive their fellow members as being incompetent
(low potency), the group will likely not meet performance standards.
Therefore, it is important that all three of Guzzo’s criteria for
effectiveness be met.

Guzzo and Dickson (1996) have also outlined other issues relevant to
work-group effectiveness. These include team cohesiveness, composition,
performance, leadership, motivation, and group goals. These issues can be
applied to almost any team doing almost any kind of work. An analysis of
these variables can help one determine whether or not a group is effective.
The most important variable however in determining effectiveness is
potency.

Implications for Work Group Design

If models of effectiveness can be directly related to designing work
groups, practical contribution is made to groups. This information is
useful to managers and consultants setting up groups, and members of
existing groups. Although the above three models are all unique, they all
either implicitly or explicitly offer ways to set up and utilize groups to
be an effective part of an organization.

In Campion’s model, input characteristics such as job design, composition
and context can all be manipulated by managers and group members.
Identifying these "malleable" characteristics is the first important step
in learning how to design effective groups. The second step is to develop a
checklist of sorts of necessary characteristics. This is done in this paper
below; characteristics from the above models of effectiveness were compiled
to create a generic list. Finally, it is useful to compare the design
characteristics of a specific group to measures of effectiveness such as
productivity and employee and customer satisfaction periodically to ensure
that the group remains effective over time.

Synthesis of Models:

Campion, Guzzo and Hackman all have models of effectiveness that are
moderately different. However, the following characteristics are found or
are inferred in all three models, and could be used as a checklist of sorts
to ensure all of the vital pieces are in place, allowing for a group to
become a team and to be highly successful. The social environment a group
should be open and supportive, without authority directed problem solving.
Group members should feel that they are equals with others on the team, and
there should be an underlying commitment to team performance rather than
individual performance. However, this does not mean members should all have
the same abilities. A group is more effective when there is a variety of
people with different experiences and areas of expertise. Strong
interpersonal relationships should be a focus, so the group can function
more openly, sharing knowledge and experience.

The environment of the group should also be supportive, with a focus on
learning. A variety of educational tools, including experts in the field
should be readily available to the team to assist in problem solving.
Obviously, communication is also very important between group members and
those outside the group.

An underlying feeling that the team will be successful in accomplishing the
goals they have set is an essential part of the social surrounding. This
element of potency is defined as critical in all three models of
effectiveness.

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 devil’s advocate, who constantly reminds the
group of how things could go wrong, thereby keeping the group open to
creativity and thinking everything through thoroughly (Manz & Sims, 1993).

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 group’s goals so the members work
together in achieving. This is referred to by Campion et al. (1993) as goal
interdependence. An underlying theme is that the team has the ability and
desire to accomplish these goals.

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 self-managed;
management may act as a facilitator, but should not undermine the goals and
direction the group has made for itself.

Conclusion

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. Campion (1993), Hackman (1986)
and Guzzo (1984) all offer models of effectiveness in teams. Although they
differ in many respects, key aspects can be drawn out of them to create a
checklist of sorts to ensure teams are effective. Of these factors, potency
is the most important but is not sufficient alone in determining
effectiveness.

Future studies should focus on the ways team change over time. Perhaps,
different measures of effectiveness or various group design characteristics
are more applicable in teams that have been functioning longer than in
younger teams or groups that have been recently established. More also
needs to be known about how design characteristics such as potency and
interdependence can actually be affected by managers and team members when
groups are being set up or are newly established.

It would also be very useful to do more research in how different types of
teams such as knowledge teams, managing teams or factory floor work teams
can be better served by which models of effectiveness. Do particular models
better serve certain teams? There are many areas that can and will be
explored as businesses are striving to be more efficient and successful,
and as groups continue to be an excellent means of producing.

References

Beyerlein, M. & Harris C. (1998) Introduction to Work Teams, presentation
at the 9th Annual International Conference on Work Teams.

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. (1990) British Journal of Psychology, 28,
218-324.

Guzzo, R. A. (1986). Group Decision Making and Group Effectiveness. In
Goodman, P. S. (Ed.). Designing Effective Work Groups, 34-71. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

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 don’t). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1980) Work Redesign. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.

Hackman, J. R. & Walton, R. E. (1986) Leading Groups in Organizations. In
Goodman, P. S. (Ed.). Designing Effective Work Groups, 72-119. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hall, C. A. & Harris, C. L. (in preparation) Work Team Effectiveness: An
Overview and Synthesis. University of North Texas.

Johnson, D. (1998) course notes: Organizational Psychology. Fall 1998,
University of North Texas.

Katzenbach, J. R. (1998) Teams at the Top: unleashing the potential of both
teams and individual leaders. Boston, MA: 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.

Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

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