One page.
Week One Discussion March 2023
200 Word
1 Discussion B) Read the week 1 Lecture content and answer the following questions
· Identify a team you were or are a part of and describe the advantages that you derived from being a member of the team. What diversity exists within that team?
· Consider each member in turn, and think of the real strengths they have and the potential contributions they could make. Are you making the most of your diversity as a team?
· Describe your initial reaction to the diversity wheel. How might this change how you perceive your environment?
· Why might the 4 Stages of Team Development limit our understanding of group dynamics?
Taken from:
Issues and Observations Publication
Vol. 15 No. 1 1995
Published by permission from Center for Creative Leadership
Work Teams and Diversity
Last October the Center, New York University, and the American Psychological Association
cosponsored a three-day conference in Greensboro on “Work-team Dynamics and Productivity
in the Context of Diversity.” This meeting was primarily for researchers; its goal was to bring
together people currently engaged in studying work teams and diversity, to facilitate an
exchange of information among them, and to stimulate further research by defining fundamental
questions. Nevertheless, the topic is important to anyone concerned with the development of
human resources. So, with the permission of conference organizers, I sent Bernie Ghiselin, a
former Editor of I&O, to observe and to take notes on issues that would be of interest to a more
general audience. The following is his report. [Ed.]
In recent years the U.S. workforce has become increasingly diverse, adding more and more new
workers who are not the traditional white males. At the same time, organizations are being
confronted with problems that cannot be effectively dealt with by staying within conventional
hierarchical and functional boundaries, and thus we see a growing use of work groups, or teams,
that span these boundaries.
Each of these developments – diversity and the use of teams – has been thought about and studied
a great deal, with particular attention paid to its relation to organizational effectiveness. It is only
now, however, that people in organizations and researchers have begun to look closely at the two
in combination.
At the October conference, fifty-nine participants met to hear and discuss forty-one papers. In the
course of the presentations, poster sessions, plenary sessions, small-group discussions, and one-
on-one exchanges, a great deal of information was generated. Based on my notes of the
discussions, on my reading of papers that will appear in two conference publications (see
sidebar), and on a series of talks I had with Marian Ruderman (who, along with Susan Jackson of
New York University, chaired the conference), I have chosen three issues that I think people who
are concerned with human-resource development but unfamiliar with the research on teams and
diversity are likely to find interesting: the challenge of defining diversity, the search for effective
intervention strategies, and the question of whether researchers should make policy
recommendations.
Defining Diversity
There are many definitions of diversity in use today, and although this provides for a richness of
perspective, it creates problems. For instance, evaluating research that has already been done,
especially if you are trying to compare studies, can be very difficult, as can designing
interventions based on research that uses different definitions. Thus, the question “What does the
word diversity mean?” was discussed in great detail at the conference.
In general, diversity refers to the ways that people in organizations differ. That sounds simple,
but defining it more specifically is a challenge because people in organizations differ in a great
many ways – race, gender, ethnic group, age, personality, cognitive style, tenure, organizational
function, and more. There is also the fact that diversity not only involves how people think of
others and how this affects their interaction but how they conceive of themselves.
Stella Nkomo (in press) suggested that one way to approach the question is to consider “whether
diversity should be broadly defined or narrowly defined.”
A broad definition would see diversity as including all the possible ways that members of work
teams differ. Thus, it would consider differences of race, gender, age, and other demographic
categories as essentially the same as differences of values, abilities, organizational function,
tenure, and personality.
A narrow definition, on the other hand, would see diversity as including only differences based
on race and gender. Thus, only the traditional issues of discrimination and exclusion of members
of these groups in organizations would be considered.
Each definition has its advantages. The former could be used to develop a single integrative
theory of how diversity affects work teams, whereas the latter would focus attention and
resources on differences that clearly affect organizations. In Nkomo’s view, however, “Neither . .
. is entirely satisfactory for capturing the basic complexity of the concept.”
The problem with the broad view is that, in seeing all differences among people as the same, it
makes diversity a benign, almost meaningless, concept. Yet the effects of diversity are not
benign. Differences of race, ethnicity, and gender have resulted in many people being given
unequal access to opportunities and resources. With this background, how can these differences
be understood in the same way as those of personality, cognitive style, or function, which may
well have organizational effects but certainly not of the same magnitude?
Nkomo, however, pointed out that the answer isn’t as simple as relying on a narrow definition
that restricts treatments of diversity to race and gender. Historically, this approach has had its
problems. It led to research that usually focused on only one of the differences (race or gender) at
a time. Another is that it encouraged the view that only women and minorities have race and
gender. Everyone has race and gender.
Nkomo joined others at the conference in pointing out “that the implied central concept
underlying the meaning of diversity is identity and the different bases upon which identity can be
formed.” They also argued that individuals have multiple identities. Race and gender can interact
with each other as well as with personality style, organization function, age, and tenure. Thus,
understanding the multidimensional nature of identity is important in defining diversity in work
teams. When individuals form a work group based on a functional specialty, they also bring
along aspects of themselves grounded in race, gender, and ethnicity.
The issue of definition was summed up, in Nkomo’s words, in this way: “The challenge before us
is understanding the interactive effects of multiple diversity. This raises the thorny research
problem of how to determine the relative saliency of the different identities an individual may
bring to a work team.”
Thus, we should be explicit in recognizing the multiple sources of identity – for example, racial
identity, gender identity, ethnic identity, and functional-group identity – and not assume that all
operate the same in a work team or that one can be a surrogate for another (Skevington & Baker,
1989; Tinsley, 1994).
Others at the conference also supported this point. For example, Joseph McGrath, Jennifer
Berdahl, and Holly Arrow (in press) proposed a framework for studying diversity in work groups
that looks at five clusters of attributes:
personal demographics;
knowledge, skills, and abilities;
values, beliefs, and attitudes;
personality and cognitive and behavioral style; and
organizational demographics.
They believe that the different clusters have different effects in groups. In addition, McGrath and
his colleagues argued that the nature of the work groups also makes a difference. Group
members behave differently depending on whether they are members of crews, task forces, or
teams.
“Each cluster has a very complex relationship to other clusters,” said McGrath in his conference
presentation. “We must not keep acting in the literature as if when you’ve seen one kind of
diversity you’ve seen them all.” He added that, since the effects of diversity on different
attributes are not generic, variations on the different clusters of attributes create different types of
group dynamics.
Intervention Strategies
Another important issue considered at the conference was, “What are effective strategies for
intervening in diverse work teams?” One well-known intervention was challenged and other
perspectives were suggested.
Diverse work teams often have problems resulting from what psychologists call in-group/out-
group dynamics. This is the well-known tendency for group members to treat some people as
insiders and others as outsiders. According to social-identity theory, the simple act of
categorizing people into distinctive groups has debilitating effects on attempts to achieve
collective goals. In-group/out-group dynamics can result in stereotyping, intergroup competition,
distrust, and prejudice, all of which can inhibit effective group functioning.
A longstanding belief from group theory is that contact, or increased exposure to others,
promotes harmony and minimizes differences. From this came the idea that the intervention of
recruiting a diverse workforce can reduce prejudice.
A study by Pamela Tolbert, Alice Andrews, and Tal Simons (in press), however, shows contact
alone is not enough. Examining the proportion of women in academic departments over a
twelve-year span, they found that increases in proportionate size of a minority group did not
decrease discrimination. The increase in women faculty members was explained as much by
competition as by the contact. Once women gained sufficient numbers, there was competition
with men for resources.
This work raises the question about the type of contact and context needed to reduce intergroup
conflict. Gregory Northcraft, Jeffrey Polzer, Margaret Neale, and Rod Kramer (in press) argued
that the type of contact needed is similar to the contact used in negotiations. Based on their work
with functionally diverse teams, they pointed out that problems arise because team members
often assume that differences are conflicting. In reality, many desires of different group members
are not as opposing as they might initially appear. They suggested that the language and
strategies of negotiation can be useful in helping team members turn differences into win-win
strategies.
Marilynn Brewer’s work suggests other strategies for intervention. Brewer (in press) looked at
in-group/out-group dynamics at a very basic level in the laboratory, where she experimented
with techniques for minimizing it. In her work, laboratory subjects were given a “social
dilemma” conflict between “individual self-interest” and the “collective welfare.” The dilemma
was the choice faced under conditions of gradual depletion of a common resource, such as
petroleum, rain forests, or water supplies. The collective welfare was preserved if each individual
restrained self-interest on behalf of the common good.
Groups in three experiments were identified as either oriented toward the organization as a whole
or toward a subgroup. Across all experiments, as the resource pool approached depletion,
subjects given a subgroup identity harvested significantly more of the common resource than did
subjects oriented toward the organization as a whole.
Brewer and her colleagues were able to reduce this tendency with two interventions. One treated
members of different subgroups as having a single super-ordinate identity. In other words, it
emphasized the common goal of the group as a whole rather than the goals of the individual
subgroups. Individuals were thereby able to suppress self-interest for the sake of the collective.
The second intervention involved “crossing categories and functions,” structuring role
relationships within groups. Brewer pointed out that work teams are often structured in such a
way that roles or functions within the team are correlated with identity groups. In a
multifunctional team, it is likely that gender and role are correlated. For example, in a team
comprised of engineers and human-resource specialists, it is likely that the engineers are male
and the human-resource professionals female.
In the laboratory, Brewer has experimented with groups in which identity is not correlated with
function. She found that this type of set-up leads to a reduction in bias in the perception of and
evaluation of team members. This work suggests that team problems may be alleviated by
avoiding the blending of social identities and functional roles.
However, Brewer has acknowledged the difficulties in applying the findings of laboratory
studies to the workplace: “In many work contexts, role assignments cannot be so easily
distributed as they are in a laboratory experiment. The larger organizational context from which
work groups are created and composed introduces potentially important constraints on the
possible role structures of such work teams.”
A very different approach has been taken by Robin Ely (in press). Her work in both the field and
the classroom has focused on understanding the experiences of privilege and oppression as a way
to help members of diverse groups work effectively together. She believes that all individuals
have experienced both dominance and oppression and that understanding both aspects of identity
are important sources of insight that team members can use to enhance relationships at work.
In her work on oppression in the classroom, Ely asked students to examine their attitudes as
members of a “dominant” rather than an “oppressed” group. Once the students (including blacks
and ethnics) overcame reluctance and allowed themselves to examine their dominant identities,
they better understood their behavior from this position of privilege.
“My observations from teaching about dominant as well as oppressed group experiences suggest
that people resist examining their own experiences as members of dominant groups, but that this
resistance is well worth overcoming,” Ely wrote.
This work has important implications for the development of new intervention strategies. From
her work, Ely suggested that research – and, by extension, future interventions – move away from
a “concept of identity as unitary, fixed, and internally consistent toward one in which identity is
best seen as a set of contradictory, fluid, contextually constrained positions within which people
are capable of exercising choice. It then makes sense to examine the impact of organizations as
historically situated contextual constraints that can shape and reshape, create and recreate
identity in potentially infinite ways. This represents a radical reframing of the role of identity in
organizations.”
Policy Recommendations
During the conference, a number of participants raised the question of whether researchers
should make policy recommendations to organizations. Some felt there hasn’t been enough
“fermentation time” to offer definite recommendations about work-team diversity.
“I’m not doing research on the ‘right’ answer. It’s too big,” said one academic during a meeting.
“I’m doing research in my corner. If you’re doing research in one small corner, it’s hard to be an
advocate. It’s hard to finalize it.” Another admitted she’d gotten her wrists slapped “for being too
speculative. I don’t even like using the word diversity in my papers.”
During a plenary session, Gregory Northcraft was asked what advice he gives business students.
“We don’t know if the knowledge is fully transferable because the research hasn’t gone that far,”
he said. “I think that means we teach our students exactly that. That there are important issues we
don’t know enough about to give a direct answer. But we do know enough to say there are issues
here. A lot of what I do in MBA classes is to sensitize students. The more we can do to sensitize,
the more they will be likely to learn what they need to learn.”
“I don’t think you can ever make complex recommendations,” Pamela Tolbert said. “We need to
respect the limits of our knowledge and not just respond to pressure to give answers. There are
problems out there for which we don’t have answers. If you want to pursue diversity because you
want to get more ideas, more creativity, more synergy, be very, very careful because there are
lots of unintended consequences that flow from the best diversity efforts. Which is not to say,
‘Don’t do it.’ Just be cautious and use your best judgment.”
Susan Jackson, who has published widely on workforce diversity, and others took sharp issue. “I
think we have a lot to say about policy and I’m not going to let you off that easily,” Jackson said.
From research on intergroup relations, from social identity and conflict theories, she said, “We
can talk about providing equal access to resources and opportunities, and help organizations
understand how inequalities of opportunity constrain performance. We can offer advice about
how to design and conduct fair and unbiased selection interviews and performance appraisals,
especially in the context of teamwork. This research has many practical implications.” Jackson
would like to see researchers share the responsibility of thinking through these implications and
helping organizations take action. Researchers understand the phenomena associated with
diversity better than most people. They can use their knowledge and models to assist
organizations in evaluating how to manage people and in experimenting with new ways o
Conclusion
How diversity affects the dynamics of work teams and thus influences effectiveness is a complex
question. To date, research suggests that diverse groups tend to be more creative and perform
better on problem-solving tasks than homogeneous groups, but they also appear to have lower
levels of social integration and higher turnover than homogeneous groups (Elsass & Graves,
1994; Sessa, Jackson, & Rapini, in press). There is still, however, a great deal to be learned; in
particular we need to know much more about the specific conditions that foster the benefits of
team diversity while minimizing its disadvantages. As the October conference indicates, there is
a solid core of researchers working to define and answer the fundamental questions that will in
time enable us to learn what we need to know.
Bibliography
Brewer, M. (in press). Managing diversity: Can we reap the benefits without paying the costs? In
S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Work team diversity: Paradigms and perspectives.
Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Elsass, P., & Graves, L. (1994, October). Unraveling the paradox of diversity: A theoretical
model. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Chairs), Work-team dynamics and productivity in
the context of diversity. Conference held at the Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC.
Ely, R. (in press). The role of dominant identity and experience in organizational work on
diversity. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Work team diversity: Paradigms and
perspectives.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
McGrath, J., Berdahl, J., & Arrow, H. (in press). Traits, expectations, culture and clout: The
dynamics of diversity in work groups. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Work team
diversity: Paradigms and perspectives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Morrison, A. (in press). Closing the gap between research and practice. In S. E. Jackson & M. N.
Ruderman (Eds.), Work team diversity: Paradigms and perspectives. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Nkomo, S. M. (in press). Identity and the complexity of diversity. In S. E. Jackson & M. N.
Ruderman (Eds.), Work team diversity: Paradigms and perspectives. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association. Northcraft, G., Polzer, J., Neale, M., & Kramer, R. (in press).
Diversity, social identity, and performance: Emergent social dynamics in cross-functional teams.
In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Work team diversity: Paradigms and perspectives.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Sessa, V. I., Jackson, S. E., & Rapini, D. T. (in press). Workforce diversity: The good, the bad,
and the reality. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Handbook of human resource management. Cambridge,
MA: Blackwell. Skevington, S., & Baker, D. (Eds.). (1989). The social identity of women.
London: Sage.
Tinsley, H. (Ed.). (1994). Special issue on racial identity and vocational behavior. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 44. Tolbert, P., Andrews, A., & Simons, T. (in press). The effects of group
proportions on group dynamics. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Work team
diversity: Paradigms and perspectives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Conference Publications
Work Team Diversity: Paradigms and Perspectives (working title), edited by Susan E. Jackson
and Marian N. Ruderman, published by the American Psychological Association. In addition to
the papers cited here by Marilynn Brewer, Robin Ely, Joseph McGrath and colleagues, Stella
Nkomo, Gregory Northcraft and colleagues, Ann Morrison, and Pamela Tolbert and colleagues,
the volume will include: “Perspectives for Understanding Diverse Work Teams: Introduction and
Overview,” by Susan E. Jackson and Marian N. Ruderman; “Relational Demography: The
Missing Link in Vertical Dyad Linkage,” by Anne S. Tsui, Katherine R. Xin, and Terri D. Egan;
“Managing Distances and Differences in Geographically Distributed Work Groups,” by David J.
Armstrong and Paul Cole; “Commentary: The Importance of Contexts in Studies of Diversity,”
by Harry C. Triandis; and “The Multidimensionality of Diversity: Challenges and Directions for
Research,” by Taylor Cox, Jr.
Work-Team Dynamics and Productivity in the Context of Diversity: Selected Conference Papers
(working title), edited by Marian N. Ruderman, Martha W. Hughes-James, and Susan E.
Jackson, published by the Center for Creative Leadership. “Effects of Group Diversity on
Perceptions of Group and Self among Scientists and Engineers,” by Nancy DiTomaso, Rene
Cordero, and George F. Farris; “Personality Diversity and its Relationship to Managerial Team
Productivity,” by Keith M. Eigel and Karl W. Kuhnert; “The Effect of Value Difference on
Social Interaction Processes and Job Outcomes: Implications for Managing Diversity,” by
Michele J. Gelfand, Kristine M. Kuhn, and Phanikiran Radhakrishnan; “The Effects of the Ethnic
and Gender Diversity of Work Teams on the Perceptions of Performance Outputs,” by Michael
T. Herron; “Culture and Leadership among Taiwanese and U.S. Workers: Do Values Influence
Leadership Ideals?” by Keith James, Dz-Lyang Chen, and Russell Cropanzano; “The Limitations
of Organizational Demography: Can Diversity Climate be Enhanced in the Absence of
Teamwork?” by Ellen E. Kossek, Susan C. Zonia, and Willard Young; “The Cost of Leading
Diversity: Effects of Group Diversity on Leaders’ Perceptions,” by Margarita Mayo, James R.
Meindl, and Juan-Carlos Pastor; and “The Vicious and Virtuous Facets of Workforce Diversity,”
by Sumita Raghuram and Raghu Garud.
Taken from:
Issues and Observations Publication
Vol. 15 No. 1 1995
Published by permission from Center for Creative Leadership
For more info go to the information source: inforM – Univ. of Maryland
http://www.inform.umd.edu/EdRes/Topic/Diversity/General/Issues/Work/io.html
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
Editorial
Diversity in Teams
A Two-Edged Sword Requires Careful Handling
David A. Kravitz
George Mason University
The world of work is changing. Increased globalization, greater
workforce diversity (at least in North America), and the need to
apply a wide variety of skills to increasingly complex jobs has
resulted in flatter organizational structures and an increased use
of work groups and teams that are demographically and func-
tionally diverse.
Fortunately, diverse teams are more creative and perform
better than homogeneous teams—right? After all, it’s intuitively
obvious that diverse teams can exploit a variety of perspectives
and skills. On the other hand, it’s also obvious that birds of a
feather flock together for a reason: They get along well. Might
conflict and miscommunication cause diverse teams—contain-
ing birds of different feathers—to perform poorly? Elizabeth
Mannix and Margaret A. Neale have reviewed the research on
team diversity and have found support for both the positive and
the negative effects. They conclude that there are ‘‘no consistent
main effects for diversity.’’ Instead, they explore the conditions
under which diversity affects performance and the reasons for
those effects. Some significant conditions may be under the
control of managers and team leaders; Mannix and Neale advise
them how to exploit the advantages and avoid the disadvantages
of diverse teams.
Which effects are observed in research may depend on how
diversity is defined, because different operational definitions
stimulate and draw attention to different psychological proc-
esses. Diversity is sometimes operationalized in terms of factors
or types, either dichotomous (e.g., visible vs. nonvisible) or
multifaceted (e.g., race, gender, age, etc.). A second approach
focuses on the proportions of minority- and majority-group
members, ignoring the factors underlying the division. An in-
tegrative approach looks at group faultlines, which are deter-
mined by the consistency of majority–minority splits across
multiple factors. Mannix and Neale prefer the multifaceted
approach and define diversity as ‘‘any attribute that another
person may use to detect individual differences.’’ The impor-
tance of perspective in this definition is consistent with their
emphasis on the psychological processes that must underlie any
effect of team diversity on performance.
The theoretical arguments for the advantages and disadvan-
tages of diversity in teams mirror the intuitive arguments ex-
pressed above. The optimistic view focuses on diverse teams’
access to a variety of resources that, if properly exploited, should
enhance performance. This work tends to look at functional
diversity, which serves as a proxy for diversity in knowledge,
skills, information, and expertise. Information processing pro-
vides the theoretical basis. The pessimistic view concentrates on
affective problems, as predicted by the similarity–attraction
paradigm (birds of a feather really do flock together) and by
social-categorization and social-identity theories (with the re-
sulting distinction between in-group and out-group). This work
typically defines diversity in terms of tenure and social cate-
gories such as race and sex.
As one might expect from these incompatible theoretical
perspectives and predictions, results are complex and incon-
sistent. Some types of diversity (e.g., race, gender, and age) are
more likely to have negative effects, whereas other types of di-
versity (e.g., functional background, personality) are more likely
to have positive effects, at least when the group process is
controlled.
So where does this leave the manager? Should she create
diverse teams or homogeneous ones? And what can she do to
maximize performance of these teams? Mannix and Neale offer
three suggestions. First, diverse teams are likely to be especially
appropriate for tasks involving innovation and exploration of
new opportunities, whereas homogeneous teams are better for
exploitation and implementation of what is already known.
Second, special efforts must be made to reduce process prob-
lems in diverse teams. Mannix and Neale stress the value of
helping the team develop a superordinate identity. Third, steps
should be taken to ensure that minority opinions are heard. A
broader point is that organizational leaders should develop open
organizational cultures that encourage and reward learning and
change. Team leaders play a key role in implementing such
cultures or at least creating them within the team.
Mannix and Neale have done a fine job of summarizing what is
known about the performance of diverse teams and suggesting
Volume 6—Number 2 Copyright r 2005 American Psychological Society i
Editorial
some practical implications of this knowledge. But one of the and mediators thought to play a central role in the input–proc-
clearest conclusions I draw from this review is how much remains ess–output models, and give greater attention to the role of
to be done. As the authors emphasize, researchers need to in- context (e.g., organizational culture). One can but hope that this
tegrate theoretical perspectives, measure directly the attributes review will motivate scholars to explore the issue further.
Volume 6—Number 2 ii
VOLUME 26 NUMBER 9
1994
New Developments in Team
Building
Kim Gustafson and Brian H. Kleiner
Introduction
Work teams today are being spoken of as the
productivity breakthrough of the 1990s. The
change represented by the use of work teams is
often labelled as a “transformation” or the result
of a “new paradigm”. Whereas only
20
years ago
work teams in the business environment were just
being experimented with, a recent study by the
American Productivity and Quality Center found
that 80 per cent of the Fortune 1000 companies
use some form of employee involvement
programme, and 50 per cent of the respondents
intend to increase the use of work teams[1].
Teams are not something that management
has recently discovered and set into action.
Take, for example, pre-historic man: if he had
to kill a mammoth or do without supper, there was
no time to draw up an organization chart, assign
tasks, or delegate authority. Basically, the person
who saw the mammoth from the farthest away
was the Official Sighter, the one who ran the
fastest was the Head Runner, whoever threw the
most accurate spear was the Grand Marksman,
and the person all the others most respected and
listened to was the Chief[1]. The spontaneity
shown in this example is exactly the type of
behaviour so desperately sought in today’s
environment.
But what exactly is a team? Characteristically,
a team is defined as a small group of people who
do similar work, meet voluntarily on a regular
basis to identify and analyse causes of problems,
recommend their solution to management, and,
where possible, implement the solutions[2].
In other words, team participation is a collective
idea: power produced by employees taking
responsibility for quality and productivity,
managing their work, and developing their
skills and knowledge about the organization and
Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 26 No. 9, 1994, pp. 17-
22
MCB University Press, 0019-7858.
themselves. Such collective knowledge and
resources will bring better decisions with greater
support for implementation. As Mary Kay Ash
explains, “People will support that which they
help to create”[3].
History of Teams
Until recently work was designed to avoid the
types of teams we view as so critical to today’s
business. In early United States history the first
crude productivity teams were developed. Eli
Whitney responded to the need to manufacture
muskets for the revolutionary army by creating
an assembly-line work environment to help
speed production. This type of environment
accomplished the goal beyond anyone’s
expectation and, therefore, remained popular
until the turn of the century[4].
At this time, Frederick Taylor introduced
“scientific management” in which he advocated
the division of labour into small repetitive tasks
that could be completed by basically unskilled
workers. This concept was widely implemented
because it meant that unskilled immigrants could
be put to use in the industries with only minor
training[4].
In the late 1950s W. Edwards Deming and
J.M. Juran began to implement their statistical
management ideas in which management
attempted to find ways for hands-on workers
to contribute to the overall quality concepts.
The ideas did not receive a warm welcome in the
United States, but were eagerly accepted by the
Japanese, who were struggling to overcome a
reputation for poor quality after World War II.
An engineering professor at Tokyo University,
Dr Ishikawa, helped to spread Deming’s and
Juran’s ideas around Japan. The result was the
establishment by mid-1961 of 20 quality circles
which were specifically designed for hands-on
workers to discuss quality problems and develop
17
n
INDUSTRIAL AND
COMMERCIAL
TRAINING
ways to correct the problems. The success of
quality circles spread rapidly across the workforce
of Japan and, as of 1988, there were one million
quality circles with more than ten million
members throughout the country. Also, by 1988,
Japan had become known for the superior quality
of many of its products[5].
Even upon seeing the successes in Japan,
United States manufacturers were slow to follow
Japan’s example. It was not until 1970 that quality
circles appeared in the United States at a
Lockheed manufacturing plant. Proctor & Gamble
also began to experiment with teams in the early
1970s but remained close-mouthed about the
results. It was not until a 1986 Business Week
report that any information became available.
That article reported that P&G’s team plants were
30-40 per cent more productive than the non-team
plants. Other team work pioneers such as DEC,
TRW and Commins Engine reported similar
results[1].
The High-performance Team
Most researchers agree that there are a few distinct
qualities that set apart the high-performance teams.
Although the wording may be different the ideas
are the same. High performance teams have:
l participative leaderships;
l shared responsibilities;
l definition of purpose;
l high communication;
l a focused future;
l focused tasks;
l creative talents;
l rapid responses.
To illustrate with a common analogy, imagine
two types of sports teams: a bowling team and a
volleyball team. To many, a volleyball game is
more interesting than a bowling match because
of the team work. On a bowling team each team
member is on his own to produce results.
No assistance from a fellow team member can be
accepted. The volleyball team, on the other hand,
demonstrates all the characteristics of a high-
performance team. Each member of a volleyball
team is important and cannot function effectively
on his own. Each member has the responsibility
for covering his section of the court and also for
assisting other team-mates in their sections as
needed. Each member knows the rules and
objectives of the game. Although each member
has his/her own speciality in terms of position
played, all members must rotate through all
positions on the court throughout the game. The
action of the game is too fast-paced to rely on the
coach to call the plays so each player must react
quickly to each situation as it arises. There is no
time to consult management for approval[1].
Participative Leadership
As management consultant Tom Peters explains,
The single most significant managerial productivity
problem in the United States of America is
managers who are out of touch with their people
and out of touch with their customers[3].
There are many reasons why management tends
to distance itself from employees. Some managers
feel employee involvement will lead to a
decreased need for managers. Some managers
resent employee involvement because they have
worked hard for their status and their ego tells
them that they are better than the workers. Some
managers feel threatened that if they work closely
with the employees it will be discovered that the
manager does not really know much more than
the employee[3].
Management must be
“untrained” in production line
thinking
n
So how can management views be changed?
First, management must be “untrained” in
production line thinking, which sees the workers
as robots doing only a repetitive task. In order to
create the trust that will be needed for successful
implementation of employee involvement, the
managers must understand the workforce,
know their needs, and begin to act as role
models[3].
Management must also be trained always to
have the employee involvement programme at
the forefront. They must constantly refer to the
programme so as to let the employees know that
the programme is not a fad and that it not only has
not been forgotten, but is a very important part of
the overall success of the company[6]. Finally,
management must be shown that empowering
the people will lead to a greater feeling of shared
responsibility and, thus, greater productivity.
18
n
VOLUME 26 NUMBER 9
1994
Shared Responsibility
The second attribute of a high-performance team
is to develop the feeling that employees are just as
responsible as managers for the performance of
the team[7]. Often, in an environment in which
unions take part, there is an initial feeling that the
employee involvement programmes are merely a
ploy to entice more work from the employees, or
that it is an attempt to put a wedge between the
union and management. The easiest way to
overcome a problem such as this is to involve the
unions, employees and all levels of management
as early as possible in the implementation of the
programme[3]. Every aspect of the programme
must be a team effort.
Definition of Purpose
Team members need to understand why they
have been gathered to form the team. This
generally means that the team must believe that
there is a problem with the status quo and that
they have volunteered to find another solution to
the problem, or to upgrade the system to form a
new status quo. Team members should also
understand that the purpose of the team is not
only to fix a problem, but to have each individual,
as well as the team as a whole, gain something
from the process[8]. They are a part of the team to
better themselves, to better the team, to better the
other employees’ work environment, and to better
the company as a whole.
A prime example of the benefits of having
team members who understand the purpose of the
business is shown by Stew Leonard’s Dairy in
Connecticut. At this dairy the purpose or
philosophy is that the customer is always right.
One day a distraught woman approached a
young clerk. She was upset because she had
lost a valuable pen somewhere in the dairy.
“Instinctively” the clerk gave the woman $60 in
gift certificates to make up for her loss. Knowing
that the average customer spends $5,000 per year
at the dairy, the clerk understood that the money
would soon be recouped. As a result, the store had
a customer for life in the woman, and she would
undoubtedly tell several friends of her
experience[7].
High Communication
Another key area in team building is
communication. This communication should be
from the top down, from the bottom up, and
lateral. One common mistake in team
development is to exclude upper management,
assuming that the employees would not open up
if the managers were present[1]. Contrary to their
beliefs, by including management in the teams it
is reinforcing the ideas that all the team members
are equal and that the management is a part of the
company’s team. Having management on the
teams will also help to ease apprehensions about
management and will help to create an open,
trusting atmosphere in which employees feel that
management will listen to and handle a situation
as it is occurring rather than only when
necessary[7].
The team must see a
future in its
work
n
In describing the most important paths he took to
help his company be successful, Huffy Bikes
President, John Mariotti, explains that the high
communication at Huffy Bikes helped to build
trust throughout the company. In talking with the
employees he tells the truth of the situation even
if it is unpleasant. He states and restates the
vision constantly. Most of all he listens to the
employees’ input because they are the true
experts[6]. Incidentally, Huffy Bikes are
known for their superior quality.
Focused Future
In order for a team to be successful, it must be
able to see the changes they are pursuing as an
opportunity for growth. As mentioned earlier, the
team must have a feeling of dissatisfaction with
the status quo. They should recognize what it is
that they want to change and have a clear
understanding of the desired results of their
efforts. In short, a team should know where they
are at the present and where they are going in
the future.
Another important aspect of team building
is that the team must see a future in its work.
If the team feels that management is supporting
its efforts as a vehicle for a “quick-fix” of
declining productivity, then the team will
probably decide not to expend much effort on
the task it feels will eventually end up on the
19
n
INDUSTRIAL AND
COMMERCIAL
TRAINING
back-burner[9]. This again leads to the
importance of full management support.
Focused Tasks
Ideally, employee involvement teams are made up
of five to 15 members representing a cross-
section of the areas within the organization being
affected. Choosing those who are to participate
on the team should not be random. To maximize
interest and productivity, the results of the team’s
activities should directly relate to the team
member’s work[2]. Each team member must
have a stake in the outcome resulting from
the team’s efforts.
Once the team has been empowered, it is
important to encourage the team to focus on the
task at hand. Some of the most focused teams are
distributed teams. These are teams that are not
physically located together. These teams
communicate through computer networking,
which provides several advantages. Since a
distributed team has no face-to-face contact,
there are seldom prejudgments about other team
members based on looks or actions. Non-verbal
aspects of the group’s interactions are virtually
eliminated, and verbal interactions are severely
limited because rambling is generally not
tolerated[2].
Focused teams generally experience a greater
self-worth at the end of the project. The team
members grow both as a team and as individuals
through team goals and successes. Focused teams
also tend to feel that the general objectives and
methods used were “right” and tend to support the
results as if they were their own ideas (which,
technically, they are)[10].
Creative Talents
Being able to apply an individual’s creativity
and talents can reap tremendous rewards. The
Monsanto Company in St Louis is an ideal
example. In the early 1980s the computer chip
company was facing a major reconstruction of
their plant. The company had been successfully
experimenting with employee motivation for two
years and was intending to attempt the same
results in the construction project.
The project staff first came up with a mission
statement: “To create an atmosphere of open
communication and achieve participation, so
that we can better utilize the talents, skills, and
inherent creativity of our people”[3]. They
presented the mission statement to the union
leaders and asked for their support, which was
reluctantly granted on the condition that the union
was kept informed of the progress.
The next step was to improve the work
environment so that it would reflect the manager’s
commitment to fulfilling the ideals set out in the
mission statement. They built nice temporary
housing for the contractors, with equal offices for
all. They bought heated and air-conditioned
trailers for the workers so they would have a nice
place to rest and wash-up. Since safety glasses
were mandatory, they bought the newest, most
comfortable glasses available.
Next, the employees were asked to come up
with a logo for the construction job. Their
response was a logo with hands clasped overhead
in a sign of triumph, elements of the American
flag and the motto, “Craftsman Helping America
Maximize Productivity”(CHAMP).
Improving facilities
reinforces the values
of employees
n
The public and employee response was
extraordinary. A survey conducted of employees
showed that 96 per cent rated the facilities
“excellent”, two out of three said the facilities
influenced them to come to work (and, thus,
greatly decreased the absenteeism problem), and
three out of four said the facilities increased their
productivity[3]. By improving the facilities they
reinforced the fact the employees were valuable
to the job.
Engineers consulted with the hands-on workers
before drawings were finalized, which resulted in
significantly less rework and significantly more
mutual respect. In short, the people responded in
a manner consistent with the way they were being
treated. In the CHAMP example, when managers
worked towards fulfilling their mission statement
they unintentionally brought out the creativity and
talents of the workers, which eventually resulted
in the project being completed early and
thousands of dollars under budget[3].
Rapid Response
As a team, opportunities can be recognized and
acted upon more quickly than if the team had to
go through the normal bureaucratic channels.
20
n
n
VOLUME 26 NUMBER 9
1994
With only the team members and the team’s
advisers to consult, action can be taken
sooner[11].
Also, rapid response means that several people
working on the same project can complete it in a
much quicker time frame. For example, Citizen’s
Gas originally had a suggestion programme
administered by someone in the corporate office.
At that time there was a 4 per cent participation
rate and 21.8 per cent adoption rate. When the
employee team took over the administration of
the programme, it made a few simple changes,
such as focusing on small ideas, training the
supervisors to help employees change
unreasonable ideas into reasonable ideas, and
responding to all suggestions within a week.
After
21
months of the new programme, the
employee participation rate rose to 64 per cent;
and the adoption rate rose to 44.8 per cent[12].
The key to the success of the programme was
listening to and responding quickly to the
needs of the employee.
The Future of Teams
As a result of the increased number of teams
in the business environment, there will be an
increased need to empower lower levels of
individuals and an increased need to reward
innovation and creativity. International
management teams will develop to address
problems on a global level. Informality and
flexibility will become commonplace. As a result
of the decentralization that teams can help to
achieve, middle managers will no longer be in the
dictatorship roles but will need to transform into
facilitators, counsellors, and co-ordinators who
will be responsible for developing employee
competence[2].
Conclusion
Teams are not beneficial to all organizations.
There must be a significant labour component.
Some other obstacles that might be encountered
are the wide variety of solutions that may arise to
be discussed. This time-consuming aspect is seen
as the biggest drawback in the use of teams.
Another obstacle is that one individual may
dominate the team and thus defeat the purpose.
Also, some individuals may place the importance
of winning an argument ahead of finding the
proper solution[13]. However, the benefits
definitely outweigh even these obstacles.
If teams can be used and developed to reflect
the characteristics described above, they will
“help to strengthen trust, mutual respect,
dedication and cohesiveness of the individuals
involved”[13]. The variety of knowledge and
information available to a team can bring about a
greater number of possible approaches to a
problem, which will lead to a better quality of
response. Working as a team to prepare problem
solutions will lead to a greater understanding of
the decision and, also, to a greater acceptance of
the decision since the employees themselves
developed the solution.
Teams are not
beneficial to all
organizations
Ricardo Semler of Semco S/A, a diversified
Brazilian manufacturer, experienced a tremendous
increase in the productivity of his manufacturing
plants in recent years. In one interview he talked
about how he increased the quality and
productivity of his plants. He explained that a
wonderful “revolutionary” new idea was the
reason his employee involvement and teamwork
programmes work so well. In his own words:
Think about it. Outside the factory, workers are
men and women who elect governments, serve in
the army, lead community projects, raise and
educate families, and make decisions every day
about the future… But the moment they walk into
the factory, the company transforms them into
adolescents. My radical notion is that we hire
adults, and then we treat them like adults[1].
n
References
1. Lee, C., “Beyond Teamwork”, Training,
June-July, 1990, pp. 25-32.
2. Aubrey Il, C. and Felkins, P., Teamwork:
Involving People in Quality and Productivity
Improvement, Quality Resources, New York,
NY, 1988.
3. Grazier, P., Before It’s Too Late, Teambuilding,
PA, 1989.
4. Rubinstein, S., Participative Systems at Work,
Human Sciences Press, New York, NY, 1987.
21
INDUSTRIAL AND
COMMERCIAL
TRAINING
5. Juran, J., “Product Quality – A Prescription for
the West”, AMA Management Review, Vol. 21
No. 3, 1982.
6. Mariotti, J., “View From the Top: John
Mariotti Speaks Out”, Total Employee
Involvement, Vol. 3 No. 6, 1990, pp. 6-7.
7. Buchholz, S. and Roth, T., Creating the High-
performance Team, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, NY, 1987.
8. Miller, M., Winning through Teamwork,
Nightingale-Conaht Corporation, IL, 1984.
9. Scholtes, P. et al., The Team Handbook,
Joiner Associates, WI, 1988.
10. Herrmann, J., Leadership and Wealth, ASQC
Quality Press, WI, 1989.
11. Mangiapane, A., “Empowering People To
Improve a Process”, Manufacturing Systems,
January 1988, pp. 18-24.
12. Jones, J., “Citizens Gas Implements Team
Suggestion System”, Total Employee
Involvement, Vol. 3 No. 6, 1990,
pp. 1-4.
13. Huseman, R., Readings in Interpersonal and
Organizational Behavior, Allyn and Bacon,
Boston, MA, 1977.
Further Reading
Toomey, M., “Tips on Team Conflict Resolution”,
Total Employee Involvement, Vol. 3 No. 6, 1990,
p. 11.
Kim Gustafson and Brian H. Kleiner are in the
Department of Management, California State
University, Fullerton, California, USA.
22
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
