Working in teams can be a pretty complicated business. That
one of the lessons I’ll be taking away from this week’s readings. From the complex
dynamics of emergent teams (Majchrzak, Jarvenpaa & Hollingshead, 2007), to the
possibility of falling prey to a “nut island effect” (Levy, 2001) it seems like
there are pitfalls around every corner when it comes to establishing an
effective team.
In article titled “Why Teams Don’t Work,” Diane Coutu
highlights portions of her interview with J. Richard Hackman, “a leading expert
on teams” (Coutu, 2009). Hackman’s position regarding teams seems to be that
their importance may be overstated (Coutu, 2009). He backs up this sentiment by
pointing out some of the difficulties facing teams and citing research that
shows how teams, even though they represent pooled resources, often
underperform (Coutu, 2009).
Still, Hackman does admit, “when you have a team, the
possibility exists that it will generate magic” (Coutu, 2009, p. 2). In light
of this, he suggests a few things that leaders might want to keep in mind.
First, smaller teams may function better; in fact, Hackman
proposes that the best groups are those that are kept to 10 members or less
(Coutu, 2009). This is because the larger a group gets, the harder members of
the group have to work to manage the links between each other (Coutu, 2009).
This idea is supported by Cross, Borgatti, and Parker (2002), who in speaking
of the time it takes to maintain informal networks state “People have only so much
relational energy to expend” (p. 40).
In addition, Hackman singles out the importance of having a
“deviant” member in the group who will challenge the team beyond the temptation
of thinking too much alike (Coutu, 2009, p.3). Hill (1994) discusses a similar
concept, “groupthink,” and suggests that this is when teams shy away from
confrontation for the sake of maintaining a supportive environment (p. 10).
Without someone to stir up discussions by interjecting opposing views, ideas
may become stale (Coutu, 2009).
With regard to virtual teams, Hackman does not believe that
they are so different from teams that meet face-to-face (Coutu, 2009). At least as far as conflict in teams goes,
this seems to be the same conclusion that Hinds and Mortensen have drawn
(2005). The basic elements that are essential for a face-to-face team are the
same for a team that meets across a great distance through virtual means
(Coutu, 2009; Hinds & Mortensen, 2005).
However, the underlying question remains, to team or not to team?
For organizational leaders, maybe it comes down to being aware of what may be
in store for them in their team building efforts. If the organization knows
that there are pitfalls, paradoxes and challenges ahead in creating teams,
perhaps they will proceed carefully and thoughtfully. Maybe leaders, when
looking at the option of whether or not to create a team, will consider that
“There are many cases where collaboration, particularly in truly creative
endeavors, is a hindrance rather than a help (Coutu, 2009, p. 5). If organizational leaders do determine that
teams are the best option, maybe awareness that building teams is no easy feat
will incline them to heed to the advice of organizational scholars such as
Hackman.
References
Coutu, D. (2009). Why
teams don’t work. Harvard Business Review.
Retrieved from http://hbr.org/2009/05/why-teams-dont-work/ar/1
Cross, R., Borgatti, S.,
& Parker, A. (2002). Making invisible work visible: Using
social network analysis to support strategic collaboration.
California
Management Review, 44, 2, 25-46.
Hill, L. (1995). Managing your team. Harvard Business School
Review, 1-22.
Hinds, P. H., and Mortensen, M. (2005) Understanding
conflict in geographically
distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared
identity, shared context,
and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16,
290-307.
Levy, P. (2001). The nut island effect:
When good teams go wrong. Harvard Business Review,
5-12.
Majcharzak, A., Jarvenpaa, S., and Hollingshead, A. (2007).
Coordinating expertise
among emergent groups responding to disasters. Organization
Science, 18, 1,
147-161.
Nice post, Marissa. The groups size issue is always an interesting one. Small groups tend to be faster at completing assignments and have better productivity. Large groups are good at diverse input and fact finding, but of course social loafing (free riders) can be a problem. What is your experience with different group size? Does it mirror these generalizations?
ReplyDeleteDo you think having a “deviant” member in the group would have been beneficial for the Nut Island team? What problem would that have solved?
Hi Courtney,
DeleteIt does seem that smaller teams have better productivity. In the larger teams I’ve been a part of, even when there’s a lot of information that’s being shared with the team members, it appears as though there’s an added element of chaos. I wonder, though, if this has been the result of how the groups were managed. Hill (1995) mentions the importance of “setting the agenda” when managing teams (p. 4). I know this is probably equally important for large and small groups, but I wonder if it’s more difficult to communicate agendas in a larger group setting.
That’s an interesting question about Nut Island; I think their team could have benefited from a naysayer, or “pot-stirrer.” By having someone on inside the team who points out unpopular suggestions or ideas, perhaps the “us-against-the-world” mentality that was developed in the team (Levy, 2001) could have been avoided.
Marissa,
ReplyDeleteNice literary review of the Coutu article and this week's readings.
Although I definitely respect Coufu's voice and skepticism to teams, I am in the camp of theorists who see the formation of teams as a necessary step to building a successful organization. Two things to note: (1) of course there will be exceptions to the rule and (2) I use the "team" definition lightely, and the presence of the team does not require people "working together" as much as it requires a sharing of ideas amongst members. Regarding a team, "the whole is bigger than the sum of the parts." Teams lessen the time-consuming operational responsibilities of manager's so that they have more time to build their strategic networks (Ibarra & Hunter, 2007). Teams also allow for a sharing of ideas and tacit knowledge (Levin & Cross, 2004) amongst employees. Without teams, I think there would be a loss of accountability and knowledge sharing across organizations.
-Casey
Hi Casey,
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point about managers; having a good team would allow them to focus their energy where it has the most impact for the organization. The opening statement of Hill’s (1995) article suggests that the key in this may lie in establishing a team that functions well. Otherwise, a manger may have to spend too much valuable time getting team members to work together to meet their objectives.
I agree that idea sharing can be an invaluable aspect of working in teams – I think Hackman recognized this too when he referenced the “magic” that can result from work done by teams (Coutu, 2009). This is the sort of outcome that every organization hopes for, that they will strike gold with effective and well-managed teams.
Hi Marissa,
ReplyDeleteGreat job on your summary! A couple of things stood out from my perspective. Hackman's idea of smaller sized teams working better is something I strongly believe in. My personal experience is a group of about five to eight members work very well together. There may be more workload per person, but I think that is offset by the quality of work that results. I really do not enjoy large, expansive teams. My personality lends itself to a small group where interactions are more personal and intense.
The other piece that actually made me laugh was Hackman's belief of a group "deviant." There have been several occasions in my career that I've been accused of being this person. I tend toward the introverted side, so it is hard for me to believe this is possible. I don't do this consciously, but I have evidently developed some abilities to play "devil's advocate." In fact, this happened last night during one of our other class's group meetings. I can sympathize with my team members becoming frustrated. In fact, I feel sorry for them at times. (I share this with the knowledge that they are not in our section). Thanks Marissa!