Impact of Teamwork on Organisational Problem Solving

Impact of Team doing on Organisational Problem closureCan groups and Teams be seen as the bills bullet to solve organisational fusss? smooth critically on this issue go throughing on system and inquiry. foundationIn recent years, the effectuation of groups and squads has become more(prenominal) commonplace in firms 78% of US workplaces spend groups (Allen and Hecht, 2004) and 72% of UK organizations involve their core employees in formal police squads (Kersley et al., 2013). However, scholars drive home generally been divided ab protrude the effectiveness of groups in solving challenges in the workplace, with varying empirical results and turn out. Despite their popularity, ar groups and teams continuously honest to workplaces? In observing the drawbacks of implementing teams, it is suggested that alternative factors be equally all- pregnant(prenominal) in solving organizational problems.This examine attempts to show that teams argon non the silver bullet for all organizations by critiquing populist theories on benefits of teams, discussing superfluous problems that whitethorn arise from teams and lastly, by questioning the assumptions of this essay. Although Katzenbach and Smith (1993a, p.45) delimitate team as a small reckon of plenty with complementary skills who atomic number 18 committed to a common purpose, proceeding goals and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable and work group as a small number of people working in a collaborative style with individualist input and account efficacy, I will use groups and teams interchangeably and non draw a distinction between the deuce calls for the most power of this essay. This is in line with many writers (e.g. Allen and Hecht, 2004), who regarded them as the same and that teams ar two or more people working interdependently towards achieving a common goal. subdivision 1 Critiquing popular theories on benefits of teams Historical view of teams Sociotechn ical systems possibility (STS)The term STS was originally coined by Emery and Trist (1960) to describe systems which involve a complex fundamental interaction between people, machines, and the organizations external environment it was somewhat utilizing the human and technical aspects to give an organization more effective. STS was the basic foundation for the empowerment of teams, arguing that as workers gain more autonomy over their affairs, team members potty shake greater use of their skills and judgment to cleanse tackle organizational problems (Cohen et al., 1996). Groups were suggested as an alternative to routine Tayloristic and Fordist frameworks by reducing boredom and by provideing workers to be more involved and interested in their assigns.This works in theory, al genius teams may not be that autonomous or beneficial in practice. Murakami (1997) studied the introduction of teams in fourteen cable car plants worldwide and although teams were given up about aut onomy about work distribution and internal leaders, he found that managerial power in the most important argonas of car production re primary(prenominal)ed unchallenged. Barker (1993) argued that while teams may appear to give workers more autonomy over their jobs, groups may represent a more insidious and intensive form of agree as team members fag end mince severally others actions through surveillance or social pressures. Besides that, search has indicated that in becoming group members, individuals often lose their problem-solving facilities, become emotionally segregated and blame others for their failure (Wells, 1980 cited in Sinclair, 1992, p.616). In line with that, Naquin and Tynan (2003) agree that teams receive joint credit for successes but often blame team failure on an individual member, leading to meshing within the group.Dunphy and Bryant (1996) argued that the implementation of self-managed teams shifts the burden of problem-solving from managers to employees , leading to intensification of work and heightened stress levels. This is in line with Rothschild and Whitt (1986) who revealed that groups arse often be a source of stress rather than atonement and have a negative effect on employees well-being. Neverthe little, heretofore if some workers enjoy their job more through teams, there is no bear witness that this will al authoritys lead to improved public presentation. Some researchers have suggested that job surgical operation leads to job satisfaction but not the reverse (Bagozzi, 1980). And even if it does improve individual performance, it may not necessarily lead to organizational effectiveness in solving problems (Sinclair, 1992).Belbins Team RolesAnother theory which popularized team effectiveness was Belbins cast of team sh bes. Belbin identified nine team habits/ contributions that are seen to be crucial for organizational effectiveness (Belbin, 1993). Each team habit is considered important because it helps to pro vide a good balance for achieving tasks. The essential contributions are solving problems, exploring resources, coordinating tasks, imparting drive, evaluating k right awayledge, developing team members, implementing ideas, perfecting details, and providing knowledge. Some groundbreaking workplaces form teams on the basis of Belbins team profiles as they supposedly allow organizations to recognize and use others strengths to best advantage (Belbin, 2014).To a certain extent, Belbins model of teams and team roles may appear to solve certain organizational problems. For example, problems at organizations may occur due to ambiguity and role conflict. When there is role ambiguity, workers are uncertain which responsibilities they should tackle, leading to anxiety. This may also lead to conflict if one worker believes that another is impinging on their role, putting newcomers in a difficult position as they are apprehensive of victorious on tasks (Slaughter and Zicker, 2006). By dist inctly defining team roles using Belbins model, organizations may be able to avoid some of these problems.However, Belbins model has been re- get windd with mixed results. For example, fisherman (1996) argued that Belbin team roles have little psychometric support and that it is unreliable to use it as the basis for team roles. Another criticism is that Belbin insinuated that there are only a limited number of ways in which people disregard use to the full contribute to teams when in practice, roles are complex and varied. fearful team roles onto people and expecting them to contribute to workplaces in a certain way may lead to stereotyping. For example, an individual who is actually more efficient working alone may be accused of being a gravid employee just because they are not a team player (Sewell, 2001). apart from that, Belbins original research mainly focused on upper- management level executives in Britain in the 1970s, consisting mostly of middle-class white men. This d oes not mean that Belbins theory of teams and team roles cannot be applied to other cultures, but it could be diagonal as the research was based on a specific demographic.Katzenbach and Smiths cognition of TeamsKatzenbach and Smith (1993a) argued that teams will always outperform individuals when teams are mightily dumb and supported. They suggested that the mutual accountability, commitment, and skills of team members will encourage open discussions and critical problem-solving. The better teams will move beyond individual responsibilities and pursue team performance goals like increasing work attribute or responding to customers faster, reducing inefficiency problems. floor (2007) argued that this theory adopts a unitarist view of management where employees and managers are constantly in pursuit of higher productivity, which may not always be legitimate in practice.The main critique is that Katzenbach and Smith wrote from their personal work experiences (Wilson, 2013). Thei r research had no solid empirical evidence and while they claimed to collect information through interviews, they did not divulge how they tryd the data. They were also inclined to do by public service sector or third sector examples, which could defecate their findings biased. Additionally, this theory played down the intrinsic qualities of organizational problems much(prenominal) as job satisfaction or workers feelings and personal motivations. Metcalf and Linstead (2003) argued that this approach is masculinist as it adoptive a view that only emphasized better performance, with the soft components such(prenominal) as sensitivities and feelings of members being marginalized. However, to successfully solve organizational problems, we should consider two masculinist and soft aspects as organizational problems can be related to both. thence, this theory fails to explain why teams would be the solution to all challenges.Section 2 Problems that arise from implementing teams Soci al loafingSecondly, teams should not be seen as a panacea because they may cause even more organizational problems. wizard of the problems that arise from teams is social loafing, colloquially known as free locomote or laziness. Simply stated, it refers to a situation in which certain members of a group handle less sudor than the others (Clegg at al., 2016). Primarily, people exert less effort in groups as they feel less accountable when they know other members will compensate by exerting additional effort on their behalf (Harkins and Szymanski, 1989).Ezzamel and Wilmott (1998) observed workplace social loafing in a company they dubbed StichCo. When teams were introduced to StitchCo, the younger and more inexperienced workers with no responsibilities were less pressured to summation their wages through bonuses. They were seen to reap the advantages of a shared team bonus, working below the minimum level of efficiency while older workers overcompensated for their leave out of e fforts. This created resentment and conflict among those workers who were working harder.Although challenges occur when implementing team roles as discussed earlier, one way of countering social loafing is by ensuring that team members have clear responsibilities and accountability. Theoretically, one would assume that social loafing would be much less presumable to exist in work teams because team pressures can be a powerful source of conformance. Sewell (1998) pointed out that non-performing team members may be pressured to perform or leave through immense social pressures. Hence in some ways, conformance and cohesion can cancel out social loafing. GroupthinkNevertheless, cohesion in groups are not always beneficial to organizations as it may cause another problem Groupthink. Janis (1982) coined the term Groupthink when he studied historical situations where teams with prestigious and well-educated members make disastrous stopping points, such as the Bay of Pigs incident. One ke y characteristic of Groupthink is when members choose to die hard by decisions that the group has committed itself to, despite evidence that these decisions are defective or disturbing the con apprehension of its members. Janis argued that the more cohesive the group, the more likely it is for each(prenominal) member to avoid creating disunity. It is not so much that the members are afraid of revealing their objections, but that they will readily accept the absolute majority decision without scrutinizing its pros and cons.Groupthink also brings about risk shift, an illusion of invulnerability and ecstasy for a decision that polarizes the group towards higher risk. For example, in May 2015, sise banks were fined a total of $5.7 billion for manipulating foreign exchange markets. The traders appeared to reinforce each others belief that they were not going to be arrested, allowing them to knowingly break the integrity (King and Lawley, 2016). The concept of groupthink therefore undermines one of the main argued benefits of teams workers sharing multiple perspectives to examine potential risks and to better solve problems.However, Janis argued that this does not mean all cohesive groups suffer from groupthink and that mild Groupthink may not necessarily influence the quality of a groups decision. Furthermore, there are ways to avoid Groupthink the team powerfulness encourage people to voice their opinions by establishing that any critique of the teams decision is encouraged or some members may be assigned to analyze all decisions in a critical way. Alternatively, the organization may institute up several independent groups working on the same problem and compare the decisions reached.Section 3 Questioning the assumptions of this essayGroups vs TeamsWe will now discuss if it is possible for teams to be the silver bullet when they are defined correctly or implemented in the right settings. One of the main assumptions of this essay is that groups and teams are the same. However, Katzenbach and Smith (1993b) argued that while many workplaces claimed to use teams, in practice, teams are uncommon as most workers are in what they called working groups. Working group members mostly work independently and focus on individual performance whereas high performance team members focus everything on the team. Since team members rely on each other and focus on team outcome rather than individual brings, they can exploit each others strengths to better tackle challenges.So perhaps, the failure of teams found by researchers such as Hackman (1998) were due to people using the term team withal loosely in the workplace, when they were in fact, the failure of working groups. Katzenbach and Smith (1993b) argued that it is important to distinct working groups and teams so that managers can make better decisions about whether, when, or how to encourage and use teams. By properly defining teams, we can learn when they should be seen as a solution to organ izational problems. size of teams and organizational context This essay also used Allen and Hechts definition of a team two or more people working interdependently towards achieving a common goal (2004). This definition is quite vague, when in workplaces, the size of a team is very important and should be defined according to the task. For example, large teams may be inefficient for routine tasks due to overcrowding, but they are good for complex tasks as smaller teams will not have enough resources or abilities (Clegg at al., 2016). Nevertheless, Laughlin (2011) found that high ability individuals can outperform groups composed of two, three, four or five low ability members. So while team size definitely has an effect on team performance, more research needs to be done to fully understand how different factors mediate the effect of team size on effectiveness.This brings us to the next assumption of this essay groups and teams are not the silver bullet for all organizations. Howev er, teams can be very effective if they are used in the suitable organizational context. Wright Cordery (1999) proposed conditions for teams to succeed and fail in outperforming other organizational frameworks and there is evidence that system-wide changes are better at solving organizational problems than individual changes (Bacon Blyton, 2000). Thus, it is critical to recognize that effective problem-solving does not magically occur simply by introducing teams time, high-level resources, and revamped support structures need to be in place to create a high performance team-based organization. Only then, perhaps teams can be perceived as a silver bullet to organizational problems, although creating the perfect setting for every task would be nearly impossible.Conclusion In a nutshell, this essay argued that teams are not the panacea by examining opposing views and limitations of popular theories such as STS, Belbins team roles, and Katzenbach and Smiths Wisdom of teams. It also di scussed additional problems that may arise and questioned the assumptions of this essay to demonstrate the pros and cons of teams in different situations. Due to the word limit, this essay did not discuss all the challenges which would prevent teams from working effectively (e.g. resistance to teams, leadership of teams). Nevertheless, the original essay question remains important as teams can be effective or destructive depending on how and where they are implemented, so they should not be used sweepingly across organizations. Instead, future research on teams should be done in various industrial settings to properly define teams and to examine other factors which would affect their effectiveness in problem-solving.ReferencesAllen, N.J. and Hecht, T.D., 2004. The day-dream of teams Toward an understanding of its psychological underpinnings and implications. daybook of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(4), pp.439-461.Bacon, N. and Blyton, P., 2000. High thoroughfare and low road teamworking Perceptions of management rationales and organizational and human resource outcomes. pitying relations, 53(11), pp.1425-1458.Bagozzi, R.P., 1980. Performance and satisfaction in an industrial sales force An interrogative of their antecedents and simultaneity. The daybook of Marketing, pp.65-77.Barker, J.R., 1993. Tightening the iron cage Concertive control in self-managing teams. administrative science quarterly, pp.408-437.Belbin, R.M., 1993. Team roles at work. Oxford Butterworth-HeinemannBelbin UK, 2014. How to Use Belbin to Increase Employee Engagement. pdf Cambridge Belbin. Available at http//www.belbin.com/media/1173/belbin-howtousebelbintoincreaseemployeeengagement-oct2014.pdf Accessed 23 December 2016Clegg, S., Kornberger, M. Pitsis, T., 2016. Managing Organizations. Fourth edition. London SAGE Publications Ltd.Cohen, S.G., Ledford, G.E. and Spreitzer, G.M., 1996. A prophetical model of self-managing work team effectiveness. Human relations, 49 (5), pp.643-676.Dunphy, D. and Bryant, B., 1996. Teams panaceas or prescriptions for improved performance?. Human relations, 49(5), pp.677-699.Emery, F.E. and Trist, E.L.,1960. Socio-technical Systems. In C.W. Churchman M. Verhurst (Eds), Management Science, Models and Techniques, Vol. 2, pp.83-97. London Pergamon Press.Ezzamel, M. and Willmott, H., 1998. Accounting for teamwork A critical study of group-based systems of organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, pp.358-396.Fisher, S.G., Macrosson, W.D.K. and Sharp, G., 1996. Further evidence concerning the Belbin team role self-perception inventory. Personnel review, 25(2), pp.61-67.Hackman, J.R. and Tindale, R.S., 1998. Why teams dont work. Theory and research on small groups. New York Plenum PressHarkins, S.G. and Szymanski, K., 1989. Social loafing and group evaluation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 56(6), pp.934-941.Janis, I.L., 1982. Groupthink Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiasc oes (Vol. 349). Boston Houghton Mifflin.Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K., 1993a. The wisdom of teams Creating the high-performance organization. Boston, MA Harvard Business School Press.Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K., 1993b. The discipline of teams. Boston, MA Harvard Business Press.Kersley, B., Alpin, C., Forth, J., Bryson, A., Bewley, H., Dix, G. and Oxenbridge, S., 2013. at bottom the workplace findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey. Routledge.King, D. and Lawley, S., 2016. Organizational behaviour. Second edition. Oxford Oxford University Press.Laughlin, P.R., 2011. Group problem solving. Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press.Metcalf, B. and Linstead, A., 2003. Gendering Teamwork ReWriting the Feminine. Gender, Work Organization, 10(1), pp.94-119.Murakami, T., 1997. The autonomy of teams in the car industry a cross national comparison. Work, Employment Society, 11(4), pp.749-758.Naquin, C.E. and Tynan, R.O., 2003. The team halo effect why teams are not blamed for their failures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), pp.332-340.Rothschild, J. and Whitt, J.A., 1989. The cooperative workplace Potentials and dilemmas of organisational democracy and participation. CUP Archive.Sewell, G., 1998. The discipline of teams The control of team-based industrial work through electronic and peer surveillance. Administrative science quarterly, pp.397-428.Sewell, G., 2001. What Goes Around, Comes Around Inventing a Mythology of Teamwork and Empowerment. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37(1), pp.70-89.Sinclair, A., 1992. The tyranny of a team ideology. Organization studies, 13(4), pp.611-626.Slaughter, J.E. and Zickar, M.J., 2006. A new look at the role of insiders in the newcomer socialization process. Group Organization Management, 31(2), pp.264-290.Storey, J.W. (2007) Human resources management A critical text. Third edition. London Cengage Delmar Learning.Wilson, F.M., 2013. Organizational behaviour and work a critical introduct ion. Fourth edition. Oxford Oxford University Press.Wright, B.M. and Cordery, J.L., 1999. Production uncertainty as a contextual moderator of employee reactions to job design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), pp.456-463.