Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
w hip
Team leaders
team
oN urmi
Raim
Far too often the rigidity and formality of the line organization, its power
and reporting relationships accentuate the vertical interaction in the
organization at the cost of horizontal communication. Teamwork is one
measure to open the horizontal communication, and to add to the elasticity
of the whole organization. In a functional organization the functions are
interdependent, and they need continuous co-ordination. Objectives and
performance reviews give a basis for co-ordination. When this has been
done, teamwork may be most helpful to make the objectives shared.
TEAM PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL VOL. 2 NO. 1 1996 pp. 9-13 © MCB UNIVERSITY PRESS 1352-7592 9
The first social psychological laboratory experiments in the late nineteenth
century dealt with the effectiveness of teamwork. The question then was,
which is more effective, a group or an individual? The results were, and
have been ever since, contradictory. On some occasions the group improves,
on others it impairs individual performance. There is no law of nature to
determine the effectiveness of teamwork. It is up to the team leadership to
make the team perform by getting the resources of the team out in the open,
build them up for a synergistic outcome and even to reinforce the team
resources by way of team learning.
Structured teamwork Teamwork in companies is structured. The teams have a leader and
other roles, objectives, accountability, schedules, deadlines and other
characteristics of task forces. Teams are organized as management teams,
functional teams, project teams, committees, quality teams, production
teams, etc. There is no point in asking whether teamwork is productive
or not. It has come to stay. The point is how to lead it in a productive way.
This is the subject of what follows.
A B
50 per cent 100 Per cent 30 per cent
C 20 per cent
In fact, no teamwork has taken place. One person has just echoed his views
in the group, or his team leadership skills have not sufficed to bring the
others’ resources out into the open. Unfortunately, this kind of a situation is
not a product of imagination only. Of course, it can be an efficient way of
informing, in case no contribution from the team is expected.
Compromising
Four leadership styles In a compromise a dispute is arbitrated, an “average” solution for or a
solution that approaches the middle of the team members’ views is sought.
In the example, the average is about 33 per cent. Again, it undermines the
best individual solution. By way of bargaining the second best choice has
been reached.
Compromises are fairly common, even though the outcome remains below
the best possible. Sometimes the resources, expertise or convictions are
not additive, measurable, or they are different in quality or built on values
about which no objective, “right”, optimal or maximal solution exists.
Compromising may also be attempted when a consensus, arbitration or
holding the group together is more important than the group’s performance.
This kind of an occasion occurs especially in political and value related
disputes.
Integrative teamwork
In this kind of team leadership the resources of the team are gathered
together into an integrated outcome of the team. It sounds so very basic and
simple. In fact, it is not simple at all – it requires active leadership, active
listening, acceptance of different views, ability to present one’s view and to
As difficult as this style is, it has much more potential to it than the
dictatorial and compromise styles can ever have. It is a learning exercise for
the team members: the resources of the team members are now greater than
without and before the teamwork, as they have all gained in learning from
one another. It makes the 100 per cent solution possible. The team has added
value. In this style the different views do not divide people; rather they pose
a problem that the team members share. Integrating is time-consuming,
but the time spent in this style has a better return than in dictating and
compromising. It is possible to learn integrative teamwork. This learning
diminishes time needed for the integrative outcome.
Synergistic teamwork
In synergistic teamwork the team creates something new and more than the
addition of the individual resources would be. The outcome is something
that no team member possessed before and without the teamwork. This was
borne in the process of teamwork, when the combination of the members’
resources exceeded the input. In creative work views are combined in a
unique way, and this is precisely what synergistic teamwork is about.
It could, equally, be called innovative teamwork.
Synergistic teamwork is In synergistic teamwork the outcome exceeds the 100 per cent of the input to
the most productive the teamwork. It is the most productive style. At the same time, it is the most
rewarding to the team members. It is of paramount importance in
knowledge-intensive business (see Nurmi et al.,[4]). It is not an easy style to
apply. Sweeney and Allen[5] studied teams of excellent performance. They
observed that these kind of teams did not come into existence as a result of
intentional management, but they seemed to grow spontaneously from a
fertile breeding ground. The breeding ground can be fertilized by
management but apart from that, management has little to say in igniting
the process nor getting it to sparkle once it has started. These innovative,
synergistic groups were characterized by a high level of enthusiasm,
motivation and commitment, experimenting, an inside jargon that the
outsiders found difficult to understand, the fusion of work and leisure,
pride in the team and indifference to rules. It also appeared that these kind of
groups did not maintain their level of energy for long, but in due course they
tended to dissolve as spontaneously as they appeared.
Dictatorial 20-50
Compromise 33.3
Integrative teamwork 100
Synergistic teamwork 100
successful string quartets have learned to live among conflicts and paradoxes
and even to absorb them as a part of their artistic performance.
Summary
The article introduces a hypothetical case of teamwork. In it person A has 50
per cent, person B has 30 per cent and person C has 20 per cent of the
expertise required for solving the problem of the team. By means of a
thought experiment four modes of teamwork are compared:
(1) By way of a person’s dictate the team can achieve a 20-50 per cent
solution, which is at best equal to the expertise of the best qualified
member of the team.
(3) By way of integrative teamwork a 100 per cent solution can be achieved
by pooling the members’ expertise.
(4) By way of synergistic teamwork a solution exceeding 100 per cent can
be achieved as the team creates a new solution, which no member of the
team possessed before the session of the team (see Table I).
References
1. Ford, D.G. and Harris, J.J. III. “The elusive definition of creativity”, Journal of
Creative Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 3, 1992, pp. 186-98.
2. Janis, I.L., Victims of Groupthink, Houghton, Boston, 1972.
3. Moorhead, G, Ference, R. and Neck, C.P., “Group decision fiascoes continue:
space shuttler challenger and a revised groupthink framework”, Human
Relations, 1991, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 539-50.
4. Nurmi, R., Kontkanen, L., Lehtimäki, J. and Viitanen, P., “Knowledge
organizations: a typological and a structural note”, The Finnish Journal of
Business Economics, Vol. 1, 1992, pp. 13-20.
5. Sweeney, AJ. and Allen, D.M., “Teams which excell”, Research Management,
Vol. 1, 1984, pp. 19-22.
6. Murnighan, J.K. and Conlon, D.E., “The dynamics of intense work groups.
A study of British string quartets”, Administration Science Quarterly, Vol. 36,
1991, pp. 165-86.
Raimo Nurmi