Richard L. Daft - Management. 9th ed., 2010

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

PART 5 LEADING500

and large businesses, conducted

y Ron Volper Group Inc. Sales

Consulting and Training, White

Plains, New York (1996), as reported

in “Nine Habits of Highly Success-

ful Salespeople,” Inc. Small Business

Success.

Gerald M. Goldhaber,35. Organi-

zational Communication, 4th ed.

(Dubuque, IA: Brown, 1980), p. 189.

Richard L. Daft and Richard M. 36.

Steers, Organizations: A Micro/

Macro Approach (New York: Harper

Collins, 1986); and Daniel Katz and

Robert Kahn, The Social Psychology

of Organizations, 2nd ed. (New York:

Wiley, 1978).

Greg Jaffe, “Tug of War: In the New 37.

Military, Technology May Alter

Chain of Command,” The Wall

Street Journal, March 30, 2001; and

Aaron Pressman, “Business Gets the

Message,” The Industry Standard

(February 26, 2001): 58–59.

Phillip G. Clampitt, Robert J. 38.

DeKoch, and Thomas Cashman, “A

Strategy for Communicating about

Uncertainty,” Academy of Manage-

ment Executive 14, no. 4 (2000):

41–57.

Reported in Louise van der Does 39.

and Stephen J. Caldeira, “Effective

Leaders Champion Communication

Skills,” Nation’s Restaurant News

(March 27, 2006): 20.

J. G. Miller, “Living Systems: The 40.

Organization,” Behavioral Science 17

(1972): 69.

Michael J. Glauser, “Upward In-41.

formation Flow in Organizations:

Review and Conceptual Analy-

sis,” Human Relations 37 (1984):

613–643; and “Upward/ Downward

Communication: Critical Informa-

tion Channels,” Small Business

Report (October 1985): 85–88.

Thomas Petzinger, “A Hospital Ap-42.

plies Teamwork to Thwart An Insidi-

ous Enemy,” The Wall Street Journal,

May 8, 1998.

Gary Hamel, What Google, Whole 43.

Foods Do Best, Fortune (October 1,

2007): 124.

E. M. Rogers and R. A. Rogers,44.

Communication in Organizations

(New York: Free Press, 1976); and A.

Bavelas and D. Barrett, “An Experi-

mental Approach to Organization

Communication,” Personnel 27

(1951): 366–371.

This discussion is based on Daft and 45.

Steers, Organizations.

Bavelas and Barrett, “An Experi-46.

mental Approach”; and M. E. Shaw,

Group Dynamics: The Psychology of

Small Group Behavior (New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1976).

Richard L. Daft and Norman B. 47.

Macintosh, “A Tentative Exploration

into the Amount and Equivocality of

Information Processing in Organi-

zational Work Units,” Administra-

tive Science Quarterly 26 (1981):

207–224.

This discussion of informal net-48.

works is based on Rob Cross, Nitin

Nohria, and Andrew Parker, “Six

Myths About Informal Networks,”

MIT Sloan Management Review

(Spring 2002): 67–75; and Rob Cross

and Laurence Prusak, “The People

Who Make Organizations Go—or

Stop,” Harvard Business Review

(June 2002): 105–112.

Tahl Raz, “The 10 Secrets of a Master 49.

Networker,” Inc. (January 2003).

Stephanie Armour, “Ofﬁ

ce Gossip 50.

Has Never Traveled Faster, Thanks

to Tech,” USA Today, November 1,

2007, http://www.usatoday.com/

tech/webguide/internetlife/2007-09-

09-ofﬁ ce-gossip-technology_n.htm

(accessed March 28, 2008).

Keith Davis and John W. Newstrom,51.

Human Behavior at Work: Organiza-

tional Behavior, 7th ed. (New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1985).

Suzanne M. Crampton, John W. 52.

Hodge, and Jitendra M. Mishra, “The

Informal Communication Network:

Factors Inﬂ uencing Grapevine Ac-

tivity,” Public Personnel Management

27, no. 4 (Winter 1998): 569–584.

Survey results reported in Jared 53.

Sandberg, “Ruthless Rumors and

the Managers Who Enable Them,”

The Wall Street Journal, October 29,

2003.

Donald B. Simmons, “The Nature 54.

of the Organizational Grapevine,”

Supervisory Management (Novem-

ber 1985): 39–42; and Davis and

Newstrom, Human Behavior.

Barbara Ettorre, “Hellooo. Anybody 55.

Listening?” Management Review

(November 1997): 9.

Eilene Zimmerman, “Gos-56.

sip Is Information by Another

Name,” The New York Times,

February 3, 2008, http://www

.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/

jobs/03career.html?_

r=1&scp=1&sq=Gossip%20Is%20

Information%20by%20Another%20

Name&st=cse&oref=slogin

(accessed February 3, 2008).

Lisa A. Burke and Jessica Morris 57.

Wise, “The Effective Care, Handling,

and Pruning of the Ofﬁ ce Grape-

vine,” Business Horizons (May–June

2003): 71–74; “They Hear It Through

the Grapevine,” cited in Michael

Warshaw, “The Good Guy’s Guide

to Ofﬁ ce Politics,” Fast Company

(April–May 1998): 157–178; and

Carol Hildebrand, “Mapping the

Invisible Workplace,” CIO Enterprise,

section 2 (July 15, 1998): 18–20.

The National Commission on 58.

Writing, “Writing Skills Necessary

for Employment, Says Big Busi-

ness,” September 14, 2004, http://

www.writingcommission.org/pr/

writing_for_employ.html (accessed

April 8, 2008).

Based on Michael Fitzgerald, “How 59.

to Write a Memorable Memo,” CIO

(October 15, 2005): 85–87; and

Jonathan Hershberg, “It’s Not Just

What You Say,” Training (May 2005):

50.

Mary Anne Donovan, “E-Mail Ex-60.

poses the Literacy Gap,” Workforce

(November 2002): 15.

David Bohm,61. On Dialogue (Ojai,

CA: David Bohm Seminars, 1989).

George Kohlrieser, “The Power 62.

of Authentic Dialogue,” Leader to

Leader (Fall 2006): 37.

This discussion is based on Glenna 63.

Gerard and Linda Teurfs, “Dialogue

and Organizational Transformation,”

in Community Building: Renewing

Spirit and Learning in Business, ed.

Kazinierz Gozdz (New Leaders,

1995), pp. 142–153; and Edgar H.

Schein, “On Dialogue, Culture, and

Organizational Learning,” Organi-

zational Dynamics (Autumn 1993):

40–51.

Ian I. Mitroff and Murat C. Alpaslan, 64.

“Preparing for Evil,” Harvard Busi-

ness Review

(April 2003): 109–115.

Brad Ritter and Janet Ritter, “Crisis 65.

Communication: Taking Center

Stage With Conﬁ dence,” Govern-

ment Finance Review 23,

no. 6

(December, 2007): 51.

This section is based on Leslie 66.

Wayne and Leslie Kaufman, “Lead-

ership, Put to a New Test,” The New

York Times, September 16, 2001; Ian

I. Mitroff, “Crisis Leadership,” Execu-

tive Excellence (August 2001): 19;

Jerry Useem, “What It Takes,” Fortune

(November 12, 2001): 126–132;

CHAPTER 16 MANAGING COMMUNICATION 501

Leading

Andy Bowen, “Crisis Procedures

That Stand the Test of Time,” Public

Relations Tactics (August 2001): 16;

and Matthew Boyle, “Nothing Re-

ally Matters,” Fortune (October 15,

2001): 261–264.

Stephen Bernhut, “Leadership, with 67.

Michael Useem,” Ivey Business Jour-

nal (January–February 2002): 42–43.

Mitroff, “Crisis Leadership.”68.

Jay M. Jackman and Myra H. Strober, 69.

“Fear of Feedback,” Harvard Busi-

ness Review (April 2003): 101–108;

and Dennis Tourish, “Critical

Upward Communication: Ten Com-

mandments for Improving Strategy

and Decision Making,” Long Range

Planning 38 (2005): 485–503.

Thomas E. Ricks, “Army Devises 70.

System to Decide What Does, and

Does Not, Work,” The Wall Street

Journal, May 23, 1997; Stephanie

Watts Sussman, “CALL: A Model

for Effective Organizational Learn-

ing,” Strategy (Summer 1999):

14–15; John O’Shea, “Army: The

Leader as Learner-in-Chief,” The

Of cer (June 2003): 31; Michael D.

Maples, “Fires First in Combat—

Train the Way We Fight,” Field

Artillery (July–August 2003): 1;

Thomas E. Ricks, “Intelligence

Problems in Iraq Are Detailed,” The

Washington Post, October 25, 2003;

and Richard W. Koenig, “Forg-

ing Our Future: Using Operation

Iraqi Freedom Phase IV Lessons

Learned,” Engineer (January–March

2004): 21–22.

chapter17pt5

Chapter Outline

Learning Outcomes

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Identify the types of teams in organizations.

2. Discuss some of the problems and challenges of teamwork.

3. Identify roles within teams and the type of role you could play to help a

eam be effective.

4. Explain the general stages of team development.

5. Identify ways in which team size and diversity of membership affects

team performance.

6. Explain the concepts of team cohesiveness and team norms and their

elationship to team performance.

7. Understand the causes of conﬂ ict within and among teams and how to

educe conﬂ ict.

8. Deﬁ

ne the outcomes of effective teams and how managers can enhance

team effectiveness.

How Do You Like to Work?

Why T

eams at Work?

What Is a Team?

The Dilemma of T

eams

How to Make Teams Effective

Model of Team Effectiveness

fective Team Leadership

Types of Teams

Formal Teams

Self-Dir

ected Teams

Innovative Uses of Teams

Virtual Teams

Global T

eams

Team Characteristics

Size

Diver

sity

Member Roles

Team Processes

Stages of Team Development

eam Cohesiveness

Team Norms

Managing Team Conﬂ ict

Balancing Conﬂ ict and Cooperation

Causes of Conﬂ

ict

Styles to Handle Conﬂ ict

Negotiation

New Manager Self-Test: Managing Conﬂ ict

ork Team Effectiveness

Productive Output

Satisf

action of Members

Capacity to Adapt and Learn

503

Leading Teams

Controlling

Planning

Environment

Organizing

Leading

Introduction

HOW DO YOU LIKE TO WORK?

Your approach to your job or schoolwork may indicate

whether you thrive on a team. Answer the questions

below about your work preferences. Please answer

whether each item below is Mostly True or Mostly False

for you.

Mostly

True

Mostly

False

1. I prefer to work on a team rather

than do individual tasks.

2. Given a choice, I try to work by

myself rather than face hassles of

group work.

3. I enjoy the personal interaction

when working with others.

4. I prefer to do my own work and

let others do theirs.

5. I get more satisfaction from a

group victory than an individual

victory.

6. Teamwork is not worthwhile

when people do not do their

share.

7. I feel good when I work with oth-

ers even when we disagree.

8. I prefer to rely on myself rather

than others to do an assignment.

SCORING AND INTERPRETATION: Give yourself one

point for each odd-numbered item you marked as Mostly

True and one point for each even-numbered item you

marked Mostly False. An important part of a new man-

ager’s job is to be both part of a team and to work alone.

These items measure your preference for group work.

Teamwork can be both frustrating and motivating. If you

scored two or fewer points, you deﬁ nitely prefer individual

work. A score of seven or above suggests that you prefer

working in teams. A score of three to six indicates com-

fort working alone and in a team. A new manager needs

to do both.

Many people get their  rst management experience in a team setting, and you

will probably sometimes have to work in a team as a new manager. Teams have

become the primary way in which many companies accomplish their work, from the

assembly line to the executive suite. Teams have real advantages, but it can some-

times be tough to work in a team. You may have already experienced the challenges

of teamwork as a student, where you’ve had to give up some of your independence

and rely on the team to perform well in order to earn a good grade.

Good teams can be highly productive, but teams aren’t always successful. In a

survey of manufacturing organizations, about 80 percent of respondents said they

used some kind of teams, but only 14 percent of those companies rated their teaming

efforts as highly effective. Just over half of the respondents said their efforts were only

“somewhat effective,” and 15 percent considered their efforts not effective at all.

This chapter focuses on teams and their applications within organizations. We

 rst look at why organizations use teams, discuss the dilemma of teamwork, and

provide an overview of what makes an effective team. We de ne various types of

teams, explore the stages of team development, and examine how characteristics

such as size, cohesiveness, diversity, and norms in uence team effectiveness. We

also discuss how individuals can make contributions to teams, look at techniques for

managing team con ict, and describe how negotiation can facilitate cooperation and

teamwork. The  nal section of the chapter focuses on the outcomes of effective work

PART 5 LEADING504

teams within organizations. Teams are a central aspect of organizational life, and the

ability to manage them is a vital component of manager and organization success.

WHY TEAMS AT WORK?

Why aren’t organizations just collections of individuals

going their own way and doing their own thing? Clearly,

teamwork provides bene ts or companies wouldn’t con-

tinue to use this structural mechanism. Organizations are by

their very nature made up of various individuals and groups

that have to work together and coordinate their activities to

accomplish objectives. Much work in organizations is inter-

dependent, which means that individuals and departments

rely on other individuals and departments for information

or resources to accomplish their work. When tasks are highly

interdependent, a team can be the best approach to ensuring

the level of coordination, information sharing, and exchange

of materials necessary for successful task accomplishment.

What Is a Team?

A team is a unit of two or more people who interact and coor-

dinate their work to accomplish a speci c goal.

At Cirque

du Soleil, the CEO, chief operating of cer, chief  nancial

of cer, and vice president of creation function as a top man-

agement team to develop, coordinate, and oversee acrobatic

troupes that travel to approximately 100 cities on four conti-

nents a year. Google assembles teams of three or four employees to assess new ideas

and recommend whether they should be implemented. And at the Ralston Foods plant

in Sparks, Nevada, teams of production workers handle all team hiring, scheduling,

quality, budgeting, and disciplinary issues.

The de nition of a team has three components. First, two or more people are

required. Second, people in a team have regular interaction. People who do not inter-

act, such as when standing in line at a lunch counter or riding in an elevator, do not

compose a team. Third, people in a team share a performance goal, whether to design

a new handheld computing device, build an engine, or complete a class project.

Although a team is a group of people, the two terms are not interchangeable. An

employer, a teacher, or a coach can put together a group of people and never build a

team. The team concept implies a sense of shared mission and collective responsibil-

ity. Exhibit 17.1 lists the primary differences between groups and teams. One example

of a true team comes from the military, where U.S. Navy surgeons, nurses, anesthesi-

ologists, and technicians make up eight-person forward surgical teams that operated

The power of effective teamwork

is illustrated by Lance Armstrong’s record-breaking accomplish-

ment in winning the Tour de France seven consecutive years

from 1999 to 2005. Armstrong, shown here in the yellow jersey

with teammates during the 92

Tour de France, succeeded not

just as an individual but as part of a team. Members of the Dis-

covery Channel Team (previously the U.S. Postal Service Cycling

Team) united around a shared purpose of helping Armstrong

win the 21-day competition, pacing his ride and protecting him

from other cyclists and spectators.

EXHIBIT 17.1

Differences Between Groups

and Teams

Group Team

• Has a designated strong leader

• Holds individuals accountable

• Sets identical purpose for group and organization

• Has individual work products

• Runs efﬁ cient meetings

• Measures effectiveness indirectly by inﬂ uence on

business (such as ﬁ nancial performance)

• Discusses, decides, delegates work to individuals

• Shares or rotates leadership roles

• Holds team accountable to each other

• Sets speciﬁ c team vision or purpose

• Has collective work products

• Runs meetings that encourage open-

ended discussion and problem solving

• Measures effectiveness directly by

assessing collective work

• Discusses, decides, shares work

SOURCE: Adapted from Jon R. Katzenbach and Douglas K. Smith, “The Discipline of Teams,” Harvard Business Review (March–

April 1995): 111–120.

tea

r m

eop

e w

o interact an

coor-

inate t

eir wor

to accomp

a s

pec

ﬁ

CHAPTER 17 LEADING TEAMS 505

Leading

for the  rst time ever in combat during Operation Iraqi Freedom. These teams were

scattered over Iraq and were able to move to new locations and be set up within an

hour. With a goal of saving the 15 to 20 percent of wounded soldiers and civilians

who will die unless they receive critical care within 24 hours, members of these teams

smoothly coordinated their activities to accomplish a critical shared mission.

The Dilemma of Teams

If you’ve been in a class where the instructor announced that part of the grade would

be based on a team project, you probably heard a few groans. The same thing hap-

pens in organizations. Some people love the idea of teamwork, others hate it, and

many people have both positive and negative emotions about working as part of a

team. There are three primary reasons teams present a dilemma for most people:

▪ We have to give up our independence. When people become part of a team, their

success depends on the team’s success; therefore, they are dependent on how well

other people perform, not just on their own individual initiative and actions. Most

people are comfortable with the idea of making sacri ces to achieve their own

individual success, yet teamwork demands that they make sacri ces for group

success.

The idea is that each person should put the team  rst, even if at times

it hurts the individual. Many employees, particularly in individualistic cultures

such as the United States, have a hard time appreciating and accepting that con-

cept. Some cultures, such as Japan, have had greater success with teams because

traditional Japanese culture values the group over the individual.

▪ We have to put up with free riders. Teams are sometimes made up of people who

have different work ethics. The term free rider refers to a team member who attains

bene ts from team membership but does not actively participate in and contribute

to the team’s work. You might have experienced this frustration in a student project

team, where one member put little effort into the group project but bene tted from

the hard work of others when grades were handed out. Free riding is sometimes

called social loa ng because some members do not exert equal effort.

▪ Teams are sometimes dysfunctional. Some companies have had great success

with teams, but there are also numerous examples of how teams in organizations

fail spectacularly.

A great deal of research and team experience over the past few

decades has produced signi cant insights into what causes teams to succeed or

fail. The evidence shows that how teams are managed plays the most critical role

in determining how well they function.

Exhibit 17.2 lists  ve dysfunctions that

are common in teams and describes the contrasting desirable characteristics that

effective team leaders develop.

Dysfunction Effective Team Characteristics

Lack of Trust—People don’t feel safe to reveal mistakes, share

concerns, or express ideas.

Trust—Members trust one another on a deep emotional level; feel

comfortable being vulnerable with one another.

Fear of Conﬂ ict—People go along with others for the sake of

harmony; don’t express conﬂ icting opinions.

Healthy Conﬂ ict—Members feel comfortable disagreeing and

challenging one another in the interest of ﬁ nding the best solution.

Lack of Commitment—If people are afraid to express their true

opinions, it’s difﬁ cult to gain their true commitment to decisions.

Commitment—Because all ideas are put on the table, people can

evenutally achieve genuine buy-in around important goals and

decisions.

Avoidance of Accountability—People don’t accept responsibility

for outcomes; engage in ﬁ nger-pointing when things go wrong.

Accountability—Members hold one another accountable rather

than relying on managers as the source of accountability.

Inattention to Results—Members put personal ambition or the

needs of their individual departments ahead of collective results.

Results Orientation—Individual members set aside personal agendas;

focus on what’s best for the team. Collective results deﬁ ne success.

SOURCE: Based on Patrick Lencioni, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2002).

EXHIBIT 17.2 Five Common Dysfunctions of Teams

fre

e ri

er A

erson w

eﬁ

fro

eam

mbe

doe

mak

ortionate contri

ution to

team’s work

PART 5 LEADING506

As a new manager, be aware of the dilemma teamwork creates. Some people will be

energized and excited by the idea of working as part of a team, while others will be

apprehensive, cynical, or annoyed. As a team leader, be alert to the possibility of free

riding, and make sure work activities are distributed equitably.

HOW TO MAKE TEAMS EFFECTIVE

Smoothly functioning teams don’t just happen. Stanford sociologist Elizabeth Cohen

studied group work among young school children and found that only when teach-

ers took the time to de ne roles, establish norms, and set goals did the groups func-

tion effectively as a team.

In organizations, effective teams are built by managers

who take speci c actions to help people come together and perform well as a team.

Some of the factors associated with team effectiveness are illustrated in Exhibit 17.3.

Work team effectiveness is based on three outcomes—productive output, personal

satisfaction, and the capacity to adapt and learn.

Satisfaction pertains to the team’s

ability to meet the personal needs of its members and hence maintain their member-

ship and commitment. Productive output pertains to the quality and quantity of task

outputs as de ned by team goals. Capacity to adapt and learn refers to the ability of

teams to bring greater knowledge and skills to job tasks and enhance the potential of

the organization to respond to new threats or opportunities in the environment.

Model of Team Effectiveness

The model of team effectiveness in Exhibit 17.3 provides a structure for the remainder

of this chapter. The factors that in uence team effectiveness begin with the organiza-

tional context.

The organizational context in which the team operates is described in

other chapters and includes such matters as structure, strategy, environment, culture,

and reward systems. Within that context, managers de ne teams. Important team

characteristics are the type of team, the team structure, and team composition. Man-

agers must decide when to create permanent teams within the formal structure and

when to use a temporary task team. The diversity of the team in terms of task-related

knowledge and skills can have a tremendous impact on team processes and effective-

ness. In addition, diversity in terms of gender and race affect a team’s performance.

Team size and roles also are important.

These team characteristics in uence processes internal to the team, which, in turn,

affect output, satisfaction, and the team’s contribution to organizational adaptability.

TakeaMoment

Team Processes

Stage of development

Cohesiveness

Norms

Conflict resolution

Work Team Effectiveness

Productive output

Personal satisfaction

Capacity to adapt and

learn

Organizational Context

Formal structure

Environment

Culture

Strategy

Reward, control

systems

Team Type

Formal

Self-directed

Virtual/global

Team Composition

Knowledge and skills

Benefits and costs

Team Characteristics

Size

Diversity

Roles

EXHIBIT 17.3 Work Team Effectiveness Model

CHAPTER 17 LEADING TEAMS 507

Leading

Good team leaders understand and manage stages of team development, cohesive-

ness, norms, and con ict to build an effective team. These processes are in uenced

by team and organizational characteristics and by the ability of members and leaders

to direct these processes in a positive manner.

Effective Team Leadership

Team leaders play an important role in shaping team effectiveness. In addition to

managing internal processes, there are three speci c ways in which leaders contrib-

ute to team success:

▪ Rally people around a compelling purpose. It is the leader’s responsibility to

articulate a clear, compelling purpose and direction, one of the key elements of

effective teams. This ensures that everyone is moving in the same direction rather

than  oundering around wondering why the team was created and where it’s

supposed to be going.

▪ Share power. Good team leaders embrace the concept of teamwork in deeds as

well as words. This means sharing power, information, and responsibility. It

means letting team members who do the work have a say in how to do it. It

requires that the leader have faith that team members will make good decisions,

even if those decisions might not be the ones the leader would make.

▪ Admit ignorance. Often, people appointed to lead teams  nd that they don’t know

nearly as much as their teammates know. Good team leaders aren’t afraid to admit

their ignorance and ask for help. This serves as a fallibility model that lets people

know that lack of knowledge, problems, concerns, and mistakes can be discussed

openly without fear of appearing incompetent. Although it’s hard for many man-

agers to believe, admitting ignorance and being willing to learn from others can

earn the respect of team members faster than almost any other behavior.

Go to the experiential exercise on page 526 that pertains to effective versus ineffective

teams.

TYPES OF TEAMS

Organizations use many types of teams. Some are created as part of the organiza-

tion’s formal structure and others are designed to increase employee participation.

Formal Teams

Formal teams are created by the organization as part of the formal organization struc-

ture. Two common types of formal teams are vertical and horizontal, which typically

represent vertical and horizontal structural relationships, as described in Chapter 9.

These two types of teams are illustrated in Exhibit 17.4.

Vertical Team A vertical team is composed of a manager and his or her subor-

dinates in the formal chain of command. Sometimes called a functional team or a

command team, the vertical team may in some cases include three or four levels of

hierarchy within a functional department. Typically, the vertical team includes a

single department in an organization. The third-shift nursing team on the second

 oor of St. Luke’s Hospital is a vertical team that includes nurses and a supervisor. A

 nancial analysis department, a quality control department, an accounting depart-

ment, and a human resource department are all vertical or command teams. Each is

created by the organization to attain speci c goals through members’ joint activities

and interactions.

TakeaMoment

for

eat

the or

anization as part

the formal or

anization

uct

tea

formal team

posed of a manager and

r h

subo

ates

anization’s formal chain of

PART 5 LEADING508

Horizontal Team A horizontal team is composed of employees from about the

same hierarchical level but from different areas of expertise.

A horizontal team is

drawn from several departments, is given a speci c task, and may be disbanded after

the task is completed. Horizontal teams include cross-functional teams, committees,

and special purpose teams.

As described in Chapter 9, a cross-functional team is a group of employees from

different departments formed to deal with a speci c activity and existing only until

the task is completed. Sometimes called a task force, the team might be used to cre-

ate a new product in a manufacturing organization or a new history curriculum in

a university. When several departments are involved, and many views have to be

considered, tasks are best served with a horizontal, cross-functional team.

A committee generally is long-lived and may be a permanent part of the organi-

zation’s structure. Membership is often decided by a person’s title or position rather

than by personal expertise. A committee needs of cial representation, compared with

selection for a cross-functional team, which is based on personal quali cations for

solving a problem. Committees typically are formed to deal with tasks that recur

regularly. For example, a grievance committee handles employee grievances; an

advisory committee makes recommendations in the areas of employee compensation

and work practices; a worker-management committee may be concerned with work

rules, job design changes, and suggestions for work improvement.

Special-purpose teams, sometimes called project teams, are created outside the

formal organization structure to undertake a project of special importance or cre-

ativity.

Examples include the team that developed the  rst IBM ThinkPad and the

project team for the Motorola RAZR cell phone. A special-purpose team still is part of

the formal organization and has its own reporting structure, but members perceive

themselves as a separate entity.

Self-Directed Teams

Some teams are designed to increase the participation of workers in decision making

and the conduct of their jobs, with the goal of improving performance. Employee

involvement started out simply with techniques such as information sharing with

employees or asking employees for suggestions about improving the work. Gradu-

ally, companies moved toward greater autonomy for employees, which led  rst to

problem-solving teams and then to self-directed teams.

EXHIBIT 17.4 Horizontal and Vertical Teams in an Organization

hor

m A formal

omp

ose

mpl

oye

bou

cal

rom

ffe

ren

eas of expertise.

tee

long-lasting,

met

mes

ermanent team

the or

anization structure

ate

l wi

tas

cur re

ularl

ecial-

ose team

eated

outs

anization to undertake a

ect of special importance o

eativit

CHAPTER 17 LEADING TEAMS 509

Leading

Problem-solving teams typically consist of 5 to 12 hourly

employees from the same department who voluntarily

meet to discuss ways of improving quality, ef ciency, and

the work environment. Recommendations are proposed to

management for approval. The most widely known appli-

cation is quality circles,  rst used by Japanese companies, in

which employees focus on ways to improve quality in the

production process. International Paper Company’s Texar-

kana mill instituted a work systems team to focus on solving

and preventing snafus in the logistically complex process of

producing 1,800 to 1,900 tons of bleached board a day for

packaging, milk cartons, drink cups, and folding cartons.

This problem-solving team has played a signi cant role in

helping the mill thrive amid brutal market conditions and

stiff competition.

As a company matures, problem-solving teams can grad-

ually evolve into self-directed teams, which represent a fun-

damental change in how work is organized.

Self-directed

teams typically consist of 5 to 20 multiskilled workers who

rotate jobs to produce an entire product or service or at least

one complete aspect or portion of a product or service (e.g.,

engine assembly, insurance claim processing). The central

idea is that the teams themselves, rather than managers or

supervisors, take responsibility for their work, make decisions, monitor their own

performance, and alter their work behavior as needed to solve problems, meet goals,

and adapt to changing conditions.

Self-directed teams are permanent teams that typically include the following

elements:

▪ The team includes employees with several skills and functions, and the combined

skills are suf cient to perform a major organizational task. A team may include

members from the foundry, machining, grinding, fabrication, and sales depart-

ments, with members cross-trained to perform one another’s jobs. The team elim-

inates barriers among departments, enabling excellent coordination to produce a

product or service.

▪ The team is given access to resources such as information, equipment, machinery,

and supplies needed to perform the complete task.

▪ The team is empowered with decision-making authority, which means that mem-

bers have the freedom to select new members, solve problems, spend money,

monitor results, and plan for the future.

Self-directed teams can enable employ-

ees to feel challenged,  nd their work meaningful, and develop a stronger sense

of identity with the organization.

INNOVATIVE USES OF TEAMS

Some exciting new approaches to teamwork have resulted from advances in informa-

tion technology, shifting employee expectations, and the globalization of business. Two

types of teams that are increasingly being used are virtual teams and global teams.

Virtual Teams

A virtual team is made up of geographically or organizationally dispersed members

who are linked primarily through advanced information and telecommunications tech-

nologies.

Although some virtual teams are made up of only organizational members,

virtual teams often include contingent workers, members of partner organizations,

At Lucasﬁ lm Ltd., teams form

around projects. To facilitate these self-directed teams, the

company responsible for the Star Wars and Indiana Jones franchises

moved its formerly separate divisions to a campus in the Presidio

of San Francisco. An easily reconﬁ gurable work environment en-

courages the sharing of ideas and technology between the visual

effects division Industrial Light & Magic and LucasArts, the video

game company. Project teams also work on visual effects for oth-

er ﬁ lms, like the visual effects for Transformers and the Pirates of the

Caribbean franchise. In this photo, producer Julio Torres reviews

work on LucasArts’ video game Star Wars: The Force Unleashed.

pro

em-so

vin

team

y 5 to 12

our

y emp

oyees

om t

e same

artment

o meet to

iscuss ways o

proving quality, efﬁ ciency,

nvir

irecte

team

sisting o

5 to 20 mu

wor

ers w

o rotate

roduce an entire

roduct o

vic

oft

sup

erv

ise

cted

irtual team A team ma

mem

ers w

o are

eographically or organiza

onall

dispersed, rarel

meet

ce to face, and do their work

sin

advanced information

ies.