CH-10 Understanding Work Teams – Organizational Behavior : Book Guide

Chapter10 Understanding Work Teams Questions for Review 10-1. How do you explain the growing popularity of teams in organizations? Answer: Although teams are not always effective they have become popular. Some of the reasons include: a. Teams are a great way to use employee talents. b. Teams are more flexible and responsive to changes in the environment. c. Can quickly assemble, deploy, refocus, and disband. d. Facilitate employee involvement. e. Increase employee participation in decision making. f. Democratize an organization and increase motivation. 10-2. What is the difference between a group and a team? Answer: A group may just be individuals that are together. A work group is a group that interacts primarily to share information and to make decisions to help each group member perform within his or her area of responsibility. Often there is no joint effort required. A work team generates positive synergy through coordinated effort. The individual efforts result in a performance that is greater than the sum of the individual input. Teams have included member commitment to a common purpose, establishment of specific team goals, team efficacy, a managed level of conflict, and minimizing social loafing. 10-3. What are the five types of team arrangements? Answer: •Problem-Solving Teams: groups of 5 to 12 employees from the same department who meet for a few hours each week to discuss ways of improving quality, efficiency, and the work environment. •Self-Managed Work Teams: groups of 10 to 15 people who take on the responsibilities of their former supervisors. •Cross-Functional Teams: employees from about the same hierarchical level, but from different work areas, who come together to accomplish a task. •Virtual Teams: teams that use computer technology to tie together physically dispersed members in order to achieve a common goal. •Multiteam Systems: collections of two or more interdependent teams that share a superordinate goal. 10-4. What conditions or context factors determine whether teams are effective? Answer: The key components of an effective team are in four general categories including context, composition, work design, and process. Effective teams have a common and meaningful purpose that provides direction, momentum, and commitment for members. This purpose is a vision. It is broader than specific goals. One example is team efficacy, which is a process factor that means effective teams have confidence in themselves and believe they can succeed. Success breeds success. Management can increase team efficacy by helping the team to achieve small successes and skill training. Small successes build team confidence. The greater the abilities of team members, the greater the likelihood that the team will develop confidence and the capability to deliver on that confidence. 10-5. How can organizations create team players? Answer: Organizations can create team players through: •Selection: make team skills one of the interpersonal skills in the hiring process. •Training: individualistic people can learn. •Reward: rework the reward system to encourage cooperative efforts rather than competitive (individual) ones. •Continue to recognize individual contributions while still emphasizing the importance of teamwork. 10-6. When is work performed by individuals preferred over work performed by teams? Answer: The complexity of the work can determine whether one or more people are needed. Teamwork often is more time-consuming due to increased communication and potential conflicts. The three tests to determine whether individuals or team should be utilized are: 1. Is the work complex and is there a need for different perspectives: will it be better with the insights of more than one person? 2. Does the work create a common purpose or set of goals for the group that is larger than the aggregate of the goals for individuals? 3. Are members of the group involved in interdependent tasks Experiential Exercise Composing the “Perfect” Team Break into teams of four to five. Assume you work for a company that redesigns existing products to improve them, from computer keyboards to bicycle helmets to toothbrushes. As a result, creativity is a key factor in whether your company succeeds in developing a product that is marketable. You need to staff a new team of 5 individuals, and you have a pool of 20 to choose from. For each person, you have information about the following characteristics: intelligence, work experience, conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness to experience, and extraversion. Your team is to answer the following questions. 10-7. If you could form your perfect team for this context, what would it look like? In other words, what characteristics would you choose for each of the five members – a lot of work experience or a little; high, moderate, or low conscientiousness; and so on? Why? Answer: When forming the perfect team for the context of redesigning existing products to improve them, creativity is paramount. Therefore, the ideal team members would possess a blend of specific characteristics that complement each other and enhance the overall creativity and effectiveness of the team. Here's what the perfect team would look like: 1. High Intelligence: Each team member should demonstrate high intelligence to understand complex problems, generate innovative ideas, and devise creative solutions. High intelligence facilitates critical thinking, problem-solving, and the ability to adapt to changing requirements. 2. Moderate to High Work Experience: While some level of work experience is valuable for providing insights into industry trends, customer preferences, and technical knowledge, too much experience may lead to rigid thinking or resistance to change. Therefore, team members should have moderate to high levels of work experience, allowing them to leverage their expertise while remaining open to new ideas and approaches. 3. High Openness to Experience: Openness to experience is a key predictor of creativity, as it reflects individuals' willingness to explore new ideas, take risks, and think outside the box. Team members with high openness to experience are more likely to generate innovative solutions and contribute fresh perspectives to the design process. 4. Moderate Conscientiousness: While conscientiousness is typically associated with diligence, reliability, and attention to detail, excessively high levels of conscientiousness may lead to perfectionism or resistance to ambiguity. Therefore, team members should exhibit moderate levels of conscientiousness, balancing attention to quality with flexibility and adaptability to change. 5. Moderate Agreeableness and Low Neuroticism: Moderate levels of agreeableness are important for promoting collaboration, teamwork, and effective communication within the team. However, excessively high agreeableness may lead to conflict avoidance or groupthink. Additionally, low neuroticism is desirable to ensure emotional stability, resilience, and a positive outlook amidst challenges and uncertainties. In summary, the perfect team for redesigning existing products would comprise individuals with high intelligence, moderate to high work experience, high openness to experience, moderate conscientiousness, moderate agreeableness, and low neuroticism. This combination of traits fosters a dynamic and innovative team environment conducive to generating creative ideas, overcoming obstacles, and delivering successful product redesigns. 10-8. How, if at all, would your choices change if the task required teams to make quick decisions that were not necessarily the most creative? Why? Answer: If the task required teams to make quick decisions that were not necessarily the most creative, the ideal characteristics for team members would shift to prioritize efficiency, decisiveness, and practicality over creativity. In such a scenario, the focus would be on achieving rapid results and meeting short-term objectives rather than pursuing innovative solutions. Here's how the choices for team characteristics would change: 1. High Intelligence : While intelligence remains valuable for problem-solving and critical thinking, the emphasis would shift towards practical intelligence or the ability to apply knowledge effectively in real-world situations. Team members would need to quickly analyze information, assess options, and make sound decisions without extensive deliberation. 2. Moderate Work Experience : Instead of prioritizing extensive work experience, the emphasis would be on relevant experience that enables team members to draw upon past successes and lessons learned to inform quick decision-making. Moderate levels of work experience would balance expertise with agility and adaptability to changing circumstances. 3. Moderate Openness to Experience : While openness to experience is associated with creativity, excessively high levels may lead to indecision or overanalysis, slowing down the decision-making process. Therefore, team members should exhibit moderate openness to experience, allowing them to consider a range of options while maintaining focus and urgency. 4. Moderate to High Conscientiousness : In a context requiring quick decisions, conscientiousness becomes more important for ensuring thoroughness, attention to detail, and reliability in execution. Team members with moderate to high conscientiousness are more likely to adhere to deadlines, follow through on tasks, and mitigate risks associated with rapid decision-making. 5. Moderate Agreeableness and Low Neuroticism : Moderate levels of agreeableness would continue to facilitate effective communication and collaboration within the team. However, low neuroticism becomes even more critical to maintain emotional stability, resilience, and confidence in fast-paced environments where stress and uncertainty are prevalent. In summary, if the task required teams to make quick decisions that were not necessarily the most creative, the ideal team members would possess high practical intelligence, moderate work experience, moderate openness to experience, moderate to high conscientiousness, moderate agreeableness, and low neuroticism. These characteristics enable teams to navigate ambiguity, prioritize objectives, and execute decisions swiftly and effectively, even in high-pressure situations. 10-9. Each member of your group should describe his or her ideal team member – one hypothetical person you’d most like to work with for this context. (Use the same criteria as in question 10-7.) As a group, compare your responses. Does every person’s ideal member share the same characteristics, or are there differences? If you could, would you compose a team entirely of your ideal individuals? Why or why not? Answer: As a group, each member described their ideal team member based on the criteria outlined in question 10-7: 1. High Intelligence : We all agreed that intelligence is crucial for understanding complex problems and generating innovative solutions. Our ideal team members should possess high intelligence to contribute valuable insights and perspectives to the design process. 2. Moderate to High Work Experience : While some of us preferred moderate levels of work experience to maintain flexibility and openness to new ideas, others leaned towards higher levels of experience for expertise and industry knowledge. There were differences in opinions regarding the ideal level of work experience, with some prioritizing recent graduates for fresh perspectives and others valuing seasoned professionals for their depth of knowledge. 3. High Openness to Experience : We unanimously agreed on the importance of high openness to experience for fostering creativity and innovation. Our ideal team members should be willing to explore new ideas, take risks, and think outside the box to generate novel solutions to design challenges. 4. Moderate Conscientiousness : While most of us preferred moderate levels of conscientiousness to balance attention to detail with adaptability, there were differences in opinions regarding the ideal level of conscientiousness. Some valued high conscientiousness for reliability and thoroughness, while others emphasized the importance of flexibility and adaptability. 5. Moderate Agreeableness and Low Neuroticism : There were differences in preferences for agreeableness and neuroticism based on individual communication styles and emotional resilience. Some of us prioritized moderate levels of agreeableness for fostering collaboration and effective communication, while others leaned towards low neuroticism for emotional stability and resilience amidst challenges. Upon comparing our responses, we found that while there were similarities in the characteristics desired in ideal team members, there were also differences based on individual preferences and perspectives. These differences reflected our diverse backgrounds, experiences, and working styles. As a group, we recognized the value of assembling a team with diverse skills, experiences, and personality traits to foster collaboration, creativity, and effective decision-making. While each of our ideal team members possessed unique strengths and qualities, composing a team entirely of our ideal individuals may not be feasible or desirable. Too much homogeneity may lead to groupthink or limited innovation. Therefore, we would strive to strike a balance by assembling a team with complementary skills, experiences, and personality traits to maximize creativity, innovation, and effectiveness in the design process. Teaching Notes This exercise provides members of the class to work effectively in teams. Not all members of each team will agree with the recommendations arrived at by the team. You can use evidence of this dynamic as a discussion point on how teams deal with diversity of opinion and conflict. Teaching Notes This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as Black Board 9.1, Breeze, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See http://www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information. Ethical Dilemma The Sum of the Team Is Less Than Its Members Of the billions of tons of carbon let loose into the world’s atmosphere each year, China is responsible for 21 percent, mostly due to its growth in manufacturing. And due to the billions of tons of wastewater and sewage released into river sand lakes by Chinese chemical firms every year,300 million of its citizens do not have clean drinking water. Clearly, these ethical breaches represent the failure not of one individual but of scores of teams: to be exact, top management teams in organizations throughout the country. Does that mean the leaders of China’s companies are all unethical? Surely not. To increase corporate social responsibility (CSR), we need to understand the team dynamics that lead to unethical decision making. First, we examine the context. As a major emerging country, China witnessed unprecedented growth in industry that has brought opportunities for corporate profits, better salaries, and better access to services for its citizens. Millions have been able to pull themselves and their families out of poverty. Few would argue that providing jobs and services isn’t a highly ethical pursuit. However, top management teams now face pressure to sustain growth at any cost. The top management team of Rongping Chemical Company made the tragic decision to cut costs and increase profits by dumping untreated chlorine into rivers, raising the level of chromium-6—a tasteless, odorless compound that causes ulcers and cancers—to over 20 times national standards. Other organizations, like Luliang Chemical Company, have done the same, endangering the health of the same citizens it helps with job sand opportunities. Some observers have been shocked that top management teams in a country with collectivist values, which stress a group-oriented outlook, would make decisions that don’t consider everyone affected by them. One recent study indicated that the problem is competing ethical principles: duty to others v. duty to society. As management teams faced financial dissatisfaction about their firm’s performance, environmental ethics and CSR actions decreased, suggesting the teams were feeling pressure from their organization’s stakeholders and becoming less concerned about the environment. They may also have rationalized that providing jobs was for the greater societal good and believed that violating stakeholder expectations would cost them their own place on the management team. However, the study found that on an individual level, when a person’s sense of collectivist values increased, environmental ethics also increased, suggesting that the top managers did favor CSR initiatives, but other concerns predominated in the team settings. We may conclude that these teams are likely hindering the progress of environmental awareness. When teams feel pressured to meet certain (sometimes narrow) metrics, there may be more unethical team decisions than individual members would make on their own. Sources: “Eight Cases That Mattered,” China Dialogue, https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/4429-Eight-cases-that-mattered, accessed June 22, 2015; “Facts about Chromium,” Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/region7/pdf/national_beef _leathersprime_tanning_chromiumVI_Fact_Sheet.pdf, accessed June 22, 2015; EJOLT Team at School of Geography and China Centre, University of Oxford, “Heavy Metal Pollution in Quijing, Yunnan, China,” Environmental Justice Atlas, February 25, 2015; S. Thau, R. Derfler-Rozin, M. Pitesa, M. S. Mitchell, and M. M. Pillutla, “Unethical for the Sake of the Group: Risk of Social Exclusion and Pro-Group Unethical Behavior,” Journal of Applied Psychology 100, no. 1 (2015): 98–113; J. Steinberg, “Hinckley: No Hollywood Ending for Erin Brockovich’s Tainted Town,” San Jose Mercury News, July 7, 2013, http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23649050/hinkley-no-hollywood-ending-erin-brockovichstainted-town; and X. Wang and M. N. Young, “Does Collectivism Affect Environmental Ethics? A Multi-Level Study of Top Management Teams from Chemical Firms in China,” Journal of Business Ethics 122, no. 3 (2014): 387–94. Questions 10-10. Do you think you could be convinced to let your organization dump chemicals such as chromium-6 into the water supply? Why or why not? Answer: I cannot imagine a scenario in which I would be convinced to let my organization dump chemicals such as chromium-6 into the water supply. Here's why: 1. Ethical Principles: Dumping harmful chemicals into the water supply goes against fundamental ethical principles of respect for human life, environmental sustainability, and social responsibility. It poses severe health risks to communities and ecosystems, contravening basic moral values and legal regulations. 2. Human Impact: I recognize the devastating consequences of contaminating water sources with toxic substances like chromium-6. Such actions jeopardize public health, leading to severe illnesses, including ulcers and cancers, and endangering the well-being of millions of people who rely on clean drinking water. 3. Environmental Responsibility: I acknowledge the importance of protecting and preserving the environment for current and future generations. Dumping chemicals into water bodies not only pollutes ecosystems but also disrupts delicate ecological balances, threatening biodiversity and natural resources. 4. Legal and Regulatory Compliance: Compliance with environmental laws and regulations is non-negotiable. Any attempt to justify or condone illegal and unethical practices, such as dumping hazardous chemicals, would not only undermine organizational integrity but also expose the company to legal liabilities and reputational damage. 5. Long-Term Sustainability: Sustainable business practices prioritize long-term viability and prosperity over short-term gains. Dumping chemicals into water sources may yield immediate cost savings or increased profits, but the long-term consequences far outweigh any temporary benefits. Sustainable growth requires responsible decision-making that considers the broader impacts on society, the environment, and future generations. In summary, my ethical values, commitment to environmental responsibility, concern for public health, adherence to legal and regulatory standards, and focus on long-term sustainability all converge to firmly reject any proposition to let my organization dump chemicals such as chromium-6 into the water supply. Such actions are indefensible, morally reprehensible, and incompatible with my personal and professional principles. 10-11. Why might top management teams be more likely to make unethical decisions than their individual members would make? Answer: Top management teams may be more likely to make unethical decisions than their individual members for several reasons: 1. Groupthink : In top management teams, there can be a pressure to conform to the dominant viewpoint or decision endorsed by the group. This conformity can lead to groupthink, where dissenting opinions or ethical concerns are suppressed in favor of maintaining harmony within the team. As a result, individuals may be less likely to voice ethical objections or alternative perspectives, leading to unethical decisions being made without adequate consideration of their consequences. 2. Power Dynamics : Top management teams often consist of individuals with significant power and authority within the organization. This concentration of power can create an environment where dissenting voices are marginalized or silenced, and decisions are made based on the preferences of influential leaders rather than ethical considerations. The fear of challenging authority or risking one's position within the team may deter individuals from speaking up against unethical behavior. 3. Pressure to Perform : Top management teams are typically responsible for driving organizational performance and achieving financial targets. In pursuit of these objectives, there may be a temptation to prioritize short-term gains or meet aggressive targets at the expense of ethical principles. The pressure to deliver results can overshadow ethical considerations, leading to decisions that prioritize profitability over ethical conduct. 4. Shared Responsibility : In a team setting, responsibility for decision-making is distributed among multiple individuals. This diffusion of responsibility can lead to a situation where no single individual feels accountable for the ethical implications of a decision. As a result, team members may engage in unethical behavior or turn a blind eye to wrongdoing, assuming that others will share the responsibility or mitigate the consequences. 5. Group Dynamics : Group dynamics within top management teams can influence decision-making processes and outcomes. Factors such as social cohesion, interpersonal relationships, and organizational culture can shape the norms and values that govern the behavior of team members. In environments where unethical behavior is tolerated or even encouraged, top management teams may be more inclined to make decisions that prioritize self-interest or organizational objectives over ethical considerations. In summary, top management teams may be more likely to make unethical decisions than their individual members due to factors such as groupthink, power dynamics, pressure to perform, shared responsibility, and group dynamics. Recognizing these challenges and implementing measures to promote ethical leadership, foster open communication, and encourage accountability can help mitigate the risk of unethical behavior within top management teams. 10-12. The cases of Rong ping and Luliang are far from isolated incidents. You may remember the case of Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), which dumped chromium-6 into the water supply in Hinckley, California, as recounted in the movie Erin Brockovich. That case resulted in a $333 million award, the largest settlement ever in a direct-action lawsuit, to help the town’s 2,000 residents. In contrast, when 1,721 villagers brought suit against Rongping (more plaintiffs than ever in China, to date), the court ordered the company to pay a total compensation of $105,000 for damage to the land. And the Chinese environmental group Friends of Nature filed the country’s first-ever public-interest lawsuit, which shut down Rongping’s plant in a village, but did not offer monetary restitution for the villagers. How might these outcomes affect the ethical decisions of top management teams in the future? Answer: The divergent outcomes of legal proceedings and public-interest actions in cases like Rongping and Luliang compared to high-profile cases such as PG&E's dumping of chromium-6 in Hinckley, California, can have significant implications for the ethical decisions of top management teams in the future. Here's how these outcomes might influence their behavior: 1. Legal Precedent and Deterrence : The substantial settlement awarded in the PG&E case serves as a powerful legal precedent and deterrent against unethical behavior. Top management teams are likely to take notice of the severe financial consequences and reputational damage resulting from environmental violations, leading them to reconsider the risks associated with engaging in similar misconduct. 2. Risk Assessment and Compliance : The disparity in legal outcomes between jurisdictions may prompt top management teams to reassess their risk assessment and compliance strategies. Companies operating in jurisdictions with stricter environmental regulations and enforcement mechanisms may adopt more robust compliance measures to avoid legal liability and protect their reputation. 3. Reputation Management : The negative publicity and public outcry generated by high-profile environmental scandals can tarnish a company's reputation and erode stakeholder trust. Top management teams may prioritize reputation management and corporate social responsibility initiatives to demonstrate their commitment to ethical conduct and environmental stewardship, thereby mitigating the risk of reputational harm. 4. Corporate Governance and Accountability : The disparity in legal outcomes may underscore the importance of effective corporate governance and accountability mechanisms. Top management teams may face increased scrutiny from shareholders, regulators, and advocacy groups, leading to greater transparency, oversight, and accountability in decision-making processes related to environmental sustainability and ethical conduct. 5. Shift in Organizational Culture : The outcomes of legal proceedings and public-interest actions may catalyze a shift in organizational culture towards greater emphasis on ethical leadership, corporate citizenship, and sustainability. Top management teams may recognize the imperative of embedding ethical values and principles into the fabric of their organization, fostering a culture of integrity, responsibility, and ethical decision-making at all levels. In summary, the outcomes of legal proceedings and public-interest actions in cases of environmental misconduct can exert a profound influence on the ethical decisions of top management teams in the future. By highlighting the financial, legal, reputational, and societal consequences of unethical behavior, these outcomes serve as a potent catalyst for promoting environmental responsibility, accountability, and ethical leadership within organizations. Case Incident 1 Tongue Tied in Teams Thirty-one-year-old Robert Murphy has the best intentions to participate in team meetings, but when it’s “game time,” he chokes. An online marketing representative, Robert cannot be criticized for lack of preparation. After being invited to a business meeting with six of his coworkers and his supervisor, Robert began doing his research on the meeting’s subject matter. He compiled notes, arranged them neatly, and walked into the meeting room. As soon as the meeting began, “I just sat there like a lump, fixated on the fact that I was quiet.” The entire meeting passed without Robert contributing a word. Robert is certainly not the first person, nor is he the last, to fail to speak up during meetings. While some employees may actually lack ability, the highly intelligent also freeze. One study found that if we believe our peers are smarter, we experience anxiety that temporarily blocks our ability to think effectively. In other words, worrying about what the group thinks of you makes you dumber. The study also found the effect was worse for women, perhaps because they are more socially attuned. In other cases, failing to speak up may be attributed to personality. While the extraverted tend to be assertive and assured in group settings, the more introverted among us prefer to collect their thoughts before speaking—if they speak at all. But again, even those who are extraverted can remain quiet, especially when they feel they cannot contribute. You may be wondering whether it is important for everyone to speak up. Collaboration (the word comes from “laboring together” in Latin) is at the heart of organizational transformation, so yes, the more participation, the more likely the collaboration will result in higher trust, increased productivity, and enhanced creativity. Furthermore, collaboration works best when individuals know their ideas are taken seriously. The message from research is clear: give free speech try! Sources: E. Bernstein, “Speaking Up Is Hard to Do: Researchers Explain Why,” The Wall Street Journal, February 7, 2012, D1; M. Kashtan, “Want Teamwork? Promote Free Speech,” The New York Times, April 13, 2014, 8; and H. Leroy et al., “Behavioral Integrity for Safety, Priority of Safety, Psychological Safety, and Patient Safety: A Team-Level Study,” Journal of Applied Psychology (November 2012):1273–81. Questions 10-13. Why are extroverts more likely to speak in a meeting than introverts? Do they have better things to say? Answer: Extroverts are more assertive and self-assured than introverts. It is certainly not that they have better things to say. On the contrary, introverts will listen to others and consider what they want to say before saying it. The problem is that they may not get a chance to say anything. 10-14. Is it really important that everyone has input in meetings? Answer: Yes, it is. Meetings are supposed to be collaborative exercises where everyone gets a chance to contribute to the discussion and put forward their opinions. If everyone has the chance to contribute, then the meeting will be more productive and the ideas more creative. 10-15. Do you feel that your peers are quicker and smarter than you? Does this mean you fail to contribute to group discussions? How can you reverse this? Answer: Student responses will vary, but there will always be instances when lack of preparation, anxiety about appearing stupid, or simply a lack of opportunity will prompt an individual to take a passive role in a group discussion. Preparation is not a sure solution, but it does help. Finally, practicing and spending more time on confidence-building exercises are the right way forward. Case Incident 2 Smart Teams and Dumb Teams In this chapter, we’ve identified how some of the characteristics we use to describe individuals also can describe teams. For example, individuals can be high in the trait of openness, as can a team. Along the same lines ,have you noticed that some teams seem to be smart, while others seem, um, dumb? This characteristic has nothing to do with the average IQ of the team members but instead reflects the functionality of the whole team. Teams that are synergistic excel in logical analysis, brainstorming, coordination, planning, and moral reasoning. And teams that are dumb? Think of long unproductive meetings, social loafing, and interpersonal conflicts. You might be remembering a few teams you’ve witnessed that are in the dumb category, but we hope you can think of a few that excelled. Smart teams tend to be smart in everything—for any task, they will find a workable solution. But what makes them smart? Researchers in an MIT study grouped 697 subjects into teams of 2–5 members to solve tasks, looking for the characteristics of smart teams (they weren’t all smart). The findings were: 1. Smart teams did not allow individual members to dominate. Instead, there were more equal contributions from members than in other teams. 2. Smart teams had more members who were able to read minds. Just kidding. But the members were able to read complicated emotions by looking into the eyes of others. There is a test for this ability called Reading the Mind in the Eyes. 3. Smart teams had more women. It’s not that smart teams had more gender equality; these teams simply had more women. This result might be partly due to the fact that more women scored higher in the Reading the Mind in the Eyes test. The researchers recently replicated the study using 68teams and again found that some teams were smarter than others. This study added a new angle to the research: How would teams working in person differ from teams working online? Surprisingly, there was little difference: All smart teams had more equal member communication (and plenty of it) and were good at emotion reading. When the online collaborators could not see each other, they practiced Theory of Mind, remembering and reacting to the emotional cues they were able to detect through any mode of communication. Theory of Mind is related to emotional intelligence (EI), which we discussed in Chapter 4. When we have the opportunity to hand-pick team members, we can look for those who listen as much as they speak, express empathy, and remember what others tell them about themselves. For teams to which we are assigned, we can seek these attributes in others and help guide the team toward its best self. As for IQ? Here’s the good news: Recent research indicates that our membership in a team actually makes us smarter decision-makers as individuals! Source: E. E. F. Bradford, I. Jentzsch, and J.-C. Gomez, “From Self to Cognition: Theory of Mind Mechanisms and Their Relation to Executive Functioning,” Cognition 138 (2015): 21–34; B. Maciejovsky, M. Sutter, D. V. Budescu, et al., “Teams Make You Smarter: How Exposure to Teams Improves Individual Decisions in Probability and Reasoning Tasks,” Management Science 59, no. 6(2013): 1255–70; and A. Woolley, T. W. Malone, and C. Chabris, “Why Some Teams Are Smarter Than Others,” The New York Times, January 18, 2015, 5. Questions 10-16. From your experiences in teams, do you agree with the researchers’ findings on the characteristics of smart teams? Why or why not? Answer: The researchers' findings on the characteristics of smart teams resonate with several common observations and theories regarding team dynamics and effectiveness: 1. Equal Contribution: Smart teams indeed tend to distribute tasks and responsibilities more evenly among their members. This prevents domination by a single individual and fosters a collaborative environment where each member's strengths are utilized effectively. 2. Emotional Intelligence: The ability to understand and interpret emotions, as highlighted by the "Reading the Mind in the Eyes" test, appears to be a significant factor in team success. Teams with members who possess high emotional intelligence can navigate interpersonal dynamics more effectively, leading to better communication and problem-solving. 3. Gender Diversity: While it's essential to acknowledge that correlation does not imply causation, the finding that smart teams tend to have more women could reflect the tendency for women to score higher on tests related to emotional intelligence. Gender diversity can also contribute to a broader range of perspectives and approaches within the team, leading to more comprehensive decision-making. 4. Effective Communication: Both in-person and online teams benefit from clear and open communication channels. Smart teams prioritize effective communication, ensuring that all members are informed and engaged in discussions and decision-making processes. 5. Theory of Mind: The ability to understand and respond to others' emotions and perspectives, even in virtual settings where visual cues may be limited, is crucial for maintaining cohesion and collaboration within teams. Smart teams excel in utilizing these skills to foster mutual understanding and empathy among members. In summary, the researchers' findings align with established theories of team effectiveness, emphasizing the importance of equitable participation, emotional intelligence, diversity, effective communication, and empathy. While individual experiences may vary, these characteristics are generally recognized as contributing to the success of smart teams. 10-17. On the highly functioning teams in which you’ve been a member, what other characteristics might have contributed to success? Answer: In highly functioning teams I've observed or been a part of, several additional characteristics have contributed to their success: 1. Clear Goals and Vision : Successful teams typically have a clear understanding of their objectives and how their work contributes to larger organizational goals. This clarity helps to align efforts and prioritize tasks effectively. 2. Strong Leadership : Effective leadership plays a crucial role in guiding the team, fostering collaboration, resolving conflicts, and maintaining morale. A capable leader sets the tone for the team's culture and ensures that everyone is working towards a shared vision. 3. Trust and Respect : Trust is the foundation of strong teamwork. Members of successful teams trust each other's abilities, judgment, and commitment to the team's goals. Respect for diverse perspectives and contributions fosters a positive and inclusive team environment. 4. Open Communication : In addition to effective communication channels, successful teams encourage open and transparent communication among members. This includes actively listening to each other, providing constructive feedback, and addressing concerns promptly. 5. Flexibility and Adaptability : High-performing teams are adaptable in the face of challenges or changes in circumstances. They are willing to adjust their strategies, processes, and roles as needed to overcome obstacles and seize opportunities. 6. Collaborative Problem-Solving : Successful teams leverage the collective expertise and creativity of their members to solve complex problems. They encourage brainstorming, experimentation, and innovation while valuing diverse perspectives and constructive criticism. 7. Commitment to Continuous Improvement : Successful teams are committed to learning and growing together. They reflect on their performance, identify areas for improvement, and actively seek opportunities for professional development and skill enhancement. 8. Resilience and Persistence : Despite setbacks or failures, highly functioning teams maintain a positive attitude and remain resilient in pursuit of their goals. They view challenges as opportunities for growth and demonstrate perseverance in the face of adversity. 9. Celebration of Success : Recognizing and celebrating achievements, both big and small, fosters a sense of accomplishment and reinforces teamwork. Successful teams take time to acknowledge individual and collective contributions, building morale and motivation. 10. Healthy Work-Life Balance : Lastly, successful teams prioritize the well-being and work-life balance of their members. They recognize the importance of rest and relaxation in maintaining productivity and creativity, fostering a supportive environment where individuals can thrive both personally and professionally. 10-18. The authors who suggested that membership in a team makes us smarter found that teams were more rational and quicker at finding solutions to difficult probability problems and reasoning tasks than were individuals. However, after participation in the study, team members were much better at decision making on their own, even up to 5 weeks later. Do you think this spillover effect would happen equally for people in smart teams and dumb teams? Why or why not? Answer: The spillover effect observed in the study, where individuals who participated in teams became better decision-makers even when working alone, raises an interesting question regarding its potential equality across smart teams and dumb teams. In smart teams, where members are more likely to exhibit traits such as equitable contribution, emotional intelligence, and effective communication, it's reasonable to assume that the spillover effect would be more pronounced. This is because smart teams tend to foster an environment conducive to learning and growth, where members are actively engaged in problem-solving, collaboration, and knowledge-sharing. As a result, individuals within smart teams may benefit more from the diverse perspectives, insights, and strategies exchanged during team interactions, leading to enhanced decision-making skills that persist even when working independently. Conversely, in dumb teams characterized by issues such as domination by certain individuals, poor communication, and interpersonal conflicts, the spillover effect may be less significant or even negligible. In such teams, members may experience less constructive collaboration and learning opportunities, which could limit the development of their decision-making abilities. Additionally, negative team dynamics and ineffective problem-solving processes may hinder the transfer of skills and knowledge gained during team participation to individual decision-making contexts. Overall, while the spillover effect of team participation on individual decision-making is likely to occur to some extent regardless of team intelligence, its magnitude and duration may vary depending on the quality of team interactions and dynamics. Smart teams, with their emphasis on collaboration, communication, and mutual respect, are more likely to facilitate the transfer of skills and knowledge that enhance individual decision-making capabilities over time. My Management Lab Go to mymanagementlab.com for Auto-graded writing questions as well as the following Assisted-graded writing questions: 10-19. Regarding Case Incident 1, do you think it’s necessary for everyone to speak up in a team? Why or why not? Answer: Regarding Case Incident 1, whether it's necessary for everyone to speak up in a team depends on various factors, including the team's goals, dynamics, and the nature of the task at hand. Here are arguments for both perspectives: 1. Yes, it's necessary for everyone to speak up : • Diverse perspectives: Encouraging everyone to speak up ensures that the team benefits from a wide range of perspectives, ideas, and insights. This diversity can lead to more comprehensive problem-solving and innovative solutions. • Inclusivity: Every team member should have the opportunity to contribute and feel valued. By promoting an environment where everyone speaks up, teams can foster inclusivity, build trust, and enhance collaboration. • Accountability: When everyone shares their thoughts and opinions, it promotes accountability within the team. Members are more likely to take ownership of decisions and outcomes when they have actively participated in the discussion. 2. No, it's not necessary for everyone to speak up : • Introverted personalities: Some individuals may be more reserved or introverted, preferring to listen and reflect before sharing their thoughts. Pressuring these individuals to speak up may be counterproductive and could lead to discomfort or reluctance to participate. • Task-specific roles: In certain situations, not everyone may need to speak up for the team to achieve its goals. Teams often include members with specialized expertise or responsibilities, and it may be more efficient for these individuals to contribute in their areas of expertise rather than in every discussion. • Quality over quantity: It's important to prioritize the quality of contributions over sheer volume. Encouraging thoughtful, well-informed input from team members, regardless of the number of speakers, can lead to better outcomes than simply aiming for equal participation. In conclusion, while promoting open communication and participation is generally beneficial for teams, it's essential to consider individual preferences, task requirements, and the overall team dynamic. Striking a balance between encouraging everyone to speak up and respecting individual differences can help teams maximize their collective potential while fostering a supportive and inclusive environment. 10-20. In reference to Case Incident 2, do you think you can read emotions from people’s eyes enough to react well to them in teams? Why or why not? There are Reading the Mind from the Eyes tests online if you want to test your skill. Answer: Whether one can accurately read emotions from people's eyes enough to react well to them in teams depends on various factors, including individual abilities, context, and practice. Here are arguments for both perspectives: 1. Yes, it's possible to read emotions from people's eyes effectively : • Nonverbal cues: The eyes are often referred to as the "window to the soul" and can convey a wealth of information about a person's emotions and intentions. Skilled individuals can pick up on subtle changes in eye expressions, such as dilation, eye contact, and blinking patterns, to infer underlying emotions accurately. • Emotional intelligence: People with high emotional intelligence (EI) tend to be more adept at reading facial expressions, including those displayed in the eyes. They can accurately interpret a range of emotions, such as happiness, sadness, anger, or confusion, based on subtle cues. • Practice and experience: Like any skill, the ability to read emotions from people's eyes can be honed through practice and experience. Individuals who regularly engage in activities that require interpreting nonverbal cues, such as active listening, counseling, or customer service, may develop heightened sensitivity to emotional signals. 2. No, it may not always be reliable to rely solely on reading emotions from people's eyes: • Contextual factors: Emotions are complex, and their expression can vary based on cultural norms, individual differences, and situational contexts. Misinterpretation of eye expressions may occur if the observer lacks awareness of these factors or relies solely on visual cues without considering broader context. • Subjectivity and bias: People's interpretations of eye expressions may be influenced by their own biases, assumptions, and past experiences. What one person perceives as a certain emotion may not necessarily reflect the true feelings of the individual being observed, leading to potential misunderstandings or miscommunications. • Limitations of the test: While "Reading the Mind from the Eyes" tests can provide insights into one's ability to infer emotions from eye expressions, they may not fully capture the complexity of real-life social interactions. The controlled nature of such tests may not replicate the dynamic and nuanced nature of emotional exchanges in team settings. In conclusion, while reading emotions from people's eyes can be a valuable skill in interpersonal communication and team dynamics, it's essential to recognize its limitations and consider it as one aspect of a broader set of emotional intelligence competencies. Practice, self-awareness, and sensitivity to contextual factors are key to effectively interpreting nonverbal cues and reacting appropriately in team environments. 10-21. My Management Lab Only – comprehensive writing assignment for this chapter. Answer: Introduction: Work teams are an integral component of modern organizations, playing a crucial role in achieving strategic objectives, fostering innovation, and enhancing employee engagement. Understanding the dynamics, characteristics, and best practices associated with work teams is essential for managers and leaders seeking to maximize team effectiveness and drive organizational success. 1. Importance of Work Teams: • Enhancing Collaboration: Work teams facilitate collaboration among individuals with diverse skills, perspectives, and expertise, harnessing collective intelligence to solve complex problems and drive innovation. • Promoting Employee Engagement: Teams provide opportunities for employees to feel valued, contribute meaningfully, and develop a sense of belonging within the organization, leading to higher levels of job satisfaction and commitment. • Achieving Organizational Goals: Effective work teams align their efforts with organizational objectives, driving performance improvements, and delivering results that contribute to the overall success of the business. 2. Characteristics of High-Performing Teams: • Clear Goals and Roles: High-performing teams have well-defined goals, objectives, and roles, ensuring clarity of purpose and direction for all members. • Open Communication: Effective communication channels promote transparency, trust, and information sharing within the team, facilitating collaboration and problem-solving. • Mutual Accountability: Team members hold themselves and each other accountable for their commitments, fostering a culture of responsibility and ownership. • Diversity and Inclusion: Teams benefit from diverse perspectives, experiences, and backgrounds, leading to richer discussions, creativity, and decision-making. • Trust and Respect: Trust is the foundation of successful teamwork, enabling open dialogue, risk-taking, and constructive feedback among team members. • Adaptability: Agile teams are flexible and adaptable in response to changing priorities, market conditions, and organizational needs, maximizing their ability to thrive in dynamic environments. 3. Strategies for Building and Leading Effective Teams: • Establishing Team Norms: Leaders set clear expectations, norms, and standards of behavior to guide team interactions, decision-making, and conflict resolution. • Fostering Psychological Safety: Creating an environment where team members feel safe to express ideas, take risks, and learn from failures is essential for promoting innovation and creativity. • Providing Resources and Support: Leaders support team success by providing access to necessary resources, training, and development opportunities to enhance skills and capabilities. • Encouraging Collaboration: Leaders promote collaboration by encouraging participation, valuing diverse perspectives, and facilitating effective team meetings and brainstorming sessions. • Recognizing and Rewarding Contributions: Acknowledging and rewarding individual and collective achievements reinforces desired behaviors and motivates team members to continue delivering high performance. • Continuously Assessing and Improving: Regularly evaluating team performance, soliciting feedback, and identifying areas for improvement enable teams to adapt, grow, and excel over time. Conclusion: Understanding work teams and their dynamics is essential for organizations seeking to leverage the collective talents and capabilities of their workforce. By fostering collaboration, promoting effective leadership, and creating a supportive team environment, organizations can harness the power of teams to drive innovation, achieve strategic objectives, and sustain competitive advantage in today's dynamic business landscape. Instructor’s Choice Curtailing Social Loafing First, have students read “Extrinsic and Intrinsic Origins of Perceived Social Loafing in Organizations,” Academy of Management Journal 3 (1992), pp. 191–202. The primary task of the exercise is to design a plan of action to prevent and discourage social loafing. Review the chapter section on social loafing before beginning the design of your plan. The plan should identify the problem in the example, the potential for problems, corrective action, a time frame, and an assessment measure. Teaching Notes This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as Black Board 9.1, Breeze, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See http://www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information. Exploring OB Topics on the Web
1. Moving from a traditional hierarchical structure to teams requires thought and planning. How teams will be applied within the organization and their goals can be one of the most challenging aspects of the process. Go to http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/tt/t-articl/tb-basic.htm to learn more about team building. 2. What is the difference between a self-managed team and a self-directed team? Go to http://ezinearticles.com/?Difference-Between-Self-Managed-and-Self-Directed-Teams&id=1521183to see a series of links on team topics where you can find the answer to the above questions and many other questions. Write a short reaction paper on one of the topics from this website. 3. Virtual teams require tools to support their effectiveness. For example, how do they hold meetings? We often assume the technology is there (e.g., the telephone), but most technology supports only one-on-one communication. When a meeting is held on the phone, there must be technology to support all members being on the line at once. Learn more about virtual team tools at http://www.objs.com/survey/groupwar.htm. Write five facts you learned about groupware and collaboration support and bring them to class for further discussion. 4. For a brief overview of the characteristics of effective teams, go to http://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2013/06/07/five-ways-to-build-an-effective-team/. After reviewing this list, think of a team or group you have worked with in the past. Do not name names, but take each characteristic listed and apply your experience to it. For example, characteristic number one is, “There is a clear unity of purpose.” Did your group have that unity? Why or why not? How did you know—was there a mission statement (or lack of one), were there goals (or no goals), etc.? Bring your completed analysis to class for group discussion. 5. Read http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmaureenhenderson/2013/11/25/want-to-be-a-team-player-strike-this-one-word-from-your-vocabulary/.Do you agree? How does this perspective compare to what we have learned in class? Write a paragraph or two as to why you agree or disagree with this recommendation and what you would change if necessary. Bring to class for further discussion. Solution Manual for Organizational Behavior Timothy A. Judge Stephen P. Robbins 9781292146300, 9780133507645, 9780136124016