CH-7 Groups and Teamwork – Organizational Behaviour: Understanding and Managing Life at Work: Book Guide

CHAPTER 7 GROUPS AND TEAMWORK SAMPLE ANSWERS TO DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. Describe the kind of skills that you would look for in members of self-managed teams. Explain your choices. Do the same for virtual teams. Answer: Members of such teams need to have initiative, work well with others, and contribute toward team effort. Thus, a degree of independence is important, tempered by good social skills that make for smooth interaction with others. Relevant technical expertise will assure contribution to team effort. Although usually viewed as a technological solution, members of virtual teams must possess good interpersonal and communication skills, as well as technical proficiency. Furthermore, members of virtual teams should have the type of personality or attitudes conducive to working independently and in relative isolation. 2. Debate: Effective teamwork is more difficult for individualistic Americans, Canadians, and Australians than for more collectivist Japanese. Answer:The answers to this question can be varied. Collective societies such as the Japanese have had a great deal of success in creating teams to meet goals. There is also evidence that in individualistic societies, individual members are more apt to bring a greater amount of creativity, and ways of doing things differently that eventually improves the productivity of their teams. Debate: Effective Teamwork – Individualistic vs. Collectivist Cultures Position 1: Effective Teamwork is More Difficult for Individualistic Americans, Canadians, and Australians 1. Individualism vs. Collectivism: • Individualistic Cultures: Americans, Canadians, and Australians often emphasize personal goals, autonomy, and individual achievements over group harmony. Teamwork requires a shift from personal to collective goals, which can be challenging. • Collectivist Cultures: Japanese culture values group harmony, collective goals, and interdependence. This cultural orientation may facilitate smoother teamwork as individuals prioritize the group's success over personal achievement. 2. Challenges in Individualistic Cultures: • Personal Goals vs. Group Goals: In individualistic societies, team members may prioritize personal success over team success, leading to conflicts and less cooperation. • Resistance to Collaboration: Individuals in individualistic cultures might struggle with collaborative tasks due to a preference for independent work and personal accountability. • Conflict Resolution: Individualistic cultures might experience more conflicts in teamwork due to diverse personal goals and less emphasis on compromise for the sake of group harmony. 3. Motivation and Reward Systems: • Individual Incentives: Reward systems in individualistic cultures often focus on personal performance, which may undermine team cohesion and collective effort. • Less Emphasis on Team Success: When rewards are tied to individual achievements, team members may be less motivated to work collaboratively. Position 2: Effective Teamwork is Not Necessarily More Difficult for Individualistic Cultures 1. Adaptability and Flexibility: • Individualistic Cultures: Members from individualistic cultures can adapt to teamwork by focusing on mutual goals and developing strategies to align personal motivations with team objectives. • Skill Development: Individuals from these cultures may develop strong individual skills that can be beneficial in a team setting, such as leadership and problem-solving. 2. Diverse Perspectives and Innovation: • Creativity: Individualistic cultures often encourage diverse perspectives and innovative thinking, which can enhance team performance by bringing varied ideas and solutions to the table. • Personal Accountability: Individuals in these cultures may bring a strong sense of personal responsibility to the team, which can drive productivity and high performance. 3. Cultural Integration: • Cross-Cultural Competence: With appropriate training and cultural integration strategies, individuals from individualistic cultures can develop effective teamwork skills and learn to appreciate the value of collective goals. • Hybrid Models: Organizations can implement hybrid models that blend individual incentives with team-based rewards to align personal and group objectives. Conclusion Individualistic Cultures: • Challenges: Effective teamwork might be challenging due to a focus on personal goals, individual incentives, and less emphasis on group harmony. • Advantages: These cultures can leverage strong individual skills, diverse perspectives, and adaptability to overcome challenges in teamwork. Collectivist Cultures: • Strengths: Teamwork may be more straightforward due to an inherent emphasis on group goals, harmony, and interdependence. • Potential Drawbacks: Excessive focus on group conformity might stifle individual creativity and innovation. In summary, while collectivist cultures may have a natural advantage in teamwork due to their emphasis on group harmony and shared goals, individualistic cultures can still achieve effective teamwork through adaptability, leveraging diverse skills, and integrating effective team management practices. 3. When would an organization create self-managed teams? When would it use cross-functional teams? When would it employ virtual teams? Answer: Organizations should consider self-managed teams when a team’s task is complex, challenging, and requires a high degree of interdependence among members. Beyond task concerns, the availability of highly skilled individuals with strong social skills and a strong sense of autonomy are also important. Finally, organizations must consider if such teams fit within the organizational culture and if the necessary commitment and resources will be forthcoming from different internal constituencies. Cross-functional teams should be considered when a task requires different functional specialties and an innovative approach. While a sequential approach (passing the task along to different units) would risk conflict and slow down the innovative process, cross-functional teams serve to streamline the process of coordinating work across units. Virtual teams would be viable when the team’s task does not require face-to-face interaction and members are geographically dispersed. Technological resources and support, cost savings through the reduction of travel, and access to a larger talent pool are also important considerations 4. Suppose that a group of United Nations representatives from various countries forms to draft a resolution regarding world hunger. Is this an additive, disjunctive, or conjunctive task? What kinds of process losses would such a group be likely to suffer? Can you offer a prediction about the size of this group and its performance? Answer: This is essentially an additive task. The more good ideas the group has, the better the resolution will be. The value of the resolution is not totally dependent on the group’s best member (disjunctive) or worst member (conjunctive). The group may suffer process losses due to poor communication (language differences) and political wrangling among members from various countries and cultures. Up to a point, increased size will improve performance. As process losses mount with size, performance will fall. Thus, the relationship between size and performance is curvilinear. 5. Explain how a cross-functional team could contribute to product or service quality. Explain how a cross-functional team could contribute to speeding up product design. Answer: Because cross-functional teams draw on the talents of many parts of the organization, they often bring a specific knowledge of the customer that is unknown to other parts of the organization. This can lead to dramatic improvements in product and service quality. A cross-functional team can also help speed up product design by bringing knowledge of previous work in another division that can be applied to the current project. 6. Mark Allen, a representative for an international engineering company, is a very religious person who is active in his church. Mark’s direct superior has instructed him to use “any legal means” to sell a large construction project to a foreign government. The vice-president of international operations has informed Mark that he can offer a generous “kickback” to government officials to clinch the deal, although such practices are illegal. Discuss the three kinds of role conflict that Mark is experiencing. Answer: Mark Allen is experiencing (1) intersender role conflict because the superior and the vice-president send contradictory role messages; (2) person-role conflict because his religious beliefs conflict with the expectations of some organizational members; and (3) interrole conflict because his role as a church elder conflicts with aspects of his company role. 7. Some organizations have made concerted efforts to do away with many of the status symbols associated with differences in organizational rank. All employees park in the same lot, eat in the same dining room, and have similar offices and privileges. Discuss the pros and cons of such a strategy. How might such a change affect organizational communications? Answer: The advantages of the system include an atmosphere of equality in which the similarities among members, rather than the differences, are emphasized. This may reduce hierarchical tension and boost the morale of lower-level workers. It may also result in cost savings which can be converted into rewarding good performance directly. Disadvantages include the removal of some attractive inducements to join the organization (at upper levels) or to seek promotion. In addition, outsiders (such as clients and suppliers) may be confused by the lack of clear status differentiation. If the system is accepted and works well, communication in all directions may be facilitated. There will be fewer “status barriers” which will free communication. Companies that have de-emphasized the formal status system tend to be high technology firms. 8. You are an executive in a consumer products corporation. The president assigns you to form a task force to develop new marketing strategies for the organization. You are permitted to choose its members. What things would you do to make this group as cohesive as possible? What are the dangers of group cohesiveness for the group itself and for the organization of which the group is a part? Answer: It would be useful to portray this group as special, elite, and difficult to enter. Despite temptations to expand, the group should be kept small in size. It would be sensible to induce mild threat and competition by invoking the negative consequences of failure and pointing out recent marketing successes by competing firms. Finally, if a successful experience can be arranged to occur early in the group’s existence (for example, having an early proposal accepted by top management), cohesiveness will be enhanced. Although group cohesiveness can provide many benefits for both the group itself and the organization, cohesiveness has potentially harmful effects. Cohesive groups exact a strong degree of conformity from their members, and they accept relatively little deviation from group norms. The group may suppress innovative and creative ideas. In the long run, this may threaten the survival of the group, and, by extension, the organization. Even in the short term, cohesive groups may develop norms and goals which are literally self-destructive, targeted at dominating other groups or contrary to organizational goals. Dissenting group members will experience strong conflict as the group makes demands that go against their own values or against the good of the larger organization. Cohesive groups tend to be successful at achieving their goals, and they will prove damaging to the larger organization if their goals do not correspond to organizational goals. SAMPLE ANSWERS TO INTEGRATIVE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. What role do perceptions play in group development? Refer to the discussion of perceptual process and biases in Chapter 3 and discuss the implications for each stage of group development. What are the implications for improving the development of groups? Answer: Perception and perceptual biases might influence the development of groups. For example, during the forming stage, group members try to orient themselves by “testing the waters.” They are concerned with issues such as, “What are we doing here?”, “What are the others like?”, and “What is our purpose? The situation is often ambiguous, especially if the group members do not know each other. Perception is the process of interpreting the messages of our senses to provide order and meaning to the environment. Given the high degree of ambiguity during the forming stage, there will be considerable interpretation and the addition of meaning to the target – the group and its members. Keep in mind that ambiguous targets are especially susceptible to interpretation and addition and perceivers have a need to resolve such ambiguities. Because the perceptual system is efficient but often inaccurate, group members are likely to develop different perceptions about the group and its members. Perceptual biases such as primacy, reliance on central traits, implicit personality theories, and stereotyping are likely to influence perceptions. The perceptions developed during the forming stage will have implications in the subsequent stages. During the storming stage, conflict often emerges. Confrontation and criticism occur as members determine whether they will go along with the way the group is developing. Sorting out roles and responsibilities is often at issue here. If the group members have developed different perceptions about the group and its members, then they might have trouble agreeing on roles and responsibilities. Perceptual inaccuracy might also make it difficult to resolve the issues that provoked the storming during the norming stage. The group might have trouble agreeing on norms and reaching social consensus. This is likely to cause problems during the performing and adjourning stage resulting in poor group performance and little emotional support. The obvious implication for improving the development of groups is for the groups to get to know each other during the forming stage. They need to have sufficient time to interact and meet as a group. Student groups often fail to do this and as a result they never agree on the direction of the group, roles and responsibilities, and group norms. The work is often left to the last minute and group members wind up disliking each other. The perceptual problems are evident when group members blame each other for not doing what they were supposed to do and the disagreement and misunderstanding becomes evident. 2. How can groups be motivated? Consider the implications of each of the work motivation theories described in Chapter 5. What do the theories tell us about how to motivate groups? Answer: The motivation theories deal primarily with the motivation of individuals. However, they can all easily be adapted to apply to group motivation. For example, goal setting theory has been found to be effective for groups - group goals improve the performance of groups. Groups can also be motivated by ensuring that group members can fulfill various needs. For example, if the group task is challenging and complex, group members should be able to fulfill belongingness and self-esteem needs. If rewards are tied to group performance then physiological needs can also be fulfilled. Expectancy theory suggests that groups can be motivated to the extent that: 1. The group is capable of performing at a high level; 2. If the group performs at a high level they will be rewarded with consequences that are valent to group members. Finally, according to equity theory, group members will be motivated if they feel that their outcome/input ratio is equitable compared to relevant others. Therefore, it is important that group members are willing and able to devote similar inputs to the group’s task if they receive similar outcomes. SAMPLE ANSWER TO ON-THE-JOB CHALLENGE QUESTION: SELF-MANAGED TEAMS AT ISE COMMUNICATIONS Use your understanding of both group dynamics and teams to explain why the employees became so concerned about attendance when they were organized into teams. What had changed? Answer: ISE Communications is a pseudonym, but the company is real and is located in Colorado. The newly formed work teams exhibited the storming-norming-performing sequence mentioned in the chapter. Given the more interesting work and closeness to the customer, most of the teams became cohesive and established good performance and attendance norms because they now identified more closely with their work. The roles of individuals had changed from cogs in an assembly line to valued team members on whom customers were dependent for speedy delivery. Deviant absentees and those who were late for work were subjected to substantial pressure from team mates to conform to attendance standards. The new teams wielded more social power than the managers under the old regime. For more on this setting see Case, J. (1993, September). What the experts forgot to mention. Inc., 66-78. EXTRA ESSAY QUESTIONS 1. Discuss the relationship between group size and group performance. Answer: • Optimal Size: Smaller groups (e.g., 3-7 members) often have better communication, coordination, and decision-making, leading to higher performance. They are more cohesive and can manage tasks efficiently. • Larger Groups: As group size increases, coordination becomes more complex, communication can break down, and individual contributions may diminish. This can lead to social loafing, where individuals contribute less effort, and decreased overall performance. • Task Type: For complex, collaborative tasks, smaller groups may perform better due to closer interaction. For tasks requiring diverse skills and resources, larger groups might be beneficial but need effective coordination. 2. What are the functions that group norms serve? Answer: • Social Control: Norms regulate behavior by defining acceptable and unacceptable actions within the group. • Social Integration: They help integrate new members by setting expectations and facilitating social cohesion. • Role Clarity: Norms clarify roles and responsibilities, reducing ambiguity and conflict. • Performance Standards: They establish performance benchmarks, influencing how group members approach tasks. 3. Suppose you wanted to undermine the cohesiveness of a group. What would you do? Answer: • Create Conflict: Introduce or exacerbate conflicts between members. • Withhold Information: Restrict access to crucial information or resources. • Encourage Cliques: Foster the formation of sub-groups that compete against each other. • Change Leadership: Rotate or undermine the leadership position to destabilize group dynamics. 4. Discuss the pros and cons of forming an organizational task force with members who have very similar attitudes and personalities versus forming one with members who have very different attitudes and personalities. Answer: • Similar Attitudes and Personalities: • Pros: Easier communication, quicker decision-making, less conflict. • Cons: Limited creativity, potential for groupthink, less innovation. • Diverse Attitudes and Personalities: • Pros: Greater creativity, more comprehensive problem-solving, varied perspectives. • Cons: Increased conflict, communication barriers, longer decision-making processes. 5. Give an example of a person who is experiencing both intrasender and intersender role conflict. Answer: • Intrasender Role Conflict: Occurs when a single role sender (e.g., a manager) provides conflicting expectations (e.g., a manager expects an employee to both lead and follow strict procedures). • Intersender Role Conflict: Occurs when different role senders provide conflicting expectations (e.g., one manager wants an employee to prioritize customer service, while another wants them to focus on efficiency). 6. Explain why making groups larger does not always lead to an expected increase in performance. Answer: • Coordination Issues: As groups grow, managing and coordinating tasks becomes more complex. • Communication Breakdown: More members can lead to communication problems and information overload. • Social Loafing: Larger groups may experience reduced individual accountability, leading to less effort from members. • Conflict: Increased potential for disagreements and conflicts that can hinder performance. 7. You have to develop a checklist for designing an effective self-managed work group. What are its elements? Answer: • Clear Goals: Define specific, measurable objectives. • Autonomy: Allow decision-making freedom and responsibility. • Skill Diversity: Ensure a range of skills and expertise. • Training: Provide necessary training and resources. • Support Systems: Offer support and resources from management. • Communication: Establish effective communication channels. • Performance Metrics: Implement systems to monitor and evaluate performance. 8. You have to develop a checklist for designing an effective cross-functional group. What are its elements? Answer: • Diverse Expertise: Include members with various skills and knowledge relevant to the project. • Clear Objectives: Define common goals and objectives. • Interpersonal Skills: Foster collaboration and mutual respect among members. • Coordination Mechanisms: Develop strategies for coordinating across different functions. • Leadership: Appoint a leader with experience in managing cross-functional teams. • Communication Systems: Implement effective communication tools and practices. 9. You have to develop a checklist for designing an effective virtual team. What are its elements? Answer: • Clear Objectives: Establish and communicate specific goals and expectations. • Technology: Utilize reliable and user-friendly communication tools. • Regular Meetings: Schedule consistent virtual meetings for updates and discussions. • Communication Protocols: Develop protocols for regular updates and feedback. • Time Zone Considerations: Plan meetings and deadlines considering different time zones. • Team Building: Foster team cohesion through virtual team-building activities. 10. What is collective efficacy and how does it differ from self-efficacy? Why is collective efficacy important for teams? Answer: • Collective Efficacy: The group’s shared belief in its capability to achieve goals. It reflects how well the team believes it can perform tasks together. • Self-Efficacy: An individual’s belief in their own ability to accomplish tasks. • Importance: Collective efficacy is crucial for teams as it enhances collaboration, persistence, and performance by reinforcing a shared sense of capability. 11. What are shared mental models and why are they important for cross-functional teams? Why are they a challenge to instill in cross-functional teams? Answer: • Definition: Shared mental models are the common understanding among team members about the team’s goals, processes, and roles. • Importance: They facilitate coordination and communication by ensuring that all members have a similar understanding of tasks and objectives. • Challenges: Instilling shared mental models in cross-functional teams is difficult due to diverse backgrounds, knowledge, and perspectives among team members, which can lead to misunderstandings and coordination issues. TEACHING NOTES FOR NASA EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE NASA is a good exercise for illustrating how group dynamics influence group performance. It can also be used to illustrate group decision-making in conjunction with Chapter 11. Variations might include systematically varying the size of the groups. Regarding the questions at the end of the exercise, the task has both additive and disjunctive features. On one hand, the knowledge of the group members can be “added up” to predict group performance. On the other hand, if information is weighted according to expertise, the performance of the group can be highly influenced by its most knowledgeable member. In either case, performance should improve with size up to a point, since more knowledge is available and there are more chances of including one especially knowledgeable person. At some point, however, process losses can start to damage the group’s performance. Interesting group dynamics include the emergence of the role of an expert and whether the group develops norms of deferral to the expert. In general, you can expect to find that a group will do better than its average member, but it often doesn’t do as well as its best member, suggesting that the group frames this as an additive task. In the event that the individual average exceeds group performance, a little gentle probing will often uncover the source of the dysfunction. In these exercises that involve the calculations of differences and gains, we like to point out a logical constraint to students — the lower the individual scores of a group the more room there is for improvement in group performance. Aspects of self-managing groups that are likely to prove useful for group performance include group effort, group member’s knowledge and skill directed toward the task, and the adoption of strategies for accomplishing the task. Given the problem-solving nature of this task, group diversity is likely to help group performance given the potential for members to consider a broader array of ideas and variety of perspectives. Here are the expert rankings along with the rationale. They are ranked from most important (1) to least important (15). 1. Two 100-lb. tanks of oxygen. There is no air on the moon. 2. 5 gallons of water. You can’t live long without water. 3. Stellar map (of moon’s constellation). Needed for navigation. 4. Food concentrate. Can live for some time without food. 5. Solar-powered FM receiver-transmitter. Communication. 6. 50 feet of nylon rope. For travel over rough terrain. 7. First aid kit containing injection needles. First aid kit might be needed but needles are useless. 8. Parachute silk. Carrying. 9. Life raft. Some value for shelter or carrying. 10. Signal flares. No oxygen. 11. Two .45 calibre pistols. Some use for propulsion. 12. One case dehydrated milk. Needs H20 to work. 13. Portable heating unit. Lighted side of moon is hot. 14. Magnetic compass. Moon’s magnetic field is different from the earth’s. 15. Box of matches. No oxygen. Source: Teleometrics International. TEACHING NOTES FOR THE GROUP ASSIGNMENT CASE INCIDENT This incident is useful for helping students learn how to work better in groups. It is important to highlight the need for group members to come to an agreement early on as to what there purpose is, what the roles and responsibilities will be of each group members, and what the group norms will be. 1. Refer to the typical stages of group development and explain the development of Janet’s group. Answer: Janet’s group experience is a good example of a group that has not developed. In particular, the group does not successfully go through any of the stages of group development. There is no forming, storming, or norming. Performance is poor and the group disbands never to speak to each other again. In terms of the details of each stage, they are as follows. During forming, members do not spend enough time orienting themselves to the group. They do not bother to determine what they will be doing and what their purpose is. The situation therefore remains ambiguous. During storming, the group does not determine how the group should develop. There is no real conflict, confrontation, or criticism. Roles and responsibilities are not agreed on. There is not a sense of who is going to do what. During norming, the group does not develop any norms with regard to how they will proceed in terms of things such as when they should meet, how often, and what is expected of each other, etc. In fact, they cannot agree when to meet and some members do not even show up for meetings. When they did meet, group members had not done the work they were supposed to. The performing stage is a complete disaster. The work is left until the last minute and it is poorly done. In the end, Janet has to do the project herself. In the adjourning stage, the group disbands and Janet will never be friends with the other members. 2. To what extent was group cohesiveness a problem in Janet’s work group? What might have made the group more cohesive? Answer: Cohesiveness is the degree to which a group is especially attractive to its members. It is clear from the case incident, that Janet’s group is not cohesive. In fact, group members hardly seem interested in being in the group. It is also the case that the lack of cohesiveness is part of the group’s problem. The lack of cohesiveness can be seen in the lack of participation in group activities on the part of group members, poor coordination, no conformity to group norms such as attending meetings and getting work done on time, and of course, the lack of goal accomplishment and group success. Had the group been more cohesive, chances are there would have been more participation in group activities, more conformity to group expectations, and a more successful outcome. The group might have been more cohesive if there was some form of threat or competition facing the group. For example, if the group had to make a presentation to the class, if each member was to be evaluated for their individual performance, or if the group was also evaluated on their performance as a group. Additionally, an instructor might make group cohesiveness and development part of the assignment and grade the group in terms of their development and cohesiveness. TEACHING NOTES FOR THE CRATIVITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CASE STUDY Note: Brainstorming and the nominal group and Delphi techniques (which it is implied that Tom favoured over “simple brainstorming”) are also relevant for this case study and are discussed in Chapter 11 on Decision Making. 1. Discuss how the stages of group development and the punctuated equilibrium model apply to the Creativity Development Committee. Did the group progress through any of the stages of these models? Did the group fail to resolve any issues implied by these models? Answer: Group development takes place through a series of stages that include forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. In the forming stage of group development, group members try to orient themselves by “testing the waters.” In the storming stage, conflict often emerges and sorting out roles and responsibilities is often at issue here. In the norming stage, group members resolve issues that are provoked in the second stage and develop norms for interaction. In the performing stage, the group devotes its energy toward task accomplishment. In the adjourning and final stage of group development, the group disperses and members often exhibit emotional support for each other. In the case of the creativity development committee, most of these stages do not seem to have occurred. During the first six weeks of the summer the group met weekly to discuss relevant articles and books and to hear consultants. In other words, they began at the performing stage without having devoted any time to the prior stages of forming, storming, and norming. Of particular importance is that the group did not sort out roles and responsibilities or develop norms for interaction. As a result, conflict emerged later in the group development process after the performing stage. In other words, the group problems occurred later rather than earlier when they should have so that they could have been worked out and resolved. It was only after the group narrowed down the possibilities to 2 programs that the conflict emerged and the climate of the group became tense and issues about the power relations between the manager and project directors surfaced. Further, the group never clarified how the final choice would be made, something that should have been determined prior to the performing stage. As for the final stage of adjourning, this obviously did not happen as the final decision which was made by Tom alone caused considerable resentment among the other members of the group who felt used and saw little reason to have spent so much time discussing different programs if Tom was just going to choose the program he wanted. The punctuated equilibrium model describes how groups with deadlines are affected by their first meetings and crucial midpoint transitions. The model breaks the group development process into two phases, and highlights the importance of the midpoint transition as crucial in the groups meeting its goal by the project deadline. Phase 1 begins with the first meeting and continues until the midpoint in the group’s existence. The very first meeting is critical in setting the agenda for what will happen in the remainder of this phase. The midpoint transition occurs at almost exactly the halfway point in time toward the group’s deadline. The transition marks a change in the group’s approach and how the group manages it is critical for the group to show progress. The decisions and approaches adopted at the midpoint get played out in Phase 2. It concludes with a final meeting that reveals a burst of activity and a concern for how outsiders will evaluate the product. As for the creativity development committee, they did not have a deadline to begin with. The first meeting was not used to set an agenda for what will happen. In fact, the group just continued to meet during the summer to discuss articles and books and hear consultants. The group narrowed down a set of 15 procedures and programs to 4 and then eventually 2. However, there was a split in the group between the directors and Tom. Because there was no deadline there was no real midpoint and there was no final burst of activity in Phase 2. If there was a midpoint at all, it might have been when the group narrowed the list from 4 to 2 and then had to decide which one to choose. However, the group did not successfully get past this point as there was a clear split in the group and it was never resolved. It might have been helpful at this point to seek additional outside advice to move past this impasse. Unfortunately, the group did not successfully get past this point as the split continues right until the end when Tom goes ahead and makes the final decision. As for Phase 2, Tom shows little concern for how outsiders (the project teams) will evaluate the program even though the directors have informed him that researchers will ridicule the program and be prejudiced against future attempts to stimulate creativity. If the punctured equilibrium model had been applied, the group should have done the following: 1. Prepare carefully for the first meeting (there was no preparation). 2. Manage the midpoint transition carefully (there was no real midpoint transition – the group narrowed the choices down to 2 and never really got past this point; there should have been a clearly stated deadline). 3. Resist deadline changes. These could damage the midpoint transition. (There was no deadline to begin with). Thus, both models were not adequately applied and critical stages were not given the attention required. The group should have worked out the details of how it was going to proceed as well as clarifying the roles and responsibilities of members and group norms. There should have been consensus on how the final decision would be made and there should have been a clear deadline accompanied by a midpoint transition. 2. Is the choice of the best creativity development program an additive, disjunctive, or conjunctive task? Explain your reasoning. Discuss the implications of the task type for what happened on the committee. Answer: Additive tasks are tasks in which group performance is dependent on the sum of the performance of individual group members such as building a house. A disjunctive task is one in which group performance depends on the performance of the best group member such as a research team looking for a single error in a complicated computer program. The performance of the team hinges on its containing at least one bright, attentive, logical-minded individual. A conjunctive task is one in which group performance is limited by the performance of the poorest group member such as an assembly-line which is limited by its weakest link. Tasks such as developing a program or choosing a program from among several alternatives are almost always additive tasks. This is because a better result should occur when people combine ideas and bring different perspectives and experiences to bear. These perspectives and experiences can be “added up” to produce a superior product, although there may be more than one viable solution. In general, more people putting in more effort will result in a better outcome. Tasks like this will very seldom be disjunctive, as this implies a single superior technical solution. However, tasks of the type facing the committee in the case involve much give and take among many decision elements. Also, the task is not conjunctive since it would not involve a sequence of events with divided labour, and no one person is likely to result in an improper decision by failing to do his or her part. These distinctions are important for the following reason: Tom framed this task as a disjunctive task and thus felt justified to choose what he thought was the best solution. The combined wisdom of the committee members dictated an additive solution that Tom rejected. 3. Did role ambiguity surface in the case? If so, how so? Answer: Role ambiguity occurs when the goals of one’s job or the methods of performing it are unclear. Certain organizational factors lead role senders to develop role expectations and “send” roles to focal persons. Presumably, the focal person “receives” the role and then tries to engage in behaviour to fulfill the role. In the case, Tom has asked the directors to work with him to help formulate appropriate procedures and choose a program. However, as Tom began to argue for the program he favoured and eventually asked the group how upset they would be if he chose the program he prefers, it became clear that the role of the project directors was less than they had expected. Tom had asked them to help formulate procedures but in the end he was doing what he wanted regardless of their input and advice. The project directors had the expectation that they would have an equal say in the final choice and decision of the program that would be chosen. Role ambiguity prompts stress-related reactions and negative attitudes and as indicated in the case, the climate of the group became tense and by the end the directors felt like they were used and lost their respect for Tom. 4. Did role conflict surface in the case? If so, which type or types occurred? Answer: Role conflict exists when an individual is faced with incompatible expectations. Role conflict can take four forms. Intrasender role conflict occurs when a single role sender provides incompatible role expectations to the role occupant. Intersender role conflict occurs when two or more role senders provide a role occupant with incompatible expectations. Boundary role occupants are especially likely to encounter this form of conflict. Interrole conflict occurs when several roles held by a role occupant involve incompatible expectations. Competing demands for time are a frequent symptom of inter-role conflict. Person-role conflict occurs when role demands call for behaviour that is incompatible with the personality or skills of a role occupant. Several types of role conflict occurred in the group. First, intrasender role conflict occurs because on the one hand Tom tells the directors that he needs their help to review the research and formulate appropriate procedures but then asks them how they will feel if chooses the program on his own. Thus, Tom has provided incompatible role expectations by leading the director’s to first believe that they will have an equal say in the final choice and then telling them that he will make the final choice. Second, interrole conflict occurs in the case because the directors are divided between supporting and requiring the use of the new program by their team versus telling their teams that it is only recommended or that it might have to be adapted. Thus, there is interrole conflict between the director’s role to obey Tom’s authority versus doing what is in the best interests of their team. One role requires use of the new program while the other role does not support the use of the program. The action of one of the directors was in violation of Tom’s authority and Tom was not told about how the program was or was not being implemented. Another director questioned how much effort he invested in making the program work. Finally, there is also evidence of person-role conflict to the extent that the directors are being asked to adopt a program that is not consistent with their own preferences or style or what they believe to be best the program. 5. How did status issues emerge in the committee? Answer: Status refers to the rank, social position, or prestige accorded to group members. It represents a group’s evaluation of a member. Tom obviously has higher status than the directors in the group given his title as a manger of the three research and development laboratories. As indicated in the text, status can affect the amount of group members’’ communication and their influence in group affairs. Higher status members tend to do more talking and have more influence. Tom’s higher status emerges when he begins to push his preferred program on the rest of the group and the power relations between Tom and the project directors causes the climate of the group to become tense. The directors were aware of the relative power of managers and how project directors who had got on a manager’s “wrong side” had been denied promotion or fired. The directors knew that when push came to shove the manger has more power and will use it and this is in fact what Tom did. In the end, Tom used his higher status to make the final decision on his own and to choose the program that he favoured even though the rest of the group did not agree and in fact preferred another program. One group member was uncomfortable responding to Tom’s question about how upset they would be if he chose the program he prefers while two others said they would have difficulty using it. However, in the end Tom went ahead and made the decision on his own and chose the program he preferred. Tom used his higher status to get his way. 6. Did the committee share a mental model about its goals and procedures? Answer: Shared mental models exist when team members share identical information about how they should interact and what their task is. Shared mental models contribute greatly to effective team performance, at least when the shared knowledge is an accurate reflection of reality. It would seem that the committee did not share a mental model about its goal and procedures. The directors believed that they were part of a group to review research and work together to formulate an appropriate procedure for making their teams more creative. At first, they were enthusiastic about this task. However, once the group narrowed the choice down to two programs, it became clear that they did not share the same mental model as Tom did. The directors had a mental model of equal say in the final choice and probably that the group would either reach consensus or vote. However, the final choice was made by Tom alone and it went against the input and choice of the rest of the group. The fact that the director’s had a different mental model is seen at the end of the case where they resent the outcome, feel that they were used, and questioned why they spent so much time discussing programs when Tom just went ahead and choose what he wanted. As a result of these different mental models, the directors felt used and that Tom was someone who was willing to manipulate people for his own purposes. ADDITIONAL CASE STUDY: LEVI STRAUSS & CO.’S FLIRTATION WITH TEAMS Levi Strauss & Co. is the largest maker of brand-name clothing in the world. It has had a long history of being profitable, good to its workers, and charitable to its factory towns. Compared with other companies in the apparel industry, Levi Strauss had been known for generous wages and good working conditions. According to chairman Robert Haas, Levi’s treatment of its workers and concern for their welfare is far greater than in other companies in the industry. When other American apparel firms moved their manufacturing offshore, Levi Strauss & Co. maintained a large American manufacturing base and was often ranked as one of the best companies to work for. In fact, in 1997 the company received an award from the United Nations for improving global workplace standards. Up until 1992, Levi’s employees worked on their own operating machines in which they performed a single, specific, and repetitive task, such as sewing zippers or belt loops on jeans. Pay was based on a piece-rate system, in which workers were paid a set amount for each piece of work completed. A worker’s productivity and pay was highly dependent on levels of skill, speed, and stamina. By 1992, however, Levi Strauss & Company began to feel the pressure of overseas, low-cost competitors, and realized it needed to increase productivity and reduce costs to remain competitive and keep their North American plants open. The company decided that the best solution was teamwork. In a memo sent to workers, Levi’s operations vice-president wrote, “This change will lead to a self-managed work environment that will reduce stress and help employees become more productive.” Teamwork was felt to be a humane, safe, and profitable solution that would be consistent with the company’s philosophy. Under the new philosophy, gone was the old system of performing a single task all the time and the piece-rate system that went with it. Now groups of 10 to 50 workers shared the tasks and would be paid for the total number of trousers that the group completed. The team system was expected to lower the monotony of piecework by enabling workers to do different tasks and to therefore lower repetitive-stress injuries. Although employees were given brief seminars and training on team building and problem solving, it was not long before problems began to arise. Top performers complained about their less skilled and slower teammates who caused a decline in their wages. Meanwhile, the wages of lower-skilled workers increased. Threats, insults, and group infighting became a regular part of daily work as faster workers tried to rid their group of slower workers. To make matters worse, top performers responded to their lower wages by reducing their productivity. Not surprisingly, employee morale began to deteriorate. Another problem was that whenever a group member was absent or slow, the rest of the team had to make up for it. This exacerbated the infighting among team members and resulted in excessive peer pressure. In one instance, an enraged worker had to be restrained from throwing a chair at a team member who constantly harassed her about working too slowly, and in another incident, a worker threatened to kill a member of her team. An off-duty sheriff’s deputy had to be placed at the plant’s front entrance. Because the groups had limited supervision, they had to resolve group problems on their own, and they also divided up the work of absent members themselves. In some plants, team members would chase each other out of the bathroom and nurse’s station. Slower teammates were often criticized, needled, and resented by their group. Some could not take the resentment and simply quit. In one group, a member was voted off her team because she planned to have hand surgery. And although workers were now part of a team system, management was not given guidance on how to implement the system. As a result, each manager had his or her own idea of how the team system should work, including team size, structure, pay formulas, and shop-floor layouts. One former production manager described the situation as worse than chaos and more like hell! To make matters worse, the team system did not improve the situation for Levi’s. Labour and overhead costs increased by up to 25 percent during the first years of the team system. Efficiency, based on the quantity of pants produced per hour worked, dropped to 77 percent of pre-team levels. Although productivity began to improve, it is now only at 93 percent of the piecework level. Even in some of the company’s best plants, production has fallen and remained at lower levels since the introduction of teams. And although one of the reasons for adopting the team system was to lower the high costs of injuries that resulted from workers pushing themselves to achieve piece-rate goals, these costs continued to rise in many plants even after the team approach was implemented. Profit margins also began to decline as competitors began offering private-label jeans at two-thirds the price of Levi’s, and Levi’s market share of men’s denim jeans in the United States fell from 48 percent in 1990 to 26 percent in 1997. As costs continued to increase, plant managers were warned that they would face an uncertain future unless they cut costs by 28 percent by the end of year. Teams did, however, result in some improvements. For example, the average turnaround time of receiving an order and shipping it was reduced from nine to seven weeks. As well, because the teams were responsible for producing completed pairs of pants, there was less work-in-process at the end of each day compared with the piece-rate system, where each worker did only one part of the job. And according to Robert Haas, teams allowed workers to manage themselves and to find better and safer ways of working. Nonetheless, the team system did not help Levi’s achieve its objectives. In February 1997, then-CEO and current board chair Robert Haas announced that the company would cut its salaried workforce by 20 percent in the next 12 months. The following November, the company closed 11 factories in the United States and laid off 6395 workers. In an unusual response to being laid off, one worker described it as a “relief” from the burden and stress that had become part of her job. Commenting on the team approach, a now-retired former manufacturing manager said, “We created a lot of anxiety and pain and suffering in our people, and for what?” According to a production manager who has taken early retirement, “It’s just not the same company anymore. The perceived value of the individual and the concern for people just is not there.” A veteran worker who had gone back to the old system of doing a single task and was now paid in part for what she produced said, “I hate teams. Levi’s is not the place it used to be.” In February 1999, as sales of Levi’s jeans continued to fall, the company let go another 5900 workers, or 30 percent of its workforce of 19 900 in the United States and Canada, and announced that it would close 11 of its remaining 22 plants in North America. According to company officials, plant closings might have been sooner and job losses greater if they had not adopted the team system. In 2003, due to substantial drops in net sales over the last three years, the company implemented more measures to recoup some of its losses, including closing 37 of its factories worldwide and instead using independent contract manufacturers. The company closed its remaining North American manufacturing facilities; its San Antonio operations closed at the end of 2003 and its three Canadian operations closed in March 2004. The closures affected some 2000 employees. The Canadian plants were considered among the most efficient in the company. As such, Levi Strauss & Co. now manufactures 100 percent of its jeans for the North American market outside of North America, compared with 15 percent in 1991, and none 20 years ago. Sources: Gilbert, C. (1998, September). Did modules fail Levi’s or did Levi’s fail modules? Apparel Industry Magazine, 88–92; King, R.T., Jr. (1998, May 20). Levi’s factory workers are assigned to teams and morale takes a hit. Wall Street Journal, A1, A6; Levi Strauss & Co. (2003, September 15). Hoover’s Company Capsules (L), p. 40278. Retrieved September 30, 2003, from ProQuest database; McFarland, J. (1999, February 23). Levi Strauss slashes 5,900 jobs. Globe and Mail, B5; Paddon, D. (2003, September 26). Levi Strauss closing plants. Montreal Gazette, B2; Steinhart, D. (1999, February 23). Levi to shut plants in Cornwall, U.S. Financial Post, C1, C9. 1. Discuss the stages of group development and the implications of them for the development of the teams at Levi Strauss. Answer: Stages of Group Development: 1. Forming: In this stage, group members are introduced, and the team starts to understand its goals and structure. For Levi Strauss, this stage likely involved the initial adjustment to the new team-based system and learning new roles and expectations. 2. Storming: Conflicts and disagreements arise as members assert their opinions and roles. At Levi Strauss, this stage manifested as tensions between top performers and slower workers, leading to infighting and resentment. 3. Norming: The group establishes norms and starts to work more cohesively. However, at Levi Strauss, the teams struggled to develop effective norms due to the lack of consistent guidance and increased peer pressure. 4. Performing: The group reaches optimal functioning, focusing on achieving goals. Although some improvements were noted (e.g., reduced work-in-process), the teams at Levi Strauss never fully reached this stage effectively due to persistent issues. 5. Adjourning: The group disbands after achieving its goals. At Levi Strauss, this stage was marked by layoffs and plant closures, signaling the end of the team-based system's effectiveness. Implications: • Forming: The initial training and lack of clear guidance hindered the forming stage, leading to confusion and dissatisfaction. • Storming: The lack of effective conflict resolution mechanisms exacerbated tensions and role conflicts. • Norming: Ineffective norm development and management led to poor team cohesion and morale. • Performing: The teams struggled to achieve high performance levels due to ongoing conflicts and lack of proper support. • Adjourning: The system's failure led to organizational restructuring and significant job losses. 2. Discuss some of the norms that emerged in the teams. What was their function and how did they influence the behaviour of group members? Answer: Emerging Norms: • Work Pace: Fast workers set high standards for others, leading to pressure on slower workers. • Conflict Management: Infighting and peer pressure became common, creating a hostile work environment. Functions and Influence: • Function: Norms aimed to increase productivity and teamwork but led to negative behaviors such as harassment and resentment. • Influence: The norms significantly influenced member behavior, leading to reduced morale and productivity due to constant peer pressure and conflict. 3. Discuss the role dynamics that emerged in the groups. Is there any evidence of role ambiguity or role conflict? Answer: Role Ambiguity and Conflict: • Role Ambiguity: Unclear expectations for team roles and processes led to confusion and inefficiencies. • Role Conflict: Workers experienced conflict due to inconsistent expectations from managers, peer pressure, and the discrepancy between individual performance and group compensation. Evidence: • Conflicts over performance expectations and roles led to incidents of harassment and aggression among team members. • The lack of clear role definitions contributed to dissatisfaction and decreased productivity. 4. How cohesive were the groups at Levi Strauss? What factors contribute to the level of cohesiveness? Answer: Cohesiveness: • Level: The groups at Levi Strauss were generally low in cohesiveness due to ongoing conflicts and peer pressure. • Factors: Lack of effective communication, inconsistent management, and failure to establish positive norms contributed to low cohesiveness. 5. Analyze and evaluate the effectiveness of the teams using the concepts summarized in Exhibit 7.7. Answer: Concepts from Exhibit 7.7 (General Team Effectiveness Factors): • Clear Goals: Teams lacked clear, consistent goals due to varying management approaches. • Role Clarity: Ambiguous roles led to conflict and confusion. • Effective Communication: Poor communication channels and inadequate training hindered effectiveness. • Supportive Environment: The environment was not supportive due to peer pressure and conflicts. Evaluation: The teams struggled with effectiveness due to issues in goal clarity, role definition, communication, and support. 6. The teams were supposed to be self-managing teams. Critique this idea in terms of the principles for effectiveness for such teams given in the text. Answer: Critique: • Principles for Effectiveness: Effective self-managed teams require clear goals, role clarity, supportive management, and effective communication. • Levi Strauss Issues: The company failed to provide consistent guidance, adequate training, and clear roles, leading to ineffective self-management and increased conflict. 7. Do you think it was a good idea for Levi Strauss & Co. to implement a team system? Was it the best solution to deal with increased global competition? Why wasn’t the team approach at Levi Strauss & Co. more effective, and with your knowledge of groups, what might you have done differently if you had to implement a team system at Levi Strauss? Answer: Was it a Good Idea? • Context: The team system was intended to improve productivity and reduce costs, but it faced significant challenges. • Effectiveness: The team approach did not fully address the global competition challenges and led to decreased productivity and morale. Alternative Approach: • Implementation: If implementing a team system, better preparation in training, clear role definitions, and consistent management practices could improve outcomes. • Focus: Addressing specific issues such as communication and conflict resolution would have been crucial. 8. What does the Levi Strauss experience tell us about the use of teams and their effectiveness? Answer: Use of Teams: • Challenges: Effective team implementation requires clear goals, role clarity, and supportive management. • Effectiveness: The experience highlights the need for proper planning and support when transitioning to team-based systems. • Learning: Organizations should carefully assess their readiness and provide adequate training and support to ensure the success of team-based approaches. TEACHING NOTES FOR THE LEVI STRAUSS & CO.’S FLIRTATION WITH TEAMS CASE STUDY 1. Discuss the stages of group development and the implications of them for the development of the teams at Levi Strauss. Answer: One of the problems with the teams at Levi Strauss was that they did not develop according to the stages of group development. Other than brief seminars and training on team building and problem solving, the groups seem to have been thrown together. Although the members probably knew each other, it is not clear that they really understood the purpose of teams and how they should function. There seems to have been relatively little attempt to sort out roles and responsibilities during the storming stage. Failure to deal with conflict during the storming stage has resulted in extreme conflict and fighting during the performing stage. During the norming stage, the groups have not resolved issues or developed social consensus. There is little compromising and the only norm appears to be to work fast. In general, there is no agreement on group norms and the groups do not appear to have become very cohesive. In fact, some group members actually quit. Chaos occurs during the performing stage as group members fight with each other, and top performers harass and resent the less skilled and slower members of the group. Threats, insults, and group infighting became a regular part of daily work. Top performers reduced their productivity in what might be an example of the “sucker effect. “ In terms of the adjourning stage, there is no emotional support and the groups for the most part simply have not developed into successful, cohesive groups. The end result is what some have described as chaos not to mention a level of extreme if not violent conflict among group members. 2. Discuss some of the norms that emerged in the teams. What was their function and how did they influence the behaviour of group members? Answer: The most obvious norm that developed in the groups was speed. This should not be surprising given that the group’s wages were based on the group’s output. Naturally, the group was interested in enforcing a fast pace of work in order to produce more trousers and obtain higher wages. Unfortunately, this norm resulted in dysfunctional behaviour on the part of some group members, particularly those considered to be top performers. For example, the top performers complained about their less skilled and slower teammates because they caused a decline in their wages. To make matters worse, the wages of the lower skilled workers increased which likely created a perception of inequity on the part of the top performers who contributed more inputs but received the same outcomes as the slower and less skilled group members. Enforcement of the norm led to threats, insults, and group infighting which became a regular part of daily work. Faster workers tried to rid their group of slower workers, and top performers responded to their lower wages by reducing their productivity. Slower teammates were often criticized, needled, and resented by their group. Excessive peer pressure to perform resulted in one enraged worker attempting to throw a chair at a team member who constantly harassed her about working too slow and in another incident a worker threatened to kill a member of her team. Clearly, the pressure to conform was not only excessive but violent. 3. Discuss the role dynamics that emerged in the groups. Is there any evidence of role ambiguity or role conflict? Answer: The most obvious issue here is person-role conflict which occurs when role demands call for behaviour that is incompatible with the personality and skills of a role occupant. In this regard, the less skilled and slower team members are facing demands from the top performers to work faster and beyond their capabilities. This is likely to result in some of the consequences of role conflict such as job dissatisfaction, stress reactions, lowered organizational commitment, and turnover intentions. As noted in the case, some of the slower group members have quit. It is also possible that group members are experiencing some role ambiguity in terms of their role as a group member. While the task itself is clear enough, it may not be clear exactly what one’s role is within the group given that the workers have had relatively little experience working in a group and management was not much help given the little guidance they received on how to implement teams. 4. How cohesive were the groups at Levi Strauss? What factors contribute to the level of cohesiveness? Answer: The groups were not very cohesive. This is revealed, among other things, by the constant conflict and infighting among group members. In fact, it is clear at the end of the case that some of the workers hated working in teams and one worker responded to being laid off as a “relief” from the burden and stress of working in teams. The lack of cohesiveness can be traced to a number of factors. To begin with, some of the teams were simply too big with up to 50 members. Other things being equal, bigger groups have a more difficult time becoming and staying cohesive. Another key factor is success. Groups that are successful are more attractive and more cohesive. However, at least for the top performers, being in a group resulted in a reduction in their wages. Thus, the group was not successful at least in terms of earning higher wages for top performers. Member diversity was also a problem in terms of the skills of group members. The fact that top performers resented and criticized the less skilled and slower group members was a problem for cohesiveness. Clearly, the top performers did not want the slow performers in their group and the slower members who were harassed and needled did not want to be in the group. Not surprisingly, being in the group was not very attractive to any of the workers. 5. Analyze and evaluate the effectiveness of the teams using the concepts summarized in Exhibit 7.7. Answer: A work group is effective when (1) its physical or intellectual output is acceptable to management and to the other parts of the organization that use this output, (2) group members’ needs are satisfied rather than frustrated by the group, and (3) the group experience enables members to continue to work together. Based on these criteria, the groups were obviously not very effective. In terms of group output, the quantity of pants produced per hour worked dropped to 77 percent of pre-team levels. Although productivity began to improve, it was only 93 percent of the piece-rate level. Furthermore, even in some of the company’s best plants, production fell and remained at lower levels since the introduction of teams. The teams did, however, result in some improvements. For example, the average turnaround time of receiving an order and shipping it was reduced from nine to seven weeks. And because teams were responsible for producing completed pairs of pants, there was less work in process at the end of each day compared to the piece-rate system. Overall, however, the team system did not help the company achieve its objectives. In terms of group member’s needs, clearly there was a great deal of dissatisfaction for all group members and a drop in morale. Top performers were dissatisfied because of the drop in their wages while other group members had to endure being harassed and needled by the better performers in their group. Finally, the group experience not only damaged the ability of members to continue to work together, but it created a great deal of anxiety, resentment, and even hatred. Clearly, the teams were not effective. 6. The teams were supposed to be self-managing teams. Critique this idea in terms of the principles for effectiveness for such teams given in the text. Answer: The company intended the groups to be self-managing. As noted at the beginning of the case, the change was expected to lead to a self-managed work environment to help employees become more productive. Although the teams did operate under reduced supervision and were responsible for resolving group problems on their own and also divided up the work of absent members themselves, they lacked other important aspects of a self-managed group. For example, although group members were interdependent on each other in the production of trousers, the tasks were neither challenging nor complex. In terms of group composition, the groups were often too large. As for expertise, some of the group members were more skilled than others and it would appear that many of them did not have sufficient social skills that groups require to talk things out, communicate effectively, and resolve conflicts. The groups also suffered in terms of managerial support. They were given only brief seminars and training on team building and problem solving; management was not given guidance on how to implement teams which limited their ability to support and manage the teams; and although pay was based on group accomplishment, the differences in individual performance should also have been considered. Finally, in terms of group processes, group members did not have sufficient skills or knowledge to function as a group in terms of problem solving, conflict resolution, or performance strategies. Thus, it is doubtful that the groups were really self-managing groups in the true sense. 7. Do you think it was a good idea for Levi Strauss & Company to implement a team system? Was it the best solution to deal with increased global competition? Why wasn’t the team approach at Levi Strauss & Co. more effective, and with your knowledge of groups, what might you do differently if you had to implement a team system at Levi Strauss? Answer: Based on the answers to the previous questions, it would appear that it was not a good idea for Levi Strauss to implement a team system and it was not the best way to deal with increased global competition. This is clearly evident from the answer to question 6 on effectiveness. The teams were not effective and they did not help the company achieve its objectives. There is also evidence that the teams actually did more harm than good to the company and its employees. Thus, on this basis it would seem that it was not a good idea. There are a number of reasons why the team approach was not more effective. To begin with, employees apparently had no involvement in the change program. Thus, the teams might have been doomed from the start without employee involvement and input. Further, it would seem that employees actually preferred the individual piece-rate system. A second major issue here is that the teams might not have been the best system given the nature of the employees and the task. The employees were used to working on their own. Many of them probably lacked the social skills required to work in a group. In addition, because the task was relatively simple and routine, it does not really lend itself to group work. In terms of the teams themselves, the workers were not given sufficient training on how to work in a team and managers were not given any guidance on how to implement or manage the teams. Team size was also a factor. Some of the teams were simply too large to be effective. A final problem concerns the pay system. Wages were based on team productivity. However, because there were obvious differences between group members in terms of their speed and abilities, large inequities were created. As a result, the best performers began to receive lower wages under the team system. Although it is questionable if teams would have ever worked given the nature of the workers and their task, they might have been more effective if team size was smaller; if more training and support was provided to team members; if management was better trained on how to implement and manage teams; and if individual performance was factored into the pay plan so that there was some degree of equity. 8. What does the Levi Strauss experience tell us about the use of teams and their effectiveness? Answer: This case indicates a number of important points about teams and their effectiveness. First, teams are not always a good idea. In this regard, one has to consider the employees and the task before deciding if teams are necessary. As indicated in question 7, teams might not have been the best way to go at Levi Strauss. Second, teams are not always effective. They need to be carefully designed. In this respect, attention needs to be given to issues of group development and cohesiveness. As well, the factors that influence group effectiveness as shown in Exhibit 7.7 need to be given careful attention. Group tasks should be challenging and complex; group composition calls for small size and appropriate expertise and diversity; and management must provide considerable training and support to groups. Thus, while the chapter stresses how groups have been used to improve the effectiveness of many organizations, they are not always necessary or effective. The Levi Strauss experience demonstrates that switching from a traditional structure to a team-based system is not a cure-all for an organization’s problems and that careful planning and continuing support are necessary for the effective use of teams in organizations. Clearly, teams are not a panacea for an organization’s problems. Solution Manual for Organizational Behaviour: Understanding and Managing Life at Work Gary Johns, Alan M. Saks 9780133347500, 9780133951622