Preview (9 of 29 pages)

Preview Extract

Chapter10 Understanding Work Teams LEARNING OBJECTIVES After studying this chapter, students should be able to: Analyze the continued popularity of teams in organizations. Contrast groups and teams. Contrast the five types of teams. Identify the characteristics of effective teams. Explain how organizations can create team players. Decide when to use individuals instead of teams. INSTRUCTOR’S RESOURCES Instructors may wish to use the following resources when presenting this chapter. Text Exercises An Ethical Choice: The Size of Your Meeting’s Carbon Footprint Myth or Science?: “Team Members Who Are ‘Hot’ Should Make the Play” Career Objectives: Is It Wrong That I’d Rather Have Guys On My Team? Personal Inventory Assessments: Team Development Behaviors Point/Counterpoint: To Get the Most Out of Teams, Empower Them Questions for Review Experiential Exercise: Composing the “Perfect” Team Ethical Dilemma: The Sum of the Team Is Less Than Its Members Text Cases Case Incident 1: Tongue- Tied in Teams Case Incident 2: Smart Teams and Dumb Teams Instructor’s Choice This section presents an exercise that is NOT found in the student's textbook. Instructor's Choice reinforces the text's emphasis through various activities. Some Instructor's Choice activities are centered on debates, group exercises, Internet research, and student experiences. Some can be used in class in their entirety, while others require some additional work on the student's part. The course instructor may choose to use these at anytime throughout the class—some may be more effective as icebreakers, while some may be used to pull together various concepts covered in the chapter. Web Exercises At the end of each chapter of this Instructor’s Manual, you will find suggested exercises and ideas for researching OB topics on the Internet. The exercises “Exploring OB Topics on the Web” are set up so that you can simply photocopy the pages, distribute them to your class, and make assignments accordingly. You may want to assign the exercises as an out-of-class activity or as lab activities with your class. Summary and Implications for Managers Few trends have influenced jobs as much as the massive movement to introduce teams into the workplace. Working on teams requires employees to cooperate with others, share information, confront differences, and sublimate personal interests for the greater good of the team. Understanding the distinctions between problem solving, self-managed, cross-functional, and virtual teams as well as multiteam systems helps determine the appropriate applications for team-based work. Concepts such as reflexivity, team efficacy, team identity, team cohesion, and mental models bring to light important issues relating to team context, composition, and processes. For teams to function optimally, careful attention must be given to hiring, creating, and rewarding team players. Still, effective organizations recognize that teams are not always the best method for getting the work done efficiently. Careful discernment and an understanding of organizational behavior are needed. Specific implications for mangers follow: Effective teams have adequate resources, effective leadership, a climate of trust, and a performance evaluation and reward system that reflects team contributions. These teams have individuals with technical expertise, and the right traits and skills. Effective teams tend to be small. They have members who fill role demands and who prefer to be part of a group. Effective teams have members who believe in the team’s capabilities, are committed to a common plan and purpose, and have an accurate shared mental model of what is to be accomplished. Select individuals who have the interpersonal skills to be effective team players, provide training to develop teamwork skills, and reward individuals for cooperative efforts. Do not assume that teams are always needed. When tasks will not benefit from interdependency, individuals may be the better choice. This chapter begins with a vignette describing recreational team-building. Do teams that play together stay together, as the opening discussion suggests? There is definitely an upside to shared experiences, as we will find in this chapter. There may also be something about unique, unexpected challenges that bring teams together, as Tough Mudder claims. We are, however, cautioned to consider the effects of these “play” exercises, including possible discrimination against employees who are disabled or physically unfit. We will consider more types of team-building strategies and teams in general in this chapter. BRIEF CHAPTER OUTLINE Why Have Teams Become So Popular? Why are teams popular? In short, because we believe they are effective. Teams can sometimes achieve feats an individual could never accomplish. Teams are more flexible and responsive to changing events than traditional departments or other forms of permanent groupings. They can quickly assemble, deploy, refocus, and disband. They are an effective means to democratize organizations and increase employee involvement. And finally, research indicates that our involvement in teams positively shapes the way we think as individuals, introducing a collaborative mindset about even our personal decision making. The fact that organizations have embraced teamwork doesn’t necessarily mean teams are always effective. Team members, as humans, can be swayed by fads and herd mentality that can lead them astray from the best decisions. Differences Between Groups and Teams Groups and teams are not the same thing. (Exhibit 10-1) In the last chapter, we defined a group as two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve particular Objectives. A work group interacts primarily to share information and make decisions to help each member perform within his/her area of responsibility. A work team generates positive synergy through coordinated effort. Individual efforts result in a level of performance that is greater than the sum of those individual inputs. Types of Teams (Exhibit 10-2) Problem-Solving Team In the past, teams were typically composed of 5–12 hourly employees from the same department who met for a few hours each week to discuss ways of improving quality, efficiency, and the work environment. These problem solving teams rarely have the authority to unilaterally implement their suggested actions. Self-Managed Work Teams Problem-solving teams only make recommendations. Some organizations have created teams to not only make recommendations but also to implement solutions. Self-managed teams are groups of employees (typically 10–15 in number) that perform highly related or interdependent jobs and take on many of the responsibilities of their former supervisors. This includes planning and scheduling of work, assigning tasks to members, collective control over the pace of work, making operating decisions, and taking action on problems. Fully self-managed work teams even select their own members and have the members evaluate each other’s performance. As a result supervisory roles become less important. But research on the effectiveness of self-managed work teams has not been uniformly positive. Cross-Functional Teams Cross-functional teams are teams made up of employees from about the same hierarchical level, but from different work areas, who come together to accomplish a task. Many organizations have used horizontal, boundary-spanning groups for years. Cross-functional teams are challenging to manage. Virtual Teams Virtual teams use computer technology to tie together physically dispersed members in order to achieve a common goal. Despite their ubiquity, virtual teams face special challenges. They may suffer because there is less social rapport and direct interaction among members. As a result, low levels of virtuality in teams results in higher levels of information sharing, but high levels of virtuality hinder it. For virtual teams to be effective, management should ensure that: Trust is established among members (one inflammatory remark in a team member e-mail can severely undermine team trust). Team progress is monitored closely (so the team doesn’t lose sight of its goals and no team member “disappears”). The efforts and products of the team are publicized throughout the organization (so the team does not become invisible). Multiteam Systems The types of teams we’ve described so far are typically smaller, standalone teams, though their activities relate to the broader Objectives of the organization. As tasks become more complex, teams are often made bigger. However, increases in team size are accompanied by higher coordination demands, creating a tipping point at which the addition of another member does more harm than good. To solve this problem, organizations are employing multiteam systems, collections of two or more interdependent teams that share a superordinate goal. In other words, multiteam systems are a “team of teams.” Some factors that make smaller, more traditional teams effective do not necessarily apply to multiteam systems and can even hinder their performance. Creating Effective Teams Introduction Factors for creating effective teams have been summarized in the model found in Exhibit 10-3. Two caveats: First, teams differ in form and structure—be careful not to rigidly apply the model’s predictions to all teams. Second, the model assumes that it is already been determined that teamwork is preferable over individual work. Context: What Factors Determine Whether Teams Are Successful? Four contextual factors most significant to team performance are the following: Adequate resources All work teams rely on resources outside the group to sustain it. A scarcity of resources directly reduces the ability of the team to perform its job effectively. Leadership and structure Teams can’t function if they can’t agree on who is to do what and ensure all members share the workload. Leadership is especially important in multiteam systems. Climate of trust Members of effective teams trust each other and exhibit trust in their leaders. When members trust each other they are more willing to take risks. When members trust their leadership, they are more willing to commit to their leader’s goals and decisions. Performance evaluation and reward systems Individual performance evaluations and individual incentives are not consistent with the development of high-performance teams. In addition to evaluating and rewarding employees for their individual contributions, management should modify the traditional, individually oriented evaluation and reward system to reflect team performance and focus on hybrid systems that recognize individual members for their exceptional contributions and reward the entire group for positive outcomes. Management should consider group-based appraisals, profit sharing, gainsharing, small-group incentives, and other system modifications that will reinforce team effort and commitment. Team Composition Abilities of members Part of a team’s performance depends on the knowledge, skills, and abilities of its individual members. Research reveals some insights into team composition and performance. First, when the task entails considerable thought (solving a complex problem such as reengineering an assembly line), high-ability teams (composed of mostly intelligent members) do better than lower-ability teams, especially when the workload is distributed evenly. The ability of the team’s leader also matters. Personality of members Some of the dimensions identified in the Big Five personality model have shown to be relevant to team effectiveness. Research has also provided us with a good idea about why these personality traits are important to teams. Conscientious people are good at backing up other team members, and they’re also good at sensing when their support is truly needed. One study found that specific behavioral tendencies such as personal organization, cognitive structuring, achievement orientation, and endurance were all related to higher levels of team performance. Open team members communicate better with one another and throw out more ideas, which makes teams composed of open people more creative and innovative. Allocation of roles Teams have different needs, and people should be selected for a team to ensure that there is diversity and that all various roles are filled. Nine roles of potential teams members are found in Exhibit 10-4. Managers need to understand the individual strengths that each person can bring to a team, select members with their strengths in mind, and allocate work assignments accordingly. Put your most able, experienced, and conscientious workers in the most central roles in a team. Diversity of members How does team diversity affect team performance? The degree to which members of a work unit (group, team, or department) share a common demographic attribute, such as age, sex, race, educational level, or length of service in the organization, is the subject of organizational demography. Organizational demography suggests that attributes such as age or the date of joining should help us predict turnover. The logic goes like this: turnover will be greater among those with dissimilar experiences because communication is more difficult and conflict is more likely. Increased conflict makes membership less attractive, so employees are more likely to quit. Similarly, the losers in a power struggle are more apt to leave voluntarily or be forced out. Many of us hold the optimistic view that diversity should be a good thing—diverse teams should benefit from differing perspectives and do better. Two meta-analytic reviews of the research literature show, however, that demographic diversity is essentially unrelated to team performance overall. One qualifier is that gender and ethnic diversity have more negative effects in occupations dominated by white or male employees, but in more demographically balanced occupations, diversity is less of a problem. Diversity in function and expertise are positively related to group performance, but these effects are quite small and depend on the situation. Proper leadership can also improve the performance of diverse teams. When leaders provide an inspirational common goal for members with varying types of education and knowledge, teams are very creative. When leaders don’t provide such goals, diverse teams fail to take advantage of their unique skills and are actually less creative than teams with homogeneous skills. Cultural Differences We have discussed research on team diversity in race or gender. But what about diversity created by national differences? Like the earlier research, evidence here indicates these elements of diversity interfere with team processes, at least in the short term. Cultural diversity does seem to be an asset for tasks that call for a variety of viewpoints. But culturally heterogeneous teams have more difficulty learning to work with each other and solving problems. The good news is that these difficulties seem to dissipate with time. Although newly formed culturally diverse teams underperform newly formed culturally homogeneous teams, the differences disappear after about 3 months. Size of teams Most experts agree, keeping teams small is a key to improving group effectiveness. Generally speaking, the most effective teams have five to nine members. Experts suggest using the smallest number of people who can do the task. Managers often err by making teams too large. It may require only four or five members to develop diversity of views and skills, while coordination problems can increase exponentially as team members are added. When teams have excess members, cohesiveness and mutual accountability decline, social loafing increases, and more people communicate less. Members of large teams have trouble coordinating with one another, especially under time pressure. If a natural working unit is larger and you want a team effort, consider breaking the group into sub teams. Member preferences Not every employee is a team player. Given the option, many employees will select themselves out of team participation. High performing teams are likely to be composed of people who prefer working as part of a group. Team Processes Introduction The final category related to team effectiveness is process variables such as member commitment to a common purpose, establishment of specific team goals, team efficacy, a managed level of conflict, and minimized social loafing. These will be especially important in larger teams, and in teams that are highly interdependent. Why are processes important to team effectiveness? When each member’s contribution is not clearly visible, individuals tend to decrease their effort. Social loafing, in other words, illustrates a process loss from using teams. Exhibit 10-5 illustrates how group processes can have an impact on a group’s actual effectiveness. Teams are often used in research laboratories because they can draw on the diverse skills of various individuals to produce more meaningful research than could be generated by all the researchers working independently—that is, they produce positive synergy, and their process gains exceed their process losses. Common plan and purpose Effective teams begin by analyzing the team’s mission, developing goals to achieve that mission, and creating strategies for achieving the goals. Teams that establish a clear sense of what needs to be done and how consistently perform better. Members of successful teams put a tremendous amount of time and effort into discussing, shaping, and agreeing on a purpose that belongs to them both collectively and individually. Effective teams also show reflexivity, meaning they reflect on and adjust their master plan when necessary. Specific goals Successful teams translate their common purpose into specific, measurable, and realistic performance goals. They energize the team. Specific goals facilitate clear communication and help teams maintain their focus on results. Team goals should be challenging. Team efficacy Effective teams have confidence in themselves and believe they can succeed—this is team efficacy. Teams that have a shared knowledge of who knows what within the team can strengthen the link between the team’s self-efficacy and their individual creativity because members can more effectively solicit opinions and advice from their teammates. What can management do to increase team efficacy? Two options are helping the team achieve small successes that build confidence and providing training to improve members’ technical and interpersonal skills. The greater the abilities of team members, the more likely the team will develop confidence and the ability to deliver on that confidence. Team Identity When people connect emotionally with the groups they’re in, they are more likely to invest in their relationship with those groups. It’s the same with teams. For example, research with soldiers in the Netherlands indicated that individuals who felt included and respected by team members became more willing to work hard for their teams, even though as soldiers they were already called upon to be dedicated to their units. Therefore, by recognizing individuals’ specific skills and abilities, as well as creating a climate of respect and inclusion, leaders and members can foster positive team identity and improved team outcomes. Organizational identity is important, too. Rarely do teams operate in a vacuum— more often teams interact with other teams, requiring inter team coordination. Individuals with a positive team identity but without a positive organizational identity can become fixed to their teams and unwilling to coordinate with other teams within the organization. Team Cohesion The term team cohesion means members are emotionally attached to one another and motivated toward the team because of their attachment. Team cohesion is a useful tool to predict team outcomes. For example, a large study in China recently indicated that if team cohesion is high and tasks are complex, costly investments in promotions, rewards, training, and so forth yield greater profitable team creativity. Teams with low cohesion and simple tasks, on the other hand, are not likely to respond to incentives with greater creativity. Team cohesion is a strong predictor of team performance such that when cohesion is harmed, performance may be too. To mitigate this effect, teams can foster high levels of interdependence and high-quality interpersonal interactions. Mental models Effective teams share accurate mental models—organized mental representations of the key elements within a team’s environment that team members share. If team members have the wrong mental models, which are particularly likely with teams under acute stress, their performance suffers. If team members have different ideas about how to do things, the team will fight over how to do things rather than focus on what needs to be done. Conflict levels Conflict on a team isn’t necessarily bad. Conflict has a complex relationship with team performance. Relationship conflicts—those based on interpersonal incompatibilities, tension, and animosity toward others—are almost always dysfunctional. When teams are performing nonroutine activities, disagreements about task content (called task conflicts) stimulate discussion, promote critical assessment of problems and options, and can lead to better team decisions. A study conducted in China found that moderate levels of task conflict during the initial phases of team performance were positively related to team creativity, but both very low and very high levels of task conflict were negatively related to team performance. The way conflicts are resolved can also make the difference between effective and ineffective teams. Social loafing Individuals can hide inside a group. Effective teams undermine this tendency by making members individually and jointly accountable for the team’s purpose, goals, and approach. Members should be clear on what they are individually responsible for and what they are jointly responsible for on the team. Turning Individuals into Team Players Introduction Many people are not inherently team players. They are loners or want to be recognized for their own accomplishments. There are also a great many organizations that have historically nurtured individual accomplishments. How do we introduce teams in highly individualistic environments? Selecting: Hiring Team Players Some people already possess the interpersonal skills to be effective team players. Care should be taken to ensure that candidates could fulfill their team roles as well as technical requirements. Training: Creating Team Players Training specialists conduct exercises that allow employees to experience the satisfaction teamwork can provide. L’Oréal found that successful sales teams required much more than being staffed with high-ability salespeople: management had to focus much of its efforts on team building. Developing an effective team doesn’t happen overnight—it takes time. Rewarding: Providing Incentives to Be a Good Team Player An organization’s reward system must be reworked to encourage cooperative efforts rather than competitive ones. Hallmark Cards, Inc., added to its basic individual-incentive system an annual bonus based on achievement of team goals. Apparently, the low trust typical of the competitive group will not be readily replaced by high trust with a quick change in reward systems. Promotions, pay raises, and other forms of recognition should be given to individuals who work effectively as team members by training new colleagues, sharing information, helping resolve team conflicts, and mastering needed new skills. This doesn’t mean individual contributions should be ignored; rather, they should be balanced with selfless contributions to the team. Finally, don’t forget the intrinsic rewards, such as camaraderie, that employees can receive from teamwork. It’s exciting and satisfying to be part of a successful team. The opportunity for personal development of self and teammate scan be a very satisfying and rewarding experience. Beware! Teams Are Not Always the Answer Teamwork takes more time and often more resources than individual work. Teams have increased communication demands, conflicts to manage, and meetings to run. The benefits of using teams have to exceed the costs, and that’s not always the case. Before you rush to implement teams, carefully assess whether the work requires or will benefit from a collective effort. How do you know whether the work of your group would be better done in teams? You can apply three tests to see whether a team fits your situation. First, can the work be done better by more than one person? Second, does the work create a common purpose or set of goals for the people in the group that is more than the aggregate of individual goals? The final test is to determine whether the members of the group are interdependent. Summary and Implications for Managers Few trends have influenced jobs as much as the massive movement to introduce teams into the workplace. Working on teams requires employees to cooperate with others, share information, confront differences, and sublimate personal interests for the greater good of the team. Understanding the distinctions between problem solving, self-managed, cross-functional, and virtual teams as well as multiteam systems helps determine the appropriate applications for team-based work. Concepts such as reflexivity, team efficacy, team identity, team cohesion, and mental models bring to light important issues relating to team context, composition, and processes. For teams to function optimally, careful attention must be given to hiring, creating, and rewarding team players. Still, effective organizations recognize that teams are not always the best method for getting the work done efficiently. Careful discernment and an understanding of organizational behavior are needed. Specific implications for mangers are: Effective teams have adequate resources, effective leadership, a climate of trust, and a performance evaluation and reward system that reflects team contributions. These teams have individuals with technical expertise, and the right traits and skills. Effective teams tend to be small. They have members who fill role demands and who prefer to be part of a group. Effective teams have members who believe in the team’s capabilities, are committed to a common plan and purpose, and have an accurate shared mental model of what is to be accomplished. Select individuals who have the interpersonal skills to be effective team players, provide training to develop teamwork skills, and reward individuals for cooperative efforts. Do not assume that teams are always needed. When tasks will not benefit from interdependency, individuals may be the better choice. EXPANDED CHAPTER OUTLINE Why Have Teams Become So Popular? Why are teams popular? In short, because we believe they are effective. Teams can sometimes achieve feats an individual could never accomplish. Teams are more flexible and responsive to changing events than traditional departments or other forms of permanent groupings. They can quickly assemble, deploy, refocus, and disband. They are an effective means to democratize organizations and increase employee involvement. And finally, research indicates that our involvement in teams positively shapes the way we think as individuals, introducing a collaborative mindset about even our personal decision making. The fact that organizations have embraced teamwork doesn’t necessarily mean teams are always effective. Team members, as humans, can be swayed by fads and herd mentality that can lead them astray from the best decisions. Differences Between Groups and Teams Groups and teams are not the same thing. (Exhibit 10-1) In the last chapter, we defined a group as two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve particular Objectives. A work group is a group that interacts primarily to share information and to make decisions to help each member perform within his or her area of responsibility. Work groups have no need or opportunity to engage in collective work that requires joint effort. Their performance is the summation of each group member’s individual contribution. There is no positive synergy that would create an overall level of performance greater than the sum of the inputs. A work team generates positive synergy through coordinated effort. Individual efforts result in a level of performance that is greater than the sum of those individual inputs. Management is looking for that positive synergy that will allow their organizations to increase performance. The extensive use of teams creates the potential for an organization to generate greater outputs with no increase in inputs. Merely calling a group a team doesn’t automatically increase its performance. Types of Teams (Exhibit 10-2) Problem-Solving Team In the past, teams were typically composed of 5–12 hourly employees from the same department who met for a few hours each week to discuss ways of improving quality, efficiency, and the work environment. These problem solving teams rarely have the authority to unilaterally implement their suggested actions. Self-Managed Work Teams Problem-solving teams only make recommendations. Some organizations have created teams to not only make recommendations but also to implement solutions. Self-managed work teams are groups of employees (typically 10–15 in number) who perform highly related or interdependent jobs and take on many of the responsibilities of their former supervisors. This includes planning and scheduling of work, assigning tasks to members, collective control over the pace of work, making operating decisions, and taking action on problems. Fully self-managed work teams even select their own members and have the members evaluate each other’s performance. As a result supervisory roles become less important. But research on the effectiveness of self-managed work teams has not been uniformly positive. Self-managed teams do not typically manage conflicts well. When disputes arise, members stop cooperating and power struggles ensue, which leads to lower group performance. Moreover, although individuals on these teams report higher levels of job satisfaction than other individuals, they also sometimes have higher absenteeism and turnover rates. Cross-Functional Teams Cross-functional teams are teams made up of employees from about the same hierarchical level, but from different work areas, who come together to accomplish a task. Many organizations have used horizontal, boundary-spanning groups for years. IBM created a large task force in the 1960s—made up of employees from across departments in the company—to develop the highly successful System 360. Cross-functional teams are an effective means of allowing people from diverse areas within or even between organizations to exchange information, develop new ideas, solve problems, and coordinate complex projects. Cross-functional teams are challenging to manage. Virtual Teams The previous types of teams do their work face-to-face. Virtual teams use computer technology to tie together physically dispersed members in order to achieve a common goal. They allow people to collaborate online. Despite their ubiquity, virtual teams face special challenges. They may suffer because there is less social rapport and direct interaction among members. As a result, low levels of virtuality in teams results in higher levels of information sharing, but high levels of virtuality hinder it. For virtual teams to be effective, management should ensure that: Trust is established among members (one inflammatory remark in a team member e-mail can severely undermine team trust). Team progress is monitored closely (so the team doesn’t lose sight of its goals and no team member “disappears”). The efforts and products of the team are publicized throughout the organization (so the team does not become invisible). Multiteam Systems The types of teams we’ve described so far are typically smaller, standalone teams, though their activities relate to the broader Objectives of the organization. As tasks become more complex, teams are often made bigger. However, increases in team size are accompanied by higher coordination demands, creating a tipping point at which the addition of another member does more harm than good. To solve this problem, organizations are employing multiteam systems, collections of two or more interdependent teams that share a superordinate goal. In other words, multiteam systems are a “team of teams.” Creating Effective Teams Introduction Factors for creating effective teams have been summarized in the model found in Exhibit 10-3. Two caveats: First, teams differ in form and structure—be careful not to rigidly apply the model’s predictions to all teams. Second, the model assumes that it is already been determined that teamwork is preferable over individual work. Three key components: Contextual influences Team’s composition Process variables Context: What Factors Determine Whether Teams Are Successful? Four contextual factors most significant to team performance are: Adequate resources All work teams rely on resources outside the group to sustain it. A scarcity of resources directly reduces the ability of the team to perform its job effectively. As one set of researchers concluded, “perhaps one of the most important characteristics of an effective work group is the support the group receives from the organization.” This support includes timely information, proper equipment, adequate staffing, encouragement, and administrative assistance. Leadership and structure Teams can’t function if they can’t agree on who is to do what and ensure all members share the workload. Agreeing on the specifics of work and how they fit together to integrate individual skills requires leadership and structure, either from management or from the team members themselves. It’s true in self-managed teams that team members absorb many of the duties typically assumed by managers. However, a manager’s job then becomes managing outside (rather than inside) the team. Leadership is especially important in multiteam systems. Here, leaders need to empower teams by delegating responsibility to them, and they play the role of facilitator, making sure the teams work together rather than against one another. Teams that establish shared leadership by effectively delegating it are more effective than teams with a traditional single-leader structure. Climate of trust Members of effective teams trust each other and exhibit trust in their leaders. When members trust each other, they are more willing to take risks. When members trust their leadership, they are more willing to commit to their leader’s goals and decisions. Performance evaluation and reward systems Individual performance evaluations and individual incentives are not consistent with the development of high-performance teams. In addition to evaluating and rewarding employees for their individual contributions, management should modify the traditional, individually oriented evaluation and reward system to reflect team performance and focus on hybrid systems that recognize individual members for their exceptional contributions and reward the entire group for positive outcomes. Management should consider group-based appraisals, profit sharing, gainsharing, small-group incentives, and other system modifications that will reinforce team effort and commitment. Team Composition Abilities of members Part of a team’s performance depends on the knowledge, skills, and abilities of its individual members. Research reveals some insights into team composition and performance. First, when the task entails considerable thought (solving a complex problem such as reengineering an assembly line), high-ability teams (composed of mostly intelligent members) do better than lower-ability teams, especially when the workload is distributed evenly. That way, team performance does not depend on the weakest link. High-ability teams are also more adaptable to changing situations; they can more effectively apply existing knowledge to new problems. The ability of the team’s leader also matters. Smart team leaders helpless-intelligent team members when they struggle with a task. But a less-intelligent leader can neutralize the effect of a high-ability team. Personality of members Some of the dimensions identified in the Big Five personality model have shown to be relevant to team effectiveness. Teams that rate higher on mean levels of conscientiousness and openness to experience tend to perform better, and the minimum level of team member agreeableness also matters: Teams did worse when they had one or more highly disagreeable members. Perhaps one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch! Research has also provided us with a good idea about why these personality traits are important to teams. Conscientious people are good at backing up other team members, and they’re also good at sensing when their support is truly needed. One study found that specific behavioral tendencies such as personal organization, cognitive structuring, achievement orientation, and endurance were all related to higher levels of team performance. Open team members communicate better with one another and throw out more ideas, which makes teams composed of open people more creative and innovative. Suppose an organization needs to create 20 teams of 4 people each and has 40 highly conscientious people and 40 who score low on conscientiousness. Would the organization be better off: forming 10 teams of highly conscientious people and 10 teams of members low on conscientiousness? “seeding” each team with 2 people who scored high and 2 who scored low on conscientiousness? Perhaps surprisingly, evidence suggests option (i) is the best choice; performance across the teams will be higher if the organization forms 10 highly conscientious teams and 10 teams low in conscientiousness. Allocation of roles Teams have different needs, and people should be selected for a team to ensure that there is diversity and that all the various roles are filled. Nine roles of potential teams members are found in Exhibit 10-4. Managers need to understand the individual strengths that each person can bring to a team, select members with their strengths in mind, and allocate work assignments accordingly. Put your most able, experienced, and conscientious workers in the most central roles in a team. Diversity of members How does team diversity affect team performance? The degree to which members of a work unit (group, team, or department) share a common demographic attribute, such as age, sex, race, educational level, or length of service in the organization, is the subject of organizational demography. Organizational demography suggests that attributes such as age or the date of joining should help us predict turnover. The logic goes like this: turnover will be greater among those with dissimilar experiences because communication is more difficult and conflict is more likely. Increased conflict makes membership less attractive, so employees are more likely to quit. Similarly, the losers in a power struggle are more apt to leave voluntarily or be forced out. Many of us hold the optimistic view that diversity should be a good thing—diverse teams should benefit from differing perspectives and do better. Two meta-analytic reviews of the research literature show, however, that demographic diversity is essentially unrelated to team performance overall. One qualifier is that gender and ethnic diversity have more negative effects in occupations dominated by white or male employees, but in more demographically balanced occupations diversity is less of a problem. Diversity in function and expertise are positively related to group performance, but these effects are quite small and depend on the situation. Proper leadership can also improve the performance of diverse teams. When leaders provide an inspirational common goal for members with varying types of education and knowledge, teams are very creative. When leaders don’t provide such goals, diverse teams fail to take advantage of their unique skills and are actually less creative than teams with homogeneous skills. Cultural Differences We have discussed research on team diversity in race or gender. But what about diversity created by national differences? Like the earlier research, evidence here indicates these elements of diversity interfere with team processes, at least in the short term. Cultural diversity does seem to be an asset for tasks that call for a variety of viewpoints. But culturally heterogeneous teams have more difficulty learning to work with each other and solving problems. The good news is that these difficulties seem to dissipate with time. Although newly formed culturally diverse teams underperform newly formed culturally homogeneous teams, the differences disappear after about 3 months. Size of teams Most experts agree: keeping teams small is a key to improving group effectiveness. Generally speaking, the most effective teams have five to nine members. Experts suggest using the smallest number of people who can do the task. Managers often err by making teams too large. It may require only four or five members to develop diversity of views and skills, while coordination problems can increase exponentially as team members are added. When teams have excess members, cohesiveness and mutual accountability decline, social loafing increases, and more people communicate less. Members of large teams have trouble coordinating with one another, especially under time pressure. If a natural working unit is larger and you want a team effort, consider breaking the group into subteams. Member preferences Not every employee is a team player. Given the option, many employees will select themselves out of team participation. High performing teams are likely to be composed of people who prefer working as part of a group. Team Processes Introduction The final category related to team effectiveness is process variables such as member commitment to a common purpose, establishment of specific team goals, team efficacy, a managed level of conflict, and minimized social loafing. These will be especially important in larger teams, and in teams that are highly interdependent. Why are processes important to team effectiveness? When each member’s contribution is not clearly visible, individuals tend to decrease their effort. Social loafing, in other words, illustrates a process loss from using teams. Exhibit 10-5 illustrates how group processes can have an impact on a group’s actual effectiveness. Teams are often used in research laboratories because they can draw on the diverse skills of various individuals to produce more meaningful research than could be generated by all the researchers working independently—that is, they produce positive synergy, and their process gains exceed their process losses. Common plan and purpose Effective teams begin by analyzing the team’s mission, developing goals to achieve that mission, and creating strategies for achieving the goals. Teams that establish a clear sense of what needs to be done and how consistently perform better. Members of successful teams put a tremendous amount of time and effort into discussing, shaping, and agreeing on a purpose that belongs to them both collectively and individually. Effective teams also show reflexivity, meaning they reflect on and adjust their master plan when necessary. Specific goals Successful teams translate their common purpose into specific, measurable, and realistic performance goals. They energize the team. Specific goals facilitate clear communication and help teams maintain their focus on results. Team goals should be challenging. Team Efficacy Effective teams have confidence in themselves and believe they can succeed—this is team efficacy. Success breeds success. Teams that have a shared knowledge of who knows what within the team can strengthen the link between team members’ self-efficacy and their individual creativity, because members can more effectively solicit opinions and advice from their teammates. What can management do to increase team efficacy? Two options are helping the team achieve small successes that build confidence and providing training to improve members’ technical and interpersonal skills. The greater the abilities of team members, the more likely the team will develop confidence and the ability to deliver on that confidence. Team Identity When people connect emotionally with the groups they’re in, they are more likely to invest in their relationship with those groups. It’s the same with teams. For example, research with soldiers in the Netherlands indicated that individuals who felt included and respected by team members became more willing to work hard for their teams, even though as soldiers they were already called upon to be dedicated to their units. Therefore, by recognizing individuals’ specific skills and abilities, as well as creating a climate of respect and inclusion, leaders and members can foster positive team identity and improved team outcomes. Organizational identity is important, too. Rarely do teams operate in a vacuum—more often teams interact with other teams, requiring inter team coordination. Individuals with a positive team identity but without a positive organizational identity can become fixed to their teams and unwilling to coordinate with other teams within the organization. Team Cohesion The term team cohesion means members are emotionally attached to one another and motivated toward the team because of their attachment. Team cohesion is a useful tool to predict team outcomes. For example, a large study in China recently indicated that if team cohesion is high and tasks are complex, costly investments in promotions, rewards, training, and so forth yield greater profitable team creativity. Teams with low cohesion and simple tasks, on the other hand, are not likely to respond to incentives with greater creativity. Team cohesion is a strong predictor of team performance such that when cohesion is harmed, performance may be too. To mitigate this effect, teams can foster high levels of interdependence and high-quality interpersonal interactions. Mental Models Effective teams share accurate mental models—organized mental representations of the key elements within a team’s environment that team members share. If team members have the wrong mental models, which are particularly likely with teams under acute stress, their performance suffers. If team members have different ideas about how to do things, the team will fight over how to do things rather than focus on what needs to be done. Conflict Levels Conflict on a team isn’t necessarily bad. Conflict has a complex relationship with team performance. Relationship conflicts—those based on interpersonal incompatibilities, tension, and animosity toward others—are almost always dysfunctional. When teams are performing nonroutine activities, disagreements about task content (called task conflicts) stimulate discussion, promote critical assessment of problems and options, and can lead to better team decisions. A study conducted in China found that moderate levels of task conflict during the initial phases of team performance were positively related to team creativity, but both very low and very high levels of task conflict were negatively related to team performance. In other words, both too much and too little disagreement about how a team should initially perform a creative task can inhibit performance. The way conflicts are resolved can also make the difference between effective and ineffective teams. A study of ongoing comments made by autonomous work groups showed that effective teams resolved conflicts by explicitly discussing the issues, whereas ineffective teams had conflicts focused more on personalities and the way things were said. Social Loafing Individuals can engage in social loafing and coast on the group’s effort when their particular contributions can’t be identified. Effective teams undermine this tendency by making members individually and jointly accountable for the team’s purpose, goals, and approach. Members should be clear on what they are individually responsible for and what they are jointly responsible for on the team. Turning Individuals into Team Players Introduction Many people are not inherently team players. Many organizations have historically nurtured individual accomplishments. What can organizations do to enhance team effectiveness – to turn individual contributors into team players? Selecting: Hiring Team Players Some people already possess the interpersonal skills to be effective team players. Care should be taken to ensure that candidates could fulfill their team roles as well as technical requirements. Many job candidates do not have team skills: This is especially true for those socialized around individual contributions. The candidates can undergo training to “make them into team players.” Personal traits also appear to make some people better candidates for working in diverse teams. Teams made up of members who like to work through difficult mental puzzles also seem more effective and capitalizing on the multiple points of view that arise from diversity in age and education. Training: Creating Team Players Training specialists conduct exercises that allow employees to experience the satisfaction teamwork can provide. Workshops help employees improve their problem-solving, communication, negotiation, conflict-management, and coaching skills. L’Oréal found that successful sales teams required much more than being staffed with high-ability salespeople: management had to focus much of its efforts on team building. “What we didn’t account for was that many members of our top team in sales had been promoted because they had excellent technical and executional skills, ” said L’Oréal’s senior VP of sales, David Waldock. As a result of the focus on team training, Waldock says, “We are no longer a team just on paper, working independently.” “We have a real group dynamic now, and it’s a good one.” Developing an effective team doesn’t happen overnight—it takes time. Rewarding: Providing Incentives to Be a Good Team Player An organization’s reward system must be reworked to encourage cooperative efforts rather than competitive ones. Hallmark Cards, Inc. added to its basic individual-incentive system an annual bonus based on achievement of team goals. Whole Foods directs most of its performance-based rewards toward team performance. As a result, teams select new members carefully so they will contribute to team effectiveness (and thus team bonuses). It is usually best to set a cooperative tone as soon as possible in the life of a team. As we already noted, teams that switch from a competitive to a cooperative system do not share information and make rushed, poor-quality decisions. Apparently, the low trust is typical of the competitive group and will not be readily replaced by high trust with a quick change in reward systems. These problems are not seen in teams that have consistently cooperative systems. Promotions, pay raises, and other forms of recognition should be given to individuals who work effectively as team members by training new colleagues, sharing information, helping resolve team conflicts, and mastering needed new skills. This doesn’t mean individual contributions should be ignored; rather, they should be balanced with selfless contributions to the team. Finally, don’t forget the intrinsic rewards, such as camaraderie, that employees can receive from teamwork. It’s exciting and satisfying to be part of a successful team. The opportunity for personal development of self and teammates can be a very satisfying and rewarding experience. Beware! Teams Are Not Always the Answer Teamwork takes more time and often more resources than individual work. Teams have increased communication demands, conflicts to manage, and meetings to run. The benefits of using teams have to exceed the costs, and that’s not always the case. Before you rush to implement teams, carefully assess whether the work requires or will benefit from a collective effort. How do you know whether the work of your group would be better done in teams? You can apply three tests to see whether a team fits your situation. First, can the work be done better by more than one person? A good indicator is the complexity of the work and the need for different perspectives. Simple tasks that don’t require diverse input are probably better left to individuals. Second, does the work create a common purpose or set of goals for the people in the group that is more than the aggregate of individual goals? Many service departments of new-vehicle dealers have introduced teams that link customer-service people, mechanics, parts specialists, and sales representatives. Such teams can better manage collective responsibility for ensuring customer needs are properly met. The final test is to determine whether the members of the group are interdependent. Using teams makes sense when there is interdependence between tasks—the success of the whole depends on the success of each one, and the success of each one depends on the success of the others. Soccer, for instance, is an obvious team sport. Success requires a great deal of coordination between interdependent players. Conversely, except possibly for relays, swim teams are not really teams. They’re groups of individuals performing individually, whose total performance is merely the aggregate summation of their individual performances. Summary and Implications for Managers Few trends have influenced jobs as much as the massive movement to introduce teams into the workplace. Working on teams requires employees to cooperate with others, share information, confront differences, and sublimate personal interests for the greater good of the team. Understanding the distinctions between problem solving, self-managed, cross-functional, and virtual teams as well as multiteam systems helps determine the appropriate applications for team-based work. Concepts such as reflexivity, team efficacy, team identity, team cohesion, and mental models bring to light important issues relating to team context, composition, and processes. For teams to function optimally, careful attention must be given to hiring, creating, and rewarding team players. Still, effective organizations recognize that teams are not always the best method for getting the work done efficiently. Careful discernment and an understanding of organizational behavior are needed. Specific implications for mangers follow: Effective teams have adequate resources, effective leadership, a climate of trust, and a performance evaluation and reward system that reflects team contributions. These teams have individuals with technical expertise, and the right traits and skills. Effective teams tend to be small. They have members who fill role demands and who prefer to be part of a group. Effective teams have members who believe in the team’s capabilities, are committed to a common plan and purpose, and have an accurate shared mental model of what is to be accomplished. Select individuals who have the interpersonal skills to be effective team players, provide training to develop teamwork skills, and reward individuals for cooperative efforts. Do not assume that teams are always needed. When tasks will not benefit from interdependency, individuals may be the better choice. An Ethical Choice The Size of Your Meeting’s Carbon Footprint Despite being in different countries, or even on different continents, many teams in geographically dispersed teams are able to communicate effectively without meeting face-to-face, thanks to technology such as videoconferencing, instant messaging, and email. In fact, members of some of these virtual teams may never meet each other in person. Although the merits of face-to-face versus electronic communication have been debated, there may a strong ethical argument for virtual teams. Keeping team members where they are, as opposed to having them travel every time they need to meet, may be a more environmentally responsible choice. A very large proportion of airline, rail, and car transport is for business purposes and contributes greatly to global carbon dioxide emissions. When teams are able to meet virtually rather than face-to-face, they dramatically reduce their “carbon footprint.” In a globally connected world, what sorts of actions might you take to minimize your organization’s environmental impact from business travel? Several tips might help to get you started thinking about ways that virtual teams can be harnessed for greater sustainability: 1. Encourage all team members to think about whether a face-to-face meeting is really necessary, and to try to utilize alternative communication methods whenever possible. 2. Communicate as much information as possible through virtual means, including email, telephone calls, and videoconferencing. 3. When traveling to team meetings, choose the most environmentally responsible methods possible. Also, check the environmental profile of hotels before booking rooms. 4. If the environmental savings are not enough motivation to reduce travel, consider the financial savings. According to a recent survey, businesses spend about 8 to 12 percent of their entire budget on travel. Communicating electronically can therefore result in two benefits: (a) it’s cheaper and (b) it’s good for the environment. Sources: P. Tilstone, “Cut Carbon… and Bills, ” Director (May 2009), p. 54; L. C. Latimer, “6 Strategies for Sustainable Business Travel, ” Greenbiz (February 11, 2011), www.greenbiz.com; F. Gebhart, “Travel Takes a Big Bite Out of Corporate Expenses, ” Travel Market Report (May 30, 2013), downloaded on June 9, 2013, from www.travelmarketreport.com. Myth or Science? “Team Members Who Are ‘Hot’ Should Make the Play” Before we tell you whether this statement is true or false, we need to take a step back and address another question: “Can individuals go on ‘hot’ streaks?” In teams, and especially in sports, we often hear about players who are on a streak and have the “hot hand.” Basketball player LeBron James scores five baskets in a row, golfer Rory McIlroy makes three birdies in a row for the European Ryder Cup team, and tennis player Serena Williams hits four aces in a row during a doubles match with her sister Venus. Most people (around 90 percent) believe LeBron, Rory, and Serena will continue to score well because they are on a hot streak, performing above their average. Although people believe in the “hot hand, ” the score is tied on whether it actually exists. About half the relevant studies have shown that it does, while the remaining half show it does not. But perception is often reality, so perhaps the more important question is whether belief in the hot hand affects teams’ strategies. One study of volleyball players showed that coaches and players allocate more balls to players who are believed to have the hot hand. Is this a good strategy? If the hot player’s performance is typically lower than her teammates’, then giving her more balls to hit will hurt the team because the better players aren’t getting enough chances to hit. But if the player’s performance is typically higher than that of her teammates, giving her more balls to hit will likely help the team. Considering all the research to date, however, the opening statement appears to be false. Sources: M. Raab, B. Gula, and G. Gigerenzer, “The Hot Hand Exists in Volleyball and Is Used for Allocation Decisions, ” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, no. 1 (2012), pp. 81–-94; T Gilovich, R. Vallone, and A. Tversky, “The Hot Hand in Basketball: On the Misperception of Random Sequences, ” Cognitive Psychology, 17 (1985), pp. 295–-314; and M. Bar-Eli, S. Avugos, and M. Raab, “Twenty Years of ‘“Hot Hand’” Research: The Hot Hand Phenomenon: Review and Critique, ” Psychology, Sport, and Exercise, 7 (2006), pp. 525–-553. Class Exercise Ask students to read http: //www.forbes.com/global/2012/0312/companies-people-india-technology-inmobi-naveen-tewari-hot-hand.html and identify what factors are contributing to Naveen Tewari’s success. Is his success sustainable? Then ask students to look for other examples where individuals could seemingly do no wrong, and then suddenly find everything a challenge. Ask students to identify similarities in the situations. What conclusions can be drawn? Teaching Notes This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as BlackBoard 9.1, Breeze, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See http: //www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information. Career Objectives Is it wrong that I’d rather have guys on my team? Please don’t call me sexist; women are great colleagues and equally effective managers, but I’d rather have men on my team. It’s more relaxing for me and for the other guys, I think, because we naturally understand each other and can talk freely. The teams with all the men that I’ve been on have all been very productive. —Jorge Dear Jorge, With all the talk currently focused on gender diversity in organizations, your viewpoint is refreshingly honest. And your preferences are not uncommon. Researchers who studied 8 years of employee surveys from a large U.S. organization found that individuals were happier on teams mainly of their own gender, whereas those on diverse teams reported less happiness, trust, and cooperation. Researcher Sara Fisher Ellison noted, “People are more comfortable around other people who are like them.” In some ways, the preference for our own gender in teams is an ugly truth. After all, if there hadn’t been gender diversity initiatives and protections, a majority of professional positions may still be closed to women in masculine cultures like Japan, Austria, and Venezuela (see Hofstede’s cultural values in Chapter 5). The value system in many countries has fortunately changed, with increased recognition of team diversity’s potential for higher morale, trust, and satisfaction. Notice that these are values, as opposed to the reported reality from the paragraph above. Ellison concluded that there is a “mismatch between the kind of workplace people think they would like and the actual workplace that would make them happier.” Don’t think this is your ticket to male-only teams, though. Happiness aside, this study found that diverse teams realized significantly greater revenues, productivity, and performance. Other research in Spain indicated that gender-diverse teams realize novel solutions and radical innovation at a greater rate. Still, other research suggests that gender-diverse teams perform better than male-dominated ones in sales and profits. The contextual climate is key, though. One meta-analysis found that gender equality and collectivism were important conditions for task performance in diverse teams; a Danish study indicated that diverse top management teams realized higher financial performance only when the structure supported cross-functional team work; and a study in South Korea indicated that cooperative group norms can lower the negative effects of gender diversity. What all this means for you is that, while you may naturally prefer to work with men, it’s not good for business. You would be better off putting your efforts into creating an egalitarian atmosphere and choosing your teammates based on what they can contribute to your team. Sources: C. Diaz-Garcia, A. Gonzalez-Moreno, and F. Jose Saez-Martinez, “Gender Diversity within R&D Teams: Its Impact on Radicalness of Innovation,” Innovation-Management Policy & Practice 15, no. 2 (2013): 149–60; S. Hoogedoorn, H. Oosterbeek, and M. vanPraag, “The Impact of Gender Diversity on the Performance of Business Teams: Evidence from a Field Experiment,” Management Science 59, no. 7 (2013): 1514–28; N. Opstrup and A. R. Villadsen, “The Right Mix? Gender Diversity in Top Management Teams and Financial Performance, "Public Administration Review, 2015, 291–301; M. Schneid, R. Isidor, C. Li, et al., “The Influence of Cultural Context on the Relationship between Gender Diversity and Team Performance: A Meta-Analysis,” International Journal of Human Resource Management 26, no. 6 (2015): 733–56; J. Y. Seong and D.-S. Hong, “Gender Diversity: How Can We Facilitate Its Positive Effects on Teams?” Social Behavior and Personality 41, no. 3 (2013): 497–508; and R. E. Silverman, “Do Men and Women Like Working Together?” The Wall Street Journal, December 16, 2014, D2. Personal Inventory Assessments Team Development Behaviors Take this assessment to learn more about behavior in teams. Point/Counterpoint To Get the Most Out of Teams, Empower Them Point If you want high-performing teams with members who like each other and their jobs, I have a simple solution. Remove the leash tied to them by management and let them make their own decisions. In other words, empower them. This trend started a long time ago, when organizations realized that creating layers upon layers of bureaucracy thwarts innovation, slows progress to a trickle, and merely provides hoops for people to jump through in order to get anything done. You can empower teams in two ways. One way is structurally, by transferring decision making from managers to team members and giving teams the official power to develop their own strategies. The other way is psychologically, by enhancing team members’ beliefs that they have more authority, even though legitimate authority still rests with the organization’s leaders. However, structural empowerment leads to heightened feelings of psychological empowerment, giving teams (and organizations) the best of both worlds. Research suggests empowered teams benefit in a number of ways. Members are more motivated. They exhibit higher levels of commitment to the team and to the organization. And they perform much better too. Empowerment sends a signal to the team that it is trusted and doesn’t have to be constantly micromanaged by upper leadership. And when teams get the freedom to make their own choices, they accept more responsibility for and take owner-ship of both the good and the bad. Granted, that responsibility also means empowered teams must take the initiative to foster their ongoing learning and development, but teams entrusted with the authority to guide their own destiny do just that. So do yourself (and your company) a favor and make sure that teams, rather than needless layers of middle managers, are the ones making the decisions that count. Counterpoint Empowerment can do some good in certain circumstances, but it’s certainly not a cure-all. Yes, organizations have become flatter over the past several decades, paving the way for decision making authority to seep into the lower levels of the organization. But consider that many teams are “empowered” simply because the management ranks have been so thinned that there is no one left to make the key calls. Empowerment is then just an excuse to ask teams to take on more responsibility without an accompanying increase in tangible benefits like pay. In addition, the organization’s leadership already has a good idea of what it would like its teams (and individual employees) to accomplish. If managers leave teams to their own devices, how likely is it that those teams will always choose what the manager wanted? Even if the manager offers suggestions about how the team might proceed, empowered teams can easily ignore that advice. Instead, they need direction on what goals to pursue and how to pursue them. That’s what effective leadership is all about. When decision making authority is distributed between among team members, each member’s role is less clear, and members lack a leader to whom they can go for advice. And finally, when teams are self-managed, they become like silos, disconnected from the rest of the organization and its mission. Simply handing people authority is no guarantee they will use it effectively. So, leave the power to make decisions in the hands of those who have worked their way up the organization. After all, they got to be leaders for a reason. Source: S. I. Tannenbaum, J. Mathieu, E. Salas, and D. Cohen, “Teams Aare Changing: Are Research and Practice Evolving Fast Enough, ” Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5 (2012), pp. 2–-24; and R. Ashkenas, “How to Empower Your Team for Non-Negotiable Results, ” Forbes (April 24, 2013), downloaded on June 10, 2013, from www.forbes.com. Class Exercise: Divide the class into pairs of groups of three to five students each. Assign one group of the pair to the Point position and the other to the Counterpoint position Ask the pairs to seek additional information from the Internet or other sources about their assigned position. In class, ask pairs to debate the position assigned. After each side of the debate, ask the remainder of the class to vote on the position they think was better supported and more persuasive. Teaching Notes This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as BlackBoard 9.1, Breeze, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See http: //www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information. Instructor Manual for Organizational Behavior Timothy A. Judge Stephen P. Robbins 9781292146300, 9780133507645, 9780136124016

Document Details

Related Documents

person
Jackson Garcia View profile
Close

Send listing report

highlight_off

You already reported this listing

The report is private and won't be shared with the owner

rotate_right
Close
rotate_right
Close

Send Message

image
Close

My favorites

image
Close

Application Form

image
Notifications visibility rotate_right Clear all Close close
image
image
arrow_left
arrow_right