GROUPS AT WORK MORE THAN THE SUM OF THE PARTS
Work groups, or teams, are increasingly common in organizations. Formal groups are those designated as work groups by the organization. The members of these groups usually have shared task objectives. Examples of these formal groups include health care teams, management groups, mining crews and research and development project groups. Informal work groups are not defined by the organization as functional units, but nevertheless have an impact on organizational behaviour. Examples include friendship and pressure groups.
Group influences on work behaviour
Early studies of organizational behaviour show that work groups profoundly influence individual behaviour. In the 1920s and 1930s, several studies were carried out at Western Electric’s Hawthorne Works in Chicago, USA, to examine the effects of illumination levels on workers’ performance in assembling and inspecting relays used in telephone equipment. The researchers varied the level of illumination and studied the effects on workers’ performance. The results showed that any variation in the level of illumination (down to a level almost the equivalent of moonlight) led to improvements in performance. This effect was explained in terms of the workers’ appreciation of the attention and interest shown in their work by researchers and managers, which manifested itself in better work performance. This effect has come to be known as the Hawthorne effect, and field studies that test methods of intervention in organizations have to demonstrate that positive results are not simply due to this effect (this is somewhat analogous to the ‘placebo effect’.
Further studies in the Hawthorne Works examined the effects of several other factors (such as number and length of rest periods, and hours of work) on the performance of a small group of female workers (see Everyday Psychology for more detail on thisphenomenon). The results suggest that the characteristics of the social setting or group are at least as important as the technical aspects of the work in explaining performance (Roethlisberger & Dixon, 1939).
The Hawthorne Effect
The scientific management approach dominated thinking about human performance in organizations in the early part of the twentieth century. It assumed that there was one best way to manage, and that productivity could be maximized by careful study of job content, combined with ergonomic studies, standardized methods of job performance and appropriate selection and training in the precise components required for the job. This approach informed the continued development of assembly line methods in the early twentieth century, best typified in the Ford Motor Company’s approach to vehicle production.
Roethlisberger and Dixon (1939) were inspired by the scientific management approach to investigate the effects of (among other things) illumination levels on workers’ performance in Western Electric’s Hawthorne Works, near Chicago. Their aim was to discover how to optimize the workplace by manipulating factors such as levels of lighting and hours of work, in order to achieve maximum productivity. Two groups of female employees took part in the first element of the investigation, which took place in a relay assembly department.
The control group worked without any changes in the level of illumination in their workroom. In the experimental group the lighting was systematically varied (being sometimes brighter and sometimes dimmer than the standard level of illumination for the control group), and the productivity of the workers was continually monitored. Subsequent investigations examined the effects on productivity of variables such as length of rest pauses, length of the working day and week, and a free lunch. The findings were quite baffling. Both the control group and the experimental group increased their productivity during the study. Regardless of whether illumination levels were increased or decreased, the productivity of the experimental group went up. Even when the illumination was turned so low that the women could barely see what they were doing, productivity went up! The introduction of changed lengths of working hours, weeks and rest pauses had a similar impact. Even the introduction of a free lunch led to improved performance. The results suggested that productivity rose because the women responded favourably to the ‘special attention’ they felt they were getting from the investigators. Knowing they were being studied apparently made them feel important and valued, and they were motivated to do their best, regardless of what changes were introduced. In a second component of the investigation, conducted in the bank wiring room, members of work groups (this time all men) were observed during their work and interviewed at length at the end of the working day or week. There was no intervention here, since the aim was simply to observe the work process and discover how it could be done more efficiently and productively. The men did not improve their productivity. Quite the contrary – they stopped work before the end of the working day and later told the investigators that they were capable of being much more productive. It appeared that the men feared the study would lead the company to raise the level of productivity required for the same rate of pay. So they deliberately kept productivity low to ensure they were not required in the future to achieve unreasonable levels of performance. The men had agreed informal rules between themselves about the level of productivity they would achieve, and they maintained this through their cooperation and shared goals. In contrast to the assumptions of the scientific management approach (i.e. that technological and ergonomic factors are the predominant influences on workplace productivity), these investigations reveal the importance of social factors in work performance. In both cases, interpersonal processes played the major role in determining productivity. These findings mark the birth of the ‘human relations’ movement, which drew attention to the importance of workers’ needs, attitudes, social relationships and group memberships in the workplace. It is an orientation that continues to have a major influence on managerial practice today, most notably in the domain of human resource management.
Roethlisberger, F.J., & Dickson, W.J., 1939, Management and the Worker, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Types of group and what makes them effective
Sundstrom, De Meuse and Futrell (1990) distinguish four main types of formal work teams:
advice/involvement teams – e.g. committees, review panels, boards, quality circles, employee involvement groups, advisory councils;
production/service groups – e.g. assembly teams, manufacturing crews;
project/development groups – e.g. research groups, planning teams, specialist functional teams, development teams, task forces; and
action/negotiation groups – e.g. entertainment groups, expeditions, negotiating teams, surgery teams, cockpit crews.
In some organizations, groups as a whole may be hired, fired, trained, rewarded and promoted. This trend has developed as organizations have grown and become increasingly complex, demanding that shared experiences and complementary skills are constantly utilized in decision-making processes. Another reason for the dominance of the work team is the belief that the combined efforts of individuals may be better than the aggregate of individual contributions – the principle of synergy.
A good deal of effort is now directed toward understanding the factors that promote group effectiveness and this has led to the development of models for understanding teams. A typical model combines inputs, processes and outputs. Inputs include (for example) organizational context and group composition; processesinclude decision-making leadership. Outputs refer to group performance and team member well-being.
This work suggests that, ideally:
teams should have intrinsically interesting tasks to perform (Guzzo & Shea, 1992);
each individual’s role should be essential and unique (Guzzo & Shea, 1992);
each individual should be subject to evaluation and receive clear performance feedback Pritchard et al., 1988);
the team as a whole should have clear objectives, be subject to evaluation, and receive performance feedback (Poulton & West, 1999); and
the team should frequently reflect on their task objectives, strategies and processes, modifying these as appropriate (West, 1996).
Psychological safety in work teams
The research issue In recent years, there has been a wave of research into teams at work. In particular, researchers seek to understand how the climate in work teams affects their performance. In a study of hospital patient care teams (Edmondson, 1996), there were clear differences between members’ beliefs about the social consequences or the safety of reporting medication errors (giving the wrong drug to a patient, or giving too little or too much of the right drug). In some teams, nurses openly reported and discussed errors. In other teams, they kept information about errors to themselves. A nurse in one team said, ‘Mistakes are serious, because of the toxicity of the drugs [we use] – so you’re never afraid to tell the Nurse Manager.’ In contrast, a nurse in another team reported, ‘You get put on trial! People get blamed for mistakes . . . you don’t want to have made one.’
In a subsequent study of 51 work teams in a manufacturing company, Edmondson (1999) examined whether psychological safety was evident, and whether it predicted learning in the team (e.g. about how to do the work better and meet customer requirements).
Design and procedure:- Edmondson studied teams in Office Design Incorporated, an innovative manufacturer of office furniture with some 5000 employees. There were four types of team in the organization: (i) functional teams, including sales, management and manufacturing teams; (ii) self-managed teams in sales and manufacturing; (iii) time-limited cross-functional product development teams; and (iv) time-limited cross-functional project teams. There were three phases of data collection. The first phase involved preliminary qualitative research, in which Edmondson observed eight team meetings, each of which lasted one to three hours. She also conducted 17 interviews (lasting for about an hour each) with members or observers of these eight teams. The second phase involved a questionnaire survey of 496 members of 53 teams, and two or three managers identified as observers of each team. The survey measured learning behaviour in the team (‘we regularly take time out to figure out ways to improve our team’s work process’) and team feedback (e.g. team goals, job satisfaction, team task design, internal motivation). Phase 3 involved follow-up qualitative research with the six teams with the lowest level of learning behaviour, and the six with the highest level of learning behaviour.
The objective was to study these teams in more depth and explore differences between high- and low-learning teams. Edmondson reviewed field notes and tapes to construct short case studies describing each team, which were then used to reveal which factors were most closely related to team learning. Customers’ and managers’ ratings of all the teams in the study were used to provide measures of team performance and learning. Results and implications:- The study revealed considerable support for the relationship between team psychological safety and team learning behaviour. Team psychological safety was conceptualized as a shared belief among members of a team that it is safe to take interpersonal risks and that team members will not embarrass, reject or punish someone for speaking up (a confidence that stems from mutual respect and trust among team members). Edmondson found that psychological safety predicted team learning and that this, in turn, predicted team performance, as rated by managers outside the teams. or example, team members’ own descriptions illustrated how a climate of safety and supportiveness enabled them to embrace error and make changes in product design as a result of seeking customer feedback. A lack of team safety contributed to reluctance to ask for help, and unwillingness to question team goals for fear of sanctions being imposed by managers. Quantitative analyses provided consistent support for the study’s hypotheses: learning behaviour appeared to mediate the relationship between team psychological safety and team performance (i.e. team safety predicted performance because safety led to learning, which, in turn, led to improved performance).
The findings from Edmondson’s research indicate how team design and leadership enable effective team performance.
By producing a climate of psychological safety, they enable team members to explore errors and difficulties and learn from them. Members then make improvements in their work (i.e. products or services), and this, in turn, leads to improved performance. The theoretical and practical implications of this work point to the importance of team psychological safety as a central concept in understanding team composition, processes and outcomes (such as member mental health, and team performance). At the same time, the results have practical implications for how we can make teams more effective and innovative in the workplace.
Edmondson, A.C., 1996, ‘Learning from mistakes is easier said than done: Group and organizational influences on the detection and correction of human error’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32 (1), 5–28.
GROUP DECISION MAKING
Factors in poor decision making
A principal assumption behind formal work groups is that a group will make better decisions than members working alone. And yet a good deal of research shows that social processes can undermine the effectiveness of group decision-making. While group decisions are better than the average of the decisions made individually by group members, experimental groups consistently fall short of the quality of decisions made by the best individual member.The implications of this for board and top management teams are serious. Organizational and social psychologists have therefore devoted considerable effort to identifying the processes that lead to poor group decision making:
Personality factors can affect social behaviour: for example, individual members may be too shy to offer their opinions and knowledge assertively, therefore failing to contribute fully to the group’s store of knowledge (Guzzo & Shea, 1992).
Social conformity effects can cause group members to withhold opinions and information contrary to the majority view, especially an organizationally dominant view (Hackman, 1992; Schlenker, 1980).
Communication skills vary, and some members may be unable to present their views and knowledge successfully, while someone who has mastered ‘impression management’ may disproportionately influence group decisions, even in the absence of expertise (Leery & Kowalski, 1990).
Domination by particular individuals can mean they claim a disproportionate amount of ‘air time’ and argue so vigorously that their own views generally prevail. Interestingly, ‘air time’ and expertise are uncorrelated in groups that perform poorly (Rogelberg, Barnes-Farrell & Lowe, 1992).
Egocentricity might take some individuals to senior positions, but people with this trait tend to be unwilling to consider opinions and knowledge contrary to their own, making for poor communication within the group (Winter, 1973).
Status and hierarchy effects can cause some members’ contributions to be valued and attended to disproportionately.So, when a senior executive is present in a meeting, her views are likely to have an undue influence on the outcome (Hollander, 1958).
Group polarization is the tendency of work groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the average of individual members’ decisions (Myers & Lamm, 1976).
Groupthink – a phenomenon identified by Janis (1982) in his study of policy decisions and fiascos – is when a tightly knit group makes a poor decision because it is more concerned with achieving agreement than with the quality of its decision making. This effect can be especially strong when different departments see themselves as competing with one another or when teams have very strong leaders.n Satisficing – or making minimally acceptable decisions – is another group tendency, and is related to this last point. Observations of group decision-making processes repeatedly show that, rather than generating a range of alternative solutions before selecting the most suitable one, groups tend to identify the first minimally acceptable solution and then search for reasons to accept that decision and reject other possible options (March & Simon, 1958;
Social loafing is the tendency of individuals to put less effort into achieving quality decisions in meetings than they do when individual contributions can be identified and evaluated, their perception being that their contribution is hidden in overall group performance (Latané, Williams & Harkins, 1979)
Diffusion of responsibility can inhibit individuals from taking responsibility for their actions when they are in a group (e.g. Yinon et al., 1982). In this situation, people seem to assume that the group will shoulder responsibility. For example, if there is a crisis involving the functioning of expensive technology, individuals may hold back from tackling the issue on the assumption that others in their team will take responsibility for making the necessary decisions. This can threaten the overall quality of group decisions.
Production-blocking is when individuals are inhibited from both thinking of new ideas and offering them aloud to the group by the competing verbalizations of others (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). This effect has been shown in the study of brainstorming groups: quantity and often quality of ideas produced by individuals working separately consistently exceeded those produced by a group working together.
The hidden profile is the powerful but unconscious tendency of team members to focus on information all or most team members already share and ignoring information that only one or two team members have (even though it may be brought to the attention of the group during decision making and may be crucial) (Stasser, Vaughan & Stewart, 2000). This catalogue of deficiencies indicates that group decisionmaking within organizations is more complex than is commonly appreciated or understood.
Some useful techniques
Recently researchers have begun to identify ways of overcoming some of these deficiencies. For example, research on groupthink has revealed that the phenomenon is most likely to occur in groups where a supervisor is particularly dominant, and cohesiveness per se is not the crucial factor. Supervisors can therefore be trained to be facilitative, seeking the contributions of individual members before offering their own perceptions (see West, 1996). Rogelberg, Barnes-Farrell and Lowe (1992) have offered a structured solution called the ‘stepladder technique’. Each group member has thinking time before proposing any decisions, and then pairs of group members present their ideas to each other and discuss their respective opinions before making any decisions. The next step involves pairs of pairs presenting their views toeach other. The process continues, with each sub-group’s presentation being followed by time for the group as a whole to discuss the problem and ideas proposed. A final decision is put off until the entire group has presented. Initial evidence suggests that the quality of group decisions made using procedures like this is at least as good as that of decisions made by their best individual members. This is consistent with the finding that fostering disagreement in a vigorous but cooperative way in organizations leads to better decisions (Tjosvold, 1998). Teams can avoid the hidden profile problem by ensuring that members have clearly defined roles so that each is seen as a source of potentially unique and important information, by ensuring that members listen carefully to colleagues’ contributions in decision making, and by ensuring that leaders alert the team to information that is uniquely held by only one or two members.
Finally, there is some evidence that work groups that take time out to reflect on and appropriately modify their decision-making processes are more effective than those that do not (Maier, 1970; West, 1996, 2004). While organizational psychologists have contributed a great deal to our understanding of how individual performance can be improved, it should be apparent from the issues considered in this section that research on techniques for optimizing group decision making is still in its infancy. Researchers and practitioners in organizational psychology are increasingly exploring how to structure and manage organizations that ensure that team working fulfils its potential (West & Markiewicz, 2003). This requires that organizations devolve decision making to teams, that the various teams work cooperatively across team boundaries, that teams are well led, and that people management processes (sometimes called Human Resource Management systems or HRM) support team working. The challenge is to discover how to transform traditional organizations into team-based organizations
ORGANIZATIONS AT WORK
Most of the research on work groups has been carried out by psychologists. But the study of organizations has attracted attention from the full range of social and economic sciences. In recent years, psychology has begun to play a relatively larger role, particularly in collaboration with other disciplines.
ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN
The choice of structures and associated managerial processes that enable an organization to operate effectively are described as organizational design. These structures and processes will largely determine how we experience an organization (Pugh, 1998a, b, c). An army is large, highly structured, very formalized and hierarchical, with clear status and rankings that determine authority structures. Army rules and regulations provide strict decisionmaking guidelines as well as restrictions on activities. On the other hand, a small firm of consultants, which offers advice to companies on how to select people for job openings, may have an entirely different form. All consultants may have equal say in
how the business is run; they may operate as independent practitioners; and there may be few rules and regulations determining their behaviour. There are five interrelated concepts within the overarching theme of organizational design: (i) organization, (ii) how they design themselves, (iii) structure, (iv) effectiveness and (v) choice.
1.Organization
The concept of organization can refer to a range of types, including businesses, governmental organizations, hospitals, universities, schools, not-for-profit organizations, churches and so on.
2.Design
Design as a concept implies a deliberate effort to find an appropriate and effective organizational form (Daft, 1992). Having the army run like a small consultancy business, with few rules, no hierarchy and lots of independent action, would render it ineffective in a crisis, unable to orchestrate appropriate action. So design also implies a managerial authority to put organizational structure into effect, i.e. to ensure that particular groups of
people work together on tasks specified by management.
3. Structure
An organization’s structure consists in its rules and regulations (degree of formalization) and the organizational elements that determine procedures for making decisions (degree
of centralization). The military and government departments are examples of highly centralized organizations, whereas decentralized organizations include voluntary organizations and partnerships (Hall, 1992). The trend today is to decentralize decisions as much as possible (though in practice this turns out to be very difficult to achieve), in order to ‘empower’ employees and derive maximum benefit from their knowledge, skills and abilities (Spreitzer, 1995). Structure also includes the degree of specialization – that is, how particular and unique each person’s job is. In some organizations, there is a low degree of specialization and one person may be expected to fill many roles. In a small rural health care team, for example, a nurse may act as receptionist, record keeper, telephonist, computer operator, diagnostician, treatment provider, counsellor and even cleaner. In another organization, people might have highly specialized roles, such as the telesales manager for one specific product line for one particular geographical area.
4. Effectiveness
Organizations are designed to be effective, but defining ‘effectiveness’ is not easy (Cameron, 1986). For a car manufacturer, being effective might mean maximizing productivity and profitability. But there may be other dimensions of effectiveness that serve these ends, too, such as a high level of innovation and creativity in product design, a satisfied workforce strongly committed to learning new skills, reducing waste to improve operating efficiency, and ensuring high quality standards for the product or service that is offered. two core but complementary dimensions – (i) internal vs.external orientation and (ii) flexibility vs. control.To be effective, organizations must focus on the internal environment (safety, rules and regulations) as well as on the external environment (customers, the actions of competitors, government regulations), but they will do so with different degrees of relative emphasis. Organizations will also tend to be predominantly either controlling or flexible in relation to the internal and external environment. Internal control means bureaucracy and rules and regulations. Internal flexibility means developing staff and giving them autonomy to work their own way. External control involves focusing on meeting customer requirements and productivity goals. External flexibility implies a concern with innovation, and adapting the organization to the outside world.
The model, developed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983), suggests that organizational effectiveness must be achieved in four domains:
human relations (internal flexibility)
goals (external control)
internal processes (internal control)
innovation (external flexibility)
Yet these four domains represent underlying conflict (Woodman & Pasmore, 1991) between internal and external orientations of organizational activity, and between control and flexibility (e.g. tightly defining employees’ roles as against encouraging them to develop or ‘grow’ their jobs). How organizations resolve these dilemmas determines both
organizational strategies and effectiveness. It is an interesting exercise to apply the analysis to organizations you are personally familiar with, and to then decide whether you consider that the predominant orientation of the organization is external or internal, and whether the emphasis is on flexibility or control.5. Choice Finally, there is the concept of choice. Structures and processes do not simply evolve. They are a consequence of managerial choices, external factors (e.g. safety issues, or government legislation on equal opportunities) and stakeholder pressures (such as shareholders demanding bigger returns on their investments, or employees pressuring for better working conditions).
Derek Pugh (1930– ) inaugurated and led the Aston Research programme, a major series of studies on the structure, functioning and performance of organizations, and the effects on the attitudes and behaviour of groups and individuals within them (Pugh, 1998a, b, c). This programme began at the University of Aston and later continued at the London Business School and other centres throughout the world. Pugh contributed to the development of the new discipline of Organizational Behaviour in business schools, and he was appointed the first British Professor of the subject at the London Business School in 1970.
The downsizing trend
A critical element of organization design is size, or number of employees (Hall, 1977). The experience of working in large organizations (for example a major oil company such as BP) is very different from working in a smaller organization (such as a research institute which employs about 40 people). Until the 1980s, the general trend was for organizations to grow, but now reductions in size are more common. This is partly because the spread of information technology, the development of networked computers and the evolution of the personal computer have all enabled networks of smaller organizations to collaborate. So nowadays call centres are replacing bank tellers and airlines reservation staff. Organizations are also creating flatter, team-based and less centralized structures with fewer levels of management. And there is a trend towards outsourcing (or contracting out) certain core organizational services, such as catering, cleaning or computer maintenance, thereby reducing the need for a large labour force within an organization.
Work groups, or teams, are increasingly common in organizations. Formal groups are those designated as work groups by the organization. The members of these groups usually have shared task objectives. Examples of these formal groups include health care teams, management groups, mining crews and research and development project groups. Informal work groups are not defined by the organization as functional units, but nevertheless have an impact on organizational behaviour. Examples include friendship and pressure groups.
Group influences on work behaviour
Early studies of organizational behaviour show that work groups profoundly influence individual behaviour. In the 1920s and 1930s, several studies were carried out at Western Electric’s Hawthorne Works in Chicago, USA, to examine the effects of illumination levels on workers’ performance in assembling and inspecting relays used in telephone equipment. The researchers varied the level of illumination and studied the effects on workers’ performance. The results showed that any variation in the level of illumination (down to a level almost the equivalent of moonlight) led to improvements in performance. This effect was explained in terms of the workers’ appreciation of the attention and interest shown in their work by researchers and managers, which manifested itself in better work performance. This effect has come to be known as the Hawthorne effect, and field studies that test methods of intervention in organizations have to demonstrate that positive results are not simply due to this effect (this is somewhat analogous to the ‘placebo effect’.
Further studies in the Hawthorne Works examined the effects of several other factors (such as number and length of rest periods, and hours of work) on the performance of a small group of female workers (see Everyday Psychology for more detail on thisphenomenon). The results suggest that the characteristics of the social setting or group are at least as important as the technical aspects of the work in explaining performance (Roethlisberger & Dixon, 1939).
The Hawthorne Effect
The scientific management approach dominated thinking about human performance in organizations in the early part of the twentieth century. It assumed that there was one best way to manage, and that productivity could be maximized by careful study of job content, combined with ergonomic studies, standardized methods of job performance and appropriate selection and training in the precise components required for the job. This approach informed the continued development of assembly line methods in the early twentieth century, best typified in the Ford Motor Company’s approach to vehicle production.
Roethlisberger and Dixon (1939) were inspired by the scientific management approach to investigate the effects of (among other things) illumination levels on workers’ performance in Western Electric’s Hawthorne Works, near Chicago. Their aim was to discover how to optimize the workplace by manipulating factors such as levels of lighting and hours of work, in order to achieve maximum productivity. Two groups of female employees took part in the first element of the investigation, which took place in a relay assembly department.
The control group worked without any changes in the level of illumination in their workroom. In the experimental group the lighting was systematically varied (being sometimes brighter and sometimes dimmer than the standard level of illumination for the control group), and the productivity of the workers was continually monitored. Subsequent investigations examined the effects on productivity of variables such as length of rest pauses, length of the working day and week, and a free lunch. The findings were quite baffling. Both the control group and the experimental group increased their productivity during the study. Regardless of whether illumination levels were increased or decreased, the productivity of the experimental group went up. Even when the illumination was turned so low that the women could barely see what they were doing, productivity went up! The introduction of changed lengths of working hours, weeks and rest pauses had a similar impact. Even the introduction of a free lunch led to improved performance. The results suggested that productivity rose because the women responded favourably to the ‘special attention’ they felt they were getting from the investigators. Knowing they were being studied apparently made them feel important and valued, and they were motivated to do their best, regardless of what changes were introduced. In a second component of the investigation, conducted in the bank wiring room, members of work groups (this time all men) were observed during their work and interviewed at length at the end of the working day or week. There was no intervention here, since the aim was simply to observe the work process and discover how it could be done more efficiently and productively. The men did not improve their productivity. Quite the contrary – they stopped work before the end of the working day and later told the investigators that they were capable of being much more productive. It appeared that the men feared the study would lead the company to raise the level of productivity required for the same rate of pay. So they deliberately kept productivity low to ensure they were not required in the future to achieve unreasonable levels of performance. The men had agreed informal rules between themselves about the level of productivity they would achieve, and they maintained this through their cooperation and shared goals. In contrast to the assumptions of the scientific management approach (i.e. that technological and ergonomic factors are the predominant influences on workplace productivity), these investigations reveal the importance of social factors in work performance. In both cases, interpersonal processes played the major role in determining productivity. These findings mark the birth of the ‘human relations’ movement, which drew attention to the importance of workers’ needs, attitudes, social relationships and group memberships in the workplace. It is an orientation that continues to have a major influence on managerial practice today, most notably in the domain of human resource management.
Roethlisberger, F.J., & Dickson, W.J., 1939, Management and the Worker, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Types of group and what makes them effective
Sundstrom, De Meuse and Futrell (1990) distinguish four main types of formal work teams:
advice/involvement teams – e.g. committees, review panels, boards, quality circles, employee involvement groups, advisory councils;
production/service groups – e.g. assembly teams, manufacturing crews;
project/development groups – e.g. research groups, planning teams, specialist functional teams, development teams, task forces; and
action/negotiation groups – e.g. entertainment groups, expeditions, negotiating teams, surgery teams, cockpit crews.
In some organizations, groups as a whole may be hired, fired, trained, rewarded and promoted. This trend has developed as organizations have grown and become increasingly complex, demanding that shared experiences and complementary skills are constantly utilized in decision-making processes. Another reason for the dominance of the work team is the belief that the combined efforts of individuals may be better than the aggregate of individual contributions – the principle of synergy.
A good deal of effort is now directed toward understanding the factors that promote group effectiveness and this has led to the development of models for understanding teams. A typical model combines inputs, processes and outputs. Inputs include (for example) organizational context and group composition; processesinclude decision-making leadership. Outputs refer to group performance and team member well-being.
This work suggests that, ideally:
teams should have intrinsically interesting tasks to perform (Guzzo & Shea, 1992);
each individual’s role should be essential and unique (Guzzo & Shea, 1992);
each individual should be subject to evaluation and receive clear performance feedback Pritchard et al., 1988);
the team as a whole should have clear objectives, be subject to evaluation, and receive performance feedback (Poulton & West, 1999); and
the team should frequently reflect on their task objectives, strategies and processes, modifying these as appropriate (West, 1996).
Psychological safety in work teams
The research issue In recent years, there has been a wave of research into teams at work. In particular, researchers seek to understand how the climate in work teams affects their performance. In a study of hospital patient care teams (Edmondson, 1996), there were clear differences between members’ beliefs about the social consequences or the safety of reporting medication errors (giving the wrong drug to a patient, or giving too little or too much of the right drug). In some teams, nurses openly reported and discussed errors. In other teams, they kept information about errors to themselves. A nurse in one team said, ‘Mistakes are serious, because of the toxicity of the drugs [we use] – so you’re never afraid to tell the Nurse Manager.’ In contrast, a nurse in another team reported, ‘You get put on trial! People get blamed for mistakes . . . you don’t want to have made one.’
In a subsequent study of 51 work teams in a manufacturing company, Edmondson (1999) examined whether psychological safety was evident, and whether it predicted learning in the team (e.g. about how to do the work better and meet customer requirements).
Design and procedure:- Edmondson studied teams in Office Design Incorporated, an innovative manufacturer of office furniture with some 5000 employees. There were four types of team in the organization: (i) functional teams, including sales, management and manufacturing teams; (ii) self-managed teams in sales and manufacturing; (iii) time-limited cross-functional product development teams; and (iv) time-limited cross-functional project teams. There were three phases of data collection. The first phase involved preliminary qualitative research, in which Edmondson observed eight team meetings, each of which lasted one to three hours. She also conducted 17 interviews (lasting for about an hour each) with members or observers of these eight teams. The second phase involved a questionnaire survey of 496 members of 53 teams, and two or three managers identified as observers of each team. The survey measured learning behaviour in the team (‘we regularly take time out to figure out ways to improve our team’s work process’) and team feedback (e.g. team goals, job satisfaction, team task design, internal motivation). Phase 3 involved follow-up qualitative research with the six teams with the lowest level of learning behaviour, and the six with the highest level of learning behaviour.
The objective was to study these teams in more depth and explore differences between high- and low-learning teams. Edmondson reviewed field notes and tapes to construct short case studies describing each team, which were then used to reveal which factors were most closely related to team learning. Customers’ and managers’ ratings of all the teams in the study were used to provide measures of team performance and learning. Results and implications:- The study revealed considerable support for the relationship between team psychological safety and team learning behaviour. Team psychological safety was conceptualized as a shared belief among members of a team that it is safe to take interpersonal risks and that team members will not embarrass, reject or punish someone for speaking up (a confidence that stems from mutual respect and trust among team members). Edmondson found that psychological safety predicted team learning and that this, in turn, predicted team performance, as rated by managers outside the teams. or example, team members’ own descriptions illustrated how a climate of safety and supportiveness enabled them to embrace error and make changes in product design as a result of seeking customer feedback. A lack of team safety contributed to reluctance to ask for help, and unwillingness to question team goals for fear of sanctions being imposed by managers. Quantitative analyses provided consistent support for the study’s hypotheses: learning behaviour appeared to mediate the relationship between team psychological safety and team performance (i.e. team safety predicted performance because safety led to learning, which, in turn, led to improved performance).
The findings from Edmondson’s research indicate how team design and leadership enable effective team performance.
By producing a climate of psychological safety, they enable team members to explore errors and difficulties and learn from them. Members then make improvements in their work (i.e. products or services), and this, in turn, leads to improved performance. The theoretical and practical implications of this work point to the importance of team psychological safety as a central concept in understanding team composition, processes and outcomes (such as member mental health, and team performance). At the same time, the results have practical implications for how we can make teams more effective and innovative in the workplace.
Edmondson, A.C., 1996, ‘Learning from mistakes is easier said than done: Group and organizational influences on the detection and correction of human error’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32 (1), 5–28.
GROUP DECISION MAKING
Factors in poor decision making
A principal assumption behind formal work groups is that a group will make better decisions than members working alone. And yet a good deal of research shows that social processes can undermine the effectiveness of group decision-making. While group decisions are better than the average of the decisions made individually by group members, experimental groups consistently fall short of the quality of decisions made by the best individual member.The implications of this for board and top management teams are serious. Organizational and social psychologists have therefore devoted considerable effort to identifying the processes that lead to poor group decision making:
Personality factors can affect social behaviour: for example, individual members may be too shy to offer their opinions and knowledge assertively, therefore failing to contribute fully to the group’s store of knowledge (Guzzo & Shea, 1992).
Social conformity effects can cause group members to withhold opinions and information contrary to the majority view, especially an organizationally dominant view (Hackman, 1992; Schlenker, 1980).
Communication skills vary, and some members may be unable to present their views and knowledge successfully, while someone who has mastered ‘impression management’ may disproportionately influence group decisions, even in the absence of expertise (Leery & Kowalski, 1990).
Domination by particular individuals can mean they claim a disproportionate amount of ‘air time’ and argue so vigorously that their own views generally prevail. Interestingly, ‘air time’ and expertise are uncorrelated in groups that perform poorly (Rogelberg, Barnes-Farrell & Lowe, 1992).
Egocentricity might take some individuals to senior positions, but people with this trait tend to be unwilling to consider opinions and knowledge contrary to their own, making for poor communication within the group (Winter, 1973).
Status and hierarchy effects can cause some members’ contributions to be valued and attended to disproportionately.So, when a senior executive is present in a meeting, her views are likely to have an undue influence on the outcome (Hollander, 1958).
Group polarization is the tendency of work groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the average of individual members’ decisions (Myers & Lamm, 1976).
Groupthink – a phenomenon identified by Janis (1982) in his study of policy decisions and fiascos – is when a tightly knit group makes a poor decision because it is more concerned with achieving agreement than with the quality of its decision making. This effect can be especially strong when different departments see themselves as competing with one another or when teams have very strong leaders.n Satisficing – or making minimally acceptable decisions – is another group tendency, and is related to this last point. Observations of group decision-making processes repeatedly show that, rather than generating a range of alternative solutions before selecting the most suitable one, groups tend to identify the first minimally acceptable solution and then search for reasons to accept that decision and reject other possible options (March & Simon, 1958;
Social loafing is the tendency of individuals to put less effort into achieving quality decisions in meetings than they do when individual contributions can be identified and evaluated, their perception being that their contribution is hidden in overall group performance (Latané, Williams & Harkins, 1979)
Diffusion of responsibility can inhibit individuals from taking responsibility for their actions when they are in a group (e.g. Yinon et al., 1982). In this situation, people seem to assume that the group will shoulder responsibility. For example, if there is a crisis involving the functioning of expensive technology, individuals may hold back from tackling the issue on the assumption that others in their team will take responsibility for making the necessary decisions. This can threaten the overall quality of group decisions.
Production-blocking is when individuals are inhibited from both thinking of new ideas and offering them aloud to the group by the competing verbalizations of others (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). This effect has been shown in the study of brainstorming groups: quantity and often quality of ideas produced by individuals working separately consistently exceeded those produced by a group working together.
The hidden profile is the powerful but unconscious tendency of team members to focus on information all or most team members already share and ignoring information that only one or two team members have (even though it may be brought to the attention of the group during decision making and may be crucial) (Stasser, Vaughan & Stewart, 2000). This catalogue of deficiencies indicates that group decisionmaking within organizations is more complex than is commonly appreciated or understood.
Some useful techniques
Recently researchers have begun to identify ways of overcoming some of these deficiencies. For example, research on groupthink has revealed that the phenomenon is most likely to occur in groups where a supervisor is particularly dominant, and cohesiveness per se is not the crucial factor. Supervisors can therefore be trained to be facilitative, seeking the contributions of individual members before offering their own perceptions (see West, 1996). Rogelberg, Barnes-Farrell and Lowe (1992) have offered a structured solution called the ‘stepladder technique’. Each group member has thinking time before proposing any decisions, and then pairs of group members present their ideas to each other and discuss their respective opinions before making any decisions. The next step involves pairs of pairs presenting their views toeach other. The process continues, with each sub-group’s presentation being followed by time for the group as a whole to discuss the problem and ideas proposed. A final decision is put off until the entire group has presented. Initial evidence suggests that the quality of group decisions made using procedures like this is at least as good as that of decisions made by their best individual members. This is consistent with the finding that fostering disagreement in a vigorous but cooperative way in organizations leads to better decisions (Tjosvold, 1998). Teams can avoid the hidden profile problem by ensuring that members have clearly defined roles so that each is seen as a source of potentially unique and important information, by ensuring that members listen carefully to colleagues’ contributions in decision making, and by ensuring that leaders alert the team to information that is uniquely held by only one or two members.
Finally, there is some evidence that work groups that take time out to reflect on and appropriately modify their decision-making processes are more effective than those that do not (Maier, 1970; West, 1996, 2004). While organizational psychologists have contributed a great deal to our understanding of how individual performance can be improved, it should be apparent from the issues considered in this section that research on techniques for optimizing group decision making is still in its infancy. Researchers and practitioners in organizational psychology are increasingly exploring how to structure and manage organizations that ensure that team working fulfils its potential (West & Markiewicz, 2003). This requires that organizations devolve decision making to teams, that the various teams work cooperatively across team boundaries, that teams are well led, and that people management processes (sometimes called Human Resource Management systems or HRM) support team working. The challenge is to discover how to transform traditional organizations into team-based organizations
ORGANIZATIONS AT WORK
Most of the research on work groups has been carried out by psychologists. But the study of organizations has attracted attention from the full range of social and economic sciences. In recent years, psychology has begun to play a relatively larger role, particularly in collaboration with other disciplines.
ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN
The choice of structures and associated managerial processes that enable an organization to operate effectively are described as organizational design. These structures and processes will largely determine how we experience an organization (Pugh, 1998a, b, c). An army is large, highly structured, very formalized and hierarchical, with clear status and rankings that determine authority structures. Army rules and regulations provide strict decisionmaking guidelines as well as restrictions on activities. On the other hand, a small firm of consultants, which offers advice to companies on how to select people for job openings, may have an entirely different form. All consultants may have equal say in
how the business is run; they may operate as independent practitioners; and there may be few rules and regulations determining their behaviour. There are five interrelated concepts within the overarching theme of organizational design: (i) organization, (ii) how they design themselves, (iii) structure, (iv) effectiveness and (v) choice.
1.Organization
The concept of organization can refer to a range of types, including businesses, governmental organizations, hospitals, universities, schools, not-for-profit organizations, churches and so on.
2.Design
Design as a concept implies a deliberate effort to find an appropriate and effective organizational form (Daft, 1992). Having the army run like a small consultancy business, with few rules, no hierarchy and lots of independent action, would render it ineffective in a crisis, unable to orchestrate appropriate action. So design also implies a managerial authority to put organizational structure into effect, i.e. to ensure that particular groups of
people work together on tasks specified by management.
3. Structure
An organization’s structure consists in its rules and regulations (degree of formalization) and the organizational elements that determine procedures for making decisions (degree
of centralization). The military and government departments are examples of highly centralized organizations, whereas decentralized organizations include voluntary organizations and partnerships (Hall, 1992). The trend today is to decentralize decisions as much as possible (though in practice this turns out to be very difficult to achieve), in order to ‘empower’ employees and derive maximum benefit from their knowledge, skills and abilities (Spreitzer, 1995). Structure also includes the degree of specialization – that is, how particular and unique each person’s job is. In some organizations, there is a low degree of specialization and one person may be expected to fill many roles. In a small rural health care team, for example, a nurse may act as receptionist, record keeper, telephonist, computer operator, diagnostician, treatment provider, counsellor and even cleaner. In another organization, people might have highly specialized roles, such as the telesales manager for one specific product line for one particular geographical area.
4. Effectiveness
Organizations are designed to be effective, but defining ‘effectiveness’ is not easy (Cameron, 1986). For a car manufacturer, being effective might mean maximizing productivity and profitability. But there may be other dimensions of effectiveness that serve these ends, too, such as a high level of innovation and creativity in product design, a satisfied workforce strongly committed to learning new skills, reducing waste to improve operating efficiency, and ensuring high quality standards for the product or service that is offered. two core but complementary dimensions – (i) internal vs.external orientation and (ii) flexibility vs. control.To be effective, organizations must focus on the internal environment (safety, rules and regulations) as well as on the external environment (customers, the actions of competitors, government regulations), but they will do so with different degrees of relative emphasis. Organizations will also tend to be predominantly either controlling or flexible in relation to the internal and external environment. Internal control means bureaucracy and rules and regulations. Internal flexibility means developing staff and giving them autonomy to work their own way. External control involves focusing on meeting customer requirements and productivity goals. External flexibility implies a concern with innovation, and adapting the organization to the outside world.
The model, developed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983), suggests that organizational effectiveness must be achieved in four domains:
human relations (internal flexibility)
goals (external control)
internal processes (internal control)
innovation (external flexibility)
Yet these four domains represent underlying conflict (Woodman & Pasmore, 1991) between internal and external orientations of organizational activity, and between control and flexibility (e.g. tightly defining employees’ roles as against encouraging them to develop or ‘grow’ their jobs). How organizations resolve these dilemmas determines both
organizational strategies and effectiveness. It is an interesting exercise to apply the analysis to organizations you are personally familiar with, and to then decide whether you consider that the predominant orientation of the organization is external or internal, and whether the emphasis is on flexibility or control.5. Choice Finally, there is the concept of choice. Structures and processes do not simply evolve. They are a consequence of managerial choices, external factors (e.g. safety issues, or government legislation on equal opportunities) and stakeholder pressures (such as shareholders demanding bigger returns on their investments, or employees pressuring for better working conditions).
Derek Pugh (1930– ) inaugurated and led the Aston Research programme, a major series of studies on the structure, functioning and performance of organizations, and the effects on the attitudes and behaviour of groups and individuals within them (Pugh, 1998a, b, c). This programme began at the University of Aston and later continued at the London Business School and other centres throughout the world. Pugh contributed to the development of the new discipline of Organizational Behaviour in business schools, and he was appointed the first British Professor of the subject at the London Business School in 1970.
The downsizing trend
A critical element of organization design is size, or number of employees (Hall, 1977). The experience of working in large organizations (for example a major oil company such as BP) is very different from working in a smaller organization (such as a research institute which employs about 40 people). Until the 1980s, the general trend was for organizations to grow, but now reductions in size are more common. This is partly because the spread of information technology, the development of networked computers and the evolution of the personal computer have all enabled networks of smaller organizations to collaborate. So nowadays call centres are replacing bank tellers and airlines reservation staff. Organizations are also creating flatter, team-based and less centralized structures with fewer levels of management. And there is a trend towards outsourcing (or contracting out) certain core organizational services, such as catering, cleaning or computer maintenance, thereby reducing the need for a large labour force within an organization.
No comments:
Post a Comment