ISSUE 02 : 2004

Contact Us : Unsubscribe : Additional subscription : View our website

How 'Real' is it? In the last edition of our newsletter I wrote an article titled “what is team building?” I wrote this in response to the sheer volume of activities being marketed as “Team Building” and the need to be very clear about your outcomes when selecting a team building event. It’s your outcomes that should drive your activity selection, level of debrief, and whether other learning is blended into the program. This issue of clear outcomes is critical to creating effective training programs generally and specifically to what type of approach will be the most effective. When discussing training programs I am sometimes asked about the relevance of an experiential learning approach to serious learning and development programs. At the heart of the question is a concern about whether the training is ‘real’ enough if it incorporates exercises and experiential activities. Unfortunately too many people have participated in experiential training that was either not relevant to the outcomes or was facilitated so poorly it did not add value to the learning. On top of this our Universities strongly favour “lecture” style learning programs and the majority of Corporate Training is PowerPoint driven. It’s no surprise that people are wondering where Experiential Learning fits in or whether it is relevant and ‘real.’ I would encourage you to think about the most powerful learning experiences that you have ever had. Think about experiences that truly led to change, that have prompted a motivation strong enough for you to adopt different behaviours and develop different habits. I suggest the common thread will be that you had a true “experience” that led to a re-evaluation of your current behaviours and subsequent change. Corporate Training programs must deliver concepts and ideas in a manner that participants truly experience for themselves. I recently facilitated a program for the AGSM and in one simple activity one of the MBA students ‘experienced’ the consequences of poor planning so clearly that his behaviour significantly changed. He had participated in planning ‘training’ and theory before, however this time he truly experienced it and that experience changed him. How many people do you know that have participated in training programs and nothing has changed as a result? They hear it but they don’t get it. Experiential learning is the link that helps them get it. Your participants need to experience the concepts you are presenting, rather than just hearing them. With almost two decades of experience Team Focus are experts at creating a learning “experience.” We understand your objectives and can blend your outcomes with the appropriate activity or exercise in order to achieve your outcomes. The secret is in understanding the distinctions that a particular exercise will create and blending them with appropriate learning models. In this formula your participants will have a much greater chance of a true learning ‘experience.’ Ross Judd, Managing Director, Team Focus

The latest research puts common assumptions about teamwork on trial. Authors: Catherine Collins (PHD Student & Research Fellow) and Professor Sharon Parker There is currently a research program at AGSM to investigate what drives team effectiveness over a team’s lifespan. Two preliminary findings from this research were outlined in the previous newsletter. In summary, Finding 1: Teams don’t all develop in the same way, even when they are in the same environment, with the same resources and levels of support. Implication for practitioners Providing team-specific feedback to the team is necessary so appropriate interventions can be tailored to their needs; blanket interventions introduced across all teams (e.g., sending all teams on a course for conflict resolution) will be cost-inefficient because some teams will not need this support. Finding 2. It is not always a case of ‘the good teams get better and the bad teams get worse’. Implication for practitioners. When introducing teams, organisations often put a great deal of effort into setting up ‘good teams’ (e.g., focusing on the perfect group composition then providing them with training). However teams can start out well, but then come off the rails. Teams need to continually review their progress and be supported beyond the initial start up phase. Some further preliminary findings are now elaborated. Finding 3. Having team members who are experienced in teamwork doesn’t necessarily make for a successful team. People often assume when putting together a team that it will help to include team members who have considerable experience working in teams. It is believed this experience will help the team surge ahead. But this is not necessarily the case. In our research, teams comprised of members with more ‘team experience’ did not necessarily work together more effectively in the long term. Initially this finding may seem counter-intuitive. One would expect that as an individual gathers more experience, s/he is able to use this experience when working in new team situations. However, our research suggests this is not so. One explanation is that employees are frequently pressured to complete the task as soon as possible. Much of the literature on team development suggests that to save time and effort, people implement established routines and structures for working in teams that they have used before, without considering whether these routines and structures are applicable to the specific context. In sum, many managers and team members spend little time ‘reflecting’ on what did and did not work effectively in teams, and what might be required given the new setting. We have found this process of reflexivity is important for team performance and viability. Implication for practitioners When selecting members for a team, do not assume that those with lots of teamwork experience will be a good team players. Managers need to encourage teams to regularly revise their strategies for working together, taking into account changes in the team task and situation. Team members also need to realise that they need to move beyond teamwork strategies that have worked previously. Finding 4. Team processes are more important determinants of team success than personality as they are more amenable to change Theories and models of team effectiveness advocate a variety of factors that improve the performance and viability of teams. To broadly categorise what drives team effectiveness, there are organisational factors (e.g. human resource systems) as well factors internal to the team (e.g. team composition and team processes). Our research has focused on the later, with particular focus on identifying what processes are crucial for a team to work together effectively in the long term. By team processes, we mean the manner in which the team works together to achieve its goals (e.g. participation in decision making, helping behaviours). It would be very simplistic to conclude that team effectiveness all comes down an aspect of team composition such as the personality of team members. Although this may seem a straightforward statement that most people could derive logistically, our research has shown that when difficulties arise in teams, members (even executive managers!) are all too quick to pinpoint the problem to a ‘personality conflict’. There is plenty of research that demonstrates personality does influence teamwork, however, it is what is done with this information that is important. We advocate that seeking to find the team with the optimal ‘personality mix’ is problematic. This information does not help teams who are already working together. Furthermore, there are other more important competing demands in organisations when forming teams (e.g. skills, availability of employees), thus creating teams based on personality alone is quite an unrealistic goal. An alternative approach to investigating the influence of personality in teams is to identify how team members’ personality (e.g. an extreme extravert, one disagreeable person) impacts team processes, and then in turn how this influences team performance and viability. This type of information will provide implications for practitioners that can be implemented. When the team processes influenced by personality are identified, managers and team members can set up a team work design and create team norms for these processes to be fostered so team outcomes are maximised. Looking to change team processes has utility because they are malleable and in the realm of influence. Our preliminary research has looked at which team processes are important. There has been a vast amount of research demonstrating that various team processes (e.g., conflict management, constructive controversy) are important for team effectiveness. Our research is unique in that we identify how these linkages between team processes and team effectiveness evolve over time. First, we looked at how various team processes change over the lifespan of teams. For example, in preliminary findings we have found that on average, Role clarity increases the longer teams work together. So, in general, as teams work together, the members become clearer about their tasks and how to work with one another. Workload sharing decreases the longer teams work together, implying that social loafers are likely to appear later in the team lifespan. However around these average trends, we find that for all team processes, some teams increase and others decrease. So not all teams experience Tuckman’s model stages of team development, that is Forming - Storming - Norming - Performing. Various dimensions of teamwork may improve over time, while others such as workload sharing require more attention later in the team lifespan. Second, we investigate when these various team processes are important for team effectiveness. That is we ask the question – what are the factors that send teams off on a positive spiral rather than a negative spiral?  In other words, what is it that enables teams to be effective initially and also in the longer term? Our preliminary research has demonstrated that: Role clarity is crucial for newly formed teams. Workload sharing is a process that needs more attention later in the team’s lifespan, as team members are less likely to be as enthusiastic to exert effort and spend time on team tasks after working together for some time. Participation in decision-making is important throughout the team lifespan. Such participation serves two purposes; (1) it enables team decisions to be discussed in detail making group think less likely, and (2) builds commitment between group members so all members feel as though they are contributing.  The great thing about these research findings on team processes is that it is possible to intervene to improve team effectiveness. So if a team is not working very effectively, whether it be at the beginning of the team’s lifespan, or after working together for a long time, one can design a strategy to change this. Implications for practitioners Effective teams balance the need between prescription and involvement. Creating clear roles for team members facilitates quick progress on tasks. However, if roles are allocated and team members do not contribute to decision-making, they will have less commitment to team goals. Teams and managers need to walk the tight-rope between prescription and involvement.  Not all aspects of teamwork develop similarly. Thus mangers and team members need to consistently review and identify areas of teamwork that are working well in addition to identifying areas to improve. In this way, teams will be able to keep a balanced mix of what to continue and challenges to work on.  Keep tuned We are working on some research to look at the links between personality - team processes - team effectiveness. With this research, we are seeking to identify how a team can sort out ‘personality conflicts’. This will be reported in another In Focus newsletter. In the next issue of In Focus, we will report preliminary findings on: What are the critical success factors for organisations to support teams? Learning lessons from a success story. Do you want to know more about the research? Or do you want to assess how organisational change (e.g. implementing teams, organisational restructures) impacts employees (e.g. turnover, commitment) and bottom-line performance through a data feedback program? If so, please contact Professor Sharon Parker on (02) 9931-9316 or at sharonp@agsm.edu.au .