Understanding team effectiveness

Being a member of a team in my baseball career, professional career and within my community organizations has given me an excellent opportunity to learn about myself. One of the most valuable things I learned is that it takes a lot of compromise and respect to have an effective team. Being a member of such a diverse arrangement of teams, has given me the experience to understand that it takes a lot of ingredients and the right chief to make an effective team. However, some key ingredients- if missing- can affect team effectiveness, like; listening, team collaboration, the structure and size and understanding how I work within the team.
From a very early age, we are all taught to listen. Listen to our parents, our teachers, our elders and for that matter, anybody that was talking. So why is it as we grow into our professional careers we start to listen to only what we want to hear, and not listen to everything everybody is saying. The Problem of poor listening is so chronic that one author has said “people do not listen the reload” (Tubbs, 2009). I remember running a meeting as President of the local Chamber of Commerce and having a committee member give an idea about how to fix a budget issue. Then about 10 minutes later another committee member offers the same idea to fix the problem. It is extremely annoying that they cannot pay attention to the current discussion. They are talking in a side bar with another committee member talking about a different topic. I have always tried to keep the group involved, so they do not lose focus, which could cause the meeting to be ineffective. However, in my sales career it was a more intimate setting with just me and the customer, and it is very pertinent to have the skill of listening. I could not do my job if I did not listen to the customer and understand their needs. Most experts who have studied negotiation teams agree that when you are talking you are giving away information; when you are listening you are gaining information. (Tubbs, 2009). In my sales career, I worked with numerous teams trying to make the mortgage process more efficient. If I did not have the skill of listening to the team of loan officers about what there issues were and how they thought we could solve them, I could never formulate a plan to try and make it better. Listening has been a very key component over my career. However, in my sales career it is a skill that is more important due to the intimate setting.
To me whether in a larger group setting, or a small one to one setting, listening is a very key ingredient to making your team effective. Having the ability to listen to what everybody is saying gives me more knowledge and power to collect my thoughts, and give an educated response. It also has taught me that listening to other people has given me a lot of the knowledge I have today, and if I had never listened, how could I speak intelligently. Tubbs reminded us of the adage, “None of us is as smart as all of us” (Tubbs, p. 67).
There is the old saying there is no “I” in team. So why is it that many companies do not see the importance of collaborating with the work force to stay competitive? Another form of not listening is management not being collaborative with the work force. Many organizations communicate to some extent to achieve their goals, or financial objectives. Do they implement the Collaborative Work Systems approach? (Beyerlein, Freedman, McGee, & Moran, 2003). This system focuses on companies being structurally flexible, capable of adapting to changing markets, and able to compete and win on a national and frequently international scale. Managers and employees at all levels working together can outperform individuals acting alone, especially when then outcome requires a variety of creative abilities, multiple skills, careful judgments and the knowledge and experience that different employees possess in achieving organizational goals (Beyerlein, Freedman, McGee, & Moran, 2003). This reading hit home to me working in a factory that is now moving to Mexico due to not being competitive in a global market. Our factory has always put limits on the work forces ability to help them grow. The company did not understand that key employees help solve some problems, make important decisions and invent new ways of being more efficient. Upper management never became flexible in their ability to get their work done by growing vertically and horizontally to achieve a competitive advantage. They integrated new work systems, high performance systems, self-reliant teams and other technology, but never let the empowerment of the work force move the leadership down to the work shop floor. There has always been some disconnect from the floor and management. The collaboration efforts put in place, to try and stay competitive, have been wasteful and misguided. When the practice of “command and control” of employees makes the empowerment of employees an abstract thought, and when management fails to share important information with employees or gives employees direct access to information necessary to accomplish their takes, it can become very wasteful (Beyerlein, Freedman, Mcgee, & Moran, 2003). Upper Management over the last two years was starting to become complacent in the empowerment of the workers, and not giving them information that was pertinent to their jobs. For example, there was a large order of medical carts that was entered into one of the new systems. The first shift foreman got a message that they needed to cancel the order until further notice, but the salesperson felt the customer was going to re-order soon. The supervisor took it upon himself not to relay the message, and the very large order proceeded on. Not sharing this information with the employees, and having them build these carts when other valid orders could be produced affected the collaboration efforts that were in place. It also affected other customer’s valid orders and their ship dates, which caused Intermetros reputation of on time delivery to be compromised.
Having a company and a work force collaborating in pursuit of common goals and objectives will constantly outperform individuals acting alone. We must take the ideas, talents and skills of the work force and combine it with upper management to collaborate to stay more flexible to change and be competitive in a global market. When positional power replaces knowledge and leadership, employees learn and grow and a much faster rate (Beyerlein, Freedman, Mcgee, & Moran, 2003). I feel that if the company stuck to the collaboration efforts they had in place, we would not be moving to Mexico to stay more competitive. If having power was not more important than achieving uniform goals, then maybe my team could have been more effective. This could have saved 125 jobs for my community and my neighbors.
Two more ways that a team’s effectiveness can be influenced is by the group’s structure and size. Tubs refers to the Group Structure as the idea that groups are made up of people who are related to one another in a number of ways” (Tubbs, 2009). The way a team is set up to communicate can have a great deal of influence on the communication flow within the team. Lipman-Blumen and Leavitt describe five types of communication structures; (a) wheel, (b) chain, (c) Y, (d) Circle and (e) all-Channel. See Diagram. (Tubbs, 2009).

Many different types of communication and leadership can form from these types of structures. However, all of these set ups can work depending upon the type of business and or project you are working on. The chain the Y and the wheel all have characteristics of a defined leader in which most communication goes through that person. In contrast, the circle and all-channel patterns are much less centralized and are sometimes leaderless. Each team structure has its own dynamics from the Wheel having a strong leader and people depending on that leader for guidance and answers. However, that can sometimes lead to the team not pulling their weight and depending on the leader for too much and only giving satisfaction to the leader and not the team. The other structures such as the Y and the chain allow for communication amongst one or two other team members but not with the entire group. Tubbs say that this produces subgroups, decreased satisfaction, and a relatively poor amount of idea sharing (Tubbs, 2009). The all-channel structure is ideal for complete group interaction and idea sharing but can sometimes be slow due to the amount of communication happening in the structure. Also, feedback is immediate because you are not going through a chain of command or a direct leader and communication is better. Lipman-Blumen and Leavitt summarized that centralized networks like the chain and the wheel are better for solving simple problems whereas the decentralized networks, such as the circle and the all-channel are better at solving complex problems. (Tubbs, 2009). To me the all-channel is the most effective structure to be in and would help solve most problems you come across in a team setting, but some managers require a centralized network where all information needs to pass through him or her.
The other factor that can affect the team is the size of the team. Many of the teams I have been a part of in sports have a set number of players and require you all to work together. However, when you get into the business world the size of the team is determined by a manager in hopes of having the best results. According to Tubbs there have been numerous studies conducted on the size of a team. Groups of only two people can become deadlocked in decision making and are very limited in the amount of ideas shared. Numerous experts advised that five was the optimal size for a team. (Tubbs, 2009). Larger groups can sometimes lead to social loafing or team members lacking enough time to participate in the group. Also, larger groups have a tendency to form subgroups which takes away the focus of the goals of the team. Being involved with the local Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors has given me great insight on the structure and size of a group. We have about 16 board members that show up to the regular meetings to go over general business. This size of the group works well when discussing things in general and voting because it allows for many ideas and great discussions, but it can also lead to getting off track with different thoughts. For example, we were discussing our upcoming Christmas project and a group of three men started talking about something else instead of the project at hand. The director let them discuss this topic in the middle of the Christmas project, and was sidetracked for 15 minutes. It is hard for the director to rein them in due to the egos and or status of some of the members, but if she politely just said lets finish this discussion first and we can move to that next it would have made the group feel better. In the large group, we always have social loafing because the director does not take control of the meeting. We have an agenda for the meeting, but there is not a lot of personal involvement or clarity of the rolls of the people in the meeting, so people tend to lose interest. When we need to discuss events or special projects we sign up to be on committees which only have about 3-5 people on them. This allows us to stay focused on the tasks at hand and not have so much noise going on in the room. In the smaller groups for our events, the meetings seem to go much smoother because everybody is involved and has specific jobs for the group, so there is no free riding, unlike the larger group. The larger group has better luck using the All-channel and Circle structure for communication networks because there are very complex issues that the chamber has to decide. Furthermore, with a larger group we have more ideas and can bounce them off of a larger audience. The smaller group gets by with the wheel where it is more focused with one team lead and a few people that can give ideas and suggestions to keep it more focused and on track. After being involved with the Chamber and reading this material, I could not agree more with the concepts of how the team structure and size can help or hurt the effectiveness of the team. There was a reading in our text book from James Gibson and Michael Hanna that to me sums up how your involvement in a team should be, no matter the structure or the size; 1. Do your best 2. Behave rationally 3. Play fair and 4. Listen and participate (Tubbs, 199-200). No matter how big or small, or how a team is structured, the individuals in the team are the ones that make the difference. As long as I can make a commitment to every team I belong to do these four things, I will be doing my part to making the team effective. In my opinion, one of the most crucial things to make a team effective understands how your work within that group and how others perceive how you handle yourself. Taking the SDI Inventory (Porter, 2005) was a great opportunity to make myself aware of both the things I do well and the things I can improve on from some of the other motivational systems. It also made me aware of how other people perceive my style, and how it can give me a chance of exploration to choose alternate styles that may lead to better relationships. After taking the survey, I was very shocked at how spot on the survey was to how I perceive my strengths as a manager. Being in the Altruistic-Nurturing category of the SDI, and having the strengths of being: trusting, loyal, helpful, modest, devoted, caring and supportive (Porter, p.12) really summed up who I think I am in the workplace and at home. I personally do not feel this would have been my category when I first started my career in management. I saw myself more in the Assertive-Directing role. However, after maturing through the years and dealing with a near death experience my outlook on my relationships at both work and home have changed drastically. It was very interesting looking at the Assertive-Directing characteristics versus the Altruistic-Nurturing and to see how I have changed my style over the years. In my career, in retail management and mortgage lending, I have seen a lot of these traits first hand. I have always been loyal and trusting with my co-workers especially in the retail world. Turnover was always high in the retail world, so I always made it an effort to make them feel more than welcome and trust them. However, having those characteristics have back fired on me in the past. Porter points out in his survey that the strength of being trustworthy if overdone can become gullible (Porter, 2005). I was so wrapped up in their wellbeing and wanting them to do good that I ignored warning signs of mistrust. I often gave them second and third chances, while in my head, I thought I could rehabilitate them not to be dishonest. I have tried to change this over the last couple years and realized that the results of this survey have made me aware of this character trait. Now I am even more committed to overcoming this weakness of mine and become more aware to think with my head and not just my heart. Understanding how I work in a team also involves how other perceives me at work too. Having my current manager take the same survey made me aware of how others perceive me in certain situations, which will only help me become more effective in a team. My supervisor is the person that did my SDI. I wanted her to do it because she knew me both at work and as President of the local Chamber of Commerce. I felt her analysis of me would be more reflective of who I am in multiple situations, rather than just my wife or a family member. We both thought I had the Altruistic-Nurturing style and only were a few points of in scoring most categories. However, where I see the biggest difference was in both, when things are going good and bad, is that she thought I was a little more aggressive. When things are going good she thought I would tend to want to take the lead, and that others counted on me to make major decisions. I felt when things were going good I thought I could trust others to recognize my contributions. I was happy that major decisions were made by others, and how I could help was clear. This was surprising to me because I always felt I was the type of President that let everybody be a part of the decision making. I did not realize that she felt they leaned on me so heavily for direction and that I was so aggressive of taking charge of ideas. Although there are a lot of variables that go into how she scored the survey, it did open my mind to how I can take some of the other styles and incorporate them into different situations to make me more flexible.
This exercise has been one of the most fulfilling things I have done in this class. It has made me aware of not only what my tendencies may be, but what other people think my tendencies will be when these situations arise. I think it is very important that this survey made me realize that there are so many different ways to handle situations, and they all can be effective ways to participate in a team. However, it also taught me that a good mix of all of these traits will help me become more aware of myself and how I communicate within a team. It also shows me how important each individuals’ role is when participating in a team, and how all of the team members need to be on the same page to be effective.
Understanding the dynamics of how to make a team effective is an extremely daunting task. There are so many variables that affect the way the team works together to achieve a common goal. Taking this course has given me a better understanding of the communication process both giving and receiving. To me having the skill of listening is a main theme in communication and having an effective team. Understanding team collaboration, navigating on teams with different structures and sizes, and being aware of how I work in the team are also important to team effectiveness. In my opinion, it begins and ends with listening not only to what others have to say but also listening to what your about to say to others.

References

Beyerlein, M., Freedman, S., Mcgee, C., & Moran, L. (2003). Beyond Teams: Building the Collaborative Organization. San Fransico: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Gibson, J., & Hanna, M. (1992). Introduction to Human Communication. Dubuque: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Lipman-Blumen, J., & Leavitt, H. (1999). Hot Groups. New York: Oxford University Press.
Porter, E. (2005). Manage Conflict and Improve Relationships. Strength Deployment Inventory: Standard Edition. California, USA: Personal Strengths Publishing, Inc. .
Tubbs, S. L. (2009). A Systems Approach to Small Group Interaction. New york: McGraw-Hill.