Organizational Behaviour


 


Introduction


            Modern organizations require that its member should function as a team specifically because effective decision-making has team-based consensus processes as its basis. Another reason behind this is that teamwork is increasingly becoming necessary to get jobs done and reward individuals in the process. As a perpetual learner, individual member is regarded as important element in achieving effective organizational growth and improvement. For this paper, I have chosen to focus on organizational group dynamics wherein I will discuss about organizational team and teamworking. A team is simply defined as a cooperatively functioning group and teamwork as the work produced by such group. Management theorists predicted the future of organizations will depend on team-based and self-managed teams’ initiatives. Teams will exhibit the highest degrees of interdependence that heavily rest on teamworking. Team building development then is necessary (Miner, 2005).


 


Cooperation, communication and interconnections between individual team members and inter-teams should be enhanced in such a way that people will add value to organizational processes hence contribute in acquiring the so-called competitive advantage. Intervening a team meant to improve inherent goals, structures, procedures, cultures, norms and interpersonal relationships. The three situations – simple, complex and problematic – that calls for a need of team interventions conforms with different levels of observable inefficiency that in a way or another affects the performance of the individual member, the team itself and the organization in general (Parker, 2008). The elements which determine the cohesiveness and groupthink are goals and norms intrinsic for the team, individual and team-related needs, homogenous members, decision-making patterns, leadership and size of teams. Every individual at work can be far more productive when complete responsibility of the quality and productivity was realised.


 


Further, it is a common knowledge that teams has an integrative nature because of the tendency to be more flexible, innovative, permeable, responsive and adaptive. Nevertheless, teaming could be tough to incorporate and sustain. What is most important is the team development process that will involve all team members from identifying objectives and priorities to improving communications, performance and relationships to dismissing unhealthy competitions within the team (Enos, 2007). The first article that I will discuss centers on three key issues concerning organizational teamworking: social skills, personality characteristics and teamwork knowledge. The second article deals with generic teamwork skills and how it affects cognitive and skills-based outcomes while the third article discusses how to effectively coordinate the works of the teams through realizing the importance of organizational communication.


 


Search strategy


            Qualitative search strategies are utilised for this paper. Majority of the research was treated as a secondary research wherein I visited online libraries to search for the most relevant articles about my chosen topic. Some of these online databases include Emerald, Highbeam and Questia. Short listing was implemented against self-developed criteria as: 1) the article should contain the keywords team, teamwork, teamworking and organizational behaviour; 2) the article must be written from 2005 up to present; and 3) the article should be published in an academic journal online or non-electronically. Short listed article must pass all these criteria in order that relevance and validity could be confirmed specially because of the changes organizational behaviour literature through the years.


 


Thematic content analysis of the literatures was also implemented. Thematic content analysis refers to the method of analysing the contents of literature and identifying how the themes relate to the topic of organizational group behaviour as teamworking. An interpretivism approach was adopted as I intend to provide assessments and critical evaluations of the chosen articles. This would be necessary in order to determine the subjective meanings behind the contents and informations presented in the articles. 


 


            Contextual data analysis was also done prior to selecting the most appropriate articles. I have also consulted books about organizational behaviour other than the book required in order to determine what is known already about teams and teamworking in organizations. In this way, I would be able to build insights and provide an adequate discussion for the readers and help them understand more about the issue and the several elements encompassing the issue of organizational teamworking. I made sure that the books I checked with were published from 2005 onwards so that I can relate recent theories and information with the topic.


 


Summaries, analysis and critical evaluation


            Morgeson, Reider and Campion (2005) examine the effectiveness of interdependence among teams on the bases of social skill, several personality characteristics, teamwork knowledge and contextual performance. In sum, the authors contend the following points. First, within an organization where highly interdependent processes are inexistence, there would be individual variations in performances particularly those performance observable to other team members and to the supervisors and managers. Second, there is a set of behaviours that are likely to be readily distinguishable within the team. Third, the supervisors and managers, who do not necessarily rely on general knowledge of team performance in making performance evaluation, are very particular with individual performances. In general, the authors believed that social skills, personality characteristics and teamwork knowledge are related to contextual performance, suggesting that individuals with higher levels of these characteristics will have high contextual performance and that by making selection decisions based on these characteristics an organization should ultimately have better performing teams.


 


            Based on multiple levels of analysis anchor, it could be argued that the strength of the article is its acknowledgement of the importance of embeddedness wherein the authors recognised that teams worked within the context and goals of the larger organizational system. It is therefore important to hire team members who could contribute in team knowledge and with contextual performance behaviours that has social skills as its foundation. Aside from failing to establish the significance of team identity, the article did not mention how interdependence within the team could likely to influence team knowledge. The extent of conjunction and staffing philosophies that impact the job design and description would be necessary to discussed, to which the authors failed to do so. Whether personality characteristics are more important on a teamwork setting than in individually-oriented setting is another issue to focus on. The issue now is if selecting an individual will be based on greater teamwork knowledge, will such knowledge be an assurance that the individuals selected would have greater social skills. Further, how does the greater teamwork knowledge could implicate contextual performance in a collaborative environment could be an issue necessary of further investigation.


 


            Ellis et al (2005) investigate the utilization of generic teamwork skills training for enhancing the effectiveness of action teams. Through the team- and task-generic training program which focuses on several teamwork competencies, the authors was able to examine the impact of training on team member’s knowledge of generic teamwork competencies and the actual transfer and application of such knowledge in performing team tasks. The authors emphasize that declarative knowledge and planning and task coordination skills, collaborative problem-solving skills and communication skills are very important influencers of teamwork competencies of an action team. To conclude, trained teams also demonstrated significantly greater proficiency than untrained teams in the areas of planning and task coordination, collaborative problem solving, and communication in a novel team and task environment.  


 


            One of the strengths of the article lies in the identification of task- and team-generic training represents one viable approach organizations can take to enhance the level of teamwork skills among employees. Implicitly, the non-generalizable nature of task- and team-generic training made possible the use of the developed training program to be offered simultaneously to a broad range of employees. Based on systematic research anchor, task- and team-generic training reduces the need for organizations to retrain employees before each new team assignment. Hence, the training program could not only reduce training costs but could also enhance organizational flexibility by making it possible for individuals to transition more quickly and effectively from one team environment to another.  


 


            The weak point of the article is in the integration of criticality whereby critical team members who possess strong teamwork skills may serve as a conduit for effective team functioning. It is a common knowledge that a team member’s role is important in team effectiveness specifically in contributing for cognitive and skill-based outcomes. According to the authors, the knowledge held by critical team members is particularly important for team effectiveness. If this is the case, how will the team could possibly achieved collective intelligence? We should take note that the informative component of each member gave them the facility to delegate tasks that are based on expertise in order to assure completion (Gordon, 2007).  


 


            Geary (2006) assert that new communications methods are now bringing new efficiencies to the workplace which provides speeds and convenience of these methods. The author comments on the need to remind an individual how important it is to use these new, less-personal methods of communicating to supplement, not substitute for, more traditional methods. Nevertheless, one of the competency gaps is teamwork in addition to interpersonal communications, and hands-on experience. As such, communications and teamworking have been perennial weaknesses among the industries of today. This is particularly true when it comes to the danger of having electronic communication become a substitute for “live” interaction. Geary (2006) believed that there really is nothing more valuable than hands-on experience. Knowing the theory is not the same thing as knowing how to apply it, in which takes real interaction with other people, and with products, tools, and equipments within the organisation. For him, “People Link the System” and hence there must always be a balance of technology and interpersonal networking.


 


            The strength of the article is on its argument that the various methods of communication within team contexts actually contributes in losing perspectives of the processes and systems within such team. Contentiously, team members are increasingly becoming slaves to technology. The power is in our hands to be more productive and efficient if we will only regard new electronic devices as a means to an end. Another strong point is its argument that it is valuable to find ways to communicate that create true connections between people, leveraging the values within the products and services in which we participate, and managing communication in the most ethical fashion especially inside teams. Although I cannot this as a weakness but rather a supplemental, the author could have touched the aspect of communication as an instrument of developing clear, shared goals, fostering individual and team creativity, coordinating/collaborating problems and motivation.


 


Discussion and conclusion


            Aside from this teams could move out of their ‘comfort zones’ into outdoor experiential trainings that would include physical risk-taking, constructive critiquing, reflective practices and determination of interpersonal barriers among others. The idea of interdependence and shared-responsibility will be sacrificed if teams would unwillingly collaborate and cooperate (Koppes, 2006). Goals must be also specific and measurable on the basis of acceptable performances even if it means to consider social skills, personality characteristics, teamwork knowledge and contextual performance. However, individual needs impose special consideration in goal-setting programs though individual goals must directly point towards achieving team goals. System-wide interventions are necessary for pulling off high performance systems. System-level interventions are structural design frameworks that explore the organizational designs, work processes and interaction of individuals and teams (Brown and Harvey, 2006).


 


In a team, every individual’s task is triggered by other member’s task. The work of the team follows a system of flow; hence, the unproductivity of a single member will affect the performance of another member and the whole team in the long run. Team productivity is assumed to be the product of each member’s capabilities and effort (Avery, 2006). Team productivity is driven by different variables such as state and action variables. State variables include biographical characteristics, abilities of members, positions in the team, properties of the group and conditions imposed on the group. These variables led to important action variables that include interaction processes and measures of performance. As such, we should consider the open systems that affect the conduct of individuals in a team and the team itself.  


 


Team performance embeds on four important dimensions as team member effort, team member knowledge and skills team tactics and group dynamics. An empowered team makes most of the available resources especially those which are required for team effectiveness.  The effectiveness of team performance is measured based on the following schemas: clear purpose, empowering team structure, strong organizational support, positive internal relationships, well-tended external relationships and efficient information management. The indicators of effective teams are outcomes, team member satisfaction and team learning (Kanaga and Browning, 2007). 


 


As such, there is the necessity of looking at enhancing the functioning of teams based on three critical points which spring from the organization and the team and not from the traditional hierarchical structure instead. The articles reflect the causality of existing facilities inherent to the organization like the ability, motivation and strategies and how it can deliver success or failure base on utilization of organizational context and team design and culture. The main key point is the individual goal attainment that could possibly lead to organizational goal attainment and the team goal attainment at the collegial level. Another point is the effort to bring together complementary assets to the team within an iota of team learning (Staw, 2006). The process of group coming together asserts role differentiation and cognitive consensus as implicitly shown by effective organizational communication requirement.


 


The main quality of the articles focuses on covering the three areas cognitive –recognizing the need to bring together adequate knowledge and skill to carry-out tasks; affection – being aware that exerting sufficient motivation and effort could facilitate accomplishing the task to an acceptable level of performance and psychomotor – knowing that activities and communication and the importance of coordinating them as vital factors in accomplishing tasks in an efficient and productive manner (Seijts, 2005). Other merit of the works is putting importance on schema similarity. Schema similarity is the compatibility of structures within the team. To wit, the team schema similarity, as impliedly shown in the framework, focuses both on method and content. In this way, the organization could emphasize team cognition and their group sensemaking.  


 


The significance of the informations is evident in increasing the success rate of the organization from four fundamental levels. The learnings that the model suggests are as follows: for team productivity, the clarifications of the goals and the possibility to reassess goals, how the organization measures performance and team output versus standards; for team satisfaction, the articles underpin supportive working environment and the barriers that led to feelings of resentment, team learning and accommodating changes; for individual growth, the contents imply the importance of individual contribution as team members, improving skills, the hindrances of achieving growth and making others understand the idea of individual growth needs; and for organizational gains, the model advocates how the team benefit the organization or how the team contribute to the organizational growth, the consistency of team goals and the subsequent integration with other units.  


 


The information teaches us that there is no other way for an organization to succeed but to involve all the team members. Team effectiveness is a resultant mutual gain for both the organization and the individuals. It also tells us that achieving goals and objectives essential for both organization and members is a collaborative and interaction-based. McShane and Travaglione (2007) state that it is important to work with people and influence organizational events. Identifying the importance of group is central to psychological and physical well-being since they reflect a basic human need which is to belong. Base on this, we can also say that the model is teaching us that group behaviour support the objective of the management rather than undermine them.   


 


 


References


 


Avery, C. M. (2006). How teamwork can be developed as an individual skill. Journal for Quality and Participation.


 


Brown, D. R. & Harvey, D. (2005). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development. (7th Ed.). Prentice Hall.


 


Ellis, A. P., Bell, B. S., Ployhart, R. E., Hollenbeck, J. R. and Ilgen, D. R. (2005). An Evaluation of Generic Teamwork Skills Training with Action Teams: Effects on Cognitive and Skill-based Outcomes. Journal of Personnel Psychology.


 


Enos, D. L. (2007). Performance Improvement: Making it Happen. CRC Press.


 


Geary, W. J. (2006). Teamwork and Communication are Vital. Journal of Organizational Behavior.


 


Gordon Cone, J. (2007). Collective intelligence drives better team performance. Interaction Associates, Inc.


 


Kanaga, K. & Browning, H. (2007). Maintaining Team Performance. Center for Creative Leadership. 


 


Koppes, L.L. (2006). Historical Perspectives in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Routledge.


 


McShane S. and Travaglione T. (2007) Organisational Behaviour on the Pacific Rim. 2nd edn, McGraw-Hill Pty Ltd, North Ryde, Australia.


 


Miner, J. B. (2005). Organizational Behavior I: Essential Theories of Motivation and Leadership. ME Sharpe.


 


Morgeson, F. P., Reider, M. H. and Campion, M. A. (2005). Selecting Individuals in Team Settings: The Importance of Social Skills, Personality Characteristics, and Teamwork Knowledge. Journal of Personnel Psychology.


 


Parker, G. M. (2008). Team Players and Teamwork: New Strategies for Developing Successful Collaboration. New York: John Wiley and Sons.


 


Seijts, G. H. (2005). Cases in Organizational Behavior. Sage Publications Inc.


 


Staw, B. M. (2006). Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews. Elsevier.


 


Thompson, L. L. (2007). Making the Team: A Guide for Managers. (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.


 



Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com


0 comments:

Post a Comment

 
Top