BUS 610 Organizational Behavior/week 3 discussion 1 and 2
Chapter Six Groups and Teams Digital Vision/Thinkstock Learning Objectives After reading this chapter and studying the materials, you should be able to:
• Identify the various types of organizational groups and the roles played by members. • Understand how to work successfully in team settings. • Apply rational and nonrational decision-making methods to resolve organizational problems. baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 153 6/17/13 12:01 PM Section 6.1 Groups 6.1 Groups In today’s fast-paced world of commerce, one trend has accelerated: Many organizational tasks are increasingly complex. One consequence of this trend has been greater reliance on collectives of employ- ees to complete assignments. In this chapter, groups and teams are examined with the goal of improv - ing organizational performance and your ability to manage them effectively. Decision-making processes within the context of teams and groups are also presented.
Learning Objective #1:
What types of organizational groups and members are present in business organizations?
OB in Action LinkedIn—Social Media and the Workplace Social media forms are changing the ways in which we live and interact with others. In the world of business, LinkedIn has become a major force in connectivity among those seeking a professional networking service focused on individual careers, with over 100 million members worldwide. Three major elements of the website are its marketing solu - tions, premium solutions, and hiring solutions pages. LinkedIn creates groups in a variety of ways. Members maintain friend - ships and business relationships with peers from past jobs and with former classmates from schools and universities. Marketers combine information to help each other develop profiles that will secure new clients and customers. The same network allows companies to con - nect with customers. LinkedIn spokesperson Erin O’Harra notes that “Offering to connect with a variety of people is a great idea because it shows customers you are online and gives you an edge on the compe - tition who is probably not engaging customers in the same way” (Fox Business, 2011). LinkedIn creates groups of professional journalists. Group discussions revolve around LinkedIn news announcements. The site also offers tips about how members of the press can use LinkedIn to find story ideas, scoops, and sources. The website also connects small business owners and operators. The site notes, “Join a small business group to engage with like-minded people who can provide you support and answer business-specific questions. Joining groups that are related to your industry or other small business matters is also a great way to make new connections. Whether these connections are local or international, having a wide and diverse group will serve you well. Potential clients can find you through groups, as the group members have the ability to directly message each other, even if they aren’t directly connected” (Fox Business, 2011). Two implications arise from this new method of forming groups. First, the business model on which LinkedIn is based has been profitable and continues to grow (Hempel, 2011). Company revenues reached $121 million in 2010. iStockphotos/Thinkstock Social media has become a major staple in the business networking world. Sites such as LinkedIn provide members the ability to connect with a wider audience than ever before. (continued) baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 154 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Section 6.1 Groups Types of Groups In business organizations, employees routinely encounter group activities. A group consists of two or more people, interacting, with a common purpose or goal (Schein, 1980). T\ wo types of groups are present in various companies: formal and informal.
Formal Groups A formal group is established by the organization and seeks to achieve company goals and objectives.
You can find evidence of the existence of a formal group in company documents, including an organiza - tion chart, a management directive to form a group, or group meeting minutes. Three of the most com - mon types of formal groups are work groups, committees, and project teams.
A work group consists of individuals who routinely perform organizational tasks and is identified by an organizational chart, in contrast to a team, which is composed of individu\ als from several parts of the organization, as will be discussed later in this chapter. In a newspaper company, one work group would be the sports department, a second would be local news, and a third would be the national/international news desk. Accountants and production employees would also be included in work groups around their assigned responsibilities. An alternative name for a work group is “command group.” Committees are groups assigned to various company operations and processes. Normally committees are ongoing groups, such as the set of individuals assigned to the workplace safety co\ mmittee or the employee benefits committee. Members of committees often have temporary assignments, such as a one- or two-year term, at which point someone else takes the position within \ the group.
Project groups, or task forces, oversee a project or assignment until it is completed. A task force may be assigned to write a report about a disaster such as a fire or accident in a plant. A project group may be designated to redesign the interior of a retail store. Another project group may be asked to develop a new product or service and bring it to the marketplace. In each instance, when\ the task or assignment has been completed, the group disbands.
Informal Groups An informal group, or a friendship group, emerges without the endorsement of organizational leaders and does not have a designated structure or work toward organizational goals other than socialization Second, the terms in which we think of groups and teams are becoming, in some ways, antiquated. Social media and social networking have altered the business landscape, interpersonal relations, and our national culture. Virtual con - nections and relationships, assisted by new technologies, will continue to evolve and increase. Questions for Students 1. Which social network sites do you visit? 2. Would you trust a curriculum vitae (CV) or resume posted on a website such as LinkedIn more than one submit - ted by regular mail or in person? 3. Do you think social media interactions are a fad, or have they become an integral part of daily life? OB in Action (continued ) baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 155 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Section 6.1 Groups and friendship (Shirky, 2004). Three forces tend to bring informal groups together: activities, shared sentiments, and interactions.
Activities drive the formation of many informal groups. They range from small groups that routinely play cards together during breaks to more elabo- rate company volleyball, softball, or bowling teams. A “lunch bunch” that meets every day for meals has formed around an activity.
Shared sentiments suggest that people make friends with and socialize with persons who have the same value sets.
Some groups form due to political similarities. Others revolve around religion. In some instances, groups of single mothers or company bachelors may form.
Interactions result from close physical associations. People who work on the same floor of an \ office build - ing are more likely to socialize and form friendships. Those who labor at a remote location of a company may also band together into an informal group. Group Members Formal and informal groups consist of four types of members: the leader, opinion leaders, members in good standing, and the gatekeeper. The leader directs group activities. Formal leaders are assigned by the organization. Informal leaders emerge based on the group’s wishes. Opinion leaders are those individu- als who are most closely aligned with the leader. The name comes from their willingness to express group values. Members in good standing are those included in the group who do not share in any leadership function. The gatekeeper determines who will and who will not be included in the group. The gatekeeper will be either a member, opinion leader, or leader. At times the entire group serves this role, known as the gatekeeping function.
Stages of Group Development One commonly cited approach used to explain how groups evolve over time was developed by Tuckman and Jensen (1977). The model suggests a sequence in which individuals \ gradually surrender a sense of independence in favor of greater interdependence. While the sequence may not be as precise as the one depicted in Figure 6.1, it does provide a general sense of how groups tend to operate. Creatas/Thinkstock Informal groups often form around an activity, such as sports, games, or meeting everyday for breakfast. baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 156 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Section 6.1 Groups Figure 6.1: Stages of group development Degree of Independence Degree of Dependence & Interdependence Low High Fo rming Storming Norm ingPerforming High Low Adjourning As a group evolves, individuals gradually give up a sense of independence in favor of greater interdependence.
Forming Initially, new members of a group are likely to distrust one another to some extent and to experience feel - ings of uncertainty. Two behaviors appear in the first stage of group development, known as the forming stage. First, group members try out actions and activities to see if others in the group deem them accept - able. The other will be the first tentative actions, such as setting a m\ eeting time or agenda, of a leader (if one has been designated) or by those seeking to lead (if one has not b\ een appointed). The forming stage ends when sufficient compliance suggests that members see themselves as part of the l\ arger group.
Storming Although members now view themselves as part of something, they sometime\ s disagree with the con - straints imposed by the group or simply test to see what the limits are. In the storming stage, the leader faces resistance as individuals seek to discover their place in the group’s structure (Tuckman, 1965). If the leader cannot manage the group successfully, the possibility of subgroups, member procrastination, conflicts between members, and open rebellion emerges. Group survival may be at risk.
Norming The close of the storming stage occurs when a leader has become firmly e\ stablished, often through the efforts of another member who challenges the group to come together. Closer relationships build baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 157 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Section 6.1 Groups between members, and discussions of power become less emotional and more matter-of-fact. Norms, rules governing behaviors in the group, begin to emerge. The norming stage is complete when members share a common set of expectations about behaviors and contributions to the \ group. As shown in Table 6.1, norms apply to three main areas in both formal and informal groups. In fact, many times norms overlap between the two groups. Norms can be formally or informally sanctioned, with approval or disapproval by group members. Someone engaged in a pleasant conversation with a superviso\ r in an organization where the norm is to see management as adversaries will probably be accused of being a “brownnoser,” or worse.
Table 6.1: Types of norms Area of BehaviorExample of Norm Effort Units of production Time on the job/overtime Sales calls, sales totals, follow-ups with customers Work Behaviors Use of language, cursing, formality Clothes worn Following or ignoring work rules or procedures Social Behaviors Office romances Fraternization between management and labor Norms tend to develop slowly but then become difficult to change. They apply to the workplace more than to off-work activities. They also apply to behaviors rather than private feel\ ings and thoughts. Mem - bers may “go along” with norms they think are foolish, although high-status group members may choose to ignore them. In general, norms summarize group influence processes, including the rules for joining and maintaining membership (Hackman, 2003).
Norms can provide vital organizational functions when they clarify the group or organization’s key values and convey a sense of identity. Enforcing norms can assist an individual with either meeting behavioral expectations and/or avoiding making behav - ioral mistakes. Some authors argue norms help the group or the organization to survive (Feldman, 1984), bearing in mind that counterproductive norms may also emerge that hinder organizational success.
Performing When the group reaches the point at which the primary activities revolve around solving task problems, the per - forming stage has opened. Open communication occurs between members as they cooperate with and support one another. Any disputes are handled quickly and con - structively (Mason & Griffin, 2005). At this point, inter - dependence reaches its peak and independence has been Digital Vision/Thinkstock Once a group has entered the performing stage, members communicate openly and rely on one another to achieve desired outcomes. baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 158 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Section 6.1 Groups surrendered as much as it will be. Ongoing work groups and committees that reach the performing stage remain there unless drastic events interfere. Project teams end when the task is complete. Some informal groups have an end point, such as when a bowling team’s season finishes\ . These groups then move to the final stage.
Adjourning Groups that successfully complete tasks often end with a ceremony or celebration. These take the forms of parties, official statements of appreciation by company leaders, and even graduations and mock funer- als. Individuals resume a stronger sense of independence as the group disbands.
Managers and leaders can assist group functioning at every stage of development. In the forming stage they can make members feel as comfortable as possible and establish basi\ c ground rules. In the storming stage an effective leader works to resolve conflicts and differences of opinion. In the norming stage the leader can make sure that unethical or counterproductive norms do not emerge. In the performing stage, the leader facilitates group activities. In the adjourning state, a leader can summarize group accomplish - ments and express gratitude for good work.
Group Properties Besides norms, groups exhibit other properties that influence their functioning and level of success.
Three of the most important properties are the roles played by members as they participate, the size of the group, and the level of group cohesiveness. Group leaders and company managers can effect these issues.
Group Participation and Roles Groups without a degree of structure experience a lack of direction and even chaos. In the stages of storming, norming, and performing, members begin to enact roles, which facilitate group functioning. A role is the part a person plays in a social setting. Each day, we all play a variety of roles, including par - ent/child, boyfriend/girlfriend, husband/wife, student/teacher, and employer/employee.
In groups, members play roles as they are assigned or as they evolve. The first ingredient in the process is a person’s perception of how a role should be enacted. For example, someone who assigns Jo to the role of secretary in a committee may believe that a person in that role rarely speaks in meetings and instead concentrates on taking copious notes.
Five major factors shape the nature of a role: expectations, norms, performance, evaluation, and sanc- tions (see Figure 6.2). These factors, as imposed by other members of the group, result in a kind of negotiation in which the role becomes socially constructed. The person playing the role is the actor and other members of the group are called others (Shaw & Costanzo, 1982). Some role theorists refer to these concepts as “position” (actor) and “counter-position” (others). baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 159 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Section 6.1 Groups Figure 6.2: Role constraints Expectations Sanctions Norms Evaluation Performance Role Roles are influenced by many factors, including expectations, norms, performance, evaluation, and sanctions. These factors affect how an individual plays his or her role within a group.
Other group members project role expectations. Group members learn about how they are expected to behave through subtle clues and overt statements. The actor often predicts role expectations through role perceptions.
Norms, as have been previously described, are the rules of behavior. They have been called the “oughts” and “shoulds” of roles. As a person learns the role, norms serve as inner guides that direct behaviors in group settings (Biddle & Thomas, 1966).
Role performance, or the actual behavior, will be socially negotiated over time. Different people play the same role, such as group leader, in different ways. The organizational and group contexts dictate an ele- ment of role performance. The role performance by a detective leading an investigation into a homicide will be vastly different from the leader of an advertising team trying to design a new commercial.
The approval and disapproval of role performance emerges as role evaluation. The actor or group mem - ber receives feedback regarding the enactment of the role.
Sanctions are actions designed to maintain or change behaviors. Negative sanctions i\ nclude criticism, caustic comments, ridicule, and exclusion from the group. Positive sanctions such as including someone, praising the individual, or using the formal reward system often lead to greater conformity to group norms and role expectations (Secord & Backman, 1964).
Figure 6.3 displays five main forces that shape a person’s on-the-job role. Through continual negotiation of these forces, as well as the factors outlined above, the roll will be enacted and performed. baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 160 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Section 6.1 Groups Figure 6.3: Roles at work Role Job Co wo rkers Goals Leader Organizational Structure · Job description · Job specification · Goal acceptance · Goal congruity · Style · Interaction · Expectations · Norms · Evaluation · Sanctions · Rules · Procedures · Authority Relationship · Au tonomy At work, some of the factors that influence an individual’s on-the-job role include the job itself, interactions with coworkers, personal goals, the relationship with a leader, and the organization’s structure.
Three major forces can disrupt role performance: role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload. Role conflict occurs when an individual confronts differing role expectations. An intra-role (within the role) conflict takes place when an employee faces two expectations that are not in agreement. A restaurant server who is told to give personal, attentive service that makes patrons feel comfortable may also be encouraged to “turn the table over” or get people to leave as quic\ kly as possible, in order to accommo - date more guests. Achieving both objectives will be extremely difficult. An inter-role conflict takes place when a role or task performed on the job clashes with personal feelings. The role of attentive parent may conflict with the role of reliable employee, especially when being reliable requires travel, working at night, or long hours away from family (Peterson et al., 1995).
Role ambiguity results from lack of clarity about a role. An employee who complains, “I don’t know what it is I’m supposed to be doing,” expresses role ambiguity. It appears when a person first begins a position or joins a new organization. Role ambiguity may also materialize following dramatic chang\ es in the group or in a company, such as when downsizing or restructuring takes place. The individual will baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 161 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Section 6.1 Groups be unclear about new job responsibilities. Role ambiguity has been related to both job dissatisfaction and levels of personal stress. It can be reduced through managerial efforts to increase role clarity, such as more specific job instructions, feedback, and coaching.
Role overload comes from being asked to do too much within a role. The person may have been mismatched in the first place, and was unprepared to tackle a position or occupation. Others experience overload when managers place increasing demands on them without allocating sufficient time to accomplish the work.
Role overload has been linked to job dissatisfaction, stress-related problems, and conflicts with others. Table 6.2 identifies management tactics designed to reduce role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload.
Table 6.2: Reducing role-related problems Problem Methods Role Conflicts Give clear task instructions Have employees only answer to one leader (group and departmental) Foster socially and morally acceptable climate Role Ambiguity Use careful selection process Have clear rules and procedures Create goal-setting programs Give specific performance feedback Encourage quality leader–member relationships Role Overload Match person to job Assist new or less experienced employees Help during “crunch time” as needed Group Size One variable a manager can carefully construct when seeking to optimize performance is the size of the group. The goal of the group should be the primary determinant of its size. Three basic objectives associ - ated with a group are • producing an item/completing a project • solving problems • collecting information/input When producing an item or completing a project represents the primary goal, an interesting phenom - enon occurs. As groups increase in size, productivity rises as well, but at a diminishing rate. In other words, adding a seventh member to a group will increase the productivity of that group, but the increase will not be one-seventh more, but instead something less than that amount. Researchers suggest that as the size of the group increases, the amount of effort contributed per member declines (Shepperd, 1993).
In some instances, extreme declines in individual effort result from the addition of new group mem - bers. Social loafing occurs when group members give less effort to a group than they would if working individually. At the extreme, social loafing involves a member taking a free ride and contributing nearly nothing. Social norms offer a method to induce a social loafer to at least provide some effort (Liden & Erdogan, 2003). baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 162 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Section 6.1 Groups Managers often compose task groups of five to seven members. Fewer than five reduces productivity due to the small size of the group. Seven will be close to the point at which diminishing returns per new member become more noticeable. Also, some research suggests that groups with odd numbers of members (five or seven) have better chances of success (Yetton & Bottger, 1983).
Group Cohesiveness The degree of goal commitment, conformity, coopera- tion, and group control over members indicates the level of group cohesiveness. The term “tight knit” character - izes groups exhibiting higher levels of cohesion. Further, the degree of cohesion in a group affects productivity and performance, as depicted in Figure 6.4. Figure 6.4: Group cohesiveness Amount of Cohesion Group Performance Success High High Low Low To o little About right To o mu ch The right balance of cohesion within a group can lead to success. Too little cohesion may result in a lack of cooperation, whereas too much cohesion may lead to setting norms that reduce output or decrease levels of effort.
As shown, a group with too little cohesion often suffers from a lack of productivity. The problems asso - ciated with low cohesion follow the concepts found in its definition. Th\ ere will be goal disagreement rather than agreement. Members do not conform to any potential group norms. They fail to cooperate, and group sanctions do not affect them.
In the middle of Figure 6.4, groups with desirable levels of cohesion tend to enjoy the highest levels of success. The benefits of cohesive groups include: Creatas/Thinkstock The appropriate level of cohesion can help a leader maximize the level of group success. baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 163 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Section 6.1 Groups • productivity • members helping those experiencing problems • extra effort given during a crisis • members working without supervision • a positive social atmosphere emerging Clearly managers have vested interests in developing and maintaining cohesive groups (Litterer, 1973; Seashore, 1954).
Figure 6.4 also suggests a zone in which the level of cohesion has grown to the point that problems begin to emerge. Overly cohesive groups are more likely to set norms to reduce output or lower lev- els of effort. They may be inclined to view other groups as rivals and create unnecessary conflicts. At times the formal leader in the group becomes unable to function due to the influence of the informal leader. The most substantial problem with overly cohesive groups, however, is labeled groupthink.
Groupthink results when group pressures for conformity become so intense that the group avoids unusual, minority, or unpopular views. At the extreme, groupthink becomes a process by which the group develops a sense of invulnerability, believing it can function without outside influence or sanc - tion. The group self-censors information and fails to perform effectively with organizational confines (Janis, 1991).
Group cohesiveness and productivity or performance will be affected by a series of internal factors.
Table 6.3 summarizes circumstances in which these factors influence the level of cohesion. Group size, as noted, influences both cohesion and productivity. Opportunities to interact come from proximity as well as scheduled formal and informal gatherings. Heterogeneity will be less common in a diverse workplace.
One method used to build a sense of heterogeneity is to create overarching super-ordinate goals to bond members together. Group status can make group membership more or less desirable. An outside threat can be real or one suggested by management as a potential problem. Interdependence and independence result from norming processes. Membership stability is linked to opportunities to interact and\ bond.
Effective leaders understand individual member needs; ineffective ones drive wedges between members (Homans, 1950).
Table 6.3: Factors affecting cohesiveness levels Increase Cohesiveness Decrease Cohesiveness Proper size (4–7 members) Too many members Opportunities to interact Isolation Similarities (homogeneity) between members Dissimilar members High status within organization Low public image of group Presence of outside threat Placid environment Interdependence among members Opportunity to join other groups Attractive (to members) group goals Unsatisfactory goals or goal disagreements Stable membership High turnover Effective leader Ineffective leader baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 164 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Section 6.1 Groups Group Outliers In many groups, one individual who requires attention will be the outlier. This person disagrees with or wishes to avoid compliance with norms. The outlier will often be a more intelligent member of the group.
Noncompliance involves the activities shown in Table 6.4.
Table 6.4: Noncompliance with group norms Rebellion (ignores the norm, deliberately violates the norm) Examples:
Wears jeans in violation of dress code. Uses foul language in professional setting. Overproduces relative to others in the group (rate buster, speed king). Creative Individualism (follows norms yet is innovative) Examples:
Feigns indifference in required meeting. “Goes through the motions.” Mumbles “under the breath” while following orders or directions. Overdoes courtesy. Conformity (gives grudging compliance, expresses disillusionment in other, safe environments) Examples:
Complains on break. Complains on drive home. Complains at home. The leadership role in any group involves guiding a group outlier in such a manner that the individual does not negatively influence the other members (Schein, 1968).
Comprehension Exercise 1. Which is not a role-shaping activity associated with the actor and other? a. expectations b. norms c. sanctions d. cohesiveness baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 165 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Section 6.2 Teams 2. Which indicates social loafing? a. low group cohesiveness b. a person who gives only partial effort to a group’s project c. a member who deliberately violates a group norm d. increased levels of groupthink Answers: 1) d 2) b 6.2 Teams Many people might believe that the terms “team” and “group” are the same. Similarities between teams and groups are that they both consist of a small set of people and that they both see\ k to achieve goals.
Recent management and organizational behavior literature, however, suggests several differences between the two concepts.
Teams become distinct from groups when synergies, or increased levels of performance, emerge from greater interdependence and shared effort (Katzenbach & Smith, 1999; Rico et al., 2008). Characteristics of teams include: • sharing leadership responsibilities among members • shifting from individual responsibility to indi - vidual plus collective responsibility • evaluating success based on team outcomes rather than individual outcomes • improved collective problem solving Trust constitutes an additional key component of a team.
Effective teams go beyond interaction and move to the point of collaboration.
Types of Teams At times, groups and teams share additional elements. They both provide venues for socialization and assist in communication and decision-making processes. One perspective suggests that a team is a group that has successfully negotiated the forming, storming, and norming aspects of de\ velopment and has moved to the performing stage. At the same time, it is clear that many teams are formed that do not reach such a level of collaboration and coordination. Before analyzing additional factors related to team success or failure, the first step is to understand the types of teams utilized in organizations. Four of the most common are:
Learning Objective #2:
How can employees and managers successfully operate in team settings? Wavebreak Media/Thinkstock Teams exhibit various structures, including self- managed, problem-solving, cross-functional, and virtual forms. baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 166 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Section 6.2 Teams • self-managed work teams • problem-solving teams • cross-functional teams • virtual teams Each presents potential benefits and challenges to the overall organization.
Self-Managed Teams Many organizations believe that certain types of work can be successfully directed by employees rather than supervisors. A self-managed work team consists of a group of employees who are assigned mana - gerial responsibilities combined with work tasks. The managerial activities perf\ ormed by members of self-managed work teams include planning activities, scheduling work, as\ signing tasks to individual team members, overseeing the pace of work, making on-the-spot decisions,\ and facilitating some ele - ments of the control function. In some instances self-managed teams conduct internal perfo\ rmance evaluations.
Research results regarding the effectiveness of self-managed teams have been mixed. Some evidence suggests team members report higher levels of job satisfaction (Cordery, Mueller, & Smith, 1991; Van Mierlo et al., 2005). In contrast, supervisors who would lose authority in self-management team settings were logically inclined to resist such a change, viewing the move as a threat to job security. Some self-managed teams also did not function well during periods of downsizing (Zemke, 1993).
Self-managed work teams would appear to have better chances for success when employees are well trained and perform more sophisticated jobs. The organization must be able to support the program with rewards for team performance. Firms exhibiting centralization or strong patterns of managerial control at top levels are not the best candidates for such programs.
Problem-Solving Teams When members of an organization are placed into groups to examine specific organizational problems or processes, a problem-solving team may emerge. Teamwork occurs when members are willing to share information, cooperate, and seek to achieve group as well as individual objectives. Problem-solving teams can at times resemble quality circles and at other times resemble project teams. Such teams remain popular vehicles for dealing with various organizational issues.
Cross-Functional Teams A cross-functional team consists of employees from different areas in the company that are brought together for a specific purpose. Combining experts to work on an excitin\ g problem, task, or issue often leads to effective cross-functional teams. Teams can be assigned to develop a new product, such as has been the norm at Apple Inc. iStockphoto/Thinkstock A problem-solving team can be assembled to address specific issues facing the organization. The team relies on cooperation in order to share the information and ideas that will help solve problems. baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 167 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Section 6.2 Teams Cross-functional teams at times resemble task forces. Many automobile manufacturers have employed task forces to coordinate complex projects. Harley-Davidson relies on collectives of individuals from various departments to help manage product lines, including the design of the product, manufacturing, and even contacts with suppliers (Brunetti, 1999).
Committees that endure and succeed take on characteristics of cross-functional teams. Such committees reach the performing stage of group development. Often members remain with the committee over lon- ger periods of time as a result.
Virtual Teams Today’s technologies allow for members of groups to meet in cyberspace rather than in physical space.
Virtual teams employ Internet and digital technologies to achieve common goals, such \ as collaborating, sharing information, solving problems, and scheduling activities. Virtual teams are formed for short- term projects as well as long-range, ongoing issues.
Virtual teams enjoy the advantages of reducing travel costs and allowing people from remote locations to participate.
They are flexible in the sense that meetings can be arranged fairly quickly, especially when compared to meetings that require travel to a distant place. Volvo and Lockheed Mar- tin have both made effective use of the advantages of these types of teams (Ante, 2003; Crock, 2003; Naughton, 2003).
An argument can be made that a virtual team would be better named a “virtual group.” The reasoning connected to this interpretation would be that virtual collaborations do not take on the elements of trust and member interde - pendence that are part of the team concept. Three limita - tions of virtual teams have been described, two of which reduce a group’s ability to take on team-like character - istics. First, in virtual meetings, paraverbal cues such as voice tone and inflection, and nonverbal cues like eye contact, distance\ , gestures, and facial expression, cannot as easily be transmitted. This limits the richness of communicati\ ons between team members.
Second, socialization will be highly reduced. As virtual meetings conclude and members go on to other work, they cannot remain “in the room” to discuss issues and fraternize. The third problem associated with virtual teams is that members will most likely meet at differing times, depending on location. A meeting that begins at 4:00 p.m. in San Diego takes place at 7:00 p.m. i\ n New York, a time when most people have left the office. International virtual meetings can become even more problematic.
In summary, the four types of teams are prevalent in many of today’s companies. Part of the reason is that these teams are essentially more highly evolved groups in the performing stage. Managerial efforts designed to improve functioning can assist self-managed teams, problem-solving groups that become teams, cross-functional teams following the same path, and virtual teams.
Effective Teams As with group leadership, effective teams have certain requisites. When moving beyond group composi - tion toward more cohesive teams, four elements deserve consideration. Quality teams result from a match between the composition of the team, the design of the work, contextual \ factors, and process variables. iStockphoto/Thinkstock While offering an effective means of collaboration and problem solving, virtual teams do face some limitations. baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 168 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Section 6.2 Teams Team Composition Managers can play important roles in designing teams with the best chances for success. Doing so involves making sure the right mix of personalities and skill sets are assigned to projects. Also, those chosen should have indicated an interest in being included in the group. Clear instructions allow mem- bers to fit in and move past storming and norming issues. In the same ma\ nner as a group, a team should consist of the most appropriate number of members. In the case of cohesion, one factor that can work against a team’s well-being is heterogeneity, especially when a single member of a minority has been placed on a team, because it can cause discomfort and stilted conversation among members. In general, member selection can make or break a team (Milliken & Martins, 1996).
The Work Design The logical connection between a team and a project is complexity. Simple tasks are better handled by single individuals. Consequently, work design in a team setting involves a more complicated assign - ment. Members of the team should believe they have sufficient authority and autonomy to finalize work in the best manner possible. When a project or task has an end point, it possesses task identity, which was noted as a motivational factor in Chapter 5. Further, the interactions between members, when coupled with an outcome that helps others in the organization, generate feelings of task significance, another motivational force. In essence, the design of the work should be focused on interesting, challenging, and important organizational chores (Kirkman & Rosen, 2000).
Contextual Variables Effective teams operate in inviting contexts. In essence, trust represents both a cause and an effect in team success. A trusting environment encourages cooperation and shared effort. Cooperation and shared effort build trust for the future. Other contextual variables that contribute to success include adequate resources, quality leadership, and the organizational reward system.
Resources are often necessary to assist team activities.
Members who believe they have access to needed funds and technological support are more likely to buy in and support the team (Bishop, Scott, & Burroughs, 2000).
Quality leadership occurs in two ways. The first, and more apparent, is found in the efforts of a leader dedicated to making sure the group functions smoothly. Effective leaders in this vein set challenging expectations and oper - ate in a positive fashion (George & Bettenhausen, 1990).
The second takes place when the group leads itself by setting schedules, resolving conflicts, making decisions, and coordinating activities, much in the manner of self- managed teams.
The organizational reward system consists of the performance evaluation program and the delivery of rewards. Group-based incentives, such as bonuses for completing tasks, contribute to more effective teams. When rewards for performance do not exist, the potential for team dissent and demi\ se rises. Photodisc/Thinkstock Trust and cooperation are important contextual variables in achieving team success. baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 169 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Section 6.2 Teams Process Variables The final component in a successful team effort involves the group’s process, or the manner in which the team operates. Four elements combine to ensure a more efficient operational process. Teams with a common purpose among members, confidence, specific goals, and managed conflict are more likely to experience positive outcomes. A common purpose evolves from factors such as group cohesiveness and well-developed norms. Team confidence, or team efficacy, results from successful endeavors. A team can build on previous victories much in the same way as a sports team builds momentum d\ uring a game and during a season. Specific goals clarify member roles. Difficult goals are associated with higher levels of effort and performance.
Managing conflict, the fourth element in the team process, necessitates careful managerial action. On one hand, conflict is inevitable and can reduce problems such as overly cohesive groups and groupthink. On the other, too much conflict can become a major distraction. Conflict management \ receives significant attention in the next chapter of this book.
Teams are most likely to be effective when all four features combine to create the best environment. A problem in any one of the four can disrupt group functioning. Managers should see the big picture when seeking to generate team effectiveness.
Being a Team Player What will be your role in the workplace? Will you be the staunch individualist who goes his or her own way? Or will coworkers and top management complement your ability to get things done in teams and groups? A case can be made that a more enriching and successful career awaits quality team players.
Opinions vary regarding the nature of an effective team player.
Lists of effective member characteristics typically range from 10 to 17 items. According to one of the more popular lists, developed by J. C. Maxwell (2002), team members with the most highly devel- oped skills were adaptable, collaborative, committed, communica - tive, competent, dependable, enlarging, enthusiastic, intentional, mission conscious, prepared, relational, self-improving, selfless, solution oriented, and tenacious.
Professional trainer Joni Rose (2007) suggests team players exhibit good listening skills, are cooperative rather than com - petitive, remain optimistic and happy, are adaptable to change, and are good negotiators. Life trainer Naseem Mariam (2003) describes a successful team member as someone who has excel - lent technical and professional competence, good interpersonal skills, and a sharing, giving tendency; respects authority; cares for the customer, is a self-reliant, happy person who welcomes feedback; has a finger on the pulse of the team; is dependable; and demonstrates integrity, honesty, and trust. Digital Vision/Thinkstock Are you a team player? Many professionals agree that possessing skills of a team player contributes to a more rewarding and successful career. baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 170 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Section 6.2 Teams As you can see, numerous ideas about the nature of an effective team player exist. This provides each person with a series of options regarding ways to engage in a group and become an effective member.
Teamwork: Turning Individuals into Team Players When studying dimensions of national culture, one concept that receives substantial attention is the degree of individualism versus collectivism present. An individualistic culture exists when most people in a region are self-oriented more than oriented toward any group, team, or organization. Collective cultures represent the opposite tendency. The United States and other Western cultures tend to exhibit individualistic tendencies. Consequently, building and facilitating teamwork will be more challenging there than in other societies. The likelihood that employees will be team pl\ ayers can be increased through three managerial activities: recruiting and selection, coaching, and reward systems.
When recruiting, selection criteria make it possible to encourage applications by\ individuals interested in collaboration. During interviews, managers can discover those who have participated in team efforts as part of their education. For example, applicants with connections to spo\ rts teams, fraternities or sorori- ties, and interest clubs such as Students in Free Enterprise have already demonstrated the willingness to engage in a larger group.
Coaching involves managers and leaders providing positive examples. Several consulting companies offer teamwork building programs designed to help employees become better team members. Part of this effort will be to reorient the individual to collective goals and a common effort designed to reach those goals.
Reward systems can be altered or modified to incorporate performance objectives related to cooperation and collaboration, which will then reward individuals who improve or exhibit these characteristics. Then, the system can be changed to add group rewards and bonuses for team performance. Hallmark Cards, Inc., and one subsidiary of Blue Cross, Trigon, have successfully adapted reward systems to include team incentives in a manner that provides a model for other companies (Geber, 1995).
In summary, teams become distinct from groups when synergies emerge from greater interdependence and shared effort. Self-managed work teams, problem-solving teams, cross-functional teams and virtual teams are commonly used by business organizations. Effective management of these and other teams can become an integral part of organizational success.
Comprehension Exercise 1. Teams with a common purpose among members, confidence, specific goals, an\ d managed con - flict exhibit which aspect of team development? a. team composition b. work design c. contextual factors d. process variables Answers: 1) d baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 171 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Section 6.3 Decision Making 6.3 Decision Making What is the most important managerial activity? Some of you might answer\ , “Providing leadership.” Others may reply, “Motivating employees.” Both are quality answers. A third option, however, would be the response, “Making decisions.” In today’s volatile work environment managers are constantly chal- lenged to make decisions. Therefore, the study of decision making constitutes a key element in under - standing how to effectively manage an organization.
A decision is a choice between alternative courses of action. At times, decisions do not require a great deal of consideration.
A programmed decision will be made when the nature of the problem is well understood, the choices are clear, and the results can be predicted with high levels of confidence. Reordering raw materials, renewing employment contracts, and following com - pany procedures are examples of programmed decisions. A non- programmed decision occurs when the situation is unique and no previously established courses of action exist. Such decisions require more time and evaluation. In this section, decision-mak - ing models and methods used to determine nonprogrammed decisions are identified. A Rational Decision-Making Model When organizational leaders seek to resolve a problem that has new, uncharted dimensions, the most traditional method is to follow the steps of a rational model. The approach allows for reasoned thought at every point. The rational decision-making model consists of six steps: 1. State the problem or opportunity. 2. Identify company limitations. 3. Generate alternatives. 4. Evaluate alternatives. 5. Choose a solution. 6. Develop a plan of implementation. State the Problem or Opportunity It may be tempting to think that decision making is only about solving p\ roblems. In truth, organizational managers often are able to assess an opportunity. More common problems and opportunities are identi - fied in Table 6.5.
Learning Objective #3:
How can managers apply rational and nonrational decision-making methods to resolve organizational problems? Creatas/Thinkstock Decision making is a key managerial activity. baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 172 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Section 6.3 Decision Making Table 6.5: Problems and opportunities ProblemsOpportunities Lost market share Available new technology Low profits/losses Economic upswing Employee morale issues New social trend Unethical activities Change in the marketplace When identifying a problem or opportunity, two elements are important. First, make certain that the cause of the problem has been identified and not just the symptoms of the problem. For example, lost market share could be due to an innovation by the competition or declining product quality by the firm losing share. Employee morale issues include symptoms such as absenteeism, tardiness, turnover, and grievances. The cause could be a new supervisor who does not relate well to employees, the lack of pay raises combined with layoffs, or some other force. Effective decision making results from careful investi - gation of the nature of the issue.
Second, when specifying a problem or opportunity, state the issue in a positive fashion. For example, instead of saying, “Our sales are dropping,” state, “We need to find a way to increase sales by 10% in units next quarter.” In essence, the problem should be framed as the desired solution.
Identify Company Limitations Every company’s situation contains unique elements. Around 2010, Facebook and Twitter experienced explosive growth in terms of usage and revenues. In the same year, many firms struggled with low sales due to a sputtering economy. When seeking to solve a problem or to seize an opportunity, a prudent course of action involves identifying company limitations. The most common areas in which limitations influence decision making are time, money, skilled personnel, technology, and organizational inertia.
Time limits decision making in three ways. First, decisions must often be made quickly, giving managers little time to develop and consider options. Second, when considering al\ ternatives, the length of time each lasts should be part of the process. The decision to construct a new building or expand in some major way may require long-term financing, which limits company options to pursue other projects in the future. Third, the time from decision to implementation merits deliberation. A decision that has been made may take weeks, months, or even years to implement. Consequently, this aspect of the alternative should also be taken into account.
Money nearly always affects decision making. Firms simply cannot throw dollars at every issue. Skilled personnel become a limitation when other firms employ workers with super\ ior talents or knowledge, placing other companies at a disadvantage. Technology limits decision making when other firms acquire more advanced technology. Also, at times companies know a technological breakthrough that would solve a problem is on the horizon, but is not yet available. Organizational inertia, or systematic resis- tance to change, often prevents quality solutions from being chosen. Managers know that subordinates or top management can prevent the implementation of a quality idea. baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 173 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Section 6.3 Decision Making Generate Alternatives When looking for ways to solve company problems, one key element is creativity. Most well-trained employees will know the obvious solutions to many problems. Greater success often occurs when a cre- ative solution has been identified. Companies that quickly established a\ presence on Twitter in its early years enjoyed a major advantage in the marketplace with younger, technically savvy customers. The Twelpforce program created by Best Buy serves as an example. Techniques that can assist employees in generating creative alternatives include: • brainstorming • nominal groups • finding the lowest common denominator • seeking an outside perspective The brainstorming technique involves a group of employees gathered to generate creative ideas. The group is given the problem and then asked to quickly come up with as many ideas as possible i\ n a short time period about how to resolve the issue. In some cases, respondents simply shout out responses. For the session to succeed, four rules must be followed: • The more ideas, the better. • Wilder, more offbeat ideas are best. • Build upon the ideas of other participants. • Do not pass judgment on others’ ideas during the session. Brainstorming remains popular in organizations and departments where creativity is a way of life. For instance, advertising departments, research and development departments, and entertainment compa- nies all rely on brainstorming.
Nominal groups may be used when participants are more reserved. In the nominal group session, instead of shouting out ideas, members write them down. Then, potential solution\ s are offered in a round-robin fashion, with each person taking a turn. Potential alternatives are then discussed and voted upon by ranking them from best to worst.
Finding the lowest common denominator involves trying to think of the problem in the simplest of terms. Instead of trying to find a way to increase sales, for example, it may be easier to come up with methods to generate store traffic. The concept would be that if people visit the store, they will be more inclined to buy something.
Seeking an outside perspective means visiting with someone from another discipline or area. A mar - keter might ask an accountant’s opinion. A production manager could visit with someone from human resources about a morale issue. The goal is to incorporate a new point of view\ into the analysis and come up with new and unusual ways to solve a problem.
Evaluate Alternatives With the identified limitations and alternatives in mind, managers can pr\ oceed to the evaluation stage.
Often, the pros and cons of each alternative may be listed for those involved to exam\ ine. Many decisions have been reached by discovering the alternative with the best advantage-to-disadvantage ratio. Four other factors enter into the evaluation stage: decision quality, decision acceptance, uncertainty and risk, and the potential for conflict during deliberations. baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 174 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Section 6.3 Decision Making The first factor, decision quality, represents the rational, analytical component of the process; it seeks maximi- zation no matter what the impact is on employees and their concerns. The second, decision acceptance, will be based on people’s feelings. A trade-off may exist between the quality of a decision and its degree of acceptance. As an example, adopting a new technology could create an advantage with regard to competition but could also lead to layoffs. Internal acceptance would logically be low for such an alternative.
The third factor influencing alternative evaluation is uncertainty and risk. Uncertainty means that incomplete information will be available to make a decision. Greater uncertainty means managers have less information and do not know with confidence how the implementation of an alternative will turn out. Risk represents circumstances under which uncertainty regarding the out - come of a decision is high. Managers must know if they are operating in a risk-taking company or one that avoids risks. Entire national cultures are evaluated on the basis of acceptance or avoidance of risk.
The fourth factor is the potential for conflict during deliberations. De\ cision makers do not operate in a vacuum. Alternatives that will adversely impact other employees or departments w\ ill receive resistance.
Managers must be able and willing to sort out political motives when eva\ luating alternatives.
Choose a Solution Three items merit consideration when choosing a solution. First, managers s\ hould note that solutions will often be combinations of alternatives rather than a single option. \ Finding sets of ideas that work together should be the objective.
Second, any solution chosen should be compared to the “do nothing” option. In other words, the man - ager must make sure the alternative offers an advantage over taking no action at all. Medical doctors follow the maxim, “First, do no harm.” There are times when it is simply best to let the patient heal with - out intervention. Sports executives follow the premise, “Sometimes the best trade is the one you don’t make.” In essence, when deciding to take a particular course of actio\ n, it is advisable to make sure that it offers significant advantages over simply letting things take their natura\ l course.
The third item to consider is that when an alternative has been chosen, managers\ should restate their reasoning. The purpose is to make sure the manager can defend the choice at some later point. Many executives maintain decision “logs” or journals that spell out why\ a course of action was chosen, should they be asked to explain their reasoning by others.
Develop a Plan of Implementation A successful plan requires more than a simple decision about which action to take. Managers must make \ sure the decision is logically and efficiently carried out. Implementing plans involves the use of “Ws” and “Hs,” as follows: • Who is in charge? • When should each step of implementation take place (timing issues)? iStockphoto/Thinkstock During the evaluation process, managers consider the pros and cons of each alternative in order to determine the best possible choice. baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 175 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Section 6.3 Decision Making • Where will the solution be implemented? • How should we proceed (sequence of events)?
The “why” question was answered in the previous stage of the decision-making process: making the choice and stating the reasons. Limitations to Rational Decision-Making Models Although the rational model continues to be widely used, managers recognize the limitations that accompany this approach. In essence, rational decision making can be affected by five issues: expecta- tions, emotions, company politics, personal attitudes and values, and a mismatch of decision maker and decision.
Three types of expectations can influence decision mak- ers. The first is the expectations of a supervisor or top manager. A subordinate, not wishing to frustrate a boss, may choose a less viable option because the individual knows it is the one the boss favors. The expectations of peers, or peer pressure, constitutes the second force that can disrupt effective decision making. Third, many supervisors make poor decisions based on the expec - tations of employees. For instance, a supervisor who wishes to be considered a “good guy” may not termi - nate a popular employee, even when that person cannot effectively perform.
Two emotions in particular may affect rational decision making. Anger often leads to poor decisions, because when someone is overcome by a strong emotion, that person usually has difficulty thinking rationally and clearly. Managers should not make snap decisions when they are mad. Second, feelings of sadness or depression can influence decision makers. Depressed individuals often do not have the energy to commit themselves to decision making. Someone who is having a bad day is advised to post - pone a decision until his or her mood brightens.
Company politics occur when individuals or departments seek to influence decisions that \ favor their inter - ests, rather than overall company interests. Politics affects funding decisions, task assignments, and pro - motion decisions in a wide number of companies.
Personal attitudes affect a number of organizational operations and decision making within companies. A misogynistic supervisor likely will not consider promoting a female, or even paying her at an equitable level when compared to her male counterparts. Following the events of September 11, 2001, employees with Islamic religious beliefs often faced backlash. Someone who has lost a treasured family member to an auto accident involving a drunk driver will likely have strong feelings about alcohol consumption, which may affect workplace decisions about consumption as part of work functions or \ even during one’s lunch hour.
A mismatch between a decision maker and the type of decision to be made often takes\ place in the area of risk attitudes. For example, in some positions or projects, a person with a risk-taking personality may not be the best person to make the decisions; in other areas, however, a risk taker may be the best choice.
Many companies seek to employ risk managers to supervise company portfol\ ios and holdings, taking appropriate levels of risk. Ron Chapple Studios/Thinkstock Emotions such as anger can limit the ability to make rational decisions. baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 176 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Section 6.3 Decision Making In summary, rational decision-making models remain prevalent methods for making organizational choices. The limits to rationality described in this section have led to\ other viewpoints about the nature of decision making.
Decision-Making Models: Nonrational Methods Popular culture, as depicted in cartoons such as Dilbert, portrays managers in a less-than-positive light and assumes a contentious relationship between employees and managers. In truth, many managers are dedicated to helping a company succeed while achieving personal goals. To do so, it would not make sense to resort to impulsive and irrational decision-making processes. Instead, nonrational models depict their decision-making process in a more realistic light. Two nonrational models of decision making are the bounded rationality model and the garbage can model.
The Bounded Rationality Model The rational decision model has its roots in economic theory. In microeconomic theory, it is assumed that decision makers have access to perfect information, are perfectly rational, and follow one decision rule:
maximization. A business decision would be made to maximize profits. A personal decision would be made to maximize personal utility.
Because of the problems mentioned in the previous sec - tion, it has become clear that perfect information and perfect rationality do not often exist. The bounded ratio - nality model suggests that a set of limitations prevents most managers from making perfectly rational decisions.
The bounded rationality model posits that managers do not have enough time, energy, money, or brainpower to consider every decision alternative; consequently, they try their best to make quality decisions within those limi - tations. The architect of the bounded rationality model, Herbert Simon (1957, 1977), does not argue that manag - ers exhibit irrationality, but rather that there are limits to practicing perfect rationality.
In the model, managers employ heuristics, which are decision rules that quickly eliminate alternatives. When a manager says, “We can’t afford to hire anyone new,” a decision rule has been set. In this case, it allows the manager to understand that\ the financial impact associated with adding a new person eliminates that option from consideration. The manager can then emphasize other key elements of the problem and look for a solution.
One common decision rule is satisficing, which suggests that when a manager identifies an “acceptable” solution, the manager takes it and quits looking. Satisficing has been c\ alled the “That’s good enough” rule. Any alternative that leads the manager to say, “That’s good enough” will be chosen. In many hir - ing decisions, an absolutely ideal candidate may not emerge. The first individual that causes the human resource manager and supervisor to say, “he or she will do” has met the satisficing criterion.
The bounded rationality model offers a practical and realistic view of the ways in which many decisions are made. Anyone who has purchased a house or car probably has engaged in the use of heuristics and iStockphoto/Thinkstock The bounded rationality model takes into account the personal limitations, such as time, energy, and money, that affect a manager’s ability to make perfectly rational decisions. baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 177 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Section 6.3 Decision Making satisficing. The same holds true when managers choose from a list of potential job candidates, make bud- get decisions, or identify potential plans and courses of action.
The Garbage Can Model A second nonrational model suggests that managers exhibit random patterns when making decisions. In essence, managers maintain preestablished sets of solutions for problems located in individual mental garbage cans. If a solution appears to match a problem, it will be chosen. Managers utilizing the garbage can approach have no clear immediate goals. Decision making is not structured (Cohen, March, & Olsen, 1972). Instead, problems, solutions, participants, and choice opportunities are brought together to make decisions in a disorganized fashion.
The garbage can model suggests that managers look for convenient answers to problems. The greater the number of problems to resolve, the less time available that can be allocated to each problem. Therefore, use of the garbage can model optimizes decision-making time. Often decis\ ions are affected by political motives in the sense that an individual will resort to or choose the solution which will best serve imme- diate personal interests (Bower & Gilbert, 2007). The garbage can model provides explanations for the ways in which managers seek to make expedient decisions, especially in situations where time pressures and work overload are present.
Decision-Making Styles Two factors drive the methods by which individuals make decisions: tolera\ nce for ambiguity and value orientation. The combination of these two factors leads to four decision\ -making styles (Rowe & Mason, 1987). Table 6.6 outlines the basics of these styles.
Table 6.6: Decision-making styles Decision-Making Style Characteristics Directive Low Tolerance for Ambiguity/ High Task and Technical Concern Values Analytical High Tolerance for Ambiguity/ High Task and Technical Concern Values Behavioral Low Tolerance for Ambiguity/ High People and Social Concern Values Conceptual High Tolerance for Ambiguity/ High People and Social Concern Values The directive style emphasizes logical, pragmatic, and systematic methods for making decisions. Because those with a directive style have a low tolerance for ambiguity, they are prone to making quick decisions.
The result normally will be an autocratic leadership style.
The analytical style differs from the directive style in that those with an analytical style have a high tolerance for ambiguity, and so are willing to wait to make a decision until they have gathered as much data as possible. The analytical style is most effective in new and uncertain situations in which long baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 178 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Section 6.3 Decision Making deliberations are useful. The analytical style tends to fit either autocratic or consult\ ative leadership, as the decision maker will seek information from others to help him or her make decisions.
The behavioral style emphasizes social interactions with subordinates as part of the decision-making process. The low tolerance for ambiguity leads him or her to make relatively quick decisions after dis- cussing the problem with others. The primary flaw with this approach may be the tendency to compro- mise too much. Behavioral managers tend to employ a participative leader\ ship style.
The conceptual style seeks out social input and uses intuition combined \ with reasoning to make deci- sions. Conceptual leaders tend to be more participative and democratic in style. Their high tolerance for ambiguity may lead conceptual decision makers to want to talk to as \ many others as possible before making a final decision. Conceptual decision makers also often focus on the long-term implications of decisions.
None of the four styles should be considered as superior to the others. Each fits with individual leaders and specific company situations. Problems occur, however, when the style does not fit the decision.
Group Decision Making Numerous decisions are made by groups rather than individuals. The managerial imperative will be to identify times when a decision is best left to a single individual or wh\ en to include groups in the process.
Normally the choice involves a comparison of the benefits and problems associated with group deci - sion making in regards to the matter to be decided. Table 6.7 summarizes the key issues (Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, & Cardy, 2005).
Table 6.7: Benefits and problems with group decision making Benefits Problems • Additional perspectives/expertise • More time-consuming than an individual decision • Allows discussion and evaluation • Conformity and compromise may prevail rather than decision quality • Increases acceptance of and commitment to decisions • Potential to be out-shouted rather than outreasoned • Can train employees in decision-making skills • Potential for conflict • Potential for political rather than rational decisions The factors that influence the choice of involving a group in the decision-making process include time, decision importance or scope, the long-term implications of the decision\ , the availability of information, and the importance of employee acceptance. Decisions that require quick action become less likely to involve a group. Decisions with greater degrees of importance and long -term implications will logically be presented to groups. When a manager has sufficient information to make a quality decision, involv - ing a group becomes less crucial. When employee acceptance represents a key factor, the most common approach will be to involve a group in the decision (Vroom & Jago, 1998). baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 179 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Chapter Summary Chapter Summary A formal group is established by the organization and seeks to achieve company goals and objectives.
Three common types of formal groups are work groups, committees, and project teams. Informal groups revolve around activities, shared sentiments, and interactions. Both types of groups contain four types of members: the leader, opinion leaders, members in good standing, and the gatekeeper.
Groups tend to go through the stages of forming, storming, norming, performing, and, in some \ cases, adjourning. Norms in groups tend to revolve around effort/productivity, work behaviors, and social behaviors. As part of the group activities, members enact various roles, which are the parts people play in social settings. Expectations, norms, performance, evaluation, and sanct\ ions continually define and refine the role. Problems emerge when the actor experiences disconnect created by role conflicts involving the contradictory elements within the role or with other roles the person plays. Role ambiguity reflects unclear direction and misunderstanding of the nature of the role. Role overload exists when the role player cannot complete all assigned tasks. Effective group leadership can reduce or eliminate these potential problems.
The goal of the group should be the primary determinant of its size. Three basic objectives associated with a group are producing an item/completing a project, solving problems, and collecting information/ input. Effective group size tends to be approximately five to seven members. Group leaders should be aware of social loafing, in which a member does not give full effort or fails to completely engage in the group’s work.
The degree of goal commitment, conformity, cooperation, and group control over members indicates the level of group cohesiveness. Groups lacking cohesion experience numerous problems related to coor- dination and control. Cohesive groups enjoy several benefits, including a positive social atmosphere.
Overly cohesive groups create problems for leaders, especially when groupthink dominates group delib - erations and actions.
Group leaders tend to roles and norms, making sure these serve group functioning. At times the leader faces an outlier, who should be kept from damaging the morale of group members and effective group functioning.
Teams become distinct from groups when synergies emerge from greater interdependence and shared effort. Characteristics of teams include sharing leadership responsibilities among members, shifting from individual to individual plus collective responsibility, evaluation of success that is based on team out - comes rather than individual outcomes, improved collective problem solving, and trust among members.
Quality teams result from a match between the composition of the team, the design of the work, \ contex - tual factors, and process variables. Numerous ideas about the nature of an effective team player exist, which provide each person with a series of options regarding ways to engage in a group and become an effective member. Three managerial activities that can help managers lead employees to greater degrees of team participation are found through recruiting and selection, coaching, and reward systems.
A decision is a choice between alternative courses of action. A programmed decision is made when the nature of the problem is well understood, the choices are clear, and the results can be predicted with high levels of confidence. A nonprogrammed decision occurs when the situation is unique and no previously established courses of action exist. Such decisions require more time and evaluation.
The rational decision-making model consists of six steps: state the problem or opportunity, identify com - pany limitations, generate alternatives, evaluate alternatives, choose a\ solution, and develop a plan of baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 180 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Chapter Summary implementation. Rational decision making can be affected by expectations, emotions, company politics, personal attitudes and values, and a mismatch of decision maker and deci\ sion.
Two nonrational models of decision making are the bounded rationality model and the garbage can model. Bounded rationality posits that managers do not have enough time, energy, money, or brain - power to consider every decision alternative; consequently, managers will try their best to make quality decisions within those limitations, using heuristics and the satisficing\ decision rule. The garbage can model suggests managers maintain preestablished sets of solutions for problems located in individual garbage cans.
Two factors drive the methods by which individuals make decisions: tolera\ nce for ambiguity and value orientation. Combinations of these elements lead to four decision-making styles: directive, analytical, behavioral, and conceptual. Managers can match the styles to the nature of the decision and organization in which the decision is made.
With regard to individual versus group decision making, the managerial imperative will be to identify times when a decision is best left to a single individual and when to in\ clude groups in the process. Man - agers should consider the benefits and problems associated with group decision making when choosing how to proceed.
Comprehension Exercise 1. The decision-making model that includes heuristics and satisficing is a. rational decision-making model. b. bounded rationality model. c. garbage can model. d. brainstorming. Answers: 1) b Case Study: The Crew Doug has just moved to Bentonville, Arkansas after living in the northern United States for several years. A divorce caused the move. His marriage began at the age of 20 and ended at age 24. He moved to Northern Arkansas to get a change of scenery and to look for better job prospects. Doug was a technical school graduate. His father taught him a great deal about the construction industry and had acquainted him with a variety of tools and techniques. He was skilled at framing, finish carpentry, and several other aspects of building and maintenance. He worked with bricks and mortar, but was most comfortable with a hammer and nails. His previous employer would describe him as “hard-working, reliable, and skilled.” Based on references from his previous employer, Doug obtained a position with the Main Street Construction Company. The operation consisted of three crews, each of which worked together year round. Each crew employed six workers, one designated as foreman and the others without titles. Pay levels varied by skills, years of service, and some adjust - ments for merit, based on performance evaluations of the foreman and the judgments of the owner, Mike Cope. Doug joined the crew that had been together the longest. One of their members had been badly injured in a car acci - dent and was expected to be gone for at least a year. The member stated his intention to rejoin the crew as (continued) baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 181 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Chapter Summary soon as his health would allow. Doug figured he was only a temporary replacement with this team and was uncertain about where he would be assigned next. The first several weeks on the job were difficult. Others in the crew treated Doug as if he barely existed. No one spoke to him, except for perfunctory conversations. During lunch hours the rest of the crew would abandon the work site, leaving Doug to eat or rest alone. Doug was used to this form of indoctrination. He had seen it happen on his last job. This time, however, it felt worse. By the third week he was highly frustrated. Members of the crew did nothing to make him look bad, but they also would not help him. He would often end up taking extra time to finish a task because no one would help hold boards to be cut or hand him tools when he worked in the high places on ladders or scaffolding. He would have to climb down instead. Doug believed that if he said something or complained to the foreman or Mike his situation would worsen. During the fourth week, Doug became aware that an opening in another crew was available. He talked with Mike about the spot in private, wondering if he might fit in better with another set of workers. Mike told him to stay with his crew and to “hang in there.” Mike continued, “These guys are adjusting to losing Fred and they’re taking some of their frus - tration out on you. Any other guy I might put on that crew would have the same problem.” “Maybe,” Doug replied, “But maybe if they could use me as a scapegoat then the new guy would have it easier.” “Tell you what,” Mike offered, “If it doesn’t get any better in a month, I’ll switch you with whoever I hire for the other crew.” “Deal,” Doug responded. He figured he could handle anything for a month. Knowing that there was a way out made it easier.
The next time Doug needed help he simply asked for it. The crew member seemed shocked by his request to help cut and fit a corner. The man assisted Doug, and the two seemed to enjoy a fairly pleasant conversation while they worked. Doug said he was sorry that Fred had been hurt so badly. The crew member noted the good job Doug had done in fin - ishing the corner piece. The next break time, Doug was surprised to see two of the crew wander over for a visit. For the first time, they talked about each other’s personal lives and interests. Doug took a chance on opening up to them, but also believed he had nothing to lose. After a week passed, the group seemed to include Doug into more of the workday, and even invited him to a bar on Fri - day night. The next day, Fred, the injured crew member, came to the job site for a visit. The crew rushed to his pickup to visit. Doug stayed back and finished a task. He then gradually moved toward the rest of the crew. “Hi, I’m Doug,” he said to Fred, offering his hand, “I’m filling in until you get back.” The comment seemed to truly break the ice. Doug was soon invited on lunch breaks and was included on inside jokes and pranks. He discovered common interests in slow-pitch softball and bowling, and was invited to join both teams. Doug finished the year with the crew. The entire group received high performance marks in their annual evaluations. When Fred returned, the crew went to Mike and asked if Doug could remain as a seventh member of the team. Mike agreed, seeing a good thing had evolved. Not long after, the crew’s foreman moved to another city. The crew petitioned Mike to make Doug the new foreman, even though he was the youngest member. Case Questions 1. Explain the five factors that shaped roles when Doug first joined the crew and again after he had been accepted. 2. What group cohesiveness factors were present in this scenario? 3. What factors changed the crew from a group into a team? 4. Explain the interactions between formal and informal groups in this story. Case Study: The Crew (continued) baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 182 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Review Questions Review Questions 1. Define formal and informal groups and name the four types of members in each. 2. Name the five stages of group development. 3. What five factors shape roles? 4. What is social loafing and how is it related to group size? 5. What factors affect group cohesiveness? 6. What are four primary forms of teams? 7. What four elements combine to create effective teams? 8. What three managerial activities can help managers lead employees to greater degrees of team participation? 9. What are the six steps of the rational decision-making model? 10. What five factors limit the viability of rational decision-making models\ ? 11. What two nonrational models explain decision making in organizations? 12. What four decision-making styles are present in organizations? Answers to Review Questions 1. Define formal and informal groups and name the four types of members in each. A formal group is established by the organization and seeks to achieve company goals and objectives. An informal group, or a friendship group, emerges without the endorsement of organizational leaders and does not have a designated structure or work toward organizational goals other than socialization and friendship. The four types of members are the leader, opinion leaders, members in good standing, and the gatekeeper. 2. Name the five stages of group development. The stages include forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. 3. What five factors shape roles? Five major factors shape the nature of a role: expectations, norms, performance, evaluation, and sanctions.
4.
What is social loafing and how is it related to group size? In some instances, extreme declines in individual effort result from the addition of new group mem - bers. Social loafing occurs when group members give less effort to a group than they would if working individually.
5.
What factors affect group cohesiveness? The factors include the size of the group, opportunities to interact, homogeneity or heterogeneity, group status, an outside threat, membership stability, and the effectiveness of the group leader. 6. What are four primary forms of teams? Four of the most common are types of teams are self-managed work teams, problem-solving teams, cross-functional teams, and virtual teams. 7. What four elements combine to create effective teams? Quality teams result from a match between the composition of the team, the design of the work, contex - tual factors, and process variables. 8. What three managerial activities can help managers lead employees to greater degrees of team participation? The likelihood that employees will be team players can be increased through three managerial activities: recruiting and selection, coaching, and reward systems. baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 183 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Analytical Exercises 9. What are the six steps of the rational decision-making model? The rational decision-making model consists of six steps: (1) state the problem or opportunity, (2) iden - tify company limitations, (3) generate alternatives, (4) evaluate alternatives, (5) choose a solution, and (6) develop a plan of implementation. 10. What five factors limit the viability of rational decision-making models? Rational decision making can be affected by five issues: expectations, emotions, company politics, per - sonal attitudes and values, and a mismatch of decision maker and decision. 11. What two nonrational models explain decision making in organizations? The two nonrational models of decision making are the bounded rationality model and the garbage can model.
12.
What four decision-making styles are present in organizations? The four styles are directive, analytical, behavior, and conceptual. Analytical Exercises 1. In the field of marketing, the product life-cycle model explains how a product reaches the mar - ket (introduction), grows, reaches maturity or saturation, begins to decline, and dies. The same model has been applied to business types, such as drive-in theatres and mom-and-pop grocery stores. Do these analogies bear any resemblance to the stages of group development described in this chapter? What are the primary similarities and differences? 2. The five main factors that shape roles are role expectations, norms, role performance, evalua - tion, and sanctions. Three problems associated with effective role performance are role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload. Relate these concepts to the following occupations: • police officer • member of the clergy • accountant in a major firm • assembly-line worker 3. Relate the concepts of social loafing and group outliers to potential effects on group cohesive - ness. How might a manager use the factors that increase or decrease cohesion to reduce these two problems? 4. The four types of teams described in this chapter are self-managed, problem solving, cross- functional, and virtual. Which should be used in the following circumstances? Defend your reasoning. • oil rig explosion and oil spill investigation • market research regarding company advertising effectiveness in other countries • investigation of a dramatic rise in employee turnover in one plant, but \ not in others in the company • developing a social media presence for an insurance company 5. Compare the rational decision-making model with the bounded rationality and ga\ rbage can models when making the following decisions. Select the one you think wou\ ld be best and explain your reasoning. • decision to downsize and use outsourcing instead • choice of automobile company from which to purchase new fleet of company cars • choice of state in which the company will build a new warehouse and delivery facility • employee promotions baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 184 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 Key Terms Key Terms cross-functional team Employees from different areas in a company who are brought together for a specific purpose. decision A choice between alternative courses of action. formal group A group established by the orga- nization that seeks to achieve company goals and objectives. group Two or more people, interacting, with a common purpose or goal. group cohesiveness The degree of goal commit- ment, conformity, cooperation, and group control over members. groupthink What results when group pressures for conformity become so intense that the group avoids unusual, minority, or unpopular views. heuristics Decision rules that quickly eliminate alternatives in the bounded rationality model. informal group A group that emerges without the endorsement of organizational leaders and does not have a designated structure or work toward organizational goals, focusing instead on socialization and friendship. nonprogrammed decision A decision made when the situation is unique and no previously estab- lished courses of action exist. organizational inertia Systematic resistance to change. problem-solving team Members of an organiza- tion placed into a group to examine specific orga- nizational problems or processes. programmed decision A decision that is made when the nature of the problem is well under - stood, the choices are clear, and the results can be predicted with high levels of confidence. risk Circumstances under which uncertainty regarding the outcome of a decision is high. role The part a person plays in a social setting. role ambiguity What results from lack of clarity about a role. role conflict What occurs when an individual confronts differing role expectations. role overload What occurs when someone is asked to do too much within a role. satisficing An alternative that is chosen in a deci- sion-making context when a manager identifies an “acceptable” solution, takes it, and quits looking. self-managed work team A group of employees who are assigned managerial responsibilities com- bined with work tasks. social loafing What occurs when group mem- bers give less effort than they would if working individually. teams Small sets of people that generate syner - gies through greater interdependence and shared effort, which in turn lead to agreed-upon goals. uncertainty A decision circumstance in which incomplete information is available to make a decision and managers do not know with confi- dence how the implementation of an alternative will turn out. virtual teams Teams that employ the Internet and digital technologies to achieve common goals. baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 185 6/17/13 12:01 PM CHAPTER 6 baa66968_06_c06_153-186.indd 186 6/17/13 12:01 PM