FACTORS THAT ENHANCE TEAM WORK

FACTORS THAT ENHANCE TEAM WORK

The factors enhancing team work include the following: Diversity, Size
Rewards, Supervision, Client Climate, Cohesiveness etc.

(a) Diversity:

Only two studies examined diversity both studies conceptualized it in terms of knowledge and skills Magjuke and Baldwin (1991) measured heterogeneity as the proportion of various job categories within computer manufacturing employee involvement tools. Teams with greater diversity evaluated their effectiveness more positively. The author offer a number of possible explanations for this result, ranging better use of members knowledge to better communication and cooperation with external groups. Campin (2005) found skill heterogeneity to have no relationship to productivity, employee satisfaction, and manager ratings of performance in a service settings. They suggest that their sample may have varied little in terms of background and expertise.

(b) Size:

Nieva (1999) Relation to effectiveness such that too many members reduce performance sample found that increasing group size actually improved performance without limit. Campion (2003) found that group size was positively related to productivity. Manager judgement of effectiveness, and employee satisfaction.

Magjuke and Baldwin (1999) found group size to be a significant positive predictor of a group performance among employee involvement teams. Team size ranged from 8 to 35 members; the team focussed on continuous improvements. The actors note the benefit of increasing teams size , larger teams imply fewer teams within a firm, thus fewer leaders must be trained less coordination is required among teams and fewer team proposal must be reviewed by steering and oversight committee.

(c) Rewards:

The results for rewards are somewhat mixed. Rewards were found to have no significant relationship with manager ratings of performance Magjuke (1999) productivity, Campion (1999) and process effectiveness Wageman (1995).

Only two studies found with ratings of performance, trust in management, organisational commitment, and satisfaction for both self directed and traditionally managed groups in a telecommunication management firm when jointed with other contextual Variables (information access, raining, resources and feedback) it proof a strong positive predicator of manager rating of performance for self- directed work groups. klageman (1995) found that the highest performing maintenance technician groups were those whose reward and task had either pure group or pure individual design.

(d) Supervision:

Supervision behaviours, moods and expectations were studies for either effect on group performance . Cohen (1996)examined , encouraging supervisory behaviours (for example, self – rehearsal and self management) among self directed work teams and traditionally managed teams.

Contrary to Manzand sim-self- leadership theory 1998, encouraging supervisory behaviour was a negative predictor of performance for self- directed work groups several possible explanations are posed supervisor may tends to exhibit encouraging behaviour with groups management knows are performing poorly but not those that are performing well, supervisors may actually obstruct high performance when they interfere with self-managing work teams or upper management may perceive groups that receive (needs) such help to be struggling .

(e) Client Climate:

Only one study of work group environmental factors. Nuptal ( 1994) united contingency and institutional theories to explain the simultaneous presence of bureaucratic group, and personal modes of work until control in the U.S. general accounting office (GAO) when auditing government agencies that operate in institutionalised setting, the GAO rational in the eyes of the audited agencies. However, because audits in highly institutionalized setting were characterized by greater task difficulty and high member and supervisor interdependence, contingency theory correctly predicted that more social forms of work –until control, such as group or personal modes, would be chosen behind the scene to coo-ordinate and control audit team activities. The study clearly demonstrate how environmental factors can alters task design characteristics.

(f) Cohesiveness:

In the past six years, four meta – analyses of cohesiveness have been conducted using both laboratory and field finding. Two studies (Evans & Dion.1991:)Mullen; & copper, 1994) found a moderately strong positive relationship between cohesion and performance. In the former, however, the sample was based by sports team, where performance criteria are obvious and logical (for example, win-loss records)and members are unlikely to question goals: obviously, such situation would not hold for many groups in organization. Both studies were criticized by gully, Devine, and Whitney (1995) for task inter-dependence. Taking those two factors into consideration they also confirmed a positive relationship between cohesion and performance, nothing that the effect was larger in studies using a group level of analysis then it was in these with an individual level.

Task interdependence also proved a moderator, with highly interdependent tasks showing a larger effect the authors note that many studies lacked sufficient detail of task interdependence in group, forming them to employ a simple high-low categorisation. They also recommend that future studies examine different types of cohesion (for example, task versus social) as well as the possible moderating effect of group goals. Mullen, Anthony, Salas, and Driskell (1993) conducted the fourth Ineta analysis to examine the impact of cohesiveness on group decision making quality they found that the more the operationalization of cohesion tapped into interpersonal attraction, the more cohesiveness impaired group decision making. Additionally, cohesiveness tended to impair the quality of decision making as team (group) size increased.

(g) Organisational policy and culture:

Orally (1995). Teams are most likely to succeed if they fit the organisations policy and culture an organisation supportive of team work has policies and procedures that faster cooperation and trust among departments and levels of the organisations hierarchy. Team work may fail, however, if the culture is based on an assumption that employees must be compelled to work, and if efficiency is valued at the expense of sols satisfaction. Employees will likely doubt that other organisation is serious about empowerment, and manager may be afraid to delegate authority to teams.