Communication is the third component, and a very important one if effective decision-making is to be made within the group. Communication is one of the key factors behind both a successful or failing team. How communication factors into a failing team will be explored later.
Communication may prove difficult for some. It is not always easy or comfortable to voice one’s opinion, but the idea is to make every attempt to do so. Keep all lines of communication open; find out each member’s schedule, as well as the preferred method for group interaction. This interaction may take place in many different ways: through email, phone conversations, or in a chat room. The group should establish a decision-making process as part of effective communication.
Littlepage & Mueller (1997) demonstrate that “the recognition of expertise’ (the fourth component of an effective team) ‘is an important component of group problem-solving and decision-making effectiveness, and groups vary substantially in their ability to recognize member expertise” (¶21). It is natural to make mistakes, whether working individually or in a group. However, by bringing such mistakes to the attention of the group, the task of correcting them and moving on will be a much simpler.
A successful, productive team is not always dependent upon the quality of their physical surroundings, as noted by Sundstrom et al (2000):
Hawthorne researchers initially assumed that physical characteristics of the workplace determine productivity. But as they varied conditions with a small group of workers in an experimental test room, they noted that group dynamics—not lighting, temperature, breaks, and so on—determined performance (Forsyth, ¶6).
Group Dynamics shape the success or failure of teamwork. The four basic components of a successful team are just a broad generalization of what one might expect to observe in a team that is functioning effectively. However, there are a myriad of other factors that shape a team and may lend to either success or failure.
Now that we have explored the basic components of an effective team we will delve into the reasons behind team failure. Clearly, if the characteristics of an effective team are missing or not utilized properly, the lack may well lead to an ineffective group effort. For this reason, we must look at these characteristics and understand how they affect group dynamics in a negative way.
Every team must have a foundation, agreed upon by all. This foundation, or purpose, is the driving force and reason the team was brought together in the first place. If this purpose is not clearly understood or agreed upon, a team may become deadlocked and immoveable before anything even begins. Program Manager of the Naval Air Systems Team and author of Roadblocks to Effective Team Dynamics in the IPPD Environment, Steven Toman (2000) agrees:
Some experts in the field of team dynamics point to an unclear team mission as the single largest reason for a team's failure to perform at optimal levels. A team's mission may seem obvious, but it is vital that each member understands the team's purpose, vision, and goals in the same way” (¶ 5).
Earlier we identified communication as a key component in a successful team. However, communication, or lack there of, is also a major contributor to team failure. Many teams fall into the trap of not communicating regularly, assuming others are doing what they are supposed to be doing, or pressing forward after very brief interaction that did not provide clear guidelines and team buy-in. A key component to successful communication is the ability to speak live and meet face to face. One of the factors that contributes to the difficulty of teamwork at the University of Phoenix Online is the inability to experience this live interaction. According to Toman’s study (2000) “periodic status meetings that provide face-to-face communication are a must; E-mail-only is insufficient and leads to miscommunication and confusion” (¶ 14).
Accountability is another key element that, when lacking, contributes to a dysfunctional group. An established foundation should provide team mission, team rules, assignment of responsibilities and measures for the accomplishment of tasks. If one or more team members are not held accountable for their required tasks, the team will have to reassign the work to another member already doing their share, fall behind on deadlines, and possibly not achieve the end result at all. Any of these outcomes is stressful to team interaction and harmful to the group as a whole.
Conflict is a part of any group dynamic that must be planned on. It is often not a question of “if” people will disagree, but “when”: “Conflict in any team is inevitable, and many successful managers agree that team conflict is healthy, even vital. However, conflict becomes unhealthy if not managed appropriately” (Toman, 2000, Roadblocks to effective team dynamics in the IPPD environment, ¶ 15). When a group does not agree and a conflict arises, the way in which the issue is dealt with can lend to a more productive group or the further breakdown of a group already in distress.
How to turn a floundering team to success? Identify the different types of conflict the team is experiencing and work at resolving these issues. Conflict is often the result of having different types of personality in the group. By understanding and addressing differing personality types, a successful group may use these differences to the team’s advantage. For example, if conflict arises because one group member doesn’t enjoy record keeping, and another dislikes research, tasks may be swapped so that both are happy and the work gets done.
Other contributors to a floundering team are lack of communication, lack of clarity to team mission or objective, and the assumption that one person’s responsibility is more important then another’s. All of these issues may be addressed through team communication. The key is to never give up, constantly strive for understanding, and make every effort to keep team members accountable for their assigned responsibilities. A floundering team may turn things around by addressing the issues as they arise so that they may refocus on the task at hand.
Diverse personality types can work together despite their differences. According to Robert Lynch, vice-president of The Miller Consulting Group in Atlanta, “it pays to look for diversity because the best teams are a collection of contrasting styles and values. Differences of opinion and conflicts are usually present in a good team” (Weiss, W H, p 9).
Teams are often comprised of a variety of personalities such as the analytic person, the action-oriented type, the visionary, and the administrative. A floundering team may be turned around with the identification of these personality types, because once identified, assignment of responsibilities may be based upon what suits each person. This often reduces the occurrence of team conflict and produces a harmonious, productive group.
The analytical person is usually the realistic person in the group. He or she will not act unless a common ground is achieved. The action-oriented person is in charge of making sure the group project continues to move forward. With this type of person in a team, one may rest assured in the knowledge that things will get done on time. The visionary’s mission is to overlook any minor difficulties the team is experiencing and ensure the team stays focused. Finally, the administrative personality is the person to track the actual progress of the team.
Every team experiences fear and anxiety, particularly in the beginning stage. These fears are commonly associated with lack of communication, unclear goal or team mission, and assuming one’s responsibility is more important then the other. These fears may stunt a team’s progress. A team must address these types of fears early in order to move beyond them. A floundering team may become successful if they establish the following guidelines:
- Communication channels must be kept open.
- All ideas will be taken into consideration.
- Goals must be agreed upon before tasks are assigned.
Goals should be clear from the very beginning in order to maintain team focus. According to Glenn Parker (1994), consultant and author of Cross-Functional Teams: Working With Allies, Enemies, and Other Strangers, “Teams should go from the general to the specific. This allows the team to focus its resources for maximum results instead of riding off in all directions”
(Parker, p 58).
Finally, assuming one’s responsibility is more important then the other is usually a result of having different egos within the team. By keeping open communication, having the same common goal, and acknowledging the importance of each team member, this negative symptom of a floundering team may be removed.
The dynamics within a group will determine its success or failure. Understanding the many different dynamics, which may present within a group enables team members to identify what is happening, make corrections, and move forward. Teamwork may not always be easy, and conflict will arise, but with the proper understanding, teams may utilize the dynamics that exist to further their goals and successfully accomplish the mission that brought them together.
References
Forsyth, R. F. (2000). One hundred years of groups research: introduction to the special issue. Retrieved January 27, 2004, from EBSCOhost database.
Littlepage, G.E. & Mueller, A.L. (1997). Recognition and utilization of expertise in problem-solving groups: expert characteristics and behavior group dynamics, 1 (4). Retrieved Jan. 27, 2004, from EBSCOhost database.
Stasson, Kameda, & Davis (1997). A model of agenda influences on group decisions. Group Dynamics. 1. (4). Retrieved January 27, 2004, from EBSCOhost database.
Torman, Steven. (Jul/Aug2000). Roadblocks to effective team dynamics in the IPPD environment. 29(4), 5. Retrieved January 10, 2004, from
EBSCOhost database.
Torman, Steven. (Jul/Aug2000). Roadblocks to effective team dynamics in the IPPD environment. 29(4), 14. Retrieved January 10, 2004, from EBSCOhost database.
Torman, Steven. (Jul/Aug2000). Roadblocks to effective team dynamics in the IPPD environment. 29(4), 15. Retrieved January 10, 2004, from EBSCOhost database.
Weiss, W H (1998). Supervision, Teams and teamwork. 59(7); 9. Retrieved on January 12, 2004 from EBSCOhost database.
Parker, Glenn M (1994). Small Business Reports, Cross-functional teams. 19(10); 58. Retrieved on January 12, 2004 from EBSCOhost database.
