Teams,Team Process, and Team Building

James W. Bishop; Lei Wang

doi:10.1128/9781555817695.ch18

Chapter 18 : Teams,Team Process, and Team Building

Authors: James W. Bishop, Lei Wang

Content Type: Reference

Publication Year: 2004

Category: Clinical Microbiology

Book DOI: 10.1128/9781555817695

Chapter DOI: 10.1128/9781555817695.ch18

MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.

Preview this chapter:

Teams,Team Process, and Team Building, Page 1 of 2

< Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/10.1128/9781555817695/9781555812799_Chap18-1.gif /docserver/preview/fulltext/10.1128/9781555817695/9781555812799_Chap18-2.gif

Abstract:

This chapter defines a work team and distinguishes it from a work group, indicates why a precise definition of “team” is important, and explains the concept of group process within teams. It describes the situations in which teams can be productive and those in which they cannot, and defines “task interdependence,” the types of task interdependence, and their importance. It also explains how task interdependence influences choices related to teams. The use of team work has become popular strategy for increasing productivity and worker flexibility. Organizations have reported a number of benefits derived from the use of work teams. Teams can be permanent or temporary. From a functional perspective, teams can be classified into three types: teams that recommend things, teams that make or do things, and teams that run things. A team must not only have a common purpose, members must understand and accept that purpose. Once all members accept and understand it, then attention can be given to how each member will contribute to its achievement. Task-related training focuses on the actual tasks for which the team is responsible. Training programs should be designed to satisfy the team’s need for particular technical skills. Various leadership theories have hypothesized leadership roles and behaviors, their relationship with group performance, and external conditions that moderate such relationships. Drawbacks in using teams must be looked upon as investments in the business before teams are implemented. Organizations should be as sure that their investment in teams will bring forth worthwhile returns.

Citation: Bishop J, Wang L. 2004. Teams,Team Process, and Team Building, p 333-351. In Garcia L, Baselski V, Burke M, Schwab D, Sewell D, Steele J, Weissfeld A, Wilkinson D, Winn W (ed), Clinical Laboratory Management. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817695.ch18

Key Concept Ranking

Plant Structures: 0.497556
Lead: 0.4663265

0.497556

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide

Full text loading...

Figures

Teams,Team Process, and Team Building

[com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/author/10.1128/9781555817695.chap18-1,webId=/content/author/10.1128/9781555817695.chap18-1,properties={foaf_givenname=James W., foaf_name=James W. Bishop, foaf_surname=Bishop}], com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/author/10.1128/9781555817695.chap18-2,webId=/content/author/10.1128/9781555817695.chap18-2,properties={foaf_givenname=Lei, foaf_name=Lei Wang, foaf_surname=Wang}]]

/content/10.1128/9781555817695.chap18.fig18-1

Figure 18.1

Group process model.

10.1128/9781555817695/fig18-1_thmb.gif

10.1128/9781555817695/fig18-1.gif

Figure 18.1

Group process model.

/content/10.1128/9781555817695.chap18.fig18-2

Figure 18.2

Types of task interdependence.

10.1128/9781555817695/fig18-2_thmb.gif

10.1128/9781555817695/fig18-2.gif

Figure 18.2

Types of task interdependence.

References

/content/book/10.1128/9781555817695.chap18

1. Albanese, R.,, and D. D. VanFleet. 1985. Rational behavior in groups: the free-riding tendency. Acad. Manage. Rev. 10(2): 244– 255.

2. Aranda, E. K.,, L. Aranda,, and K. Conlon. 1998. Teams: Structure, Process, Culture, and Politics. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J

3. Banker, R.D.,, J. M. Field,, R. G. Schroeder,, and K. K. Sinha. 1996. Impact of work teams on manufacturing performance: a longitudinal field study. Acad. Manage. J. 39(4): 867– 890.

4. Ben-Yoav, O.,, E. P. Hollander,, and P. J. D. Carnevale. 1983. Leader legitimacy, leader-follower interaction, and followers’ ratings of the leader. J. Social Psychol. 121(1): 111– 115.

5. Bishop, J.W.,, and D. J. Scott. 2000. An examination of organizational and team commitment in a self-directed team environment. J. Applied Psychol. 85(3): 439– 450.

6. Bishop, J.W.,, K. D. Scott,, and S. M. Burroughs. 2000. Support, commitment, and employee outcomes in a team environment. J. Manage. 26(6): 1113– 1132.

7. Brannick, M. T.,, and C. Prince,. 1997. An overview of team performance measurement, p. 3– 16. In M. T. Brannick,, E. Salas,, and C. Prince (ed.), Team Performance Assessment and Measurement. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, N.J.

8. Buller, P. F. 1986. The team building task performance relation: some conceptual and methodological refinements. Group Organ. Studies 11(1): 147– 168.

9. Buller, P. F.,, and C. H. Bell. 1986. Effects of team building and goal setting on productivity: a field experiment. Acad. Manage. J. 29(2): 305– 328.

10. Campion, M. A.,, G. J. Medsker,, and C. Higgs. 1993. Relations between work group characteristics and efficiency: implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychol. 46(4): 823– 850.

11. Carew, D. K.,, E. Parisi-Carew,, and K. H. Blanchard. 1986. Group development and situational leadership: a model for managing groups. Training Dev. J. 40(6): 46– 50.

12. Cohen, S. G., 1991. New approaches to teams and teamwork, p. 194– 226. In J. R. Galbraith,, E. E. Lawler, and Associates (ed.), Organization for the Future: the New Logic for Managing Complex Organizations. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif.

13. Cohen, S. G.,, and D. E. Bailey. 1997. What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. J. Manage. 23(3): 239– 290.

14. De Meuse, K. P.,, and S. J. Liebowitz. 1981. An empirical analysis of team-building research. Group Organ. Studies 6(4): 357– 378.

15. Earley, P. C.,, G. B. Northcraft,, C. Lee,, and T. R. Lituchy. 1990. Impact of process and outcome feedback on the relation of goal setting to task performance. Acad. Manage. J. 33: 87– 105.

16. Erez, M. 1986. The congruence of goal setting strategies with sociocultural values and its effect on performance. J. Manage. 8(1): 83– 90.

17. Goldman, M.,, and L. A. Fraas. 1965. The effects of leader selection on group performance. Sociometry 28(1): 82– 88.

18. Goodman, P. S. S.,, R. Devedas,, and T. L. C. Hughson,. 1988. Groups and productivity: analyzing the effectiveness of self-managing teams, p. 295– 327. In J. P. Campbell, and R. J. Campbell (ed.), Productivity in Organizations. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif.

19. Hackman, J. R., 1987. The design of work teams, p. 315– 342. In J. W. Lorsch (ed.). Handbook of Organizational Behavior. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

20. Hackman, J. R. 1990. Groups That Work (and Those That Don’t): Creating Conditions for Effective Teamwork. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, Calif.

21. Harkins, S. G. 1987. Social loafing and social facilitation. J. Exp. Social Psychol. 23(1): 1– 18.

22. Harris, T. E. 1992. Toward effective employee involvement: an analysis of parallel and self-managing teams. J. Allied Bus. Res. 9(1): 25– 33.

23. Hollander, E. P., 1993. Legitimacy, power, and influence: a perspective on relational features of leadership, p. 29– 47. In M. M. Chemers, and R. Ayman (ed.), Leadership Theory and Research: Perspectives and Directions. Academic Press, San Diego, Calif.

24. Hollander, E. P.,, and J.W. Julian,. 1970. Studies in leader legitimacy, influence, and innovation, p. 33– 69. In L. L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 5. Academic Press, Inc., New York, N.Y.

25. Hollenbeck, J. R.,, D. J. Sego,, D. R. Ilgen,, D. A. Major,, J. Hedlund,, and J. Phillips,. 1997. Team decision-making accuracy under difficult conditions: construct validation of potential manipulations using TIDE simulation, p. 111– 136. In M. T. Brannick,, E. Salas,, and C. Prince (ed.), Team Performance Assessment and Measurement: Theory, Methods, and Applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, N.J.

26. Howell, J. P.,, and D. L. Costeley. 2001. Understanding Behaviors for Effective Leadership. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.

27. Ivancevich, J. M.,, and J. T. McMahon. 1982. The effects of goal setting, external feedback, and self-generated feedback on outcome variables: a field experiment. Acad. Manage. J. 25(2): 359– 372.

28. Katzenbach, J. R.,, and D. K. Smith. 1993. The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass.

29. Katzenbach, J. R.,, and D. K. Smith. 1993. The discipline of teams. Harv. Bus. Rev. 72(1): 111– 120.

30. Kerr, N. L.,, and S. E. Bruun. 1983. Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: free-rider effects. J. Pers. Social Psychol. 44(1): 78– 94.

31. Koch, J. L. 1979. Effects of goal specificity and performance feedback to work groups on peer leadership, performance, and attitudes. Human Rela. 33(7): 819– 840.

32. Kukla, A. 1975. Preferences among impossibly difficult and trivially easy tasks: a revision of Atkinson’s theory of choice. J. Pers. Social Psychol. 32(3): 338– 345.

33. Larson, C. E.,, and F. M. J. LaFasto. 1989. Teamwork: What Must Go Right/What Can Go Wrong. Sage, Newbury Park, Calif.

34. Latane, B.,, K. Williams,, and S. Harkins. 1979. Many hands make light the work: the causes and consequences of social loafing. J. Pers. Social Psychol. 37(6): 822– 832.

35. Latham, G. P.,, M. Erez,, and E. A. Locke. 1988. Resolving scientific disputes by the joint design of crucial experiments by the antagonists: application to Erez-Latham dispute regarding participation in goal setting. J. Appl. Psychol. 73(4): 753– 772.

36. Ledford, G. E.,, E. E. Lawler,, and S. A. Morhman,. 1988. The quality circle and its variations, p. 255– 294. In J. P. Campbell,, R. J. Campbell and Associates (ed.). Productivity in Organizations. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif.

37. Levine, J. M.,, and R. L. Moreland. 1990. Progress in small group research. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 41: 585– 634.

38. Likert, R. 1961. New Patterns of Management. McGraw-Hill, New York.

39. Locke, E. A.,, and G. P. Latham. 1990. A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

40. Locke, E. A.,, K. N. Shaw,, L. M. Saari,, and G. P. Latham. 1981. Goal setting and task performance. Psychol. Bull. 90(1): 125– 152.

41. Mackie, D. M.,, and G. R. Goethals,. 1987. Individual and group goals, p. 144– 166. In C. Hendrick (ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology. Sage, Beverly Hills, Calif.

42. Mankin, D.,, S. G. Cohen,, and T. K. Bikson. 1996. Teams and Technology: Fulfilling the Promise of the New Organization. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass.

43. Manz, C. C.,, C. P. Neck,, J. Mancuso,, and K. P. Manz. 1997. For Team Members Only: Making Your Workplace Team Productive and Hassle-Free. American Management Association, New York, N.Y.

44. Mathieu, J. E.,, and D. M. Zajac. 1990. A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychol. Bull. 108(1): 171– 194.

45. Matsui, T.,, T. Kakuyama,, and M. U. Onglatco. 1987. Effects of goals and feedback on performance in groups. J. Appl. Psychol. 72(3): 407– 415.

46. Morhman, S. A.,, S. G. Cohen,, and A. M. Morhman. 1995. Designing Team-Based Organizations: New Forms for Knowledge Work. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif.

47. Morris, J. H.,, and R. M. Steers. 1980. Structural influences on organizational commitment. J. Vocat. Behav. 17(1): 50– 57.

48. Newstrom, J.,, M. Lengnick-Hall,, and S. Rubenfeld. 1987. Recruitment: how employees can choose their own bosses. Personnel J. 66(1): 121– 126.

49. Nicholas, J. M. 1982. The comparative impact of organization development interventions on hard criteria measures. Acad. Manage. Rev. 7(3): 531– 542.

50. O’Leary-Kelly, A. M.,, J. J. Martocchio,, and D. D. Frink. 1994. A review of the influence of group goals on group performance. Acad. Manage. J. 37(5): 1285– 1301.

51. Orsburn, J. D.,, L. Moran,, E. Musselwhite,, and J. H. Zenger. 1990. Self-Directed Work Teams. Business One Irwin, Homewood, Ill.

52. Pearson, C. A. L. 1987. Participative goal setting as a strategy for improving performance and job satisfaction: a longitudinal evaluation with railway track maintenance gangs. Hum. Relat. 40(5): 473– 488.

53. Pritchard, R. D.,, S. Jones,, P. Roth,, K. Steubing,, and S. Ekeberg. 1988. Effects of group feedback, goal setting, and incentives on organizational productivity (monograph). J. Appl. Psychol. 73(2): 337– 358.

54. Robbins, S. P. 1998. Organizational Behavior, 8th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.

55. Scott, K. D.,, and A. Townsend. 1994. Teams: why some succeed and others fail? HR Mag. 38(8): 62– 67.

56. Sheridan, J. H. 1997. Culture-change lessons. Ind. Week 246(2): 20– 24.

57. Stein, B. A.,, and R. M. Kanter. 1980. Building the parallel organization: creating mechanisms for permanent quality of work life. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 16: 371– 386.

58. Steiner, I. D. 1972. Group Process and Productivity. Academic Press, New York, N.Y.

59. Stevens, M. J.,, and M. A. Campion. 1994. The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: implications for human resource management. J.Manage. 20(2): 503– 530.

60. Tannenbaum, S. I.,, R. L. Beard,, and E. Salas,. 1992. Team building and its influence on team effectiveness: an examination of conceptual and empirical developments, p. 117– 153. In K. Kelley (ed.), Issues, Theory, and Research in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

61. Tesluk, P.,, J. E. Mathieu,, and S. J. Zaccaro,. 1997. Task and aggregation issues in the analysis and assessment of team performance, p. 197– 224. In M. T. Brannnick,, E. Salas,, and C. Prince (ed.), Team Performance Assessment and Measurement. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, N.J.

62. Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in Action, p. 54– 55. McGraw-Hill, New York, N.Y.

63. Tubbs, M. E. 1986. Goal setting: a meta-analytic examination of the empirical evidence. J. Appl. Psychol. 71(3): 474– 483.

64. Weingart, L. R. 1992. Impact of group goals, task component complexity, effort, and planning on group performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 77(5): 682– 693.

65. Weldon, E.,, K. A. Jehn,, and P. Pradhan. 1991. Processes that mediate the relationship between a group goal and improved group performance. J. Pers. Social Psychol. 61(3): 555– 569.

66. Woodman, R.W.,, and J. J. Sherwood. 1980. The role of team development in organizational effectiveness: a critical review. Psychol. Bull. 88(1): 166– 186.

67. Yukl, G. 1998. Leadership in Organizations, 4th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.

68. Zander, A. F.,, and T. Newcomb. 1967. Group levels of aspiration in United Fund campaigns. J. Pers. Social Psychol. 6(1): 157– 162.

Tables

Teams,Team Process, and Team Building

/content/10.1128/9781555817695.chap18.tab18-1

Table 18.1

Knowledge, skill, and ability (KSA) requirements for teamwork a

a Adapted from reference 59 , p. 505.

10.1128/9781555817695/tab18-1_thmb.gif

10.1128/9781555817695/tab18-1.gif

Table 18.1

Knowledge, skill, and ability (KSA) requirements for teamwork a

a Adapted from reference 59 , p. 505.

/content/10.1128/9781555817695.chap18.tab18-2

Table 18.2

Example items from the teamwork-KSA test a

a Adapted from ref. 59 , p. 519. Asterisks indicate correct answers.

10.1128/9781555817695/tab18-2_thmb.gif

10.1128/9781555817695/tab18-2.gif

Table 18.2

Example items from the teamwork-KSA test a

a Adapted from ref. 59 , p. 519. Asterisks indicate correct answers.

/content/10.1128/9781555817695.chap18.tab18-3

Table 18.3

Guidelines for team building a

a From ref. 19 , p. 335–337.

10.1128/9781555817695/tab18-3_thmb.gif

10.1128/9781555817695/tab18-3.gif

Table 18.3

Guidelines for team building a

a From ref. 19 , p. 335–337.