\" This article uses an ecological approach to analyze factors in the effectiveness of work teams--small groups of interdependent individuals who share responsibility for outcomes for their organizations. Applications include advice and involvement, as in quality control circles and committees; production and service, as in assembly groups and sales teams; projects and development, as in engineering and research groups; and action and negotiation, as in sports teams and combat units. An analytic framework depicts team effectiveness as interdependent with organizational context, boundaries, and team development. Key context factors include (a) organizational culture, (b) technology and task design, (c) mission clarity, (d) autonomy, (e) rewards, ( f ) performance feedback, (g) training/consultation, and (h) physical environment. Team boundaries may mediate the impact of organizational context on team development. Current research leaves unanswered questions but suggests that effectiveness depends on organizational context and boundaries as much as on internal processes. Issues are raised for research and practice. The terms work team and work group appear often in today's discussions of organizations. Some experts claim that to be effective modern firms need to use small teams for an increasing variety of jobs. For instance, in an article subtitled \"The Team as Hero,\" Reich (1987) wrote, If we are to compete in today's world, we must begin to celebrate collective entrepreneurship, endeavors in which the whole of the effort is greater than the sum of individual contributions. We need to honor our teams more, our aggressive leaders and maverick geniuses less. (p. 78) Work teams occupy a pivotal role in what has been described as a management transformation (Walton, 1985), paradigm shift (Ketehum, 1984), and corporate renaissance (Kanter, 1983). In this management revolution, Peters (1988) advised that organizations use \"multi-function teams for all development activities\" (p. 210) and \"organize every function into tento thirty-person, largely self-managing teams\" (p. 296). Tornatzky (1986) pointed to new technologies that allow small work groups to take responsibility for whole products. Hackman (1986) predicted that, \"organizations in the future will rely heavily on member self-management\" (p. 90). Building blocks of such organizations are self-regulating work teams. But University of Tennessee University of Wisconsin--Eau Claire University o f Tennessee far from being revolutionary, work groups are traditional; \"the problem before us is not to invent more tools, but to use the ones we have\" (Kanter, 1983, p. 64). In this article, we explore applications of work teams and propose an analytic framework for team effectiveness. Work teams are defined as interdependent collections of individuals who share responsibility for specific outcomes for their organizations. In what follows, we first identify applications of work teams and then offer a framework for analyzing team effectiveness. Its facets make up topics of subsequent sections: organizational context, boundaries, and team development. We close with issues for research and practice. A p p l i c a t i o n s o f W o r k T e a m s Two watershed events called attention to the benefits of applying work teams beyond sports and mih'tary settings: the Hawthorne studies (Homans, 1950) and European experiments with autonomous work groups (Kelly, 1982). Enthusiasm has alternated with disenchantment (Bramel & Friend, 1987), but the 1980s have brought a resurgence of interest. Unfortunately, we have little evidence on how widely work teams are used or whether their use is expanding. Pasmore, Francis, Haldeman, and Shani (1982) reported that introduction of autonomous work groups was the most common intervention in 134 experiments in manufacturing firms. Production teams number among four broad categories of work team applications: (a) advice and involvement, (b) production and service, (c) projects and development, and (d) action and negotiation. Advice and Involvement Decision-making committees traditional in management now are expanding to first-line employees. Quality control (QC) circles and employee involvement groups have been common in the 1980s, often as vehicles for employee participation ( Cole, 1982 ). Perhaps several hundred thousand U.S. employees belong to QC circles (Ledford, Lawler, & Mohrman, 1988), usually first-line manufacturing employees who meet to identify opportunities for improvement. Some make and carry out proposals, but most have restricted scopes of activity and little working time, perhaps a few hours each month (Thompson, 1982). Employee involvement groups operate similarly, exploring ways to improve customer service (Peterfreund, 1982). 120 February 1990 • American Psychologist Copyright 1990 by the American Psyc2aological A~mciafion, Inc. 0003-066X/90/$00.75 Vol. 45, No. 2, 120-133 QC circles and employee involvement groups at times may have been implemented poorly (Shea, 1986), but they have been used extensively in some companies

Work teams applications and effectiveness

Publisher Summary This chapter examines team building and its influence on team effectiveness. The chapter provides an explanation of "teams" and "team building", and input-throughput-output model of team effectiveness to provide a context for examining team building interventions. Three previous reviews are presented, which examined team building research through 1980. The chapter also reviews the empirical research on team building published during the 1980s, comparing it to the findings of the previous research and suggesting avenues for future research. The analysis of the research conducted in the 1980's shows that the quantity of research on team building has decreased, although the quality of research has improved. It also shows that the research still focuses, for the most part, on intact, white-collar teams, with little attention being directed at newly formed or blue-collar teams. In general, team building interventions were fairly effective and team building appears to have a positive effect on perceptions and attitudes. However, the results are more equivocal with regard to behavioral outcomes.

Team building and its influence on team effectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments.

This research reports the results of a comprehensive investigation into the effectiveness of team building. The article serves to update and extend Salas, Rozell, Mullen, and Driskell's (1999) team-building meta-analysis by assessing a larger database and examining a broader set of outcomes. Our study considers the impact of four specific team-building components (goal setting, interpersonal relations, problem solving, and role clarification) on cognitive, affective, process, and performance outcomes. Results (based on 60 correlations) suggest that team building has a positive moderate effect across all team outcomes. In terms of specific outcomes, team building was most strongly related to affective and process outcomes. Results are also presented on the differential effectiveness of team building based upon the team size.

Does Team Building Work

This study employed meta-analytic procedures to evaluate the potential validity of a model of planned organizational change. Hypotheses derived from this model focus on the relationships among plan...

/pdf/dynamics-of-planned-organizational-change-assessing-xws4d13uv8.pdf

Dynamics of Planned Organizational Change: Assessing Empirical Support For A Theoretical Model

There is a growing recognition of the need for fundamental changes in the way public organizations are structured and managed (Barzelay, 1992; Johnston, 1993; Osborne and Gaebler, 1992). With the environment becoming more turbulent, organizational boundaries changing or even collapsing, and the number of constituents in the political arena increasing, many public organizations will require implementation of a broad range of proactive changes designed to improve organizational functioning. In particular, it is frequently argued that organizations need to reduce their managerial structure, allow greater discretion and responsibility among their front-line employees, and operate more flexibly and innovatively if they are to perform sufficiently well to ensure their survival (Cleveland, 1985; Drucker, 1988; Peters, 1988). The field of planned organizational change, based largely on the knowledge and techniques derived from the organizational development (OD) movement, provides a potentially useful set of approaches for implementing requisite changes along these lines. Although the potential benefits of planned organizational change for public organizations seem apparent, previous literature pertinent to this issue is more equivocal. On the one hand, literature discussing differences between public and private organizations suggests that organizational development may not be as viable in the public sector. In contrast, prior empirical investigations of OD outcomes in the two sectors provide some evidence that OD can be as effective in public organizations. Therefore, further assessment of its utility to public organizations would be a timely and useful venture. In this article, we explore this issue through a meta-analysis of prior evaluations of organizational change projects. Specifically, we compare the outcomes of planned change in the public sector to those generated in private sector organizations. Because expectations regarding differences that might be found between the two sectors are not straightforward, we first discuss in greater depth the potential efficacy of OD in public organizations. Then we turn to a more complete description of the focus and methods of our own analysis. The Potential Efficacy of Organizational Development in Public Organizations Ambiguity regarding the efficacy of planned organizational change in public organizations is based in part on the question of whether or not they differ from private organizations in ways that would limit the effectiveness of organizational development efforts. The traditional perspective has been that key differences between the two sectors have important implications for the likelihood of successfully implementing a program of planned change. Features of public organizations noted most often include the absence of market incentives; the existence of multiple, conflicting goals; and a political context with a broader range of constituent groups, higher levels of accountability, and more rules, regulations, and constraints (Meyer, 1982; Perry and Rainey, 1988). These features may cause problems for the implementation of OD that reflect not just an inappropriate application of theory but the possibility that the theory itself does not fit the reality of public administration (Forbes, 1978). Because private sector organizations are driven primarily by market or consumer preferences, organizational effectiveness is more readily measured in terms of efficiency and profitability. As a result, change activity can be implemented and assessed using these narrow criteria as the primary basis for evaluating their success, possibly making it easier for these change efforts to be successful. In contrast, there are different and more varied criteria by which to assess organizational effectiveness in the public sector. Hence, public organizations may find it more difficult to use planned change interventions effectively, because the primary goal of these efforts will not be as straightforward or as consensually supported. …

Outcomes of Planned Organizational Change in the Public Sector: A Meta-Analytic Comparison to the Private Sector

The author reviewed OD evaluation as described in the literature and assessed twenty-six studies against Campbell and Stanley's twelve criteria for validity; only three met all criteria The studies varied from highly rigorous, experimental designs to nondesigns totally inadequate for an assessment of validity Most of the studies reviewed did not utilize designs rigorous enough to adequately determine the outcomes of the OD process The present underdeveloped state of the art of OD evaluation demonstrates that practitioners must (1) determine appropriate meas ures for assessing; (2) develop more adequate instruments for measuring change related to OD; and (3) consistently utilize more rigorous designs for their studies

Evaluation in OD: A Review and an Assessment:

This research was conducted to measure the impact of a six-month organ ization development (OD) effort with a top management group in a large state government organization. Such research is needed because little is known about the effects of OD on public-sector organizations. Six pre- post measures were used to control for threats to validity of the research. The impact of the OD was assessed by measuring change in collaboration, communication, and role clarity as well as the managers' ability to select and apply effective leadership styles. Although no change in management styles was detected, the data demonstrated that OD in the public sector can result in mild to moderate improvement in role clarity, collaboration, and communication effectiveness among participants. The multiple- measures design proved to be more rigorous than designs typically used for evaluating OD.

Peggy Morrison

Papers

Evaluation in OD: A Review and an Assessment:

Evaluation of Organization Development in a Large State Government Organization