What If We Took Teamwork Seriously? W. Warner Burke

The following is authored by W. Warner Burke, Edward Lee Thorndike Professorship of Psychology & Education and Education Program Coordinator, Graduate Programs in Social-Organizational Psychology, Columbia University

Sourced from The Pfeiffer Book of Successful Team-Building Tools: Best of the Annuals (Essential Tools Resource) by Elaine Biech (Paperback - Oct 26, 2007)

13.8. What If We Took Teamwork Seriously?

W. Warner Burke

Abstract: A great deal of time is spent talking about the importance of teams and teamwork. Yet it appears that little occurs or, if it does, the effects are not long-lasting. This article addresses why teamwork is less than 100 percent effective and what must be taken into consideration in order for it to be more effective.

Recently I witnessed something rare, an exceptional event. Six ad hoc teams in an organization presented the results of their work. For six months, each team of seven people had labored diligently on a significant problem or issue for its company. A final off-site event (two previous training and progress-report type off-site meetings had occurred) was held to hear each team’s report and to make decisions regarding its recommendations. While there was some variance in the results of performance across these six teams, on the whole their work was impressive and rare compared with most such activities in organizations. They had accomplished much in spite of the fact that all team members had to maintain their regular, normal responsibilities during the six-month period; that is, the teams’ work was in addition to each person’s daily job responsibilities.

Typical Teams

No doubt all of us have seen if not been a part of a task force with similar responsibilities over a similar period of time. What made this event exceptional?

Before considering the exceptions, however, a brief word about what was not special about these teams. First, each team was given the task of studying a company-wide problem or issue that had been in existence for quite some time; that is, it had been a lingering problem but had never really been addressed. It was time, if not past time, for something to be done. Each team tackled a different problem/issue; thus, there were six different tasks. There is nothing special about these team assignments. Organizational executives often compose task forces to take on such assignments.

Second, the teams were composed of individuals from different functions and business centers within the company. Composing task forces representing a cross section of the organization is common. Third, the team size of seven members was about right for the types of tasks. Again, nothing new here; task forces and similar groups are often about seven, plus or minus two members.

Exceptional Teams

What, then, was special and exceptional regarding the work of these teams?

First, each and every team member at the end stated publicly what he or she had learned. In most cases, each person said something about being challenged, stretched. Yes, there was overlap among some forty statements, yet there were a sufficient number of unique expressions to make these statements ring with credibility.

Second, as stated above, the quality did vary somewhat from team to team, but the lowest performing team among the six would make most executives in most organizations happy.

Third, the teams were diverse, not only representing a cross section of the company but with a mix of genders and ethnicities in each group as well. We preach diversity, and should in my opinion, yet a diverse mix of people who achieve high performance is no small accomplishment.

Exceptional Outcomes

Why was this special event, an exceptional outcome?

The most important reason was the fact that each team had a highly challenging and compelling goal. The outcome of each team’s work would potentially have a significant impact on the future of the company. Katzenbach and Smith (1993) claim that high-performing teams are rare. Moreover, what they argue is that a challenging goal is an absolute necessity for high performance.

A second reason was the immediate feedback and impact of the work. After each team had presented, all others answered a brief questionnaire rating, among other things, the feasibility of the team’s recommendations. Then the team met in private with the CEO to discuss its recommendations. Next, the CEO met in the main room with two representatives from the presenting team and with his key executives in a “fishbowl” setting to decide on the recommendations. In other words, immediate action, one way or the other, was taken on each team’s recommendations.

Another reason for this exceptional work in teams was the fact that these events were part of an integral to a larger change effort for the entire organization. The teamwork, even though ad hoc, was not an isolated set of events.

And, finally, there was pressure to perform well. Each group presented to members of the other five teams—their peers—as well as to the top executives of the company.

Effective Teamwork

We talk and talk about the value of teams and teamwork, but little real, effective teamwork occurs or, in any case, if achieved at all only lasts for a brief period (Burke, 1995). Why is this so? Among myriad reasons, here are a few that stand out:

1. We have seen and experienced such mediocrity, why bother?
2. Working as a member of an ad hoc team means attending yet another series of boring meetings.
3. Teamwork takes time, and we have so much individually to do that team participation requires such a sacrifice.
4. While there may be a chairperson for the team, real leadership is often lacking, with a consequence being a lack of clarity, unresolved conflicts, and eventual feelings of imposition and resentment.
5. And perhaps most important of all, who cares anyway? The team may work hard to produce good results, but the likelihood is that insufficient attention will be paid to its work.

To increase the effectiveness of teams, we must take teamwork seriously, that is, we must pay careful attention to such matters as:

• Goals: making certain they are challenging.
• The context within which the team’s work will occur: ensuring it is part of some larger effort tied directly to organizational mission and strategy rather than an isolated event.
• Team composition: making certain the teams have the unique talent required for the task; the proper mix of people, i.e., experience and personality; and the right number of members, which, of course, should be a function of the nature and complexity of the task.
• Results: how the team’s outcomes will be considered and treated, particularly with respect to decision making for the organization.
• Recognition: how the team’s work will be evaluated and recognized by management, especially the CEO.

These five considerations are not exhaustive by any means but represent some of the most important matters to address to increase the odds in favor of team effectiveness.

References

Burke, W.W. (1995). Organization change: What we know, what we need to know. Journal of Management Inquiry, 4(2), 158–171.

Katzenbach, J.R., & Smith, D.K. (1993). The wisdom of teams. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Advertisement