12. WORK GROUPS AND WORK TEAMS

 

Most people do not work in isolation but work with other employees with whom they interact

 

Work Group: Collection of people who interact and share common

            or interrelated task goals.

 

Work Team: Work group with

            Common task goals and objectives

            Coordinated effort

            Specified roles

 

Work group members may or may not work on the same tasks.

            Sales groups may work completely independently, each person

                        with his or her own territory.

 

Work team members work together to accomplish the common tasks.

GROUP/TEAM CONCEPTS

 

Roles

            Specialization of function within positions

                        Formal: position title and description define with job

                                    analysis

                        Informal:  Emergent behavior in group

 

Status

            Power & influence, prestige, respect

            Partially inherent in role

            Example

                        Torrance study of B‑26 crews

                        Horse trading problem

                        Buy a horse for $60 and sell it for $70

                        Buy it back for $80 and sell it again for $90

                        How much profit did you make?

                        94% pilots, 80% navigators, 63% gunners convinced crew

                        they had correct answer, which is in order of their status

Norms

            Expected & accepted behavioral standards

            Productivity norms

            Dress norms

Group Cohesiveness

            Attraction of group members toward staying in group

            High cohesive groups

                        Lower turnover

                        Stronger adherence to norms (homogenizer of behavior)

                        Greater satisfaction

                        Greater group influence

                        Study

                                    Purcell (1953)

                                    Allow construction workers (carpenters & masons)

                                                choose own partners

                                    Results

                                                5% reduction in costs (labor & materials)

                                                87% decline in turnover

 

Team Commitment

            Strength of an individual’s involvement in team and acceptance

                        of team goals

 

Team Mental Model

                        Shared understanding of task by team members

 

Process Loss

            Effort/time spent by team members on non-task activities

            See discussion below

GROUP PERFORMANCE

 

Individual vs. group

 

            Individual tasks in work groups:  coacting effects

            Social facilitation

                        Competition and arousal (audience)

            Social inhibition

                        Distraction

            Group processes

            Arousal

 

Group tasks:  interdependence of group effort

            Assembly line: Performance = f(poorest individual)

            Additive:  Performance = f(sum of individuals)

CLASSIC STUDY OF PAJAMA FACTORY

 

Coch & French (1948) Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1, 512-532.

 

Harwood pajama factory

            600 Employees

            5/6 women

 

Piece rate for over standard (60/hr.)

 

Some jobs take average 34 weeks to reach standard

 

Frequent production changes:  transfer bonus given

            Only 38% return to standard after a production change

            Low productivity after changes

            High turnover after change (12%/mo vs. 4.5% for nonchanged)

            Poor attitude, high absence after change

 

Cohesiveness & change

            High cohesive, + attitude, best relearners

            Low cohesive,              Intermediate

            High cohesive, ‑ attitude, worst relearners

 

Effects of Group Pressure. Productivity of one operator in a group with a production norm of 50 units per hour.

Days

Productivity

Event

1‑12

46‑56

Joins group

13‑20

55‑48

Pressure begins

21‑24

45‑96

Group disbanded

25‑40

92

Working alone

 

Overcame resistance by allowing workers to participate in change

            decisions

Better performance

Less turnover

GROUP PERFORMANCE VS. INDIVIDUAL

 

How does group compare to sum of individuals?

 

Additive task (Kravitz and Martin, 1986) rope pull

Number of people

Predicted force of pull

Actual force of pull

1

1

1

2

2

1.86

4

4

3.08

8

8

3.92

 

Social Loafing

            Identifiability reduces social loafing

 

Assembly line:  Performance only at level of worst performer

 

Brainstorming (creative task)

Group inhibits individual performance

PROCESS LOSS

 

Time spent in group maintenance

            Enforcing norms

            Building cohesiveness

            Solving interpersonal problems

            Lack of coordination

            Power struggles

            Distraction

            Conflicting goals‑ splitting of effort

GROUP INTERVENTIONS

 

How should we work with groups?

            to increase productivity

            to increase satisfaction

            to make work more meaningful

 

Increase cohesiveness

            Encourage formation of work groups

            Allow socialization, on & off the job

            Assign group tasks

            Give group rewards

            Allow employees to select coworkers

 

Make group and organizational goals compatible

            Group rewards

            Profit sharing

            Participation

 

Team building

            Goal of building efficient work groups

            Series of exercises & experiences with a trainer

AUTONOMOUS WORK GROUPS (HACKMAN & OLDHAM, 1980, WORK REDESIGN)

 

Self‑managed work team makes entire product    

Work group has almost total authority

 

Butler Example (Grain Dryer, over 3000 parts)

            Job rotation frequent & controlled by group

            By end of 18 months most employees know entire process

            Groups design, develop & purchase own tools

            Service calls throughout area (meet customers)

            No quality inspectors (done by group)

            Few foremen (forepersons)

            Groups participate in hiring & promotion

            Supervisors as coaches, counseling & training

            Many meetings: weekly team, monthly plant

            Participative: Employee advisory group

            Training in interpersonal skills

 

Results

            Absence 1.2% (vs. 5% for factories in general)

            Turnover 11% (vs. 35% for factories in general)

            Profits higher than expected

 

Copyright Paul E. Spector, All rights reserved, July 22, 2002.