Motivation

Ever looked around the room during a meeting and wondered, how on earth did this group of individuals end up together? Well, chances are you recruited them. But just because you have a wide variety of personalities in your team, it doesn’t necessarily mean they won’t function well together.

What you do need to know is how to manage these various character types. Because no matter what skills your employees are trained in, their ability to deliver good results all depends on how each different person responds to your management methods. So. the key to driving your company’s performance is to adopt the right method to .

There are numerous psychometric style tests that are widely used in business. These include the Belbin assessment that can help you understand an employee’s behavioural traits, or the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) that attempts to narrow down an employee’s personality type to understand how they perceive and process information and make decisions.

Sometimes you will just know how your staff are going to react to tasks and challenges. But for those other moments when you’re surprised by them, here is a guide to five types of employees that every boss will recognise, and some vital tips on how to get the best out of each of them.

1. The Superstar (The employee you trust to do the task as well or better than you)

These types are those you regard as your strongest assets. They have your full trust and deliver the best results every time. They take responsibility and accountability for their role, they are fully engaged and they always perform to the highest standards. Often they can even outperform you. They are good for business. In ‘The War for Talent’ featured in The McKinsey Quarterly, it states that companies should be fighting for talent: ‘Superior talent will be tomorrow’s prime source of competitive advantage.’ Anyone who has worked closely with a ‘superstar’ knows that fighting for them pays dividends in the long-run.

Your management approach With ‘superstars’ you need to show them the ropes, make sure they get a good brief and have everything they need to do their job- and then you need to step back. Check in regularly, but not to micromanage them as they will take this as an insult. In his book ‘The Code of the Extraordinary Mind’, author Vishen Lakhiani spoke to Richard Branson and asked him outright the secret to his success. The answer he got was simple: ‘It’s all about finding and hiring people smarter than you, getting them to join your business and giving them good work- and getting out of their way.’

Let them know they are appreciated. Recognition for good work is a human need and will in return. If they are that good, learn from them, ask for advice, give them a sense of a peer-to-peer relationship that they will relish.

Certainly, it will take a fine balance- just enough to keep them on their line. Offer them chances to take on more responsibility or larger scale work projects. Promotion and appraisal should reflect their worth when the times for this arise. If you keep increasing work but do not balance it with reward, that could make them jump ship for better terms.

Related: 

2. The Token Effort (The employee who just wants to do the minimum)

Sometimes you’ll have high expectations for an employee only to be disappointed by their delivery. This is particularly relevant to people who do exactly what you asked but never go above or beyond by taking extra time and care over a task. This is about minimal effort and minimal performance- to get a job out of that in-tray. It can test the patience of bosses wanting their clients to be impressed by their staff’s work. The problem here is that they may be delivering what you asked but it just doesn’t have that bit of extra care, that shine of high quality that you would like.

Your management approach First, find out if the employee is disengaged with the company in any way and if so determine the reasons behind it. Is there a reason they do not feel they need to work to a higher standard?

We could take a lead here from Frederick Herzberg who researched the sources of employee motivation extensively in the 1950s and 60s and found that what demotivates us is not -when reversed- what motivates us. What he called ‘hygiene factors’ such as having a and money are a problem if they are lacking but if present they are not strictly long-term motivators. An emphasis should instead be placed on ‘interesting work, challenge and increasing responsibility’ as these ‘intrinsic factors answer people’s deep-seated need for growth and achievement.’

It’s also worth exploring your briefing process because if an employee ticks all the boxes but still isn’t delivering quite what you want then it might be time to change what those boxes ask for, and push for more satisfactory results. This takes some very close management and productive two-way communication to get to the root of how it’s possible to polish up their performance.

3. The Specialist (The employee with a very narrow scope of excellence)

These people do only one thing but they do it brilliantly. It defines them, they are experts and own that specialism. They may have a deep and unique understanding of an important part of your business so they are highly valuable in that sense. However, ask them to do something that is outside this area of expertise and they refuse outright or just execute the task poorly.

Your management approach Leverage that specialist knowledge. ‘In an economy where the only certainty is uncertainty, one sure source of lasting competitive advantage is knowledge’ -this is according to a paper in the Journal of Knowledge Management Practice. In short, to that specific part of the business- and treat them well.

As an ongoing part of your business, try to tap further into their specialist knowledge, learn from it and where possible transfer that knowledge to other team members. Someone like this is an asset to the company for their knowledge – if they leave they take it with them. And if their specialism sets you apart as a business, make sure it is not hidden away – make it part of the selling point of your brand.

Related: 

4. The Ego-Driven Achiever (The smart employee who is a bit too opinionated)

This person may be your biggest challenge to manage. They are intelligent but their opinions and contributions can often be driven by ego. Now, sometimes ego is a good thing and sometimes it’s a bad thing. – it can come with the territory of determination to succeed.

The problem comes when an articulate individual decides to speak their mind at every turn and disrupt progress just because they want their own way of doing things. They will challenge processes just because they can and slow down tasks that are regular everyday bits of work. When this occurs in a team meeting the ripple effect can spread to other team members who begin to question everything and before you know it you may be arguing over a leadership point.

Your management approach There are a number of ways to deal with people who are disruptively opinionated. You could politely exit those moments to stay on point, and explain what is up for discussion and what is not. If the behaviour of the employee is confrontational it’s worth having a private meeting with them to discuss and set boundaries. If it persists- a warning will be appropriate.

The book Power Struggles – Successful Techniques for Educators is aimed at teachers but contains a great phrase for us all: “Preventing a storm begins with teachers telling their students what to expect before the bad weather hits.” As a manager, it is more effective to take preventative measures in the form of one-on-one chats, informal advice and by setting the scene of what’s expected and what’s not tolerated. Avoid the storm.

It has been proven time and again in studies that people desire control over their lives and want to influence and to make meaningful decisions about direction. This is healthy, but not when those decisions pull away from the team. If you can get them to channel that energy the right way, you might turn a problem person into a problem solver.

5. The ‘All Or Nothing’ Worker (The employee who is inconsistent in their delivery)

This is the worker who will one day light up your world with the high quality of their delivery, but then the next time dip well below par. This variance can keep you on your toes as their manager. The problem could be one of many things. Perhaps they have a particular pace of work so when they are under pressure they under deliver. Maybe it’s connected to mood or maybe as with the “specialist,” they are very good at certain tasks but less so at others. It could be as simple as sometimes they can be bothered and other times they can’t.

Your management approach If this is simply about them not being bothered then as soon as you see the quality drop, you come down quite heavy, reminding this person that their efforts feed into the overall output of the company and by dropping the quality they can slow up processes and harm the entire brand. This needs to be framed in terms of “effort” not “ability” as you may be in danger of unintentionally reinforcing someone’s negative self-perception.

A survey of around 20,000 employees was conducted by The Energy Project and Harvard Business Review to assess what influences productivity and engagement at work. These included the “physical”- opportunities to renew and recharge at work; the emotional- feeling valued for that work; the “mental”- having the chance to do important tasks and having flexibility in working; and finally, the “spiritual”- getting a sense of enjoyment linked to a higher purpose.

You need to set their benchmark for them, explain what was good about work they did and how that should be the standard going forward. how they feel connected to work. If there is a reason they give you that does make sense for that drop in quality it’s then time to look at any solution available to alleviate the problem.

Working towards the ideal workforce

The reality is that as a manager you will need to cope with a diverse range of personalities, abilities and . If you choose not to manage unproductive employees, it can cost your business as much as three months of working time per person per year according to a report by Global Corporate Challenges (GCC).

But at best, ensuring each member of your team is properly engaged in their work can make a dramatic increase to the bottom line. We often invest in technology, marketing and our products, but putting funds into improving employee engagement pays dividends.

Take the time to get to know your team members. If you want to manage them, you need to know who they are, what drives them, and what interests them. Then when you look around the meeting room you may still see an interesting mix of different personalities, but there will be a jigsaw puzzle-style logic in how they all fit together to achieve an overall aim.

Related: 

Sport psychologists have been becoming increasingly important in the realm of sports; helping athletes in their focus and controlling emotions; such as anxiety. Moreover, they have also become assistants to team organizations In selecting potential players, As previously stated, much research has been completed in an effort to not only increase performance but to also predict future performances. As result, many theories have evolved. These theories range from the achievement goal theory (ACT), to the self determination theory (SDTV), ACT states that an Individual will poses either an ego goal orientation or a task goal orientation.

Researchers have examined different aspects of athletes’ motivational orientations in hopes to predict a successful performance. Based off this research, it has been shown that when athletes have a high task goal orientation they are more likely to give a successful performance. However, it has been shown that athletes at the elite level of competition possess both a high task orientation and ego orientation. This is important to coaches when considering how to motivate players. One motivational tactic that has been heard on the sidelines at sporting events Is the coach telling his players to be aggressive.

Moreover, athletes routinely site aggressive play as the factor In a win or loss. In this regard, the focus of this proposed study is to investigate what role aggression has on an athletes’ motivational orientation and whether aggression has a positive correlation with performance. Aggression Is seemingly becoming more evident in sports. Moreover, aggression has evolved as a positive attribute In the eyes of athletes and spectators alike, and has earned itself an important role in team sports (Rascal, Coulomb-Cabbage, & Delegate, 2004).

However, little research has been conducted on aggression and how TTS manifestation will affect an athlete’s performance, or if aggression is more prevalent In one goal orientation over another. To study the occurrence of aggressive behavior, the proposed study will look at athletes In the sport of boxing which is often viewed as a highly aggressive and sometimes barbaric sport. Boxing is 1 OFF play them must also have a certain degree of aggression that motivates them to continue the sport. However, a conceptual definition of aggression is that it is a negative personality trait that is connected with sport participation (Keller, 2004).

Aggression has been further broken down into two categories; hostile and instrumental. Hostile aggression is defined as behavior that is performed with the sole intention of inflicting harm on a person and is seen as being an emotional response out of frustration or anger; while instrumental is considered non-emotional and is behavior that intentionally causes injury or harm to an opponent in the pursuit of another non-aggressive goal such as scoring or winning (Rascal, Coulomb- Cabbage, ; Delegate, 2004).

With this in mind, this study will also measure assertiveness; which is defined as a non-hostile, non-coercive tendency to behave with intense and energetic behavior to accomplish one’s goal, and within the sport setting is within the rules of competition. Assertiveness will primarily be included because the primary goal in boxing is to inflict injury or harm on an opponent. This study will also measure the goal orientations of the athletes. Previous studies have shown that when athletes have a high ego low task orientation they are more prone to aggression and a win at all cost mentality (Rascal, Coulomb-Cabbage, & Delegate, 2004).

Therefore, it is hypothesized that 1) the goal orientation of the boxers will be influenced by the level of aggressiveness or assertiveness 2) aggression will be correlated with a high ego-orientation and assertiveness will be correlated with a task-orientation 3) assertiveness will have a positive correlation with performance and aggression will have a negative correlation with performance 4) assertiveness will be viewed and considered to be aggression by the athletes in the study. Method The design of this study will be non-experimental and will utilize surveys and researcher observation.

The study will have two independent variables, aggression and assertion; and three dependent variables, task-orientation, ego-orientation and performance. Performance will be Judged by a win or loss. Aggressive behavior will be considered illegal blows. This will include low blows, kidney punches, rabbit punches (punches to the back of the head), hitting on the break (when the referee calls a halt to the action), hitting an opponent while down on a knee, and excessive holding. Assertive behavior will be pressing the action, and a high volume of punchers thrown (>50 punches/round).

The distinction between aggression and assertiveness will not be made to the athletes and will be used as criterion for observers when rating the performance of the athlete. The participants in the study will be 30 active professional (n=10) and amateur (n=20) boxers between the ages of 18 and 25. Active participation will be defined as having at least one fight 2 months prior to the study and the subjects must have a fight scheduled to take place during the study. Participants will receive information on the parameters of the study and will be informed that all data collected will be anonymous.

In addition written onset will be obtained by all subjects. The subjects will complete surveys that will rate the performance of their last competition, goal orientation, aggression, and assertiveness. The outcome of their last competition (whether the athlete won or loss) and demographic information will also be used in the data analysis. To assess developed by Roberts and Plague will be used. This scale has shown both reliability and validity for assessing task and ego goal orientations. Aggression will be measured in two ways; first, the subjects’ global aggression will be assessed by the Buss-Darker Hostility Inventory (BID) scale.

This will be used to see if aggression is a core trait of the athlete. Questions are answered either true or false and indicate whether the actions described are thought to be self-descriptive; and second, the subjects’ situation-specific or sport aggression will be measured with the BAG-S scale. This is a 30 item inventory that measures both hostile and instrumental aggression. It uses a 4-point Liker scale with 1 being strong agreement and 4 being strong disagreement. To assess assertiveness, the Rather Assertiveness Schedule (RASA) will be used.

This is a 30-item questionnaire that measures perceived assertiveness. It uses a six point scale that ranges from 3 to -3; with 3 being very and -3 being very uncharacteristic. Additionally observers will measure the subjects’ level of aggression and assertion during competition using a 4- point Liker scales with 1 being very aggressive and very assertive and 4 being little aggression and little assertion. Analysis Analysis of the data will be conducted using several methods. For assessing the levels of aggression and assertion on performance the Pearson Correlation Coefficient will be used.

Miller, inequality is necessary because it is a great thing. These two believe that with inequality, private property will emerge and when it does people will be creating assets for themselves. When the people are able to create assets, they have a motive to work harder to earn what they deserve. Being more efficient on a daily basis can help a person become more active and helps them accomplishes more. A person can save the resources that they have and convert It Into assets of their own, thus creating their own wealth.

Ferguson and Millard says that because of personal incentives, a person will not stop working after they have completed their Job and received the needed amount. Instead, they will continue on to work even more to gain more In order move up the ladder In society. As social progress, It aids In the development of collocation which Is the ultimate goal. I believe that Inequality Is necessary, because of how unfair things are, If a person Is willing to work harder than another, they should have more assets for themselves.

Adam Ferguson and John Miller see inequality as something that is necessary for the development of civilization. One must work hard to achieve goals and build up more assets for themselves. Free-rider program on the other hand is similar to a free-lancer. A person, who refuses to participate in the work need to push forward, is in a way opposite to what Ferguson and Miller said about inequality. There are lazy people out there who would rather have someone else do the work for them.

A group working on a project can only hope that the other members on their team will be able o do their own part. With inequality in the air, a person can only predict that the free rider program will follow. A person’s asset will only grow as big as they are pushing it to be, but without hard work and by doing mediocre Job, an individual might not get too far. Mankind is always moving forward and the free rider program will only fall behind. Each person is expected to carry their own share of work during a group activity and they should have the responsibility to build themselves up.

Human resource management (HRM) is the strategic and coherent approach to the management of an organization’s most valued assets – the people working there who individually and collectively contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the business. Human resource management is both an academic theory and a business practice that addresses the theoretical and practical techniques of managing a workforce. Therefore, Human Resource Management (HRM) is the function within an organization that focuses on recruitment of, management of, and providing direction for the people who work in the organization.

Human Resource Management can also be performed by line managers. (Sparrow and Hilltop, 1994) Ethical issues and practices of the human resource management are the subject of this article that comprehensively addresses the questions of ethical approaches to the wide range of functional areas covered by the human resource management: recruitment, training and development, motivation, retention and termination. Particular attention is paid to the HR manager’s need to be cognizant of the organization’s interests while treating employees as more than only productive resources.

Moral Philosophy, Business Ethics and the Employment Relationship Suppose a company considers introducing a mandatory overtime policy, in which workers are fired if they refuse the order to work overtime. How is this action evaluated? Is it acceptable because it will improve economic efficiency, or because business owners have a right to implement working conditions as they want? Using ethical theories to evaluate behavior is an important application but they can also be used for positive analysis.

Ethics can help us understand actions in a positive or analytical sense rather than judge them in a normal or prescriptive sense. (Sparrow and Hilltop, 1994) There is a wealth of normative and positive ethical problems in this field of human resources and industrial relations, the full range of issues and intellectual perspectives on the employment relationships, from human resources management policies to industrial relations institutions, from theories of the labor movement to theories of government regulations, from property rights to human rights, and from unitarist to pluralist to critical schools of thought.

(Maundy, 2001) Recruitment We might expect gentler practices as related to recruitment. When recruiting the managers are expected to outline minimum qualifications, set an entry salary rate, advertise the position, refer applicants to hiring managers and review selection decisions in a way that balances the organization’s resources with an aim of finding the a well-qualified person. The ethical challenge here is to balance the individual’s expectation as well rights to equal opportunities with the organization’s obligation to resource stewardship.

The final step in the recruitment process is to select from among the applicants for a position however it is often performed by the hiring manager after the HR department has collected applications and eliminated people who clearly do not qualify. The HR manager establishes policies and procedures to be followed but may have little control over what occurs in the actual selection process. Screening of applicants can be performed by HR staff. They may add a set of preferred qualifications in addition to the minimum qualifications advertised that are more stringent.

They may use written or performance tests. In both of these cases the HR manager has to worry about not only being fair but also appearing fair. An ethical HR manager will implement systems to monitor the transfer of the training to the workplace and will build incentive systems that encourage safety. (Maundy, 2001) Training and Development The purposes of collecting personally identifiable information through monitoring technologies include “employee training and evaluation, facilities management and security-related objectives such as protection of tangible and intangible business assets and personnel.

Most employees presumably want to know the rules of the game. No one wants to be surprised by a new and unanticipated rule announced by management to deal with a given situation. Thus, at the least, management should design guidelines that accurately reflect its concerns and expectations as well as what is being monitored and measured. Employees certainly would want to be treated ethically. There should be few surprises, ideally the guidelines should be a product of an employer-employee team, responsible for the initial design and regular updates as well as evaluating effectiveness and fairness.

(Maundy, 2001) Motivation An emphasis on personal growth would be the likely response to problems of motivation or discipline. A managerial style that would focus on inspiration from the guru without being rigidly hierarchical or authoritarian would be probable. (Dale, 2001) In designing motivation systems, HR managers seek to align employees’ goals with those of the organization. This can be done coercively or by convincing employees of the worthiness of organization’s goals and the value of employee contributions to them.

Establishing effective motivation systems is difficult; ensuring they have not coercive element is almost impossible. The HR manager’s ethical challenge is to consider the amount of coercion used and discern whether it is reasonably balanced against the employees’ power in the situation and whether it serves the goals and values articulated by the employee. The problem of discernment for a HR manager wishing to behave ethically is determining the point at which “hazardous duty pay” stops being a reasonable recognition of risk freely undertaken by an employee and becomes an offer the employee truly could not refuse.

Coercion removes the employee’s freedom to choose, thus abridging the right to liberty. (Sparrow and Hilltop, 1994) Retention In the competitive world of today, organizations need individuals who perform well and remain as employees. Retention must be viewed as a strategic business issue. For instance, HR is accountable for workforce planning, staffing, and employee retention, all of which affect customer service. Organizations increase employee retention through formal career planning efforts. The tangible rewards that people receive for working come in the form of pay, incentives, and benefits.

A number of HR surveys reveal that one key to retention is to have competitive compensation packages. Managers believe that money is the prime retention factor. Often employees cite better pay or higher compensation as a reason for leaving one employer for another. However, recognition of an employee’s impact on the organization comes a long way in retaining the employees. (Dale, 2001) Termination Employee’s termination from a job may come as a last resort. Many a times, HR would have given a number of warnings, and failure by the concerned employee to change may result to termination of contract.

The process is usually gradual and articulate in that no malice is observed in the process, thus no account of unfairness. (Sparrow and Hilltop, 1994)

Reference:

Dale, M. (2001): The Art of HRD: Developing Management Skills Vol. 3 Crest. Publishing House, New Delhi Maundy, L. (2001): An Introduction to Human to Human Resource Management: Theory And Practice: Macmillan, Palgrave Sparrow, P. and Hilltop, J. (1994): European Human Resource Management in Transition: Prentice Hall, New York

The skills that I think are necessary for success in college are being self-motivated, having effective time management and a strong dedication and willpower to want to succeed. The desire to succeed can only come from you. There are people to help you along the way, but you are the only person that can make a change for yourself and for the better. Self-motivation is the number one factor in having a successful college experience. Once you have made a decision to further your education you must realize that there will conflicts throughout.

Conflicts with work or family may arise. If you lack self-motivation, there is a possibility you will lose sight of what your goal is. There must be a balance between school and other obligations. You are responsible for finding that balance to ensure a successful college experience and a happy personal or work life as well. Effective time management is imperative in college. There are many times when tests and papers are due at the same time for each class. It is important to know what lies ahead in each class.

A monthly calendar allows you to note upcoming due dates, midterm and final dates. It is helpful to have a visual so you can plan on a teeth to allow yourself adequate time for each class. Some people may be good at procrastination but when taking multiple classes, I don’t think waiting until the last minute is effective. You made a decision to invest time and money to enter college. You have a goal in mind. In order to reach that goal you need a strong dedication and willpower to succeed. There will be bumps along the way.

Each class will introduce new ideas and responsibilities; when those responsibilities conflict with other responsibilities, I think you need the willpower to push through it. You need the dedication to the lasses and program you enrolled in. Keep the end goal in sight. The skills that I already have are being self-motivated, having effective time management and a strong dedication to being successful in college. I am a lifetime learner. I enjoy attending my classes and what is involved to succeed. Part of what helps me succeed in my classes is being effective with time management.

I have learned how to handle a full time class load, working and having a happy family. My last Job required you to be great at multi-tasking. Multi-tasking is useful when attending college and having a young family. I have learned how to study while my hillier are occupied or napping. I also have my husband’s support which is crucial when attending school. In order to write a paper or study for an exam I will either go to the library, my parents’ house or at times my husband will take our children somewhere, Just to give me the time I need.

I don’t think you could succeed in college and in personal life if you don’t have the dedication to school. I want to succeed and do well in college to better the life for my family. I am dedicated in accomplishing my goal and I know I will succeed. I have developed these skills through experience. I graduated from high school in 999 and have been attending college since, taking breaks to start my family. I have an associate degree already but have always wanted to pursue nursing. Since graduating with my associates degree, I have always taken part time classes, while working full time and having a family.

However, I made the decision to enroll full time and complete my degree. I have three young daughters, all less than six years old. I know that to better their lives I must finish schooling. I want them to see that a higher education is something to strive and work toward. I want them to see my self-motivation and my dedication, to only to them but to school. Effective time management is a necessity when raising my children, being a spouse and being a successful student. I have learned to love my calendar. I write everything down.

I have to see lies ahead for my family and for school. One weakness that I have is being committed to too many different things with my children, all while I am trying to finish school. I sign up to help with a lot of their events and organizations. I need to realize that I am only one person and cannot do it all. I need to only sign up for a select number of events and commit myself to those instead off little bit here and there. I also have bad test anxiety. I am hoping that I can alleviate the anxiety I get by allowing myself adequate time to study and prepare for tests.

I also need to have confidence in myself to know that I will succeed on the test. I try to go into each test with a positive attitude. I will be taking the TEAS test on 11/16/12. I have heard so much negativity towards the test from peers that I try to distance myself from the negativity. I know that going into the test Friday that I have done all I was able to do and look forward to seeing my results. I have chosen a nursing career. The same skills listed for a college experience are also needed for a successful nursing career.

In addition to these, strong interpersonal skills and critical thinking skills are needed. I have worked in the health care field for over 10 years, so I have seen first hand what skills are needed and already have knowledge of medical terminology and Anatomy and Physiology. This is only my first semester at Bryant & Stratton. I still need to pass my TEAS and am looking forward to being accepted in the nursing program. I would like to improve upon my confidence. As a nurse you don’t have time to second guess yourself. I need to realize that I know the answer and stick to it.

I also need to stop being afraid of failure. I need to set little goals and as those are accomplished, celebrate them. This will make my long term goal seem not so far out of reach. I previously stated that I like to avoid negativity. I do not want to be surrounded by negative people or situations. This only brings my confidence down. I also want to remain an active learner. Whether this means taking continuing education courses or reading a health Journal related to my field; I know that this will increase my confidence because I will be full of knowledge.

In conclusion, it is important to understand that the decision to enter college is a life changing decision. Dedication, time management, and the desire to succeed and take responsibility for what needs to be are commitments that must be made upon making the decision to enroll in college. The approach I took when writing this paper is following the outline given and responding to each question. The outline style was effective for this paper since a list of skills were required. I did not forget to expand on any skill since I had it in the outline format.

Here are some reports from the field, cited by Osborn, Moran, Mushiest, and Zinger (1990) in Self-Directed Work Teams: The New American Challenge. At Xerox, the authors report, Plants using work teams are 30 percent more productive than conventionally organized plants. Procter & Gamble gets 30 to 40 percent higher productivity at its 18 team-based plants… Tektronix Inc. Reports that one self-directed work team now turns out as many products in 3 days as it once took an entire assembly line to produce in 14 days…. Federal Express cut service glitches such as incorrect bills and lost packages by 13 percent…

Shenandoah Life processes 50 percent more applications and customer service requests using work teams, with 10 percent fewer people. (up. 5-6) Heady stuff, that, and it is reinforced by back-cover blurbs. Tom Peters: “Selfridges work teams are the cornerstone of improved competitiveness .. ” . Bob Waterman: “Self-Directed Work Teams seems too good to be true: dramatic improvement in productivity and a happier, more committed, more flexible work force. Yet … They do just what they promise for the likes of P&G, GE, and Ford. ” It makes sense. Teams bring more resources, and more diverse resources, to bear J.

Richard Hickman ; Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138. Theory and Research on Small Groups, edited by R. Scott Tindal et al. Plenum Press, New York, 1998. 245 246 on a task than could any single performer. Moreover, teams offer flexibility in the use of those resources-?the capability to quickly redeploy member talents and energies and to keep the work going even when some members are unavailable. Teams composed of people from different units can transcend traditional functional and organizational barriers and get members pulling together toward collective objectives.

And, of course, teams offer the potential for synergy, that wonderful state when a group “clicks”and members achieve something together that no one of them could possibly have accomplished alone. These are major benefits, worthy of the attention of the leaders of any purposive enterprise. No wonder Steersman found teams to be so popular. But there is a puzzle here. Research evidence about team performance shows that teams usually do less well-?not better-?than the sum of their members’ individual contributions. I first encountered this bleak fact as a beginning doctoral student at he University of Illinois.

In a course on group dynamics, Ivan Steiner put on the board his now well-known equation: AP = UP – PL; that is, the actual productivity of a group equals its potential productivity (what the team is theoretically capable of, given the resources brought by members) minus what he called process losses such as coordination and motivational problems (Steiner, 1972). I was surprised that there was no term for process gains, the synergistic benefits that can emerge when people work together. The model, I thought, should really read: AP = UP – PL + PEG. It turns out hat there is no empirical Justification for that extra term.

When interacting teams are compared to “nominal” groups (I. E. , groups that never meet, whose output is constructed by combining the separate contributions of those who would have been members), nominal groups usually win. And when Steiner’s models miss the mark in empirical studies, the problem usually is that groups fail to achieve even the relatively modest performance targets specified by those models. At least for groups in the experimental laboratory. Maybe the laboratory context is so constraining that groups do not have the elbow room to show what they can do.

Maybe the real advantages of groups are only to be found in organizational practice. I came up short on this hypothesis as well, this time at the hands of Bill Hicks, an editor at Josses- Bass. My colleagues and I had completed an intensive study of some 33 different work groups of all different kinds-?athletic teams, industrial production workers, top management teams, prison guards, airline crews, economic analysts, and more. We pulled our findings together in a book that I proposed be titled Groups That Work, a catchy phrase with what I thought to be a clever pun.

Bill sat me down and said he’d e happy to publish the book, but not with that title: There were Just too many groups in our study that barely worked at all. I went back to the manuscript and found that he was right. Probably 4 of our 33 groups were actually effective teams. The rest had problems so severe that our analysis was mainly about what had gone wrong with them. So the book was published with a parenthetical phrase after my clever title: Groups That Work (And Those That Don’t). Anyone who actually reads through it will discover, as Bill did, that most of our groups lie within the parentheses. Moreover, the preface of the book offers a cautionary note about team effectiveness, based on the experience of the authors who wrote it. The book took 9 years to be completed, mainly because our own team suffered a near-total collapse midway through the project. 247 Other in-depth studies of real groups performing real work provide additional reasons for concern-?such Irving Jinni’s (1982) well-known demonstration that even highly cohesive groups composed of well-qualified, well-motivated people sometimes fall into a pattern of “grouping”that can yield disastrous policy recommendations.

What, then, are we to make of all the team successes reported in the managerial literature? It is possible, of course, that the published claims are exaggerated, as writers have sought to catch the wave of enthusiasm about teams-?to sell books, to build consulting practices, to market training programs, to become team gurus. That is not a sufficient explanation. Indeed, I trust the accuracy of the numbers about productivity and service gains that are reported in the popular books about teams. My concern, instead, is whether those numbers really mean what they seem to mean.

Consider first the attributions that are made about the causes of team successes. After teams have been implemented in an organizational unit, its performance habitually is compared to that of a conventional unit (or, perhaps, to the same one before teams were installed). Such comparisons are fraught with interpretive ambiguities, because there invariably are many differences between the units compared-? in technologies, labor markets, senior managers, and so on. It almost never is the case that the only change is that work previously done by individuals is now performed by teams.

Was it the teams that generated the improvements, or was it one of the other differences between the units? It is not possible to know for sure. 2 Questions also can be raised about the staying power of any performance improvements obtained when teams are installed. The implementation of any new management program, be it self-managing teams or anything else, invariably involves intense scrutiny of the unit where the changes will occur. Taking a close look at any work unit that has been operating for a while almost always surfaces some inefficiencies and poor work procedures.

These incidental problems are corrected as part of the change process-?it would be foolish not to. But in making those corrections, an interpretive ambiguity is introduced. Was it the team design that resulted in the improvements found, or was it that a shoddy work system was shaped p? Virtually any intervention that is not itself destructive has a better-than-even chance of generating short-term improvements, simply because of the value of intently inspecting a work system. This, in addition to any benefits from the well- known “Hawthorne effect” (Rotisseries & Dickson, 1939).

The question, then, is whether short-term improvements associated with the introduction of teams are sustained over time as the newness wears off and inefficiencies begin to creep back into the system. Again, it is not possible to know for sure-?at least not without an appropriate longitudinal research design. 2 The solution to this problem, of course, is to conduct experimental research on the impact of team designs for work, because true experiments allow unambiguous inferences to be drawn about the causes of any effects obtained.

Unfortunately, experiments are rarely a viable option for comparing team and traditional work designs in organizations. For one thing, the level of experimenter control required in such studies (I. E. , to randomly assign people to teams and teams to experimental conditions) would not be tolerated by most managers who have work to get out. And even if an organization were found in which managers would relinquish such control to experimenters, there would be serious questions about the generalization of findings obtained in such an unusual place (Hickman, 1985). 248 So what is going on here?

How can we reconcile the amazing reports from the field about the benefits of teams with the gloomy picture that has emerged from scholarly research on group performance? Do teams generate the benefits for their organizations that are claimed for them, or do they not? 3 My observations of teams in organizations suggest that teams tend to clump at both ends of the effectiveness continuum. Teams that go sour often do so in multiple ways -?clients are dissatisfied with a team’s work, members become frustrated and disillusioned, and the team becomes ever weaker as a performing unit.

Such teams are easily outperformed by smoothly functioning traditional units. On the other hand, teams that function well can indeed achieve a level of synergy and agility that never could be preprogrammed by organization planners or enforced by external managers. Members of such teams respond to their clients and to each other quickly and creatively, generating both superb performance and ever-increasing personal ND collective capability. Teams, then, are somewhat akin to audio amplifiers: Whatever passes through the device-?be it signal or noise-?comes out louder.

To ask whether organizational performance improves when teams are used to accomplish work is to ask a question that has no general answer. A more tractable question, and the one explored in the remainder of this chapter, is what differentiates those teams that go into orbit and achieve real synergy from those that crash and bum. As we will see, the answer to this second question has much more to do with how teams are trucked and supported than with any inherent virtues or liabilities of teams as performing units.

Mistakes Managers Make In the course of several research projects, my colleagues and I have identified a number of mistakes that designers and leaders of work groups sometimes make. What follows is a summary of the six most pernicious of these mistakes, along with the actions that those who create and lead work teams in organizations can take to avoid them. 4 Mistake l: Use a Team for Work That Is Better Done by Individuals There are some tasks that only a team can do, such as performing a string quartet or arraying out a multiparty negotiation.

There are other tasks, however, that are inimical to team work. One such task is creative writing. Not many great novels, There is a large and diverse published literature on the performance of self-managing teams. Here is a “starter set” of illustrative and informative pieces: Cohen and Leotard (1994), Sorcery, Mueller, and Smith (1991), Gun (1984), Jackson, Malarkey, and Parker (1994), Pops and Marcus (1980), Wall, Kemp, Jackson, and College (1986), and Walton (1980). Some of the material in the next section is adapted from Hickman (1990). 3 Why Teams Downtown’s 249 symphonic scores, or epic poems have been written by teams. Such tasks involve bringing to the surface, organizing, and expressing thoughts and ideas that are but partially formed in one’s mind (or, in some cases, that lie deep in one’s unconscious), and they are inherently better suited for individual than for collective performance.

Even committee reports-?mundane products compared to novels, poems, and musical scores-?invariably turn out better when written by one talented individual on behalf of a group than by the group as a whole working in lockstep. The same is true for executive leadership. For all the attention being given to top management teams these days, my reading of the management literature is that successful organizations almost always are led by a single, talented and courageous human being.

Among the many executive functions that are better accomplished by an exceptional individual than by an interacting team is the articulation of a challenging and inspiring collective direction. Here, for example, is a mission statement copied from a poster in a company cafeteria: “Our mission is to provide quality products and arrives that meet the needs of individuals and businesses, allowing us to prosper and provide a fair return to our stockholders. Although I do not know how that particular statement was prepared, I would be willing to wager that it was hammered out by a committee over many long meetings. The most engaging and powerful statements of corporate vision, by contrast, invariably are the product of a single intelligence, set forth by a leader willing to take the risk of establishing collective purposes that lie Just beyond what others believe to be the limits of the organization’s capability. Beyond creative writing and executive leadership, there are many other kinds of tasks that are better done by individuals than by teams.

It is a mistake-a common one and often a fatal one-?to use a team for work that requires the exercise of powers that reside within and are best expressed by individual human beings. Mistake 2: Call the Performing Unit a Team but Really Manage Members as To reap , one must actually build a team. Real teams are bounded social systems whose members are interdependent for a shared purpose, and who interact as a unit with other individuals and groups in achieving that repose (Alder, 1977).

Teams can be small or large, face-to-face or electronically connected, and temporary or permanent. Only if a group is so large, loosely connected, or short-lived that members cannot operate as an intact social system does the entity cease to be a team. Managers sometimes attempt to capture the benefits of teamwork by simply declaring that some set of people (often everyone who reports to the same supervisor) is now a team and that members should henceforth behave accordingly.

Real teams cannot be created that way. Instead, explicit action must be taken to establish and affirm the team’s boundaries, to define the task for which members are collectively responsible, and to give the team the autonomy members need to manage both their 250 own team processes and their relations with external entities such as clients and coworkers. Creating and launching real teams is not something that can be accomplished casually, as is illustrated by research on airline cockpit crews.

It is team functioning, rather than mechanical problems or the technical proficiency of individual pilots, that is at the root of most airline accidents (Helices & Focuses, 1993). Crews are especially vulnerable when they are Just starting out: the National Transportation Safety Board (NTIS) found that 73% of the accidents in its database occurred on the crew’s first day of flying together, and 44% of those accidents happened on the crews very first flight (National Transportation Safety Board, 1994, up. 0-41). Other research has shown that experienced crews, even when fatigued, perform significantly better than do rested crews whose members have not worked together (Focuses, Lubber, Battle, & Comb, 1986), and that a competent preflight briefing by he captain can help reduce a crew’s exposure to the liabilities of newness (Gannett, 1993). This substantial body of research has clear policy implications.

Crews should be kept intact over time, preflight briefings should be standard practice, and captains should be trained in the skills needed to conduct briefings that get crews off to a good start (Hickman, 1993). Yet in most airlines, crew composition is constantly changing because of the long-standing practice, enforced by labor contracts, of assigning pilots to trips, positions, and aircraft as individuals-?usually on the basis of seniority bidding system. Virtually all U. S. Airlines now do require that crew briefings be held.

Yet captains receive little training in how to conduct a good one, some briefings are quite cursory (e. G. , “Let’s the social hour over real quick so we can get on out to the airplane”), and schedules can get so hectic that crew members may not even have time for proper introductions, let alone a briefing, before they start to fly together. Creating and launching real teams is a significant challenge in organizations such as airlines that have deeply rooted policies and practices that are oriented primarily toward individuals rather than teams.

To try to capture the benefits of teamwork in such organizations, managers sometimes opt for a mixed model in which some parts of the work and the reward system are structured for individual performance, whereas other parts require teamwork and provide team- based rewards. Research has shown that such compromises rarely work well. Mixed models send contradictory signals to members, engender confusion about who is responsible and accountable for what portions of the work, and generally underperformed both individual and real-team models (Washman, 1995).

If the performing unit is to be a team, then it should be a real team-?and it should be managed as such. Mistake 3: Fall Off the Authority Balance Beam The exercise of authority creates anxiety, especially when one must balance between assigning a team authority for some parts of the work and withholding it for other parts. Because both managers and team members tend to be uncomfortable in 251 such situations, they may implicitly collude to “clarifying is really in charge of the work.

Sometimes the result is the assignment of virtually all authority to the team-? which can result in anarchy or in a team heading off in an inappropriate direction. Other times, managers retain all authority for themselves, dictating work procedures in detail to team members and, in the process, losing many of the advantages that can accrue from team work. To maintain an appropriate balance of authority between managers and teams requires that anxieties be managed rather than minimized. Moreover, it is insufficient merely to decide how much authority a team should have.

Equally important are the domains of authority that are assigned to teams and retained by managers. Our research suggests that team effectiveness is enhanced when managers are unapologetic and insistent about exercising their own legitimate authority about direction, the end states the team is to pursue. Authority about the means by which those ends are accomplished, however, should rest squarely with the team itself. 5 Contrary to traditional wisdom about participative management, to authoritatively set a clear, engaging direction for a team is to empower, not deplorer, it.

Having clear direction helps align team efforts with the objectives of the parent organization, provides members with a criterion to use in choosing among various means for pursuing those objectives, and fosters the motivational engagement of team members. When direction is absent or unclear, members may wallow in uncertainty about what they should be doing and may even have difficulty generating the motivation to do much of anything. Few design choices are more consequential for the long-term well-being of teams than those that address the partitioning of authority between managers and teams.

It takes skill to accomplish this well, and it is a skill that has emotional and behavioral as well as cognitive components. Just knowing the rules for partitioning authority is insufficient; one also needs some practice in applying those rules in situations where anxieties, including one’s own, are likely to be high. 6 Especially challenging are the early stages of a group’s life (when well-meaning managers may be tempted to give away too much authority) and when the going gets rough (when the temptation is to take authority back too soon).

The management of authority relations with task- performing groups is much like walking a balance beam, and our evidence suggests that it takes a good measure of knowledge, skill, and perseverance to keep from falling off. As used here, the terms manager and team refer to conventional organizational arrangements in which some individuals (“managers”) are authorized to structure work for performance by other organization members. Teams that have been given the authority to monitor and manage their own work processes are therefore called “self-managing. In some circumstances, teams also have the authority to set their own direction. Examples include physicians in a small-group practice, a professional string quartet, and a mom-and-pop grocery store. These kinds of teams are referred to as “self-governing” (Hickman, 1986). Given that newly minted Mambas increasingly find themselves working in or leading task-performing teams immediately after graduation, it is unfortunate that few MBA programs provide their students with practice and feedback in developing such skills. 252 Mistake 4: Dismantle Existing Organizational Structures So That Teams Will Be Fully “Empowered”to Accomplish the Work Traditionally designed organizations often are plagued by constraining structures that have been built up over the years to monitor and control employee behavior. When teams are used to perform work, such structures tend to be viewed as necessary bureaucratic impediments to group functioning. Thus, Just as some managers mistakenly attempt to empower groups by relinquishing all authority to them, so do some attempt to cut through bureaucratic obstacles to team functioning by dismantling all the structures that they can.

The assumption, apparently, is that removing structures will release the pent-up power of groups and make it possible for members to work together creatively and effectively. Managers who hold this view often wind up providing teams with less structure than they actually need. Tasks are defined only in vague, general terms. Lots of people ay be involved in the work, but the actual membership of the team is unclear. Norms of conduct are kept deliberately fuzzy. In the words of one manager, “The team will work out the details. If anything, the opposite is true: Groups with appropriate structures tend to develop healthy internal processes, whereas groups with insufficient or inappropriate structures tend to be plagued with process problems. 7 Because managers and members of troubled groups often perceive, wrongly, that their performance problems are due mainly to interpersonal difficulties, they may turn to process- focused coaching as a remedy. But process consultation is unlikely to be helpful in such cases, precisely because the difficulties are structurally rooted.

It is a near impossibility for members to learn how to interact well within a flawed or underspecified team structure. Our research suggests that an enabling structure for a work team has three components. First is a well-designed team task, one that engages and sustains member motivation. Such tasks are whole and meaningful pieces of work that stretch members’ skills, that provide ample autonomy for doing what needs to be done to accomplish the work, and that generate direct and rusticity feedback about results. Second is a well-composed group.

Such groups are as small as possible, have clear boundaries, include members with adequate task and interpersonal skills, and have a good mix of members-?people who are neither so similar to one another that they are like peas in a pod nor so different that they are unable to work together. Third is clear and explicit specification of the basic norms of conduct for team behavior, the handful of “must do” and “must never do” behaviors that allow members to pursue their objectives without having to continuously discuss what kinds of behaviors are and are not acceptable.

Although groups invariably develop their own norms over time, it is important to establish at the outset that members are expected to continuously monitor This point is reinforced in a quite different context by an essay written by Joe Freeman (1973) for her sisters in the feminist movement in the asses. The message of the essay is neatly captured by its title: “The Tyranny of Structuralizes. ” 7 253 their environment and to revise their performance strategy as needed when their work situation changes.

The key question about structure, then, is not how much of it a team has. Rather, it is bout the kind of structure that is provided: Does it enable and support collective work, or does it make teamwork more difficult and frustrating than it need be? Mistake 5: Specify Challenging Team Objectives, but Skimp on Organizational Supports Even if a work team has clear, engaging direction and an enabling structure, its performance can go sour-?or fall well below the group’s potential-?if it has insufficient organizational support.

Teams in what Richard Walton (1985) calls “high commitment” organizations can fall victim to this mistake when they are given challenging objectives but not the resources to achieve them. Such teams often start out with great enthusiasm but then become disillusioned as they encounter frustration after frustration in trying to obtain the organizational supports they need to accomplish the work. If the full potential of work teams is to be realized, organizational structures and systems must actively support competent teamwork.

Key supports include (1) a reward system that recognizes and reinforces excellent team performance (not Just individual contributions); (2) an educational system that provides teams, at their initiative, any training or technical consultation that may be added to supplement members’ own knowledge and expertise; (3) an information system that provides teams the data and forecasts members’ need to proactively manage their work; and (4) the mundane material resources-?equipment, tools, space, money, staff, or whatever-?that the work requires.

It is no small undertaking to provide these supports to teams, especially in organizations that already have been tuned to support work performed by individuals. Existing performance appraisal systems, for example, may be state-of- the-art for measuring individual contributions but wholly inappropriate for assessing ND rewarding work done by teams. Corporate compensation policy may make no provision for team bonuses and, indeed, may explicitly prohibit them.

Human resource departments may be primed to identify individuals’ training needs and to provide first-rate courses to fill those needs, but training in team skills may not be available at all. Information and control systems may provide senior managers with data that help them monitor and control overall organizational performance, but teams may not be able to get the information they need to autonomously manage their own work processes.

To align existing organizational systems with the needs of task-performing teams usually requires managers to exercise power and influence both upward and laterally in the organization, and may involve difficult negotiations across functional boundaries. For these reasons, providing contextual supports for teams can be a 254 significant challenge for managers whose experience and expertise has mainly involved supporting and controlling work performed by individuals. That challenge is worth taking on, however, because an unsupported organizational context can undermine even teams that are otherwise quite well directed and well structured.

I believe that I deserve a Big33 Scholarship for several reasons. My high attendance, academic achievement, determination, time management, financial need, motivation for college and to achieve better are all reasons I will discuss of why I believe I deserve a scholarship. The first reason is because I am very diligent in my studies and attend my classes every day. In my entire schooling career I missed very minimal amounts of school.

I have obtained perfect attendance in grades 9th, 11th, and am working on 12th grade. In my 10th grade year I only missed one day of school. I have also had high honor roll every year in high school and plan to continue it throughout college. Another reason is I am very determined when it comes to both work and school. I take both of these aspects very seriously and when I’m given an assignment or task, I feel very obligated to not only complete it, but do so both correctly and in a timely manner.

Also I am very good at managing many things at one time. For example, in my sophomore and junior year in high school I managed school, homework, church volunteer work, practicing the piano and attending my lessons and performances, babysitting (about 40 hours per week on the weekends, overnight) family and church activities and spending time with my friends, family and boyfriend.

In my senior year I am managing school, homework, work, college and scholarship applications, practicing the piano and attending my lessons and performances, babysitting my nephew about one night per week, family activities, church events, student government events, and spending as much time as I can find with my friends, family, and boyfriend. Also, with just working a minimum wage job, I do not have enough money to go to college on my own funds.

I am putting away a little bit of money from each pay check since I started my job but this, though it does add up and will help greatly is not going to be enough to cover my total of six years of schooling that is required to reach the position that I desire. My main motivation for going to college is to get ahead of the society. I want to make something of myself instead of being like so many Americans today and not having enough education to stay employed in the jobs that are bombing and have a high potential for growth. Nursing greatly interested me because I enjoy working with people and like to make their day better in any way I can.

I absolutely love infants and that is why I want to continue my education until I reach a level of a Neonatal nurse. I want to obtain a job that I love to go to everyday. The quote by Confucius “Choose a job you love and you’ll never have to work a day in your life” is a huge motivation to me. That is why I chose nursing as my major, so I would get to work with infants, my favorite thing to do. These are a few reasons of why I believe that I deserve a scholarship from Big33 so that I can continue my education from high school and attend college.