Is establishing team work difficult in organisation?

  • Category:
    Marketing
  • Document type:
    Essay
  • Level:
    Masters
  • Page:
    3
  • Words:
    2200

Marketing

Establishing Tеаmwоrk in Orgаnizаtiоns

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 3

Introduction 4

Theories of Team Building 5

Bruce Tuckman Theory 5

Bureaucratic Theory 6

Lewin’s Theory of Force Field Analysis 6

John Adair’s Model 7

Conclusion 9

Reference List 10

Executive Summary

Organizations are faced with the challenges on ways to enable employees to come together and combine efforts in such a way that the quality of the service and products offered remains competitive and at the same time, achieve the shared goals and objectives. The major aim of every organization and is to achieve organizational effectiveness and efficiency on its operations. However, the organizations face varying challenges that call upon employees and the management to collaboratively work together. Teamwork influences the organization’s performance and wellbeing. The essays main aim is to justify whether organizations find it difficult to establish teamwork in a working environment. This essay will also talk about organizational development as a product of efficient teams. This essay will focus on different literature that contributes to the study of organizations and teamwork.

Introduction

Individuals who come together with a mutual goal form a team. Teams are mostly formed to conduct certain tasks that are complex and have interdependent subtasks that cannot be carried out by a single person. Organizations use teams to produce cooperation and corresponding competencies among its employees. Also, teams are platforms where individuals can maximize their strengths and minimize weakness. According to Jognson, Heimann & O’Neil (2000) members of a team must have a common understanding and provide an environment where members can realize their potentials and ability for members to achieve their dreams.

However, the organizational environment should be providing conditions that are necessary to foster and uphold the significance of teamwork. Organizations are faced by economic situations from within and without (Cohen & Baily, 2000). An organization where the management does not involve the employees in the decision-making process often has weak teams as employees feel not valued by the company (Luca & Tarricone, 2001). Moreover, Luca & Oliver (2001) argue that an organizational culture that promotes teamwork is characterized by positive corporate culture, give recognition to every member of the organization, provide positive feedback, and provide employees with new opportunities. Teams with well-defined objectives often move in one direction towards the achievement of the goal.

According to Oliver (2001), establishing an effective team can be tricky as the major challenge is whether the members of the team will be able to come together to achieve the shared goals before personal goals. Parker (2000) illustrates that that is highly competitive and competent often find teamwork problematic and invasion of private space. However, with effective training, employees can build up team skills and deal with the challenges of working as a team. Working in a team and collaboration should not be viewed as an obligation but a chance to have fun and connect with others. The role of managers includes promoting an effective environment that promotes teamwork and the long-term sustainability of the organization.

Theories of Team Building

The greatest way of getting work done within a firm is through the use of teams. There is a link between individuals in a similar state who work in collaboration to attain the same objective. Team fostering is a daunting duty due to the numerous objectives of dissimilar levels in the organization. An awareness of the teamwork theories assists in acknowledging this concept (Scarnati, 2001). Theories of teamwork bring an in-depth understanding of the circumstances, procedure, challenges and behaviors experienced by management when implementing teamwork.

Bruce Tuckman Theory

The Bruce Tuckman theory comprises of five stages that define the fundamental functions of a team. The initial stage encompasses the group members meeting each another for the first time. Due to the probabilities of conflict among different individuals with varying personal goals, Tuckman explains the methods through which the group members can avoid conflict (Ptaff & Huddleston, 2003). At this stage, the team is involved in little work as it is more oriented towards learning one another. The second stage involves storming as different ideas are brought up resulting to arguments and disagreements. This stage is a test of the maturity and ability of the group members to compromise one another’s ideas. Norming is the third stage. At this stage, the group is ready to tackle the assigned responsibilities. In the fourth stage, members tend to have little arguments, and every member recognizes his or her responsibility towards the well-being of the team. The fifth and the final stage is where the members let go other members’ role. Bruce Tuckman considers the difficulties and challenges experienced within teams

Bureaucratic Theory

The Max Weber bureaucratic theory of management is a rational means on how an organization can improve control over the workforce. This model emphasis on the ways and organization could be more effective. Weber proposes the features of this model that can improve the effectiveness of the organization. These features include having good and definite rules that govern the activity of the workforce and the direction towards the achievement of the objectives. The bureaucratic theory involves a chain of command that appears in a hierarchical manner. The top most position of the pyramid is the top management to the least placed employees. Weber suggests that hiring and promotion should be conducted in a demonstrated competence that protects the workers against indiscriminative dismissals. Despite explaining the organizational structure, the bureaucratic theory has various limitations (Hartenian 2003). For instance, the over-reliance on the rules and regulations provided by the organizations leads to the employees to be seen as machine and has to do what the management commands. The instrument of this theory results to employee rigidity to change.

Lewin’s Theory of Force Field Analysis

According to this theory, an individual’s activity is influenced by the surrounding environment, termed as the field. Lewin argue that the environment has interactive characters that depend on one another. He goes ahead to explain that behavior is the function field which varies with the component characteristics. The force field analysis objective is to help organizations to determine if it is progressing on not so as to make necessary changes. The theory is a decision-making tool that involves planning and implementation of change management initiatives within an organization (Rabey, 2003). In the theory of group decision, Lewin conducted a study in the American government after World War II, and the results showed that individuals within a group shared ideas and agreed on common things. As a result, such individuals were willing to go through changes. Despite this finding, the theory brings forth two major ideas in group subtleties; task independence and the interdependence of fate. Nevertheless, if team members share objectives, they are more likely to work in collaboration to attain the common objective.

John Adair’s Model

An additional model known as John Adair presents team building as an overlapping circle that involves achieving group task, maintaining the group and developing the members. The overlap is due to the fact that there are tasks that is impossible to be accomplished by one person. As a result, every organization dedicates time and resource to manage employees to ensure that the organization meets the desirable goals. When individuals work together in accomplishing tasks, collective responsibilities become exciting, enjoyable, and satisfying. However, there are reasons as to why there are other people who cannot work in a team. An indiscipline manager would result in the team failing most of its obligations.

When an organization has multiple outlets, the management’s experiences various challenges of establishing teamwork doubles. Some of the factors include signs of frustration, unhealthy completion among the team members, inflexible group procedures, lack of trust and the scarce creation of new ideas. Staniforth, (2000) argue that to be a team player, an individual has to be willing to take both professional and personal risks to set the direction for the team. Building a team that cuts across several outlets presents a challenge to the management as the individuals are not familiar with one another. Froebel & Marchington (2005) adds that the lack of trust between members and limited interaction has resulted to low levels of commitment to the functioning of the team. The problem of inconsistency is a great challenge faced by management when considering the establishment of teamwork between branches. The inconsistency comes about because branches of the same firm often have different managers that are in charge and manage staff (DeAngelis, Penney & Scully, 2014). The corporate policy may differ from one branch to the other. When establishing teamwork, different standards in the working environment presents a significant challenge in coming up with a cohesive team.

Despite experiencing numerous challenges, there are organizations that ensure that organizational failure is kept as minimal as possible. For instance, Microsoft Office Corporation is an international company that holds regular meeting with the employees to make sure that the company is moving towards the desirable direction and that the employees have the ability to adjust to the new innovative environment (Manz & Neck, 2002). Managers have the duty to oversee how the organization performs and if the employees are performing their tasks as efficient as possible. The organization has to be willing to offer the necessary resources such as capital and equipment to succeed.

Conclusion

From the theories in the arguments above, establishing teamwork is not an easy task as it comprises of complex systems that operate at different organizational levels towards the achievement of a similar goal. Each level consists of individuals with varying characteristics and views. As a result, harmonizing the entire organization to achieve a common goal is not as easy as many might think. Managers have the responsibility of leading as an example to shows the employees the effectiveness and outcome of teamwork. By motivating the employees and understanding the pressure that the organization experience internally and externally, managers have the ability to handle the challenges that come with teamwork (Erdem et al. 2003). It is advisable to structure and recognize the possible challenges to hedge against losses. Change is important to any organization and managers who are fixable to organizational change promote the well-being of the entire organization and the people (Mulika, 2010). The organization is not the only entity that will benefit from teamwork. Members who dedicate themselves to their teams get more in the long run. Being a difficult and demanding task, teamwork results to organizational, and employee effectiveness which could have otherwise is insufficient. The aim of this essay was to justify whether organizations experience difficulty when establishing teamwork. This essay attempted to outline and discuss various theories regarding attractions and challenges organizations face when implementing teamwork. Group success depends on the interaction and interdependence of the group members and the ability of the manager to adjust to changes according to the present situation of the organization.

Reference List

Cohen, S.G., & Bailey, D.E. (2000). What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239-90.

Conti, B., & Kleiner, B 2003. How to increase teamwork in organizations. Journal of
Quality, 5(1), 26-29.

DeAngelis, L., Penney, S., and Scully, M. 2014. Leadership Lessons from Teamwork. Leader to Leader, 2014 (73), 19–25. doi:10.1002/ltl.20135.

Erdem, Ferda, Ozen and Janset 2003. Cognitive and Affective Dimensions of Trust in Developing Team Performance. Team Performance Management: An International
Journal, 9(5.6) 131-135.

Froebel, P., & Marchington, M 2005. Teamwork structures and worker perception: a cross national study in pharmaceuticals, International Journal of Human Resource

Hartenian, L.S 2003. Team member acquisition of team knowledge, skills, and abilities.
Journal of Team Performance Management, 9(1/2), 23-30.

Johnson, P. R., Heimann, V. L., & O’Neill, K 2000. The wolf pack: team dynamics for the 21st century. Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee Counselling Today, 12(4), 159-164.

Luca, J., & Oliver, R 2001. Developing Generic Skills through On-line Courses.Paper presented at the Ed-Media 2001, Tampere, Finland.

Luca, J., & Tarricone, P 2001. Does emotional intelligence affect successful teamwork? Proceedings of the18th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education at the ASCILITE, p. 367 – 376, Melbourne: University of Melbourne.

Manz, C., & Neck, S 2002. Teamthink: Beyond the group think syndrome in self-managing work teams. Journal of Team Performance Management, 3(1) 18-31.

Mickan, S., & Rodger, S 2000. The organisational context for teamwork: Comparing health care and business literature. Australian Health Review, 23(1), 179 – 192.Management, 16(2), 256-276.

Mulika. 2010. The Impact of Teamwork on Employee Performance in Strategic Management and the Performance Improvement Department of Abu Dhabi Police, UAE.

Oliver, R. 2001. Developing e-learning environments that support knowledge construction in highereducation. Presented at the 2nd International We-B Conference, p. 407 – 416. Perth, Western Australia.

Parker, G. M 2000. Team Players and Teamwork. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pfaff, E., & Huddleston, P 2003. Does it matter if I hate teamwork? What impacts student attitudes toward teamwork. Journal of Marketing Education 25:37–45.

Rabey, G 2003. The paradox of teamwork. Journal of Industrial and Commercial Training, 35(4), 158-162.

Scarnati, J. T 2001. On becoming a team player. Team Performance Management: An International Journal,7(1/2), 5-10.

Staniforth, D 2000. Teamworking or individual working in a teams. Journal of Team
Performance Management, 2(3), 37-41.