Can work really be this much fun?

Kavanaugh, Joseph ; Gilcrease, Kathy

CASE DESCRIPTION

The primary subject matter of this case concerns the differences between the characteristics of teams and high performance work groups. Secondary issues examined include distinguishing between the two forms of group organization and the appropriate use of each; the necessary components that contribute to a group's success; and learning how to successfully cope with a change in a group's membership. The case has a difficulty level of three. It is designed to be taught in one hour and is expected to require two or three hours of outside preparation by students.

CASE SYNOPSIS

The case involves a highly performing work group, which displays many characteristics of a high performance team, in the setting of a small office on a university campus. Through displays of their strong interpersonal relationship, one can see why the group is so successful, but the continuing success of the group is in jeopardy when one member announces her retirement. The group is left to ponder the question of how to sustain their team, or were they a team anyway?

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHING APPROACHES

Clearly, the teaching note relies heavily on the work of Katzenbach and Smith, The Wisdom of Teams (1999). Therefore, it would be advisable to make this book a text for the course, where appropriate. It clearly draws the distinction between high performing work groups and teams, and discusses the conditions under which each is the preferred operating choice. If not a course reading, the instructor may wish to become familiar with this work and outline it for students.

Prior to introducing the case, class discussion can be helpful to tease out the differences between work groups and teams. The table in response to question 2 can be helpful in this regard, as well as material contained in most textbooks on organizational behavior or team work. Help students understand and appreciate that "getting to team" is not necessarily the required organizational response. In many circumstances, work groups that perform well are quite satisfactory, indeed preferred, and require far less personal and institutional commitment than teams.

While sports analogies are often not appreciated, they are apt here. Students are quite conversant with such, and are generally able to identify the differences in personal performance required by athletes when compared to, say, most decision-making groups in their lives or student organizations. "Only the team wins;" "Everyone has to pull on the rope together;" "Do something sacrificial for the team;" reflect a different orientation than a committee environment that may be dominated more by personal agendas, power issues, low commitment, and compromise as a decision mechanism.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. Is Beatrice correct when she calls the group a team?

Yes and no. The group displays characteristics of both a high performance work group and a team. The intermingling of the appropriate characteristics of a work group and team leads to the group's success. Overall, the group meets the definition of a high performance work group, which is "a group that can achieve its performance challenge entirely through the combination of individual performances" (Katzenbach, 1999).

Work groups are not mutual accountable for their work and usually have a single leader. They interact primarily to share information and to help other work group members perform better in their individual roles (Katzenbach, 1999). This is exactly the environment that is displayed at the office in the case study. The performance goals of the office of Academic Affairs are handled through the combined individual efforts of each staff member which has assigned responsibilities with the Vice President being the single leader of the office.

Works groups tend to have a leader that controls the group and assigns work. The work group goals are determined by the organization with emphasis on individual performances and communication flowing down from the leader (Pell, 1999). This is the behavior displayed by the group in the case study with the work group goals determined by the university and flowing down from the Vice President to the other office members.

In contrast, teams tend to have a leader that is a facilitator with goals and work assignments determined by team members. Team communication tends to flow up and down with decisions being made by the entire team (Pell, 1999). Table 1 illustrates the differences between work groups and teams. The group in the case study displays the characteristics of work groups listed in the table. The group has a clearly focused leader, the Vice President, which delegates the work with the office members being individually accountable for their work. The group's work does not have direct performance measures, and its purpose is to achieve the broad university mission.

2. What team characteristics does the group display?

The group displays many team characteristics even though, overall, they would be considered a high performance work group. A team is described as "a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable" (Katzenbach, 1999).

The ideal size of a team is between four and approximately twelve members. As the size of the team grows, the team structure will begin to deteriorate, and the team will begin to break into smaller teams or subgroups (Katzenbach, 1999). This group does meet the qualification of a small number by having six members, who are Dr. Gaines, Dr. Richards, Dyan, Beatrice, Jamie, and Ruth.

The next characteristic of a team is to have complementary skills. These skills fall into three categories: technical expertise, problem solving, and interpersonal (Katzenbach, 1999).

The group does have complementary technical skills. Each group member has a field in which he or she specializes. Dr. Gaines and Dr. Richards make all the pertinent decisions and focus their attention on coordinating the division of academic affairs. Dyan and Jamie specialize in budget, curriculum, and faculty issues. Beatrice concentrates on any issues that concern the four colleges within the Division of Academic Affairs, and Ruth handles any matters concerning academic services. When these categories are combined, together they are able to handle the wide variety of tasks that are required of the office.

The group in the case study does not display the complementary skill of problem solving because the group leader makes the significant decisions. On the other hand, the case study group does display numerous examples of their interpersonal skills. Some examples of interpersonal skills are communication, trust, constructively handling conflict, support, and recognizing the achievements of others (Katzenbach, 1999).

The category of interpersonal skills is probably the strongest team characteristic displayed by the group in the case study and attributes significantly to their success. Effective communication and trust are displayed on several occasions, but probably the most significant example is the group's Friday lunch sessions. During this time, the ladies openly share with each other their frustrations regarding office matters as well as personal affairs with the assurance of complete trust and confidentiality. Another important interpersonal skill, handling conflict, is displayed when Beatrice becomes upset with Dyan regarding the copier. Instead of brooding or pouting about the situation, Beatrice vents her anger by over dramatizing what she wants to do to resolve the situation by asking the Vice President for permission to slap Dyan. The Vice President in turn handles the circumstance with humor by making light of the situation when he responds "ok, but no hair pulling". Humor serves as a catalyst to change the situation from a potentially tense setting to a relaxed atmosphere.

Support is another interpersonal skill the group exhibits when they sacrifice their work time to help Beatrice meet her deadline. They give her the benefit of the doubt that she has worked diligently, but was not able to complete the task on time without the help of the other members. They also show support to Dyan when they agree to sacrifice their time after work to help fix her dress for the awards program. The group recognizes the interest and achievement of others as they share in Dyan's success when she wins the Staff Evaluation Award.

Another team characteristic is to be committed to a common purpose and performance goal. This group is committed to the broad common purpose and performance goals of the office of Academic Affairs; however, to fit the team definition, they would need to transform these goals into specific and measurable performance goals (Katzenbach, 1999).

The last two team characteristics of a common approach and mutual accountability are not displayed by the case study group. The members of the group approach their work assignments by methods each feels is best, and are individually accountable to the vice president for their performance.

3. In this job setting, would a work group or team approach be recommended?

A leader needs first to evaluate the circumstances and determine which approach is best suited for the situation. Work groups are suited for settings in which performance goals can be met through individual efforts (Katzenbach, 1999). Since planning for work groups is done by the supervisors and decisions are implemented though individual assignments, work groups need little time to plan. Work groups are usually considered less risky, less time consuming, and less disruptive than teams (Pell, 1999).

Teams can be valuable in settings when a project requires individuals with diverse backgrounds, the culture of the organization is participative, and the managers are committed to implementing a team concept (Pell, 1999). Teams will typically outperform a work group by being more flexible, responsive to change, and allowing the group to draw upon the talents of all the members to create synergy, which is defined as the whole being greater than the individual parts (Robbins, 2000). If an organization is pursuing a creative tactic, developing employees' potentials, and is synergistic, it should use a team approach (Pell, 1999).

The setting for the case study group is more suitable to a work group approach since the performance goals can be met through individual contributions. An office environment lends itself to having predetermined goals, while a team approach is more suited for project type situations. Furthermore, for the sake of time, the case study setting is more conducive to having a single leader, the Vice President, making the decisions for the office instead of each decision being hashed out by the group. Also, there are many decisions in the office that only the Vice President can handle.

Teams are frequently found in large organizations with multiple departments, multiple divisions, and numerous employees. Teams are used in this setting to help with problem solving, special projects, and to unite a widely dispersed group of employees (Devine, 1999). Teams are used in the university setting drawing members from various departments and divisions to work on special projects that concern the university as a whole. The work group in the case study does have the advantage of being ready to come together as a team for special projects required of the office since they already have the foundation of a team within the work group. As demonstrated by this case study, one does not have to have a work group or team in its purest form. Characteristics of each can be combined in the appropriate setting to accommodate unique work environments.

4. What makes this group so successful?

As stated in the answer to a previous question, one reason the group is so successful is the members have incorporated appropriate team characteristics of communication, trust, constructively handling conflict, support, and recognizing the achievements of others into a work group setting to enhance their relationship. When a group has a strong interpersonal relationship, it will lead to higher levels of productivity. If a group is cohesive, members have a stronger desire to attain the goals of the group (Robbins, 2000). These individuals take great pride in their work and know they can depend on each other to produce quality work. Each attempts to do her best on each assignment to assure she will not let down the other group members. Each feels she is a part of a group and, even though they might not be mutually accountable for their work, they feel a sense of responsibility to perform at the high standards that have been set by the office.

In the case study, it is noted that the ladies are known on campus as a group. This feeling of being a part of the group fulfills the basic need of belonging for the group members. It provides security, status, self-esteem, affiliation, and power, which gives the members the necessary attributes to be successful at their jobs (Robbins, 2000). The ladies obviously work at enhancing their relationship by spending time together. As mentioned in the case study, they took a trip together which helped the ladies bond by providing the group with time outside the office. Groups tend to be more cohesive if they spend a significant amount of time together (Robbins, 2000). Another reason the group is successful is they enjoy the environment in which they work. Ruth enjoys it so much that she has had trouble making the decision to retire. One reason the group members are attracted to the group is because they share similar work habits and personal traits. As stated in the case study, they are all hard workers and go above and beyond the call of duty. If the group felt that one member was not doing her share of the work, this would lead to animosity among the other members and interfere with the group's cohesion. Their work styles may be different to a certain extent, but their broad work traits are the same. The two members of the group that work together, Dyan and Jamie, have similar work styles as well as broad work traits which contribute to their successful partnership. Also, the group shares common personal traits. Even though this might not play as significant a role as the work traits, common personal traits add additional common ground to bring the group members closer. The fact that three of the four members of the office group have strong roots in the community seems to be an added bonus that provides them with close ties drawing them together. This situation has apparently not caused problems for the fourth member of the group because it appears the other three group members include Ruth in their conversations regarding the community, and Ruth has not allowed the situation to alienate her from the group.

Another reason for their success is the manner in which they handle conflict. It is apparently customary for the office members to express their dislikes or disagreement openly, but with humor in order to buffer the situation. It is important they let the other members know when they are having a problem instead of letting the problem escalate, but the manner in which they handle the situation is the key to their success.

5. What can they do to make sure the group will continue to be successful after Ruth's retirement?

The answer to Beatrice's question at the end of the case study, "Do you think our team will ever be the same?" is "no". The group will never be the same because there will not be the same members, but this does not mean the new group cannot continue to be successful (Katzenbach, 1999). Initiating a new group member will frequently impede the group's progress, but there are some tactics that will help make the transition as smooth as possible. The existing group members need to be involved as much as possible in the selection of the new member. Furthermore, they need to assign a person to be responsible for orienting the new member and providing the new member with all relevant background information regarding office procedures (Harrington-Mackin, 1996). The group is on the right track at the end of the case study when they start listing the qualities of the new group member they wish to fill the open position. One reason for their success is their common work and personal traits. They need to find an individual that shares these common traits to fit into the group.

First, the group needs to make sure the new group member will possess the abilities to perform the technical aspects required of the job. This can be achieved by making sure the candidate meets the educational and experience requirements outlined in the job description and qualifications form utilized by many human resources departments. The more difficult task will be to find an individual that possesses similar work and personal traits desired of the existing group. The existing group members need to make a list of the traits they wish for the new group member to possess and formulate interview questions so that the answers will reveal the existence of these traits. They also need to make clear to the new member the standards of the office so the new group member will have a complete understanding of what is expected.

After the selection of the new group member is made, the existing group members need to welcome the new member into the group and help the new member feel a part of the group (Katzenbach, 1999). They need to nurture the relationship and realize it will take time to build a strong interpersonal relationship of trust, communication, and support with the new member. The existing group members need to realize the group will never be as it was in the past, and it will be important not to compare the new member with the old member. They need to look at the new member as an opportunity to bring new insight to the group, and be open minded regarding ideas from the new member (Katzenbach, 1999).

The new member also has a role to play to fit into the group by realizing he/she will need to earn a place on the team (Katzenbach, 1999). The new member needs to try to fit into the group culture that already exists, but not be afraid to bring his/her ideas to the group. A new team member can be a threat or an opportunity to the group (Katzenbach, 1999). When a new member joins a group, two situations can occur. The new member can become a part the group, and the newly formed group has the opportunity to grow with the insight of a new member. On the other hand, the new member can remain an outsider that will cause disruption in the group that could prove detrimental to the group's success (Katzenbach, 1999). When a group that works so closely together is faced with adding a new member, a great deal of effort needs to be put forth to assure the new member is a good match with the existing group members. Furthermore, the new relationship needs to be nurtured and given time to grow. This may seem like a great deal of work but, as evidenced in the case study, the results will be worth the effort.

Every organization needs to learn to deal with changing group members, which in today's transit society will occur on a regular basis. Even though a group does everything possible to assure the group's continuing success when selecting a new member, success is not guaranteed. When dealing with the complex human factor, no one knows exactly the right combination of skills and personal traits that will provide the right chemistry. Although, a group that has been successful in the past, as the one in the case study, has the advantage of assessing the factors that have contributed to its success, and try to emulate these factors for future success.

EPILOGUE

Several months have passed since this case study was written. To everyone's surprise, these months have brought about tremendous change to this normally stable office. Jamie received notification from the President of the university that she had been selected to replace his assistant who was retiring. Consequently, she will be leaving the office of academic affairs to assume her new position next month.

With the announcement of Jamie's promotion, Ruth has once again decided to delay her retirement. The office has already selected the replacement for Jamie. During the selection process, the applicants were first screened to make certain they evidenced the skills and abilities for the position, which narrowed the field of candidates. Then, probably the most important part of the selection process for the office came when each member of the office, including Jamie, visited with each applicant. Afterward, the office met as a group, and each group member cited his or her top two choices and stated the reasons for the choice. Surprisingly (or not), each group member had selected the same individuals. After some discussion, the group came to a consensus regarding the new employee. The office did the best they could when they selected the replacement for Jamie to make certain the new employee will be a good "fit" with the group. However, the question still remains, will the group ever be the same?

REFERENCES

Devine, D. & L. Clayton, (1999). Teams in organizations. Small Group Research, 32, article 2595382. Retrieved October 10, 2001 from http://www.shsu.edu/~lib_www/resources/datab.html

Harrington-Mackin, D. (1996). Keeping the team going. New York: AMACOM Books.

Katzenbach, J. & D. Smith (1999). The wisdom of teams. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Pell, A., (1999). The complete idiot's guide to team building. Indiana: Macmillan USA.

Robbins, S. (2000). Essentials of organizational behavior. New Jersey: Prentice- Hall.

Joseph Kavanaugh, Sam Houston State University

Kathy Gilcrease, Sam Houston State University

Table 1 *: Comparisons--Work Groups vs. Teams

Variable Work Groups

Leadership Strong, clearly focused leader
Accountability Individual accountability
Purpose same as organization mission
Work Products Individual work-products
Meeting Style Runs efficient meetings
Performance Measured Indirectly by influence on others
Leader Style Discusses, decides, and delegates

Variable Teams

Leadership Shared leadership roles
Accountability Individual and mutual accountability
Purpose Specific purpose that the team delivers
Work Products Collective work-products
Meeting Style Open discussion and active problem-solving
Performance Measured Directly by assessing team work-products
Leader Style Discusses, decides, and does real work

* Katzenbach, J. R. & D. K. Smith (1999). The Wisdom of Teams.
New York: HarperCollins Publishers.