Managing Team Performance

11.1.	Definition Importance Of Teams Thus far, this book has focused mainly on the measurement of employees working individually and not in teams. Although the book has referred to individual and team performance, the emphasis until this point has been on individual performance. The discussion of team performance is important and deserves its own chapter given the increasing pervasiveness of teams in organizations worldwide. It is virtually impossible to think of an organization that does not organize its functions at least in part based on teams. Evidence of this is found in a recent survey of Fortune 1000 companies that discovered that these companies considered teamwork and how to make the most out of teams their number one priority. A team is in place when two or more people interact dynamically and interdependently and share a common and valued goal, objective, or mission. Examples of teams range from a group of top managers working together face to face on an ongoing basis with the goal of achieving corporate goals to a group of programmers in India and the United States writing programming codes that eventually will be put together as one software program. Teams do not have to be permanent, and team members do not have to be in the same geographical location. In fact, team members do not need to have ever met in person to be members of the same team. As long as they work together, need each other, and share common goals, they are considered to be members of the same team. Numerous organizations are structured around teams, including teams called autonomous work groups, process teams, or self-managing work teams. When autonomous work groups are in place, members have the authority to manage their own tasks and interpersonal processes as they carry out their work. Why are teams so popular? First, businesses are facing increased pressures, including global competition, and they believe that the use of teams might be one way to improve products and services and to increase productivity. Also, meeting the needs of global customers often requires teams with members from different parts of the world. Second, many organizations have gone through downsizing and restructuring, which has led them to become flatter and has reduced the number of hierarchical levels. Using teams provides greater flexibility for these organizations. Third, products and services are becoming very complex, requiring many people contributing their diverse talents to the same project. In most cases, no one individual can surpass the combined talent of an entire group. Finally, rapidly changing business environments are also responsible for the popularity of teams because teams are able to respond more quickly and more effectively to changes than can individuals working alone. Although many organizations choose to structure themselves around autonomous work teams and teams in general, team-based organizations do not necessarily outperform organizations that are not structured around teams. In other words, team performance does not always fulfill its promise; therefore, it makes sense for performance management systems to go beyond focusing on individual performance. Specifically, the system should target not only (1) individual performance but also (2) an individual’s contribution to the performance of his or her team(s) and (3) the performance of teams as a whole. An organization that includes any type of teams would therefore benefit from managing the performance of both individuals and teams. Including team performance as part of a performance management system is a natural extension of a system that has focused on individual performance only. The general principles that we have discussed in this book thus far still apply. For example, we are still trying to design and implement the best possible system. Specifically, the system should have a strategic congruence and be thorough, practical, meaningful, reliable, acceptable, ethical, and so forth. In addition, a system that includes team performance should also consider the possible dangers of a poorly implemented system, such as the use of false or misleading information, wasting time and money, damaging relationships, and so on. Team performance, of course, adds a layer of complexity to any performance management system, but the fundamental principles that guide the design and implementation of the system discussed throughout this book remain the same It is important to note that some conditions are necessary for team performance management to lead to improved team performance; for example :
	-	The processes involved in the performance of the team are relatively unconstrained by other requirements of the task or the organization. For example, the organization should not constrain the amount of effort and skill that the team members can invest in a particular team-based project. An example of a constraint may be individual and team goals that compete against each other.
	-	The team is designed well, and the organizational context supports team performance. In other words, there are elements in the organization that support team performance (e.g., reward systems, training systems).
	-	Performance feedback focuses on team processes that are under the control of team members. There is no point in providing feedback on aspects of performance that are beyond the control of the team.

11.2.	Types Of Teams And Implications For Performance Management Teams can be classified based on the complexity of the task (from routine to nonroutine tasks) and membership configuration (from static to dynamic). Routine tasks are well defined there are few deviations in how the work is done; and outcomes are easily assessed after the task has been completed. By contrast, nonroutine tasks are not defined well there are no clear specifications about how to do the work and outcomes are usually very long term and difficult to assess. Membership configuration includes how long the team is expected to work together and the stability of its membership. For example, there can be product development teams, task forces, and committees.
	-	Work or service teams. These intact teams are engaged in routine tasks, including manufacturing or service tasks. An example is a group of people working at the assembly line in a car manufacturing plant such as Saturn or Saab. The work or service team includes people who have worked together for some time and know each other well. Most members share a similar set of skills
	-	Project teams. These teams are assembled for a specific purpose and are expected to disband as soon as their specific tasks have been completed. The tasks are outside the core production or service of the organization and are therefore not as routine as those of work or service teams. Examples are the team that developed IBM’s first personal computer and the team that developed the original Taurus/Sable at Ford. Project teams include members from different functional areas who may not know each others’ specialties and, therefore, are highly dependent on one another’s high level of specific knowledge and usually sophisticated skill sets.
	-	Network teams. These teams include members who are not constrained by time or space and members who are not limited by organizational boundaries. Usually, team members are geographically dispersed and stay in touch via telecommunications technology such as e-mail, videoconferencing, and, of course, telephone. Their work is extremely nonroutine. Network teams usually include a combination of temporary and full-time workers, customers, vendors, and even consultants. One example is the group of Russian and U.S. astronauts and scientists who communicated and worked together during months of training using telecommunications technology, from their respective countries, before some of them actually worked face-to-face in the Mir space station.
	Team performance management must consider the type of team in question before performance measures are put in place. Different performance measurement methods are particularly appropriate depending on the type of team being evaluated. Work and service teams can clearly benefit from peer ratings because members observe one another’s performance on a daily basis. In addition, because team members have similar responsibilities, everyone is familiar with the competencies needed to do the job. Project teams do not stay together for long periods of time, and, therefore, the measure of results at the end of a project may not benefit the team’s development since the team is likely to disband as soon as the project is finished. Instead, measurements should be taken periodically as the team works on the project so that corrective action can be taken as necessary before the project has been completed. This is precisely the type of measurement system Hewlett-Packard uses with its project teams in charge of product development. Network teams are transitory and engage in unique tasks on an as needed basis. It is difficult to measure specific outcomes. Instead, performance management of network teams emphasizes the future instead of the past and focuses on developing individual competencies, such as the team members’ capacity to innovate, adapt, be flexible, and solve problems.