team effectiveness

Team Effectiveness in a Remote Company

March 18, 2024 by Abigail Knol

Right now, I am doing an HR internship at a data tech company. You would expect HR to be role models for teamwork. But, truth be told, it’s been a bit rocky. We’ve been trying to navigate through some issues lately. Our director even had to call an emergency meeting to discuss what’s been going wrong and how we move forward. Our main issues involve interpersonal problems, lack of alignment on goals, no clear norms of conduct, and a fully remote team.

According to Northouse (2021), “Teams are prevalent in today’s organizations because of their ability to accomplish tasks that are too complex for individuals to do alone.” Northouse highlights the vital nature of teamwork, especially in today’s complex environments. The idea being that collective effort and diverse skill sets lead to more effective problem-solving.

“Virtual teams face more difficulty… with trust being more important to virtual teams than to face-to-face teams” (Northouse, 2021, p. 462). Trust is the foundation of effective teamwork, especially in a remote setting where face-to-face interactions are minimal. Reading cues and building relationships become more difficult, which is why our team struggles with misreading tone and body language. This has led to numerous interpersonal conflicts.

“Effective team leadership uses technology to create connections among team members” (Northouse, 2016, p. 462). In a remote work environment, technology is not just a tool for completing tasks but a bridge for making connections between team members. Northouse (2021) explains that leadership in a virtual setting must proactively use digital tools not only to get work done but to also create a sense of unity and closeness among team members. Harvard Business Review discusses this, suggesting structured daily check-ins as a way to keep the remote team aligned (Knight, 2015). Perhaps the interpersonal issues could be avoided with short and frequent video calls, not just as a group but also one-on-one with members of our team.

So, here’s how we are moving forward: Get clearer on what we each do toward our division’s goal, build up trust through regular face-to-face video calls, and establish some formal norms of conduct to help as problems arise. Then maybe, just maybe, we can feel like a real team.

References
Knight, R. (2015). How to manage remote direct reports. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2020/03/how-to-manage-remote-direct-reports

Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and Practice (9th ed.). Sage Publications.

Teamwork on 9/11

March 16, 2014 by Susan Hicks

by Susan Hicks

Belonging to a volunteer fire department for over 15 years, I have to wonder why when we talk about teamwork, we don’t discuss the team dynamics and team leadership theory blatantly seen through the everyday actions of firemen. Firefighters all over the world have been implementing team structure and leadership into every aspect of their profession and on every incident they are called. From the vehicle accident to the major terrorist attack, they seem to perfect their integration of goals, skills, and leadership within seconds of their arrival. We could learn a great deal about the efficiency of teamwork if we just delve deeper into the professional lives of career and volunteer firemen.

A group of firefighters (“a number of persons gather or classified together”) are sitting in the firehouse (Agnes, 1998). They share a common goal of making it through another 12 hour shift.

Although they share this goal, each of them will eventually get there without the help of the others, however, this is no ordinary day and not an ordinary shift. This day is September 11, 2011 in New York City. The tones go off loudly on the overhead speaker, there is a structure fire in the city and someone needs their help immediately.

A plane has flown into one of the twin towers and in this critical instance, this fraction of a second, they instantly become a team. The goal, to get the truck out and get to the fire as soon as possible with the manpower of experience and training to get the people out of the building and get the fire under control. This team (“to join in cooperative activity”) cannot function as an individual (Agnes, 1998). Although one man can get the truck out, one cannot solely save the people and one cannot solely put the fire out. They immediately start to interact in the setting of the goals, roles, and functions of the team long before the truck ever leaves the station.

The performance of this team starts with the Chief making a “mental model of the situation” by assessing the information coming in with what he sees on-scene (Northouse, 2013). He must foresee the problems that will arise for the team (floors too high for the tower and ladder trucks to reach), the environmental constraints that define the context of the situation (an airplane full of fuel struck the building and there is a great deal of fire and smoke), and find all possible solutions to aid the team with organizational and environmental resources (climb the stairs with hose lines and utilize helicopters for rescue if possible). He must continue to monitor the team and provide intervention (task or relational aid) interiorly within the group functions or exteriorly from resources available outside the team. This completely being done as the group moves through 4 stages of team development that occur on every single incident they face.

As soon as the firefighters reach the scene, it is chaos as goal focusing, structuring, and facilitation decisions takes place. Within seconds, the firemen start working as a well-oiled machine toward reaching their mutual goals of live safety and the protection of property (putting the fire out).Since firefighters do not always work on every incident with the same firemen (varying battalions, engine companies (pipe men), truck companies (truckies), rescue companies, etc… as they respond depending on the location and severity of the incident), they progress through four stages of development. This occurs immediately and rapidly for the firemen in relation to other teams primarily due to the extreme emergency nature of the situation. They first go through forming – finding out about the abilities of the others (find out if he is a truckie or a pipe man), through storming – decide the best course of action for their team (climb the stairs?), to norming – a team leader develops and takes the initiative to start the task (takes the first step), to finally progress through the stage of performing – the team starts to perform their duty (PSU, 2013).

They start to carry their hand lines, high-rise packs, axes, haligan bars, and breathing apparatus up the seventy plus flights of stairs to reach the fire while sending the remaining occupants down the stairs behind them.

Then it happens….

The building collapses.

The scene immediately reverts back to chaos. New teams re-form. The situation has dramatically changed.

New teams are forming to find the rest of the occupants and the numerous firefighters trapped inside. They must act fast if they want to increase the chances of survival for the victims. Should the Chief have monitored the events and foreseen that the building was going to collapse – intervening into the firefighter’s task and gotten them out of there? No one can answer that for sure. One could argue either of the two schools of ‘Monday-night-quarterbacking’ that occurred after the event. The building was designed not to collapse but the fuel from the plane was too hot and lasted too long to prevent the collapse.

What this unfortunate tragedy reminds us is that teamwork is essential and leadership must monitor team effectiveness and performance in all instances. Albeit this was the worst case event that could ever happen within humanity and for the fire service, teamwork is not only the first avenue of defense for the proper functioning of the fire service, but it is what creates the ‘brotherhood’ among firemen that not only gives them the courage to run into a burning building when sane people are running out, but why firemen risk their lives for each other and for people whom they don’t even know. Teamwork is much greater than efficiency and productivity for the fireman – teamwork is about each other and it is essential for their survival.

References:

Agnes, Michael (ed). (1998). Webster’s New World Compact Desk Dictionary and Style Guide. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. (6^th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Pennsylvania State University. (2014). PSYCH-485: Leadership in work settings Lesson 9 – Team Leadership. Retrieved March 16, 2014 from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp14/psych485/001/content/09_lesson/01_page.html

Who is In and Who is Out?

March 9, 2014 by Emily Corinne Carter

This week’s lesson on the Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX) was interesting because it focused on the relationship between the leader and follower. The quality of exchange between the leader and a follower can influence which group the follower belongs to, the in-group or the out-group. Everyone, at some point in life, has experienced being part of an in-group or an out-group, whether at work, school, or within the family dynamics. Depending on the situation, many people would rather not be labeled as a member of the out-group. Why? Usually, a member of an out-group gets treated poorly in comparison to peers who are members of the in-group, especially when the in-group includes the leader. Northouse (2013) explained that “low-quality leader-member relationships” can be disadvantageous to followers of the out-group because of the lack support, extra benefits, and trust from leader (p. 168). In contrast, members belonging to an in-group receive more attention and benefits from the leader, establishing high-quality leader-member relationships (Northouse, 2013).

In my opinion, in-group and out-group dynamics in any situation can be harmful any environment where people need to work together. The criticisms of the LMX theory, mentions the “undesirable effects on the group as a whole” when there in-groups and out-groups are present (Northouse, 2013, p. 171). For a unit, such as an organization, team, family, community, and so forth to succeed and progress, effective communication and high-quality leader-member relationships need to be established with all members (Northouse, 2013). I have witnessed situations in each environment, such as family, work, and school where poor-quality leader-follower relationships, with in-groups and out-groups present, negatively affected a unit’s progress, outcome, and overall goal.

I do have a discrepancy with understanding the concept of in-group and out-group as defined by Northouse (2013). From what I understand the LMX theory views in-group members as those compatible and liked by the leader because they do more for the leader? An out-group member, from what I understand, is viewed as a member who does what is expected of them and does not get involved with social relationships with others in the unit? In a professional setting I find this behavior to be unethical because the perceived or real favoritism towards in-group members could create a hostile work environment, especially for out-group members. Does the, I will scratch your back if you scratch mine, analogy apply here? Another question, what happens if an “out-group” member is exceeding expectations and does try to socially connect with the leader and the in-group, but never is accepted by the in-group?

When my son started Kindergarten, I worked at a local restaurant in town while he attended school. I was one of the lead daytime waitresses who opened in the mornings most days of the week. I was around 23 years old then. I had previous restaurant experience from when I worked as a waitress for an Asian restaurant when I was 14 years old and from when I worked as a hostess when I was 15 years old. After the age of 16 years old, I acquired office jobs and attended college for a few couple of semesters before working at this particular waitressing job. The job was a temporary way to make money, while focusing on my education and raising my son.

In contrast, the other daytime opener was a middle age woman who has been working as a waitress her entire life, so she was a veteran in the business and quite aggressive in her strategies to succeed. Regardless of her aggressive strategies including stealing tips and customers from other waitresses, or not doing her assigned team roles, she was still in the in-group with the store manager. Many waitresses and hostesses did not like her character, but she played a good role for the store manager.

The store manager favored this particular waitress over other waitresses and employees who exceeded their responsibilities and expectations. As time passed things became progressively worse when members of the so-called “out-group” had enough injustices because many of the employees confronted the waitress personally. This increased the tension and decreased team effectiveness. No matter how much this particular waitress showed qualities of being an out-group member, as far not meeting job expectations hired for and her character, the manager and her related on personality qualities and age.

In the end both the store manager and waitress were fired, but not until a couple years later and after many others quit. Many employees quit because of poor quality leader-follower relationship with our leader/manager. Waitresses could not trust the manager because he would not acknowledge her wrong behaviors and did nothing create a better work environment for everyone. Favoritism and establishing an in-group destroyed something really good, an effective team, but as followers many of us could not withstand the unfair and discriminatory treatment from our leader.

My thoughts overall, is the LMX theory was right to modify and express the benefits of unit effectiveness when leaders consider all members to belong to the in-group, when possible (Northouse, 2013). I understand that in reality there will always be in-groups and out-groups, but I do not support it as part of leadership process and I personally do not see any benefits in allowing it to continue. Furthermore, I do understand that some members may not want to be part of the in-group, but I do feel it should always be an option available to all members at all times.

Reference

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: theory and practice. (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.