by Mason Carpenter, Talya Bauer, and Berrin Erdogan
Planet Earth is pretty big, but many changes taking place seem to make it a smaller place. © 2010 Jupiterimages Corporation
WHAT’S IN IT FOR ME?
Reading this chapter will help
you do the following:
1.
Learn about the
history of principles of management.
2.
Know the
context for contemporary principles of management.
3.
Understand key
global trends.
4.
See how
globalization is affecting management principles and practices.
5.
Appreciate the
importance of value-based leadership (ethics) in management.
The
planning-organizing-leading-controlling (P-O-L-C) framework is summarized in
the following figure. In this chapter, you’ll learn that some principles of
management are enduring, but you’ll also see that managers need to be
continually adapting to changing times. Each facet of the framework—from planning,
to organizing, to leading, to controlling—has to be adapted to take advantage
of, and to manage in, our changing world. Global trends affect both the style
and the substance of management. As the world becomes more global, managers
find themselves leading workforces that may be distributed across the
country—and the world. Workers are more educated, but more is expected of them.
The realm of managers is
expanding. As a leader, you’ll be a role model in the organization, setting the
tone not just for what gets done
buthow it
gets done. Increasingly, good business practice extends to stewardship, not
just of the organization but of the environment and community at large. Ethics
and values-based leadership aren’t just good ideas—they’re vital to attracting
talent and retaining loyal customers and business partners.
3.1 Ancient History: Management Through the 1990s
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1.
Early
motivation for development of principles.
2.
What problems
did these principles solve?
3.
What were the
limitations of these early views?
Early Management Principles
Early
management principles were born of necessity. The most influential of these
early principles were set forth by Henri Fayol a
French mining engineer. In 1888, Fayol became director of a mining company. The
company was in difficulty, but Fayol was able to turn it around and make the
company profitable again. When he retired, Fayol wrote down what he’d done to
save the company. He helped develop an “administrative science” and developed
principles that he thought all organizations should follow if they were to run
properly.
Fayol’s 14 Principles of
Management
1.
Specialization/Division
of Labor
By specializing in a limited set
of activities, workers become more efficient and increase their output.
2.
Authority/Responsibility
Managers must have the authority
to issue commands, but with that authority comes the responsibility to ensure
that the work gets done.
3.
Discipline
Workers must obey orders if the
business is to run smoothly. But good discipline is the result of effective
leadership: workers must understand the rules and management should use
penalties judiciously if workers violate the rules.
4.
Unity of
Command
An employee should receive orders
only from one boss to avoid conflicting instructions.
5.
Unity of
Direction
Each unit or group has only one
boss and follows one plan so that work is coordinated.
6.
Subordination
of Individual Interest
The interests of one person
should never take precedence over what is best for the company as a whole.
7.
Remuneration
Workers must be fairly paid for
their services.
8.
Centralization
Centralization refers to decision
making: specifically, whether decisions are centralized (made by management) or
decentralized (made by employees). Fayol believed that whether a company should
centralize or decentralize its decision making depended on the company’s
situation and the quality of its workers.
9.
Line of
Authority
The line of authority moves from
top management down to the lowest ranks. This hierarchy is necessary for unity
of command, but communication can also occur laterally if the bosses are kept
aware of it. The line should not be overextended or have too many levels.
10.
Order
Orderliness refers both to the
environment and materials as well as to the policies and rules. People and
materials should be in the right place at the right time.
11.
Equity
Fairness (equity), dignity, and
respect should pervade the organization. Bosses must treat employees well, with
a “combination of kindliness and justice.”
12.
Stability of Tenure
Organizations do best when tenure
is high (i.e., turnover is low). People need time to learn their jobs, and
stability promotes loyalty. High employee turnover is inefficient.
13.
Initiative
Allowing everyone in the
organization the right to create plans and carry them out will make them more
enthusiastic and will encourage them to work harder.
14.
Esprit de Corps
Harmony and team spirit across
the organization builds morale and unity.
Time and Motion
Today, coal is mined and moved by heavy machinery like this coal lift. In Taylor’s time, it was moved by shovel to rail cars or trucks. © 2010 Jupiterimages Corporation
Frederick Winslow Taylor, a contemporary of Fayol’s, formalized the principles of
scientific management in his 1911 book, The Principles of Scientific Management. Taylor described how productivity could be greatly improved by
applying the scientific method to management; for this reason, the scientific
approach is sometimes referred to as Taylorism.
Taylor is most famous for his “time studies,” in which
he used a stopwatch to time how long it took a worker to perform a task, such
as shoveling coal or moving heavy loads. Then he experimented with different
ways to do the tasks to save time. Sometimes the improvement came from better
tools. For example, Taylor devised the “science of shoveling,” in which he
conducted time studies to determine how much weight a worker could lift with a
shovel without tiring. He determined that 21 pounds was the optimal weight. But
since the employer expected each worker to bring his own shovel, and there were
different materials to be shoveled on the job, it was hard to ensure that
21-pound optimum. So, Taylor provided workers with the optimal shovel for each
density of materials, like coal, dirt, snow, and so on. With these optimal
shovels, workers became three or four times more productive, and they were
rewarded with pay increases.
Frank Gilbreth and his wife, Lillian
Moller Gilbreth (who
outlived Frank by 48 years!), were associates of Taylor and were likewise
interested in standardization of work to improve productivity. [1] They went one better on Taylor’s time studies,
devising “motion studies” by photographing the individual movements of each
worker (they attached lights to workers’ hands and photographed their motions
at slow speeds). The Gilbreths then carefully analyzed the motions and removed
unnecessary ones. These motion studies were preceded by timing each task, so
the studies were called “time and motion studies.”
Applying time and motion studies to bricklaying, for
example, the Gilbreths devised a way for workers to lay bricks that eliminated
wasted motion and raised their productivity from 1,000 bricks per day to 2,700
bricks per day. Frank Gilbreth applied the same technique to personal tasks,
like coming up with “the best way to get dressed in the morning.” He suggested
the best way to button the waistcoat, for example, was from bottom up rather
than top down. Why? Because then a man could straighten his tie in the same
motion, rather than having to raise his hands back up from the bottom of the
waistcoat.
Limitations of the Early Views
Fayol,
Taylor, and the Gilbreths all addressed productivity improvement and how to run
an organization smoothly. But those views presumed that managers were
overseeing manual labor tasks. As work began to require less manual labor and
more knowledge work, the principles they had developed became less effective.
Worse, the principles of Taylorism tended to dehumanize workers. The writer Upton Sinclair who raised awareness of deplorable working conditions
in the meatpacking industry in his 1906 book, The Jungle,
was one of Taylor’s vocal critics. Sinclair pointed out the relatively small
increase in pay (61%) that workers received compared with their increased
productivity (362%). Frederick Taylor answered Sinclair’s criticism, saying
that workers should not get the full benefit because it was management that devised
and taught the workers to produce more. But Taylor’s own words compare workers
to beasts of burden: The worker is “not an extraordinary man difficult to find;
he is merely a man more or less the type of an ox, heavy both mentally and
physically.” [2]
When work was manual, it made sense for a manager to
observe workers doing a task and to devise the most efficient motions and tools
to do that task. As we moved from a manufacturing society to a service-based
one, that kind of analysis had less relevance. Managers can’t see inside the
head of a software engineer to devise the fastest way to write code. Effective
software programming depends on knowledge work, not typing speed.
Likewise, a services-based economy requires
interactions between employees and customers. Employees have to be able to
improvise, and they have to be motivated and happy if they are to serve the
customer in a friendly way. Therefore, new management theories were developed
to address the new world of management and overcome the shortcomings of the
early views.
Finally, early views of management were heavily
oriented toward efficiency, at the expense of attention to the
manager-as-leader. That is, a manager basically directs resources to complete
predetermined goals or projects. For example, a manager may engage in hiring,
training, and scheduling employees to accomplish work in the most efficient and
cost-effective manner possible. A manager is considered a failure if he or she
is not able to complete the project or goals with efficiency or when the cost
becomes too high. However, a leader within a company develops individuals to
complete predetermined goals and projects. A leader develops relationships with
his or her employees by building communication, by evoking images of success,
and by eliciting loyalty. Thus, later views of management evoke notions of
leaders and leadership in discussing the challenges and opportunities for
modern managers.
Management Ideas of the 1990s
Peter Drucker was
the first scholar to write about how to manage knowledge workers, with his
earliest work appearing in 1969. Drucker addressed topics like management of
professionals, the discipline of entrepreneurship and innovation, and how
people make decisions. In 1982,Tom Peters and Robert Waterman wrote In
Search of Excellence, which became
an international best seller and ushered a business revolution by changing the
way managers viewed their relationships with employees and customers. On the
basis of the authors’ research focusing on 43 of America’s most successful
companies in six major industries, the book introduced nine principles of
management that are embodied in excellent organizations:
1.
Managing
Ambiguity and Paradox
The ability of managers to hold
two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still be able to function
effectively.
2.
A Bias for
Action
A culture of impatience with
lethargy and inertia that otherwise leaves organizations unresponsive.
3.
Close to the
Customer
Staying close to the customer to
understand and anticipate customer needs and wants.
4.
Autonomy and
Entrepreneurship
Actions that foster innovation
and nurture customer and product champions.
5.
Productivity
through People
Treating rank-and-file employees
as a source of quality.
6.
Hands-On,
Value-Driven
A management philosophy that
guides everyday practice and shows management’s commitment.
7.
Stick to the
Knitting
Stay with what you do well and
the businesses you know best.
8.
Simple Form,
Lean Staff
The best companies have very
minimal, lean headquarters staff.
9.
Simultaneous
Loose-Tight Properties [3]
Autonomy in shop-floor activities
plus centralized values.
Following
up, Peters wrote a Passion
for Excellence, which placed further emphasis
on leadership, innovation, and valuing people. His bookThriving on Chaos,
published the day of the biggest stock market crash of the time (“Black
Monday,” October 19, 1987), addressed the uncertainty of the times; and Liberation Management,
published in 1992, laid out 45 prescriptions for how to lead companies in a
rapidly changing world. The book called for empowering people by involving
everyone in decision making and eliminating bureaucratic rules and humiliating
conditions. Peters urged organizational leaders (i.e., managers) to celebrate
and recognize employees for their contributions. His advice to leaders was to
“master paradox” (i.e., develop a level of comfort with complexity and
ambiguity) and establish direction for the company by developing an inspiring
vision and leading by example.
Beginning
in the 1970s, Warren Bennis pioneered
a new theory of leadership that addressed the need for leaders to have vision
and to communicate that vision. More than just a manager, an effective leader
was defined as someone with the ability to influence and motivate others not
only to perform work tasks but also to support the organization’s values and
meet the organization’s goals. Different views of leadership through the ages
are shown next.
Views of Leadership Through the Ages
A leader is a dealer in hope.
—Napoleon
I suppose that leadership at one time meant muscle;
but today it means getting along with people.
—Mahatma Gandhi
What leaders really do: set direction, align people,
and motivate people.
—John
Kotter [4]
KEY TAKEAWAY
Early management theorists
developed principles for managing organizations that suited the times. A
century ago, few workers were highly educated; most work was manual, tasks were
repetitive, and rates of change were slow. Hierarchy brought unity and control,
and principles of management in which managers defined tasks and coordinated
workers to move in a unified direction made sense. As the economy moved from
manufacturing to services, the need for engaging workers’ minds and hearts
became more important. Drucker, Peters, and Waterman presented ideas on how managers
could achieve excellence in a continually changing business environment, while
Bennis encouraged managers to become inspiring leaders who empowered people.
EXERCISES
1.
What goals seem
to dominate early management principles?
2.
Do you see any commonalities
between Fayol’s principles of management from 1911 and those of Tom Peters in
the 1990s?
3.
Are there any
jobs today for which time and motion studies would make sense to do? Would any
other skills need to be taught as well?
4.
What do early
management principles leave out?
5.
How would you
put some of the ideas of the 1990s into practice?
6.
What aspects of
P-O-L-C would be most likely to change based on what you have learned in this
section?
3.2 Contemporary Principles of Management
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1.
Recognize
organizations as social movements.
2.
Understand the
benefits of social networking.
3.
Recognize
learning organizations.
4.
Understand
virtual organizations.
Corporations as Social Movements
Traditionally,
we’ve thought of corporations as organizations that had clear boundaries,
formal procedures, and well-defined authority structures. In contrast, social
movements are seen as more spontaneous and fluid. The term social movement refers to a type of group action that is focused on
specific political or social issues; examples include the civil rights
movement, the feminist movement, and the gay rights movement. Leaders of social
movements depend on charisma rather than authority to motivate participants to
action. Contemporary management theory, however, is showing that the lines
between the two are blurring: corporations are becoming more like social
movements, and social movements are taking on more permanence. Just as
companies are outsourcing specific jobs, so social movements can contract out
tasks like lobbying and fundraising.
We are more connected, at least virtually, than ever before. © 2010 Jupiterimages Corporation
Corporations
can implement initiatives that mimic a social movement. Consider how the CEO of
one bank described a program he introduced: “The hierarchical management
structure will give way to some collective activities that will improve our
effectiveness in the marketplace. Decisions won’t flow from a management level
to people on the line who are expected to implement those decisions.…We’re
telling everyone, choose a process, figure out what and where the problems are,
work together to come up with solutions, and then put your solutions to work.” [1] Thus, more and more leading businesses are harnessing
the mechanics of social movements to improve how they will manage their
businesses in the future.
Social Networking
Social networking refers to systems that allow members of a specific
site to learn about other members’ skills, talents, knowledge, or preferences.
Companies use these systems internally to help identify experts.
In the world, at large, social networks are groups of
individuals who share a common interest or passion. Poker players, dog lovers,
and high school alumni are a few examples of social networks in action. In the
corporate world, a social network is made up of individuals who share an
employer and, potentially, other interests as well. But in the pre-Internet
age, managers lacked the tools to recognize or tap the business value of
in-house social networks. The company softball team was a social network, sure.
But what did that have to do with the bottom line?
Today,
social networks are starting points for corporate innovation: potentially
limitless arrangements of individuals inspired by opportunities, affinities, or
tasks. People feel better and work better when they belong to a group of other
people like themselves. [2] This new attitude toward social networks in the
workplace has been fueled by the growth of social networking sites like
Facebook.
Facebook was started by then-college student Mark
Zuckerberg in 2004 as a way of connecting a social network—specifically,
university students. Since then, Facebook has changed the way organizations
connect as well. Some companies maintain a physical presence on Facebook that
allows consumers to chime in about their passions (or lack of them) for
corporate offerings, news, and products. Starbucks has adopted this model,
asking consumers to help them revive their product lines and image.
As
Zuckerberg told the Wall Street Journal,
“We just want to share information more efficiently.” [3] And, in the information age, that’s what social
networks do best. Companies are applying the online social networking model of
open and closed groups to their corporate intranets, creating secure sites for
employees in different locations to collaborate on projects based on common
interests, management directives, and incentives. For example, IBM’s pilot
virtual world will let Big Blue employees use chat, instant messaging, and
voice communication programs while also connecting to user-generated content in
the public spaces of Second Life, another large social networking site. IBM
also opened a virtual sales center in Second Life and, separately from the
Second Life partnership, is building an internal virtual world where work
groups can have meetings.
The use of online social networking principles can
open the door to outside collaborations. For example, Netflix offered a
million-dollar reward to anyone in the company’s social network of interested
inventors who could improve the algorithm that matches movie lovers to new
titles they might enjoy. Companies like Procter & Gamble and InnoCentive
are tapping social networks of scientists to improve their products.
Social
networks fueled by passion can help managers retain, motivate, and educate
staff. They might even help Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg with an in-house dilemma
as his company grows. According to the Wall Street Journal,
the world’s most dynamic social networking site has “little management
experience.”
Learning Organizations
In
a 1993 article, Harvard Business School professor David Garvin defined a learning organization as “an organization skilled at creating, acquiring,
and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to reflect new
knowledge and insights.” [4] The five building blocks of learning organizations are
1.
Systematic
problem solving: The company
must have a consistent method for solving problems, using data and statistical
tools rather than assumptions.
2.
Experimentation: Experiments are a way to test ideas in small steps.
Experiments let companies hunt for and test new knowledge, such as new ways of
recycling waste or of structuring an incentive program.
3.
Learning
from past experience: It’s
essential for companies to review projects and products to learn what worked
and what didn’t. Boeing, for example, systematically gathered hundreds of
“lessons learned” from previous airplane models, such as the 737 and 747, which
it applied to the 757s and 767s, making those the most successful, error-free
launches in Boeing’s history.
4.
Learning
from others: Recognizing that good ideas
come from anywhere, not just inside the company, learning organizations network
with other companies in a continual search for good ideas to adapt and adopt.
5.
Transferring
knowledge: Sharing knowledge quickly
throughout the organization is the way to make everyone a smart, contributing
member.
Virtual Organizations
A virtual organization is one in which employees work remotely—sometimes
within the same city, but more often across a country and across national
borders. The company relies on computer and telecommunications technologies
instead of physical presence for communication between employees. E-mail,
wikis, Web meetings (i.e., like Webex or GoToMeeting), phone, and Internet
relay chat (IRC) are used extensively to keep everyone in touch. Virtual companies
present special leadership challenges because it’s essential for leaders to
keep people informed of what they are supposed to be doing and what other arms
of the organization are doing. Communication in a commons area is preferable to
one-on-one communication because it keeps everyone up to speed and promotes
learning across the organization.
The Value of Wikis
Wikis
provide companies with a number of benefits: [5]
·
Wikis pool the
talent of experts as well as everyone from across the company and beyond it—in
all time zones and geographic locations.
·
Input from
unanticipated people brings fresh ideas and unexpected connections.
·
Wikis let
people contribute to a project any time, giving them flexibility in managing
their time.
·
It’s easy to
see the evolution of an idea, and new people can get up to speed quickly by
seeing the history of the project.
·
Co-creation of
solutions eliminates the need to “sell” those solutions to get buy-in.
·
Wikis cut the
need for e-mail by 75% and the need for meetings by 50%.
With
more and more companies outsourcing work to other countries, managers are
turning to tools like wikis to structure project work globally. A wiki is
a way for many people to collaborate and contribute to an online document or
discussion (see “The Value of Wikis”). The document remains available for
people to access anytime. The most famous example is Wikipedia. A wikified
organization puts information into everyone’s hands. Managers don’t just talk
about empowering workers—the access to information and communication empowers
workers directly. People who are passionate about an idea can tap into the
network to make the idea happen. Customers, too, can rally around an issue and
contribute their opinions.
Many
companies that are not solely virtual use the principles of a virtual
organization as a way to structure the work of globally distributed teams.
VeriFone, one of the largest providers of electronic payment systems worldwide,
has development teams working on software projects around the world. In what
the company calls a “relay race,” developers in Dallas working on a rush
project send unfinished work at quitting time to another development center in
Laupahoehoe, Hawaii. When the sun sets there, the project is handed off to
programmers in Bangalore, India, for further work, and by morning, it’s back in
Dallas, 16 hours closer to completion. Similarly, midwestern Paper Converting
Machine Co. (PCMC) outsourced some design work to Chennai, India. Having U.S.
and Indian designers collaborate 24/7 has helped PCMC slash development costs
and time, enabling the company to stay in business, according to CEO Robert
Chapman. Chapman said, ““We can compete and create great American jobs, but not
without offshoring.” [6]
KEY TAKEAWAY
In today’s fast-changing world,
organizations are becoming more like social movements, with more fluid
boundaries and more participation in leadership across all levels. Social
networks within corporations let employees find out about one another and
access the people who have the skills, knowledge, or connections to get the job
done. Continuous learning is important, not just for individuals but for
organizations as a whole, to transfer knowledge and try out new ideas as the
pace of change increases. Virtual organizations can speed up cycle time, but
they pose new challenges for managers on how to manage remote workers.
Communications technologies and the Web let employees work from anywhere—around
the corner or around the world—and require special attention to managing
communication.
EXERCISES
1.
What
commonalities do you see between organizations and social movements?
2.
How would you
use a social network to solve a work-related task?
3.
Why do social networks
inspire employees?
4.
How do social
networks help managers plan, organize, lead, and control?
5.
What steps
would you take to help your organization become a learning organization?
6.
What are the
advantages of a virtual organization?
7.
What aspects of
P-O-L-C would be most likely to change based on what you have learned in this
section?
[1] Davis,
G. F., McAdam, D., Scott, W. R., & Zald, M. N. (Eds.). (2005). Social Movements and Organization Theory. Cambridge Studies in Contentious Politics. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 283.
[2] Rummler,
L. (2007, July). Corporate social networking updates definition of women’s
groups. Retrieved January 28, 2009, fromhttp://www.talentmgt.com/newsletters/recruitment_perspectives/2007/July/380/index.php.
[3] Vara,
V. (2007, May 21). Facebook opens its pages as a way to fuel growth. Wall Street Journal.
Retrieved January 28, 2009, fromhttp://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117971397890009177-wjdKPmjAqS_9ZZbwiRp_CoSqvwQ_20070620.html.
[4] Garvin,
D. (1993, July–August). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review,
78–91.
[5] Tapscott,
A., & A. D. Williams. (2006). Wikinomics:
How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. New York: Portfolio.
[6] Engardio,
P. (2006, January 30). The future of outsourcing. BusinessWeek.
3.3 Global Trends
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1.
What are the
top 10 ways that the world is changing?
2.
What is the
pace of these changes?
As the summary “Top Trends” suggests, we are living in
exciting times, and you’re at the forefront of it. The world is changing in
dramatic ways, and as a manager, you’re in the best position to take advantage
of these changes. Let’s look at 10 major ways in which the world is changing;
we’ll characterize the first five as challenges and the next five as solutions.
Top Trends
Top 5 Challenge Trends
1.
Increasing
Concern for the Environment
2.
Greater
Personalization and Customization
3.
Faster Pace of
Innovation
4.
Increasing
Complexity
5.
Increasing
Competition for Talent
Top 5 Solution Trends
6.
Becoming More
Connected
7.
Becoming More
Global
8.
Becoming More
Mobile
9.
Rise of the
Creative Class
10.
Increasing
Collaboration
Top 5 Challenge Trends
Increasing Concern for the
Environment
We
all seem to believe that the weather has been getting weirder in recent decades,
and analysis by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
suggests that there have been more catastrophic weather events in recent years
than 10–20 years ago. [1] People are seeing the growing threat of global
warming, which is leading to failing crops, rising sea levels, shortages of
drinking water, and increasing death tolls from disease outbreaks such as
malaria and dengue fever. Currently, 175 nations have signed the Kyoto Protocol
on climate change and pledged to begin the long process of reducing greenhouse
gas emissions. According to McKinsey’s Global Survey of Business Executives,
executives across the world believe that business plays a wider role in society
and has responsibility to address issues such as environmental concerns beyond
just following the letter of the law to minimize pollution. More and more
companies now watch the “triple bottom line”—the benchmark of how they benefit,
not just (1) profits but also (2) employees and (3) the environment as a whole.
Companies realize they have to take bold steps to minimize their carbon
footprint, create environmentally friendly products, and manage the company for
more than just the next quarter’s profits. Managers can’t simply “greenwash”
(pretend to be green through tiny steps and heavy advertising).
Wind power is a high-growth business that takes advantage of increasing interest in sustainable energy sources. © 2010 Jupiterimages Corporation
Greater Personalization and
Customization
We’re
no longer happy with cookie-cutter products. Consumers are demanding more say
in products and services. One size no longer fits all, and that means tailoring
products and services to meet specific customer preferences. And as companies
sell their products globally, that tailoring has to meet vastly different
needs, cultural sensitivities, and income levels. Even something simple such as
Tide laundry detergent can come in hundreds of potential variants in terms of
formulations (powders, liquids, tablets), additives (whiteners, softeners,
enzymes), fragrances (unscented, mountain fresh, floral), and package sizes
(from single-load laundromat sizes to massive family/economy sizes). Customization
and the growing numbers of products mean managing more services and more
products. For example, for just $4.99 plus shipping, you can create your own
Kleenex oval tissue box! [2] Managing for mass production won’t suffice in the
future.
Faster Pace of Innovation
We
all want the next new thing, and we want it now. New models, new products, and
new variations—companies are speeding new products to market in response to
customer demands. The Finland-based mobile phone maker Nokia sells 150
different devices, of which 50–60 are newly introduced each year. The new
variations are tailored to local languages, case colors, carriers, add-ons, and
content. David Glazer, engineering director at Google, explained how his
company adapts to this fast pace: “Google has a high tolerance for chaos and
ambiguity. When we started OpenSocial [a universal platform for social-network
applications], we didn’t know what the outcome was going to be.” So Google
started running a bunch of experiments. “We set an operational tempo: when in
doubt, do something,” Glazer said, “If you have two paths and you’re not sure
which is right, take the fastest path.” [3]
Increasing Complexity
Because we want more sustainability, more
customization, and more innovation, companies face growing complexity. Nokia’s
50–60 new phone models a year all have 300–400 components, some of which
contain millions or hundreds of millions of transistors. Those components have
to arrive at the right manufacturing location (Nokia has 10 worldwide) from
whichever country they originated and arrive just in time to be manufactured.
Increasing Competition for Talent
We need people who can solve all these tough problems,
and that’s a challenge all by itself. According to McKinsey’s global survey of
trends, business executives think that this trend, among all trends, will have
the greatest effect on their companies in the next five years. Jobs are also
getting more complex. Consider people who work in warehouses doing shipping and
receiving. At Intel, these workers were jokingly called “knuckle-dragging box
pushers” and known for using their brawn to move boxes. Now, the field of
transportation and shipping has become known as “supply chain management” and
employees need brains as well as brawn—they need to know science and advanced
math. They’re called on to do mathematical models of transportation networks to
find the most efficient trucking routes (to minimize environmental impact) and
to load the truck for balance (to minimize fuel use) and for speed of unloading
at each destination. Intel now acknowledges the skills that supply chain people
need. The company created a career ladder leading to “supply chain master” that
recognizes employees for developing expertise in supply chain modeling,
statistics, risk management, and transportation planning. Overall, demand will
grow for new types of talent such as in the green energy industry. At the same
time, companies face a shrinking supply of seasoned managers as baby boomers
retire in droves. Companies will have to deal with shortages of specific
skills.
Top 5 Solution Trends
Becoming More Connected
We
can now use the Internet and World Wide Web to connect people with people as
never before. By mid-2008, more than 1.4 billion people were online, and that
number continues to increase each year as the developing world catches up with the
developed world on Internet usage.[4] Through
over a 100 million Web sites, we can access information, words, sounds,
pictures, and video with an ease previously unimaginable.
Becoming More Global
We can now tap into more global suppliers and global
talent. Whatever problem a manager faces, someone in the world probably has the
innovative products, the knowledge, or the talent to address the problem. And
the Internet gives managers to the tools to help problems find solutions,
customers find suppliers, and innovators find markets. The global problems we
face will require people to work together to solve them. Ideas need to be
shaped and implemented. Moving ideas around the world is a lot less costly and
generates less greenhouse gases than moving people and products around the
world. Organizations and social movements alike are using social networking to
help people find others with the skills and talents to solve pressing problems.
Becoming More Mobile
We
can now reach employees, suppliers, and customers wherever they are. By the end
of 2008, 60% of the world’s population—4 billion people—were using mobile
phones. [5] And, like Internet use, mobile phone adoption
continues to grow. The penetration of mobile phones is changing the way we do
business because people are more connected and able to share more information.
Two-way, real-time dialogue and collaboration are available to people anytime,
anywhere. The low cost of phones compared with computers puts them in the hands
of more people around the world, and the increasing sophistication of software
and services for the phone expands its use in business settings. Phones are not
just a voice communication device—they can send text as well as be a connective
device to send data. The fastest mobile phone growth is in developing
countries, bringing connectivity to the remotest regions. Fisherman off the
coast of southern India can now call around to prospective buyers of their
catch before they go ashore, which is increasing their profits by 8% while
actually lowering the overall price consumers have to pay for fish by 4%. [6] In South Africa, 85% of small black-owned businesses
rely solely on mobile phones. Nokia has 120,000 outlets selling phones in
India, where half the population lives in rural areas, not cities.
Rise of the Creative Class
With
blogs, Flickr, and YouTube, anyone can post their creative efforts. And with
open source and wikis, anyone can contribute ideas and insights. We have
ubiquitous opportunities for creativity that are nurturing a new creative
class. For example, OhmyNews, a popular newspaper, is written by 60,000
contributing “citizen reporters.” It has become one of South Korea’s most
influential news sources, with more than 750,000 unique users a day. [7] The demand for workers and ability for workers to work
from anywhere may lead to an “e-lance economy.” Workers may become free agents,
working temporarily on one project and then moving to another when that project
is done. Mobile connectivity means these new workers can live anywhere in the
world and can work from anywhere in their community. For you as a manager, this
means managing workers who might be in a cubicle in Columbus, Ohio, an
apartment in Amsterdam, or an Internet café in Bangalore.
Increasing Collaboration
These
solution trends combine to foster a rise in collaboration across space and
time. We can now bring more people together to solve more problems more
quickly. To design new products quickly—and make sure they meet consumer
needs—companies are now looking beyond their four walls for innovation. Google,
for example, identifies itself as an organization that believes in open,
decentralized innovation. “Google can’t do everything. And we shouldn’t,” said
Andy Rubin, senior director of Mobile Platforms. “That’s why we formed the Open
Handset Alliance with more than 34 partners.” [8] While the handset alliance is about open cell phones
(i.e., phones that aren’t tied to any particular phone company and can be
programmed by users just like Apple or Palm’s “apps”), collaboration means much
more than communications. People can now not just communicate but actually
collaborate, building coalitions, projects, and products. [9] Groups self-organize on the Web. For example, the
MIT-based Vehicle Design Summit is virtual, so students from around the world
can participate. The goal is to make a low-cost, 200-mpg four-seater for the
Indian market; in 2008, about 200 students participated in this international
open-source project. [10] A cross section of more trend predictions follows.
Trends, Trends, Trends
It
seems that trend-tracking has become somewhat of a business. Glance over these
top trends from the editors of Wired, McKinsey
Quarterly, and USA Today.
Wired 2008 Business Trends
1.
Open Source
Tycoons
2.
Social Networks
Grow Up
3.
Green on the
Outside
4.
Invisible
Internet
5.
Rise of the
Instapreneur
6.
Building a
Better Banner
7.
Invented in
China
8.
VCs Look for a
New Life
9.
The Human Touch [11]
Top business trends likely to have the greatest effect
on business over the next five years
1.
Competition for
talent will intensify, become more global.
2.
Centers of
economic activity will shift globally, regionally.
3.
Technological
connectivity will increase.
4.
Ubiquitous
access to information will change economics of knowledge.
5.
Demand for
natural resources will grow, as will strain on environment.
6.
Population in
developed economies will age.
7.
Consumer
landscape will change, expand significantly.
8.
Role, behavior
of business will come under increasing scrutiny.
9.
Organizations
will become larger, more complex.
10.
New global industry
structures will emerge (e.g., private equity, networked). [12]
Countdown of the biggest trends in small business
1.
Web 2.0
2.
Rise of
e-marketing
3.
Little is the
new big
4.
The new
consumer
5.
Fragmentation
6.
The world is
getting flatter
7.
Personalization
8.
Work anywhere,
any place
9.
Global warming
may put you out of business [13]
KEY TAKEAWAY
Today’s world faces many
challenges, from the need to protect the natural environment to the rapid pace
of innovation and change. Technological connectivity is bringing the world
closer together and enabling people to work from anywhere. Demand for talent
and low-cost workers gives rise to outsourcing and employees working remotely,
whether from home or from remote different countries. At the same time,
information is now available to more and more people. This drives demand for
personalization. It increases complexity but at the same time gives us the
collaboration tools needed to solve tough problems.
EXERCISES
1.
How do you
manage innovation if ideas can come from anywhere, including people who aren’t
your direct employees—or aren’t even part of the company?
2.
If, according
to some trends, you can work anytime and anywhere, how do you decide when to
work? When do you stop working?
3.
What advantages
do you see from a global workforce?
4.
What
commonalities do you see across the trends presented in “Trends, Trends,
Trends”?
5.
Which of the
trends depend on technology?
6.
What aspects of
P-O-L-C would be most likely to change based on what you have learned in this
section?
[1] Retrieved
October 7, 2008, from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/extremes.html.
[2] Retrieved
October 13, 2008, from http://www.mykleenextissue.com/?WT.srch=1&WT.mc_id=5659768&iq_id=5659768.
[3] Fast
company. (2008, March). Retrieved January 28, 2009, from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/123/google.html.
[4] Retrieved
October 7, 2000, from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm.
[5] Retrieved
October 13, 2008, from http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2008/29.html.
[6] Corbett,
S. (2008, April 13). Can the cellphone help end global poverty? New York Times.
[7] Hua,
V. (2007, March 27). South Korea: Everyone’s a Journalist. http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2007/03/south_korea.html;
Schonfeld, & Yi-Wyn Yen. It’s a Web, Web, Web 2.0 world. Business 2.0 Magazinehttp://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/biz2/0707/gallery.web_world.biz2/14.html.
[8] Fast
company. (2008, March). Retrieved January 28, 2009, from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/123/google.html.
[9] Friedman,
T. (2005). The
World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 81.
[10] Retrieved
April 2008 from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/124/the-amazing-race.html.
[11] Wired.
(2008, March). http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16–04/bz_opensource.
[12] The
organizational challenges of global trends: A McKinsey Global Survey. (2007,
November). McKinsey
Quarterly. http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/
[13] Retrieved
January 28, 2009, from http://www.usatoday.com/money/smallbusiness/columnist/strauss/2007-01-07-trends-2_x.htm.
3.4 Globalization and Principles of Management
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1.
Why might
global trends influence management principles?
2.
What is the
GLOBE project, and why is it relevant to management?
3.
What is a
cultural dimension, and how do cultural dimensions affect business dealings and
management decisions?
Globalization and Cross-Cultural
Lessons
Despite
the growing importance of global business, Fortune 500 companies have reported
a shortage of global managers with the necessary skills. [1] Some experts have argued that most U.S. companies are
not positioned to implement global strategies due to a lack of global
leadership capabilities. [2]
It’s easy to understand the problem: communicating and
working with people from different countries can be a challenge—not just
because of language issues but also because of different cultural norms. For
example, in the United States, we tend to be direct in our communication. If
you ask a U.S. manager a question, you’ll tend to get a direct answer. In other
cultures, particularly in southern Europe and Japan, the answer to a question
begins with background and context—not the bottom line—so that the listener
will understand how the person arrived at the conclusion. Similarly, in some
cultures, it is considered rude to deliver bad news or say “no” to a
request—instead, the speaker would give a noncommittal answer like “we’ll see”
or “we’ll try.”
Our places of work are more diverse than ever before. © 2010 Jupiterimages Corporation
Country-by-country
differences are so prevalent that a worldwide team of scholars proposed to
create and validate a theory of the relationship between culture and societal,
organizational, and leadership effectiveness. Called the GLOBE Project, it
included 170 researchers working together for ten years to collect and analyze
data on cultural values and practices and leadership attributes from more than
17,000 managers in 62 societal cultures. In its 2006 report, GLOBE identified
the following nine dimensions of culture. [3]
Performance Orientation
Should you reward people for performance improvement
and excellence? In countries like the United States and Singapore, the answer
is yes. Organizations in these countries use employee training and development
to help people improve their skills and performance. In countries like Russia
and Greece, however, family and background count for more than performance.
Uncertainty Avoidance
Life
often brings unpredictable events, and with them anxiety. Uncertainty avoidance reflects the extent to which members of a society
attempt to cope with anxiety by minimizing uncertainty. Should you establish
rules, procedures, and social norms to help your employees deal with
uncertainty? In countries where uncertainty avoidance is high, like Brazil and
Switzerland, the answer is yes. People in such societies want strict rules,
laws, and policies to eliminate or control the unexpected. Employees in these
countries tend to seek order, consistency, and structure. Countries with low
uncertainty avoidance, in contrast, are less rule-oriented. They tolerate a
variety of opinions and are open to change and taking risks. Countries with low
uncertainty avoidance include Hong Kong and Malaysia.
Assertiveness
How assertive, confrontational, or aggressive should
you be in relationships with others? In highly assertive countries like the
United States and Austria, competition between individuals and groups is
encouraged. Managers may set up incentives that reward the best idea, even it
it’s contrary to established practices. People in less assertive countries,
like Sweden and New Zealand, prefer harmony in relationships and emphasize
loyalty and solidarity.
Power Distance
Power distance reflects the extent to which the less powerful members
of institutions and organizations expect and accept that power is distributed
unequally. Should you distribute decision-making power equally among the group?
In high-power-distance countries like Thailand, Brazil, and France, the answer
is no. People in these societies expect unequal power distribution and greater
stratification, whether that stratification is economic, social, or political.
People in positions of authority in these countries expect (and receive)
obedience. Decision making is hierarchical with limited participation and
communication. Australia, in contrast, has a power distance rating that is much
lower than the world average. The Australian view reinforces cooperative
interaction across power levels and stresses equality and opportunity for
everyone.
Gender Egalitarianism
Should you promote men rather than women? Counties
with low gender egalitarianism are male dominated. Men hold positions of power
to a much greater extent in low-gender-egalitarianism countries like Egypt and
South Korea. Companies operating in more gender-egalitarian countries such as
the Nordic countries, Germany, and the Netherlands encourage tolerance for
diversity of ideas and roles regardless of gender.
Institutional Collectivism
Institutional collectivism refers to the extent to which people act predominantly
as a member of a lifelong group or organization. Should you reward groups
rather than individuals? In countries with high institutional collectivism such
as Sweden, the answer is yes. Countries with low institutional collectivism,
such as in the United States, emphasize individual achievement and rewards.
Humane Orientation
Should you reward people for being fair, altruistic,
generous, and kind to others? In countries such as Malaysia, this practice is
more prevalent and encouraged than in low-humane-orientation countries such as
Germany.
Future Orientation
Will
your employees favor activities that involve planning and investing in the
future for long-term payoff? Or do they want to see short-term results? Future orientation is defined as one’s expectations and the degree to
which one is thoughtful about the future. It is a multifaceted concept that
includes planning, realism, and a sense of control. Companies in countries with
high future orientation, such as China and Singapore, will have a longer-term
planning horizon, and they will be more systematic about planning. Corporations
in countries that are the least future-oriented, such as Argentina and Russia,
will be more opportunistic and less systematic. At the same time, they’ll be
less risk averse.
Global Ventures Gone Awry
When
Corning proposed a joint venture with a Mexican glass manufacturer, Vitro, the
match seemed made in heaven. But just two years later, the venture was
terminated. What happened? Cultural clashes eroded what could have been a
lucrative partnership. To start, American managers were continually frustrated
with what they perceived to be slow decision making by Mexican managers. Mexico
ranks higher on the power distance dimension than the United States—company
structures are hierarchical, and decisions are made only by top managers.
Loyalty to these managers is a high priority in Mexico, and trying to work
around them is a big taboo. Mexicans also have a less urgent approach to time.
They see time as more abundant than their U.S. counterparts. As a result,
Mexicans thought that Americans wanted to move too fast on decisions, and they
perceived American directness in communication as aggressive. [4] Additional vignettes on managing across borders are
shared next.
Managing Across Borders
Lines on the Map Miss the Real Story
Diversity is deeper than variations between countries.
Sometimes those differences appear in different regions of the same country.
For example, some parts of Mexico don’t use Spanish as the primary language.
Wal-Mart’s Mexico’s Juchitan store, therefore, conducts business in the local
Zapotec tongue, encourages female employees to wear traditional Zapotec skirts,
and does the morning company cheer in Zapotec.
Talent Abroad
With so much variation across countries, it’s no
surprise that countries vary in level of talent and the supply of managerial,
skilled, and unskilled labor. Companies shouldn’t assume that emerging market
countries offer inferior labor pools. GM, for instance, found that 50% of its
assembly-line workers in India have college degrees—a ratio much higher than in
other countries.
Local Solutions by People Who Understand Local Needs
Nokia uses local designers to create country-specific
handset models. The models designed in India for Indians are dust resistant and
have a built-in flashlight. The models designed in China for the Chinese have a
touch screen, stylus, and Chinese character recognition. Local designers are
more likely to understand the needs of the local population than
headquarters-located designers do.
Strategies in emerging markets conference, held by the
MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics (CTL) on March 7, 2007, Cambridge,
MA.
KEY TAKEAWAY
Because the business environment
increasingly depends on collaboration across regional and national borders, a
successful global manager needs to be culturally sensitive and have an
understanding for how business is done in different cultures. In some
countries, loyalty to the group is key. Other countries celebrate mavericks and
rule breakers if they can get things done. Knowing how best to communicate with
your coworkers and employees—whether to be direct or indirect, whether to
follow strict protocol or be more causal, whom to involve in decisions—are all
important considerations.
EXERCISES
1.
You’ve just
been made a manager in Sweden, known for its institutional collectivism. What
incentives and reward structures would you use to motivate your employees?
2.
How would you
prepare workers for an overseas assignment?
3.
Your company
has twelve branches in the United States and will be opening its first branch
in Brazil. Your company prides itself on its self-managed teams. Will you keep
this policy in the new country? Why or why not?
4.
You’re a
manager in Japan, and you’ve just discovered that a team leader under your
supervision has made a mistake that will result in a quality problem. How will
you handle this mistake?
5.
You work in
Hong Kong for a Swiss-owned firm. The Swiss are known for their high
uncertainty avoidance. What differences might you expect to see from your Swiss
bosses compared with your Hong Kong employees?
6.
What aspects of
P-O-L-C would be most likely to change based on what you have learned in this
section?
[1] 2008
Global Relocation Trends Survey report. Retrieved October 13, 2008, from http://www.gmacglobalrelocation.com; Gregersen, H. B., Morrison, A. J., & Black, J. S. (1998,
Fall). Developing leaders for the global frontier. Sloan Management Review,
21–32.
[2] Hollenbeck,
G. P., & McCall, M. W. 2003. Competence, not competencies: Making global
executive development work. In W. Mobley & P. Dorfman (Eds.), Advances in Global Leadership (Vol. 3). Oxford: JAI Press.
[3] Javidan,
M., Dorfman, P. W., de Luque, M. S., & House R. J. (2006, February). In the
eye of the beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from Project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20, 67–90.
[4] Brake,
T. (1996). The
Global Leader (p.
203). New York: McGraw-Hill.
3.5 Developing Your Values-Based Leadership Skills
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1.
What ethical
challenges do managers likely face?
2.
Why are ethics
relevant to principles of management?
3.
What
decision-making framework can you use to help integrate ethics into your own
principles of management?
Ethical Challenges Managers Face
It’s late at night and the office is quiet—except that
you’ve got a nagging voice in your head. Your product is already two weeks
behind schedule. You’ve got to get it out this week or lose the deal. But
you’ve discovered a problem. To correct the problem would mean another
three-week delay—and you know the client won’t go for that. It’s a small
error—it’ll probably never become an issue. What do you do?
Managers face these kinds of issues all the time.
Ethical dilemmas can arise from a variety of areas, such as:
·
Advertising
(desire to present your product or service in the best light)
·
Sourcing of raw
materials (does the company buy from a supplier who may be underpaying their
people or damaging the environment?)
·
Privacy (should
the company have access to private e-mails that employees write on company
time? or the Web sites they visit during work hours?)
·
Safety
(employee and community)
·
Pay scales
(relation of the pay of top executives to the rest of the company)
·
Product pricing
policies (variable pricing, discounts)
·
Communication
(with stockholders, announcements of plant closings, etc.)
It’s easy to think that people who behave unethically
are simply bad apples or have a character flaw. But in fact, it’s often the
situation or circumstances that create the ethical pressures. A global study of
business ethics, published by the American Management Association, found that
the main reasons for a lapse of ethics are:
1.
Pressure to
meet unrealistic business objectives/deadlines.
2.
A desire to
further one’s career.
3.
A desire to
protect one’s livelihood. [1]
You may have developed your own personal code of
ethics, but the social environment of the organization can be a barrier to
fulfilling that code if management is behaving unethically. At Enron, vice
president Sherron Watkins pointed out the accounting misdeeds, but she didn’t
take action beyond sending a memo to the company’s chairman. Although she was
hailed as a hero and whistleblower, she in fact did not disclose the issue to
the public. Similarly, auditors at Arthur Andersen saw the questionable
practices that Enron was pursuing, but when the auditors reported these facts
to management, Arthur Andersen’s managers pointed to the $100 million of
business they were getting from the Enron account. Those managers put profits
ahead of ethics. In the end, both companies were ruined, not to mention the
countless employees and shareholders left shattered and financially bankrupt.
Since
2002, when the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed, companies have been required to write a
code of ethics. The act sought to reform corporate governance practices in
large U.S. public companies. The purpose of the rules is to “define a code of
ethics as a codification of standards that is reasonably necessary to deter
wrongdoing and to promote honest and ethical conduct,” including the ethical
handling of actual or apparent conflicts of interest, compliance with laws, and
accountability to adhere to the code. [2] The U.S. financial crisis of late 2008 pointed out
that other areas, particularly in the financial services industry, needed
stiffer regulations and regulatory scrutiny as well, and those moves will begin
to take effect in early 2009. Some companies go a step further and articulate a
set of values that drives their code of conduct, as “Procter & Gamble’s
Values and Code of Ethics” shows.
Procter & Gamble’s Values and Code of Ethics
Procter & Gamble Company lives by a set of five
values that drive its code of business conduct. These values are:
1.
Integrity
We always try to do the right
thing.
We are honest and straightforward
with each other.
We operate within the letter and
spirit of the law.
We uphold the values and
principles of P&G in every action and decision.
We are data-based and
intellectually honest in advocating proposals, including recognizing risks.
2.
Passion
for Winning
We are determined to be the best
at doing what matters most.
We have a healthy dissatisfaction
with the status quo.
We have a compelling desire to
improve and to win in the marketplace.
3.
Leadership
We are all leaders in our area of
responsibility, with a deep commitment to delivering leadership results.
We have a clear vision of where
we are going.
We focus our resources to achieve
leadership objectives and strategies.
We develop the capability to
deliver our strategies and eliminate organizational barriers.
4.
Trust
We respect our P&G
colleagues, customers and consumers, and treat them as we want to be treated.
We have confidence in each
other’s capabilities and intentions.
We believe that people work best
when there is a foundation of trust.
5.
Ownership
We accept personal accountability
to meet our business needs, improve our systems, and help others improve their
effectiveness.
We all act like owners, treating
the Company’s assets as our own and behaving with the Company’s long-term
success in mind. [3]
Importance of Ethics in
Management
Trust is the cornerstone of ethical leadership. © 2010 Jupiterimages Corporation
Ethical behavior among managers is even more important
in organizations because leaders set the moral tone of the organization and
serve as role models. Ethical leaders build trust in organizations. If
employees see leaders behaving unethically, chances are the employees may be
less inclined to behave ethically themselves. Companies may have printed codes
of ethics, but the key standard is whether leaders uphold those values and
standards. We tend to watch leaders for cues on appropriate actions and
behavior that the company expects. Decisions that managers make are an
indicator of their ethics. If the company says it cares about the safety of
employees but then does not buy enough protective gear for them, it is not
behaving in line with its code. Likewise, if managers exhibit unsafe behavior
or look the other way when employees act unsafely, their behavior is not
aligned with their stated code.
Without integrity, there can be no trust. Leadership
is based on trust. Ethics drive effectiveness because employees know they can
do the right thing decisively and with confidence. Ethical behavior earns the
trust of customers and suppliers as well. It earns the public’s good will.
Ethical managers and ethical businesses tend to be more trusted and better
treated. They suffer less resentment, inefficiency, litigation, and government
interference. If top management cuts corners, however, or if they make shady
decisions, then no matter how good the code of ethics sounds, people will
emulate the questionable behavior, not the code.
As a manager, you can make it clear to employees that
you expect them to conduct business in an ethical manner by offering seminars
on ethics, having an ethics hotline via which employees can anonymously raise
issues, and having an ombudsman office or ethics committee to investigate
issues.
Integrating Ethics into
Managerial Decision Making
Ethics implies making a choice between decision-making
rules. For instance, when choosing between two suppliers, do you choose the
cheapest (decision rule 1) or the highest quality (decision rule 2). Ethics
also implies deciding on a course of action when no clear decision rule is
available. Dilemmas occur when the choices are incompatible and when one course
of action seems to better serve your self-interest but appears to violate a
moral principle. One way to tackle ethical dilemmas is to follow an ethical
decision-making process, like the one described below.
Steps in an Ethical
Decision-Making Process
1.
Assess the
situation: What are you being asked to do? Is it illegal? Is it unethical? Who
might be harmed?
2.
Identify the
stakeholders and consider the situation from their point of view. For example,
consider the point of view of the company’s employees, top management,
stockholders, customers, suppliers, and community.
3.
Consider the
alternatives you have available to you and how they affect the stakeholders:
o consequences
o duties, rights, and principles
o implications for personal integrity and character
4.
How does the
action make you feel about yourself? How would you feel if your actions were
reported tomorrow in the Wall Street Journal (or
your daily newspaper)? How would you explain your actions to your mother or to
your 10-year-old child?
5.
Make a
decision. This might involve going to your boss or to a neutral third party
(such as an ombudsman or ethics committee). Know your values and your limits.
If the company does nothing to rectify the situation, do you want to continue
working for the company?
6.
Monitor
outcomes. How did the decision work out? How did it turn out for all concerned?
If you had it to do over again, what would you do differently? [4]
If you see unethical behavior in others, confronting
it early is better. Early on, you have more of an opportunity to talk with the
person in a fact-finding (rather than an accusatory) way. The discussion may
nip the problem in the bud and prevent it from escalating. Keeping silent
because you want to avoid offending the person may lead to much greater
problems later on. As French playwright Jean-Baptiste Moliere wrote, “It’s not only
for what we do that we are held responsible, but for what we do not do.”
KEY TAKEAWAY
Management involves decision
making, and decisions often have an ethical component. Beyond personal ethics
or a moral code, managers face making decisions that reflect the company as a
whole, affecting its future success and vitality. Ethics doesn’t just mean
following the law but acting in accordance with basic values.
EXERCISES
1.
What are the
consequences of unethical behavior?
2.
If you were
writing a code of ethics for your company, what would you include?
3.
In times of
economic downturn, is ethical behavior a luxury?
4.
How would you
handle an ethical violation committed by one of your employees?
5.
Nobel laureate
economist Milton Friedman said that companies should focus on maximizing
profits, not social responsibilities or purposes. Do you agree with this view?
Why or why not?
6.
What aspects of
P-O-L-C would be most likely to change based on what you have learned in this
section?
[1] The
Ethical Enterprise: A Global Study of Business Ethics. (2005). New York: American Management Association.
[2] Retrieved
January 28, 2009, from http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2002-150.htm.
[3] Retrieved
January 28, 2009, from http://www.pg.com/company/who_we_are/ppv.jhtml;jsessionid=MCSCEC20KZGJTQFIASJXKZOAVACJG3MK.
[4] Hartman,
L., and DesJardins, J. (2008). Business
Ethics: Decision-Making for Personal Integrity and Social Responsibility. New York: McGraw-Hill.
13.2 Understanding Team Design Characteristics
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1.
Understand the
difference between groups and teams.
2.
Understand the
factors leading to the rise in the use of teams.
3.
Understand how
tasks and roles affect teams.
4.
Identify
different types of teams.
5.
Identify team
design considerations.
Effective teams give companies a significant
competitive advantage. In a high-functioning team, the sum is truly greater
than the parts. Team members not only benefit from one another’s diverse
experiences and perspectives but also stimulate each other’s creativity. Plus,
for many people, working in a team can be more fun than working alone. Let’s
take a closer look at what a team is, the different team characteristics, types
of teams companies use, and how to design effective teams.
Differences Between Groups and
Teams
Organizations
consist of groups of people. What exactly is the difference between a group and
a team? A group is a collection of individuals. Within an organization, groups
might consist of project-related groups such as a product group or division or
they can encompass an entire store or branch of a company. The performance of a
group consists of the inputs of the group minus any process losses such as the
quality of a product, ramp-up time to production, or the sales for a given
month. Process loss is any aspect of group interaction that inhibits group
functioning.
Why
do we say group instead of team? A collection of people is not a team, though they
may learn to function in that way. A team is
a particular type of group: a cohesive coalition of people working together to
achieve mutual goals. Being on a team does not equate to a total suppression of
personal agendas, but it does require a commitment to the vision and involves
each individual working toward accomplishing the team’s objective. Teams differ
from other types of groups in that members are focused on a joint goal or
product, such as a presentation, discussing a topic, writing a report, creating
a new design or prototype, or winning a team Olympic medal. Moreover, teams
also tend to be defined by their relatively smaller size. For instance,
according to one definition, “A team is a small number
of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose,
performance goals, and approach for which they are mutually accountable.” [1]
Teams are only as good as their weakest link. While
Michael Phelps has been dubbed “the world’s greatest swimmer” and received a
great deal of personal attention, such as meeting President George W. Bush, he
could not have achieved his record eight gold medals in one Olympic games
without the help of his teammates Aaron Peirsol, Brendan Hansen, and Jason
Lezak.
Source:http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Michael_Phelps_with_President
_Bush_-_20080811.jpeg
The purpose of assembling a team is to accomplish
larger, more complex goals than what would be possible for an individual
working alone or even the simple sum of several individuals working
independently. Teamwork is also needed in cases where multiple skills are
tapped or where buy-in is required from several individuals. Teams can, but do
not always, provide improved performance. Working together to further a team
agenda seems to increase mutual cooperation between what are often competing
factions. The aim and purpose of a team is to perform, get results, and achieve
victory in the workplace. The best managers are those who can gather together a
group of individuals and mold them into an effective team.
The
key properties of a true team include collaborative action where,
along with a common goal, teams have collaborative tasks. Conversely, in a
group, individuals are responsible only for their own area. They also share the
rewards of strong team performance with their compensation based on shared outcomes. Compensation of individuals must be based primarily on a
shared outcome, not individual performance. Members are also willing to sacrifice for the common good in which individuals give up scarce resources for the
common good instead of competing for those resources. For example, teams occur
in sports such as soccer and basketball, in which the individuals actively help
each other, forgo their own chance to score by passing the ball, and win or
lose collectively as a team.
Teams in Organizations
The
early 1990s saw a dramatic rise in the use of teams within organizations, along
with dramatic results such as the Miller Brewing Company increasing
productivity 30% in the plants that used self-directed teams compared with
those that used the traditional organization. This same method allowed Texas
Instruments in Malaysia to reduce defects from 100 parts per million to 20
parts per million. In addition, Westinghouse reduced its cycle time from 12
weeks to 2 weeks, and Harris Electronics was able to achieve an 18% reduction
in costs. [2] The team method has served countless
companies over the years through both quantifiable improvements and more subtle
individual worker-related benefits.
Companies
such as Square D, a maker of circuit breakers, switched to self-directed teams
and found that overtime on machines like the punch press dropped 70% under
teams. Productivity increased because the setup operators were able to
manipulate the work in much more effective ways than a supervisor could
dictate. [3] In 2001, clothing retailer Chico’s FAS
was looking to grow its business. The company hired Scott Edmonds as president,
and two years later revenues had almost doubled from $378 million to $760
million. By 2006, revenues were $1.6 billion, and Chico’s had nine years of
double-digit same-store sales growth. What did Edmonds do to get these results?
He created a horizontal organization “ruled by high-performance teams with real
decision-making clout and accountability for results, rather than by committees
that pass decisions up to the next level or toss them over the wall into the
nearest silo.”
The
use of teams also began to increase because advances in technology have
resulted in more complex systems that require contributions from multiple
people across the organization. Overall, team-based organizations have more
motivation and involvement, and teams can often accomplish more than individuals. [4] It is no wonder organizations are
relying on teams more and more.
Do We Need a Team?
Teams
are not a cure-all for organizations. To determine whether a team is needed,
organizations should consider whether a variety of knowledge, skills, and
abilities are needed, whether ideas and feedback are needed from different
groups within the organization, how interdependent the tasks are, if wide cooperation
is needed to get things done, and whether the organization would benefit from
shared goals. [5]If
the answer to these questions is “yes,” then a team or teams might make sense.
For example, research shows that the more team members perceive that outcomes
are interdependent, the better they share information and the better they
perform. [6]
Team Tasks and Roles
Teams differ in terms of the tasks they are trying to
accomplish and the roles team members play.
Production tasks include actually making something such as a team of construction workers creating a new building. © 2010 Jupiterimages Corporation
As
early as the 1970s, J. R. Hackman identified three major classes of tasks: (1)
production tasks, (2) idea generation tasks, and (3) problem-solving tasks. [7] Production tasks include
actually making something, such as a building, a product, or a marketing plan. Idea generation tasks deal with creative tasks, such as brainstorming a new
direction or creating a new process. Problem-solving tasks refer to coming up with plans for actions and making
decisions, both facets of managerial P-O-L-C functions (planning and leading).
For example, a team may be charged with coming up with a new marketing slogan,
which is an idea generation task, while another team might be asked to manage
an entire line of products, including making decisions about products to
produce, managing the production of the product lines, marketing them, and
staffing their division. The second team has all three types of tasks to
accomplish at different points in time.
Task Interdependence
Another
key to understanding how tasks are related to teams is to understand their
level of task interdependence. Task interdependence refers to the degree that team members depend on one
another to get information, support, or materials from other team members to be
effective. Research shows that self-managing teams are most effective when
their tasks are highly interdependent. [8]
There
are three types of task interdependence. Pooled interdependence exists when team members may work independently and
simply combine their efforts to create the team’s output. For example, when
students meet to divide the sections of a research paper and one person simply
puts all the sections together to create one paper, the team is using the
pooled interdependence model. However, they might decide that it makes more sense
to start with one person writing the introduction of their research paper, then
the second person reads what was written by the first person and, drawing from
this section, writes about the findings within the paper. Using the findings
section, the third person writes the conclusions. If one person’s output
becomes another person’s input, the team would be experiencing sequential interdependence. And finally, if the student team decided that in order to
create a top notch research paper they should work together on each phase of
the research paper so that their best ideas would be captured at each stage,
they would be undertaking reciprocal interdependence. Another important type of interdependence that is
not specific to the task itself is outcome interdependence, where the rewards that an individual receives depend
on the performance of others.
Team Roles
While
relatively little research has been conducted on team roles, recent studies
show that individuals who are more aware of team roles and the behavior
required for each role perform better than individuals that do not. This fact
remains true for both student project teams as well as work teams, even after
accounting for intelligence and personality. [9] Early research found that teams tend
to have two categories of roles: those related to the tasks at hand and those
related to the team’s functioning. For example, teams that only focus on
production at all costs may be successful in the short run, but if they pay no
attention to how team members feel about working 70 hours a week, they are
likely to experience high turnover.
On
the basis of decades of research on teams, 10 key roles have been identified. [10] Team leadership is effective when
leaders are able to adapt the roles they are contributing to or asking others
to contribute to fit what the team needs, given its stage and the tasks at
hand. [11] Ineffective leaders might always
engage in the same task role behaviors when what they really need to do is
focus on social roles, put disagreements aside, and get back to work. While
these behaviors can be effective from time to time, if the team doesn’t modify
its role behaviors as things change, they most likely will not be effective.
Teams are based on many roles being carried out as
summarized by the Team Role Typology. These 10 roles include task roles
(green), social roles (yellow), and boundary spanning roles (orange).
Source: Mumford, T. V., Van Iddekinge, C. H., Morgeson, F.
P., & Campion, M. A. (2008). The team role test: Development and validation
of a team role knowledge situational judgment test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 250–267;
Mumford, T. V., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2006). Situational
judgments in work teams: A team role typology. In J. A. Weekley & R. E.
Ployhart (Eds.), Situational judgment tests: Theory, measurement (pp. 319–343).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Task Roles
Five
roles make up the task portion of the role typology. The contractor role includes
behaviors that serve to organize the team’s work, including creating team time
lines, production schedules, and task sequencing. The creator role deals
more with changes in the team’s task process structure. For example, reframing
the team goals and looking at the context of goals would fall under this role.
The contributor roleis
important because it brings information and expertise to the team. This role is
characterized by sharing knowledge and training those who have less expertise
to strengthen the team. Research shows that teams with highly intelligent
members and evenly distributed workloads are more effective than those with
uneven workloads. [12] The completer role is
also important as it is often where ideas are transformed into action.
Behaviors associated with this role include following up on tasks such as
gathering needed background information or summarizing the team’s ideas into
reports. Finally, the critic role includes
“devil’s advocate” behaviors which go against the assumptions being made by the
team.
Social Roles
Social
roles serve to keep the team operating effectively. When the social roles are
filled, team members feel more cohesive and the group is less prone to suffer
process losses or biases, such as social loafing, groupthink, or a lack of
participation from all members. Three roles fall under the umbrella of social
roles. The cooperator role includes
supporting those with expertise toward the team’s goals. This is a proactive
role. Thecommunicator role includes behaviors that are targeted at collaboration
such as practicing good listening skills and appropriately using humor to
diffuse tense situations. Having a good communicator helps the team to feel
more open to sharing ideas. And the calibrator role is
an important one and serves to keep the team on track in terms of suggesting
any needed changes to the team’s process. This role includes initiating
discussions about potential team problems such as power struggles or other
tensions. Similarly, this role may involve settling disagreements or pointing
out what is working and what is not in terms of team process.
Boundary-Spanning Roles
The
final two roles are related to activities outside of the team that help to
connect the team to the larger organization. [13] Teams that engage in a greater level
of boundary-spanning behaviors increase their team effectiveness. [14] The consul role includes
gathering information from the larger organization and informing those within
the organization about team activities, goals, and successes. Often the consul
role is filled by team managers or leaders. The coordinator role includes
interfacing with others within the organization so that the team’s efforts are
in line with other individuals and teams within the organization.
Types of Teams
There are many different types of teams, and a given
team may be described according to multiple types. For example, a team of
scientists writing a research article for publication may be temporary,
virtual, and cross-functional.
Teams
may be permanent or long term, but more typically, a team exists for a limited
time. In fact, one-third of all teams in the United States are temporary. [15] An example of a temporary team is a task force that
addresses a specific issue or problem until it is resolved. Other teams may be
temporary or ongoing such as product development teams. In addition, matrix organizations have cross-functional teamswhere individuals from different parts of the organization staff
the team, which may be temporary or long-standing.
Virtual Teams
Virtual teams are
teams in which members are not located in the same physical place. They may be
in different cities, states, or even different countries. Some virtual teams
are formed by necessity, such as to take advantage of lower labor costs in
different countries; one study found that upward of 8.4 million individuals
worldwide work virtually in at least one team. [16] Often, virtual teams are formed to
take advantage of distributed expertise or time—the needed experts may be
living in different cities. A company that sells products around the world, for
example, may need technologists who can solve customer problems at any hour of
the day or night. It may be difficult to find the caliber of people needed who
would be willing to work at 2 a.m. on a Saturday, for example. So companies
organize virtual technical support teams. BakBone Software, for instance, has a
13-member technical support team. Each member has a degree in computer science
and is divided among offices in California, Maryland, England, and Tokyo.
BakBone believes it has been able to hire stronger candidates by drawing from a
diverse talent pool and hiring in different geographic regions rather than
limiting hiring to one region or time zone. [17]
Despite potential benefits, virtual teams present
special management challenges, particularly to the controlling function.
Managers often think that they have to see team members working to believe that
work is being done. Because this kind of oversight is impossible in virtual
team situations, it is important to devise evaluation schemes that focus on
deliverables. Are team members delivering what they said they would? In
self-managed teams, are team members producing the results the team decided to
measure itself on?
Another
special challenge of virtual teams is building trust.
Will team members deliver results just as they would in face-to-face teams? Can
members trust one another to do what they said they would do? Companies often
invest in bringing a virtual team together at least once so members can get to
know one another and build trust. [18] In manager-led virtual teams, managers
should be held accountable for their team’s results and evaluated on their
ability as a team leader.
Finally,
communication is especially important in virtual teams, through e-mail, phone
calls, conference calls, or project management tools that help organize work.
If individuals in a virtual team are not fully engaged and tend to avoid
conflict, team performance can suffer. [19] Awiki is
an Internet-based method for many people to collaborate and contribute to a
document or discussion. Essentially, the document remains available for team
members to access and amend at any time. The most famous example is Wikipedia,
which is gaining traction as a way to structure project work globally and get
information into the hands of those that need it. Empowered organizations put
information into everyone’s hands. [20] Research shows that empowered teams
are more effective than those that are not empowered. [21]
Top Management Teams
Top management teams are appointed by the chief executive officer (CEO)
and, ideally, reflect the skills and areas that the CEO considers vital for the
company. There are no formal rules about top management team design or
structure. The top management team often includes representatives from
functional areas, such as finance, human resources, and marketing or key
geographic areas, such as Europe, Asia, and North America. Depending on the
company, other areas may be represented such as legal counsel or the company’s
chief technologist. Typical top management team member titles include chief
operating officer (COO), chief financial officer (CFO), chief marketing officer
(CMO), or chief technology officer (CTO). Because CEOs spend an increasing
amount of time outside their companies (i.e., with suppliers, customers,
regulators, and so on), the role of the COO has taken on a much higher level of
internal operating responsibilities. In most American companies, the CEO also
serves as chairman of the board and can have the additional title of president.
Companies have top management teams to help set the company’s vision and
strategic direction, key tasks within the planning P-O-L-C function. Top teams
make decisions on new markets, expansions, acquisitions, or divestitures. The
top team is also important for its symbolic role: how the top team behaves
dictates the organization’s culture and priorities by allocating resources and
by modeling behaviors that will likely be emulated lower down in the
organization. Importantly, the top team is most effective when team composition
is functionally and demographically diverse and when it can truly operate as a team, not just as group of
individual executives. [22]
That
“the people make the place” holds especially true for members of the top
management team. In a study of 15 firms that demonstrated excellence, defined
as sustained performance over a 15-year period, leadership researcher Jim
Collins noted that those firms attended to people first and strategy second.
“They got the right people on the bus, moved the wrong people off the bus,
ushered the right people to the right seats—then they figured out where to
drive it.” [23] The best teams plan for turnover. Succession planning is
the process of identifying future members of the top management team. Effective
succession planning allows the best top teams to achieve high performance today
and create a legacy of high performance for the future.
Team Leadership and Autonomy
Teams
also vary in terms of how they are led. Traditional or manager-led
teams are
teams in which the manager serves as the team leader. The manager assigns work
to other team members. These types of teams are the most natural to form,
wherein managers have the power to hire and fire team members and are held
accountable for the team’s results.
Self-managed teams are
a new form of team that rose in popularity with the Total Quality Movement in
the 1980s. Unlike manager-led teams, these teams manage themselves and do not
report directly to a supervisor. Instead, team members select their own leader,
and they may even take turns in the leadership role. Self-managed teams also
have the power to select new team members. As a whole, the team shares
responsibility for a significant task, such as assembly of an entire car. The
task is ongoing rather than temporary such as a charity fund drive for a given
year.
Organizations began to use self-managed teams as a way
to reduce hierarchy by allowing team members to complete tasks and solve
problems on their own. The benefits of self-managed teams extend much further.
Research has shown that employees in self-managed teams have higher job
satisfaction, increased self-esteem, and grow more on the job. The benefits to
the organization include increased productivity, increased flexibility, and
lower turnover. Self-managed teams can be found at all levels of the organization,
and they bring particular benefits to lower-level employees by giving them a
sense of ownership of their jobs that they may not otherwise have. The
increased satisfaction can also reduce absenteeism because employees do not
want to let their team members down.
Typical
team goals are improving quality, reducing costs, and meeting deadlines. Teams
also have a “stretch” goal, which is difficult to reach but important to the
business unit. Many teams also have special project goals. Texas Instruments (TI),
a company that makes semiconductors, used self-directed teams to make
improvements in work processes. [24] Teams were allowed to set their own
goals in conjunction with managers and other teams. TI also added an individual
component to the typical team compensation system. This individual component
rewarded team members for learning new skills that added to their knowledge.
These “knowledge blocks” include topics such as leadership, administration, and
problem solving. The team decides what additional skills people might need to
help the team meet its objectives. Team members would then take classes or
otherwise demonstrate their proficiency in that new skill on the job to be
certified for mastering the skill. Individuals could then be evaluated based on
their contribution to the team and how they are building skills to support the
team.
Self-managed
teams are empowered, which means that they have the responsibility as
well as the authority to
achieve their goals. Team members have the power to control tasks and processes
and to make decisions. Research shows that self-managed teams may be at a
higher risk of suffering from negative outcomes due to conflict, so it is
important that they are supported with training to help them deal with conflict
effectively. [25] Self-managed teams may still have a
leader who helps them coordinate with the larger organization. [26] For a product team composed of
engineering, production, and marketing employees, empowerment means that the
team can decide everything about a product’s appearance, production, and cost
without having to get permission or sign-off from higher management. As a
result, empowered teams can more effectively meet tighter deadlines. At
AT&T, for example, the model-4200 phone team cut development time in half
while lowering costs and improving quality by using the empowered team
approach. [27] A special form of self-managed teams
are self-directed teams in which they also determine who will lead them with
no external oversight.
Team leadership is a major determinant of how
autonomous a team can be.
Designing Effective Teams
Designing an effective team means making decisions
about team composition (who should be on the team), team size (the optimal
number of people on the team), and team diversity (should team members be of
similar background, such as all engineers, or of different backgrounds). Answering
these questions will depend, to a large extent, on the type of task that the
team will be performing. Teams can be charged with a variety of tasks, from
problem solving to generating creative and innovative ideas to managing the
daily operations of a manufacturing plant.
Who Are the Best Individuals for
the Team?
A
key consideration when forming a team is to ensure that all the team members
are qualified for
the roles they will fill for the team. This process often entails understanding
the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) of team members as well as the
personality traits needed before starting the selection process. [28] When talking to potential team
members, be sure to communicate the job requirements and norms of the team. To
the degree that this is not possible, such as when already existing groups are
used, think of ways to train the team members as much as possible to help
ensure success. In addition to task knowledge, research has shown that
individuals who understand the concepts covered in this chapter and in this
book such as conflict resolution, motivation, planning, and leadership actually
perform better on their jobs. This finding holds for a variety of jobs,
including officer in the United States Air Force, an employee at a pulp mill,
or a team member at a box manufacturing plant. [29]
How Large Should My Team Be?
Interestingly,
research has shown that regardless of team size,
the most active team member speaks 43% of the time. The difference is that the
team member who participates the least in a three-person team is still active
23% of the time versus only 3% in a 10-person team. [30]When
deciding team size, a good rule of thumb is a size of 2 to 20 members. The
majority of teams have 10 members or less because the larger the team, the
harder it is to coordinate and interact as a team. With fewer individuals, team
members are more able to work through differences and agree on a common plan of
action. They have a clearer understanding of others’ roles and greater
accountability to fulfill their roles (remember social loafing?). Some tasks,
however, require larger team sizes because of the need for diverse skills or
because of the complexity of the task. In those cases, the best solution is to create
subteams where one member from each subteam is a member of a larger
coordinating team. The relationship between team size and performance seems to
greatly depend on the level of task interdependence, with some studies finding
larger teams outproducing smaller teams and other studies finding just the
opposite. [31] The bottom line is that team size
should be matched to the goals of the team.
How Diverse Should My Team Be?
Team
composition and team
diversity often
go hand in hand. Teams whose members have complementary skills are often more
successful because members can see each other’s blind spots. One team member’s
strengths can compensate for another’s weaknesses. [32] For example, consider the challenge that companies
face when trying to forecast future sales of a given product. Workers who are
educated as forecasters have the analytic skills needed for forecasting, but
these workers often lack critical information about customers. Salespeople, in
contrast, regularly communicate with customers, which means they’re in the know
about upcoming customer decisions. But salespeople often lack the analytic skills,
discipline, or desire to enter this knowledge into spreadsheets and software
that will help a company forecast future sales. Putting forecasters and
salespeople together on a team tasked with determining the most accurate
product forecast each quarter makes the best use of each member’s skills and
expertise.
Diversity
in team composition can help teams come up with more creative and effective
solutions. Research shows that teams that believe in the value of diversity
performed better than teams that do not. [33] The more diverse a team is in terms of expertise,
gender, age, and background, the more ability the group has to avoid the
problems of groupthink. [34] For example, different educational levels for team
members were related to more creativity in research and development teams and
faster time to market for new products. [35] Members will be more inclined to make different kinds
of mistakes, which means that they’ll be able to catch and correct those mistakes.
KEY TAKEAWAY
Teams, though similar to groups,
are different in both scope and composition. A team is a particular type of
group: a cohesive coalition of people working together to achieve mutual goals.
In the 21st century, many companies have moved toward the extensive use of
teams. The task a team is charged with accomplishing affects how they perform.
In general, task interdependence works well for self-managing teams. Team roles
consist of task, social, and boundary-spanning roles. Different types of teams
include task forces, product development teams, cross-functional teams, and top
management teams. Team leadership and autonomy varies depending on whether the
team is traditionally managed, self-managed, or self-directed. Teams are most
effective when teams consist of members with the right KSAs for the tasks, are
not too large, contain diversity across team members. Decisions about where and
how to use teams, the leadership of teams, and the structure of teams
illustrate the overlap in the design and leading P-O-L-C functions.
EXERCISES
1.
Think of the
last team you were in. Did the task you were asked to do affect the team? Why
or why not?
2.
Which of the 10
work roles do you normally take in a team? How difficult or easy do you think
it would be for you to take on a different role?
3.
Have you ever
worked in a virtual team? If so, what were the challenges and advantages of
working virtually?
4.
How large do
you think teams should be and why?
[1] Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. Boston: Harvard Business School.
[2] Welins, R., Byham, W., & Dixon, G. (1994). Inside Teams.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[3] Moskal, B. (1988, June 20). Supervisors, begone! Industry Week,
p. 32.
[4] Cannon-Bowers, J. A. and Salas, E. (2001, February). Team
effectiveness and competencies. In W. Karwowski (Ed.), International encyclopedia of ergonomics and human factors (1383). London: CRC Press.
[5] Rees, F. (1997). Teamwork
from start to finish. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[6] De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence,
task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing
perspective. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 92, 628–638.
[7] Hackman, J. R. (1976). Group influences on individuals. In M. D.
Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook
of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
[8] Langfred, C. W. (2005). Autonomy and performance in teams: The
multilevel moderating effect of task interdependence. Journal of Management, 31, 513–529; Liden, R. C., Wayne,
S. J., & Bradway, L. K. (1997). Task interdependence as a moderator of the
relation between group control and performance.Human Relations, 50, 169–181.
[9] Mumford, T. V., Van Iddekinge, C. H., Morgeson, F. P., &
Campion, M. A. (2008). The team role test: Development and validation of a team
role knowledge situational judgment test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 250–267.
[10] Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction
process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley; Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P.
(1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 41–49; Belbin, R. M. (1993). Management teams: Why they succeed or fail. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
[11] Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., McHugh, P. P., Salas, E., &
Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). A dynamic theory of leadership and team
effectiveness: Developmental and task contingent roles. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 14, pp. 253–305). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; Kozlowski, S. W.
J., Gully, S. M., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). Team leadership
and development: Theory, principles, and guidelines for training leaders and
teams. In M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams (Vol. 3, pp. 253–291). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
[12] Ellis, A. P. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Porter, C. O. L.
H., West, B. J., & Moon, H. (2003). Team learning: Collectively connecting
the dots. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 88, 821–835.
[13] Anacona, D. G. (1990). Outward bound: Strategies for team survival
in an organization. Academy
of Management Journal, 33,
334–365; Anacona, D. G. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and
performance in organizational teams. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 37, 634–665; Druskat, V. U.,
& Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective
leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 435–457.
[14] Marrone, J. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Carson, J. B. (2007). A
multi-level investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member
boundary-spanning behavior. Academy
of Management Journal, 50, 1423–1439.
[15] Gordon, J. (1992). Work teams: How far have they come? Training,
29, 59–62.
[16] Ahuja, M., & Galvin, J. (2003). Socialization in virtual
group. Journal of Management, 29, 161–185.
[17] Alexander, S. (2000, November 10). Virtual teams going global. Infoworld.
Retrieved February 12, 2009, fromhttp://www.infoworld.com/articles/ca/xml/00/11/13/001113cavirtual.html.
[18] Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C. B., Tesluk, P. E., &
McPherson, S. O. (2002). Five challenges to virtual team success: Lessons from
Sabre, Inc.Academy of Management Executive, 16, 67–79.
[19] Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Massey, A. P., & Song, M. (2001).
Getting it together: Temporal coordination and conflict management in global
virtual teams. Academy
of Management Journal, 44,
1251–1262.
[20] Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (2000). Powering up teams. Organizational Dynamics, 28(3), 48–66.
[21] Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. M. (2006).
Empowerment and team effectiveness: An empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 97–108.
[22] Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. (2004).
The upper echelons revisited: The antecedents, elements, and consequences of
TMT composition. Journal
of Management, 30, 749–778.
[23] Collins, J. (2001, July–August). Level leadership. Harvard Business Review,
66–76.
[24] Welins, R., Byham, W., & Dixon, G. (1994). Inside teams.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[25] Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (2000). Conflict
management, efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53, 625–642; Langfred, C. W.
(2007). The downside of self-management: A longitudinal study of the effects of
conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 885–900.
[26] Morgeson, F. P. (2005). The external leadership of self-managing
teams: Intervening in the context of novel and disruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 497–508.
[27] Parker, G. (1994). Cross-functional
teams. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[28] Humphrey, S. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., Meyer, C. J., & Ilgen, D.
R. (2007). Trait configurations in self-managed teams: A conceptual examination
of the use of seeding for maximizing and minimizing trait variance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 885–892.
[29] Hirschfeld, R. R., Jordan, M. H., Field, H. S., Giles, W. F.,
& Armenakis, A. A. (2006). Becoming team players: Team members’ mastery of
teamwork knowledge as a predictor of team task proficiency and observed
teamwork effectiveness. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 91, 467–474; Stevens, M. J.,
& Campion, M. A. (1999). Staffing work teams: Development and validation of
a selection test for teamwork settings. Journal of Management, 25, 207–228.
[30] McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups:
Interaction and performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; Solomon, H. (1960). Mathematical thinking in the measurement of behavior. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
[31] Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993).
Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for
designing effective work groups. Personnel
Psychology, 46, 823–850; Magjuka, R. J.,
& Baldwin, T. T. (1991). Team-based employee involvement programs: Effects
of design and administration. Personnel
Psychology, 44, 793–812; Vinokur-Kaplan, D.
(1995). Treatment teams that work (and those that don’t): An application of
Hackman’s group effectiveness model to interdisciplinary teams in psychiatric
hospitals. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 31, 303–327.
[32] Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N. L. (2003). Recent
research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management,
29, 801–830; van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004).
Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research
agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008–1022.
[33] Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De
Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity
beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1189–1199.
[34] Surowiecki. J. (2005). The
wisdom of crowds. New York: Anchor Books.
[35] Eisenhardt, K. M., & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995). Accelerating
adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4, 84–110; Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational
specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development
teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1709–1721.