Theories Supporting Teamwork

...

On the other hand, in the Team performance model proposed by Lussier (2010) he showed that work performance is dependent on three things; 1) Team Structure – effective structure for working as a team; 2) Team Dynamics or Group processes - human relations and; 3) Team Development Stage – when the team has developed its ability to work as a team. Performance can be affected either positively or negatively based on the interrelationships between the three factors.

Meanwhile Fielder, F. E. (1967) situational contingency theory claims that group effectiveness or performance is based on a match between the leader’s style and situational control which can be broken into 3 major components: 1) Leader-member Relations, dependant on the degree of mutual trust and respect between a leader and subordinates; 2) Task Structure, e.g. when task structure is high (structured), the group’s goal is clear, definite and straightforward, all have a clear idea about how to approach and reach the goal; 3) Leader Position Power, referring to power within the leader’s position itself.

Forsyth, D. (2011) though, saw that there are advantages to the patterns or group processes such that when group members learn to work together as a cohesive team their success becomes more certain. However to be effective, teams must agree not just on clear objectives but on roles. Belbin, M. (2015) recognised that the most consistently successful groups are made up of ranging roles by various members such as; Action-oriented roles, People-oriented roles and Cerebral roles.

In regards to Team Development, Tuckman, B. W. (1965) identified five main successive stages of group development and relationships: forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning. Tuckman explains that these phases are necessary and unavoidable in order for team growth, facing challenges, tackling problems, finding solutions, planning work, and delivering results.

Despite the promising value of group behaviour, successful performance is not absolute. Ringelmann, M. (1913) suggested there is a tendency for individual members of a group to become increasingly less productive as the size of their group gets larger. This concept is known as Social Loafing or the Ringelmann effect. Then adding to possible downside of groups was Janis, I. L. (1972) who in his research on group behaviour which was revised in 1982, found that effectiveness and performance can be adversely affected by the idea of Groupthink wherein the desire for unanimity in the group results in the natural nature of the group to just drift along.

CONCLUSION:

Team and group work involves working together to achieve what cannot be done by an individual so cohesion is important. For a group’s work performance to be effective according to Lussier (2010), teams should have an effective structure, dynamic human relations, clear objectives and defined roles as expressed by Belbin (2015). However groups should not become weary to avoiding groupthink and social loafing.

BIBLIORGRAPHY:

Baron, R. S. (1986). Social Psychology of Groups (2009). Available at: http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/06/social-facilitation-how-and-when-audiences-improve-performance.php [Accessed 30 March 2017]

Belbin, M. (2015). Mullins, L. (2016). Management and Organisational Behaviour.11th ed. Pearson: New York, p. 321

Fielder, F. E. (1967) Leadership, New York, New York: General Learning Press.

Forsyth, D. (2011). Group Dynamics. In R. Miller, E. Balcetis, S. Burns, D. Daniel, B. Saville, & W. Woody (Eds.), Jepson School of Leadership Studies (2014). The Psychology of Groups [pdf] Available at: [Accessed 6 April 2017]

Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Lussier, R., and Achua, C., (2010). Leadership: Theory, Application, & Skill Development. 4th ed. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Michaels, J.W., Blommel, J.M., Brocato, R.M., Linkous, R.A., & Rowe, J.S. (1982) Journal of Sports and Recreation Volume 3 Issue 1 2009. Available at: http://www.scientificjournals.org/journals2007/articles/1012.htm [Accessed 5 April 2017]

Ringelmann, M. (1913). Research Gate (2014). Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/209410111_Ringelmann_Rediscovered_The_Original_Article [Accessed 1 April 2017]

Triplett, N, (1898) The Dynamogenic Factors in Pacemaking and Competition, (1898). Available at: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Triplett/ [Accessed 30 March 2017]

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Mullins, L. (2016). Management and Organisational Behaviour.11th ed. Pearson: New York, p. 309