Making the teaM a guide for ManagersS i x t h E d.docx

Making the teaM:
a guide for Managers
S i x t h E d i t i o n
Leigh L. Thompson
Kellogg School of Management
Northwestern University
330 Hudson Street, NY NY 10013
A01_THOM4204_06_SE_FM.indd 1 10/31/16 8:03 PM
Vice President, Business Publishing: Donna
Battista
Director of Portfolio Management: Stephanie
Wall
Director, Courseware Portfolio Management:
Ashley Dodge
Senior Sponsoring Editor: Neeraj Bhalla
Editorial Assistant: Lauren Russell
Vice President, Product Marketing: Roxanne
McCarley
Director of Strategic Marketing: Brad Parkins
Strategic Marketing Manager: Deborah
Strickland
Product Marketer: Becky Brown

Field Marketing Manager: Lenny Ann Kucenski
Product Marketing Assistant: Jessica Quazza
Vice President, Production and Digital Studio,
Arts and Business: Etain O’Dea
Director of Production, Business: Jeff Holcomb
Managing Producer, Business: Ashley Santora
Operations Specialist: Carol Melville
Creative Director: Blair Brown
Manager, Learning Tools: Brian Surette
Content Developer, Learning Tools: Lindsey Sloan
Managing Producer, Digital Studio, Arts and
Business: Diane Lombardo
Digital Studio Producer: Monique Lawrence
Digital Studio Producer: Darren Cormier
Digital Studio Producer: Alana Coles
Full-Service Project Management and
Composition: SPi Global
Interior Design: SPi Global
Cover Design: Pam Verros
Cover Art: © Paul Capobianco
Printer/Binder: RRD Crawfordsville
Cover Printer: Phoenix
Copyright © 2018, 2014, 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc. or its
affiliates. All Rights Reserved. Manufactured
in the United States of America. This publication is protected
by copyright, and permission should be ob-
tained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction,
storage in a retrieval system, or transmission
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise. For information
regarding permissions, request forms, and the appropriate
contacts within the Pearson Education Global
Rights and Permissions department, please visit
www.pearsoned.com/permissions/.

Acknowledgments of third-party content appear on the
appropriate page within the text.
PEARSON and ALWAYS LEARNING are exclusive trademarks
owned by Pearson Education, Inc. or its af-
filiates in the U.S. and/or other countries.
Unless otherwise indicated herein, any third-party trademarks,
logos, or icons that may appear in this work
are the property of their respective owners, and any references
to third-party trademarks, logos, icons, or
other trade dress are for demonstrative or descriptive purposes
only. Such references are not intended to
imply any sponsorship, endorsement, authorization, or
promotion of Pearson’s products by the owners of
such marks, or any relationship between the owner and Pearson
Education, Inc., or its affiliates, authors,
licensees, or distributors.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Thompson, Leigh L., author.
Title: Making the team : a guide for managers / Leigh L.
Thompson, Kellogg
School of Management, Northwestern University.
Description: Sixth Edition. | New York : Pearson Education,
2016. | Revised
edition of the author’s Making the team, [2014]
Identifiers: LCCN 2016042609| ISBN 9780134484204 | ISBN
0134484207
Subjects: LCSH: Teams in the workplace. | Performance. |
Leadership. |
Organizational effectiveness.
Classification: LCC HD66 .T478 2016 | DDC 658.4/022—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.
gov/2016042609

ISBN 10: 0-13-448420-7
ISBN 13: 978-0-13-448420-4
https://lccn.loc.gov/2016042609
https://lccn.loc.gov/2016042609
http://www.pearsoned.com/permissions
For my home team: Bob, Sam, Ray, and Anna
BRIEF CONTENTS
Part 1 Building the team 1
Chapter 1 Types of Teams 3
Chapter 2 Designing the Team 26
Chapter 3 Leading Teams 51
Chapter 4 Team Cohesion and Trust 82
Part 2 team Performance 109
Chapter 5 Performance and Productivity 111
Chapter 6 Team Communication and Collective Intelligence
133
Chapter 7 Team Decision Making 163
Chapter 8 Managing Team Conflict 196
Chapter 9 Creativity and Innovation in Teams 219
Part 3 teams in Organizations 249
Chapter 10 Subgroups and Multi-Teams 251
Chapter 11 Team Networking and Social Capital 275

Chapter 12 Virtual Teamwork 299
Chapter 13 Multicultural Teams 323
Appendix 1 Rewarding Teamwork 345
Appendix 2 Managing Meetings 361
Appendix 3 Creating Effective Study Groups 371
References 374
Name Index 434
Subject Index 449
iv
CONTENTS
Preface xvii
Part 1 Building the team 1
Chapter 1 tYPES OF tEaMS 3
Teams vs. Groups 4
Why Should Organizations Have Teams? 5
Information Technology 5
Competition 6
Globalization and Culture 7
Multigenerational Teams 7
Task Focus 8
Tactical Teams 8
Problem-Solving Teams 9
Creative Teams 9

Types of Team Autonomy 12
Manager-Led Teams 12
Self-Managing Teams 13
Self-Directing Teams 15
Self-Governing Teams 15
Observations About Teams and Teamwork 16
Teams Should Be the Exception, Not the Rule 16
Managers Fault the Wrong Causes for Team Failure 17
Teams Require Attention 17
Experimenting with Failures Leads to Better Teams 17
Conflict is Not Always Detrimental 18
Strong Leadership is Not Always Necessary for Strong Teams
18
Good Teams Can Still Fail Under the Wrong Circumstances 18
Retreats Will Not Fix All the Conflicts Between Team Members
19
What Leaders Tell Us About Their Teams 20
Most Common Type of Team 20
Team Size 20
Team Autonomy versus Manager Control 20
Team Longevity 20
The Most Frustrating Aspect of Teamwork 20
v
vi Contents
Developing Your Team-Building Skills 22
Accurate Diagnosis of Team Problems 22

Evidence-Based Management 23
Expert Learning 24
A Warning 24
Chapter Capstone 25
Chapter 2 DESIGNING tHE tEaM 26
Team Design 27
Define the Goal 27
Ends vs. Means 27
Performance vs. Learning Goals 28
Promotion vs. Prevention Goals 29
Goal fit 29
Pre-Planning vs. On-line Planning 30
Timelines and Time Pressure 30
Capacity Problems vs. Capability Problems 32
Selecting Team Members 32
Member-Initiated Team Selection 33
Optimal Team Size 33
Skills, Talents, and Abilities 35
Roles and Responsibilities 35
Diversity 38
Processes: How to Work Together 43
Task vs. Outcome Interdependence 43
Transition and Action Processes 45
Structure 45
Norms 46
Team Coaching 48
Chapter Capstone 50
Chapter 3 LEaDING tEaMS 51
Leadership Versus Management 52

The Leadership Paradox 52
Leaders and the Nature–Nurture Debate 54
Trait Theories of Leadership 54
Incremental Theories of Leadership 57
Leadership Styles 58
Task Versus Person Leadership 59
Transactional Versus Transformational Leadership 60
Contents vii
Autocratic Versus Democratic Leadership 62
Leader Mood 65
Expectations of Leaders 66
Implicit Leadership Theories 66
Prototypicality 66
Status & Uncertainty 66
Leader–Member Exchange 68
Attributes that Influence Differential Treatment 68
Advantages of Differential Treatment 69
Disadvantages of Differential Treatment 70
Power 70
Sources of Power 71
Power Distance 72
Using Power 73
Effects of Using Power 73
Participative Management 74

Task Delegation 77
Parallel Suggestion Involvement 77
Job Involvement 79
Organizational Involvement 79
Chapter Capstone 81
Chapter 4 tEaM COHESION aND trUSt 82
Team Identity 83
Group Entitativity 83
Group Identity 83
Identity Fusion 84
Common Identity and Common Bond Groups 84
Relational and Collective Identity 84
Self-verification vs. Group-verification 85
Team-Member Exchange 85
Group-serving Attributions 87
Group Potency and Collective Efficacy 87
Team Efficacy and Performance 87
Group Mood and Emotion 88
Group Affect and Performance 90
Emotional Contagion 90
Behavioral Entrainment 91
Emotional Nonconformity 92
Emotional Intelligence 92
Leadership and Group Emotion 92

Group Cohesion 94
Cohesion and Team Behavior 94
Cohesion and Performance 94
Building Cohesion in Groups 95
Fear of Social Exclusion 96
Group Trust 96
Trust vs. Respect 96
Trust & Monitoring 97
Trust Congruence 98
Propensity to Trust 98
Types of Trust 98
Repairing Broken Trust 100
Psychological Safety 100
Group Socialization & Turnover 101
Group Socialization 102
Phases of Group Socialization 102
Old-timers’ Reactions to Newcomers 105
Deviant Opinions 106
Newcomer Innovation 106
Turnover and Reorganizations 107
Chapter Capstone 108
Part 2 team Performance 109
Chapter 5 PErFOrMaNCE aND PrODUCtIVItY 111
An Integrated Model of Team Performance 112
Team Context 112
Organizational Context 113
Team Design 113
Team Culture 113
Essential Conditions for Successful Team Performance 114

Expertise 115
Engagement 118
Execution 126
Performance Criteria 128
Productivity 128
viii Contents
Cohesion 129
Learning 130
Integration 130
Team Performance Equation 131
Chapter 6 tEaM COMMUNICatION aND COLLECtIVE
INtELLIGENCE 133
Collaboration 134
Uneven Communication 134
Knowledge Specialization 135
Knowledge Sharing and Knowledge Hiding 135
Transforming Knowledge into
Solution
s 136
Experienced Community of Practice 136

Adaptive Capacity 137
Monitoring and Talking to the Room 137
Team Mental Models 137
Reflective vs. Reflexive Mental Models 138
Representational Gaps 138
Accuracy 139
Correspondence 140
Transactive Memory Systems 141
Centralized vs. Decentralized TMS 142
Differentiated vs. Integrated TMS 142
Tacit Coordination 143
Routine vs. Nonroutine Tasks 143
Resilience to Team Member Loss 144
Reaction to Free-Riding 144
Developing a TMS 144
Common Information Effect 148
Hidden Profile 151
Ineffective Strategies 153
Effective Interventions 154
Team Learning 158
Environment 158

Newcomers and Rotators 158
Vicarious vs. In Vivo Experience 159
Threat, Change, and Failure 159
Contents ix
After-Action Review (AAR) 159
Routinization vs. Innovation Trade-Offs 159
Chapter 7 tEaM DECISION MaKING 163
Team Decision Making 164
Individual Decision-Making Biases 164
Framing Bias 165
Overconfidence 165
Confirmation Bias 167
Decision Fatigue 168
Individual Versus Group Decision Making 168

Demonstrable versus Non-Demonstrable Tasks 168
Groups Out-Perform Individuals 168
Group to Individual Transfer 169
Minorities versus Majorities 170
Group Decision Rules 170
Refusal to Make Decisions 172
Groupthink 172
Learning from History 174
Reducing Groupthink 174
Escalation of Commitment 178
Project Determinants 180
Psychological Determinants 180
Social Determinants 181
Structural Determinants 181
Minimizing Escalation of Commitment to a Losing Course
of Action 182
Abilene Paradox 183
How to Avoid the Abilene Paradox 184
Group Polarization 185
The Need to be Right 187
The Need to be Liked 187

Conformity Pressure 188
Unethical Decision Making 190
Rational Expectations Model 190
False Consensus 191
Vicarious Licensing 191
Desensitization 191
x Contents
Chapter 8 MaNaGING tEaM CONFLICt 196
Relationship, Task & Process Conflict 197
Relationship Conflict 197
Task Conflict 199
Process Conflict 199
Impact on Performance 200
Personality & Conflict 202
Team Identification 202

Power & Conflict 202
Organizational Climate and Conflict 203
Global Culture and Conflict 203
Types of Conflict 204
Proportional and Perceptual Conflict 204
Conflict States vs. Conflict Processes 205
Conflict Contagion 205
Distributive vs. Procedural Conflict 205
Equity, Equality and Need 205
Minority and Majority Conflict 207
Work–Family Conflict 209
Organizational Culture Conflict 209
Conflict Management 209
Conflict Modes 209
Contingency Theory of Task Conflict and Performance in
Teams 211
Investment Model of Conflict 212
Wageman and Donnenfeld’s Conflict Intervention Model 214
Interests, Rights, and Power Model of Disputing 216
Chapter 9 CrEatIVItY aND INNOVatION IN tEaMS 219

Nature vs. Nurture 220
Creativity Versus Innovation 221
Convergent versus Divergent Thinking 221
Radical versus Incremental Innovation 223
Creative Realism 224
Fluency, Flexibility, and Originality 226
Exploration versus Exploitation 227
Brainstorming Versus Brainwriting 228
Brainstorming 228
Brainstorming versus Nominal Group 229
Contents xi
Brainwriting 230
Speedstorming 231
Electronic Brainstorming 232
Threats to Team Creativity 233
Social Loafing 233

Conformity 234
Production Blocking 234
Performance Matching 235
What Goes on During a Typical Group Brainstorming
Session? 236
Best Practices for Enhancing Team Creativity 236
Motivational Methods 236
Cognitive Methods 238
Facilitator-Led Methods 241
Leader and Organizational Methods 244
Part 3 teams in Organizations 249
Chapter 10 SUBGrOUPS aND MULtI-tEaMS 251
Intergroup Relations 252
In-Groups and Out-Groups 252
Social Comparison 252
Team Rivalry 253
In-group Bias 254
Transgression Credit 254

Subgroups 254
Size 255
Identity, Resource, and Knowledge Subgroups 255
Number of Groups 256
Impact on Performance 256
Faultlines 257
Status 259
Deference 261
Intragroup Deviance 261
Team Boundaries 261
Underbounded versus Overbounded Teams 261
Founding Teams 262
Informing, Parading, and Probing Teams 262
X-Teams 263
xii Contents
Teams in Matrix Organizations 264
Cross-functional Teams 264
Multi-team Systems 264

Integration Between Teams 265
Integration Across Multiple Teams and Components of a
Business
Unit 266
Teamwork in Reorganizations & Mergers 267
Reorganizations 267
Mergers 267
Improving Interteam Relationships 269
Perspective Taking 269
Superordinate Identity 269
Contact 270
Apology 272
Assistance and Help 273
Affirmation 273
Chapter 11 tEaM NEtWOrKING aND SOCIaL CaPItaL 275
Taskwork and Teamwork 276
Taskwork vs. Teamwork 276
Taskwork and Teamwork Network Structures 276
Factors that Affect Networks 277

External Leadership 277
General vs. Differential 278
External Roles of Team Members 278
Organizational Networks 280
Sharing Knowledge 280
Insider vs. Outsider Knowledge Valuation 280
Human Capital and Social Capital 282
Boundary Spanning 284
Boundary Loosening Versus Boundary Tightening 285
Cliques Versus Entrepreneur Networks 285
Team Social Capital 287
Friendship, Trust, and Advice Ties 288
Leadership Ties 290
Increasing your Social Capital 292
Analyze your Social Network 293
Identify Structural Holes 293
Expand the Size of the Network 294
Contents xiii

Diversify Networks 295
Build Hierarchical Networks 296
Recognize Gender Scripts in Networks 297
Reputation Management 297
Chapter 12 VIrtUaL tEaMWOrK 299
Place–Time Model of Social Interaction 300
Face-to-Face Communication 301
Same Time, Different Place 303
Different Time, Same Place 305
Different Place, Different Time 306
Information Technology and Social Behavior 309
Reduced Status Differences: The Weak Get Strong Effect 309
Equalization of Participation 310
Increased Time to Make Decisions 310
Information Suppression 311
Risk Taking 311
Disinhibition and the Negativity Effect 312

Task Performance and Decision Quality 312
Trust and Rapport 313
Virtual, Hybrid, and Traditional Teams 313
Prevalence 313
Advantages 314
Identification 315
Leadership 315
Attention and Problem-Solving 316
Conflict 316
Geographic Faultlines 316
Enhancing Virtual Teamwork 317
Team Formation 317
Technology 317
Shared Mental Models 318
Boundary Objects 319
Initial Face-to-Face Experience 320
Objective Self-Awareness 321
Integrity 321
xiv Contents

Cave and Commons Flexibility 321
Coaching the Virtual Team 322
Chapter 13 MULtICULtUraL tEaMS 323
Challenges of Cross-Cultural Teamwork 324
Multinational Teams 324
Stereotypes versus Prototypes 324
Cultural Values 325
Defining Culture 325
Iceberg Model 325
Hofstede’s Model 325
Dignity, Face and Honor Cultures 331
Tight versus Loose Cultures 333
Cultural Intelligence 333
CQ Model 333
Cultural Metacognition 335
Fusion Teamwork 336
Multicultural Engagement 336

Work Ways 337
Multicultural Teamwork 337
Creative Innovation 337
Relationship Orientation 338
Networks 338
Egalitarian Values 338
Status Perceptions 339
Emotional Display 339
Multicultural Collaboration 340
Ethnocentrism 340
Cultural Relativism 340
Managing Multicultural Teams 341
Change and Adaptation 341
Transactive Memory Systems 342
Language Barriers 342
Cultural Change 342
Integration 343
Assimilation 343
Contents xv

Separation 343
Marginalization 344
Appendix 1 Rewarding Teamwork 345
Appendix 2 Managing Meetings 361
Appendix 3 Creating Effective Study Groups 371
References 374
Name and Author Index 434
Subject Index 449
xvi Contents
PREFACE

Making the Team has two audiences: leaders and team members.
For leaders, the book
provides direction about how teams can be designed to function
optimally; for team
members, the book focuses on the skills necessary to be
productive.
Since the publication of the first five editions, many advances
have occurred in
team and group research. Every chapter has new information,
new research, updated
examples, and more. Specifically, I have made the following
major changes to the sixth
edition of Making the Team:
1. Revised chapter structure: The order of the chapters is
slightly changed to reflect
the revised three-part structure of the book: Building the Team,
Team Performance,
and Teams in Organizations. The book still contains 13 chapters
(suitable for semes-
ter or quarter-length courses). Rewarding Teamwork is now an
appendix. And Vir-
tual Teams and Multicultural Teams are each separate chapters.

2. Internal structure of chapters: Most of the chapters have new
subheads that
reflect new theories, research, and topics.
3. New, updated research: True to the book’s defining
characteristic—providing
managers with the most up-to-date research in a digestible
fashion—I have included
the latest research about teamwork and group behavior, thus
keeping the book true
to its strong research focus and theory-driven approach.
4. Surveys of managers and executives: The updated research
also reports on the
survey of executives that we have conducted at Kellogg for the
past 17 years. The
survey in the first edition reported the responses of 149
managers and executives;
the sixth edition has a database of more than 1,200 team
managers.
5. New research studies: More than 220 new research studies
have been cited.
6. More case studies: I have included more examples and

illustrations of effective
(as well as ineffective) teamwork. More than 160 new case
studies and examples
of actual company teams have been added. And, each chapter
has a new, updated
opening example.
7. Illustrations and examples: Many of the concepts and
techniques in the chapters
are supplemented with illustrations and examples from real
teams, both contem-
porary and historical. I do not use these examples to prove a
theory; rather, I use
them to illustrate how many of the concepts in the book are
borne out in real-world
situations.
New exercises, cases, and supplemental material: The
supplemental material and
teaching support materials have been greatly improved so as to
complement the text.
This allows students to have a more integrated experience inside
and outside of the
classroom. The book strongly advocates experientially based

teaching, and the instruc-
tor now has even more options for making the concepts come
alive in the classroom.
All of the supplements are available on Pearson’s Instructor’s
Resource Center; instruc-
tors should contact a Pearson sales representative to be assigned
a user name and
password. I have also developed a MOOC (massive online open
course) that anybody,
anywhere in the world can enroll in for no charge: High
Performance Collaboration: Leader-
ship, Teamwork, and Negotiation (on coursera). In addition, I
have developed Teamwork
xvii
xviii Preface
101, which contains four 15-minute videos about teamwork,
accessible by: http://www
.kellogg.northwestern.edu/news_articles/2014/12202014-

teamwork-101.aspx, or simply
Google “teamwork 101 Kellogg.”
The revision was sparked not only by advances—as well as
calamities—in the
corporate world, but even more, by the great scientific research
about teamwork that
my colleagues have relentlessly contributed to the field of
management science in the
years since the first edition was published.
One of the reasons why I love this field is that there are so
many wonderful people
with whom to collaborate. The following people have had a
major impact on my think-
ing and have brought joy and meaning to the word
collaboration: Cameron Anderson,
Linda Babcock, Max Bazerman, Terry Boles, Jeanne Brett,
Susan Brodt, John Carroll,
Hoon-Seok Choi, Taya Cohen, Jennifer Crocker, Susan Crotty,
Jeanne Egmon, Hal
Ersner-Hershfield, Gary Allen Fine, Craig Fox, Adam Galinsky,
Wendi Gardner, Dedre
Gentner, Robert Gibbons, Kevin Gibson, James Gillespie, Rich
Gonzalez, Deborah Gru-

enfeld, Brian Gunia, Erika Hall, Reid Hastie, Andy Hoffman,
Elizabeth Seeley Howard,
Molly Kern, Peter Kim, Shirli Kopelman, Rod Kramer, Laura
Kray, Terri Kurtzburg, Sujin
Lee, Geoffrey Leonardelli, John Levine, Allan Lind, George
Loewenstein, Jeff Loewen-
stein, Bob Lount, Denise Lewin Loyd, Brian Lucas, Beta
Mannix, Kathleen McGinn,
Vicki Medvec, Tanya Menon, Dave Messick, Terry Mitchell,
Don Moore, Michael Mor-
ris, Keith Murnighan, Janice Nadler, Maggie Neale, Erika
Petersen, Kathy Phillips, Jason
Pierce, Robin Pinkley, Jo-Ellen Pozner, Mark Rittenberg,
Ashleigh Rosette, Ken Savitsky,
David Schonthal, Vanessa Seiden, Catherine Shea, Marwan
Sinaceur, Ned Smith, Har-
ris Sondak, Tom Tyler, Leaf Van Boven, Kimberly Wade-
Benzoni, Cindy Wang, Juinwen
Wang, Laurie Weingart, Judith White, and Elizabeth Ruth
Wilson.
The revision of this book would not have been possible without
the dedication,
organization, and creativity of Ellen Hampton, Larissa Tripp,
and Joel Erickson, who

created the layout, organized the information, edited the
hundreds of drafts, mastered
the figures, organized the permissions for the exhibits in each
chapter, and researched
many of the case studies for this book.
In the book, I talk quite a bit about the “power of the situation”
and how strongly
the environment shapes behavior. The Kellogg School of
Management is one of the
most supportive, dynamic environments that I have ever had the
pleasure to be a part
of. My colleagues across the Kellogg School are uniquely warm,
constructive, and gener-
ous. Directing the KTAG (Kellogg Team and Group) Center has
been a pleasure beyond
compare. I am very grateful for the generous grants I have
received through the years
from the National Science Foundation’s Decision, Risk and
Management Program, the
Kellogg Team and Group Center, and its sister, the Dispute
Resolution Research Center.
This book is very much a team effort of the people I have
mentioned here; their

talents are diverse, broad, and extraordinarily impressive. I am
deeply indebted to my
colleagues and students, and I am grateful that they have
touched my life. I would like to
thank Paul Capobianco for the photograph of the University of
Wisconsin Men’s Heavy
Weight Varsity rowing team: Cox: Brandt Roen, 8: Sam Weeks,
7: Sebastian Amberger,
6: James Lueken, 5: Christoph Bub, 4: Jonah van der Weide, 3:
George Perrett, 2: Nick
Montalvo, Bow: Jacob Hurlbutt.
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/news_articles/2014/12202
014-teamwork-101.aspx
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/news_articles/2014/12202
014-teamwork-101.aspx
P
A
R
T

Building the TeamI
M01A_THOM4204_06_SE_P01.indd 1 10/24/16 9:28 PM
M01A_THOM4204_06_SE_P01.indd 2 10/24/16 9:28 PM
This page intentionally left blank
3
The ad was posted to Facebook: Diggers needed for an exotic
expedition.
Experience needed in paleontology or anthropology. Willing to
fly to South
Africa within the month. And “the person must be skinny and
preferably
small, they must not be claustrophobic, they must be fit, they
should have some
caving experience. Climbing experience would be a bonus.1”
Dr. Lee Berger,

a university paleoanthropologist, selected six slender women
from 57 applicants
for a major excavation. The team squeezed themselves through a
long vertical
chute which narrowed to a gap just 18 inches wide and inched
their way to a
landing zone at the bottom of the cave. The team of women
crouched in the
fossil chamber plotting, digging, and bagging densely packed
bones in 6-hour
shifts in near total darkness, connected to the surface by the
nearly two miles
of power cables that local climbers had threaded from the
surface to the fossil
chamber. Dozens of scientists watched excitedly on video from
a tent outside
the cave and waited to catalog samples. Dr. Berger invited 30
scientists from
15 countries to Johannesburg for a 6-week frenzy of fossil
research and the
putting together of skeletons from the assembled parts. Teams
were divided by
specific body part—one group for feet, one for legs, one for
skulls, and so forth,
while Berger and his advisers rushed between groups. The

discovery of 1,550
fossil fragments was ultimately regarded as a breakthrough
discovery in the
field.2
2Smith, D. (2015, September 10). Small spelunkers required:
The ad that led to the discovery of Homo naledi.
The Guardian. guardian.com; Young, E. (2015, September 10).
6 tiny cavers, 15 odd skeletons, and 1 amaz-
ing new species of ancient human. The Atlantic.
theatlantic.com; Schreeve, J. (2015, September 10). This face
changes the human story. But how? National Geographic.
nationalgeographic.com
1From ad posted to Facebook by Lee Berger, © October 7, 2013
Dr.Lee Berger.
Types of Teams1
C
H
A
P
T

E
R
M01B_THOM4204_06_SE_C01.indd 3 10/24/16 4:37 PM
http://nationalgeographic.com
http://theatlantic.com
http://guardian.com
4 Part1 • BuildingtheTeam
A shared goal and an interdependent group of people are the
defining characteristics
of teams. Whereas most businesspeople are not digging up
fossils in caves, they do
engage in missions that involve significant economic and social
stakes.
Virtually everyone who has worked in an organization has been
a member of a team
at one time or another. Good teams are not a matter of luck;
they result from hard work,

careful planning, and commitment from the sponsoring
organization. Designing effec-
tive teams is a skill that requires a thorough understanding of
groups to ensure that the
team works as designed. Although there are no guarantees,
understanding what makes
teams work will naturally lead to better and more effective
teams. This book introduces a
systematic approach that allows leaders, managers, executives,
trainers, and professionals
to build and maintain excellent teams in their organizations.
Our systematic approach is based on scientific principles of
learning and change.
Implementing change requires that managers audit their own
behavior to see where
mistakes are being made, consider and implement new
techniques and practices, and
then examine their effects. Unfortunately, accomplishing these
tasks in a typical orga-
nization is not easy. This chapter sets the stage for effective
learning by defining what a
team is—it’s not always clear! We distinguish three types of
teams in organizations based
on their task focus. We also distinguish four types of teams in

terms of their authority.
We expose the most common myths about teamwork and share
some observations from
team leaders. We provide the results of our survey assessment
on how teams are used in
organizations and the problems with which managers are most
concerned.
TEAMS VS. GROUPS
A group is a collection of people. A team is an interdependent
group of people working
for a shared goal. A work team is a collection of individuals
who share responsibility for
specific outcomes for their organizations. Not everyone who
works together or is in
proximity belongs to a team. A team is a group of people who
are interdependent with
respect to information, resources, and skills and who seek to
combine their efforts to
achieve a common goal. Teams have five key defining
characteristics.3
First, teams exist to achieve a shared goal. Simply put, teams
have work to do.

Teams produce outcomes for which members have collective
responsibility and reap
some form of collective reward. Second, team members are
interdependent regarding a
common goal. Interdependence is the hallmark of teamwork.
Interdependence means
that team members cannot achieve their goals single-handedly
but instead, must rely
on each other to meet shared objectives. There are several kinds
of interdependencies,
as team members must rely on others for information, expertise,
resources, and support.
Third, teams are bounded and remain relatively stable over
time. Boundedness means
the team has an identifiable membership; members, as well as
nonmembers, know
who is on the team. Stability refers to the tenure of membership.
Most teams work
together for a meaningful length of time—long enough to
accomplish their goal. Fourth,
team members have the authority to manage their own work and
internal processes.
3Alderfer, C. P. (1977). Group and intergroup relations. In J. R.
Hackman & J. L. Suttle (Eds.), Improving life at

work (pp. 227–296). Palisades, CA: Goodyear; Hackman, J. R.
(1990). Introduction: Work teams in organiza-
tions: An oriented framework. In J. Hackman (Ed.), Groups that
work and those that don’t. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Chapter1 • TypesofTeams 5
We focus on teams in which individual members can, to some
extent, determine how
their work gets done. Finally, teams operate in a larger social
system context. Teams are
not islands unto themselves. They do their work in a larger
organization, often alongside
other teams. Furthermore, teams often need to draw upon
resources from outside the
team and vice versa—something we discuss in Part III of this
book.
A working group by contrast, consists of people who learn from
one another,

share ideas, but are not interdependent in an important fashion
and are not working
toward a shared goal. Working groups share information,
perspectives, and insights;
make decisions; and help people do their jobs better, but the
focus is on individual goals
and accountability. For example, a group of researchers who
meet each month to share
their new ideas is a working group.
WHY SHOULD ORGANIZATIONS HAVE TEAMS?
Teams and teamwork are not novel concepts. In fact, teams and
team thinking have
been around for years at companies such as Procter & Gamble
and Boeing. For example,
during collaboration on the B-2 stealth bomber between the U.S.
Air Force, Northrop
Grumman, and 4,000 subcontractors and suppliers in the early
1980s, teams were
employed to handle different parts of the project.4
Managers discovered a large body of research indicating that
teams can be more
effective than the traditional corporate hierarchical structure for

making decisions
quickly and efficiently. Even simple changes such as
encouraging input and feedback
from workers on assembly lines can make a dramatic
improvement. For instance, quality
control (QC) circles and employee involvement groups
encourage employee participa-
tion.5 It is a mark of these programs' success that this kind of
thinking is considered
conventional wisdom nowadays. Although these QC teams were
worthy efforts at fos-
tering the use of teams in organizations, the teams needed for
the restructuring and
reengineering processes of the future may be quite different.
For example, Zappos.com
uses holacracies, which are radical self-management systems in
which managers no lon-
ger exist and the traditional corporate hierarchy is gone.
Concentric circles of responsi-
bility replace organizational charts, and employees choose
which circles they belong to
and what projects they work on. People don’t have one job; they
have multiple “roles”
and “lead links” are designated to communicate between circles.
The company’s 1,500

employees define their own jobs and anyone can set the agenda
for a meeting but to
prevent anarchy, processes are strictly enforced.6 At least four
challenges suggest that
building and maintaining effective teams is of paramount
importance.
InformatIon technology
In our research, 72% of managers and leaders report that they
work in hybrid teams in
which they are not physically co-located.7 In the collaboration
economy, employees are
4Kresa, K. (1991). Aerospace leadership in a vortex of change.
Financier, 15(1), 25–28.
5Cole, R. E. (1982). Diffusion of participating work structures
in Japan, Sweden and the United States. In
P. S. Goodman et al. (Eds.), Change in organizations (pp. 166–
225). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
6From At Zappos, Pushing Shoes and a Vision by David Gelles,
© JULY 17, 2015 The New York Times.
7Thompson, L. (2016). Constructive Collaboration Executive
program survey, Kellogg School of Management.

http://Zappos.com
knowledge workers and teams are knowledge integrators. One of
the challenges of the
information era is in finding where the information is located
within the company, or
connecting and communicating with others who may be working
halfway around the
globe. What do people look for in experts? They look for
expertise, trustworthiness,
communication skills, a willingness to help, years of
experience, and an awareness of
other resources. LinkedIn launched Lookup, an app that lets
employees find, learn about,
and contact coworkers through in-app messaging or by email.
Senior product managers
at LinkedIn realized that as the company grows and new people
join the team, it is vital
to know where the information is.8

In the collaboration economy, the role of managers has shifted
accordingly; they
are no longer primarily responsible for gathering information
from employees working
below them in the organizational hierarchy and then making
command decisions based
on this information. Their new role is to identify the key
resources that will best imple-
ment the team’s objectives and then to facilitate the
coordination of those resources for
the company’s purposes.
The jobs of the team members have also changed significantly.
This can be viewed
as a threat or a challenge. In 2015, the U.S. Census Bureau
estimated that approximately
15.8 million people, or 10 percent of the workforce, worked
from home at least 1 day
per week. That’s an increase of 18 percent from only 3 years
earlier.9 Decisions may now
be made far from their traditional location; indeed, sometimes
they are even made by
contractors, who are not employees of the company. This
dramatic change in structure
requires an equally dramatic reappraisal of how companies

structure the work
environment.
competItIon
Information technology has also allowed customers and clients
to gain immediate access
to knowledge and information about products and services. This
knowledge creates greater
competition among companies vying for customers and market
share. The average busi-
ness loses 50 percent of its customers every 5 years. Just a 2
percent increase in customer
retention has the same effect as decreasing costs by 10 percent.
And, acquiring new cus-
tomers can cost as much as five times more than retaining
current customers.10 With so
much at stake, companies aggressively compete in a winner-
take-all battle for market
share. Thus, bringing out the best in teams within the company
has become even more
important. This means that people can be expected to specialize
more, and these areas of
expertise will get ever more narrow and interdependent. This is
the core structure of a

team-based approach to work. For example, when Apple began
developing its own brand
of electric cars from the ground up, project leaders were given
permission to create a
1,000-person team and recruit employees from anywhere in the
company, including engi-
neers who created the iPhone and iPod. The industrial design
team was staffed with
designers who had experience working for European and
American auto makers. Dozens
8Chaykowski, K. (2015, August 19). LinkedIn's new employee
directory app ‘Lookup’ could boost daily activity
on its network. Forbes. forbes.com
9U.S. Census Bureau daily feature for October 8: Work From
Home Week. (2015, October 8). United States
Census Bureau. census.gov
10From How to build customer loyalty, © JUL 20, 2015 Forbes.
http://forbes.com

of other employee teams were tasked with researching robotics,
metals, materials, or fiscally
efficient automobile production methods and supply chains.11
globalIzatIon and culture
Another challenge is globalization. An increasingly global and
fast-paced economy
requires people with specialized expertise, yet the specialists
within a company need to
work together. As acquisitions, restructurings, outsourcing, and
other structural changes
take place, the need for coordination becomes all the more
salient. Changes in corpo-
rate structure and increases in specialization imply that there
will be new boundar-
ies among the members of an organization. Boundaries both
separate and link teams
within an organization, although the boundaries are not always
obvious.12 These new
relationships require team members to learn how to work with
others to achieve their
goals. Team members must integrate through coordination and
synchronization with

suppliers, managers, peers, and customers. Teams of people are
required to work with
one another and rarely (and, in some cases, never) interact in a
face-to-face fashion.
With the ability to communicate with others anywhere on the
planet (and beyond!),
people and resources that were once remote can now be reached
quickly, easily, and
inexpensively. This has facilitated the development of the
virtual team—groups linked
by technology so effectively it is as if they are in the same
building. However, cultural
differences, both profound and nuanced, can threaten the ability
of teams to accomplish
shared objectives.
multIgeneratIonal teams
Multigenerational teams are composed of people of different
generations who work in
different ways and follow different norms when it comes to
collaborating and teaming.
This is largely due to the shaping experiences some generations
have had with technol-
ogy at a young age that have affected how they think and work.

For example, in 2015,
more than one-in-three American workers—54 million in all—
were millennials (persons
born between 1981 and 1997), surpassing Generation X to
become the largest segment
of the United States workforce.13 Sometimes, communicating
with someone from a dif-
ferent generation can be as challenging as communicating with
someone from a different
culture. Unless managers and companies take the time to
understand the different work
and value systems of the other generations, they are doomed to
be disappointed and
frustrated. Values to consider in teams composed of different
generations include: the
importance of family; achievement orientation; team versus
individual orientation; and
the need for feedback, attention, and coaching. Mixed
generations in the office can often
lead to awkward face-to-face interactions. For example,
millennials have been referred to
as the “new office moron” by Businessweek because they don’t
know how to dress, use a
11Wakabayashi, D., & Ramsey, M. (2015, February 15). Apple

gears up to challenge Tesla in electric cars. The
Wall Street Journal. wsj.com
12Alderfer, C. P. (1977). Group and intergroup relations. In J.
R. Hackman & J. L. Suttle (Eds.), Improving life at
work (pp. 227–296). Palisades, CA: Goodyear; Friedlander, F.
(1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch
(Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education.
13Fry, R. (2015, May 11). Millennials surpass Gen Xers as the
largest generation in the U.S. labor force. Pew
Research Center. pewresearch.org
http://wsj.com
http://pewresearch.org
landline, or be professional in a meeting—using their cell
phones to text or browse the
Internet.14 Millennials view traditional employment with
skepticism.15 For these reasons,
Acuity insurance instituted gaming clubs for its young

workforce. And Workday, a cloud
computing provider, invites junior staffers to lead meetings,
offers mentoring programs,
and rotates employees through different divisions throughout
the company to keep them
engaged and build their skills and experiences.16
TASK FOCUS
Teams do one of three types of tasks: tactical, problem solving,
and creative. Exhibit 1-1
describes the disadvantages and advantages of tactical,
problem-solving, and creative
teams.
tactIcal teams
Tactical teams execute a well-defined plan. Some examples of
tactical teams include
cardiac surgery teams, many sports teams, and other teams that
are tightly organized.17
For tactical teams to be successful, there must be a high degree
of task clarity and
unambiguous role definition. In a study of the success of NBA
(National Basketball

Association) players, teams on which players played together
longer won more games
14Why etiquette schools are thriving. (2010, October 14).
Businessweek. businessweek.com
15Zaino, G. (2015, January 5). Three things forward-thinking
companies need to know to attract millennial
independent workers in 2016. Huffington Post Business.
huffingtonpost.com
16Lewis, K. R. (2015, June 23). Everything you need to know
about your Millennial co-workers. Fortune.
fortune.com
17LaFasto, F. M. J., & Larson, C. E. (2001). When teams work
best: 6,000 team members and leaders tell what it takes
to succeed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Key Objective Process Focus Threats
Tactical • Directive,highly-focusedtasks
• Roleclarity
• Well-definedoperation
• Accuracy
• Roleambiguity
• Lackoftrainingstandards

• Communicationbarriers
Problem-solving • Focusonissues
• Separatepeoplefromproblem
• Considerfacts,notopinions
• Conductthoroughinvestigation
• Suspendjudgment
• Failuretosticktofacts
• Fixateonsolutions
• Succumbtopoliticalpressures
• Confirmatoryinformationsearch
Creative • Explorepossibilitiesand
alternatives
• Productionblocking
• Unevenparticipation
Exhibit 1-1 Types of Work That Teams Do
Based on Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, F. M. (1989). Teamwork:
What must go right/what can go wrong.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage, © Leigh L. Thompson.

fortune.com
http://huffingtonpost.com
http://businessweek.com
(holding constant the players' own stats); and if “bad teams”
played together a lot, they
won more than they should have based on other criteria.18
One type of tactical team is a crew. A crew is a group of expert
specialists each of
whom has a specific role position, performs brief tasks that are
closely synchronized
with others, and repeats those events across different
environmental conditions.19 To
assess whether a particular team is a “work crew,” complete the
survey in Exhibit 1-2.
Located at a barren site with Earth’s most unforgivable climate,
the Amundsen-Scott
South Pole Station at summer peak requires 150 scientists,
technicians, and support

staff all working in concert to accomplish the research goals of
the station. The 6-month
arctic winter where temperatures can drop to –76°F tests the
mettle of the remaining
45 workers who persevere through 6 months of complete
darkness unbroken by sup-
ply planes, Wi-Fi, or cell phone service. Winter crews with
specific skills maintain the
station’s telescopes, monitor the “ice cube lab” of computers
that collect daily scientific
data, and watch over necessities for survival such as diesel
generators that run the sta-
tion’s heating systems and electricity, and hydroponic
greenhouses which provide 30
pounds of vegetables each week.20
problem-solvIng teams
Problem-solving teams attempt to resolve problems, usually on
an ongoing basis. To
be effective, each member of the team must expect and believe
that interactions among
members will be truthful and of high integrity. Some examples
of problem-solving
teams include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

and Sandia Labora-
tory’s nuclear weapons team.21 A crisis team is an example of a
problem-solving team.
Crisis teams may deal with a sudden crisis, such as a natural
disaster (e.g., tsunami) or a
smoldering crisis, such as a product defect or scandal that
begins small and then escalates
out of control.22 Some organizations have existing, permanent
crisis teams to handle
crises; other organizations improvise. (see Exhibit 1-3). The
contamination crisis at Chi-
potle that sickened more than 500 customers, sent the
company’s stock tumbling, and
darkened the company’s image, directed dozens of teams to
implement severe new food
safety measures after three different pathogens were linked to
five known outbreaks.23
creatIve teams
Creative teams are those in which the key objective is to create
something, think out-of-
the-box, and question assumptions. The process focus of
creative teams is on explor-
ing possibilities and alternatives. We discuss creative teams in

much more depth in
Chapter 9. Examples of creative teams include IDEO design
teams, Hallmark’s creative
advisory group, and the teams responsible for Netflix original
programming.
18Berman, S. L., Down, J., & Hill, C. W. (2002). Tacit
knowledge as a source of competitive advantage in the
National Basketball Association. Academy of Management
Journal, 45(1), 13–31.
19Klimoski, R., & Jones, R. G. (1995). Staffing for effective
group decision making. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas
(Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making (pp. 9–45). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; Sundstrom, E. D., DeMeuse,
K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and
effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45(2), 120–133.
20Berfield, S. (2014, June 11). A guide to wintering in the
South Pole. Bloomberg Business. bloomberg.com
21LaFasto & Larson, When teams work best.
22Irvine, R. B. (1997, July). What’s a crisis anyway?
Communication World, 14(7), 36.
23Berfield, S. (2015, December 22). Inside Chipotle’s
contamination crisis. Bloomberg Business. bloomberg.com

http://bloomberg.com
http://bloomberg.com
1. In general, when you joined your group, how clear were your
roles and responsibilities?
1———————2———————3———————4—————
——5
extremely unclear extremely clear
2. To what extent does your group recruit for specific job
positions that need to be filled for the group to
be successful?
1———————2———————3———————4—————
——5
no specific job positions all are specific job positions
3. To what extent does your group need to be in a specific work

environment or setting to
complete its tasks?
1———————2———————3———————4—————
——5
we can meet in just
about any place
we can only do our work if
we have the right work
layout and equipment/tech
4. In general, to what extent do the same group members need
to be present for the group’s task(s) to be
completed successfully? (R)
1———————2———————3———————4—————
——5
need none of the same
team members
need all of the same

team members
5. To what extent do all of the group members need to be
present for your group to accomplish its task
or goals?
1———————2———————3———————4—————
——5
need only one group member need all of the group members
6. To what extent is the workflow (i.e., how the work will get
done) in your group well established
before anyone joins the team?
1———————2———————3———————4—————
——5
no extent very large extent
7. To what extent does each group member need to coordinate
carefully with others in the group for the
group to effectively accomplish its task(s)?
1———————2———————3———————4—————

——5
no extent very large extent
8. To what extent would your activities in the group (including
the task(s) that you are responsible for)
change if you were to move to another group that might be
assigned to the same task or mission? (R)
1———————2———————3———————4—————
——5
does not change complete change
9. To what extent can your group complete its assigned task(s)
if one or more of the people in the group
are not there? (R)
1———————2———————3———————4—————
——5
cannot complete any of the task(s) can complete all of the
task(s)
Exhibit 1-2 The Crew Classification Scale

10. In general, how frequently do people come and leave as
members of your group? (R)
1———————2———————3———————4—————
——5
daily never
11. Approximately how long will your group work together to
complete its major task? (R)
1———————2———————3———————4—————
——5
1 hour to 1 day more than 1 year
12. Overall, how frequently has your group revisited/revised its
roles and responsibilities since it was

formed? (R)
1———————2———————3———————4—————
——5
never more than five times
Exhibit 1-2 The Crew Classification Scale
“Crews: A distinct type of work team” from Journal of Business
and Psychology by Sheila Simsarian Webber,
Richard J Klimoski 18(3), 261–279, PP. 268. Copyright (c)
2004 Springer New York LLC. Reprinted by permis-
sion of Human Sciences Press, Inc. .
Note. (R), 6 reverse coded items
Exhibit 1-3 Organizational Crisis Teams
Based on Pearson, C.M. and Clari, J.A. (1998). Reframing crisis
management. American Management Review,
23, 59–76; James, E. H. & Wooten, L.P. (2009). Leading teams
in crisis situations: From chaos to extraordinary
performance. Effective Executive 12(5), 14–19, © Leigh L.
Thompson.

• Walmart&HurricaneKatrina
• Apollo13TigerTeam
• SARSteaminChina
• USAirwaysFlight1549
• ChipotleE.colicrisis
• Zikavirusoutbreak
• CISCOandglobalrecession
• BPGulfOilSpill
• Volkswagenemissionscrisis
• CityofFlint,Michigan
leaddisaster
• WellsFargophonyaccounts
Members are brought together
to prevent, prepare, and be on call
to handle crisis situations
Unexpected events in which the
organization has virtually no control and
perceived limited fault or responsibility

Sudden Crisis
Formal Team
Ad hoc team that adapts to given
situation moment by moment
Improv Team
Events that begin as small internal problems
within an organization become public to
stakeholders and over time, escalate into crisis
status as a result of inattention by management
Smoldering Crisis
TYPES OF TEAM AUTONOMY

Teams differ greatly in their degree of autonomy and control
vis-à-vis the organization.
Consider the four levels of control depicted in Exhibit 1-4.
manager-led teams
The most traditional type of team is the manager-led team. In
the manager-led team,
the manager acts as the team leader and is responsible for
defining the goals, methods,
and functioning of the team. The team itself is responsible only
for the actual execu-
tion of their assigned work. Management is responsible for
monitoring and managing
performance processes, overseeing design, selecting members,
and interfacing with the
organization. Examples of manager-led work teams include
automobile assembly teams,
surgery teams, sports teams, and military teams. A manager-led
team typically has a
dedicated, full-time, higher-ranking supervisor, as in a coal-
mining crew.
Manager-led teams provide the greatest amount of control over
team members

and the work they perform; they allow the leader to have control
over the process and
products of the team. In addition, they can be efficient in the
sense that the manager
does the work of setting the goals and outlining the work to be
done. In manager-led
Exhibit 1-4 Authority of Four Illustrative Types of Work
Teams
“The design of work teams” from Handbook of organizational
behavior by J.W. Lorsch.
Copyright © 1987 by J.W. Lorsch Reprinted by permission of
by J.W. Lorsch.
Design of the
Organizational Context
Design of the Team as
a Performing Unit
Monitoring and
Managing Performance
Processes
Executing the Task

Manager-Led
Work Teams
Self-Managing
Work Teams
Self-Designing
Work Teams
Self-Governing
Work Teams
Area of Management
Responsibility
Area of Team
Responsibility

teams, managers don’t have to passively observe the team make
the same mistakes they
did. These teams also have relatively low start-up costs.
However, there can be some key
disadvantages, such as diffusion of responsibility and
conformity to the leader. In short,
members have less autonomy and empowerment. Manager-led
teams may be ideally
suited for simple tasks in which there is a clear goal, such as
task forces or fact-finding
teams. For example, GE Oil and Gas team leader, Steve Mumm,
a former Army captain,
leads a team of 50 employees to finish construction of a $35
million drilling safety system,
known as a “stack,” designed to prevent gas blowouts during
deepwater exploration. Steve
points to his top-down style, “To get the pieces where they need
to be at the right time
takes someone out there motivating, directing, organizing. It
takes a leader to do it.”24
self-managIng teams
In self-managing or self-regulating teams, a manager or leader
determines the over-

all purpose or goal of the team, but the team is at liberty to
manage the methods by
which to achieve that goal. Self-managed teams are increasingly
common in organiza-
tions. Examples include executive search committees and
managerial task forces. Self-
managing teams improve productivity, quality, savings, and
employee morale, as well
as contribute to reductions in absenteeism and turnover.25
These benefits have been
observed in both manufacturing and service settings. In one
investigation of 121 service
technician teams, those that were empowered developed team
processes that effectively
increased quantitative performance and indirectly increased
customer satisfaction.26
For example, at Pivotal Labs, there are no managers; instead,
employees work in project
teams, and pairs of programmers switch out almost daily to
work with other teams and
other projects. Using “balanced teams,” the emphasis is on
productivity rather than
managerial meetings to discuss productivity.27
Ruth Wageman formally studied 43 self-managing teams in the

Xerox service organi-
zation.28 According to Wageman, seven defining features
emerged in the superbly perform-
ing teams but not in the ineffective teams, including: clear
direction, a team task, rewards,
material resources, authority to manage their work, goals, and
strategic norms. The success
of self-managing work teams is defined by four predictors and
variables: group task design,
encouraging supervisory behaviors, group characteristics, and
employee involvement.29 For
a summary of critical success factors, see Exhibit 1-5.
Self-managing teams build commitment, offer increased
autonomy, and often
enhance morale. However, one disadvantage is that the manager
has much less control
over the process and products, making it difficult to assess
progress. In one investigation,
the effectiveness of three types of changes (personnel, process,
and structure) were
24From Battle-tested: From Soldier to business leader by Brian
O’Keefe, © NOVEMBER 10, 2015 Fortune.
25Stewart, G. I., & Manz, C. C. (1995). Leadership and self-

managing work teams: A typology and integrative
model. Human Relations, 48(7), 747–770.
26Mathieu, J., Gilson, L., & Ruddy, T. (2006). Empowerment
and team effectiveness: An empirical test of an
integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 97–
108.
27Blakeman, C. (2015, December 9). Pivotal labs finds success
with self-managed teams. Inc. inc.com
29Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). A
predictive model of self-managing work team
effectiveness. Human Relations, 49(5), 643–675.
28From Critical success factors for creating superb self-
managing teams by Ruth Wageman in Organizational
Dynamics, © 1997 Elsevier.
http://inc.com
Exhibit 1-5 Critical Success Factors for Self-Managing Teams

Based on Wageman, R. (1997b, Summer). Critical success
factors for creating superb
self-managing teams. Organizational Dynamics, 26(1), 49-61 ;
Cohen, S.G., Ledford, G.E.,
Spreitzer, G.M. (1996). A predictive model of self-managing
work team effectiveness. Human
Relations, 49(5), 643–675, © Leigh L. Thompson.
Team Goals
•
Canteammembersarticulateacleardirection,sharedbyallmembers,
ofthebasicpurposethat
theteamexiststoachieve?
• Cantheteamarticulatespecificgoals?
• Dothesegoalsstretchtheirperformance?
•
Hastheteamspecifiedatimebywhichtheyintendtoaccomplishtheseg
oals?
•
Cantheteamworktogetherwithoutduplicatingorwastingeffortsand
doingsowitha“can-do”attitude?
•
Istheteameffectiveininnovatingandcomingupwithnewsolutionsth
ataddresschangingtaskdemands?

A Real Team Task / Group Task Design
Group Characteristics
Team Rewards / Employee Involvement Context
Basic Material Resources
Authority to Manage the Work
•
Grouptaskidentity:Istheteamassignedcollectiveresponsibilityfora
lltheteam’scustomers
andmajoroutputs?
• Grouptaskvariety:Arememberscross-
trainedtohelpandsubstituteeffortsforeachother?
• Grouptaskfeedback:Doestheteamgetteam-
leveldataandfeedbackaboutitsperformance?
• Istheteamrequiredtomeetfrequently,anddoesitdoso?
•
Grouptasksignificance:Istheteammotivatedtotakecareoftheimport
antworktheyperform

andcooperatewithoneanotherwhentheyperceivetheworktheydoass
ignificant?
• Groupcomposition
– Groupexpertise
– Groupsizeadequacy
– Groupstabilityofmembership
•
Countingallrewarddollarsavailable,aremorethan80percentavailab
letoteamsonlyand
nottoindividuals?
•
Areteamrewardstiedtoteamperformanceanddevelopmentofteamca
pabilities?
•
Doestheteamhaveaccesstoinformationaboutworkprocesses,qualit
y,customers,business
performance,competitorsandorganizationalchanges?
•
Doestheteamgettrainingthatenablesteammemberstogrowintheirkn
owledgerequiredfor

theireffectiveperformance?
•
Doestheteamhavetheresources,theequipment,space,tools,andmat
erialsthatpermitthe
teamtoaccomplishtheirwork?
• Doestheteamhaveitsownmeetingspace?
•
Doestheteamhavetheauthoritytodecidethefollowing(withoutfirstr
eceivingspecialauthority):
– Howtomeetclientdemands
– Whichactionstotakeandwhen
– Whethertochangetheirworkstrategieswhentheydeemnecessary
•
Grouptaskautonomy:Istheteamgiventhepowertomakedecisionsab
outbusinessperformance
andrequiredtomakecollectivedecisionsaboutworkstrategies(rathe
rthanleavingittoindividuals)?
•
Cantheteamallocateresourcesefficientlyinordertoadjusttovariatio
ninworkconditions?

Strategy Norms
•
Doteammembersencourageeachothertodetectproblemswithoutthe
leader’sintervention?
•
Domembersopenlydiscussdifferencesinwhatmembershavetocontr
ibutetotheteam?
•
Domembersencourageexperimentationwithnewwaysofoperating?
• Doestheteamactivelyseektolearnfromotherteams?
• Aretherestandardsofbehaviorthataresharedbytheteammembers?
•
Isthereasharedbeliefamongtheteammembersthatthegroupcanbeeff
ective?
examined in structurally misaligned teams.30 These teams were
more likely to change
their process more frequently than their structure, resulting in

detrimental effects on
performance. However, when teams received feedback
interventions, they were more
likely to change their structure and thereby improve their
performance.
self-dIrectIng teams
Self-directing or self-designing teams determine their own
objectives and the meth-
ods by which to achieve them. Management has responsibility
only for the team’s orga-
nizational context. Self-directed teams offer the most potential
for innovation, enhance
goal commitment and motivation, and provide opportunities for
organizational learning
and change. However, self-directed or self-designing teams are
extremely time consum-
ing, have the greatest potential for conflict, and can be very
costly to build. Furthermore,
it can be extremely difficult to monitor their progress. Other
disadvantages include
marginalization of the team and lack of team legitimacy.
However, self-directed teams
are often capable of great accomplishments.

Self-designing teams may be ideally suited for complex, ill-
defined, or ambigu-
ous problems and next-generation planning. Some companies
have “free time” policies
that allow employees to pursue novel projects they feel
passionate about. According to
Google, by allowing employees to have “20 percent time” for
their projects, several success-
ful launches including Google Glass, Google driverless car,
Gmail electronic mail service,
Google News service, Google Maps, and the social networking
site Orkut were possible.
Similarly, at Southwest Airlines, self-directing teams are a core
value. The company limits
the emphasis on formal organizational structure and instead
trusts decision making to the
individual worker or management committee. When a well-
known author forgot his identi-
fication card needed to board the plane, the empowered team
member was able to assure his
identity from the back cover of one of his books and permitted
the author to board the plane,
preventing a dreaded flight delay. In a traditional top–down
structure, the team member

would have to call her manager, who then may have to call
another manager, but the power
of the self-directing team circumvented the bureaucratic
hassle.31 By reducing bureaucracy,
self-directed teams help the bottom line. At W.L. Gore
Company, 9,500 employees across
50 locations work without formal hierarchies, no bosses, and
minimal job titles. Associates
choose their work and negotiate roles with team members.
Manufacturing facilities are
capped around 200 workers to keep the focus on “we decided”
instead of “they decided.”
The company scores high on annual lists of best places to work
and innovation leaders.32
self-governIng teams
Self-governing teams and boards of directors are usually
responsible for executing a
task, managing their own performance processes, designing the
group, and designing
the organizational context. They have wide latitude of authority
and responsibility. In
30Johnson, M. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., DeRue, D. S., Barnes, C.

M., & Jundt, D. (2013). Functional versus dys-
functional team change: Problem diagnosis and structural
feedback for self-managed teams. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(1), 1–11.
31Nayab, N. (2011, August 24). How employee empowerment
has pushed companies ahead. Bright Hub.
brighthub.com; D’Onfro, J. (2015, April 17). The truth about
Google’s famous ‘20% time’ policy. Business
Insider. businessinsider.com; How companies are changing their
culture to attract (and retain) millennials.
(2015, August 19). Business.com. business.com
32LaBarre, P. (2012, March 5). When nobody (and everybody)
is the boss. CNNMoney. management.fortune.
cnn.com.; Our culture. (2016, August). Gore [Company
website]. gore.com
http://brighthub.com
http://Business.com
http://Business.com
http://Businessinsider.com
http://cnn.com
http://gore.com

many companies, the president or chief operating officer has
been replaced with an
executive, self-governing team.33 For example, LRN Founder
Dov Seidman stood in
front of his executive team and tore up the traditional
organizational chart and
announced that all members would now “report” to the company
mission. The com-
pany is managed through elected employee councils and is
responsible for recruiting,
performance and resource management, and conflict
resolution.34
Yet, there are trade-offs involved with each of these four types
of teams. Self-
governing and self-directed teams provide the greatest potential
in terms of commitment
and participation, but they are also at the greatest risk of
misdirection. When decisions
are pushed down in organizations, team goals and interests may
be at odds with orga-
nizational interests. Unless everyone in the organization is

aware of the company’s
interests and goals, poor decisions (often with the best of
intentions) may be made. An
organization that chooses a manager-led group is betting that a
manager can run things
more effectively than a team can. If it is believed that the team
can do the job better, a
self-governing or self-designing team may be appropriate. One
implication of this is that
the manager’s traditional role as a collector of information is
less and less important.
However, it is important to think about the direction of
movement. One investigation
tested predictions from Structural Adaptation Theory on the
longitudinal effects of
centralizing versus decentralizing decision-making structures in
teams.35 Results from
ninety-three, 4-person teams documented that it was more
difficult for teams to adapt
to a centralized decision-making structure after formally
working within a decentralized
structure than it was to adapt in the opposite direction.
OBSERVATIONS ABOUT TEAMS AND TEAMWORK

There is a lot of folklore and unfounded intuition when it comes
to teams and team-
work. We want to set the record straight by exposing some of
the observations that
managers find most useful. This is not an exhaustive list, but we
believe the factors on
this list have the most value for leaders when it comes to
understanding how teams
perform, change, and grow.
teams should be the exceptIon, not the rule
Don’t create a team for the sake of “teamwork.” If one person
can accomplish a goal
single-handedly, let that person do it! When companies are in
trouble, they often
restructure into teams. However, organizing people into teams
does not solve problems;
if not done thoughtfully, this may even cause more problems.
Perhaps it is for this reason
that Basecamp, a Web application company, instilled a “month
off” policy under which
employees take a month off from coming into the office and
instead work on mock-ups
or prototypes of new products. Employees are free to work

wherever they want. By
33Ancona, D. G., & Nadler, D. A. (1989). Top hats and
executive tales: Designing the senior team. Senior
Management Review, 31(1), 19–28.
34Seidman, D. (2012, June 26). Work in progress: Working in a
self-governing office. Financial Times. finan-
cialtimes.com
35Hollenbeck, J. R., Aleksander, P. J., Ellis, S. E., Humphrey,
A. S, Garza, & Ilgen, D. R. (2011). Asymmetry
in structural adaptation: The differential impact of centralizing
versus decentralizing team decision-making
structures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 114(1), 64–74.
http://financialtimes.com
http://financialtimes.com
having a full month to dedicate to innovation without the hassle
and interruptions of

team meetings and administration, individuals can innovate.36
Teams can outperform the best member of the group, but there
are no guaran-
tees. Admitting the inefficiency of teams is hard, especially
when most of us would
like to believe the Gestalt principle that the whole is greater
than the sum of its parts!
Teams are not a panacea for organizations; they often fail and
are frequently overused or
poorly designed. In the best circumstances, teams provide
insight, creativity, and cross-
fertilization of knowledge in a way that a person working
independently cannot. In the
wrong circumstances, teamwork can lead to confusion, delay,
and poor decision making.
managers fault the Wrong causes for team faIlure
Imagine yourself in the following situation: The wonderful team
that you put together
last year has collapsed. The new product line is not
forthcoming, conflict has erupted,
and there is high turnover. What has gone wrong? If you are
like most managers, you

place the blame on one of two things: (1) external,
uncontrollable forces (e.g., a bad
economy) or (2) the people on the team (e.g., difficult
personalities). Conveniently for
the manager, both of these problems do not directly implicate
poor leadership. However,
according to most research investigations, neither of these
causes is the actual culprit.
Most team problems are not explained by external problems or
personality problems.
Faulty team design is a key causal factor in underperforming
teams.
The misattribution error is the tendency for managers to
attribute the causes
of team failure to forces beyond their personal control. Leaders
may blame individual
team members, lack of resources, or a competitive environment.
When the leader points
to a problem team member, the team’s problems can be neatly
and clearly understood
as emanating from one source. This protects the leader’s ego
(and in some cases, the
manager’s job), but it stifles learning and destroys morale. It is
more likely that the team’s

poor performance is due to a structural, rather than personal,
cause. Furthermore, it is
likely that several things, not just one, are at work.
teams requIre attentIon
Many new managers believe that their role should be one of
building the most effective
relationships they can with each individual subordinate; they
erroneously equate man-
aging their team with managing the individual people on the
team.37 These managers
rarely rely on group-based forums for problem solving and
diagnosis. Instead, they
spend their time in one-on-one meetings. Teamwork is expected
to be a natural conse-
quence. As a result, many decisions are based upon limited
information, and decision
outcomes can backfire in unexpected and negative ways.
Leaders need to help managers
learn about teamwork.
experImentIng WIth faIlures leads to better teams
It may seem ironic, but one of the most effective ways to learn

is to experience failure.
For example, Twitter was born out of a failed project called
Odeo. Twitter founder Evan
36Fried, J. (2012, May 31). Workplace experiments: a month to
yourself. 37Signals. 37signals.com
37Hill, M. (1982). Group versus individual performance: Are N
+ 1 heads better than one? Psychological Bul-
letin, 91, 517–539.
http://37signals.com
Williams and his team were struggling to get excited about a
podcasting service that
didn’t offer everything that iTunes—a major competitor—did.
Sure enough, soon after
it was introduced, Odeo failed. So, Williams and his team took
the experience from
Odeo and developed a completely new social media that allowed
people to send

simple updates via text.38 A failed team effort should be
viewed as a critical source of
information from which to learn. However, when you are the
one failing, failure is hard
to embrace. The true mark of a valued team member is a
willingness to learn from
mistakes.
Surprises and ambiguity are often a cause of failure, so it is
important to examine
how teams can best deal with surprise and the unexpected. One
investigation examined
how SWAT teams and film production crews deal with surprises
and upsets by engaging
in organizational bricolage—in which they restructure their
activities by role shifting,
reorganizing routines, and reassembling their work.39
conflIct Is not alWays detrImental
Many leaders boast that their teams are successful because they
never have conflict.
However, it is a fallacy to believe that conflict is detrimental to
effective teamwork. In
fact, conflict may be necessary for effective decision making in

teams as it can foment
accuracy, insight, understanding, trust, and innovation.
strong leadershIp Is not alWays necessary for strong teams
A common myth about leadership is that to function effectively,
teams need a strong,
powerful, and charismatic leader. In general, leaders who
control all the details, manage
all the key relationships in the team, have all the good ideas,
and use the team to execute
their “vision” are usually overworked and underproductive.
Teams with strong leaders
sometimes succumb to flawed and disastrous decision making.
A leader has two main functions: a design function, meaning
that the leader struc-
tures the team environment (working conditions, access to
information, incentives,
training, and education), and a coaching function, meaning that
the leader has direct
interaction with the team.40
good teams can stIll faIl under the Wrong cIrcumstances

Teams are often depicted as mavericks: bucking authority,
striking out on their own,
and asking for permission only after the fact. Such cases do
occur, but they are rare
and tend to be one-shot successes. Most managers want
consistently successful teams.
To be successful in the long run, teams need ongoing resources
and support. By
resources, we mean more than just money. Teams need
information and education.
In too many cases, teams tackle a problem that has already been
solved by someone
else in the company, but a lack of communication prevents this
critical knowledge from
reaching the current task force.
38Miller, C. (2012, October 30). Why Twitter’s C.E.O. demoted
himself. New York Times. nytimes.com
39Bechky, B. A., & Okhuysen, G. A. (2011). Expecting the
unexpected? How SWAT officers and film crews
handle surprises. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 239–
261.
40Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for
great performances. Boston, MA: Harvard Business

School Press.
http://nytimes.com
To lay the best groundwork for teams, it is important to
consider the goals and
resources of the team: Are the team’s goals well defined? Does
everyone know them?
Are the goals consistent with the objectives of other members of
the organization? If not,
how will the inevitable conflict be managed? Does everyone on
the team have access to
the resources necessary to successfully achieve the goal? Is the
organizational hierarchy
designed to give team members access to these resources
efficiently? If not, it might be
necessary to reconsider the governance structure within which
the team must operate.
What are the rights of the team members in pursuing their
duties, who can they contact,

and what information can they command? It is also important to
assess the incentive
structure existing for team members and for those outside the
team with whom team
members must interact. Are the team members' incentives
aligned? Are team members'
incentives aligned with those of the group and the organization,
for instance, to cooperate
with one another and to fully share information and resources?
There is no one-size-fits-
all solution to team structure. For instance, it may be
appropriate for team members to
compete with one another (in which case, cooperation may not
be an achievable feature
of the group dynamic). Choosing the structure of the group and
the incentives that moti-
vate the individuals inside it are essential factors contributing
to the success of any team.
retreats WIll not fIx all the conflIcts betWeen team members
Teams often get into trouble. Members may fight, slack off, or
simply be unable to keep
up with their responsibilities, potentially resulting in angry or
dissatisfied customers.

When conflict arises, people search for a solution to the team
problem. A common strat-
egy is to have a “team-building retreat,” “corporate love-in,” or
“ropes and boulders
course” where team members try to address underlying concerns
and build trust by
engaging in activities—like rock climbing—that are not part of
what they ordinarily do as
a team. A team retreat is a popular way for team members to
build mutual trust and com-
mitment. A retreat may involve team members spending a
weekend camping and engaging
in cooperative, shared, structured activities. However, unless
retreats address the structural
and design problems that plague the team day to day in the work
environment, they may
fail. For example, one company facing leadership issues decided
to have a consultant run
a team-building retreat. The employees played games that put
them into different roles
so they could understand more about each other and the issues
they faced day to day.
However, the retreat did not accomplish the company goal
because the employees did not
discuss the games process. One employee commented that it was

too bad the leadership
was not stronger at the company because on paper it was the
perfect job, but after expe-
riencing yet another bad team-building experience, she decided
to leave the company.
Another example of a nonproductive work retreat came when a
large nonprofit company
had a lot of discord between employees. To help resolve this,
the executive director asked
the staff to participate in a retreat by going into the woods,
standing in a circle, and hold-
ing a stone to express their negative feelings. Needless to say,
the discord continued.41
Design problems are best addressed by examining the team in
its own environ-
ment while team members are engaged in actual work. For this
reason, it is important
to take a more comprehensive approach to analyzing team
problems. Retreats are often
41Balderrama, A. (2012, June 18). The worst team-building
experience you’ve ever had. CareerBuilder. career-
builder.com

http://careerbuilder.com
http://careerbuilder.com
insufficient because they encourage managers to attribute team
failures to interpersonal
dynamics, rather than examining and changing deeper,
structural issues.
WHAT LEADERS TELL US ABOUT THEIR TEAMS
To gain a more accurate picture of the challenges leaders face in
their organizations
when designing, leading, and motivating teams, we conducted
an assessment, spanning
18 years, of over 1,300 executives and managers from a variety
of industries.42 Here are
some highlights of what they told us.
most common type of team

The most common type is the middle management team,
followed by cross-functional,
operations, and service teams. Cross-functional teams epitomize
the challenges outlined
earlier in this chapter. They have the greatest potential, in terms
of integrating talent,
skills, and ideas, but because of their diversity of skills and
responsibilities, they provide
fertile ground for conflict.
team sIze
Team size varies dramatically, from 3 to 100 members, with an
average of 11.75. How-
ever, the modal team size is 10. These numbers can be
compared with the optimum
team size. As we discuss later in the book, teams should
generally have fewer than 10
members—more like 5 or 6.
team autonomy versus manager control
Most of the managers in our assessment were in self-managing
teams (49%), followed
by manager-led teams (45%), with self-directing teams (6%)

distinctly less common
(see Exhibit 1-6). There is an inevitable tension between the
degree of manager control
in a team and the ability of team members to guide and manage
their own actions.
Manager-led teams provide more control, but less innovation
than what stems from
autonomous teams. We do not suggest that all teams should be
self-directing. Rather,
it is important to understand the trade-offs and what is required
for each type of team
to function effectively.
team longevIty
Teams vary a great deal in terms of how long they have been in
existence. On average,
teams are in existence for 1 to 2 years (see Exhibit 1-7).
the most frustratIng aspect of teamWork
Managers considered several possible sources of frustration in
managing teams. The
most frequently cited cause of frustration and challenge in
teams is developing and

42Thompson, L. (2016). Leading high impact teams executive
program survey [survey data set]. Kellogg School of
Management Executive Program. Northwestern University,
Evanston, IL.
sustaining high motivation, followed by minimizing confusion
and coordination prob-
lems (see Exhibit 1-8). We discuss motivation and engagement
in Chapter 5. We ana-
lyze conflict (and ways to effectively manage it within a team)
in Chapter 8 and address
creativity in Chapter 9. Not surprisingly, among the skills on
the most-wanted list
for managerial education are developing and sustaining high
motivation, developing
clear goals, fostering creativity and innovation, training, and
minimizing confusion and
coordination problems. Consequently, we designed this book to

prepare managers and
reeducate executives in how to effectively deal with each of
these concerns.
Exhibit 1-6 Team Autonomy Versus Manager Control
Based on Leading high impact teams. Team leadership survey
from the Kellogg
School of Management Executive Program. Northwestern
University, Evanston, IL,
© Leigh L. Thompson.
45%
49%
6%
Manager-led
0%
10%
20%
30%

40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Self-managing Self-directing
Exhibit 1-7 Team Longevity
from the Kellogg School
of Management Executive Program. Northwestern University,
Evanston, IL, © Leigh L.
Thompson.
7%

29%
19%
7%
38%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Less than 6
months

6–12 months 1–2 years 3–5 years Over 5 years
Exhibit 1-8 The Most Frustrating Aspects of Teamwork
from the Kellogg School of
Management Executive Program. Northwestern University,
Evanston, IL,
© Leigh L. Thompson.
M
an
ag
in
g
co
nfl

ic
t p
ro
du
ct
iv
el
y
0
10
20
30
40
50
60

N
et
w
or
ki
ng
P
ar
tic
ip
at
iv
e
m
an
ag

em
en
t
S
el
ec
tio
n/
R
ec
ru
itm
en
t i
ss
ue
s/

cr
ite
ria
S
oc
ia
liz
at
io
n/
C
or
po
ra
te
c

ul
tu
re
C
om
pe
ns
at
io
n
C
oo
pe
ra
tio
n/

C
om
pe
tit
io
n
am
on
g
m
em
be
rs
M
an
ag
in

g
pe
op
le
p
ro
bl
em
s
D
ec
is
io
n-
m
ak
in

g
P
ro
bl
em
-s
ol
vi
ng
Le
ad
er
sh
ip
a
nd

d
ire
ct
io
n
D
ea
lin
g
w
ith
p
ol
iti
cs
D
ev

el
op
in
g
cl
ea
r g
oa
ls
Fo
st
er
in
g
cr
ea

tiv
ity
/In
no
va
tio
n
M
in
im
iz
in
g
co
nf
us
io

n/
C
oo
rd
in
at
io
n
pr
ob
le
m
s
D
ev
el

op
in
g/
S
us
ta
in
in
g
hi
gh
m
ot
iv
at
io
n

Tr
ai
ni
ng
55%
45%
41%
35%
31% 31%
29%
26%
24%
31%
24%

20%
17%
13%13% 13%
11%
DEVELOPING YOUR TEAM-BUILDING SKILLS
This book focuses on three skills: accurate diagnosis of team
problems, evidence-based
management, and expert learning.
accurate dIagnosIs of team problems
It is difficult to identify a single measure of team functioning
because team effective-
ness is hard to define. For example, perhaps your organization
beat the competition in
winning a large contract, but the contract was ultimately not
very profitable. Was this a
victory or a failure? What will be the implications for future
competition?
Many people make the mistake of looking for causes after they
observe effects.

In the scientific literature, this is known as sampling on the
dependent variable.
For example, if your goal is to identify the determinants of a
successful team, it may
appear useful to look for effective teams in your organization
and then try to determine
what is common among them. This sounds logical, until you
realize that there may be
many common factors that have nothing to do with making a
team successful. Or there
may be common features that interfere with good teamwork but
are nonetheless difficult
to detect—perhaps precisely because they are common to all the
teams, successful or
not. One important example of this is the institutional
background of the company, for
example, taking certain established practices for granted, such
as operating procedures,

information sources, and even contractual relationships. In this
case, the team may be
effective, but not as effective as it might otherwise be. A
manager who is also entrenched
in the institutional framework of the company may perceive a
team as effective, while
overlooking its shortcomings. Thus, it is essential to be as
independent and critical as
possible when analyzing team effectiveness.
How do you avoid the trap of sampling on the dependent
variable? From a meth-
odological point of view, you can do one of two things: (1)
identify a preexisting baseline
or control group—that is, a comparison group (in this case,
unsuccessful teams)—and
look for differences between the two; or (2) do an experiment in
which you provide
different information, education, communication, and so on to
one group (randomly
assigned) but not the other. Then look for differences.
Unfortunately, most executives do
not have the time or resources to do either of these things. This
book provides insights
based upon research that has done these things before drawing

conclusions. However,
nothing can substitute for a thoughtful understanding of the
environment in which the
team operates, the incentives facing team members, and so on.
We discuss these factors
throughout this book.
Another problem is called hindsight bias, or the “I knew it all
along” fallacy.43
This is the tendency to believe that something seems obvious,
even inevitable, after you
learn about it when you have not predicted (or cannot predict)
what will happen. This
can result in an unfortunate form of overconfidence: Managers
think they know every-
thing, when in fact they don’t. We often see managers engage in
post hoc justification
rather than careful reasoning. The best way to avoid this trap is
to actively learn about
other possibilities, critically examine your assumptions, and be
open to a change of mind
once you have the facts. As you read this book, some things will
surprise you, but much
will seem obvious. As a general principle, do not rely on your
intuition; rather, test your

assumptions.
evIdence-based management
For every managerial problem, there are a dozen purported
solutions and quick fixes.
How can a manager knowledgeably choose among them? The
answer, we think, is the
science of teamwork.
Team- and group-related research is based on scientific theory.
Group-related
research accounts for over one-sixth of all the research in social
psychology and one-
third of the most cited papers in social psychology journals
focus on groups and
43Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight does not equal foresight: The
effect of outcome knowledge on judgment
under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 1, 288–299.

teams.44 The interventions presented in this book have a key
quality going for them:
They are theory-based and empirically supported. This means
that they are not based on
naive, intuitive perceptions; rather, they have been
scientifically examined. This is known
as evidence-based management.45 This book was written to
provide managers with
up-to-date, scientifically based information about how best to
manage their teams.
expert learnIng
Effective managers make mistakes, but they don’t make the
same mistakes twice. Expert
learning involves the ability to continually learn from
experience. One of the great fal-
lacies about learning is that people reach a point where they
have acquired all the
knowledge they need; in contrast, great leaders are always
learning. In this book, we use
a model that we call expert learning to refer to how managers

can continually benefit
even from the most mundane experiences. Consider Chris
Argyris’ distinction between
single-loop versus double-loop learning.46 According to
Argyris, single-loop learning
is learning that is primarily one-dimensional. For example, a
leader may believe that she
has nothing to learn from a subordinate but that the subordinate
can learn from her.
Therefore, the interactions between the leader and the
subordinate will be primarily
one-directional, or single loop. In contrast, Argyris argues that
effective leaders engage
in double-loop learning processes, which involve a reciprocal
interchange between
leaders and teams. This means, of course, that not only do
leaders coach, direct, and
instruct their teams but also that teams help their leaders learn.
Another important aspect of learning is the use of examples to
illustrate and con-
vey concepts. Experiential and example-based learning is more
effective than didactic
(lecture-based) learning.47 When people fail to use knowledge
they actually possess, this

is known as the inert knowledge problem.48 The key to
unlocking the pervasive inert
knowledge problem lies in how the manager processes the
information, and when man-
agers link examples to concepts, they learn better.49 Thus, in
this book, we attempt to
provide several ways of looking at the same problem via a
combination of theory,
research, and real business practices.
A WARNING
We believe that teamwork, like other interdependent social
behaviors, is best perfected in
an active, experimental, and dynamic environment. Thus, to
fully benefit from this book,
it is necessary for you to actively engage in teamwork and
examine your own behavior.
44Abrams, D. A., De Moura, G. R., Marques, J. M., &
Hutchison, P. (2008). Innovation credit: When can leaders
oppose their group’s norms? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 95(3), 662–678.
45Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (2006). Evidence-based management.
Harvard Business Review, 84(1), 62–74.

46Argyris, C. (1977a). Double loop learning. Harvard Business
Review, 55(5), 115–125.
47Nadler, J., Thompson, L., & Van Boven, L. (2003). Learning
negotiation skills: Four models of knowledge
creation and transfer. Management Science, 49(4), 529–540;
Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L.
(2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical
encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95,
393–408.
48Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education. New York:
Macmillan.
49Thompson, L., Loewenstein, J., & Gentner, D. (2000).
Avoiding missed opportunities in managerial life:
Analogical training more powerful than individual case training.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 82(1), 60–75.
It may seem somewhat heretical to make the point in a textbook
that team-building

skills cannot be learned exclusively from a textbook, but we do
so anyway.
We strongly urge you to work through the models and
ideas presented here in
the context of your own experience. We can think of no better
way to do this than in a
classroom setting that offers the opportunity for online, applied,
experiential learning.
It is easy to watch, analyze, and critique other teams, but much
more challenging to
engage in effective team behavior yourself. We hope that what
you gain from this book,
and the work you do on your own through team-building
exercises, is the knowledge of
how to be an effective team member, team leader, and team
designer. In the long run, we
hope this book will help you in developing your own
experience, expertise, and models
of how you can best function with teams.
Chapter Capstone
There is no foolproof scientific formula
for designing and maintaining an effective

team. If there were, it would have been dis-
covered by now. In some ways, a team is like
the human body: No one knows the exact
regimen for staying healthy over time. How-
ever, we have some very good information
about the benefits of a lean diet, exercise,
stress reduction, wellness maintenance, and
early detection of disease. The same goes
for teamwork. Just as we rely on science to
cure disease and to advance health, this book
takes an unabashedly scientific approach to
the study and improvement of teamwork in
organizations. There is a lot of mispercep-
tion about teams and teamwork. Intuition
and luck can only take us so far; in fact, if
misapplied, they may get us into trouble. The
next chapters in Part I focus on building the
team. Part II focuses on optimizing teams to
perform, and Part III focuses on the bigger
picture—the team in the organization.

26
The launch of Healthcare.gov in 2013 was such a failure that it
nearly ended the
Affordable Care Act. The Obama administration was “running
the biggest start-up
in the world, and they didn’t have anyone who had run a start-
up, or even run a
business1” said David Cutler, health adviser to President
Obama’s 2008 campaign.
To explain how poorly the website was originally designed, on
Healthcare.gov’s
first day online, only six people were able to use the site to
successfully sign up for
health insurance. However, the large-scale failure pushed the
administrative team
to create a new initiative—the Marketplace Lite team (MPL),
composed of an elite
and diverse group of designers and developers from different
tech companies. Their
mission? Rescue the website from expensive contractors and
bureaucratic
mismanagement. The MPL team spent months rewriting critical
code infrastructure

for the Healthcare.gov website. Guided by a start-up culture, the
team lived and
worked together in a nondescript suburban home in Maryland.
More often than
not, the MPL team butted heads with the government’s
bureaucratic project
managers who were alarmed when the work schedule changed or
if one feature of
the website was dropped in exchange for fixing a more critical
feature. The MPL
team had a different view of the project than the government
team; the MPL team
saw glitches and bugs not as roadblocks, but as details that
could be fine-tuned once
the whole website code structure was stable. In the fall of 2014,
the new Healthcare.
gov website rolled out with much greater efficiency—down
from 76 pages of forms,
to just 16. Eighty-five percent of all users were able to get
through the forms to a
successful insurance purchase (compared to only 55 percent in
the first version).
The MPL team also slashed costs on the log-in page: down from
a fixed cost of
$250 million + $70 million yearly maintenance to a lean $4

million to build and
$1 million to maintain per year.2
2Meyer, R. (2015, July 9). The secret startup that saved the
worst website in America. The Atlantic. theatlantic.
com/technology/worst-website-in-america/397784/; Goldstein,
A., & Eilperin, J. (2013, November 2). Health-
Care.gov: How political fear was pitted against technical needs.
The Washington Post. washingtonpost.com/
1From HealthCare.gov: How political fear was pitted against
technical needs, © The Washington Post
Designing the Team2
C
H
A
P
T
E
R

M02_THOM4204_06_SE_C02.indd 26 10/24/16 5:08 PM
http://theatlantic.com/technology/worst-website-in-
america/397784
http://theatlantic.com/technology/worst-website-in-
america/397784
http://washingtonspot.com
Chapter2 • DesigningtheTeam 27
The story of the MPL team turnaround involves selecting the
right goal, choosing
the right people, and developing a process. In this chapter, we
focus on how to build
effective teams from the ground up. The starting point presumes
that the manager has
determined that teams are necessary to do the work required.
For expositional purposes,
we take the point of view of the manager when we discuss
building the team. However,
all of our messages can be extended to the team members
themselves (as in the case of
self-managing and self-designing teams). There are three key

Making the teaM a guide for ManagersS i x t h E d.docx

Making the teaM a guide for ManagersS i x t h E d.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Making the teaM a guide for ManagersS i x t h E d.docx

Similar to Making the teaM a guide for ManagersS i x t h E d.docx (20)

More from croysierkathey

More from croysierkathey (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Making the teaM a guide for ManagersS i x t h E d.docx