The document discusses team development and performance. It begins with defining the differences between good and poor teams, and what needs to happen for teams to develop well. Next, it examines the stages of team development using Tuckman's model and discusses factors that contribute to effective team building like clear goals, roles, and processes. The document concludes by outlining elements to consider when planning team building activities like evaluating outcomes, allowing sufficient time, and structuring exercises to facilitate reflection and growth.

1. • Quizzes
• Housekeeping
• Team building
• Tuckman model
• Groups vs. Teams
• Why do teams fail?
• What makes teams work?
• Background on TB
• Team time for TB presentation
• Analysis of team meetings
• Reflective learning & team process

2. QUIZ!

3. Team
Development
And
Performance

5. Difference between
good and poor teams
• What are the differences between “good” and
“poor” teams?
• What needs to happen to make a difference
if you want to develop good
teams?
Think of teams, committees, task forces, groups, etc., that
you have been a member of…

6. Team Building
“You Americans have
caught on to our secret of
productivity in Japan–
teams! But we will still win.
You think all you need to
do is to put people
together in groups and
something will happen. We
know that’s only the
beginning.”
-- President of Matsushita

7. What’s the difference between
“good” and “poor” teams?

8. Teams in the workplace
• In 1980 an estimated 250 worksites
used teams; by 1988 it had
increased to 67% and by 1990 to
83%. Nearly all workplaces have
introduced teams to some degree
at this time
• 80% of Fortune 500 companies
have half their employees working
in teams
• 56% of large companies with over
5,000 employees use virtual teams
• Industry Week reports that 68% of
small companies use teams, with
over 25% having 25-99% of
employees in teams

9. Advantages of Teams—
Team wins!
• Shenandoah Life improved case handling time from 27 to 2 days
• Sherwin-Williams lowered costs by 45% and reduced returned goods by 75%
• Tavistock Coal increased output by 25% and reduced absenteeism by 75%
• Proctor & Gamble had 30-50% lower manufacturing costs
• Kodak improved SPC by 228%, safety by 67%, output by 12%, and decreased
cost by 11%
• GE improved productivity by 250%
• Westinghouse reduced cycle time from 17 days to 1 week
• Ford had lower defect rate than most Japanese competitors
• General Mills had productivity 40% higher than in its traditional plants
• American Transtech reduced costs by and processing time by 50%
• Honeywell increased output 280%, and quality stepped up from 82% to 99.5%
• A GM battery plant reported a productivity savings of 30-40%
• OVERALL-- In a study of SDWT’s in 7 countries: 93% increased productivity,
86% lowered operating costs, 86% enhanced quality, 70% improved
employee attitudes

11. When it just doesn’t work our the way you planned—
The failure of teams…
• 6 out of 10 work teams fail
• It may take a year or more for new teams to
reach pre-team performance levels
• SDWT’s work least well during downsizing
(when most needed)
• 58% of executives express frustration in
developing and sustaining team motivation
• >50% of teams fail due to unclear or
changing objectives, lack of accountability or
management support
• Managers report limiting effort on 56% of
their teams

12. In a study of 569 managers, they reported that they
limited their efforts or input in over 56% of the
teams in which they participated. The major causes
for giving up were cited as:
• Presence of someone with expertise (73%)--I wasn't needed
• Presentation of compelling argument (62%)--I didn't have other
information for an argument
• Lack of confidence in ability to contribute (61%)--I wasn't prepared
or there were other "high power" people.
• Unimportant or meaningless decision (52%)--why waste my time?
• Pressures to conform to team decision (46%) --groupthink at its
best!
• Dysfunctional decision making climate (39%)--you want me to risk
what?!
When Team Members Give Up

13. When Teams Fail
• Lack of skills on task or as team members
• Missing basic talents: abstract thinking, social intelligence, emotional
resilience, work attitude
• Lack of energy due to low meaningfulness, respect, or trust
• Lack of clear focus: mission, vision, values, strategy, tactical goals
• Unclear, inconsistent, conflicting, or overloaded roles
• Uncertain measures of performance for team & individual
• Lack of timely feedback with accountability & coaching

14. Differences between teams and
individuals–
what we know from research & practice
• Social facilitation: people are more motivated to perform better with
others, especially on motor tasks, when comfortable, well-trained, &
good work habits
• Learning: Teams learn faster than individuals when there is division of
labor, contributions are additive, feedback is available & accepted
• Judgment: Teams can be superior due to broader knowledge & more
inputs; trained individuals better than untrained groups; confidence
unrelated to quality with untrained

15. • Risky Decisions: Greater risk taken with teams that are
excessively cohesive (groupthink), under great pressure to decide,
norms against reflection, & diffusion of responsibility
• Problem Solving: teams produce more and better quality
solutions, based on interest in task, most skilled members, and
error checking
• Time Efficiency: Teams usually take more time to complete a task
(e.g., Braess Paradox)
• Idea Production: Teams continue to produce after individuals run
dry, especially with training and cohesion (trust & spring-boarding)
More differences between
teams and individuals–

16. • There is sufficient time available.
• Members are adequately trained in their
specialization areas as well as in team
membership skills.
• Wide diversity of information and inputs are
necessary.
• A high quality decision is required; the decision is so important that
judgment of several qualified people is a must.
• The problem is poorly structured (e.g., unclear objectives, vague
alternatives, uncertain outcomes).
• Commitment to the plan is important and would be gained by team
decision.
• Team representation of many stakeholders would facilitate
organizational acceptance of the decision or plan.
Guidelines: In general, teams should be
chosen over individuals when:

17. • What is team-building?
• What’s the difference between team
building and team development?
• When can team building be done?
• What interpersonal mechanisms
are the focus of TB (e.g., group
“dynamics”)?

18. Team Presentations
• Identify the nature of the team
• describe the activity & why you selected it
• explain the behaviors and mechanisms in the
activity that contribute to team building
• indicate what you would expect participants to
learn

19. Risk-Taking

20. Considerations for Team Building
Background
• History, norms, culture
• Context of current request
• Why now (not 6 months earlier/later?)
• What happens if TB is not done?
• What do you want to be different?
• What’s prevented this from happening until now?
Evaluation
• What are the immediate, short and long term indications that TB was
successful? (e.g., Kirkpatrick Model)
Design
• Sufficient time (2-3 hours); protected time (retreat)
• Homework, preparation
• Legitimacy, authorization, support
• Materials (handouts, surveys, facilities, A-V, etc.)
• Structured exercises & processing

21. Tuckman Stages of Team Development
1. Forming
2. Storming3. Norming
4. Performing
Reforming
JoiningAdjourning
• Differences,
influence,
power, conflict,
complementing
• Acquaintance,
goals, roles,
procedures,
constraints,
resources,
schedule, etc.
• Team cohesion,
norms, conformity,
groupthink risk,
team espirit
• High performing
team: Task focus,
quality, productive,
reflective, espirit, etc.
Low Task Emphasis High
LowSocialEmphasisHigh

22. Positive experiences
Key incidents
16 weeks
X
X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
3 hours
Microlab
# # # # # # # # #
Negative experiences
Sequence of structured exercises
Laboratory Education or T-group (Training Group)

23. 1. What is our understanding of the goals and objectives which this team was
organized to achieve? How can we ensure we are all going in the same
direction?
2. What special skills, information, backgrounds, and expertise do each of us
bring to this team?
3. What structure, format, style and schedule do we prefer for our meetings?
4. What roles do each of us prefer on a team? What are our strong and weak
roles? Which do we over/underuse?
5. What are our preferred styles of working and relating? How can these
differences be used to complement each other, and be sequenced for more
effective problem solving?
6. What stresses each of us? How might our styles change under pressure?
What can we look for as signs of stress? How can we give useful and
acceptable feedback and support at these times?
7. About what are we most likely to disagree? What are our preferred modes of
conflict and conflict resolution? How can we disagree constructively?
8. What can we do to enhance the identity and cohesiveness of this team?
How can we create our own team culture?
9. What norms do we bring from other team experiences? What norms would
we like to explicitly include or avoid?
10. How can we ensure a team culture in which we can freely question and
update restrictive norms?
11. How can we best monitor and discuss our team processes so we can
continue to develop and improve?
Stage 1:
Forming
Assessing
resources &
setting
direction
Stage 2:
Storming
Positioning,
influence,
conflict,
complemen-
tarity
Stage 3:
Norming
Identity,
cohesion,
monitor norms
Stage 4:
Performing
Maintain high
performance

24. For Week 3: Your team task is to—
• Assume you are a consultant to a particular group. Observe
a team meeting or committee meeting.
• In class, describe the stages of the meeting and
interpersonal dynamics (see “what to observe in a group”
web article
• What did they do that was effective and ineffective; explain
the dynamics that led to such behavior; make recommended
changes
• Teams will make a brief (10-15”) presentation in class next
week

25. The Reflective Learning Cycle

26. Category Description Possible
interpretation &
implications
Interventions
Communication (for
example)
• One person spoke more
than others
• Members directed most
communication to most
frequent talker
• Topic change was
initiated by primary
talker
• Primary talker initiated
moving to decision
• Emergence of leader
• Potential imbalance of
introvert and extravert
• Risk of dominance or
development of passive
norms
• High task orientation
• Possible under-
development and
utilization of member’s
skills
• Encourage “leader” to be
“gatekeeper”
• Distribute leadership to
others
• Leader attend late and
empower others to begin
work
• Discuss interaction and
implications of styels
Team Processing (reflecting on
interactions and processes)

27. Category Description Possible
interpretation &
implications
Interventions
Communication (for
example)
• One person spoke more
than others
• Members directed most
communication to most
frequent talker
• Topic change was
initiated by primary
talker
• Primary talker initiated
moving to decision
• Emergence of leader
• Potential imbalance of
introvert and extravert
• Risk of dominance or
development of passive
norms
• High task orientation
• Possible under-
development and
utilization of member’s
skills
• Encourage “leader” to be
“gatekeeper”
• Distribute leadership to
others
• Leader attend late and
empower others to begin
work
• Discuss interaction and
implications of styels
So… add other categories of what to observe and
continue elaborating on the chart

28. The “Learning Organization”:
Reflective learning on all three levels:
Individual, team, organization–

29. 3S Team Reflection
STAY: What did we do that
worked well for us and we
should continue?
STOP: What did we do that
got in our way and we should
discontinue?
START: What didn’t we do
that would make us more
effective and we should start?