Working together teamwork and team leadership

Summary Teamwork, when put into practice, can be difficult to achieve successfully on longterm projects. There are, however, techniques available for optimising team performance. This article looks at a selection of modern methods that can be utilised in order for a team to raise the prospect of achieving success. The attainment of excellence in teamwork is examined, together with the skills needed to become an effective team leader. Examples are given of practical problems faced in the development of design proposals. Keywords: teamwork, team leadership, team reflexivity, brainstorming, constructive controversy. Level: beginner Time equivalence: 30 minutes (article only); 40 minutes (article and self-test questions); 2 hours (article, self-test questions and exercises).

Learning objectives 1. Be able to appraise team strengths and weaknesses. 2. Understand the various methods of brainstorming, when they should be utilised and how. 3. Recognise how to make group decision-making easier, more efficient and effective for the team. 4. Appreciate how excellence can be achieved in teamwork and the techniques that can be introduced to perform successfully as a team. 5. Comprehend the qualities needed by someone wishing to succeed as a team leader. 6. Be able to evaluate a practical teamwork situation and apply decision-making principles to a design or related problem.

Introduction Effective teamwork and team leadership are essential requirements of construction work which revolves around team effort to achieve common goals. A previous article set about introducing the basic factors essential to good teamwork and communication, and examined concepts such as groupthink (or teamthink). This article will build on these previous elements and examine in more detail the concept

FREECPD LIMITED, 2005

of brainstorming when planning team activity, team decision-making, excellence in teamwork, as well as providing vital information for those who are leaders or who are considering team leadership. Before examining good teamwork practice, you might find it helpful to know where your team stands in terms of its effectiveness. To assist you, the following questionnaire has been formulated to enable you to find out how well your team functions. Ask all team colleagues to complete it, but without conferring with one another. Then, add the scores together for the task element (a) and do the same, but separately from the task reflexivity section, for the social element (b). Subsequently, divide these two totals by the number of people completing the questionnaire. Finally, match the score with the relevant score category found at the end of the questionnaire.

Team Reflexivity Questionnaire Write the appropriate number, based on a scale of 1 to 7, in the box beside each statement to indicate how far each statement is an accurate or inaccurate description of your team.
Very Inaccurate 1 2 Very Accurate 6 7

a) Task reflexivity 1. The team often reviews its objectives. 2. We regularly discuss whether or not the team is working effectively together. 3. The methods used by the team to get the job done are often discussed. 4. In this team we modify our objectives in light of changing circumstances. 5. Team strategies are often changed. 6. How well we communicate information is often discussed. 7. This team often reviews its approach to getting the task done. 8. The way decisions are made in this team is often reviewed. Total score

FREECPD LIMITED, 2005

b) Social reflexivity 1. Team members provide each other with support when times are difficult. 2. When things at work are stressful the team is very supportive. 3. Conflict does not linger in this team. 4. People in this team often teach each other new skills. 5. When things at work are stressful, we pull together as a team. 6. Team members are always friendly. 7. Conflicts are constructively dealt within this team. 8. People in this team are quick to resolve arguments. Total score

High scores: 4256 Average scores: 3441 Low scores: 033 If you have achieved a high score, well done! Task and social reflexivity are the two elements that are important to be in step with in order to function effectively as a team. The well-being of members must be promoted alongside the goals or objectives to be achieved. Objectives must be regularly reviewed and, importantly, the teams methods of working to achieve those objectives must also be reviewed. The team must fulfil its socially-responsible role or social reflexivity by reflecting upon ways in which members are provided with support, how conflicts are resolved and the overall social climate of the team. Team effectiveness contains three functions. Two of those have been discussed above. The third is team viability or the ability of the team to continue to work together effectively. It is not a good team if conflict tears it apart after the first obstacle. Time can be a true test of a teams viability.

Brainstorming Two or more heads are usually better than one. Brainstorming is an ideal exercise for eliciting ideas before an effective decision is made, for instance on a design proposal, and is particularly useful for work involving team participation. For those who are not

FREECPD LIMITED, 2005

well-versed in the technique, there are two methods available the traditional and the computer-supported1 method see table 1. As a pre-requisite, it is important to remember that the facilitator of the brainstorming exercise must not be judgemental; for the exercise to be effective all ideas must be taken into consideration, no matter how unconventional they are. Table 1. Traditional vs. computer-supported brainstorming Traditional brainstorming A group of 512 individuals is preferable. State as many ideas as possible in 1560 minutes. Ideas must be arranged in related groups (i.e. clustered). Disadvantages: people might not be able to talk or be heard because of others talking; there is the possibility of fear of peers and some individuals might be put off by supervisors, perhaps because of worry over criticism. Computer-supported brainstorming Each member is networked with others in the group via computer. The computer-based system allows each member to enter ideas as they occur. Advantages: it produces more ideas than traditional brainstorming and can be anonymous so there is no fear of peer pressure or intimidation from supervisors; individuals can contribute freely and it is likely to encourage spontaneity of ideas.

Should a suitable computer-based system be unavailable, the approach is still possible using email, where views and ideas can be circulated to the group through the leader. Most organisations have modern emailing capabilities such that delay in sending and receiving new mail can be minimised, enabling the free flow of ideas.

Team decision-making problem solvinginvolves integrating previous experience and knowledge together with natural mental skills in an attempt to resolve a situation whose outcome is unknown. (Adair, 1986) Problem-solving must be used when decision-making is hindered by uncertainty and ambiguity. As problem-solving encompasses the twin task of putting a fault right and taking opportunities, it requires the skills of the innovator and the entrepreneur. Decision-making involves selecting a course of alternative actions derived from the application of problem-solving. This section is not able to cover fully both techniques: it is the team aspects of decision-making that will be examined here.

Computer-based learning systems, of which there are many, may have an in-built capability for managing group workshops and for recording the interaction between participants.

FREECPD LIMITED, 2005

It is widely believed that teams are capable of making better decisions than those acting alone, although research suggests that social pressures can undermine effective decision-making processes. The following points outline the deficiencies in team decision-making according to organisational behaviourists and social psychologists.

The hidden profile phenomenon It is important that information only known about by a minority of the team is disseminated to the team as a whole. Team members must have clearly defined roles so that everyone knows who to speak to for specific information. Members need to listen carefully to colleagues contributions and leaders must alert the team to information that is known by the minority only.

Airtime and expertise There is a correlation between airtime (the length of time a team member discusses something at a meeting) and expertise (their knowledge and skills in the area) in high-performing teams.

The social loafing effect This is the tendency of individuals in teams to work less hard than when working independently. In organisations, individuals may put less effort into achieving quality decisions in meetings if they think that their contribution will be hidden by overall team performance.

Diffusion of responsibility This is the inhibition of individuals from taking responsibility for action when in the presence of others, thinking that others will shoulder the responsibility. In an organisation, an individual may fail to act in a crisis where expensive equipment is necessary, for example, and will assume others will make the necessary decisions.

Excellence in teamwork In order for a team to achieve excellence, the first priority is to achieve outstanding performance of the task itself. To do this, the problems due to the effects of conformity, obedience to authority and defensive routines must be minimised or ideally eradicated. Researcher-writer, Dean Tjosvold is credited with established the concept of constructive controversy, which involves the team exploring opposing opinions carefully and discussing them in an atmosphere of co-operation. This is claimed to lead to an increased quality in decision-making and team effectiveness.

FREECPD LIMITED, 2005

Teams should, first, describe their positions carefully, explain how they came to their decisions and indicate their level of certainty about the positions they have adopted. Information about the positions of others should be sought from those who oppose the formers views. Additionally, common ground should be explored, emphasising personal regard for those who hold opposing views. A decision should be reached based on rational understanding as opposed to an attempt to dominate. Consensus should be reached by combining several ideas if possible. Appointing a devils advocate is another way of achieving effective decision-making. Robert Kennedy, the Attorney General to the Kennedy administration was appointed as one to criticise the Cabinets decisions over the 1963 Cuban Missile Crisis so that members could ensure that the arguments proposed were carefully examined for strengths and weaknesses. The same can be achieved for a design proposal or indeed many other propositions. A third possible method known as stakeholder analysis is useful when an issue needs to be explored in more depth so that, for instance, existing design solutions can be improved upon. The team must act as if it were each stakeholder group in turn and consider all the advantages and disadvantages arising from team objectives, strategies, processes or proposed changes. A list is then drawn up of these advantages and disadvantages. Finally, team members modify the proposed objective in order to minimise the disadvantages to the stakeholder group and/or maximise the advantages.

Taking the lead There are several ways in which someone in charge can control a team. They may chair team meetings or involve themselves in a more far-reaching role as team leader which involves the three central tasks of: 1. creating the right conditions for the team to work in from the outset 2. building and maintaining the team as a unit 3. coaching and continually supporting the team to success. The first important obstacle for the leader to overcome is to fight to ensure that the team gets the required budget, accommodation, IT equipment, or other tools in order for it to complete its task successfully. In addition, it must make sure that the boundaries of the team are well-defined; those who are not in the team must be regarded as peripheral. As a general guide, teams should consist of six to eight members. Second, team-working skills must be nurtured in the team members by the leader. These may include good decision-making, problem solving and conflict management, which have been covered above and are also found in related articles. Third, the leader must give the team support and direction in order to encourage it to succeed. This requires the team leader to be sensitive to the teams mood and to how well team members are interacting with each other. The leader must then intervene when necessary in order to encourage more meetings between certain members, promote a more frequent exchange of information and support suggestions made by members of the team. Getting members to suggest possibilities to correct a mistake is a sign of

FREECPD LIMITED, 2005

good leadership. The question: well, what do you think are the problems here and how should we go about solving them? is an excellent one for getting team members to think about their proposal. The leader must be clear about providing a compelling sense of direction in delivering the objectives that must be achieved; it is not sufficient to leave team members to their own devices. The task must be a challenge, but accomplishable and be met with a high variety of skills, comprise a whole piece of work and be important to the organisation or the wider society.

Teamwork in practice According to Waterhouse and Crook (1995), it is because of initial approaches to a design task in the built environment that many problems develop in the area of teamwork. The following example considers two groups setting out to propose the construction of a hall of residence on a university campus site: group A and B. Both incur problems and these will be evaluated to find better ways to approach the task.

Group A Week 1. Brief exchange of views about what the task may mean. This leads to a freeflowing discussion about design ideas. Some members strongly defend their own suggestions. No real agreement was reached. It was suggested that criteria be drawn up to test all suggested ideas. Analysis. The group did not seem to discuss the tasks objectives thoroughly enough. There was little discussion and no clear direction emerged. Whilst ideas were free-flowing, members were defensive rather than open to other suggestions. What about the combination of a number of ideas from different people (i.e. adding-on)? Weeks 2 & 3. Ideas had been investigated, either by doing background research or exploring different design solutions. However, the group struggled with these contributions. Work was finally divided up into tasks for sub-groups. Sub-chairs would be responsible for monitoring progress and reporting back to a steering group. Attendance and deadline rules were outlined as well as an indication of what was deemed to be a fair contribution from each member. The group failed to address all aspects of the agenda by week 3, but did make some progress; however, the resulting processes were rigid and time-consuming. If there is sufficient time, the group will complete its task. Analysis. The criteria for measuring different design solutions do not appear to be in use if the group finds it is struggling. This does not indicate which design solution was selected and what tasks would be performed by the sub-groups, so it is difficult to understand whether it was an efficient division of work or not. Perhaps too many items were on the agenda or the task had been made too difficult to approach, instead of being broken down into manageable chunks.

FREECPD LIMITED, 2005

Group B Week 1. Three people quickly engaged in a discussion concerning their personal experiences of student accommodation and what students would like to see in a new hall of residence. Two other members of the group focused on the brief in question and had a discussion about what the task meant. The other members of the group were not involved much in the two discussions and talked about other subjects. It was suggested at the end of the meeting that the group needed a leader. Someone volunteered to fulfil the role as she now understood the task. No-one disagreed. Analysis. The formation of the group into a team is non-existent; instead, members have been divided unconsciously into three groups, one of which is not focusing on the task in question. A leader should have been chosen at the beginning of the proceedings in order for clear, efficient direction to be provided from the outset. The leader should be someone who has confidence in understanding the task. In this case, the leader has understood the task very late into the week and will be unlikely to provide the right kind of direction and impetus to the group. Week 2 & 3. The leader arrives with a schedule showing the dates when the key tasks were to be completed. The schedule is discussed by the group. Concern was expressed in week 3 about the progress of work. Some group members were critical of the schedule and began to blame the leader, saying that two weeks had been wasted doing the wrong things. A new leader was elected after a heated debate. Analysis. The idea to install a new leader was seen to be the answer to all the previous setbacks. Yet, the leaders authority was challenged and agreement within the group as a whole had not been reached, either about the task objectives or the groups objectives. The leader was not strong or confident enough to stand up to the backlash of a few members. If the leader had been democratic and there had been time, she could have asked for suggestions as to how the brief would be best organised. However, if time is lacking the best option must be implemented swiftly without objection from group members.

Conclusions Successful teamwork involves innovative idea generation, compromise and clear understanding of the proposed objectives, together with the flexibility to be able to modify proposals accordingly. It is essential for a good leader to be confident enough to understand and embrace the requirements of the task, as well as someone who can communicate the design objectives with vision to the team. Whilst teamwork is generally understood to be more effective than individual decision-making, it can suffer many shortcomings, if not more, than individual work; but with the correct approach and by steering clear of groupthink it can be an excellent driving force for productive results.

FREECPD LIMITED, 2005

Exercises 1. Complete the team reflexivity questionnaire. How did your team fair? How do you think you could improve on future team performance? 2. Have you tried a form of computer-supported brainstorming to generate ideas for a design proposal? If not, how would you approach this task to ensure that it is performed fairly and efficiently? 3. Consider how you would introduce one of the techniques listed in the Excellence in teamwork section. Which one would you introduce and why? Where would you apply the method? 4. Carry out an evaluation of a team exercise that you have experienced on a design project, perhaps similar to the hall of residence example. Was teamwork positive? 5. How was the leader chosen in the team exercise you evaluated in question 4? Was it a good decision and what positive/negative effects occurred as a result?

FREECPD LIMITED, 2005

Self-test questions Q1. The two main functions of team reflexivity are: task reflexivity and social reflexivity. individual reflexivity and group reflexivity. task reflexivity and group reflexivity. Q2. Computer-supported brainstorming is more advantageous than the traditional method because: a) it is faster at delivering results. b) it is possible to send ideas via email anywhere in the world. c) it is anonymous and encourages rather than discourages members to contribute ideas freely. Q3. Constructive controversy involves: discussion of opposing views in a co-operative atmosphere. a) conflicting views that can be added-on in a discussion. b) a wide range of views being presented on a proposal. Q4. A team is struggling with too many design proposals. The best way to deal with this particular problem would be to: assign the different proposals to groups of people within the team to analyse. create criteria to measure the different design proposals and group-analyse. a) look at the design proposals with successful criteria and piece together the successful elements to produce an add-on design. Q5. The three important functions that a team leader must fulfil in order for a team to be successful are to: a) provide good equipment, get a good budget for the team to work with and teach the team problem-solving skills. b) create the right starting conditions for the team, maintain the team and coach the team. c) fulfil the task, team and individual needs.

FREECPD LIMITED, 2005

10

Answers to self-test questions Q1. a) Correct the well-being of team members, together with the task in hand creates good conditions for team reflexivity. b) Incorrect these two factors are possibly confused with Adairs leadership theory involving task, team and individual. The task element has been negated. c) Incorrect two of Adairs factors are being confused with the reflexivity doctrine; it is social, not team reflexivity. Task reflexivity is correct though. Q2. a) Incorrect although computers are faster than written communication generally, this is not the mainstay of the argument for computer-based systems over the traditional method in terms of the objective it is setting out to meet. b) Incorrect it is possible for email to do this, but the preferred form of computer-supported brainstorming uses purposely-designed learning systems. c) Correct when using computer-supported brainstorming, ideas can be produced without others knowing who sent them in order to curb peer pressure. This means that people will feel at ease to contribute ideas freely and therefore hopefully produce more ideas than when one is under social pressure. Q3. a) Correct this method allows diverse views to be put together constructively without the fear of backlash from others who wish to stand by their own views and criticise others. b) Incorrect this technique is generally known as adding-on and allows different, but advantageous, design solutions to be incorporated into the one main design. c) Incorrect this is simply a discussion not a technique! Q4. a) Incorrect this will possibly cause the team to break up into splinter groups and make the communication process more complicated and time-consuming. b) Incorrect this proved to be a failure as demonstrated in the example. c) Correct this seems the most sensible option, since it enables different people to contribute their skills and knowledge and incorporate them to their best effect in the final product. Q5. a) Incorrect these are too specific objectives that may not necessarily contribute to the success of the team since two of them are resource rather than peoplecentric. There is no mention of long-term team coaching. b) Correct these three central tasks are essential for the leader to carry out to ensure top performance for the team. c) Incorrect this refers to Adairs leadership theory rather than being specific to teambuilding and team leadership.

FREECPD LIMITED, 2005

11

References and bibliography Adair, J. (1986) Effective teambuilding: how to make a winning team. London: Pan Books. Belbin, R.M. (1993) Team Roles at Work. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Maund, L. (1999) Understanding people and organisations: an introduction to organisational behaviour. Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes. Stott, K. and Walker, A. (1995) Teams: teamwork and teambuilding: the managers complete guide to teams in organisations. London: Prentice Hall. Sugarman, K. (1999) Winning the mental way: a practical guide to team-building and mental training, Burlingame, CA: Step Up Publishing. Walker, A. (2002) Project management in construction. 4th edn. Oxford: Blackwell. Waterhouse, M. and Crook, G. (1995) management and business skills in the built environment. Spon: London. West, M.A. (2004) Effective teamwork practical lessons from organizational research. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.

FREECPD LIMITED, 2005

12