Search results

In an attempt to address the turbulence which characterises their operating environment, many public sector organisations have been seduced by the concept of teamworking. Often this is perceived as offering an organisational solution to the problems presented by government demands for enhanced levels of performance, efficiency and effectiveness. This paper explores the difficulties experienced by one Next Steps agency in its attempt to introduce teamworking within a bureaucratic maze. More specifically, it highlights fundamental incompatibilities between the teamworking concept and the traditional bureaucracy, which has resulted in the existence of a number of potent “trip wires”. It is argued that these trip wires can only be disarmed and the full benefits of teamworking realised by dismantling the bureaucracy.

In many contemporary service organizations, service teams or service units are the main engines used to deliver key services to customers, client or patients. However, it remains unclear how teamwork mechanisms (i.e. the ways team members work together) influence customer service outcomes, and whether these relationships vary across different service contexts. To advance knowledge on the nature of teamwork in service teams and to set an agenda for further work in this area, there is a need to integrate and synthesize findings across the diverse literature on service teamwork. This paper aims to discuss the aforementioned objectives.

Using a meta-analytic approach, the authors analyzed a substantial pool of relevant effect sizes (a total of 372 effect sizes from 82 studies, with 14,291 service teams/units) to examine the effects of affective, behavioral, cognitive, motivational as well as perceptual teamwork mechanisms on customer service outcomes. The authors also investigated two key service context variables (service climate and service type) as boundary conditions on these effects.

The authors found that cognitive teamwork mechanisms were more strongly positively associated with customer evaluative outcomes than other mechanisms, whereas motivational and perceptual teamwork mechanisms had stronger associations with financial outcomes. Further, four of the five teamwork mechanisms demonstrated stronger correlations under a high service climate. The strength of the correlations between the teamwork mechanisms and customer service outcomes also exhibited different patterns when considered for different service types.

As with all meta-analysis, the quality of the primary studies influences the quality of the insights obtained from summarized effects. As most studies are cross-sectional design, the relationships examined in this paper cannot be interpreted causally. The authors cannot rule out the possibility of reverse causality, for example, reciprocal effects of customer service outcomes on teamwork dynamics due to the reciprocal feedback loop between customers and service providers.

The results hold important practical implications for enhancing customer evaluation and financial performance. First, the overall findings point to the need for employers to emphasize on certain types of teamwork training in order to encourage employee collaboration within service teams. For instance, service organizations could plan team building activities for service teams to promote trust, strengthen interpersonal bonds and improve problem-solving.

The results of this study provide an integration of previous research on service teamwork and fill two important gaps in the knowledge: (1) which aspect of teamwork is more important in determining customer service outcomes? And (2) does the effect of teamwork on customer service outcomes differ across different service contexts?

The purpose of this paper is to develop an understanding of academics’ approaches to managing team assessment at an Australian University with a view to informing policy development and assessment design.

The research was conducted using a single exploratory case study approach focussing on the team assessment approach of academics teaching in two colleges at an Australian University. A desktop audit of publicly available assessment policy from 38 Australian universities was conducted alongside a review of relevant college subject guides. The findings of this review framed a subsequent focus group and online survey of academic staff.

Results suggest that staff have adopted highly diverse and idiosyncratic approaches to team assessment and have mixed views about varied approaches to managing and assessing teamwork. Findings identify a need for explicit guidance and professional development on designing, managing and grading team assessments. Institutional limits and criteria should be introduced to ensure a whole-of-course approach to developing teamwork skills and ensure students are not burdened with an excessive number of team assessment tasks in a degree.

The paper reports results from an exploratory case study at a single Australian University. As such, the results are not generalizable.

The findings could inform guidelines, policies or support resources for designing team assessment tasks.

The research explores a challenging area for academics: team assessment, which the research indicates is not currently adequately managed through university policy and procedure. The findings highlight options for universities to consider when developing policies and procedures to manage team assessment. The study also provides recommendations for academics to consider when developing and managing team assessment.

The purpose is to provide explanations for why some self-managing teams survive and develop over a long period of time.

The research design is longitudinal, having worked with several research projects over a period of 20 years. Interviews, observation, field notes have been widely used, and also participative methods while one of the authors has worked on the shop floor for six weeks.

The authors offer several explanations: the maturity of teams; the process of institutionalization and creation of strong normative values; practices being “infused with meaning” and decoupling of practice from official policy.

The weakness is that the research presented is from one company, and within a Norwegian context which has certain characteristics. The contribution is the emphasis on institutional elements and the methodological implications regarding informal practice where explicit information is incomplete.

By offering an explanation for why self-managing teams can survive, one can also prescribe some important learning. Mutual cooperation and high level of autonomy prove to be important.

The main contribution is the authors' access to unique empirical data, and that they show and explain the social mechanisms for institutionalization of teamwork through participative observation.

“There are four people who should be the hub of the wheel in my factory” said James Young. James is production director of a factory making fast‐moving knitwear, where the mix is always changing according to fashion and season. “The trouble is”, he continued, “that the organisation chart makes them look more like the four legs of a table. The structure doesn't say that they are a team but they have to be”. The four managers that he is referring to are the market forecaster, the production planner, the raw materials buyer and the distribution manager. “One cannot sneeze without the others being affected. And if they don't get it right, and can't see themselves as a team, then I know only too well what that does to my already‐narrow margins. Each of them needs to be very different, but what each must have is a teamworking mentality” …. “Our audit teams are constantly changing as an audit progresses”, said a senior partner of one of the big five accountancy firms. This presents problems both for the audit manager as to how best to lead and develop his team, and for the individual auditors who often experience problems slotting into the team. And that can affect our clients adversely too which of course is not good for our business”. A large air‐conditioning contractor finds similar problems with on‐site teams. He needs to retain labour flexibility. His clients don't always like the changes. His team managers have to be skilled not only in managing the team, but they must also be adept at relating to the client and ensuring that they get the resources they need from the organisation. The team members in turn must learn to slot quickly into the new team. “All our people need to learn the same teamworking language”, says the managing director”. “There's no time to invent new rules for each new team”. The 3M company in the USA brings over one hundred new products to the market every year. They do this by creating a large number of small ad hoc teams to develop ideas and test‐market them very quickly. Some individuals find themselves involved in a number of these “venture teams” simultaneously. A major pharmaceutical company in the UK alone has one hundred and forty “temporary task groups” working on a wide range of products and issues, “I've counted a number of key managers who are involved in as many as twelve of these group”, says Alan Ladd, the management development manager. “Money spent on improving the teamworking skills of those and other managers is quite simply a major investment in the future of our business. My problem is, how do I do it?”

The area of organizational learning and the learning organization is of burgeoning interest among progressive business organizations, educationalists and consultants concerned with transformational change in turbulent business environments. A key feature of this approach to learning and managing change is a focus on teamworking. Reviews the organizational literature and identifies the role of teamworking in building a learning organization. A challenge facing contemporary business organizations is to redefine and change their organizations in such as way as to be consistent with the learning organization notion, but many difficulties remain to be articulated in the design of such organizations.

This chapter makes the case for imparting effective project management training and collaborative skills for information professionals. The authors identify the challenges of collaborative project work in online environments by reviewing the relevant project management literature within the library and information science (LIS) discipline and discussing the role of LIS schools in addressing project management and collaborative skills for information professionals.

The literature review revealed a significant lack of project management and collaborative skills among LIS professionals. However, most LIS schools are still falling short when it comes to offering project management courses on a regular basis. The authors examined the challenges of teamwork in online environments, identified project management strategies and approaches for successful teamwork, and proposed guidelines for strategic project management education for information professionals. It is recommended that information professionals should have the skills to prepare a team contract, develop a project schedule, create mechanisms for transparency and accountability, and use effective communication strategies through project management techniques.

In addition to reviewing the relevant literature on project management within LIS, and the challenges of teamwork in online environments, the authors analyzed the relevance of some collaborative concepts and frameworks that might be useful in managing collaborative projects. In particular, the implications of Tuckman’s (1965) team progression theory, lessons from Harvey’s (1988) Abilene paradox, and de Bono’s (1989) six thinking hats method were analyzed and discussed in managing collaborative projects.

By obtaining effective project management and collaborative skills, LIS professionals will be able to better meet the demands of contemporary libraries and information organizations.

This article re‐examines the theoretical foundation of self‐directed teamwork theory in light of current developments in organizational America, and suggests propositions about the relationship between teamwork and organizational policies such as downsizing. Teamwork is the exercise of creativity and autonomy by employees in pursuit of organizational goals. Effective teamwork requires a sense of trust and inclusion on the part of these employees. Organizational practices such as downsizing and contingent labor can erode this trust. If organizations wish to avoid undermining the financial, productivity and morale gains of teamwork, while observing their broader social responsibilities, they should reconsider their reliance upon downsizing and contingent workforces as a quick and dirty means of achieving cost savings.

This paper discusses the essential factors in teamwork development, which has been identified through action research conducted in co‐operation with UK based industries. The authors advocate how to draw on these factors for assessment of teamwork performance of organizations. Hence, the TEaM (teamwork excellence modified) model, a self‐assessment tool based on the EFQM framework is presented and discussed. This model incorporates both tangible and intangible elements of teamwork performance and provides the framework for assessment of different teams inside and/or outside of the organization.

This study empirically examines a model that describes the direct path from perceived understanding of supply chain integration (PUSCI) to perceived understanding of supply chain responsiveness (PUSCR) to leverage supply chain manager's communication and teamwork competencies. This study also examines whether knowledge and task skill and proficiency mediate the relationship between PUSCI and PUSCR to improve the communication and teamwork competency of a supply chain manager.

The data were collected using a survey questionnaire that was mailed to the 413 supply chain managers of global manufacturing companies in Indonesia.

The result from model testing shows that PUSCR significantly and positively affected the communication and teamwork competency of supply chain manager and knowledge, task skill and proficiency as mediating variables improved communication and teamwork competency. The results found that PUSCI was related to supply chain manager's competency.

Supply chain managers are advised to focus on PUSCI and consistently improve effective communication and teamwork competency.

This study will extend the literature by utilizing the competency-based theory to investigate the perceived understanding and communication capabilities of supply chain managers.