Notes 1. The classic Interpersonal Dynamics (1969) by Warren Bennis, Ed Schein, et al., includes contributions by Carl Rogers, Jack Gibb, and other giants on whose shoulders we stand in the interpersonal domain. 2. The story about the birth of the T-group is worth reading, since it came into being as part of an early OD intervention Lewin and his colleagues were carrying out in a Northeastern school system to reduce racism. (See Bradford, Gibb, & Benne, 1964.) 3. Much has been written about training. For a more in-depth discussion refer to Lynton and Pareek (1990) and to treatments found in Rothwell and Kazanas (1992) and Rothwell and Sredl (1992). Also, check out www.astd.org, the website for The American Society for Training and Development and www.trainingmag.com, the site for Training magazine, to find out who is doing what in the training area. References Bennis, W., Schein, E. et al. (1969). Interpersonal dynamics: Essays and readings on human interaction. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press. Blumberg, A., & Golembiewski, R. (1976). Learning and change in groups. Baltimore, MA: Penguin. Bradford, L., Gibb, J., & Benne, K. (1964). T-group theory and the laboratory method: Innovation in re-education. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bunker, B., & Alban, B. (1997). Large group interventions: Engaging the whole system for rapid change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Covey, S. (1989). Seven habits of highly effective people. New York: Simon & Schuster. Drucker, P. (2001). The essential Drucker. New York: HarperBusiness. Gibb, J. (1978). Trust. Hollywood, CA: Newcastle. Goldsmith, M., Lyons, L, Freas, A., & Witherspoon, R. (2000). Coaching for leadership: How the world’s greatest coaches help leaders learn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Goleman, D. (2003). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1972). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Johnson, B. (1992). Polarity management: Identifying and managing unsolvable prob- lems. Amherst, MA: HRD Press. Jongeward, D. (1976). Everybody wins: Transactional analysis applied to organiza- tions. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Kerr, B., & Minno, D. (1999). Unraveling the knot. In P.M. Senge, A. Kleiner, C. Roberts, G. Roth, R. Ross, & B. Smith (Eds.), The dance of change: The challenge of sustaining momentum in learning organizations. New York: Currency/Doubleday. Levinson, D., Darrow, C., Klein, E., Levinson, M., & McKee, B. (1978). The seasons of a man’s life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. PERSON-CENTERED OD INTERVENTIONS 401 22_962384 ch15.qxd 2/3/05 12:23 AM Page 401 Lynton, R., & Pareek, U. (1990). Training for development (2nd ed.). West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press. Marrow, A.J. (1977). The practical theorist: The life and work of Kurt Lewin. New York: Teachers’ College Press. Novak, P. (1994). The world’s wisdom: Sacred texts of the world’s religions. San Fran- cisco: Harper San Francisco. Pareek, U. (1984). Interpersonal styles: The SPIRO instrument. In J.W. Pfeiffer & L.D. Goodstein (Eds.), The 1984 annual: Developing human resources (pp. 119–130). San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Pfeiffer, J.W., & Ballew, A. (1988). Using instruments in human resource development (Vol. 2: UA Training Technologies). San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company. Rogers, C. (1970). Carl Rogers on encounter groups. New York: Harper & Row. Rothwell, W., & Kazanas, H. (1992). Mastering the instructional design process: A sys- tematic approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rothwell, W., & Sredl, H. (1992). The ASTD reference guide to professional human resource development roles and competencies (2nd ed.) (2 vols.). Amherst, MA: Human Resource Development Press. Scherer, J.J. (1980). Job-related adaptive skills. Toward personal growth. In J.W. Pfeiffer & J.E. Jones (Eds.), The 1980 annual handbook for group facilitators. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Scherer, J.J. (1981, Winter). The role of chaos in creating change. The Journal for Cre- ative Change, 11. Scherer, J.J. (1986). STRIPES: A breakthrough process. In J.W. Pfeiffer & L.D. Goodstein (Eds.), The 1986 annual: Developing human resources. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Seashore, C., & Weinberg, G. (1997). What did you say? The art of giving and receiving feedback. Columbia, MD: Bingham House. 402 PRACTICING ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT, 2ND EDITION 22_962384 ch15.qxd 2/3/05 12:23 AM Page 402 CHAPTER SIXTEEN Team Building Past, Present, and Future* W. Gibb Dyer, Jr. T eams and their relationship to organizational effectiveness have been a hot topic in the management literature and popular press in recent years. Self- managed teams, virtual teams, cross-functional teams, and other types of teams have been popularized and studied as to their role and impact on orga- nizations. Moreover, the field of organization development (OD) has historically focused on helping such teams improve their effectiveness. In many ways, the field of OD developed out of an interest that OD scholars and practitioners have had in teams and team dynamics, which can trace its roots to the early experi- ments with “training-groups” or “T-groups,” which were largely sponsored by National Training Laboratories (NTL). My father, William G. Dyer, was part of what might be called the “group dynamics-humanistic psychology” movement in the 1960s that focused on the use of T-groups to enhance individual and organizational effectiveness. The basic T-group was composed of eight to twelve strangers who met with a pro- fessional trainer over a week or two to gain insight regarding their own behav- ior and the behavior of others. In those early days, many T-group professionals, like my father, believed that the T-group was the vehicle for improving the lives of individuals and organizations. However, in the late 1960s, Campbell and Dun- nette (1968) reviewed the various studies that had documented the impact of 403 ∂ ∂ *This chapter is dedicated to my father, William G. Dyer, who taught me the importance of build- ing effective teams—especially the family. 23_962384 ch16.qxd 2/3/05 12:24 AM Page 403 T-groups. They concluded that T-groups seemed to have some impact on improving the interpersonal competencies of individuals, but there was little evidence that T-group training had a significant impact on team or organiza- tional performance. In light of these findings, my father and others began to look for new approaches to improve team performance that would build on what was learned from the T-group experience, while modifying the approach to help intact work teams function more effectively. After some experimenta- tion, a new model of team development, called “team building,” emerged. My father noted the reasons for the shift from the T-group to a team building model: “As practitioners developed more experience in applying the T-group methods to work units, the T-group mode shifted to take into account the differences of the new setting. It became clear that the need was not just to let people get feed- back, but to help the work unit develop into a more effective, collaborative, problem-solving unit with work to get out and goals to achieve. Slowly the methodology shifted from the unstructured T-group to a more focused, defined process of training a group of interdependent people in collaborative work and problem-solving procedures.” (Dyer, 1977, p. 23) While T-groups are still used today in some instances to improve team per- formance, we will turn our attention in the rest of this chapter to describing how OD consultants currently help team performance through (1) understanding team context, structure, and dynamics and (2) utilizing proven team-building inter- ventions. After covering these two areas, I will briefly discuss the skills and abil- ities needed by the team-building consultant and the role of team building in the organizations of the future. UNDERSTANDING TEAM DYNAMICS A basic understanding of group and team dynamics is essential for OD consul- tants to engage effectively in team-building activities. Initially, it is important to have a normative framework from which to critique the functioning of a team. Douglas McGregor (1960, pp. 232–235)), in The Human Side of Enterprise, pro- vided eleven dimensions to critique team effectiveness: 1. Atmosphere and relationships: What kind of relationship exists among team members? Are relationships formal and reserved or close and friendly? 2. Member participation: Does everyone participate in team activities and interactions? 404 PRACTICING ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT, 2ND EDITION 23_962384 ch16.qxd 2/3/05 12:24 AM Page 404 3. Goal understanding and acceptance: How well do members accept the goals of the team and are committed to them? 4. Listening and sharing information: Are people willing to listen to each other and share important information, or are they afraid to share their ideas for fear of looking foolish or being punished? 5. Handling conflicts and disagreements: Are conflict and disagreement tolerated and used to improve the group or are they avoided, brushed aside, or flamed into conflict? 6. Decision making: How are decisions made? How many members par- ticipate in making decisions and have an opportunity to provide input? 7. Evaluation of member performance: What kind of feedback do mem- bers receive about their performance? Do they receive personal attacks and criticisms or frank, frequent, and objective feedback? 8. Expressing feelings: Do people feel free to express their feelings openly on more than just task issues? 9. Division of labor: Are task assignments clear and are they willingly accepted? 10. Leadership: How are leaders selected? Are the leadership functions shared, or is the team dominated by one person? 11. Attention to process: Is the team conscious of its own operations? Can it monitor and improve its own processes? To a large extent, the role of the team-building consultant is to help teams improve along these dimensions. Furthermore, the ability of the team to improve its performance is generally the function of the organizational context for the team, the structure and development of the team, as well as the processes that drive the team dynamics. ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT For consultants to help teams improve their performance, they need to have some understanding of the organizational context in which teams function. Under- standing the organizational context will help OD consultants better appreciate the issues and concerns of team members and avoid blind spots that can make them appear uninformed and, thus, undermine their credibility. There are several con- textual factors that need to be understood. The first factor is the nature of the task that the team has to perform. Is the task to make decisions, monitor some oper- ation or activity, or actually perform the work of the organization? Does the task TEAM BUILDING: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE 405 23_962384 ch16.qxd 2/3/05 12:24 AM Page 405 require high levels of cooperation and coordination of team members, like mem- bers of a basketball team, or little coordination, more like a golf team? The con- sultant has to understand clearly the task (or tasks) that the team has to perform in order to critique the functioning of the team. The second factor is the type of work team. Teams differ to the degree that they have the ability to determine their goals and the methods to achieve them (Thompson, 2004). There are basically four types of teams: (1) the manager-led team is the traditional team in which the manager determines the goals and activ- ities of the team; (2) the self-managing team is one in which the manager or leader determines the overall purpose or goal for the team, but team members have the authority to develop their own methods for achieving team goals; (3) the self-directing team determines its own objectives and the means to achieve its goals; this type of team is given the authority and responsibility that allows it to change quickly to meet a changing environment; and (4) self-governing teams not only have the power to determine their own goals and objectives but also have the ability to determine the organizational context and allocate resources to the organization as a whole. Boards of directors are typically this type of team. In helping a team improve its performance, understanding the extent to which the team has autonomy and authority to determine goals and the means of achieving those goals is highly important. In some cases, the role of the team- building consultant may be to help a team evolve from one form to another. For example, there has been significant emphasis on helping teams move from man- ager-led teams to self-directed work teams. TEAM COMPOSITION AND STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT The consultant also has to be aware of the composition of the team and its stage of development. Composition includes team size as well as the knowledge, skills, and abilities of team members. Teams need to include, or have access to, the requisite skills and knowledge required to accomplish the task. Research on team func- tioning has recognized that teams that are too large are often unwieldy and per- form ineffectively. Teams that are too small have too few human assets to accomplish the task. While there is no absolute “right” number of team members for any given task, the consultant should be able to inquire as to the appropriate- ness of the size of the team, as well as determine whether there are certain skills and knowledge lacking in the team that inhibit the team from achieving its goals. Those who study teams note that they develop in fairly predictable ways. While there are various theories of team development (for example, Gersick, 1988), I have found Bruce Tuckman’s (1965) stage model to be the most helpful to me in diagnosing team dynamics. Tuckman indicated that teams go through the following stages: 406 PRACTICING ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT, 2ND EDITION 23_962384 ch16.qxd 2/3/05 12:24 AM Page 406 • Stage 1, Forming—getting to know one another. This stage is noted by some caution, confusion, and tentativeness on the part of team members. • Stage 2, Storming—team members begin to differentiate into subgroups based on various characteristics (for example, age, education, race), and team members realize that they don’t agree with one another on some of the issues facing the team. Conflict and confrontation characterize this stage of development. • Stage 3, Norming—after conflict and confrontation, the team begins to develop rules for determining who does what and how the work will be performed. The new team norms allow the team to manage the conflicts between them and achieve some level of cohesion. • Stage 4, Performing—the stage where the team members begin to collab- orate with one another and achieve a level of cooperation that allows them to perform at a high level. Conflicts still exist, but tend to focus on the task, rather than on interpersonal issues. Moreover, the team at this stage has developed mechanisms to manage conflict successfully. • Stage 5, Adjourning—this describes the stage where the team disbands because the team has completed its task or team members choose to go their own way or are given other assignments. Other research on team development by Ralph Katz (1982) has demonstrated that teams increase their performance substantially during the second and third years of their existence. Teams with little time together need time to work through early stage issues before they can perform at a high level. Conversely, Katz found that the teams that stayed together longer than four years tended to get stale and lose their creativity and energy. To understand the underlying cause of certain team dynamics, OD consultants should be aware of the stage of team development and the tenure of team mem- bers before starting team-building activities. For example, it is important to real- ize that some conflict occurs as a natural part of team development and therefore should be anticipated by the consultant. The consultant may also look for signs of stagnation in those teams that have been together for long periods of time or anticipate some role confusion and tentativeness in newly formed teams. TEAM PROCESS Edgar Schein (1988, 1999), in his writings about process consultation (PC), pre- sents what I would consider the important team process issues that consultants must to be aware of in order to do effective team building. Thus, I encourage the reader to review his books on the subject, for process consultation is an TEAM BUILDING: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE 407 23_962384 ch16.qxd 2/3/05 12:24 AM Page 407 important approach to team building. Although PC will not be covered in depth in this chapter, I will draw on Schein’s work and that of others to summarize briefly the key team processes. One of the most important processes in teams is communication. Schein indi- cates that consultants should ask the following questions about communication in the team: • Who communicates? How often? For how long? • Who communicates to whom? • Who talks to whom? Who interrupts whom? The answers to these questions will help the consultant determine who in the team has power and influence, determine coalitions within the team, and determine whether or not the team communication patterns facilitate or hinder the accomplishment of team goals. Decision making is another important process. Schein notes that there are several patterns that teams follow to make decisions: • Decision by lack of response (“plop”). Team members make suggestions or present ideas, and no other team members follow up to build on the suggestion or idea. The suggestion merely “hangs” over the group, then “plops” to the floor, and the team moves on to other issues; • Decision by formal authority or self-authorization. Someone in the group takes it upon himself or herself to make the final decision; • Decision by minority of team members; • Decision by majority rule: voting and/or polling; • Decision by consensus; and • Decision by unanimous consent. The decision-making process ranges from the team requiring all of its mem- bers to be in agreement, which takes significant time but can lead to higher lev- els of commitment, to a process where the team leader makes all the decisions, a process that is likely to be much less time-consuming, but which calls into question the need for the team and its varied opinions and assets. Consultants working with teams should identify the decision-making processes of the team to determine whether the team decision-making style is appropriate given the task and the situation (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982). Teams with structured tasks, short time frames, and composed of relatively “immature” team members (lack- ing in experience, judgment, or skill) may find a more authoritarian decision process appropriate. With complex tasks requiring the input and commitment of all team members, a consensus approach is more likely to be successful. 408 PRACTICING ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT, 2ND EDITION 23_962384 ch16.qxd 2/3/05 12:24 AM Page 408 Pressures for conformity to the team may also influence the decision-mak- ing process. Irving Janis (1982) notes that certain teams develop a decision- making pattern called “groupthink,” where dissent is stifled and conformity to team norms is rewarded. Teams experiencing groupthink fail to examine all the alternative courses of action, are quick to sanction dissenters, and see their actions as inherently moral, above reproach. Examples of teams experiencing groupthink are President Kennedy’s team planning of the Bay of Pigs invasion and NASA administrators whose actions led to the Challenger disaster (and it also appears to be the culprit behind the more recent Columbia mishap). In these cases the key decision makers were insulated from important information and ideas that might have changed the decisions to invade Cuba or launch the Challenger. Moreover, team members involved in these decisions felt strong social pressure to keep quiet, even though they had significant personal mis- givings. The lack of healthy discussion and debate led to a failed invasion and the loss of the space shuttle. Another similar dynamic is what Jerry Harvey (1974) calls the Abilene Para- dox. Harvey discovered that teams may take certain actions that none of the team members actually prefer. Because the team members don’t want to rock the boat, they fail to share their true feelings. For example, Harvey described a team that continued to support a seriously flawed R&D project because each team member felt that the other team members were supportive of the project— even though each of them, when asked individually, had serious misgivings about the project’s future. However, because each team member felt that the other team members wanted the project to proceed, each censored his or her true feelings. Pressures to conform are powerful team dynamics that often deter- mine how effectively the team will perform. Conflict is also a prominent feature of most teams. Conflicts can be catego- rized as relationship conflicts, task conflicts, or process conflicts (Thompson, 2004). Relationship conflicts are based on differences in interpersonal style or social issues that are not work related. Task conflicts refer to those conflicts regarding the nature of the task and how it is to be performed, while process conflicts revolve around differences regarding the methods and strategies used to accomplish the task. Relationship conflicts are almost always detrimental to team performance, for they divert energy and attention away from the impor- tant work of the group. Task and process conflicts, on the other hand, if man- aged properly, can actually enhance team performance, for such conflicts can motivate the team to search for better solutions to its problems. One of the most common problems in teams is not the presence of conflict but its absence. Whether team members learn that conflict is to be avoided because of its potential negative consequences or whether conflict is suppressed by team leaders, the lack of conflict may signal a significant problem for the team. Often, as a consultant, my role is to stimulate rather than reduce team conflict. TEAM BUILDING: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE 409 23_962384 ch16.qxd 2/3/05 12:24 AM Page 409 Finally, pioneering work by Kenneth Benne and Paul Sheats (1948) suggests that team members play certain roles that they define as either task roles or maintenance roles. Task roles involve such things as initiating team action, informing team members of important information, clarifying ideas and sug- gestions, summarizing key points, and giving the team a reality check as to the validity of its ideas. Maintenance roles focus on maintaining good relationships in the group. These roles concern harmonizing to handle conflicts, developing compromise solutions, and helping the group achieve consensus. Encouraging others to give input and serving as a gatekeeper to facilitate communication are also deemed to be important maintenance roles. Effective teams are composed of team members who accept and ably perform both task and maintenance roles. Other roles, labeled blocking roles, stymie team performance. Some team members can be highly aggressive and attempt to dominate the team or block decision making. Others want to avoid any type of conflict, while others might want to “goof off” and play the role of comedian. Keen observers of team dynamics can determine what roles team members are playing (and team mem- bers can play multiple roles) and thus gain insights into what might be done to create, enhance, or change the roles of team members. Armed with good theory regarding how organizational context affects team performance, how team composition and developmental stage may play a role in the performance of a team, and how team processes affect team outcomes, the OD consultant is now prepared to engage in the art (and science) of team building. The team-building consultant must be well-versed in team theory, for it will do a team little good for the consultant to focus on team processes if the team is composed of the wrong people for a particular task. Moreover, it may be unproductive for the consultant to focus on changing team composition if process issues are paramount. TEAM BUILDING IN ACTION Before beginning any team-building activity, the question should be asked: Is team building needed? Exhibit 16.1 is a checklist that can help to answer this question. If the consultant knows the team well, he or she can fill out the question- naire. If not, team members either individually or collectively (depending on the level of trust in the team) can answer the questions. Teams that recognize that they have a need to improve their performance will respond better to team- building activities than teams will that feel they are forced to “do team build- ing” by their superiors. If team building is needed, the next question to ask is: Who should conduct the team-building session: the team’s manager or a consultant? Exhibit 16.2 will help to answer this question. 410 PRACTICING ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT, 2ND EDITION 23_962384 ch16.qxd 2/3/05 12:24 AM Page 410 . team development and the tenure of team mem- bers before starting team-building activities. For example, it is important to real- ize that some conflict occurs as a natural part of team development. successful. 408 PRACTICING ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT, 2ND EDITION 23_962384 ch16.qxd 2/3/05 12:24 AM Page 408 Pressures for conformity to the team may also influence the decision-mak- ing process the team- building consultant may be to help a team evolve from one form to another. For example, there has been significant emphasis on helping teams move from man- ager-led teams to self-directed