تغییر کاربردی تیم در مقابل تغییر ناکارآمد تیم : تشخیص مشکل و بازخورد ساختاری برای تیم های خودگردان

We describe and examine three changes (personnel, process, and structure) that self-managed teams can make to remedy performance problems. We also discuss why self-managed teams may over-emphasize process and (to a lesser extent) personnel changes over structural changes. Furthermore, we describe and test two specific diagnostic feedback interventions aimed at helping teams make functional structural change. Seventy-eight 4-person teams of undergraduate students participated in two trials of a networked laboratory simulation task. All teams were initially structurally misaligned and subsequently received (a) no feedback, (b) one type of feedback only, or (c) both types of feedback. Results confirmed that structurally misaligned teams demonstrated dysfunctional change by changing process more frequently than structure, with detrimental effects for subsequent performance. When teams received the feedback interventions, however, they were more likely to change their structure and thereby improve their performance.

Self-managed teams have been described as “one of the most far-reaching innovations” (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 1998, p. 34) of work design, due to the relatively broad ability of these teams to make decisions about the way they go about their tasks. This level of autonomy is a hallmark of self-managed teams (Morgeson, 2005), and allows them to rapidly modify their task strategies to accommodate a changing environment or to remedy performance deficiencies. Indeed, many scholars have advocated the use of self-managed teams because of the flexibility afforded by this autonomy (Ancona, 1990 and Kozlowski and Bell, 2003). The assumption behind this advocacy of self-managed teams is that because they are “close to the action,” self-managed teams can correctly diagnose the cause of their performance deficiencies and carry out appropriate remedies. In other words, self-managed teams should have more information about the cause of the problems they are facing, and thus will make fitting, functional changes that will solve those problems. But some scholars have questioned this assumption, suggesting that self-managed teams sometimes are not sufficiently aware of changes in their environments (Gersick & Hackman, 1990) or make dysfunctional changes in themselves (e.g., Langfred, 2007, Manz and Sims, 1982 and Polley et al., 1994). If self-managed teams do indeed occasionally make dysfunctional changes, a key challenge for teams research is to explore exactly when and how such dysfunctional changes occur. We suggest that one important issue in this regard involves team structure: the social architecture of the team that describes how its work is organized and differentiated (Hollenbeck et al., 2002). Functionally structured teams display a highly differentiated division of labor, where each member specializes in a specific part of the team’s task. In contrast, divisionally structured teams represent a low level of differentiation of labor, where each member is a generalist and can perform any part of the team’s task. Consistent with structural contingency theory (Burns & Stalker, 1961), research has found that functionally structured teams perform best in predictable task environments, whereas divisionally structured teams perform best in unpredictable or rapidly changing task environments (Hollenbeck et al., 2002). This is because functionally structured teams can leverage the efficiency inherent in their differentiation of roles in predictable situations, but this efficiency breaks down when the task is constantly changing. Divisionally structured teams can leverage the flexibility inherent in members’ ability to perform any of the team’s tasks, which is particularly helpful when it is difficult to predict what will happen next and/or the team needs to respond quickly. However, structural adaptation theory (Johnson et al., 2006) suggests that structural change is particularly problematic for teams. When team structure is misaligned with the task environment, teams typically perform poorly, but teams often find that making structural changes is difficult, due to their history of working under a different structure. We extend structural adaptation theory by suggesting that when teams are structurally misaligned, they frequently neglect to make adaptive structural changes. Instead, self-managed teams often misdiagnose the nature of their performance deficiencies as being caused by their personnel or processes, and as a result, implement dysfunctional change. Thus, our interest in this study was to examine teams whose structure was misaligned with their task environment, and determine whether they realize that misalignment was the cause for their poor performance. Emerging work on team adaptation is reaching consensus on the process of team change, suggesting that teams engage in various activities after completing tasks, activities that can affect their performance in future tasks ( Chen et al., 2005 and Marks et al., 2001). For example, some team research has suggested that reflecting on the team’s past performance can lead them to make changes that positively affect their future performance (e.g., De Dreu, 2007). To date, however, the content of team change has seldom been examined. Thus, we develop a diagnostic list of possible changes that teams can make, arguing that self-managed teams can diagnose the cause of their performance deficiencies as being due to personnel, process, or structure. Then, we describe why self-managed teams are likely to neglect making structural changes. Finally, we examine two feedback interventions that might ameliorate this neglect.

Self-managed teams have been described as “one of the most far-reaching innovations” (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 1998, p. 34) of work design, due to the relatively broad ability of these teams to make decisions about the way they go about their tasks. This level of autonomy is a hallmark of self-managed teams (Morgeson, 2005), and allows them to rapidly modify their task strategies to accommodate a changing environment or to remedy performance deficiencies. Indeed, many scholars have advocated the use of self-managed teams because of the flexibility afforded by this autonomy (Ancona, 1990 and Kozlowski and Bell, 2003). The assumption behind this advocacy of self-managed teams is that because they are “close to the action,” self-managed teams can correctly diagnose the cause of their performance deficiencies and carry out appropriate remedies. In other words, self-managed teams should have more information about the cause of the problems they are facing, and thus will make fitting, functional changes that will solve those problems. But some scholars have questioned this assumption, suggesting that self-managed teams sometimes are not sufficiently aware of changes in their environments (Gersick & Hackman, 1990) or make dysfunctional changes in themselves (e.g., Langfred, 2007, Manz and Sims, 1982 and Polley et al., 1994). If self-managed teams do indeed occasionally make dysfunctional changes, a key challenge for teams research is to explore exactly when and how such dysfunctional changes occur. We suggest that one important issue in this regard involves team structure: the social architecture of the team that describes how its work is organized and differentiated (Hollenbeck et al., 2002). Functionally structured teams display a highly differentiated division of labor, where each member specializes in a specific part of the team’s task. In contrast, divisionally structured teams represent a low level of differentiation of labor, where each member is a generalist and can perform any part of the team’s task. Consistent with structural contingency theory (Burns & Stalker, 1961), research has found that functionally structured teams perform best in predictable task environments, whereas divisionally structured teams perform best in unpredictable or rapidly changing task environments (Hollenbeck et al., 2002). This is because functionally structured teams can leverage the efficiency inherent in their differentiation of roles in predictable situations, but this efficiency breaks down when the task is constantly changing. Divisionally structured teams can leverage the flexibility inherent in members’ ability to perform any of the team’s tasks, which is particularly helpful when it is difficult to predict what will happen next and/or the team needs to respond quickly. However, structural adaptation theory (Johnson et al., 2006) suggests that structural change is particularly problematic for teams. When team structure is misaligned with the task environment, teams typically perform poorly, but teams often find that making structural changes is difficult, due to their history of working under a different structure. We extend structural adaptation theory by suggesting that when teams are structurally misaligned, they frequently neglect to make adaptive structural changes. Instead, self-managed teams often misdiagnose the nature of their performance deficiencies as being caused by their personnel or processes, and as a result, implement dysfunctional change. Thus, our interest in this study was to examine teams whose structure was misaligned with their task environment, and determine whether they realize that misalignment was the cause for their poor performance. Emerging work on team adaptation is reaching consensus on the process of team change, suggesting that teams engage in various activities after completing tasks, activities that can affect their performance in future tasks ( Chen et al., 2005 and Marks et al., 2001). For example, some team research has suggested that reflecting on the team’s past performance can lead them to make changes that positively affect their future performance (e.g., De Dreu, 2007). To date, however, the content of team change has seldom been examined. Thus, we develop a diagnostic list of possible changes that teams can make, arguing that self-managed teams can diagnose the cause of their performance deficiencies as being due to personnel, process, or structure. Then, we describe why self-managed teams are likely to neglect making structural changes. Finally, we examine two feedback interventions that might ameliorate this neglect.