Motivating Team Spirit for Higher Performance
Motivating Team Spirit for Higher Performance:
Maximizing the Individual
Hussein Chaitani
Steven D. Harris
Vanessa Attart
Sam Geha
LDR/711
Karla Neeley Hase, Ed. D.
July 5, 2004
Motivating Team Spirit for Higher Performance: Maximizing the Individual
Introduction: Team Membership as a Way of Work
Henry Ford once said “coming together is a beginning, staying together is a process, and working together is success.” Whether you are a team player or not, at one time or another in your life you will have to be part of a group and perform in that group. Every leader, manager, or supervisor in any possible environment should be able to determine under which circumstances a team makes sense and is likely to be productive and successful to an organizations goal. As cited in the article Marques (2002) “we can all admit that some people make better team-members than others, but for some of us it remains a fact that you cannot work in a large corporation, take on a large project, become a star sportsperson, or reach the top charts as an artist if you do not know the basics of team performance.” This paper will look at the logic of having teams, the benefits of team rules and several factors of team performance. These factors are team personalities, team structure, the importance of team buy-in, team cohesion, and synergism. We will also look at the importance of the usually overlooked but nevertheless important components of humor and physical activity. What role do incentives play and is there a higher pleasure than incentives? The pleasure zone at work is introduced. Organizations successful in spirit building are exampled. This paper will end with the proposal of a leadership model: Maximizing the individual.?
Teamwork: 1+1=3?
As Marques (2002) aptly phrased it, “sometimes it is better for the team members to work independently and at the end to join forces and output the job requirements. However, he also agrees that at some point in time groups will have to work together to get the job done. He points out the advantage and disadvantages of teams working together.”??
First, several heads are more productive, creative, and thorough than one. In a team if the members get along better, there is more synergy, which equals more output from the team than members do individually. Second, different people have different skills or complimentary skills; assignments can be based on specialization and have a guaranteed faster and better result. Thirdly, the members of a team will, in a pleasant environment, obtain satisfaction and knowledge from their team performance. This will ultimately benefit the entire organization since it has been proven that a person’s performance multiplies when he or she experiences satisfaction. However, if one team member tries “free-riding” this is a downside to and major turn-off and may affect the rest of the team. In addition, personality conflicts may also be a great disrupting issue, as are incompatible attitudes, work styles, and problem solving approaches. Team rules are a simple way to preempt such problems.?
Team Rules: The pillar to team performance
With team rules formulated, team goals and expectations are clear, and each person is aware of his specific task. Also, keeping meetings brief and well structured, interesting, and productive is an important ingredient. It is also a good idea to involve all members in the decision process, even if it is just through notification. In addition, just to name a few more suggestions giving members recognition for their achievements will motive the team members. Finally, Marques (2002) states that by executing these simple guidelines, the team will be encouraged to at least perform up to set expectations, and even exceed them. Team members converge on the objective by following guidelines. But they also give valued added as individuals. A key aspect of an individual is his personality and it has an impact on team dynamics and functioning.??
Team Functioning: Personalities?
? An article by Clinebell & Stecher (2003) revolved around student teams and their use of researched methods based on personality assessment tools. These tools empowered them to enhance team development by allowing students to appreciate different personalities on team performance and functioning. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), was first used by Myers and McCaulley in 1974, who stated that "The basic assumptions underlying using the MBTI with teams remain the same: Knowledge of individual differences will help teams identify the particular talents and gifts that each member brings to his or her task; and this knowledge can help reduce conflict by reframing potential sources of misunderstanding as natural individual differences" (p. 363).?
The article also explored the five-factor model (FFM) on team performance. This model, according to Costa and McCrae’s assessment, states that normal personalities can be identified in terms of five dimensions: “(a) Neuroticism refers to the tendency to experience negative affect (emotional stability is the opposite construct and is used in lieu of neuroticism in some scales); (b) Extraversion refers to the tendency to be assertive, sociable, active, and talkative; (c) Openness is characterized by curiosity, active imagination, and aesthetic sensitivity; (d) Agreeableness refers to the tendency to be cooperative and altruistic; and (e) Conscientiousness refers to self-discipline, determination, and will to achieve” (p. 366).
The majority of the students felt the above-mentioned personality trait models were helpful. It was expressed that the students understanding of each other’s behaviors was useful in promoting team functioning. Awareness of individual differences allowed for a more satisfying and supportive social relations that translated into group cohesion, morale, and overall team performance. It was obvious that getting to know your teammates personalities raised the spirits of the students to work better together (Clinebell & Stecher, 2003). Also important in team functioning is its structure.?
Team Functioning: Structure
Another study by Stewart & Barrick (2000) was designed to determine how team structure relates to team performance. They expressed that a single optimal structure for teams does not exist. The level of difficulty and type of task, whether production or conceptual, can curve the effects of the relationship results. Team structure is “defined here as team relationships that determine the allocation of tasks, responsibilities, and authority” (p. 136). The article is mainly interested in the interdependence and performance relationships within teams, but does express that “interaction develops a cohesive team identity that creates esprit de corps and motivates team members by encouraging them to subjugate personal interests for the interests of the team as a whole” (p. 138). This particular interaction was explained to be at the high end of the interdependence continuum. Such interaction can better facilitate group norms resulting in higher levels of agreement, reduce conflict, and enhance communication. For conceptual tasks, it is shown that the socioemotional processes of both open communication and less conflict is associated with higher team performance (Stewart & Barrick, 2000). Another ingredient to higher team performance is getting team members’ buy-in.?
Team Functioning: Buy-In
The article by Forrester & Drexler (1999) uses several company examples to examine the critical issues that team-based organizations must resolve to perform effectively. The included Figure 1 from the article shows the overall team-based organization performance model discussed. Included in the model, and most important for team spirit and esprit de corps, involves buy-in by the individuals and the team members to the organizations course of action. This buy-in has to do with the internal team commitment to their work, involvement in decision-making, understanding that their work is right for the company and a sense of ownership of their work with resoluteness in doing it.?
One of the keys to buy-in for organizations is the connecting values of teams. As the article describes, “Where teams have the freedom to act and the resources to be productive, they will tend to buy into the organization's enterprise when one other condition applies: that the organization's work taps a deeply held value or set of values. This connection to what is most important or meaningful to teams and their members creates a sense of mission and an esprit de
corps that bonds teams together and to the organization as a whole” (Forrester & Drexler, 1999, p. 40). It also affects cohesion and synergism.?
Team Functioning: Cohesion and Synergism??
The paper by Bradley and Hebert (1997) proposes a model of the impact of the personality-type composition of a team on overall team performance. The article lists three characteristics of productive teams: effective leadership, intra-team communication, and group cohesion. The author’s states “Cohesion has … been identified as a crucial ingredient in team effectiveness. A cohesive team will demonstrate a spirit of togetherness and support for one another that helps team members quickly resolve conflicts without residual hard feelings” (p. 341). They also state, “As the level of cohesion increases, the level of conformity to group norms also increases. This is a positive trait as long as the group norm is not in conflict with the norms of the organization” (p345). This stance reinforces the previous article’s buy-in concept. One of the perspectives portends that cohesion affects thinking most, vs. feeling. As they state “The feeling member…will be constantly aware of the esprit de corps and do what they can to maintain harmony” (p. 346).?
? Ultimately, a balance makes for the best teams. Thinkers are task accomplishment oriented, while feelers are people oriented. This basic difference suggests that a balance between thinkers and feelers in the group is among the primary influences on a team's esprit de corps resulting in the synergism that makes team work valuable. The article claims that team composition of personality types does appear to be an important explanatory variable for differences in team performance. Overall, a greater balance of extroverts and introverts, sensing types and intuitive types, and thinking and feeling types appears to have influenced successful team performance (Bradley and Hebert, 1997). Besides balance of the team, it is also important to balance mind and body and mange stress.?
Laughter & Physical Activity: Stress Management and Bonding
Humor need not be saved for “after-work” but we can start by using it in the workplace. It will help to relieve stress, as laughter is a natural way to relieve tension. Furthermore, it will create a positive atmosphere, which will motivate staff. Meetings will also be more energized if a positive tension free atmosphere exists. People who have shared a humorous moment are usually more willing to work together and this stimulates team spirit. (Gibbson, 2004)?
Physical activity or exercise will also result in a positive working atmosphere as it helps the brain to function better, relief stress and increase self-esteem. Exercise fuels the brain and enhances learning performance. Here I like to use the example Susan used in her article titled Smart Moves. When Tom Conklin was a freshman at Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minn., he labored toward a slot on the cross-country team. The prerequisite for trying out was a 2.0 grade point average—and Conklin struggled through most of the year on academic probation. During sophomore year, and having inched up to a C average, Conklin qualified. Then, when he began training, his average shot up to a B. ‘I could suck information and remember it,’ marvels Conklin, who in his years since as a teacher and administrator has routinely steered floundering students into aerobic sports (Brink, 1996).
It is not a secret that essential ingredient to individual and team success is staying focused on the job and enjoy a great health sport helps all the above. It is not of great importance the amount of sport one does rather than the quality and the frequency of the exercise. One does not have to exercise to have the body of Arnold Schwarzenegger nor should one set a comprehension target the level of Einstein.?
According to the research cited in Brink’s article, “exercise not only fuels the brain with a better blood supply, but it feeds brain cells with a heartier supply of natural substance, known as neurotrophins, that enhance their growth” (Brink, 1996). There are not enough studies to show the effect of exercising on the young generation, when it comes to expanding the capability of comprehension and happiness. While there are numerous studies on the older generation that proves the positive effect on the brain cells, exercising has proven to slow the deterioration of those cells. Just as kids grown up do not need another reason to exercise, studies have shown that three-workout session can do a wonder of positive effect on the body as well as on the brain. Healthy, individuals have the tendency to work better in a team increasing the synergy amongst the team members help tremendously in enlightening the spirit of the team, which in turn will yield positive results. Besides health, performance, is also affected by outside factors such as incentive programs.?
Incentive Programs: Prodding people for better performance
“According to a recent study sponsored by the Society of Incentive & Travel Executive Foundation”, research has shown that consistent boost of performance when incentives programs are used (Author unknown, 2002). According to this article titled: More Proof Programs Work, “Long-term incentives are more powerful than short-term. Research results showed a 44 percent gain for programs that run for more than a year, a 29 percent gain for programs one to six months in duration and 20 percent gain for weeklong programs.” (Unknown author,2002) when people asked what the reason was helping them the most in achieving there results, they answered the incentives program was what helped them deliver better performance (2002).?
Daniel Goleman agrees and points out “although traditional incentives such as bonuses or recognition can prod people to better performance, no external motivators can get people to perform at their absolute best. Wherever people gravitate within their work roles, indicates where their pleasure lies-and that pleasure is itself motivating” (Goleman, 2000).?
The Pleasure Zone: For Pleasure, Go to Work
??The article by Scott Cambpell focuses on coaching for peak Performance through temperament and helping find people their Workplace Pleasure Zone. As cited in the article Campbell (2003) an individual enters this zone when their work environment (individual responsibilities, team roles, and organizational culture) engages and sustains their whole self. In other words, temperament refers to an innate pattern or system of how a human being is organized psychologically. For example, characteristic needs, values, and talents that a person reveals. These three characteristics form a unified whole. Furthermore, the author suggests that a person’s temperament is the core person’s psychological needs. For example, Artisans need the freedom to act on their impulses and the ability to make an immediate impact while Guardian’s need to have membership and belonging, and act responsibly. These needs create one’s fundamental motivations in life.?
As Campbell (2003) aptly phrased it “if these temperament-based needs are not meet tremendous stress and discouragement is experienced plus a frequent source of lackluster performance at work.” Therefore, the opposite of that is that if a person is meeting their psychological needs he will find his Workplace Pleasure Zone. People who have found work that meets those needs are deeply satisfied and highly motivated. The sad part of this is that most people are rarely conscious of their needs. Therefore, the primary coaching focus is to help people develop an awareness of their temperament-based needs so that they can choose environments, tasks, and roles that will meet these needs and lead them into their Workplace Pleasure Zone.
The author makes a distinction between temperament values and personal values. For example, if a person’s core needs is for knowledge and competence it is natural and necessary for the person to value such things as concepts, and expert relationships. If a person works in an organizational culture or a job that either ignores or violates these values causes profound distress.
The solution and conclusion is the alignment between someone’s workplace environment and their temperament needs, values, and talents releases tremendous and lasting sense of pleasure in one’s work Campbell (2003). Marques (2002) & Campbell (2003) touch upon some of the most important issues that keep motivation and spirits up in organizations. Both perspectives are very helpful for managers and individuals who want to grow and develop in the business world. By knowing oneself more, being aware of your personality type, and being open, one can align oneself with the environment that best fits both personal and psychological needs. Otherwise, misplacement can be very stressful and unsatisfying for everyone. In addition, individuals can loose good energy and valuable time in the wrong place with the wrong people and this can be counter productive. Let us now look at some organizations that are good in building team spirit.?
Role Models in Spirit Building: Johnson & Johnson, Nestle and the California School District
?An example of employees exhibiting corporate esprit de corps are the employees of Johnson & Johnson’s 200 operating companies. “Johnson & Johnson is the world's most comprehensive and broadly based manufacturer of health care products, as well as a provider of related services, for the consumer, pharmaceutical and medical devices, and diagnostics markets. Johnson & Johnson has more than 200 operating companies in 57 countries around the world employing 109,500 employees and selling products in more than 175 countries.”(J&J Website, 2004) The organizations responsibilities toward its employees is embodied in the Credo, Johnson & Johnson’s mission statement:?
“We are responsible to our employees,
领英推荐
the men and women who work with us throughout the world.
Everyone must be considered as an individual.
We must respect their dignity and recognize their merit.
They must have a sense of security in their jobs.
Compensation must be fair and adequate,
and working conditions clean, orderly and safe.
We must be mindful of ways to help our employees fulfill
their family responsibilities.
Employees must feel free to make suggestions and complaints.
There must be equal opportunity for employment, development
and advancement for those qualified.
We must provide competent management,
and their actions must be just and ethical.”
In 1943 General Robert Wood Johnson, who guided Johnson & Johnson from a small, family-owned business to a worldwide enterprise, wrote and first published the Johnson & Johnson Credo. It was a one-page document outlining his very perceptive view of a corporation's responsibilities beyond the manufacturing and marketing of products. He urged his fellow industrialists to embrace what he termed "a new industrial philosophy”. Johnson defined this as the corporation's responsibility to customers, employees, the community and stockholders. Johnson saw to it that his company embraced the Credo, and he urged his management to apply it as part of their everyday business philosophy. (Credo, 2004) This is an embodiment of Kant’s views that the norms that govern an organization must be acceptable to all. At Johnson & Johnson, they are and company employees participate in an annual survey and evaluation of just how well the company performs its Credo responsibilities. These assessments are then fed back to the senior management, and where there are shortcomings, corrective action is promptly taken. This is a great example of participant management style where employees are free to suggest and even criticize their employer. The atmosphere created encourages innovation and cross-functional teams from around the world turn out one innovative product after another.?
Another Model is that of Nestle Waters North America Inc. On inspiring their employees, the CEO of Nestle said:??
We want to create an environment that goes far beyond mere satisfaction for our employees. We want to create an environment in which people are here to do more than draw a paycheck…Employees are excited and passionate when they have real responsibility and the ability to act on it. To create this environment we must: Create a cause worthy of commitment; provide everyone with the responsibility, freedom and skills to make real contributions to the success of the company; help everyone grow and develop; and serve a positive role model who embodies our beliefs.
Furthermore, on the entrepreneurial environment that they strive to exhibit at Nestle he said, Entrepreneurial means everyone thinks like an owner and works to improve the business daily. The entrepreneurial spirit at Nestle has been alive since the creation of the company in 1976. Being entrepreneurial means to innovate…to take risk…to think prudently…. individuals and teams take initiative to get things done. We share our experiences –both good and bad – with people throughout the company so we can learn together (Nestle, 2004).
A third example of a role model is taken from the Forrester and Drexler (1999) article. We see an example of how the researchers applied their buy-in perspective to the California Jefferson School District. Originally, this district was a highly charged political environment with high interference from the board. Such interference created feelings of helplessness in the school principles such that they only focused on their individual schools, rather than the governing teams. With guidance, the teams were directed to regain ownership and buy-in to the district course of action. According to the article, “Buy-in to the organization's course of action is a central dimension of the team-based organization performance model. It represents both the bottom line and the turning point in the organization's move to high performance” (p. 40). Certainly, as mentioned previously, high performance is directly related to good team spirit.?
Besides teams and individuals comprising them, leadership must also be included as a key factor to successful teams.?
Leadership Model: Maximizing the Individual
Several leadership models promote team spirit and esprit de corps in order to maximize performance. In Blake and Mouton’s Grid Theory from the Bass text, (1990), we see that the optimal spot on the grid is the 9, 9 position of Team Management. This position is where “The leader integrates the concern for production and the concern for people at a high level; is goal centered; and seeks results through the participation, involvement, and commitment of all those who can contribute” (p. 484). This “common stake” perception from the 9, 9 grid position is much like the “buy-in” concept previously mentioned. Such relationships lead to trust and respect, which always promote team spirit.?
It was also stated in Bass that active leaders are usually associated with greater satisfaction and effectiveness of their followers. Thus, a direction or participation style of leadership “…contributes positively to the productivity, cohesiveness, and satisfaction of the group” (p. 551). Again, such associations are instrumental in raising team spirit. Certainty transformational leaders would exhibit such leadership traits, depending on the team structure.?
Affiliative leaders practice another model that also contributes to productivity, cohesiveness, and satisfaction. They create emotional bonds and harmony. It revolves around people, positive feedback is offered and a feeling of belonging is built. A leader should use it to built harmony, increase moral, improve communication, or repair broken trust (Goleman, 2000).
Kant’s moral philosophy has also lead to a leadership theory. Kant points out that each person thinks of himself or herself as a rational creature that is entitled to dignity and respect. His philosophy is egalitarian and rejects that one can use another as a means. We can only be bound by rules that we ourselves would accept as rational legislators. “Laws made by human beings themselves should govern them” (Bowie, 2000). “The laws must be capable of being universally applied and respect the humanity in a person as an end rather than as a means merely.” (Bowie, 2000) “The norms that govern an organization must be acceptable to all.” In his model, Kant suggests that the leader is a decision proposer rather than a decision imposer. (Bowie, 2000)
All of the above models and more in the literature have elements that directly affect teams and individuals leading these teams. We have seen the importance of teams in the work environment. “Coming together is a beginning, staying together is a process, and working together is success.” Many elements have to be included to reach that success and keep the team together. Team members get along better if there is more synergy that will result in more output from the team than members individually. Team goals and expectations have to be clear and each person has to be aware of their specific task. Personal interaction is important and getting to know teammates’ personalities raises the spirits of the team members and they will work better together. Structure is unique to every team and is created by the team’s interaction. That “interaction develops a cohesive team identity that creates esprit de corps and motivates team members by encouraging them to subjugate personal interests for the interests of the team as a whole”. Buy-in has to do with the internal team commitment to their work, involvement in decision-making, understanding that their work is right for the company and a sense of ownership of their work with resoluteness in doing it. This has to be balanced among the team. The balance will lead to cohesion. “As the level of cohesion increases, the level of conformity to group norms also increase. This is a positive trait as long as the group norm is not in conflict with the norms of the organization”. People coming together and challenging workloads invariably lead to stress and humor and physical activity are important stress management and bonding techniques. Incentive programs help deliver better performance but the ultimate performance of individuals in teams is extracted when a person’s temperament-based needs are met. At that level, little stress and a lot of encouragement are experienced. This is when the person fulfills his or her psychological needs and this is when he will find his Workplace Pleasure Zone. It is the role of the leaders to provide the ideal environment of teams and employees to perform. We believe the above elements create the ideal environment. The environment that Maximizes the Individual. This is the task of the leader.?
Conclusion
Teams and the individuals comprising them are organizations most valuable assets. With time, individuals and organizations are gaining greater insights on how to work together, to stay together, and to be successful. Leadership is a valued asset and a much sought after resource of most organizations. Leadership is also evolving and is important in creating an organizational environment and culture where individuals can give their best. By having a greater understanding of leadership innovations and individual and organizational culture differences, and the understanding of the various temperaments, individuals and organizations will be able to align themselves and to goals in a linear march towards the goal of the individual and organizational needs. The ideal leader will have to be sensitive to internal and external changes that will affect the organizations culture and goals. It is his duty to create an environment that maximizes the individual.?
References:
Bass, B. M. (1990). Handbook of Leadership: Theory, research, & managerial applications (3rd Ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Bowie, N. (2000). A Kantian theory of leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(4), 185-193.
Bradley, J. H. (1997). The effect of personality type on team performance. The Journal ofManagement Development, 16(5), 337-353.
Brink S. (1996). Smart Moves. Natural Way for Better Health. Jan/Feb 1996. Vol. 1. Issue 6. p.46
Campbell, Scott (2003). Coaching for Peak Performance: Temperament and the “Workplace Pleasure Zone” Retrieved June 29, 2004, from https://www.16types.com/request.jsp?
Clinebell, S., & Stecher, M. (2003, June). Teaching teams to be teams: An exercise using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Five-Factor personality traits. Journal of Management Education, 27(3), 362?
Forrester, R., & Drexler A. B. (1999, August). A model for team-based organization performance. The Academy of Management Executive, 13(3), 36-49.
Gibson, L. (2004, January). Tickling your funny bone. Nursing, 34 (1), 70. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database on June 28, 2004.?
Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, Retrieved? ? May?
Johnson & Johnson Credo Retrieved July 2, 2004 from https://www.jnj.com/our_company/our_credo_history/index.htm?
Marques, Joan (2002). Keeping the Team Spirit Alive Retrieved June 29, 2004, from https://www.16types.com/request.jsp
Nestle Retrieved July 2, 2004 https://www.nestle-watersna.com/company/aboutus/aspirations.asp
Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2000, April). Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 135-148.??