Published in The Quality Management Forum, Winter …

[Pages:4]20 Questions to Ask Your Teams by Tom Kuras and John Moran ?1997 by Kuras and Moran

Published in The Quality Management Forum, Winter Edition, Vol. 23, Number 4, 1997.

When teams begin to lose their luster and performance starts to decline (this happens to all teams), they are probably going through some phase of the team development downcycle often cited in current team models. Many teams however, never quite pull out of this down-cycle and continue to exist as a collection of individuals masquerading as a team. For these pretenders, they too often embark to a "Sargasso Sea" of lost teams maintaining the posture, but not meeting the expectations of members and management alike. One reason for this decline can be attributed to a disconnect between performance expectations and organizational reality. Another way of saying this is that many managers fail to differentiate between what teams are supposed to do and what the team is really doing. For many, the principles and expectations that management has of teams, is not necessarily clear or even shared by those on the front-line. Another possibility is that some of the principles used to define the team model may not be relevant to a particular team or department.

A survey instrument (figure 1) designed to assess team performance was distributed to several manufacturing teams. The survey questions reflected, for the most part, the principles and expectations that management had of the teams. Management support for this study was based on their interest in improving operational performance. Their expectation was that this assessment would be used to improve the current implementation process and define any training needs for team members. Another goal of this survey was to compare the supervisor's perception of team performance with that of the individual team members across the range of question criterion.

Figure 1

Answer each question by entering the number below that best describes your current team.

4 - Absolutely 3 - Mostly True 2- Occasionally 1-Never 1. As a team member I am committed to making changes. 2. I clearly understand the purpose of my team. 3. The team leader has a process for sharing information with all team members. 4. Our team has the right members to be successful. 5. As a team member I understand how our work affects the larger goals of our department. 6. Our team is recognized for its accomplishments. 7. Team members openly express their ideas and opinions 8. Team members have a means to see progress toward important objectives. 9. My team members want to be on our team. 10. I want to be on our team.

11. Our team is able to make thoughtful decisions that all team members support. 12. Our team can have productive meetings without the influence of a team leader. 13. Our team members trust and respect each other. 14. Team members express disagreements constructively. 15. Team members willingly take on new responsibilities. 16. Team members follow through on decisions and action items. 17. Our team has established a set of ground rules and guidelines for team performance and behaviors. 18. Team members are encouraged to express different points of view. 19. Our team makes time to evaluate how effective they work as a group. 20. Members of our team are held accountable for their responsibilities and assignments.

Five work group teams participated in the survey. The teams were selected on the basis that they had been together for over a year with no change in leadership or membership, had received some training in teambuilding topics, and had accomplished several team objectives. They were considered "experienced" by the manufacturing organization. The questionnaires were distributed to all team members at their weekly team meeting. All members responded anonymously.

Responses to the "20 Questions" were scored and compiled using a Likert scale and segmented by teams and supervisors across each criteria of team performance (figure 2). Response scores less than 3.0 indicate more negative views, while scores above reflect more positive feelings to the survey questions.

Figure 2

Team Survey Results (Average Scores)

Questions

Team 1 Team 2 Team 3 Team 4 Team 5 All Teams

1

3.14 3.38 3.71 3.57 3.38 3.44 3.5

2

3.29 3.88 3.14 3.29 3.0 3.32 3.5

3

2.57 3.13 3.14 2.86 2.83 2.91 3.33

4

3.14 3.25 3.71 2.43 3.25 3.16 3.17

5

2.86 3.5 3.43 3.43 3.13 3.27 3.5

6

1.57 2.0 2.67 1.71 1.63 1.92 2.17

7

3.57 3.88 3.71 3.43 3.25 3.57 2.67

8

2.71 3.38 3.0 2.7 3.0 2.96 3.0

9

2.71 3.13 3.29 3.0 3.0 3.03 3.0

10

3.14 3.25 3.71 2.86 3.57 3.31 3.33

11

2.86 3.38 3.14 3.43 3.5 3.26 2.5

12

3.14 3.13 2.43 3.0 3.0 2.94 2.83

13

3.71 3.5 3.43 3.14 2.75 3.31 2.16

14

3.43 3.38 3.29 3.43 3.25 3.36 2.5

15

3.27 3.38 3.43 3.0 2.75 3.17 2.83

16

3.14 3.38 3.43 3.14 2.88 3.19 2.5

17

3.0 2.63 3.0 2.43 2.38 2.69 2.67

18

3.57 3.75 3.57 3.43 3.25 3.51 2.67

19

3.28 2.75 3.71 3.0 2.88 3.12 2.67

20

3.0 3.13 3.43 2.86 2.88 3.06 3.66

Supervisors

Observations and Analysis

Although the averages of all teams reflect a composite of individual team member perceptions, they also seem to describe how each team may view itself. With a just a few exceptions, there where not any major differences of opinion between teams across the question categories - most of the team averages are close to the averages of all teams. This data did not support management's earlier assumption that team performance depended on such things as member selection, strong leadership or team achievements. The fact was that members of teams that management and supervisor's regarded as better performers than other teams, responded with shared views. This could be attributed to a "tribal mentality" or something of a more systemic nature at work.

Questions 6, 12, and 17 drew more negative responses (less than 3.0) from both team members and supervisors around issues of recognition and group process. In interviews, supervisors felt that if the teams were given some type of monetary reward, they would perform better, however, they did not place the same value on recognition. In general, supervisors and team members viewed team meetings as an inefficient process and shared a low tolerance for ambiguity.

Questions 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 20 drew more positive responses (greater than 3.0) from both team members and supervisors. Task orientation and membership were viewed in generally favorable degrees and would indicate that most respondents valued teamwork as a means to change things together.

Questions 7, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19 indicated a perception gap between supervisors and team members. The team leader/supervisor group appears to have a slightly lower opinion of team performance in this area than team members. Supervisor responses are less than 3.0 while team member averages are all greater than 3.0. Responses to these questions raised issues around group process, group decision-making and trust. The view of the supervisors would indicate that the teams were not skilled in group dynamics or being able to conduct productive meetings, or that each team is operating under of different set of definitions. Team members thought they were pretty effective in the team process.

Responses to Questions 8 and 9 had a wide range that resulted in averages too close to 3.0 to assume any positive or negative preferences. The only gap where team members responded negatively and supervisors positively was to question 3 which asked, "The team leader has a process for sharing information with all team members". This limited question would later prove to be far more revealing in subsequent inquiry.

Conclusion

The issue of effective teaming is a complex topic. Leaders in organizations that have teams must use an assessment process regularly so they can check the pulse of their teams. This is a form of team based preventative medicine - checking the vital signs. This checking process will help guide management and serves as an effective Rx for maintaining team performance.

Too often teams struggle and fail because of unclear performance expectations that management has of teams. It's not hard to find a "disconnect" between how teams view themselves and how managers and supervisors view the team. This instrument can help identify the expectation gaps between reality and organizational views of team performance.

Biographies

Tom Kuras has more than 12 years of experience helping manufacturing, service and educational organizations to develop team-based improvement strategies. He has a MS in Management from Antioch University and is president of World Class Connections, a New Hampshire based consulting practice that specializes in improving firm performance through human resource development. Phone 603-772-9467. e-mail: tkuras@nh.

John W. Moran, Ph.D. is Chief Operating Officer at Changing Healthcare, Inc. which specializes in clinical and business consulting in Healthcare. He is a Fellow of ASQC, Chair-elect of the Quality Management Division, and a Certified Quality Manager. In addition he is a Judge for the USA Today Quality Cup. Phone 508-456-3867. E-mail: jcmoran@

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download