factors affecting implementation of high performance teams

Factors affectingsuccessfulimplementation of highperformance teams

P CastkaCJ BamberJM Sharp andP Belohoubek

Introduction

Todayrsquos organisations have to face a turbulentenvironment where change seems the onlyconstant To meet this challengeorganisations are forced to accelerate andmake effective all activities be flexible inresponse to change in the externalenvironment improve quality reduce costand fully use their intellectual capitalFurthermore as this system is becoming moreand more complex emphasis is given on theprocess orientation and cross-functionalapproaches To succeed the knowledgeskills experience and perspectives of a widerange of people must be integrated (Irani andSharp 1997)

Using teamwork for the improvement oforganisational performance is proposed in anumber of the quality literature papers egkaizen philosophy represented by Imai (1986)and Europe Japan Centre (Colenso 2000Foster 2000) put small-group activities andQC circles as top priority Total qualitymanagement (TQM) and total productivemaintenance activities are based on teamwork(Oakland 1993 Bamber et al 1999) Petersand Waterman (1982) refer to teamwork as acritical factor in the most successfulcompanies Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)even suggest rsquorsquo the hypertext hierarchyrsquorsquo of anorganisation which is based on teamsAdditionally a conceptual framework foragile manufacturing (Kidd 1994) comprisesteam working as a fundamental prerequisitefor the next generation manufacturingparadigm

Furthermore knowledge management andlearning organisation principles (Nonaka andTakeuchi 1995 Senge 1990) suggest thatthe individual is the basic element forknowledge interaction While both agree thatindividual learning is irrelevant fororganisations unless such knowledge isdisseminated through the organisation whereteamwork is the core tool for thisdissemination Scholtes et al (1996) arguethat a team outperforms individuals when

the task is complexcreativity is neededthe path forward is unclearmore efficient use of resources isrequiredfast learning is necessaryhigh commitment is desirable

The authors

P Castka is a PhD student and P Belohoubek is Reader

in Operations Management both at Brno University of

Technology Brno Czech Republic

CJ Bamber is a PhD student and JM Sharp is

Professor in Organisational Excellence both at The

University of Salford Manchester UK

Keywords

Teamwork Team building Performance Modelling

Abstract

Agrees that the evidence of a vast array of research

concerning teamwork is conclusive teams are capable of

outstanding performance and are the primary unit of

performance for increasing numbers of organisations

Nevertheless high performance teams (HPTs) are a rarity

Presents the results of collaborative research aimed at

determining the factors affecting successful

implementation of HPTs The factors have been derived

from literature on teamwork quality management and a

review of case study literature This research has led to

the development of a model for the successful

implementation of HPTs which has been tested through a

case study organisation Furthermore the results were

used to develop an implementation program aimed at

rejuvenating team performance in UK small- to medium-

sized enterprises

Electronic access

The research register for this journal is available at

httpwwwmcbupcomresearch_registers

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is

available at

httpwwwemerald-librarycomft

123

Team Performance Management An International Journal

Volume 7 Number 78 2001 pp 123plusmn134

MCB University Press ISSN 1352-7592

the implementation of a plan requires theco-operation of othersthe task of process is cross-functional

The experience of organisations usingteamwork has shown that effective use ofteams can bring significant improvement inproductivity creativity and employeesatisfaction (Colenso 2000) In support ofthis Katzenbach and Smith (1993)summarise the advantages of teamwork

Teams bring together complementaryskills and experience that exceed those ofany individual on the team This factenables teams to respond to multifacedchallenges like innovation quality andcustomer serviceIn jointly developing clear goals andapproaches teams establishcommunications that support real-timeproblem solving and initiativeTeams provide a social dimension thatenhances the economic andadministrative aspects of workTeams have more fun

Similarly a number of research papersindicate that there is a strong correlationbetween teams individual behaviour and highperformance (Katzenbach and Smith 1993Robbins and Finley 1996 Kur 1996) Whenconsidering other references (mentionedabove) it could be argued that teamwork isone of the most influential attributes forsuccess in a turbulent environment yet otherresearch has shown that truly highperformance teams (HPTs) are very rare(Katzenbach and Smith 1993) Thus it is ofconsiderable importance in determiningrsquorsquowhat are the barriersobstacles to the HPTsrsquodevelopmentrsquorsquo and rsquorsquowhat are the factorsaffecting the implementation of HPTsrsquorsquo These are the critical issues identified whichform the main research questions posed forthe collaborative work between BrnoUniversity of Technology the CzechRepublic and the University of Salford UK

Defining teams and high performanceteams

Francis and Young (1979) define a team asrsquorsquoan energetic group of people who arecommitted to achieving common objectiveswho work well together and enjoy doing soand who produce high-quality resultsrsquorsquo

Johnson and Johnson (1991) also argue thatrsquorsquoa team is a set of interpersonal relationshipsstructured to achieve established goalsrsquorsquo Adair (1986) understands a team as rsquorsquoa groupin which the individuals share a common aimand in which the jobs and skills of eachmember fit in with those of the othersrsquorsquo Kur(1996) sees a team as rsquorsquo a purposeful opensociotechnical system in a state of tensionbetween change and stabilityrsquorsquo Katzenbachand Smith (1993) argue that rsquorsquoa team is asmall group of people with complementaryskills who are committed to a commonpurpose performance goals and approach forwhich they hold themselves mutuallyaccountablersquorsquo

Performance is broadly understood as thepurpose of teamwork Performance ingeneral can be determined by three factors(Stott and Walker 1995)(1) ability(2) work environment and(3) motivation

These are expressed by equation (1)

Performance ˆ f hellipability pound motivation

pound environmentdaggerhellip1dagger

In each of the definitions presented in thissection by Francis and Young Johnson andJohnson Adair Kur Katzenbach and Smithteam performance is viewed as a function ofthe relationship between ability motivationand environment as shown by Equation 1Although it could be argued with theexception of the factor of environment whichis understood from an internal perspectiveand considered more as a social dimensionHowever it is similarly argued by Peters(1992) that the influence for instance of theworking environment is of high importance

Many authors (Katzenbach and Smith1993 Robbins and Finley 1996 Kur 1996)refer to high performance teams (HPTs) asthe goal of team development because of thecorrelation between rsquorsquo teamrsquorsquo andrsquorsquoperformancersquorsquo Kur (1996) defines HPTs asteams that rsquorsquoconsistently satisfy the needs ofcustomers employees investors and others inits area of influencersquorsquo and as a result rsquorsquo theseteams frequently outperform other teams thatproduce similar products and services undersimilar conditions and constraintsrsquorsquo Kur(1996) observed many HPTs and argues thatthese teams are rsquorsquopurposeful social human-oriented technical and systematicalrsquorsquo Sharp

124

Factors affecting successful implementation of high performance teams

P Castka CJ Bamber JM Sharp and P Belohoubek


Volume 7 Number 78 2001 123plusmn134

et al (2000) propose that a high performanceteam is rsquorsquoa team of people who have unleashedtheir potential toward their stakeholdersshared purposersquorsquo and define six key enablers ofHPTs as(1) team member competencies(2) skills processes tools and techniques(3) interpersonal skills communication

personality preferences(4) value system(5) shared vision purpose goals direction

and(6) organisational values including openness

Colenso (2000) defines HPT throughpreconditions (purpose empowermentsupport objectives) and characteristics(interpersonal skills participation decisionmaking creativity managing the externalenvironment) Katzenbach and Smith (1993)argue that it is a strong sense of personalcommitment which distinguishes HPTs fromother teams In consequence HPTs have rsquorsquoadeeper sense of purpose more ambitiousperformance goals more completeapproaches fuller mutual accountability andinterchangeable as well as complementaryskillsrsquorsquo Rickards and Moger (1999) call HPTsrsquorsquodream teamsrsquorsquo and define seven factorswhich distinguished them from rsquorsquo teams fromhellrsquorsquo as(1) strong platform of understanding(2) shared vision(3) creative climate(4) ownership of ideas(5) resilience to setbacks(6) network activators and(7) learn from experience

Team development

Stott and Walker (1995) refer to much teamdevelopment literature and argue thataccording to a number of studies teamdevelopment has more than one dimensionThese dimensions are related to rsquorsquo theindividual the task the team and theorganisationrsquorsquo Stott and Walker (1995)present rsquorsquoa multidimensional modelrsquorsquo for teamdevelopment and furthermore they propose

Team development is best seen as amultidimensional construct where theconditions in one dimension criticallyaffect the conditions in other dimensions

For effective team development to takeplace attempts must be made toconsciously optimise the conditions ineach dimensionTeams need to identify those dimensionsthat are in need of attention and toemploy appropriate developmentstrategies Performance is dependentupon accurate diagnosisRelative emphasis in dimensionaldevelopment is determined in part by thedevelopment level of the teamResponsibility for team developmentshould largely lie within the team itself

Similarly Scholtes et al (1996) stronglyadvocate the alignment of individuals teamsand organisation which are understood asthree dimensions of the organisation Theysuggest a rsquorsquo team development modelrsquorsquo(Figure 1) and argue that for these threedimensions there are three primary taskspurpose partnership and process In order tomaintain the alignment among thedimensions the development of a teamshould be considered in view of this model

There is a general agreement that teamsprogress through different stages (Kur 1996Katzenbach and Smith 1993 Rickards andMoger 1999 Robbins and Finley 1996Stott and Walker 1995) These stages aredefined within the rsquorsquo form-storm-norm-performrsquorsquo model (FSNP model) of teamdevelopment from Tuckman and Jensen(1977) Accordingly many authors use thismodel as the framework for their theories

Rickards and Moger (1999) extend theFSNP model to rsquorsquo form-storm-norm-perform-outperformrsquorsquo They distinguish three types of

Figure 1 Team development model

125





teams shy dream teams standard teams andteams from hell and argue that generaldevelopment is that rsquorsquo teams start like theteams from hell and proceed to becomedream teamsrsquorsquo According to Rickards andMoger (1999) teams from hell are in thestorming stage while dream teams are in theoutperforming stage Furthermore theymention the rsquorsquoglass-ceilingrsquorsquo effect whichprevents teams rsquorsquo from moving from one levelto anotherrsquorsquo They suggest a creativedevelopment approach to break the norms forhigher level of development

Kur (1996) suggests the rsquorsquo faces model ofteam developmentrsquorsquo and similarly to Rickardsand Moger (1999) he extends the FSNPmodel to rsquorsquo inform-form-storm-norm-performrsquorsquo phases or rsquorsquo facesrsquorsquo which are used toevaluate team performance according to thismodel Kur (1996) argues that rsquorsquo teams movefrom moderate to high levels of performancethen into dysfunctional conflicts throughself-assessment and back to highperformancersquorsquo ie that they put on differentfaces rsquorsquoEven the highest performing mostempowered and most productive teamsperiodically put on the other facersquorsquo and Kur(1996) states that rsquorsquochanging faces in anydirection is accepted as normalrsquorsquo and thischange can be meaningful and valuableScholtes et al (1996) support this point ofview and argue that this fact even helps theteam in performance

An interesting development to the teamperformance debate is from Katzenbach andSmith (1993) who have studied several HPTsand summarise the key lessons learned as

Significant performance challengesenergise teams regardless of where theyare in an organisationOrganisational leaders can foster teamperformance best by building a strongperformance ethic rather than byestablishing a team-promotingenvironment aloneBias toward individualism exist but neednot get in the way of team performanceDiscipline shy both within the team andacross the organisation shy creates theconditions for team performance

The barriers and obstacles to teamdevelopmentThe barriers and obstacles to teamdevelopment differ as much as teamsperformance challenges or business contexts

but despite this diversity several features canbe generalised Robbins and Finley (1996)argue that team failure is due to mismatchedneeds confused goals unresolved roles baddecision making personality conflicts badleadership insufficient feedback andorinformation ill-conceived reward systemslack of team trust andor unwillingness tochange Similarly Katzenbach and Smith(1993) summarise the major factors as

a weak sense of directioninsufficient or unequal commitment toteam performancecritical skill gaps andexternal confusion hostility andorindifference

A weak sense of direction is attributed to amanagement style which is not fully aware ofthe importance of a clear definition ofpurpose goals and direction for their teamsAwareness of this fact is crucial because thepurpose of the team is related to performanceInsufficient or unequal commitment to teamperformance comes from the individualreluctance towards teams There are threeprimary sources for this reluctance aboutteams (Katzenbach and Smith 1993)(1) lack of conviction that team or teams can

work better than the alternatives(2) personal styles capabilities and

preferences that can make teams risky oruncomfortable and

(3) weak organisational performance ethicsthat discourage the conditions in whichteams flourish

Alternatively Conti and Kleiner (1997) arguethat rsquorsquo the most fundamental problem thatteams confront is existing work structurersquorsquo which is oriented toward individual andstandardisation of work activity Katzenbachand Smith (1993) argue furthermore thatmost organisations intrinsically preferindividual over group (team) accountabilityJob description compensation schemescareer path and performance evaluations aremore often focused on individuals SimilarlySenge et al (1994) state that rsquorsquomost aspects ofexisting infrastructure such as measurementand compensation systems as well asrewards have not yet rsquocapturedrsquo thesignificance of teamsrsquorsquo Church (1998) makesthe point that no matter how the teamapproach is established members have theirindividual job responsibilities According toChurch (1998) rsquorsquo this creates a critical

126





intersection between an individualrsquos jobresponsibilities and hisher teamresponsibilitiesrsquorsquo

The lack of training or the wrong teamcomposition will produce critical skill gaps apoint stated in for example Oakland (1993)Church (1998) and Katzenbach and Smith(1993) These gaps will inevitably lead to adecrease in overall team performance Feureret al (1996) consider team training to be oneof the essential factors for team developmentFinally external confusion hostilityindifference or the lack of conviction ofteamwork in general causes weakperformance within the organisation Mestreet al (1997) advocate effective orientationmanagement (OM) to build permanentliaisons identify values and ensuring groupinteraction Mestre et al (1997) furthermoreargue that the perceived success of theorganisation depends on each individualrsquoscontribution through constant growth andawareness of changes satisfying customerneeds teamwork social and environmentalresponsibility and local and global awarenessin relation to economy and culture The studyof Japanese experience and success in OM(Mestre et al 1997) is contrasted with itsrelative neglect in Western businesses

Critical factors for successfulimplementation of HPTs

These critical factors for successfulimplementation of HPTs are drawn from areview of literature concerning teamwork andteam development as discussed in previoussections of this paper In addition to which areview of literature on quality managementand learning organisation has contributed tothe identification of successful factors (egIshikawa 1985 Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995Senge 1990 Howe et al 1993) Thesefactors in consequence have been groupedinto two categories and seven sub-categorieswhich provide the basis for the conceptualmodel of factors affecting successfulimplementation of HPTs All the factors arepresented in Figure 2 and the categories areconsidered in Table I

Organisational impactThe support of the organisation is crucial toall activities involving a kind of rsquorsquochangersquorsquo The

organisation or its management is responsiblefor

Creating the organisational culture whichsupports and encourages teamempowerment experimentationcreativity and innovation win-winapproach to conflicts failures andmistakes and ensures opencommunication and the creation ofcommunication channelsTeam formation ie group size groupcomposition team training and thepurpose of the teamProviding a supportive environment Theteam is supported by senior managementand by the person to whom the teamreports An important aspect is theautonomy of the team which is necessaryfor its development (Nonaka andTakeuchi 1995 Peters and Waterman1982) Furthermore the organisation hasto make possible access to resources shytime money data informationknowledge talents and materials (Sengeet al 1999 Meyer 1998) Senge et al(1999) strongly advocate the use of anoutside facilitator who speeds up theprocess of team development and teamlearning The supportive workspace alsois of significant import This fact isstrongly advocated by both Peters (1992)and Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) Theyargue that the supportive workplaceenvironment is crucial for knowledgeexchange among team membersMonitoring team performance based onmeasurement of the key performanceindicators which should be mutuallyagreed on by team and managementTeam reward and appraisal system

Defined focusAs discussed earlier in the rsquorsquoTeamdevelopmentrsquorsquo section of this paper successfulHPTs have defined their mission vision andgoals which are understood by the teammembers These two factors shy definition ofthe framework and its understanding shy arepresent for instance in a participationmanagement approach (Ishikawa 1985Imai 1986) which strongly points toward theimportance of the dissemination of knowledgeand the creation of understanding Scholteset al (1996) build on the work of Adair(1986) and propose that rsquorsquo teams must haveclearly defined purposes and goals that serve

127





the organisationrsquorsquo In addition they rsquorsquoneedclearly defined parameters within which toworkrsquorsquo and the team members must know therelative importance of the task and theexpectations from the organisation Robbinsand Finley (1996) argue that a good teamfocus will comprise

a taska promised limit of what you are doinga promised level of performancea deadline andthe definition of the customer

Alignment and interaction with externalentitiesThis feature can be described as rsquorsquooutwardfocusrsquorsquo of high performance teams ie seeingthe team as part of a system Senge (1990)calls this phenomenon rsquorsquo system thinkingrsquorsquo andconsiders this approach as one of the mostcrucial among disciplines of learningorganisation and team learning The essenceof systems thinking according to Senge(1990) lies in rsquorsquo seeing relationships ratherthan linear cause-effect chainsrsquorsquo and rsquorsquo seeingprocess of change rather than snapshotsrsquorsquo

TQM or kaizen concepts describe thisapproach as rsquorsquoprocess-orientationrsquorsquo withsimilar conclusion (Oakland 1993 Imai1986) Other quality improvement authors(Howe et al 1993 Deming 1986 Ishikawa1985 Bamber et al 1999) emphasise theimportance of understanding the processfrom a customer point of view Kur (1996)observed several HPTs and argues that HPTsare able to rsquorsquomaintain alignment andinteraction with other entities such as otherteams managers suppliers customerssociety governmentrsquorsquo

Group cultureHPTs demand strong group culture which isbased on empowerment shared visioncreativity participation learning ability trustand shared consensus Other authors(Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995 Imai 1986Peters and Waterman 1982 Stott andWalker 1995) argue that an environment oftolerance toward failures and mistakes and acertain amount of creative chaos can improveteam performance Similarly Senge (1990)views a mistake as rsquorsquoan event the full benefitof which has not yet been turned toadvantagersquorsquo and argues that rsquorsquo failure is anevidence of the gap between vision andcurrent realityrsquorsquo This gap according to Senge(1990) is the evidence of creative tension andis one of the attributes of learning teamsSimilarly Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) orImai (1996) give practical examples fromJapanese companies which use creativetension for improving team performance An

Figure 2 Factors affecting successful implementation of HPTs

Table I Factors affecting successful implementation of HPTs

1 Organisational impact2 Defined focus3 Alignment and interaction with external entities4 Measures of performance

System factors

5 Knowledge and skills6 Need of the individual7 Group culture

Human factors

128





interesting contribution about team culturecomes from Kets De Vries (1999) whoresearched Pigmy society and based on thisinvestigation suggests seven principles ofeffective teamwork(1) Members respect and trust each other(2) Members protect and support each other(3) Members engage in open dialogue and

communication(4) Members share a strong common goal(5) Members have strong shared values and

beliefs(6) Members subordinate their own

objectives to those of the team(7) Members subscribe to rsquorsquodistributedrsquorsquo

leadership

According to Kets De Vries (1999) manypractices of Pigmy society rsquorsquoare a model ofeffective behaviourrsquorsquo()

Another aspect of HPT culture is alignmentof its members As stated by Senge et al(1994) rsquorsquo building alignment is aboutenhancing a teamrsquos capacity to think and actin new synergistic ways with full coordinationand sense of unityrsquorsquo Nevertheless it is notsuggested that culture of HPTs is conflict-free On the contrary Senge (1990) arguesthat rsquorsquo great teams are not characterised by anabsence of conflictrsquorsquo but they are able to takeadvantage from them Stott and Walker(1995) suggest that competitions andconflicts be used constructively in HPTsHence the organisation itself has to create thesupportive environment for development ofHPTs and has to ensure the internalisation ofshared values and beliefs by team members(Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995 Imai 1986Kets De Vries 1999)

Knowledge and skillsLack of training and critical skill gaps havebeen mentioned in the section concerning thebarriers to teamwork To overcome theseproblems and to accomplish their tasks theteam members must receive training andpersonal development in areas such as(Katzenbach and Smith 1993 Robbins andFinley 1996 Scholtes et al 1996)

interpersonal and joint skills dealing withconflict dynamics of teamwork how toconduct meetings effective decisionmaking communication skills effectiverecord keepinganalytical and statistical skills problem-solving methods improvement

techniques seven basic quality controltoolsimprovement techniques creativityapproach systems thinking andtechnical skills related to a particular job

Needs of the individualAs well as team needs being aligned withthose of the organisation the needs of theteam members have to be aligned with theteam (Adair 1986) Senge (1990) argues thatalignment is a necessary condition forempowering the individual and results in theempowerment of the whole team Robbinsand Finley (1996) observed several teamswith the conclusion that rsquorsquopeople will onlyagree to team if it meets their own needsfirstrsquorsquo The sooner we know one anotherrsquospersonal needs and hopes the better for theteam Katzenbach and Smith (1993) arguethat rsquorsquobiases toward individualism exist butneed not get in the way of teamperformancersquorsquo

Teamwork represents an interdependentbalance between the needs of the individualand the needs of the organisation (Kets DeVries 1999) According to Zigon (1997)individuals want to be recognised for theirindividual contributions too and most teammembers complain that individualperformance assessments and pay systems donot reward them for team results they haveproduced a point agreed with by Bal andGundry (1999) Zairi (1994) advocatesmeasurement of people productivity and itslinkage to reward and recognition systems

To manage this balance and make teamsmore effective analysis of individual personaldifferences and preferences is suggested(Church 1998 Higgs 1996) Sharp et al(2000) worked with several teams usingMBTI (Myers Briggs type indicator) fordetermining personal differences and arguethat the understanding of personal differenceshas led to the overall improvement of a teamperformance

Measures of performanceAll improvement activities must beaccompanied by appropriate measures iemeasurement which is linked with objectivesdefined by customer Measures ofperformance (MoP) are a trigger toimprovement and the reason why manyimprovement programs fail is the lack ofmeasurement Many quality improvement

129





experts such as Howe et al (1993) Deming(1986) Ishikawa (1985) Oakland (1993)Bamber et al (1999) and Zairi (1994)support this fact

Many organisations have moved to a team-based approach without changing MoPwhich reflect this change (Meyer 1998) Ateam approach is process-oriented and thusrsquorsquomeasures through the voice of processrsquorsquo areessential for teamwork (Zairi 1994) Zairi(1994) furthermore strongly advocatesperformance measurement based on peopleproductivity ie rsquorsquo the value addedcontributions of individuals in the fulfilmentof their individual tasks or in theirparticipation in teamsrsquorsquo Similarly Inghamet al (1997) suggest that effective teamworkcan be measured by individual and teamperformance

To fulfil those presumptions performancesystem measurement should include (Zigon1997)

a statement of the results the team will beworking to achieve with measures andperformance standard for each resultstatements of each individualrsquos resultswith measures and performancestandards for each resulta clear picture of the priorities andrelative importance of the team andindividual results anda plan how to collect and summariseperformance data so the team andindividuals will know how they areperforming compared to the performancestandards

Meyer (1998) suggests four guiding principlesto maximise the effectiveness of teams(1) the overarching purpose of a

measurement system should be to help ateam rather than top managers gauge itsprogress

(2) a truly empowered team must play thelead role in designing its ownmeasurement system

(3) because a team is responsible for a value-delivery process that cuts across severalfunctions it must create measures totrack that process and

(4) a team should adopt only a handful ofmeasures

Church (1998) states that rsquorsquo success or failuremay not always be measured at the team level[and that] the best indicators of the success ofteams in organisations may be the

organisational level of analysisrsquorsquo Yet thepriority is that MoP has to tell team memberswhat they must do to improve theirperformance rather than trace theperformance of all business (Meyer 1998)

Case study research

This research has been aimed at providing acritical understanding of factors affectingsuccessful implementation of highperformance teams (HPTs) which has led tothe development of the conceptual model ofthe factors affecting successfulimplementation of HPTs (Figure 2) Themodel has consequently been tested in partusing a single case study organisation as thefocus of observations and direct assessment ofthe factors represented in the model Thisapproach has been advocated by Yin (1989)an acknowledged expert on case studyresearch strategy

The case study organisation LynxEngineering UK Limited (Lynx) based in theNorth of England UK is predominantly afirst tier supplier to major defencecontractors such as Royal Ordnance andBritish Aerospace Systems and employs 52people at its Nelson site Lynx could beconsidered as a traditional functionalstructure organisation operating withtraditional quality control values as describedby Muhleman et al (1996) Recent changes inthe UK aerospace and defence industry(Broughton et al 1997) has led to the needfor Lynx to look at alternative markets such asformula one racing car componentmanufacture (Bamber 2001) This changehas meant considerable modification inoperating and manufacturing practice shymainly from long batch runs to one-offcomponents requiring rapid turnround fromreceipt of order to delivery of product (ie seersquorsquo from mass production to agilemanufacturersquorsquo in Kidd 1994) The managingdirector of Lynx has created a managementteam with the responsibility to develop thecompany toward effectively managing theoperations and controlling the changesnecessary to address the requirements of thenew and old customers

Ongoing ethnographic research spreadingover two years with the help of UK ResearchCouncil funding provided the authors of thispaper the opportunity to monitor and

130





evaluate the team activities against the modelin Figure 2 during these early stages (threemonths) of organisational transformationMr Chris Bamber of the University of Salfordparticipated in the team activities and helpedthe team develop while Mr Pavel Castkaobserved and compared the findings with thefactors represented in the modelAdditionally expert interviews as describedby Firlej and Hellens (1991) in their book onknowledge elicitation techniques were held byDr John Sharp Director of the HighPerformance Organisational Research Groupat Salford UK

The team at Lynx included the managingdirector the works manager two productionplanning engineers marketing managerproduction manager quality control managerand one of the authors (Bamber) Theindividual names of personnel from Lynxhave deliberately not been used in this paperas the team is still continuing to develop butagreement to use the case as an example hasbeen obtained from Mr Les Nuttall themanaging director Only the key findings ofthe research in relation to the model arepresented below for brevity while a moredetailed review of the findings is availablefrom the authors

Findings at Lynx Engineering UKLimitedThe need for the organisation to change wasevident at Lynx with reducing profit marginsand ever-increasing demands from customersto deliver smaller but quicker batchesHowever the need for the individuals tochange was not as transparent and it wasevident from the research activities that teamworking was not the usual custom andpractice within the organisation The newlyformed management team includes threerelative newcomers (with the company lessthan nine months excluding Bamber) toLynx who had very little or no preconceivedideas of working within the company and alsoidentified many opportunities forimprovement and change Ideas generated byindividuals in the team and then implementedby the team had greater success when thewhole of the team had rsquorsquobought intorsquorsquo the ideaHowever it was observed that ideas were notimplemented necessarily successfully whenobjections where voiced by individuals andeven less successful when the needs of any

single member of the team were not elicitedbut later revealed as evident

The creation and development of the teamat Lynx has not been without problemshowever the recognition that teams candevelop through the stages of forming-storming-norming-performing by themembers of the team helped them movetoward higher levels of performanceAdditionally it has been evident throughoutthe study of team working at Lynx that thereis a considerable amount of confusion in theearly stages of team development and asdescribed by Senge (1990) this if viewedpositively provides the rsquorsquocreative tensionrsquorsquo thatenables team learning However as the Lynxteam developed it was noted that performanceof the team improved when focusing on taskswith realistic goals that involved many of theteam members Consequently theresearchers (authors) consider that groupculture developed positive traits when successwas evident against these clearly defined andfocused tasks however without clearlydefined focus team activities the performancewas not as successful and consequently teamdevelopment was much slower and activitiesless effective

In connection with defined focus ofactivities or tasks is the concept of measures ofperformance and hence a measure of teamsuccess The Lynx team had struggled withthe concept of measuring team performanceand throughout the study no clear measuresof team performance emerged other than thesuccessful completion of defined tasks asmentioned above Alongside this observationit was evident that Lynx did not measureperformance in terms of measures aligned tocustomer requirements although financialmeasures where evident The researchers(authors) observed that when individualmembers of the team considered that teamactivities did not improve the quality cost ordelivery of the product or service offered tothe customer then commitment to teamactivities deteriorated Similarly if teammembers could not see a connection withteam activities and other activities going on inthe organisation then resistance to proceedingwas seen Consequently when the teamactivities had a good rsquorsquo fitrsquorsquo with otherorganisational activities then performance wasenhanced and resistance to change reduced

Knowledge and skills is represented in themodel (Figure 2) as a factor affecting

131





Figu

re3

Impl

emen

tatio

npl

anfo

rde

velo

pmen

tof

HPT

s

132





successful implementation of HPTs and itwas quickly noticed that although thetechnical skills of the team were very similarall being skilled engineers managerialpersonal and social skills differed immenselyAdditionally an understanding of systemsthinking was not evident among the Lynxteam members Training and developmentwas not particularly seen as an importantissue in the early steps of team developmentbut is now being embraced by Lynx as anessential practice for team effectivenessConsequently a team training needs analysis(TNA) as well as individual TNA is currentlybeing carried out to identify appropriatemethods and direction for training in order tocontinually improve performance

Recommendations for other SMEsadopting teamworkThe aim of the authors is not only tounderstand the critical factors for highperformance teams (HPTs) development butto communicate the research findings as wellConsequently the implementation plan(Figure 3) has been developed from theresearch and is proposed for use byorganisations wishing to develop HPT Thisplan is furthermore aimed at rejuvenatingteam performance in UK small- to- medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)

The implementation plan (Figure 3) isbased on Demingrsquos plan-do-check-act(PDCA) cycle The relevant steps areconsidered as

assess the current situation (plan)define the barriers and the enablers (do)create team (organisational individual)development plan (check) andimplement the development plan (act)

It is recommended that organisations examineand assess teamwork in respect to the modelbased on factors affecting successfulimplementation of HPTs (Figure 2)Consequently after the analysis these dataprovide necessary information for a definitionof the barriers and the enablers for teamdevelopment It is furthermore recommendedto use the results not only for thedevelopment of the team but also for thedevelopment of the organisation and theindividual This approach reflects the need forseeing teamwork as a multidimensionalconstruct and the necessity of paralleldevelopment of individual team and

organisation (see earlier section concerningteam development and Figure 1)

Even though the role of the individual andthe organisational dimensions in teamdevelopment was not discussed extensively inthe paper the researchersrsquo (authorsrsquo ) advice isto develop improvement activities in view ofEquation 1 (performance = f (ability poundmotivation pound environment)) This finding isin concord with the findings of Bamber(2000) of HPO Research Group theUniversity of Salford which confirmed withthe authors that his research aimed atdetermining an organisationrsquos rsquorsquo readiness tolearnrsquorsquo suggests a very similar model(readiness to learn = f (ability motivationorganisation)) However the scope of thispaper does not allow further discussion of thismatter

Conclusions

Teamwork is becoming increasingly aprerequisite to face a turbulent environmentin many organisations yet there are manyobstacles to its successful implementationThis paper has presented these obstacleswithin seven factors affecting successfulimplementation of high performance teams(HPTs) as shown in Figure 2 These factorssignificantly reflect the main barriers todevelopment of HPTs and the research hasdemonstrated that successful implementationcan be achieved albeit the process of teamdevelopment is recognised as takingconsiderable effort to maintain The paperfurthermore proposed the implementationplan (Figure 3) recommended for UK SMEswilling to implement or rejuvenate strategiesleading to HPT development

References

Adair J (1986) Effective Teambuilding GowerAldershot

Bal J and Gundry J (1999) ` Virtual teaming in theautomotive supply chainrsquorsquo Team PerformanceManagement Vol 5 No 6 pp 174-93

Bamber C (2001) ` Agile manufacturing in UK aerospacesmall to medium size enterprisesrsquorsquo PhD thesissubmitted for review University of Salford Salford

Bamber C Sharp J and Hides M (1999) ` Factorsaffecting successful implementation of totalproductive maintenance a UK manufacturing casestudy perspectiversquorsquo Journal of Quality inMaintenance Engineering Vol 5 No 3 pp162-81

133





Bamber D (2000) personal communication at theUniversity of Salford Salford

Broughton T Calder N James-Moore SMR andWilliams A (1997) Risk Reduction Study Society ofBritish Aerospace Companies UK Lean AerospaceInitiative annual report

Church A (1998) ` From both sides now the power ofteamwork plusmn fact or fictionrsquorsquo Team PerformanceManagement Vol4 No 2 pp 42-52

Colenso M (2000) ` How to accelerate teamdevelopment and enhance team productivityrsquorsquo inColenso M (Ed) Kaizen Strategies for ImprovingTeam Performance Prentice-Hall London

Conti B and Kleiner B (1997) ` How to increaseteamwork in organizationsrsquorsquo Training for QualityVol 5 No 1 pp 26-9

Deming W (1986) Out of the Crisis MassachusettsInstitute of Technology Cambridge MA

Feurer R Chaharbaghi K and Wargin J (1996)` Developing creative teams for operationalexcellencersquorsquo International Journal of Operations ampProduction Management Vol16 No1 pp 5-18

Firlej M and Hellens D (1991) Knowledge ElicitationA Practical Handbook Prentice-Hall London

Foster N (2000) ` Setting up the team plusmn preconditions ofsuccessrsquorsquo in Colenso M (Ed) Kaizen Strategies forImproving Team Performance Prentice-HallLondon

Francis D and Young D (1979) Improving Work GroupsA Practical Manual for Teambuilding UniversityAssociates La Jolla CA

Higgs M (1996) ` Building an effective teamrsquorsquo TeamPerformance Management Vol2 No4 pp 33-9

Howe R Gaeddert D and Howe M (1993) Quality onTrial McGraw-Hill New York NY

Imai M (1986) Kaizen the Key to Japanrsquos CompetitiveSuccess McGraw-Hill New York NY

Ingham H Teare R Scheuing E and Armistead C(1997) ` A system model of teamworkrsquorsquo The TQMMagazine Vol 9 No2 pp118-27

Irani Z and Sharp J (1997) ` Integrating continuousimprovement and innovation into a corporateculture a case studyrsquorsquo Technovation Vol 17 No 4pp 199-206

Ishikawa K (1985) What is Total Quality control plusmn theJapanese Way Prentice-Hall London

Johnson D and Johnson F (1991) Joining TogetherGroup Theory and Group Skills Prentice-HallLondon

Katzenbach J and Smith D (1993) The Wisdom ofTeams Creating the High-PerformanceOrganisation McGraw-Hill New York NY

Kets De Vries M (1999) ` High-performance teamslessons from the Pygmiesrsquorsquo OrganizationalDynamics Vol 27 No 3 pp 66-77

Kidd P (1994) Agile Manufacturing Forgiving NewFrontiers Addison-Wesley Reading MA

Kur E (1996) ` The faces model of high performing teamdevelopmentrsquorsquo Leadership amp OrganizationalDevelopment Journal Vol 17 No 1 pp 32-41

Mestre M Stainer A and Stainer L (1997) ` Employeeorientation plusmn the Japanese approachrsquorsquo EmployeeRelations Vol 19 No 5 pp 443-56

Meyer C (1998) ` How the right measures help teamsexcelrsquorsquo in Katzenbach J (Ed) The Work of TeamHarvard Business Review Books Cambridge MApp 51-64

Muhleman A Oakland J and Loycker K (1996)Production and Operations Management 6th edPitman London

Nonaka I and Takeuchi H (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company How Japanese CompaniesCreate the Dynamics of Innovation OxfordUniversity Press Oxford

Oakland J (1993) Total Quality Management The Routeto Improving Performance 2nd ed Butterworth-Heinemann Oxford

Peters T (1992) Liberation Management NecessaryDisorganisation for the Nanosecond NinetiesMacmillan Basingstoke

Peters T and Waterman R (1982) In Search ofExcellence Lessons from Americarsquos Best-runCompanies Harper amp Row New York NY

Rickards T and Moger S (1999) Handbook for CreativeTeam Leaders Gower Publishing Aldershot

Robbins H and Finley M (1996) Why Teams DonrsquotWork What Went Wrong and How to Make it RightOrion Publishing Group

Scholtes P Joiner B and Streibel B (1996) The TeamHandbook Oriel Incorporated

Senge P (1990) The Fifth Discipline The Art and Practiceof The Learning Organization Random HouseLondon

Senge P Kleiner A Roberts C Ross R and Smith B(1994) The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook Strategiesand Tools for Building a Learning OrganizationNicholas Brealey London

Senge P Kleiner A Roberts C Ross R Roth G andSmith B (1999) The Dance of Change TheChallenges of Sustaining Momentum in LearningOrganizations Nicholas Brealey London

Sharp J Hides M Bamber C and Castka P (2000)` Continuous organisational learning through thedevelopment of high performance teamsrsquorsquoProceedings of International Conference on SystemsThinking in Management Geelong November

Stott K and Walker A (1995) Teams Teamwork ampTeambuilding Prentice-Hall London

Tuckman B and Jensen M (1977) ` Stages of smallgroup development revisitedrsquorsquo Group andOrganisational Studies Vol 2 No 4 pp 419-27

Yin R (1989) Case Study Research Design and MethodsSage London

Zairi M (1994) Measuring Performance for BusinessResults Chapman amp Hall London

Zigon J (1997) ` Team performance measurementa process for creating team performancestandardsrsquorsquo Compensation and Benefits ReviewVol 29 No 1 pp 38-47

134





the implementation of a plan requires theco-operation of othersthe task of process is cross-functional

The experience of organisations usingteamwork has shown that effective use ofteams can bring significant improvement inproductivity creativity and employeesatisfaction (Colenso 2000) In support ofthis Katzenbach and Smith (1993)summarise the advantages of teamwork

Teams bring together complementaryskills and experience that exceed those ofany individual on the team This factenables teams to respond to multifacedchallenges like innovation quality andcustomer serviceIn jointly developing clear goals andapproaches teams establishcommunications that support real-timeproblem solving and initiativeTeams provide a social dimension thatenhances the economic andadministrative aspects of workTeams have more fun

Similarly a number of research papersindicate that there is a strong correlationbetween teams individual behaviour and highperformance (Katzenbach and Smith 1993Robbins and Finley 1996 Kur 1996) Whenconsidering other references (mentionedabove) it could be argued that teamwork isone of the most influential attributes forsuccess in a turbulent environment yet otherresearch has shown that truly highperformance teams (HPTs) are very rare(Katzenbach and Smith 1993) Thus it is ofconsiderable importance in determiningrsquorsquowhat are the barriersobstacles to the HPTsrsquodevelopmentrsquorsquo and rsquorsquowhat are the factorsaffecting the implementation of HPTsrsquorsquo These are the critical issues identified whichform the main research questions posed forthe collaborative work between BrnoUniversity of Technology the CzechRepublic and the University of Salford UK

Defining teams and high performanceteams

Francis and Young (1979) define a team asrsquorsquoan energetic group of people who arecommitted to achieving common objectiveswho work well together and enjoy doing soand who produce high-quality resultsrsquorsquo

Johnson and Johnson (1991) also argue thatrsquorsquoa team is a set of interpersonal relationshipsstructured to achieve established goalsrsquorsquo Adair (1986) understands a team as rsquorsquoa groupin which the individuals share a common aimand in which the jobs and skills of eachmember fit in with those of the othersrsquorsquo Kur(1996) sees a team as rsquorsquo a purposeful opensociotechnical system in a state of tensionbetween change and stabilityrsquorsquo Katzenbachand Smith (1993) argue that rsquorsquoa team is asmall group of people with complementaryskills who are committed to a commonpurpose performance goals and approach forwhich they hold themselves mutuallyaccountablersquorsquo

Performance is broadly understood as thepurpose of teamwork Performance ingeneral can be determined by three factors(Stott and Walker 1995)(1) ability(2) work environment and(3) motivation

These are expressed by equation (1)

Performance ˆ f hellipability pound motivation

pound environmentdaggerhellip1dagger

In each of the definitions presented in thissection by Francis and Young Johnson andJohnson Adair Kur Katzenbach and Smithteam performance is viewed as a function ofthe relationship between ability motivationand environment as shown by Equation 1Although it could be argued with theexception of the factor of environment whichis understood from an internal perspectiveand considered more as a social dimensionHowever it is similarly argued by Peters(1992) that the influence for instance of theworking environment is of high importance

Many authors (Katzenbach and Smith1993 Robbins and Finley 1996 Kur 1996)refer to high performance teams (HPTs) asthe goal of team development because of thecorrelation between rsquorsquo teamrsquorsquo andrsquorsquoperformancersquorsquo Kur (1996) defines HPTs asteams that rsquorsquoconsistently satisfy the needs ofcustomers employees investors and others inits area of influencersquorsquo and as a result rsquorsquo theseteams frequently outperform other teams thatproduce similar products and services undersimilar conditions and constraintsrsquorsquo Kur(1996) observed many HPTs and argues thatthese teams are rsquorsquopurposeful social human-oriented technical and systematicalrsquorsquo Sharp

124









Team development








125

















126













127













System factors


Human factors

128









leadership










129
















Case study research




130












131





Figu

re3

Impl

emen

tatio

npl

anfo

rde

velo

pmen

tof

HPT

s

132












Conclusions


References





133













































134









Team development








125

















126













127













System factors


Human factors

128









leadership










129
















Case study research




130












131





Figu

re3

Impl

emen

tatio

npl

anfo

rde

velo

pmen

tof

HPT

s

132












Conclusions


References





133













































134

















126













127













System factors


Human factors

128









leadership










129
















Case study research




130












131





Figu

re3

Impl

emen

tatio

npl

anfo

rde

velo

pmen

tof

HPT

s

132












Conclusions


References





133













































134













127













System factors


Human factors

128









leadership










129
















Case study research




130












131





Figu

re3

Impl

emen

tatio

npl

anfo

rde

velo

pmen

tof

HPT

s

132












Conclusions


References





133













































134













System factors


Human factors

128









leadership










129
















Case study research




130












131





Figu

re3

Impl

emen

tatio

npl

anfo

rde

velo

pmen

tof

HPT

s

132












Conclusions


References





133













































134









leadership










129
















Case study research




130












131





Figu

re3

Impl

emen

tatio

npl

anfo

rde

velo

pmen

tof

HPT

s

132












Conclusions


References





133













































134
















Case study research




130












131





Figu

re3

Impl

emen

tatio

npl

anfo

rde

velo

pmen

tof

HPT

s

132












Conclusions


References





133













































134












131





Figu

re3

Impl

emen

tatio

npl

anfo

rde

velo

pmen

tof

HPT

s

132












Conclusions


References





133













































134





Figu

re3

Impl

emen

tatio

npl

anfo

rde

velo

pmen

tof

HPT

s

132












Conclusions


References





133













































134












Conclusions


References





133













































134













































134





factors affecting implementation of high performance teams

Documents