Importance of teamwork

1. Introduction

As organisations continue to strive towards competitive advantage and increasingly high performance standards, collaboration and team-oriented project
management are increasingly providing the flexibility and innovative potential necessary to excel. Yet in spite of the dynamic characteristics of teams in
practice, many organisations fail to recognise the core determinants of a team-oriented framework, instead grouping employees into non-linked,
non-dependent, individually-driven models. This group-based approach is distinct from team-specific initiatives and fails to meet the rigorous determinants
of dynamism and effectiveness necessary in the modern marketplace. The following sections will draw distinctions between teamwork and group work,
highlighting the opportunities associated with team-driven performance. Further, several theoretical models of teamwork will be introduced, demonstrating
underlying benefits of optimised team management and goal setting. Through this discussion, a framework of organisational implications will be introduced,
focusing on team-generated performance and the importance of effective team outcomes in meeting organisational goals.

2. The Teamwork Paradigm

In spite of their seeming interoperability, Fritz (2014:1) emphasises that the terms ‘team’ and ‘group’ hold practical distinctions
when represented in the context of enterprise management. A group, in theory, represents three or more individuals who, although aligned according to
similar objectives or a similar unit assignment, work and perform independently of each other to achieve organisational goals (Fritz, 2014:1).
Alternatively, the definition of a team involves an alliance of three or more individuals who collaborate and work interdependently to achieve a mutual
goal or objective over the course of a given project, focus, or agenda (Fritz, 2014:1). Accordingly, it is the structural segmentation of responsibilities
(independent or collective) that differentiates between these two terms, creating opportunities for managers to apply appropriate solutions to resolve
variable and complex organisational problems. Whilst employees may initially begin their organisational tenure as a member of a working group, it is
ultimately the priority and high level objective of the leadership to stimulate functional team-working, actualising tangible, high-performing outcomes
from a participative environment that are capable of supporting a broader organisational vision and agenda.

Whilst group-based projects and group work solutions have been prescribed throughout a variety of educational, enterprise, and social scenarios, the
distinction between individual and collaborative roles within the group work concept results in a variety of outcomes. Kwon et al. (2014:185), for example,
suggest that the degree and level of collaboration is a highly variable framework, one which is defined according to the complexity of the project, the
characteristics of the team itself, and the overarching objectives of the leadership. Yet, more importantly, the researchers demonstrate systematically
that the roots of effective teamwork are based upon a process of competent and sustained collaboration, evading a variety of pitfalls, limitations, and
challenges that arise from the individualised roots that largely characterise the group-work paradigm (Kwon et al., 2014:196). It is the ability for
leaders to not only inspire employee engagement in a common goal or agenda, but collaboration within a heterogeneous, multi-functional, interdependent team
that ultimately creates the necessary opportunities for maximising efficiency and stimulating higher performance outcomes over time (Hogel and Proserpio,
2004:1160). As team members continue to evolve beyond the pitfalls of group-based membership and individualised working priorities, the characteristics and
capabilities of the team itself begin to emerge, providing pathways to new capabilities and programme development as members actively pursue mutual and
shared goals and outcomes.

2.1 Belbin’s Team Role Theory

As employees and managers strive to identify their optimal place and responsibilities within a given team-working scenario, roles and behaviours play a
critical role in shaping performance outcomes and actualising group objectives. Belbin (2011:24) defines a team role as a ‘pattern of behaviour
characteristic of the way in which one team member interacts with another where his performance serves to facilitate the progress of the team as a
whole’. For managers, this theory has distinct implications, as through identification of particular characteristics, strengths, and skill sets
amongst individual team members, team performance outcomes can be predicted with relative accuracy (Business, 2011:966). Within Belbin’s (2011:24)
model of team roles, Batenburg et al. (2013:903) recognise that there are three dominant role categories including action-oriented, people oriented, and
thinking/problem solving-oriented under which eight distinct role behaviours can be grouped: implementer, completer/finisher, shaper, coordinator, team
worker, resource investigator, monitor evaluator, and plant.

Figure 1: Team Role Theory Model (Source: Batenburg et al., 2013:903)

Whilst the foundations of Belbin’s (2011:24) role theory were predicated upon a tenuous balance between role assignments and team performance,
Batenburg et al. (2013:904) contest that the behavioural foundations of this theory undermine considerations of skill, intellect, and experience, failing
to accurately predict team-specific outcomes. Alternatively, Prichard and Stanton (1999:664) propose that the role theory framework can be used in a more
pro-active, learning-oriented manner in order to assist team members in becoming aware of skills needed for successful team work, identifying capabilities
which may be absent from the team at any given time, and implement avoidance strategies to resist behaviour that may not be conducive to successful
team-working.

2.2 Theory X and Y

Amongst the early origins of team-oriented theory, McGregor (1957:166) introduced theory X and Y as a means of explaining how individuals are motivated
according to two, diametrically opposed theories (James, 64-5). The following is a brief summation of each theory as outlined by McGregor (1957:166-7):

• Theory X

  • Management is responsible for organising elements of a productive enterprise

  • Without active intervention by management, individuals would be passive and resistant to organisational needs.

  • The average worker is indolent and works as little as possible

  • Workers lack ambition, dislike responsibility, and prefer to be led

  • Individuals are self-centred and indifferent to organisational needs

  • Workers are resistant to change

  • Workers are gullible and not inherently bright

• Theory Y

  • Management is responsible for organising the elements of a productive enterprise

  • People are not passive or resistant to organisational needs.

  • Workers have evolved as a result of experience in the organisation

  • Motivation, development, and responsibility are all present in individuals and can be activated

  • Essence of management is to arrange organisational conditions and methods to allow individuals to achieve their own goals and direct
    individual efforts towards organisational objectives.

  • Purpose of management is to create opportunities, release potential, remove obstacles, encourage growth, and provide guidance.

The tension between these two theories is significant, as McGregor (1957:169) outlines distinctive managerial initiatives and purposes which are either
control and outcome-oriented (Theory X), or are supportive, guiding, and inspirational (Theory Y). When applied to teamwork and problem-oriented scenarios,
this theory as described by DalFono and Merlone (2010:424) indicates an intrinsic pursuit of equity in efforts and organisational performance, whereby
inequities may potentially lead to less effort and resistance to participation. Without managerial influence, the desire for employees to excel beyond
their teammates’ performance levels (e.g. due to variable skill levels, lack of similar experience, etc.) is reduced to an internal tension, the
foundations of Theory X. Yet, whereby managers offer inspirational support, contribute to employee development and self-efficacy, and create a balanced
framework on which to base decisions and activate effort, DalFono and Merlone (2010:424) agree with McGregor (1957:169) that motivation and performance can
be strategically enhanced.

2.3 The Hawthorne Effect

First described in factory operations at General Electric, the Hawthorne Effect is a ‘phenomenon whereby individual or group performance is
influenced by human behaviour factors’ (Lewis et al., 2007:40). A form of summative potential, this effect represents a group/team-activated
improvement in team performance which prioritises a foundation of human resource-oriented management rather than more scientific, output-based agendas
(Lewis et al., 2007:40). By recognising that teamwork is a function of social interactions including both formal and informal groups and interdependencies,
the Hawthorne Effect idealises humanistic pathways by which managers are able to position, affect, and sustain meaningful performance changes in
organisational teams (Lewis et al., 2007:40). This effect further explains the value which the very concept of ‘teamwork’ can have on improving
and sustaining organisational performance from a motivational and participation-based standpoint.

As employees strive to achieve desired performance outcomes under managerial scrutiny, Patel et al. (2012:214-5) argue that justice, as a facilitative
mechanism, has a direct impact on organisational identification and perception, shaping the thoughts, feelings, and actions of individuals. When positioned
in social scenarios, such justice-based effects are magnified, as identity itself is rooted to the role and position within the group, affecting an
individual’s feeling of self-worth (Patel et al., 2012:215). Under likely conditions of team heterogeneity, Tore-Ruiz and Aragon-Correa (2013:555)
propose that team members with higher individual performance assume an important, informative role in regards to team activity and potential. Yet, within
the justice-based vein of Patel et al. (2012:214) and the overarching scrutiny of the Hawthorne effect (Lewis et al., 2007:40), there is a direct
correlation between scrutiny and status and performance, an effect which is inherently magnified within the teamwork setting. Whilst group work may allow
individuals to operate according to independent and individualised motivations and behaviours, continuity and predictability in team performance is
critical to pursuing a broader spectrum objective, orienting members towards optimal behavioural outcomes.

3. Implications and Impacts

For organisational leaders, team roles, characteristics, and values represent a critical opportunity for not only achieving organisational objectives, but
for targeting specific strategic goals and priorities that can result in significant developmental growth. Van De Water and Rozier (2008:499) emphasise
that the underlying value of the Belbin (2011:24) model is predicated upon managerial interventions, applying pragmatic and skills-driven techniques to
team composition, role assignment, and role assumption. Yet for organisations, the realisation of such idealised outcomes is oftentimes overshadowed by
various dimensions of behavioural and individual interference including personality, mental abilities, values and motivations, experience, and learning
practices (Van De Water and Rozier, 2008:499-500). In order to improve upon dysfunctional and ineffective team conditions, researchers such as Dietz et al.
(2014:908) have undertaken to assess the roots of teamwork in practice, describing constructive and behavioural traits that yield desirable working
outcomes. Through their outcome-based assessment of nursing practice and hospital administration, the researchers reveal that structural dimensions
including training, communication and HRM are used to affect work process outcomes, optimising team performance and achieving desirable organisational
outcomes (Dietz et al., 2014:914).

One of the challenges in empirical research as evidenced by Dietz et al. (2014:914) is that situational variability and distinctive behavioural values and
agendas can significantly undermine the relative effectiveness of team-based actions and organisational performance outcomes. Gressgard and Hansen
(2015:167) contend that ‘learning from failures requires sharing of information and knowledge about error experiences’; however, the
researchers also recognise that such ‘holistic’ organisational learning does not always manifest by chance and must be supported by leader
interventions and directional supports. This form of functional knowledge exchange represents a core component of leader involvement and activism in the
organisation that not only allows for intra-unit knowledge exchange, but cross-unit knowledge transfer and absorption (Gressgard and Hansen, 2015:170).
Both of the Dietz et al. (2014:914) and the Gressgard and Hansen (2015:170) studies idealise team-driven environments which, although situational in
practice, are characterised by several high value traits and characteristics that can be further extrapolated and explicated:

• Strong Leadership: Strong, effective leadership involves not only relinquishing control of team functions and decision making to the various
  members, but supporting key functions such as knowledge exchange through purposeful interventions and goal setting.

• Direction and Vision: Effective teams benefit from a strong, purposeful vision that is capable of both directing behaviours and moderating
  individual values and priorities. Whilst leaders maintain responsibility for perpetuating this vision over time, it is the broader, big picture
  agenda of the organisation which ultimately defines and sustains the vision in practice.

• Interdependencies and Partnerships: In order to activate shared knowledge and maximise the benefits of heterogeneous teams, interdependencies must
  be built into the working dynamics, creating opportunities for members to activate new understandings and competencies within the context of the
  broader organisational objectives.

• Roles, Responsibilities, and Agendas: Focusing on the distinct, yet interwoven roles of individual team members, it becomes critical for effective
  teams to not only assign process-oriented tasks to members of the team, but to ensure that there is sufficient clarity and directional support to
  guide and sustain such processes.

The pursuit of effective team-working is driven by both organisational needs and employee engagement, foundations which support, direct, and sustain goal
setting and agenda-specific orientation over time. Deering et al. (2011:90-1) describe several key steps for actualising such goal-oriented outcomes,
focusing on leaders as a directional force that supports team composition and role assignment, allowing teams to develop functional situational awareness
(shared mental model), mutual support (cross-monitoring, cross functionality), and effective communication. Through the introduction of simulated training
scenarios within a real world organisational context, Deerring et al. (2011:94-5) demonstrate how effective team-working can not only be trained, but can
be solidified according to key organisational objectives, establishing foundational rules and guidelines that can then be extended over the course of the
working processes. Such initiatives build upon what Laal (2013:1427) view as a necessary framework of collaborative learning which is ‘based upon
consensus building through cooperation by group members’. Whilst less collaborative setting involving groups may ultimately allow individuals to
pursue learning and knowledge on their own, the roots of collaborative learning are driven by commonalities and goal setting that can magnify the overall
effectiveness of the team-working process over time (Laal et al., 2013:1428). Whilst training and learning in the workplace are largely holistic functions
of daily operations, leaders can stimulate more directional objectives by identifying and defining specific goals and expectations that can support team
performance and enhance effectiveness over time.

At the core of teamwork orchestration are two leading priorities: to achieve consistent, high performing outcomes and/or to innovate or develop beyond the
current state of organisational performance. Hogel and Proserpio (2004:1154) propose that team member proximity (both physical and cognitive) and role
assumption play a significant role in the achievement of desirable collaborative processes. Whilst the researchers focus on the relationships between
team-members across co-located, virtual teams, the evidence relating to proximity supports and coordination resources is indicative of the building blocks
required for effective and high performing teamwork. Specifically, Hogel and Proserpio (2004:1160) describe the role of intermediary actors (e.g. managers)
as a form of cross-location communication support system, creating communication bridges for co-located employees seeking to maintain their distinctive
roles within a distributed, yet goal-oriented team. The evidence, although specific to a particular form of modern enterprise, demonstrates that regardless
of status or role assignments, teamwork and the actualisation of effective outcomes in real world practice, is predicated upon effective communication and
sustained interpersonal relationships that, by virtue of their group focus, are distinct from more traditional group-work and group-based assignments.

The distinction between group and teamwork is important for managers to recognise, as collaborative foundations and interdependencies are unlikely evolve
out of group-based activities, particularly due to the outcome-oriented priorities which inhibit more participative and collective agenda setting (Bedwell
et al. 2012:128). In order to improve collaborative outcomes and organisational performance, Bedwell et al. (2012:134) recognise that collaboration
requires participation in joint activities, a shared or common goal, reciprocity and support, the ability to evolve, and participation by two or more
social entities. Whilst the roots of collaboration are largely intuitive, the effects of such team-driven performance on organisational practices can be
directly linked to improved performance and positive enterprise outcomes. Hayne and Free (2014:309) model such team-driven performance improvements within
the context of risk management and organisational monitoring. By diversifying the responsibility for risk identification and assessment in daily operations
across a cross-functional team, the researchers demonstrate that not only does performance improve over time, but risks and vulnerabilities are
systematically reduced, providing opportunities for new working processes and more efficient resource distribution (Hayne and Frere, 2014:325).

In spite of the positive interpretation of teamwork modelled by Bedwell et al. (2012:134) and further highlighted by Hayne and Frere (2014:325), the
actualisation of an effective, functional team is not a simple process, and may ultimately result in significant hurdles and organisational
inconsistencies. Kwon et al. (2014:185) describe complications within the ‘interprofessional collaborative process’ that emerge from
deficiencies within individual ‘collaborators’, creating hurdles and mitigating the benefits of team-working. One of the most significant
hurdles identified through empirical testing and surveying was inadequate or missing socio-emotional interaction between the team members, inhibiting trust
and ultimately resulting in challenges for group regulation and team participation (Kwon et al., 2014:196). Such findings indicate that for teams to move
beyond the individualised hurdles affecting collaboration and mitigating participation, there must be sufficient motivation, a functional gap that
establishes leader interventions and organisational vision as conduits that allow teams to evolve and achieve higher states of performance.

4. Summary

Whilst the concept of ‘group’ in any team is a relative given, the concept of ‘team’ is fundamentally non-interchangeable with that
of ‘group’. In spite of the fact that the distinction is relatively simplistic (individual work versus collaboration), in organisational
practice, actualising an effective team is much more difficult than simply assigning individuals into groups. The multi-dimensional variables impacting
upon team performance, role assignment, and member behaviour are of significant importance as managers seek to evaluate and target high performing team
outcomes. From personal affiliation and value-based alignment within the organisation to collaborative learning and team-driven capacity building, the
factors that influence team effectiveness are a critical consideration. In spite of long-lived, industry-leading theories such as the team role theory,
Theory X Y, or the Hawthorne Effect, it is difficult to establish a consensus in regards to the roots of effective team membership, and by default,
effective team-working. Individuals can be effective members of groups and fulfil their role according to their own underlying agendas; however, in order
for organisations to truly activate performance and maximise their potential, a more functional, dynamic team environment is necessary. It is through the
layered engagement of multi-dimensional skill sets and competencies that managers are not only able to maximise the effectiveness and efficiency of their
teams, but are able to identify collaborative strengths and collective advantages that might otherwise remain obscured by individual priorities and
actions.

References

Batenburg, R., Van Walbeek, W.V., Der Maur, W.I. (2013) ‘Belbin Role Diversity and Team Performance: Is There a Relationship?’ Journal of Management Development, Vol. 32, No. 8, pp. 901-913.

Bedwell, W.L., Wildman, J.L., DiazGranados, D., Salazar, M., Kramer, W.S., Salas, E. (2012) ‘Collaboration at Work: An Integrative Multilevel
Conceptualization.’ Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 22, pp. 128-145.

Belbin, R.M. (2011) Team Roles at Work. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinmann, 2^nd Edition.

Business. (2011) Business: The Ultimate Resource. London: A&C Black Publishers, 3^rd Edition.

Dal Forno, A., Merlone, U. (2010) ‘Effort Dynamics in Supervised Work Groups.’ Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 75,
pp. 413-425.

Deering, S., Johnston, L.C., Colacchio, K. (2011) ‘Multidisciplinary Teamwork and Communication Training.’ Seminars in Perinatology,
pp. 89-96.

Diez, A.S., Pronovost, P.J., Mendez-Tellez, P.A., Wyskiel, R., Marsteller, J.A., Thompson, D.A., Rosen, M.A. (2014) ‘A Systematic Review of Teamwork
in the Intensive Care Unit: What Do We Know About Teamwork, Team Tasks, and Improvement Strategies?’ Journal of Critical Care, Vol. 29, pp.
908-914.

Fritz, R. (2014) ‘Differences Between Group Work and Team Work.’ Chron, Small Business, Available At: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/differences-between-group-work-team-work-11004.html . Accessed 6^th October, 2014.

Greerssgard, L.J., Hansen, K. (2015) ‘Knowledge Exchange and Learning from Failures in Distributed Environments: The Role of Contractor Relationship
Management and Work Characteristics.’ Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 133, pp. 167-175.

Hayne, C., Free, C. (2014) ‘Hybridized Professional Groups and Institutional Work: COSO and the Rise of Enterprise Risk Management.’ Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 39, pp. 309-330.

Hoegl, M., Proserpio, L. (2004) ‘Team Member Proximity and Teamwork in Innovative Projects.’ Research Policy, Vol. 33, pp. 1153-1165.

James, D. (1999) Introduction to Team and Personal Development. London: Chartered Institute of Bankers.

Kwon, K., Liu, Y.H., Johnson, L.S.P. (2014) ‘Group Regulation and Social-Emotional Interactions Observed in Computer Supported Collaborative
Learning: Comparison Between Good vs Poor Collaborators.’ Computers and Education, Vol. 78, pp. 185-200.

Laal, M., Naseri, A.S., Laal, M., Kermanshahi, Z.K. (2013) ‘What Do We Achieve from Learning in Collaboration?’ Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 93, pp. 1427-1432.

Lewis, P.S., Goodman, S., Fandt, P., Michlitsch, J. (2007) Management: Challenges for Tomorrow’s Leaders. Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western,
5^th Edition.

McGregor, D.M. (1957) ‘The Human Side of Enterprise.’ Management Review, pp. 41-49.

Patel, C., Budhwar, P., Varma, A. (2012) ‘Overall Justice, Work Group Identification and Work Outcomes: Test of Moderated Mediation Process.’ Journal of World Business, Vol. 47, pp. 213-222.

Prichard, J.S., Stanton, N.A. (1999) ‘Testing Belbin’s Team Role Theory of Effective Groups.’ The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 18, No. 8, pp. 652-665.

Torre-Ruiz, J.M.D., Aragon-Correa, J.A. (2013) ‘Interdependence Between Best Team Members and their Teammates.’ International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 552-567.

Van de Water, H., Ahaus, K., Rozier, R. (2008) ‘Team Roles, Team Balance, and Performance.’ Journal of Management Development, Vol.
27, No. 5, pp. 499-512.