weLEAD Online Magazine

leadingtoday.org

Copyright 2004 ã weLEAD, Inc.

Bottom Line Team Development

By Sharon L. Bender Ph.D

Bottom line equates to the survival of a company. It is the earnings that show how much money it can use to reinvest in business growth or to pay dividends to its shareholders; and it’s lowering costs. Many aspects affect the bottom line, but today perhaps more than ever teams are expected to contribute to the organization’s bottom line objectives. Whether they are task teams or work teams, they must solve many problems and they must deliver quality outcomes, fast and effectively, involving key team players to accomplish their mission and established deliverables.

Task teams, sometimes referred to as focus groups, come together temporarily to solve a particular problem or to improve a specific process, whereas work teams comprise more permanent members and have primary responsibility for daily operations in a particular organization or department. They both must consider the tenets of bottom line team development, however. Because task teams are often developed spontaneously to address a short-term issue, they must consider more dynamically the inclusion of the “right” people. Work teams already have members in place, but they must occasionally invite participation from people who can contribute to the problem or process under consideration. In either case people selection can be a key feature in successful team development. Major characteristics in the selection process are dynamically cross functional team players, members with diverse team player styles, and grouping a minimal number of team players. Each contributes to meeting the organization’s objectives, benefiting its bottom line.

THREE MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS

Considerations for developing the bottom line team:

1) Dynamically Cross Functional Team Players: Teams that are not dynamically cross functional may not have adequate representation of individuals who can most effectively contribute input based upon a host of experiences and responsibilities, yielding constructive results. Include the right people. This means making certain that the people who need to be involved in the outcome of the team objectives are present and able to contribute to the decision making process. Do not make the mistake of putting together a team to discuss a matter and exclude the people who will be assigned the work to meet the team’s deliverables for example. Representation and input from individuals who will be working toward meeting objectives is invaluable to both task teams and work teams. Another cross functionality consideration in bottom line team development is its effect on employee satisfaction. Retention of good employees is often critical to the organization’s bottom line, which can be adversely affected if employees are not recognized as valuable contributors in important group discussions. Cross functionality considers people from various levels in the organization who may have a positive impact on team results. According to Kettley and Hirsh (2000), "Cross-functional teams can represent the ‘coalface’ of organizational learning."

2) Diverse Style Team Players: A diverse combination of team players can complement, challenge, and inspire one another to new levels of performance. To be effective every team ought to have people onboard who are goal oriented, question oriented, process oriented, and task oriented (Parker, 1990). To make the most of each team player’s unique perspective, the team developer must learn to identify the different styles and select people who can contribute to the subject matter, but who are varied in their team player styles, using the appropriate style to maximum team effectiveness. Each style contributes in different ways to the success of the team, but each style has a downside when carried to an extreme. The use and balance of these players can be a critical matter. The following team player styles that I used are adapted from Glenn Parker's four team player styles. I used these team player styles in order to develop my own effective team and I have given my own identifiers to them based on the way in which I viewed the actual players as "Cheer Leader," "Trouble Maker," "Negotiator," and "Techie." I use these names affectionately. The associated descriptions, however, are largely adapted from Parker (1990).

Goal Oriented Team Player (Cheer Leader) - Parker's Collaborator

A goal oriented team member sees the vision, mission, or goal of the team as paramount, but is flexible and open to new ideas; is willing to pitch in and work outside his or her defined role; and is able to share the limelight with other team members. This individual is a “big-picture” person. The goal oriented team player collaborates with others and brings clarity to perspective and purpose. This player might be someone who is high spirited and a morale booster. In my team, the “cheer leader” contributed value to the team through provision of goal oriented enthusiasm.

Question Oriented Team Player (Trouble Maker) - Parker's Challenger

A question oriented team player challenges the goals, methods, and even the ethics of the team; is willing to disagree with the leader or higher authority; and encourages the team to take well-conceived risks. This individual challenges others through candor and openness. The question oriented team player may be perceived as someone who causes conflict and is not considered a “team player.” This player might be someone who seems never satisfied with the outcome and considered a bit of a trouble maker. But the question oriented team player encourages us to revisit our decisions. In my team, the “trouble maker” contributed value to the team through provision of question oriented reappraisal.

Process Oriented Team Player (Negotiator) - Parker's Communicator

A process oriented member is an effective listener and facilitator of involvement, conflict resolution, consensus building, feedback, and the building of an informative, relaxed climate.  This individual is a positive people person who communicates the process with interpersonal ease and has a clear mission with a plan to accomplish it. The process oriented team player possesses excellent communication skills, openness, and trust among team members. This player might be someone who is quiet and pensive, yet offers involved input when it is sought. In my team, the “negotiator” contributed value to the team through provision of process oriented harmony.

Task Oriented Team Player (Techie) - Parker's Contributor

A task oriented team member enjoys providing the team with good technical information, does preparation homework, and pushes the team to set high performance standards using their resources wisely. This individual is seen as dependable, contributing focus to the team. The task oriented team player maintains positive relationships with and support from other parts of the organization. This player might be someone who carries a note pad or palm pilot to track ideas and important data. Look for someone who pays attention to details. In my team, the “techie” contributed value to the team through provision of task oriented clarity. 

3) Minimal Number of Team Players: A small number of select team players can often make a greater impact than a larger group. According to Dragoon (2003), "The idea is that the members of these small workgroups commit to a common purpose, approach, and processes; and hold themselves mutually accountable for delivery against clearly defined performance goals." The leader is not the key performer on the team, it's the players involved.

The next time you develop a task team or plan a work team meeting, consider the major characteristics that contribute to your organization’s bottom line. Ask yourself whether you have the right people present. Time and again I have attended meetings where important people were missing. I too was on occasion not called upon to contribute to meetings for which I had some involvement, yet I would be given the obligation to meet the team’s objectives without clear direction on its expectations. I could have contributed to the development of deliverables and gotten clarity on expectations had I been present. In one case a work team gathered together to discuss a matter I proposed. The folks on the work team met for two hours to discuss the plausibility in my proposal without considering that I might be a key participant. The team missed the mark in not realizing the team was not cross functional enough to conclude the matter at hand in one meeting. Objectives were set that I would ultimately be responsible to meet. I was not given the opportunity to ask pertinent and defining questions to get clear measurement of the means for meeting those objectives. I was left to wonder what was expected of me. After questioning a key member of the team I was able to obtain clarity on the means for meeting the team’s objectives, but this was after I became dismayed concerning my exclusion. Further, at the expense of the organization’s resources more time was needed to define the objectives when that could have been accomplished in a single meeting.

Sources:

Dragoon, A. (2003). Small teams with clear goals yield productivity for CBS IT. CIO.

Kettley, P., & Hirsh, W. (2000). Learning from cross-functional teamwork. Report 356, Institute for Employment Studies.

Parker, G. M. (1990). Team player and teamwork: The new competitive business strategy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 

Comments to: editor@leadingtoday.org

About the author:

Dr. Sharon L. Bender is a professor at multiple universities. She published the textbook, “Producing the Capstone Project” and she has published other scholarly works. Dr. Bender holds the Doctorate in Organization and Management in which she has studied the psychology of leadership and group dynamics. During her years in the corporate environment she has led successful teams and learned the critical importance of building a team with the bottom line in mind. For more information about Dr. Sharon L. Bender please visit http://www.sharonbender.com.

BACK TO weLEAD HOME PAGE