Dr. Sharon L. Bender
October, 2004
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.
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.
Adapted from Parker (1990). |
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.
MEET MY BOTTOM LINE TEAM
I developed a team in 1994 that comprised
dynamically cross functional team players. The
small team also comprised the diverse style
team players. The outcome was the development of
"MECA"
(Management/Employee Communication Agreement). We
rolled it out immediately, and without prompting,
signatures began appearing on the posted agreement.
When I personally used the bottom line team development
approach I enjoyed a more effective outcome. The bottom line
for one of my own teams was to handle an employee
satisfaction survey complaint at a major corporation where I
was employed. My task was to derive a fast solution to a
seemingly very difficult problem in my business unit. The
problem was defined as "employee dissatisfaction with upward
communication." In essence, I had to bring together a group
of individuals who could quickly and effectively devise a
way to create a work environment that was more satisfying to
employees through reducing or eliminating the upward
communication issue. This issue was found to be the most
critical that focus groups were probing as more sites found
this an issue than any other according to the results of the
employee satisfaction survey.
 |
|
My “cheerleader,” Emilia was someone who was
enthusiastic about the outcome and who had a clear
understanding of our mission. My “trouble maker,”
Mary was my most interesting participant. This was
someone who asked probing questions that I knew
would get us to think before we leaped to any one
conclusion. This player would have to dig and dig to
the point of upsetting us likely, but we would be
equally likely to come away with the best solution.
My “negotiator,” Mike was someone who was known to
pull people together in our business unit who were
otherwise not able to agree on matters. My “techie,”
Toni was someone who had the data concerning the
problem and someone I felt was reliable in the
ability to convey the data clearly.
When I personally used the bottom line team
development approach I enjoyed a more effective
outcome. The bottom line for one of my own teams was
to handle an employee satisfaction complaint at a
major corporation where I was employed. My task was
to derive a fast solution to a seemingly very
difficult problem in my business unit. The problem
was defined as “employee dissatisfaction with
upward communication.” In essence I had to bring
together a group of individuals who could quickly
and effectively devise a way to create a work
environment that was more satisfying to employees
through reducing or eliminating the upward
communication issue. This issue was found to be the
most critical that focus groups were probing as more
sites found this an issue than any other on an
employee satisfaction survey.
In developing the team I was not aided in finding a
solution. I was not given a clear mission and a
clear definition of the desired outcome. But the
hardest part began in selecting the people who
needed to comprise my task team. We would have to
examine the problem, brainstorm a solution, and
determine its implementation as well as a means to
measure its success; and we had to do it quickly. In
selecting dynamically cross functional team
players I had to consider the people who not
only worked in my business unit, but anyone who
needed to be present to clarify our mission and
carry out our established deliverables. I had to
also consider the personalities of the people I
selected so that my team would include diverse
style team players who would contribute most
effectively to the desired outcome. I had to select
wisely as this was going to be a team of a
minimal number of team players. It was easier to
select the cross functional players than it was to
determine among those players who would best fit in
formulating a group with diverse enough team player
styles. Luckily, many individuals could serve the
cross functional feature. It was a matter of
selecting among them those players who could
contribute the diversity needed to have an effective
outcome. I believed I just needed one player type
from each of the four categories of team player
styles.
Between my team, having the minimal number of
team players present who had a stake in the
outcome who were dynamically cross functional
team players and having the right mix of
personalities, diverse style team players, we
were successful the first and only time we met. The
bottom line result was that employees no
longer felt there was difficulty communicating
upward, which was causing delay in accomplishing
business objectives. My team discovered that the
solution was actually rather simple. Managers would
agree to have an open door policy and employees
would agree to approach managers with solutions
rather than mere problems.
I have
been
personally
impressed
with
Sharon's
ability
to bring
together
a TQ
team of
coworkers
and
successfully
develop
a
solution
to a
significant
communication
problem.
—
Mike Bost,
Regional
Sales
Manager,
AlliedSignal.
TEST YOUR BOTTOM LINE TEAM DEVELOPMENT
Arriving at solutions is easy when you include
dynamically cross functional team players and have
diverse style team players onboard; and
accomplishing fast and effective solutions
contributes to the organization’s bottom line. So
keep your organization’s bottom line in mind when
developing your next team. My experience with this
approach to bottom line team development has been
immensely positive. In essence I brought together
the right people the first time, reducing
unnecessary repeated meetings that over and over do
not yield the desired results, wasting bottom line
resources.
Test your bottom line team development by answering
the following questions:
1) Is there representation present from the key
players such as the front line people who will
deliver on the defined objectives (Kettley & Hirsh,
2000)?
2) Are there a mix of members present who are
goal oriented, question oriented, process oriented,
and task oriented (Parker, 1990)?
3) Do I have a minimal number of team players who
are committed to getting the job done (Dragoon,
2003)?
It’s important to have a mix of the right people
onboard, each contributing a special talent and
unique perspective, each contributing to the
organization’s bottom line yielding effective
outcomes. A team with the right people can solve
problems more effectively than one that is void in
the characteristics of the bottom line team.
Sources
Bender, S. L.
(1996).
Dynamics of group polarization. TESC
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.
