Leading teams in organizations

1. What is leadership attribution error? Who is responsible for the success or failure of a

team’s work? What is the role of leadership styles in ensuring effectiveness of teams’

work?

There are several insights, which the theory of enabling conditions of team work

effectiveness provides. First, it observes the pervasive presence of leadership attribution error

while analyzing teams’ performance. Successes or failures of work teams are attributed to

leaders of work teams even while team members’ functioning might have caused team work

effectiveness (Meindl, Erlich, & Dukerich, 1985). The high degree of leadership attribution

error forces to view leaders’ inaction as the cause of team’s successes though the same

should have seen attributed to teams’ sense of responsibility towards their work. It is only

when it is impossible to establish conclusively the success or failure of team performance

that the leader attribution error does not surface. However, this is not to deny the role that

team leaders play in determining teams’ success or failure. The debated issue, in this context,

is whether leader behavior is the cause of member behavior or vice versa (Hackman, 2002).

It is quite probable that member behavior can also be the cause of leader behavior. Therefore,

it is argued that leader behavior styles cannot be conclusively proved to be the cause of

teamwork effectiveness. Therefore, the theory of enabling conditions of team effectiveness

argues that the leader’s function is only to put in place enabling conditions for teamwork

effectiveness. What is implied is enabling conditions for teamwork facilitate efficiency of

teamwork and thus lead to team effectiveness. Accordingly, the theory does not postulate the

enabling conditions i.e. real teams, compelling direction, enabling structure, supportive

context and expert coaching as the causes of team effectiveness. This is because the theory

views teams and teamwork as evolving social systems and, therefore, not as static systems.

2. What is the relevance of traits’ theory of leadership in bringing about team

effectiveness? What about the relevance of behavioral theories of leadership? What

should be the focus of leaders’ attention to ensure the emergence of effectiveness among

teams?

The theory argues that team effectiveness is not even a function of leader traits as no

single trait can be held as the cause of follower behavior (Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994).

Moreover different situations require display of different traits, the complexity of which is

difficult to assimilate and practise. The same is true of behavior styles too. Moreover, it is

well-learnt behavior that surfaces in situations of crisis rather than any leader behavior style

which might have been taught in a training program. However, this is not to argue that

behavioral styles of leadership are not relevant or effective. What is, in fact, implied is that it

requires cognitive programming of leaders’ way of thinking about situations in order to

practise the most appropriate leadership behavioral style for the dynamically changing

organizational, business situations. Therefore, Hackman (2002) proposes that leaders can

work on enabling conditions and organizational context factors in order to apply a stabilized

approach to facilitate team work effectiveness instead of concentrating on real time

readjustments in task work processes and team work processes.

3. What is indeed a team leader? What issues are important in the context of a team

leadership? What should be the function of leadership if leadership’s causal effect

cannot be recognized to be the determining factor of team effectiveness?

Hackman (2002) makes certain pertinent points while explaining wh1o could be

called a team leader. It is not necessary that team leadership is essentially a function of

designated team leaders. Any team member who provides compelling direction, contributes

to creation of an enabling team structure, and provides organizational support should be

understood as performing the function of team leadership. Therefore, there are two issues

which are of importance in the context of team leadership. First, the issue is not that of

identifying who is the team leader as much as what is it that the team is receiving as a result

of leadership functions that everybody within teams may be discharging (Hackman &

Walton, 1986; Hirokawa, 1985). Second, leadership serves its purpose better only when it

facilitates the emergence of conducive conditions for team work effectiveness i.e. enabling

team structure, supportive organizational context, and expert coaching. Therefore, the theory

of enabling conditions of team work effectiveness argues that the job of leadership is to

create conditions that foster team effectiveness i.e. formation of real teams, providing

compelling direction, erecting an enabling team structure, facilitating supportive

organizational context, and coaching team members.

4. How should we define team effectiveness? What are the hidden costs of not attaining all

aspects of team effectiveness? What are the trade-offs that result from team leaders’

attempts to optimize the trade-offs that result from the process of attaining all the three

criteria of team effectiveness?

As the theory argues that leadership shouldn’t be viewed in a ‘causal’ framework and

should be viewed within the framework of enabling ‘conditions’ to foster team effectiveness,

the focus of leadership should be on enabling teams to achieve their effectiveness in terms of

all the three criteria of team effectiveness i.e. producing products and services acceptable to

clients, enabling teams to grow as performing units, and to facilitate team members’ learning

and fulfilment. Moreover, it is not desirable on the part of team leaders to focus exclusively

on any of the three criteria of team effectiveness i.e. producing products and providing

services acceptable to customers, enabling growth of team, and facilitating team learning and

fulfillment. Concentrating on any of these to the exclusion of others is detrimental to team

performance, both in the short-run and long-run. Concentrating on enabling teamwork

effectiveness in all its three aspects will enable teams to get beyond what Hackman (2002)

calls as hidden costs. Though team leaders may have to face some kind of opposition of team

members even as they try to optimize the trade-off resulting from their attempts to fulfil all

the three criteria of team effectiveness, the challenge is worth taking up as it strengthens team

members’ capabilities to function as a self-managing team.

5. Should we say that a given leadership style is most suitable for leading teams? Why?

As far as the specific leadership styles that leaders need to adopt in getting the work

done through their team members, Hackman (2002) argues that any leadership behavior style

which suits particularly to a team leader will suffice as long as ends are reached. Therefore,

Hackman (2002) argues that the principle of equifinality becomes applicable on this issue.

The principle of equifinality states that you can reach an end through several paths and,

therefore, what matters more is reaching the end rather than the comparative merits and

demerits of specific paths.

6. What are the consequences of stating the ‘ends’ of a team’s work but not the ‘means’?

Stating ends but not the means of achieving the same encourages team members to

utilize completely their knowledge, experience and skills to devise appropriate performance

strategies. This kind of provision of direction is highly appropriate in the context of those

types of work which demand high degree of reliability and personal reliability. However, this

works well only when leaders supplement this approach with an enabling team structure,

supportive organizational context, and expert coaching. The same should also be

supplemented by specifying the limits of team’s authority so that the team does not get into

unacceptable actions.

7. What are the consequences of stating both ‘ends’ and means’ of a team’s work?

Stating both ends and means of team’s work ensures accuracy desired in work, and

reduces leader’s anxiety levels but at the cost of much wastage of resources of knowledge,

experience and skills that team members could have employed. This will also rule out the

possibility of invoking team members’ initiative to take proactive actions to respond

adequately to solve unforeseen problems and opportunities during the course of team’s work.

Further, team members may lose sight of attaining overall purpose of the team even as they

concentrate on execution and control of their limited activities. Therefore, this is essentially

an issue of striking a healthy balance between standardization and autonomy. Accordingly,

team members need direction regarding their collective purpose along with operational

freedom to achieve the same, though with a clarity on limits of their authority.

8. What happens if a team leader doesn’t state either the ‘ends’ or ‘means’ of the team’s

work?

Not stating either the ends or means is a case of scenario that leads to anarchy in team

functioning. Team members may go on debating about what they want to do and how they

are going to do it. Even while they decide upon what they will do, it may either be without

common focus or inconsequential. In other words, those decisions on what they will do and

how they will do the same may not be challenging, lack clarity or may well be

inconsequential.

9. What will be the impact on team effectiveness if a team leader doesn’t state the ‘end’ of

the team’s work, but states the ‘means’ to achieve it?

Not specifying ends but only means will only spell disaster to team effectiveness as

they will fail in all three criteria of team effectiveness i.e. producing products and services

that meet or exceed client expectations, growth in team’s capabilities and team functioning as

a performing unit over time, and professional learning and individual growth of team

members. This is because of lack of awareness on the part of team members regarding why

they do what they actually do. This is quite opposite to stating ends but not means, which

provides clarity of purpose along with the necessary operational freedom to achieve the

purpose of the team. Team members don’t get either the clarity of purpose or operational

freedom even as leaders don’t provide direction regarding ends as well as means.

10. What are the imperatives that the leaders should be cautious about even as they

provide compelling direction to their teams?

There are three imperatives that leaders need to know even as they provide

compelling direction to their teams. First, they should strike a balance between clarity and

completeness. The direction given should have clarity but should also give room to team

members to extend the horizon of clarity. If the performance objective set is too complete,

team members may get excessively focused on the objective that they may lose sight of

changing circumstances. Further, they may get into unethical practices if performance

objectives are linked to rewards. Second, team leaders’ direction should strike a balance

between modest and highly challenging aspirations. This means, operationally, that there

should be moderately challenging aspirations so as to energize team members. Third, team

leaders should be made aware of the need to alternately change their roles as leaders and

followers especially when they have to receive direction from top management so as to

convey the same to their own team members. On such occasions as these, they may resist the

direction or may abdicate their responsibility to energize their team members even while they

accept routinely top management’s directions. Therefore, this requires striking a balance

between leadership and followership, which has to be exercised by team leaders with

sufficient degree of maturity.

11. What are the managerial implications of the distinction between ‘groups’ and ‘teams’?

Hackman (2001) argues that one of the first enabling conditions to attain team

effectiveness consists in making a team a ‘real team’. What this implies is that a ‘co-acting’

group in which individual members perform individual tasks shouldn’t be called a team. For

a team to become a real team, the task that team members perform should really be

interdependent. Therefore, organizations aren’t supposed to design work for teams while the

same is supposed to be performed by individuals, and rewarded individually. Terming a work

as the work of a ‘team’ while the nature of work is ‘individual’, and supervising the work of

individuals even as the responsibility of the work is that of a team would become

contradictory.

Secondly, teams should have clear boundaries in the sense that there should be clarity

on who the team members are. In this regard, there should neither be ‘overbounded’ teams

nor ‘underbounded’ teams. ‘Overbounded’ teams are those whose members do not respond

to environmental changes though there exist member stability and team identity.On the other

hand, ‘underbounded’ teams are those in which case there won’t be either member stability

or team identity. However, a bounded team doesn’t mean that its members should not be

working in different places nor does it mean that there should not be change in membership

structure if circumstances so demand. What this simply means is that there should be total

clarity on who the team members are.

Thirdly, teams should be in the clear knowledge of the extent of their authority. This

implies that team members should have clarity on the bounds of their authority. This

translates itself to getting clarity on decisions that teams can and cannot take. The extent of

authority varies across teams depending upon types of decisions that the teams are allowed to

take among the following types of decisions with regard to team self-management; executing

the team tasks, monitoring and managing work process and progress, designing the team and

its organizational context, and setting overall direction. Manager-led teams merely execute

their assigned tasks. Self-managing teams execute their tasks as well as monitor and manage

work process and progress. Self-designing teams possess the authority to design their team

structure, organizational context, monitor and manage their work process and progress, in

addition to execution of tasks. Self-governing teams have authority to take decisions with

regard to all four aspects which distinguish teams in terms of degree of authority that they

possess viz., sitting overall direction, team design and organizational context design,

monitoring and managing work process and progress, and lastly the execution of tasks.

Lastly, real teams are those in whom there is stability over time with regard to its

membership. Familiarity, shared mental model of performance, shared pool of knowledge,

awareness regarding the manner in which knowledge and skills of members are to be used

and shared commitment are the reasons due to which membership stability over time leads to

greater team performance. As these advantages don’t develop in isolation, they have to be

nurtured together. Prior research suggests that training a team together can initiate the above-

mentioned team processes and enable their development even as they work together. This

will together lead to creation of teams which function as performing units.

In essence, real team leaders make sure that teams become matured so as to ensure

the process of following features: First, they choose tasks which are appropriate for team

tasks and form interdependent work teams. Second, they decide upon the clarity with regard

to team boundaries, which are characterized by moderate flexibility. Third, leaders fix the

amount of authority that team members would have, which should be ‘substantial as well as

delimited’. Lastly, leaders ensure that team membership is reasonably stable over time.

12. Critically evaluate the process of structuring the ‘team work design’. What lessons

should a leader learn and adopt while leading teams?

Enabling team structure is all about creating conducive structure of teams so that

team functioning becomes smooth, efficient and energizing so as to utilize optimally the

knowledge and skills of team members in order to evolve appropriate task performance

strategies in specific circumstances. Enabling structure erects suitable work platform with

enough space for operational freedom for team members. Enabling structure is a function of

three structural features i.e. team work design, core norms of conduct and team composition.

Internal work motivation (Lawler, 1969) is the key idea that acts as the foundational

principle of work design of teams. The advantage of internal work motivation is that team

members own up the responsibility for their own performance. Internal work motivation is a

function of three dimensions i.e. experienced meaningfulness, felt responsibility and

knowledge of results (Hackman, Brousseau & Weiss, 1976). Prior research indicates that

even as the construct of internal work motivation is an individual level variable, it can be

applied at the team level too (Bandura, 2000). Therefore, collective work motivation is an

organizational reality at the team level. The motivating potential of work of teams increases

If ‘the team task (a) is a whole and meaningful piece of work, (b) for which members have

autonomy to exercise judgment about work procedures, and that (c) provides members

regular and trustworthy knowledge of results’. This kind of work becomes meaningful

because it provides moderate challenge, sense of completeness, and the feeling of

significance. However, the collective work motivation can be hampered if there exists social

loafing within teams (Latane, Williams & Harkins, 1979). It is noteworthy that social loafing

is itself the result of poor work design (Waller, 1996). But it can exist even while there exists

good work design. In such cases, the problem of social loafing can be solved by decreasing

the team size in such a manner that makes the work challenging and team size reasonable.

While bigger tasks are good for good work design, smaller size of team is good for team

composition. In this context, team leaders are expected to overcome ‘motivational

decrement’ (Steiner, 1972) through good work design, and social loafing through optimum

team size. Team leaders should also address the issue of ‘motivational decrement’ through

expert coaching.

Providing reasonable autonomy to teams is also necessary for ensuring the outcome

of collective internal motivation (Hackman, 2002; p.100). Freedom to design work process

and progress and monitor the same is highly essential in case of self-managing teams. The

prime advantage of providing reasonable autonomy to teams is that they can get beyond the

idea of ‘one best way’ of doing work, which is dictated by standard work procedures. If

teams do not use autonomy as well as expected, teams will turn out to be not only ineffective

but also dangerous. In this regard, team leaders should not make a declaration of team

autonomy even as they layout the complete set of work procedure which, in effect, does not

give any room for autonomy. This happens especially when managers feel that the work is

extremely important, which compels team leaders to lay out standard operating procedures.

However, flip side of autonomy can be controlled if team leaders facilitate continuous

learning (Edmondson, 1999). Providing feedback that gives knowledge of results of team’s

work makes learning possible (Pritchard et al, 1988). However, psychological safety is a pre-

condition for collective learning to happen within teams (Edmondson, 1999). If the feedback

is about team’s performance under an atmosphere of psychological safety, collective learning

results. However, collective learning cannot occur if feedback is essentially about individual

performance. Bounded teams and member stability over time are the two more conditions for

collective team learning to happen. However, collective learning may also not occur even in

teams which are characterized by boundaries, member stability and psychological safety if

there is no adequate expert coaching as team members are likely to experience anti-learning

stances whether they experience success or failure in team tasks. Therefore, Hackman (2002)

states that ‘when the work provides a stable team with regular, trustworthy feedback about

how it is doing and when the team is well coached, then the team is almost certain to evolve

into a self-correcting performing unit, one whose every experience may come to be viewed by

members as an occasion for continuous improvement’ (Hackman, 2002; Hackman & Morris,

1975). But if teams are not well-designed, teams may refuse to learn even if constructive

feedback were given to them.

13. Do you consider ‘group norms’ as an edifice of enabling team structure? What should

be the focus of group norms?

Group norms of conduct constitute the second edifice of an enabling team structure

(Hackman, 2002, p.105). Teams can develop their own norms, or some others either within

the organization or from outside, as in the case of trainers, can prescribe norms of conduct

(Hackman, 1992). Hackman (2002) argues that proactive screening of environment and

making conscious choices about performance strategies, and deciding upon ‘must do’ and

‘must never do’ actions constitute the two core norms of conduct (Hackman, 2002; Hackman

& Morris, 1975). Proactive screening of environment leads to reduction in risks of

inappropriate analysis of dynamic business situations, and norms regarding do’s and don’ts

will prescribe the limits of decision and actions that teams can take (Hackman, 2002, p.106).

14. Critically analyze the issues that the team leaders should keep in mind while team

deciding upon team composition.

Hackman (2002) points out three mistakes that people make, while forming teams,

with regard to team size, member features and interpersonal skills. First, it is assumed that

the team becomes effective by increasing its size (Levine & Moreland, 1998, p.419-422).

Second, it is further supposed that homogeneity is good for team functioning (Jackson, 1996;

Bowers, Pharmer, & Salas, 2000; Tziner & Eden, 1985). Third, it is taken for granted that

knowledge of interpersonal skills is inherent among team members. However, the prior

research contradicts each of these three assumptions. Research findings have validated the

occurrence of ‘process losses’ as the team size increases, dysfunctions of extreme

heterogeneity as well as similarity of extreme homogeneity, and the unreality of the

assumption of the natural presence of interpersonal skills. Aiming at optimum team size or

slightly less than what may be termed as optimum tam size, moderate heterogeneity, and

coaching the team members on interpersonal skills especially with regard to managing those

team members who display deviant behavior are the interventions that the prior research

suggests in order to overcome the above-mentioned ‘process losses’.

15. What factors of supportive context assume importance while ‘creating a platform for

teamwork’?

Hackman (2002) considers that the presence of real teams, providing compelling

direction, and creating an enabling structure can be likened to ‘creating a platform for

teamwork’. As teams don’t work in a vacuum but do so in an organizational context (Ancona

& Caldwell, 1992; Hackman, 1999), organizations are expected to provide conducive

supportive context that consists of reward system, information system and educational

system (Sundstrom et al, 2000; Walton, 1980). Appropriate reward system inspires good

team performance, properly designed information system provides meaningful data to design

appropriate performance strategies, and relevant education system contributes to work-

related knowledge and skills of team members. Reward system inspires greater effort on the

part of team members only if rewards are contingent on team performance (Hackman, 2002;

p.139) and should be significant enough to be valued by team members (Lawler, 2000;

Zenger & Marshall, 2000). Providing rewards to individuals while the work is indeed a team

work, and rewarding teams while the work is an individual work are both contradictions

(Wood, 1990). Though providing recognition and reinforcement through praise is effective,

rewarding through money makes real difference. However, organizations are generally

resistant to institute team-based reward system. The objective of information system is to

provide teams data that are relevant to take competent decisions. Information system enables

teams to provide teams efficient and relevant performance strategies. A few ideas are worth

noting while instituting an information system within an organization. First, it is vital to share

information with team members than concealing it due to the fear of divulging secrets.

Second, information system should provide relevant information in a manner which users of

information make sense of it and can use it. Third, providing too much information is not

beneficial though information endowed comes with power.

Creation of self-managed work teams and complementing them with organizational

context factors such as appropriate reward system and an efficient informational system

would not be enough unless a comforting education system supports them. Education

system’s job should be to provide required level of knowledge and relevant skill sets to team

members whenever they are insufficient for the purpose of effective execution of

performance strategies. However, this is easier said than done as organizations are more

accustomed to provide training to individuals than teams. Therefore, what is required is to

provide training to teams by drawing up job analysis of the collective work that teams

perform, in addition to training individuals based on the job analysis of individual tasks.

16. Critically evaluate the role of ‘expert coaching’ in bringing about team

effectiveness?

Expert coaching is the second contextual factor, which supports the platform for work

teams created by real teams, compelling direction, and enabling structure. The objective of

expert coaching is to inspire effort endowed with ‘team spirit’, to help design a well-aligned

performance strategy (Hackman & Morris, 1975; Hackman & Wageman, 2001), and ensure

the application of required level of knowledge and skills to the work of teams. However, the

task of expert coaching is to ensure that there are no process losses in this regard or at least

they are minimized. Therefore, expect coaching seeks to reduce ‘process losses’ and create

synergetic ‘process gains’ (Hackman, 2002). While attempting to ensure inspired team effort,

expert coaching aims at reduction of process losses that may originate from social loafing

and create synergic gains resulting from shared commitment to team and team’s work.

Further, expert coaching endeavors to reduce process losses resulting from addiction of team

members to habitual routines (Argyris, 1985; Smith & Berg, 1987) and create process gains

through the discovery of innovative task performance strategies in order to put in place those

performance strategies which are properly aligned with team objectives and organizational

purposes. Furthermore expert coaching attempts to eliminate process losses resulting from

improper weighting of member contributions, and to invoke process gains that may emanate

because of sharing of knowledge and development of member skills. Teams have a tendency

to give greater importance to members’ demographic attributes, organizational social

position and behavioral style than the actual knowledge and skills of team members

regarding the work of teams. Further, the tendency to get attached to routines of work instead

of proactive and innovative evolution of performance strategy is the result of absence of

active environmental scanning. Furthermore, the tendency to hide behind team’s work

resulting in social loafing reduces efficiency of effort. Expect coaching aims at removing

these process losses so as to institute dynamic performance strategy, recognizing member

contributions based on merits of contributions and to inspire energetic effort endowed with

team commitment and team spirit.

Hackman (2002) terms the coaching intervention that reduces social loafing and

increases shared commitment as motivational, the intervention that reduces habitual routines

and institutes dynamic environmental screening as consultative and the intervention that

reduces inappropriate weighting of member contributions and develops knowledge and skills

of team members as educational. Coaching interventions that focus on inspired effort are

implemented in the beginning of team life-cycle. The inventions that endeavor to align

performance strategies in accordance with team performance objectives are invoked during

the mid-point of team life-cycle, and those coaching interventions which seek to enhance the

knowledge and skills of team members are executed at the end of team life-cycle.

There are two relevant issues with respect to coaching: first, what coaches shouldn’t

do and second, whether coaching should originate necessarily from the designated team

leader. The research evidence suggests that good coaches concentrate on improving task-

performance processes rather than on interpersonal processes. It is argued by Hackman(2002)

that deficiencies in task performance processes lead to anomalies in interpersonal processes.

Not the other way round. Therefore, if coaches concentrate on setting right tasks related

issues they can give rise to improved interpersonal processes within their teams, as a natural

consequence. Second, coaching interventions need not necessarily emanate from team

leaders. Team members can also provide coaching interventions at different stages of team

life-cycle.