# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Implementing Group Work in the Classroom | Centre for Teaching Excellence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Group work can be an effective method to motivate students, encourage active learning, and develop key critical-thinking, communication, and decision-making sk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One way to change the pace in your classroom is to do a small group activity. But what type of small group should you use? It depends on the size of your class, the length of time you have available, the physical features of the classroom, and the nature of the group task. Here are several options you could try. Consult the Centre for Teaching Excellence teaching tip " Group Work in the Classroom: Small-Group Tasks " for task ideas.

Buzz groups

Description: These groups involve students engaging in short, informal discussions, often in response to a particular sentence starter or question. At a transitional moment in the class, have students turn to 1-3 neighbours to discuss any difficulties in understanding, answer a prepared question, define or give examples of key concepts, or speculate on what will happen next in the class. The best discussions are those in which students make judgments regarding the relative merits, relevance, or usefulness of an aspect of the lecture (Brookfield & Preskill, 1999). Sample questions include, "What's the most contentious statement you've heard so far in the lecture today?" or "What's the most unsupported assertion you've heard in the lecture today?" Reconvene as a class and have a general discussion in which students share ideas or questions that arose within their subgroups.

Comments: This method is very flexible: it is easy to implement in any size of class and in most classrooms, even the most formally arranged lecture hall. Consider how to regain the attention of a large group: turning the lights off and on is one simple yet effective method.

Think-pair-share

Description: This strategy has three steps. First, students think individually about a particular question or scenario. Then they pair up to discuss and compare their ideas. Finally, they are given the chance to share their ideas in a large class discussion.

Comments: Think-pair-sharing forces all students to attempt an initial response to the question, which they can then clarify and expand as they collaborate. It also gives them a chance to validate their ideas in a small group before mentioning them to the large group, which may help shy students feel more confident participating.

Circle of Voices

Description: This method involves students taking turns to speak. Students form circles of four or five. Give students a topic, and allow them a few minutes to organize their thoughts about it. Then the discussion begins, with each student having up to three minutes (or choose a different length) of uninterrupted time to speak. During this time, no one else is allowed to say anything. After everyone has spoken once, open the floor within the subgroup for general discussion. Specify that students should only build on what someone else has said, not on their own ideas; also, at this point, they should not introduce new ideas (Brookfield & Preskill, 1999).

Comments: Some shy students might feel uncomfortable having to speak. Lessen their fear by making the topic specific and relevant or by giving each person a relevant quote to speak about. A variation to this method, which encourages students to listen more carefully to each other, involves requiring each person to begin by paraphrasing the comments of the previous student or by showing how his or her remarks relate to those of the previous student. For this variation, students will need less preparation time before the "circle" begins, but they may need more time between speakers.

Rotating trios

Class size: 15-30

Time frame: 10 or more minutes

Setting: a fair bit of space, moveable seating helpful (they could stand) Purpose: introduce students to many of their peers, generate ideas

Description: This strategy involves students discussing issues with many of their fellow classmates in turn. Beforehand, prepare discussion questions. In class, students form trios, with the groups arranged in a large circle or square formation. Give the students a question and suggest that each person take a turn answering. After a suitable time period, ask the trios to assign a 0, 1, or 2 to each of its members. Then direct the #1s to rotate one trio clockwise, the #2s to rotate two trios clockwise, and the #0s to remain in the same place; the result will be completely new trios. Now introduce a new, slightly more difficult question. Rotate trios and introduce new questions as many times as you would like (Silberman, 1996).

Comments: This type of group can be arranged with pairs or foursomes and works well with most subject matter, including computational questions. It would be difficult to implement in a large class, however.

Snowball groups/pyramids

Class size: 12-50

Time frame: 15-20 minutes, depending on how many times the groups "snowball"

Setting: moveable seating required

Purpose: generate well-vetted ideas, narrow a topic, develop decision-making skills

D escription: This method involves progressive doubling: students first work alone, then in pairs, then in fours, and so on. In most cases, after working in fours, students come together for a plenary session in which their conclusions or solutions are pooled. Provide a sequence of increasingly complex tasks so that students do not become bored with repeated discussion at multiple stages. For example, have students record a few questions that relate to the class topic. In pairs, students try to answer one another's questions. Pairs join together to make fours and identify, depending on the topic, either unanswered questions or areas of controversy or relevant principles based on their previous discussions. Back in the large class group, one representative from each group reports the group's conclusions (Habeshaw et al, 1984; Jaques, 2000).

Comments: This method takes time to unfold, so should be used only when the concepts under discussion warrant the time. Also, depending on the amount of time allotted, students may feel that certain nuances of their discussions are lost.

Jigsaw

Description: This strategy involves students becoming "experts" on one aspect of a topic, then sharing their expertise with others. Divide a topic into a few constitutive parts ("puzzle pieces"). Form subgroups of 3-5 and assign each subgroup a different "piece" of the topic (or, if the class is large, assign two or more subgroups to each subtopic). Each group's task is to develop expertise on its particular subtopic by brainstorming, developing ideas, and if time permits, researching. Once students have become experts on a particular subtopic, shuffle the groups so that the members of each new group have a different area of expertise. Students then take turns sharing their expertise with the other group members, thereby creating a completed "puzzle" of knowledge about the main topic (see Silberman, 1996). A convenient way to assign different areas of expertise is to distribute handouts of different colours. For the first stage of the group work, groups are composed of students with the same colour of handout; for the second stage, each member of the newly formed groups must have a different colour of handout.

Comments: The jigsaw helps to avoid tiresome plenary sessions, because most of the information is shared in small groups. This method can be expanded by having students develop expertise about their subtopics first through independent research outside of class. Then, when they meet with those who have the same subtopic, they can clarify and expand on their expertise before moving to a new group. One potential drawback is that students hear only one group's expertise on a particular topic and don't benefit as much from the insight of the whole class; to address this issue, you could collect a written record of each group's work and create a master document-a truly complete puzzle-on the topic.

Fishbowl

Time frame: 15 or more minutes

Setting: moveable seating and a lot of space preferable; if necessary, have inner group stand/sit at front of lecture hall and the outer group sit in regular lecture hall seats

Purpose: observe group interaction, provide real illustrations for concepts, provide opportunity for analysis

Description: This method involves one group observing another group. The first group forms a circle and either discusses an issue or topic, does a role play, or performs a brief drama. The second group forms a circle around the inner group. Depending on the inner group's task and the context of your course, the outer group can look for themes, patterns, soundness of argument, etc., in the inner group's discussion, analyze the inner group's functioning as a group, or simply watch and comment on the role play. Debrief with both groups at the end in a plenary to capture their experiences. See Jaques (2000) for several variations on this technique.

Comments: Be aware that the outer group members can become bored if their task is not challenging enough. You could have groups switch places and roles to help with this. Also note that the inner group could feel inhibited by the observers; mitigate this concern by asking for volunteers to participate in the inner circle or by specifying that each student will have a chance to be both inner and outer group members. Although this method is easiest to implement in small classes, you could also expand it so that multiple "fishbowls" are occurring at once.

Learning teams

Description: For this type of group, students are divided into groups at the beginning of the term. When you want to incorporate small group discussion or teamwork into your class, you direct the students to get into these term-long learning groups. Groups of four work well, because each foursome can be subdivided into pairs, depending on the activity.

Comments: Students get to know a small number of their classmates well over the course of the term, and may come to see their team mates as study partners even outside the classroom. Using learning teams eliminates the time it takes to organize students into groups each time you wish to use group work. However, because students will be working with each other over an extended time period, be very careful about how you assign them to groups. Have students submit data cards about themselves at the beginning of term, possibly even completing a short personality inventory. You might want to ask them also to suggest the names of two or three classmates with whom they would and would not like to work.

Support

If you would like support applying these tips to your own teaching, CTE staff members are here to help. View the CTE Support page to find the most relevant staff member to contact.

References

Brookfield, S.D., & Preskill, S. (1999). Discussion as a Way of Teaching: Tools and Techniques for Democratic Classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Habeshaw, S., Habeshaw, T., & Gibbs, G. (1984). 53 Interesting Things to Do in Your Seminars & Tutorials. Bristol: Technical and Educational Services Ltd.

Jaques, D. (2000). Learning in Groups: A Handbook for Improving Group Work, 3rd ed. London: Kogan Page.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.4. Washington, D.C.: School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University.

Race, P. (2000). 500 Tips on Group Learning. London: Kogan Page.

Silberman, M. (1996). Active Learning: 101 Strategies to Teach Any Subject. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

This Creative Commons license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon our work non-commercially, as long as they credit us and indicate if changes were made. Use this citation format: Group Work in the Classroom: Types of Small Groups. Centre for Teaching Excellence, University of Waterloo.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Group Work in the Classroom: Types of Small Groups | Centre for Teaching Excellence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One way to change the pace in your classroom is to do a small group activity. But what type of small group should you use? It depends on the size of your class, the length of time you have available, the physical features of the classroom, and the nature of the group task.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sharing responsibilities according to RACI model

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Leaders have a huge challenge when it comes to accountability.

They must both visibly model personal accountability and instill accountability in their team members.

This can be especially challenging when team members have the mentality that they have done enough, or it's not their job, or they can't do anything about the results being produced.

When people don't feel accountable, they drop to the lowest possible level of performance that their leader will accept. The accountable leader assumes responsibility for all associates, vendors, customers, and the organization as a whole. These leaders help team members shift into the "discretionary" performance zone. This zone is where members do their best to take responsibility for their individual success and for the success of the team and the organization.

What Is Accountability?

Accountability is taking ownership and acting in a responsible way, despite personal feelings, potential outcomes, or even possible consequences.

Accountable people demonstrate maximum effort in terms of fulfilling their responsibilities and keeping the promises they have made-and as they fulfill those expectations, they also proactively respond to challenges and obstacles that they encounter.

Sometimes just being an accountable leader and teaching others about accountability isn't enough to reach the level of discretionary performance that you need on your team. Leaders must have a mechanism to ensure accountability in others and a specific process for setting up and executing on agreements. The consistent use of accountability measures will elevate the performance of team members and solidify a culture of accountability.

Being an Accountable Leader

You must also take your own commitments and agreements seriously. When accepting an assignment or responsibility, be clear about what is within your power to complete. When you violate an agreement, admit your mistake, apologize, and repair the situation or relationship as quickly as possible. Always be honest and forthcoming with others and provide information that is clear and accurate.

In some situations, you may be privy to information that cannot be shared with employees. Act with integrity and simply share the information that you can. Always do your best and align your actions with your values. When you face adversity, be constructive in your response.

Leadership is a huge responsibility. You are accountable for bottom-line results, quality, productivity, and the motivation of other people. Thinking about and solidifying the accountability measures you have in place will ensure the lines of communication stay open on your team.

The Benefits of Accountability in Business

It can also greatly improve your team's ability to make decisions and solve problems. Individual team members will be more confident taking action if they know they are empowered to produce quality results without explicit direction and on their own terms.

People in your organization's culture will become more creative and shift into a proactive mindset. Every individual will contribute to the success of the team and organization. They will also strive to do the right thing.

As you enable others to become more accountable for success, you will have the energy and freedom to focus on longer-term strategic plans. As a leader, there is no better way to manage your time than to instill accountability in others.

CMOE has helped many leaders reach new levels of accountability within their organizations. Contact CMOE to learn more about how we can help your team take real ownership for results and accomplish more than ever before.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Improve Team Performance with Accountability | CMOE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Leaders have a huge challenge when it comes to accountability. They must both visibly model personal accountability and instill accountability in their team members. This can be especially challenging when team members have the mentality that they have done enough, or it's not their job, or they can't do anything about the results being produced.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Teamwork Theory: Tuckman's Stages of Group Development
Probably the most famous teamwork theory is Bruce Tuckman's "team stages model".
First developed in 1965, Tuckman's model is widely known as a basis for effective team building. Yet how many people really know how to use it?

Below we explain Tuckman's model and offer some fresh insights on how to take it further.

But before reading on why not take the chance to "team-up" with our great range of e-guides . The complete set is now available at half price!

You'll find advice, tips, tools and new models which you won't find anywhere else. You can read about the real benefits of our teams bundle in our article on team building activities. Or why not download your half price offer right now! You're in good company with satisfied customers from over 30 countries around the world. Click the image below to view some of our most popular e-guides:

Tuckman's model is significant because it recognizes the fact that groups do not start off fully-formed and functioning. He suggests that teams grow through clearly defined stages, from their creation as groups of individuals, to cohesive, task-focused teams.

Our e-guide: Build a Better Team, has been specifically designed to help you understand and use a team stages model. It contains a tool for each stage to help you build a high-performing team - as quickly as possible.

Tuckman's Teamwork Theory

Tuckman describes working with a team of social psychologists, on behalf of the U.S. navy. The team studied small group behaviour, from several perspectives. In doing so, Tuckman reviewed 50 articles on group development and noticed that there were two features common to these small groups: the interpersonal or group structure, and the task activity. From this he identified that groups evolved into teams via four common stages.

Firstly an orientation, testing phase which often led to a period characterized by a degree of conflict. This then generally resolved itself, leading to a more socially cohesive phase. Finally, groups settled to a functional phase, during which they focused on role-relatedness. To summarize these four phases, Tuckman coined the oft-quoted terms: "forming", "storming", "norming" and "performing".

Tuckman's teamwork theory is best illustrated on a graph which shows the link between group relationships (the horizontal axis) and task focus (the vertical axis). The optimal or "performing" position is reached when relationships have developed within the group and it has started delivering with a clear focus on the task.

However, Tuckman's ideas clearly indicate that it takes time to reach the "performing" stage, and it's normal for these teams to go through ups and downs as they develop relationships. Particularly in the early period, which is perhaps why Tuckman called it the "storming" phase!

The 4 Phases of Tuckman's Teamwork Theory

Forming:
The initial stage of team development during which individuals have not yet gelled together. Everybody is busy finding their place in the team, sizing each other up, and asking themselves why they are here! Find out more in our articles: Team Building Techniques and Teamwork Tips. The first offers advice on starting a new team while the second will help you take over an existing team (perhaps a far more common situation).

Storming:
People begin to see themselves as part of a team. However at this stage they may challenge each other, and the team leader, about such things as what the team is doing, and how things should be done. As the stage title suggests, conflict and confrontation typify this stage, as differences surface. This may result in some loss of performance or focus on the task, as the diagram illustrates.

Norming:
This is the phase where team members start to come together, developing processes, establishing ground rules, clarifying who does what, and how things will be done. This phase is characterized by a growing sense of "togetherness". Find out more about both the Storming and Norming phases in our article: Team Building Concepts.

Performing:
This is the final stage where increased focus on both the task, and on team relationships, combine to provide synergy. Performance is delivered through people working effectively together. We have written two articles to further develop this stage. Team Building in the Workplace will help you build a performing team. Characteristics of Effective Teamwork will help you and your team sustain that performance.

The value of Tuckman's model is that it helps us understand that teams evolve. It also helps us to consider how they may encounter different problems at different stages of their development.

One limitation of the model may be that it makes team building appear too linear and sequential. Although it's a useful analytical tool, we must remember that some teams may "loop" around in their development.

For example, not all teams evolve smoothly through Tuckman's stages but may yo-yo between norming and storming until they either begin to function, or are disbanded! Regardless of limitations, all well-conceived models can be useful in helping us to understand and better manage our circumstances.

Beyond Tuckman

Read our new book:

Uncommon Leadership: how to build competitive edge by thinking differently
"a tour de force ... all integrated into a fascinating intellectual package"

Professor Dennis J. Garritan, Adjunct Professor, Harvard University

Tuckman's famous phases are part of a teamwork theory based on stages of team development. His theory may have gained popularity partly due to the catchy labels for each of his stages.

However, it also provides a useful and simple way to think about how we humans interact in team situations. Firstly by illustrating that it's normal for teams go through stages as they develop. Secondly, by highlighting the need to manage different aspects of team behaviour at each stage of that development. The beauty and usefulness of Tuckman's model is perhaps in its simplicity.

Team development theories such, as Tuckman's group development stages, recognise that teams develop through different stages, from forming through to performing.

Whilst these theories give a useful understanding of different team requirements at different times, there are a number of questions that aren't particularly well answered by the models. For example:

How should you lead at the different stages of a team's development?

How do you identify when you are progressing through a stage?

How does the team develop in the organisational setting?

How is it affected by other outside influences?

The theory of group stages alone doesn't answer these questions. To do so, and thus to build a more robust teamwork concept, ideas about team leadership and outside factors need to be introduced. We've done just this in our STAR team performance model. You can see how this model applies to group stages in: Stages of Team Development.

This is the first of ten articles in our teamwork series. But for some practical tips on using teamwork theory, look at our great-value guides (below), or at our Team Building Exercises for all team stages.

Team Building Exercises and Team Stages

The exercises in this guide are grouped according to our team stages model. Remember, each team is unique and needs to be led through several developmental stages. These include:
Creating a new team or taking over an existing team

Exercise 1: Being a TEAM together

Exercise 2: True or false

Exercise 3: Who does what in a team?

Exercise 4: Getting the mix right

Exercise 5: Doing something for the first time

Exercise 6: Two years from now

Developing a team

Exercise 7: A clearer vision

Exercise 8: Mad, sad or glad

Exercise 9: Seeing the bigger picture

Exercise 10: Positive feedback

Exercise 11: Conflicting views

Performing and achieving results with a team

Exercise 12: Did you notice?

Exercise 13: Limiting beliefs

Sustaining team performance

Exercise 14: Scarce resources

Exercise 15: Keeping going

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Probably the most famous teamwork theory is Bruce Tuckman's "team stages model". First developed in 1965, Tuckman's model is widely known as a basis for effective team building. Yet how many people really know how to use it? Below we explain Tuckman's model and offer some fresh insights on how to take it further.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a global study reported in Harvard Business review, 46% of high-level managers were found to be poor at holding people accountable.

The finding was the same for C-level executives, directors and middle managers. It held up, with minor regional variations, across different cultures including US, Europe, Latin America and Asia-Pacific.

We all know that accountability is important in teams. But why is it so important?

Well, research shows that accountability is a characteristic of high-performance teams. Accountability amongst team members drives greater innovation, trust and productivity. And accountability frees team leaders from having to constantly micromanage their team members.

Conversely, a lack of accountability is a sure sign of a failing team. In Jim Collins' classic book How the Mighty Fall, he identifies the tell-tale signs of a company on its way down. One of the most revealing signs is an unwillingness of team members to accept responsibility for mistakes and an eagerness to shift the blame onto others.

Identifying and remedying a lack of accountability is often the key to turning a company around.

Let me share a story to illustrate this...

Turning around the underachieving sales team

I was working with a small organisation of ten people a couple of years ago which was struggling to meet its sales targets. Their two-person sales team had been given a target number of calls they should be making every week to achieve their sales targets. Both salespeople were achieving their required number of calls, according to their submitted call reports.

But they weren't hitting their monthly sales targets.

When challenged, the response from the salespeople was, "It's not our fault - we're making the calls!"

And when the salespeople were questioned about the disappointingly low conversion rate from calls to opportunities, the response was, "Everyone picks on the sales team!"

As you can see, there was no accountability for results in the sales team.

So, the sales manager changed the target from the number of calls made per week to the number of opportunities created per month. They also added a financial sales target per salesperson. It didn't matter how many calls they made, as long as they created the opportunities and achieved the sales targets.

I facilitated The Five Behaviors of a Cohesive Team for the whole organisation, which made it clear that team members are expected to hold each other accountable.

The outcome?

Both salespeople resigned within a couple of months.

It took the sales manager a few months to recruit new salespeople who were willing to take ownership of achieving their sales goals. Within six months, they were consistently hitting or exceeding their sales targets.

Understanding accountability

Accountability is the fourth of Patrick Lencioni's Five Behaviors of a Cohesive Team. Simply put, accountability is the willingness to be held accountable by your peers for doing the things you committed to doing.

Well that's the basic definition. But it goes deeper than that.

Let's examine this further:

Accountability and responsibility

Accountability and responsibility are often conflated. Both concepts have similarities, but there are important differences.

Let us consider a team member who's been given a task to fulfil. By accepting responsibility, the team member is agreeing to take charge of a task. But by accepting accountability, the team member is agreeing to be answerable for the success or failure of the task.

This is why focusing on accountability, and not merely responsibility, is essential for optimizing team performance.

Personal accountability and team accountability

When working in teams, there are two types of accountability:

Personal accountability measures and rewards individual performance. While it can drive success on an individual level, it often creates competition within a team. This can undermine teamwork and overall team performance.

Team accountability measures and rewards team performance. It drives team members to cooperate to achieve greater success on a collective basis. Individuals operating with selfish motives may need to be replaced, if their self-focus is harming team performance and they are unwilling to change.

As you can see, for organisational success, team accountability must be prioritized. This is not to say that individual performance should not be recognized. It can and should, but only in the context of contribution to team performance.

Avoidance of accountability

The thing with accountability is that people tend to avoid it. There are two aspects to this:

People want to avoid being held accountable. You cannot force people to become accountable. Accountability requires putting group interests above individual interests. The thing is, people will not be accountable until they choose to be accountable.

People want to avoid holding others into account. People are concerned about not giving offense. They want to be well-liked and popular. They are aware that voicing criticism of others can lose them support from within the group.

Remember, accountability is a choice. Creating an environment where people want and choose to be accountable takes time and commitment.

Let's start by looking at the people in your team:

The two categories of accountability in team members

Some team members are more inclined towards accountability than others. We can break people down into two categories: other-directed and self-directed.

Other-directed people

Other-directed people believe they have no control over their own lives and are controlled by people in authority:

They act on the belief that "I have to do this."

As a consequence, they resist or resent being told what to do. They resist by outright refusing to do the work. They resent by doing the work but grudgingly, and only well enough not to get into trouble.

They don't accept responsibility.

They undermine the team by acting like a victim or seeking out revenge. They act like a victim by whining to other teammates. They seek out revenge by slowing down their output or even sabotaging projects. The most common form of revenge is to do as little as possible - just enough to stay out of trouble.

Self-directed people

Self-directed people believe they have control over their own lives and are autonomous beings:

They act on the belief that "I choose to do this."

They agree or disagree when presented with a new task. If they agree, they will perform the work to the best of their ability as they have chosen to do it. If they disagree, they will explain to their teammates the reasons why.

They accept the consequences of their choice. If they agree with the task, they will accept the consequences if they don't give their best. If they disagree with the task, they will accept any negative consequences that follow.

They accept responsibility for their actions and are willing to hold themselves accountable, and be held accountable by others.

From other-directed to self-directed

Some people behave in an other-directed way because they have never learned to be self-directed. This behaviour is described in Dr. Martin Seligman's book Learned Optimism as learned helplessness.

Children who are brought up in authoritarian homes, schools or churches are not given the freedom to choose for themselves. They often develop into other-directed people. When entering the workforce, they gravitate towards authoritarian organisations where they do not have to make decisions and will be told what to do.

The good news is that other-directed behaviour does not have to be permanent. As Dr. Seligman tells us, people who were conditioned to be other-directed in their childhood can learn to become self-directed as adults.

The role of the leader in developing accountability

So we've seen that self-directed behaviour is the foundation of accountability. The challenge for leaders is knowing how to create a culture that cultivates self-directed behaviour over other-directed behaviour.

Leaders typically tend towards either a control-based approach or a trust-based approach.

Control-based approach

A control-based approach is one where leaders make all the decisions and expect team members to carry them out:

Trust is low. Leaders convey the message that team members cannot be trusted to make decisions or think for themselves.

Leaders micromanage team members, requiring strict adherence to policies and procedures.

Team members' activities are closely monitored via security cameras, time clocks and email surveillance.

A control-based approach leads to an authority-based environment.

Authority-based environments create people who don't want to be accountable. When goals are not met, everyone points fingers at each other. Leaders blame team members for their lack of initiative. Team members blame leaders because they were not consulted about the choice of goals or how to achieve them.

Trust-based approach

A trust-based approach is one where leaders trust team members to take ownership of their roles:

Leaders believe in team members and trust them to do the right thing without the need for constant supervision.

Team members are fully involved in decision making. They are encouraged to challenge any policy or procedure that doesn't make sense or doesn't work.

Team members understand the purpose of what they are doing beyond merely following rules and guidelines.

A trust-based approach leads to an accountability-based environment.

Accountability-based environments create people who are willing to be held accountable for their decisions, actions and results. They are clear on the team's goals, having had a chance to have their say on the direction taken. Their personal goals align with the organisation's goals and they work with passion and commitment.

From authority-based to accountability-based

Authority-based organisations can transition to become accountability-based. But this takes time and effort, and it's not something that can happen overnight.

First, leaders must accept responsibility for contributing to the existing authority-based environment. Next, they need to work with their team in building a culture of trust, where the focus is on finding solutions together, not on finding people to blame.

This is an excellent way to start the process:

When a team member comes to you with a problem, don't make the decision for them. Rather, ask them to define the problem, then ask them what they think the best solution is.

If the team member doesn't have a solution, ask them to consider possible solutions and evaluate them one by one. By doing so, you are challenging them to use their problem-solving abilities and accomplish things on their own. You are trusting them to become more confident, more committed and more accountable.

When you put this in action, the results can transform your entire organisation. Here's a great example:

The Delaware Call Centre Case Study

An organisation in Delaware selling medical equipment has a call centre that provides technical assistance to their customers. The newly appointed vice president came to us after discovering that the call centre was rated last in the industry for customer satisfaction, scoring below 50%.

We worked with the management team to implement Integro's Leadership Development Process and create a work environment where employees would be more engaged, more self-directed and more accountable for increasing customer satisfaction.

About a year into the process, after seeing some improvement in customer satisfaction ratings, the vice president asked employees to set their own target for customer satisfaction scores. After some discussion, employees came back with a target of 96%, a score which would put them at the top of the industry. Although the management thought they were aiming too high, the employees were confident they could achieve it.

Not only did the call centre employees reach their goal within the next 18 months, they soon surpassed it, achieving a 98% average in customer satisfaction scores and even hitting 100% many times.

The Customer Service Representatives owned the numbers. If the results each month were below 100%, they took responsibility for identifying what needed to be improved to get to 100%.

By allowing employees to set their own goal and take ownership of it, their work became more meaningful to them and they were able to apply themselves with passion and commitment.

In short, they became self-directed and fully accountable members of their organisation.

The Five Behaviors of a Cohesive Team solution

At Intégro, we offer a corporate training and assessment-driven solution that includes the nurturing of accountability.

Our solution is The Five Behaviors of a Cohesive Team®.

The Five Behaviors of a Cohesive Team is based on the approach outlined in Patrick Lencioni's best-selling book The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, and is powered by Everything DiSC personal development assessment technology.

The objective of The Five Behaviors of a Cohesive Team is to develop the kind of teamwork which will foster a competitive advantage.

The five behaviours required to gain this competitive advantage are for team members to:

Trust one another

Engage in conflict around ideas

Commit to decisions

Hold one another accountable

Focus on achieving collective results

The Five Behaviors of a Cohesive Team approach has a proven track record and has been successfully used by leading companies across different industries including Microsoft, Lee Memorial Health Systems, and Harris Farm Markets.

Want to learn more about how to earn the trust of your team and increase your bottom line? Click Here
Everything DiSC and The Five Behaviors of a Cohesive Team are trademarks of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Keith Ayers- February 2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Developing Accountability: The Fourth Behaviour of a Cohesive Team

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a global study reported in Harvard Business review, 46% of high-level managers were found to be poor at holding people accountable. The finding was the same for C-level executives, directors and middle managers. It held up, with minor regional variations, across different cultures including US, Europe, Latin America and Asia-Pacific.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From a leadership perspective, there's a real thirst for increasing leadership accountability. Executives have recently asked me various questions that linger over the concept of building team accountability to help them achieve their strategic plans while creating high-performing teams:

"How do I build accountability in teams? "

"How do I increase accountability in leadership and employees?"

" What else can I do to get people to do what we need them to do?"

"How can I hold a team member to be held accountable and still be seen as a good leader?"

"How do I balance leadership accountability and personal accountability when building a team of engaged employees?"

"Creating a culture of accountability is hard, how do I provide constructive feedback without being the bad guy?"

Building team accountability requires understanding a few dynamics because it's more complicated than we might recognize. It goes beyond the responsibility for the outcomes, which is obviously important. Still, effective leaders know that they need a culture of accountability in their teams that provide the input needed to achieve the expected team performance. Holding people accountable is one of the most important things that a successful leader does for organizational alignment, but it is also one of the hardest. It is one thing to outline your strategic objectives during team planning, but you need to create the culture to implement it.

First of all, teams - by definition - are made up of individuals. We can't forget that. An understanding is needed that society tends to truly value individual contribution while also (and separately) valuing team contribution. This interesting contradiction causes much confusion about which should be valued the most. The secret alchemy, then, is to simply sort out the confusion to start building accountability in the workplace. Without accountability in a team, it is much more difficult - and stressful - to achieve your quarterly plan. Each team member needs to be responsible for - and take ownership of - their actions, so the team can achieve results as laid out in the plan.

Team Accountability

We can do this if we recognize where the individual plays a more vital role and where teamwork plays a more vital role. For instance, when there's sudden chaos or an emergency of some sort, you want one or more individuals to step up and take the lead. On the other hand, teams are better when you need smart thinking to solve a problem or transform a process. Successful strategy execution must allow each of your team members the flexibility they need to make decisions and be held accountable for the results. Accountable leaders at all levels are responsible for holding people accountable and regularly reviewing goal progress with their teams to win the talent war.

That said, though, the individuals placed on a team matter. In an HBR article, Gratton and Erickson noted that the "greater the proportion of experts a team had, the more likely it was to disintegrate into nonproductive conflict or stalemate." These kinds of teams are not teams. They are groups of individuals coming together under the façade of working as a team. They're still a group of individuals.

Yet, most individuals in team formation want to do what they're supposed to do. Their intent is good. The missing link is that what the team is supposed to do gets lost in translation. It's assumed that they just know what to do, which is why our leadership development program is so popular as it provides actionable advice to develop accountable leaders and teams. Accountability training for leaders provides a positive return on investment as it builds accountability and trust throughout the organization.

Hopefully, your company isn't full of one crisis after another. If it is, then celebrating the individual might be your default solution. But for most companies, the continual journey is around improvements, innovation, and problem-solving. With that said, we can see the relevance of accountability in a team environment. Lack of accountability spreads quickly through the organization, limits productivity, kills morale, and destroys trust.

The missing link is that this 'team' of individuals needs to know what they, as a collective whole, are accountable for accomplishing. Personal accountability doesn't always translate to accountability in a team. As a leader, it's your job to provide them with a definition of what it is you're holding them accountable for doing and increase your communication to increase accountability. Consider implementing skip-level meetings to bridge the gaps between levels of management, start with our best skip-level meeting questions.

To do this, consider using The Five C's Framework for Building Team Accountability:

1. Common Purpose: Set the stage for any team initiative by talking about the 'why.' Why are they here? Why are they working on this project or this special task force? Connect what you need the team to do with why you need them to spend valuable time doing it. What's the point? Why does it matter? We always tend to tell a team of people what to do; many leaders are good at that. As a result, the 'why' gets completely ignored. The sign of a high-performing team is the ability to rally around a common purpose.

2. Clear Expectations: What is it that you ultimately need the team to do? These are the accountability questions leaders to set clear expectations for the team. You need to tell the team repeatedly so that all team members are clear on what is expected of them. It often takes several repetitions before the entire team can communicate them effectively.

Clarify: Are you looking for one specific viable solution to a company-wide problem, or are you asking the team to jointly agree on three potential solutions to present? Do you expect them to define a roadmap for the one (or three) solutions or not? Do you need them to present a list of pros and cons with their solution(s)? How do you want to be kept informed along the way? An email every Friday afternoon? A white paper three times a week (Side note: Please don't do this last one), or what? Whether it's an intact workplace team or a task force, use the Job Scorecard as a tool to help prompt your thinking as to what you need the team to be responsible for doing. Clear expectations are the cornerstone of accountability.

Accountable Leadership: If it's a special task force (vs. an intact workplace team), who's the person who's driving the train? In other words, who's ultimately accountable for making sure that what the team needs to do gets done? It doesn't mean this person is the only one doing the work; it simply means s/he is on top of it. The same would hold true for a new initiative for an intact team. You, the leader, shouldn't think you have all the power to check how things are going. Instead, who on the team can take the leadership role to ensure the transition gets moving and keeps moving? Who's accountable for driving the train? Do you accept responsibility when it is required?

In your mind, what does success look like when you achieve a goal? Setting up a metric for what success looks like clarifies the degree to which people are supposed to do something. Otherwise, you can get a checkmark that says, "We did it." But was it done relative to the expectations you had in your head? Define (clearly) what success looks like. (Side note: Avoid having a due date as a success metric. Any of us can produce a ton of mediocre work by a deadline.)

3. Communicate & Align: As time passes, as part of their leadership development, it's a leader's job to keep a team focused and aligned so that everyone's involved and moving in the same direction. How are they going to do what you need them to do? What resources might they consider using? Keep everyone focused. Over and over, communicate with them, ask questions, remind them why what they're doing is essential, etc. Your job as a leader is to keep them rowing in the same direction, especially when rolling out annual and quarterly plans. Communication and alignment are what provide life to any team because it's what fosters longer-term sustainability.

4. Collaborate and Coaching: Set the stage for collaboration all along the way so that adjustments can be made in real time. You can monitor progress and coach your people. Don't tell them what to do. Coach. Listen to them (80%) and talk with them (20%) to increase your team's performance. Nurture them to talk with each other. Be a resource for them. What roadblocks must be removed, and how can you help remove them? If what you've tasked your people to do is essential, then it deserves your support. Collaboration is at the heart of a great weekly team meeting, where the accountability rubber meets the road. Did everyone do what they said they were going to do? How are you coaching employees to take ownership of their commitments? An effective leader must first keep your commitment to building trust with the team, or they're doomed to failure.

5. Consequences: Most people see consequences, and they immediately think of a negative connotation. We overlook that consequences can also be positive, and every organization should use positive feedback. Make results and consequences visible. Talk to your team strategically vs. tactically, usually done through questions vs. statements. Secondly, for some reason, leaders are the first to let people know when something's not right or if it's gone awry. But when things go well, it's as if success is glossed over. The consequence of that, though, is that you help create a remedial culture. People are only noticed and given attention at weekly team meetings when things go differently than expected. So work to provide equal (or more) weight to what's gone right. Celebrate!

Need some help getting started? Rhythm Systems has programs that can help you execute your strategy with less drama!

Team Accountability Vs. Personal Accountability (Video)

Leadership Accountability: How Good Leaders Hold Their Team Accountable

Which of the Five C's do you find the hardest to do?

Which is the most important, and why?

You can take our team accountability assessment to see where you stand and how to improve.

Need help getting your team aligned to achieve your growth goals? Rhythm systems software was ranked the #1 easiest software to use, highest ROI, fastest implementation, and highest adoption rate on G2.

Additional information on accountability in leadership:

The Power of Systems and People: Accountable Leaders and Teams leadership development program to improve team performance and avoid being part of the great resignation.

You can take Our Team Accountability Assessment to see how your team stacks up.
Why You Need a Peak Performance Plan for Your A-Players Leadership Accountability Definition in Management
Level 5 Leadership - How to be a Level 5 Leader with examples
Team Accountability Begins with Personal Accountability How top CEOs Close the Strategy Execution Gap Follow-Up: The Key To Leadership Development Building Team Accountability: Job Scorecards 10 Signs of an Accountable Culture [Infographic]Growing Team Accountability in Your Organization 5 Steps to Having an Accountability Discussion [Video]
You can learn more about accountable leaders and teams.

Photo Credit: iStock by Getty Images

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Leadership Accountability: Build Accountability Leadership in your Team

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Building team accountability through leadership development requires that we understand a few dynamics because it's more complicated than we might recognize. Accountability in a team starts with personal accountability and accountable leadership.

# data[].attributes.headline
Support is Provided to All Class Members

# data[].attributes.subject
Support is Provided to All Class Members

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From online teaching resources to in-room consultations, the Center for Teaching and Learning supports instructors by helping them take their teaching to the next level.

# data[].attributes.headline
Support is Provided to All Class Members

# data[].attributes.subject
Support is Provided to All Class Members

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Often, students do not have the skills or expertise needed to work effectively in small groups (Shimazoe and Aldrich 2010). By applying facilitation strategies such as those described below, instructors can help students learn to work collaboratively and ensure that group work improves learning for all.

Establish classroom ground-rules or expectations that can promote respectful, inclusive interactions in the classroom. These ground-rules or expectations should be determined at the start of the semester and guide students' interactions in groups. Groups that develop shared expectations on how to approach and accomplish a task tend to have higher levels of helping behaviors (Gonzalez-Mulé et al., 2014).

Define group member roles and rotate these frequently. Groups often function most effectively when members have designated roles (such as recorder, manager, or reporter) which can promote positive interdependence among group members, as well as maintain individual accountability. Roles are also critical in minimizing the possibility that students will take on, or assign one to another, roles that adhere to gender and racial stereotypes. For example, Hirshfield and Chachra (2015) found that in first-year engineering courses, females tended to undertake less technical roles and more communication roles than males. By having students' alternate through different roles, you can help students learn the value of each role.

Develop and communicate a set of clear instructions. Explain why and how students are completing the activity.

What are the content knowledge and skills that this assignment is designed to help students learn and practice?

Explain how to accomplish the activity in a PowerPoint slide or handout. Set time limits, e.g., 5-7 minutes for shorter activities, or 10-12 minutes for longer, multi-step activities. Breaking up a complex task into smaller pieces with timed checkpoints helps groups better understand how to work on complex problems and make sure they are on track to finish during the allotted time.

Indicate group size and composition. Should students work with two or three neighbors? These instructions help students better understand how they will work in groups (Barkley et al. 2014).

Provide careful discussion prompts. Ask students to answer specific questions but also to focus on the rationale behind their answers and be prepared to share the rationale. This prompt influences the quality of student discussions by creating a "reasoning-centered class" where students employ more reasoning rather than just trying to achieve the correct answer (Knight et al. 2013).

Maintain your role as a facilitator and be an active listener during the activity. Move throughout the room to monitor group conversations without interfering or participating in the groups' conversations. Watch for uneven participation in a group. What common mistakes are you observing in groups? Silently note these, but do not interfere or interject. Groups need time to develop group norms (i.e., their group work behavioral style) and allowing them to work this out is an important learning step. Therefore, let groups negotiate their own group dynamics.

Be flexible. You don't need to wait until everyone has finished the assignment before asking groups to report out. If necessary you can ask managers how much additional time is needed for their group. If students are struggling with the assignment, stop and provide assistance or direction to help them get back on track with the assignment.

Provide closure. Bring the groups back together as a whole class to report out and discuss the results of the activity. Use your previous observations of groups to determine which groups you might ask to report out. Ask a group's spokesperson to report on one piece of information or an idea generated during the group work.

Follow up by asking the spokesperson to explain their reasoning behind the group's response.

Promote participation by asking other groups to respond as well. Ask questions to help the students connect and understand the ideas brought out during the discussion.

Write the ideas generated by group work on the chalkboard so that all students can learn from the contributions of each group. Doing so underscores the importance of the knowledge generated by group work and encourages everyone to pay attention and record this knowledge in their notes.

You may not have time to hear from all groups but can then call on those groups who did not have the opportunity to report that day during the next class period.

Include time for reflection and feedback. Acknowledge the progress made and good group behaviors observed. Discuss opportunities for improving group dynamics. During the semester, occasionally ask students to reflect on their learning experience in groups. You can use these responses as feedback to assess and revise group work as needed. For example, you can ask students to answer the following (Ash and Clayton 2014):

I learned....,

I learned this because (what aspect of this experience helped them learn this)

This learning matters because (how might knowledge or skill help them in the course or in a larger context?)....

Issues that might arise during group work. Working in groups can be a particularly challenging experience for students who are introverts or dominating types (Taylor 2011). Having clear ground rules to explain the process of group work and instructions on how to accomplish the assignment can help alleviate angst in both groups. It can also be useful to remind students of their roles to help ensure that all group members are fully engaged.

Questions to help facilitate groups:

Does your recorder have questions from the group that you need to address?

Does the manager have ideas that were suggested but not yet discussed?

What will the spokesperson report for their group progress at this point?

Ask the reflector for each person's contribution or what the consensus is on their progress so far.

Creating successful group work activities in your class requires some preparation, but the benefits to you and your students can be gratifying. Check out our workshop schedule for more information on teaching with group work.
References
Ash, S. L., & Clayton, P. H. (2004). The articulated learning: An approach to guided reflection and assessment. Innovative Higher Education, 29(2), 137-154.

Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2014). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. John Wiley & Sons.

Gonzalez-Mulé, E., DeGeest, D. S., McCormick, B. W., Seong, J. Y., & Brown, K. G. (2014). Can we get some cooperation around here? The mediating role of group norms on the relationship between team personality and individual helping behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 988.

Hirshfield, L., & Chachra, D. (2015, October). Task choice, group dynamics and learning goals: Understanding student activities in teams. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2015. 32614 2015. IEEE (pp. 1-5). IEEE.

Rienties, B., Alcott, P., & Jindal-Snape, D. (2014). To Let Students Self-Select or Not That Is the Question for Teachers of Culturally Diverse Groups. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18(1), 64-83.

Shimazoe, J., & Aldrich, H. (2010). Group work can be gratifying: Understanding & overcoming resistance to cooperative learning. College Teaching, 58(2), 52-57.

Sweet, M., & Michaelsen, L. K. (2012). Team-based learning in the social sciences and humanities. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Taylor, A. (2011). Top 10 reasons students dislike working in small groups... and why I do it anyway. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 39(3), 219-220.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. © 2016, Washington University.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Often, students do not have the skills or expertise needed to work effectively in small groups (Shimazoe and Aldrich 2010). By applying facilitation strategies such as those described below, instructors can help students learn to work collaboratively and ensure that group work improves learning for

# data[].attributes.body
Theories Regarding Working Together

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. Bruce Tuckman's Model of Team Stages
The Bruce Tuckman theory was created in 1965, and has been applied in countless organizations and scenarios. With four main stages titled forming, storming, norming, and performing; this theory is commonly referred to as the origin for successful team building.

2. Belbin's Theory of team roles
Belbin created a list of nine roles that every team should have. These roles are Plant, Resource investigator, Coordinator, Shaper, Monitor Evaluator, Team Worker, Implementer, Completer-Finisher, and Specialist.

3. Hierarchy of Needs theory by Abraham Maslow
Maslow created a pyramid of the motivation in humans. The bottom starts off with Physiological items like food. The next section is Safety like the security of health. The third section is Love/belonging and an example would be family. The fourth is Esteem, meaning something like respect by others. The final section is Self-actualization and an example of this is morality.

4. Isabel Briggs-Myers and her MBTI theory
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a personality test that perceives how people perceive the world. This is good for teamwork because it can help the team understand each other better.

5. John Adair's Leadership theory
This theory is a perfect model for what leadership and management should look like.

6. Carl Jung's Color theory
Jung's theory is about how color is a determinant of human behavior. By understanding this, you can better understand why people in your team do what they do.

7. Tajfel's theory on Social Identity
This theory presented the idea of social identity as a great way to describe inter-group behavior.

8. X and Y theory developed by Douglas McGregor
The X and Y theory is a description of how humans are motivated. This is also one of the most important theories that managers and employees should be familiar with.

9. Strength Theory
This idea is that if for the best teamwork you have to continually work at it and become strong, like a muscle.

10. Team Analysis Theory
This theory is that eventually your team will fall apart, so you will need to re-evaluate the situation and analyze what went wrong.

By a keen understanding of these teamwork theories, you will be able to get the most out of a group of people. Whether this is for a manager trying to create team unity, or a sports team looking for teamwork, these theories are perfect for your objective.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Different Theories About Teamwork And Teambuilding

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1. Bruce Tuckman's Model of Team Stages The Bruce Tuckman theory was created in 1965, and has been applied in countless organizations and scenarios. With four main stages titled forming, storming, norming, and performing; this theory is commonly referred to as the origin for successful team building. 2.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What you'll learn to do: Describe the study and theories of group and teamwork

We talked at some length about self-managed teams. They're often high-performing, but found only in certain situations within organizations. They're not that common.

More often than not, leaders are called upon to lead their groups and teams to goal fulfillment. How is that done? How can one leader walk into a group situation and see which steps are necessary to make that group a high-performing team?

We'll talk about the history of groups and teamwork, and how leadership theories have developed since the Industrial Age. Early theories lay the foundations for later ones, and, after we take a look at all of them, we'll see if we understand any more about what makes a good leader than we did when we started.

Learning Outcomes

Differentiate among early team management theories

Differentiate among modern team management theories

Discuss strategies for managing teams today

Early Management Theories

Once you have a group of people (or a team of people), they will need to achieve goals and objectives. We know how the group came together, how they will function effectively and how they will become a team. So let's talk now about how the group will be managed.

Management of people didn't really become a subject of scientific study until the turn of the twentieth century, when researchers began to understand that there was more to the motivation and hard work of an employee than just a paycheck. Before that . . . well, managing people wasn't exactly an art.

During the industrial revolution at the turn of the 19th century, the United States entered a phase where significant changes occurred in the areas of transportation, agriculture and manufacturing, allowing us to produce goods quickly and efficiently. James Watt invented the steam engine, which shortened transportation times and allowed us to move goods faster. Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, opening the door to quicker, more efficient cotton harvesting.

But even as Francis Cabot Lowell invented his water-powered mill, it wasn't to lessen the burden of his laborers. Women would work in his plant 12 to 14 hours a day, and they were paid better than ladies at other textile manufacturers . . . for a while. But when Lowell wanted to increase his profits and meet customer demands, he cut his employees' pay and lengthened their hours. Because of that, trade unions formed, strikes occurred and the Lowell Female Labor Reform Association was created.

We were a long way from the "take care of your employees and they'll take care of you" notion.

There were still management problems, though, and they presented problems for these new factory owners. Large numbers of people had to be managed, trained, controlled, and motivated. Materials and tools needed to be supplied. Managers looked to handle these issues scientifically.

Scientific Management

Frederick Winslow Taylor was an engineer for Bethlehem Steel in 1889, when he decided to analyze the issue of soldiering, which is when workers are deliberately working under capacity.

He observed workers unloading iron off of rail cars and loading steel onto them. Taylor studied the movements, tools, and processes of the workers and determined that, while they were currently loading about 12.5 tons a day, they were clearly capable of loading 47.5 tons a day. He recommended that workers be provided incentives in the form of wage increases to meet new loading goals. These recommendations, when followed, led to increased production for Bethlehem Steel.

The process that Taylor laid out was a template for other organizations:

1. Each task should be studied scientifically to determine the best way to perform it.

2. Workers should be carefully selected and trained to perform the tasks.

3. Managers and workers should cooperate to ensure efficient production.

4. Managers should plan, and workers should be responsible for implementing those plans.

Bureaucratic Management Approach

Rather than concentrate on increasing worker productivity and efficiency, the administrative approach to scientific management focused on helping managers coordinate organizational duties.

Max Weber developed a bureaucratic approach to management. A German citizen, Weber was interested in industrial capitalism, particularly how it was successful in some areas and not in others. Weber traveled to the United States to observe industrial capitalism, and determined that the U.S. used professional managers, business and economic relationships, whereas in Germany people were given positions of authority based on social standings and connections, and businesses were highly linked to family.

In order to help eliminate the practice of social privilege and favoritism prevalent in family-owned businesses, Weber proposed the bureaucratic approach. Bureaucracies have a negative connotation today, but in the true definition of the word bureaucracies are impersonal structures based on clear authority, responsibility, formal procedures and separation of management and ownership.

In his approach, Weber proposed:

Hierarchal management structure.

Division of labor.

Formal selection process for new employees.

Career orientation.

Formal rules and regulations.

Impersonality.

Weber didn't anticipate the problems that would come from his approach (division of labor leading to boredom, formal rules leading to "red tape"), his bureaucratic method is in practice among many organizations today, and his idea that hiring and promotion should be based on capability and not social standing is written into US labor laws.

Administrative Management Approach

In his administrative management approach, theorist Henri Fayol proposed five basic management functions that are still an important part of management practice today. In his 1916 book General and Industrial Management, he talked about those functions:

Foresight: an organizational plan for the future.

Organization: implementation of the plan.

Command: select and lead workers.

Coordinate: make sure all activities are coordinated and helping to reach goal.

Control: ensure activities are going as planned.

French-born Fayol came to some of these basic concepts when he witnessed the shutdown of a mine. A horse had broken its leg, and the mine had to be shut down because no one had the authority to purchase a new one. Seeing this as a failure of management to provide the right resources, he began his studies of management structures.

Fayol's studies also produced fourteen principles that could guide management behavior, but felt that they weren't rigid or exhaustive. Five of those principles still exist in current management theory and practice:

Unity of command.

Fairness and equity.

Discipline and order.

Scalar chain of command.

Teamwork and subordination of individual interests.

Weber's bureaucracy approach informs most organizations today and Fayol's approach helps us understand the basics of management no matter what the industry or situation. Now let's look at some studies and research that bring in the human relations approach.

Humanistic Viewpoint

Mary Parker Follett's teachings, many of which were published as articles in well-known women's magazines, were popular with businesspeople during her lifetime. But she was virtually ignored by the male-dominated academic establishment, even though she attended Radcliffe University and Yale and was asked to address the London School of Economics. In recent years her writings have been "rediscovered" by American management academics, and she is now considered the "Mother of Modern Management."

Follett developed many concepts that she applied to business and management, including the following:

A better understanding of lateral processes within organizational hierarchies. These concepts were applied by DuPont Chemical Company in the 1920s in the first matrix-style organization. A matrix organizational structure uses a grid rather than a pyramidal system to illustrate reporting paths. An individual may report both to a functional manager (such as sales or finance) and to a product manager.

The importance of informal processes within organizations. This is related to the idea of authority deriving from expertise rather than position or status. For example, an informal group may form in an organization (during or outside of official work hours) to socialize, form a union, or discuss work processes without management overhearing.

Noncoercive power sharing, which she called integration, to describe how power operates in an effective organization. She wrote about the "group principle" that characterized the whole of the organization, describing how workers and managers have equal importance and make equal contributions.

Coining the term "win-win" to describe cooperation between managers and workers. She also talked about empowerment and facilitation rather than control.

Promoting conflict resolution in a group based on constructive consultation of equals rather than compromise, submission, or struggle. This is known as the constructive conflict concept.

Follett devoted her life's work to the idea that social cooperation is better than individual competition. In her 1924 book Creative Experience, Follett wrote "Labor and [management] can never be reconciled as long as labor persists in thinking that there is a [management] point of view and [management] thinks there is a labor point of view. These are imaginary wholes which must be broken up before [management] and labor can cooperate."

We've talked before about Elton Mayo, Fritz Roethlisberger, and the Hawthorne Studies. They visited the Western Electric Hawthorne Works to determine the affects of lighting on productivity. As we know, they learned much more about the workers than just whether they did better in a well-lit atmosphere. They learned that their observation alone increased worker productivity, that workers value their social relationships and rely on group norms to restrict their productivity output.

There were several different flaws in the Hawthorne studies and their methodologies, but it spurred on studies by Abraham Maslow, Douglas McGregor, Frederick Herzberg and David McClelland, all approaching their research from the source of motivation of the worker and how that can be manipulated to increase productivity.

Modern Management Theories

These early scientific and humanistic approaches to managing people gave way to more studies on how to achieve more productivity, efficiency and profit. Those theories and findings became the basis for further learning.

Systems View

The systems view of management suggests that organizations are a complex collection of interrelated parts, working toward a common purpose.

In the systems view, a system is defined in two ways: externally, by its purpose and internally, by its subsystems and internal functions.

Externally, the concept dictates that each system has a role to play in the system at the next level up. For instance, a company that makes boxed macaroni and cheese creates its product for the system at the next level, the boxed macaroni and cheese market. The boxed macaroni and cheese market impacts the next level systems, like the food industry.

Internally, the system view looks at subsystems and internal functions. Each of these systems interrelates and contributes to the overall purpose of the parent system. So, the accounts receivable and accounts payable departments contribute to the overall purpose of the finance department, which contributes to the overall purpose of the organization and so on.

Managerially speaking, an organization looks to the system above it in the hierarchy to define its purpose, and then organizes its subsystems to serve that purpose. A manager's duty is to operate the systems in his charge to support the larger systems.

Contingency View

The contingency view of management suggests that the effective management of an organization depends on various contingency factors, so if a manager is going to be successful he or she must understand the different aspects of an organization and the factors that can affect performance.

What kinds of variables affect the performance of an organization and its workers?

For one, an organization's size is a contingency factor. Small organizations can behave informally and are often more flexible than larger organizations. They can make decisions faster, and managers have direct control over processes. Large organizations require indirect control mechanisms, and they can't change direction quickly the way a smaller organization can. But they can have divisional structures with workers that are highly specialized, and this may not be appropriate for a smaller organization.

Environmental change and uncertainty also impact the way an organization is managed. A organization with centralized processes works best with a stable environment. Certainty and predictability allow an organization to create policies, rules and procedures to fit the way they do business. An organization with decentralized processes is an advantage when there's a unstable environment. Organizations in an unstable environment need to be able to respond quickly to changes, thus they require specialization for non-routine tasks and problems.

Work technologies have an impact on organizations as well. The technology to do the work impacts the type of worker that needs to be hired, the span of management to manage those workers, and so on.

What about customer diversity? Globalization? A business must adjust for all of these contingencies as well. The contingency view is based on the idea that there's no one best way to manage an organization, and that managers should be ready to adjust to different situations as they present themselves. Conversely, researchers suggests that managers themselves perform differently in different situations, and their success is as much situational as it is based on their talents and behaviors. We'll talk more about that in a future module.

Chaos View

Chaos theory is a scientific principle that describes the unpredictability of systems, such as weather patterns, water flows and, if you're a Spielberg fan, the actions of human-engineered dinosaurs. Although they appear to be chaotic behaviors, they can be defined by mathematical formulas and are not as random as one might think.

Chaos management views pick up where contingency views leave off. In the early 1980s, Tom Peters, management guru, wrote a handbook explaining the Chaos Theory, specifically intended for managers. In it, he emphasizes that managers must be prepared for a constantly changing environment.

According to Peters, changing global environments and technology are evidence of chaos, and businesses should not just observe them without response. Peters suggests that the permanently installed hierarchal structure is a cause of inflexibility in organizations that's damaging. Not only should organizations be flexible with their structures, but they should be prepared to achieve their organizational results in a variety of ways.

The secret to capitalizing on the chaos view is a customer-responsive approach. Peters suggests that organizations review their vision and mission, and be open to and willing to embrace change.

Managing Teams Today

Now that we understand some basic approaches and views to managing people, both individually and in team settings, we can use some of these concepts to understand the ways that teams are incorporated into organizations today.

Think about Max Weber's bureaucratic approach to management versus what Tom Peters proposes in his chaos view of management. On one end of the spectrum, you have a highly- controlled, traditional organization, and on the other, you have a very flexible, unstructured organization.

On one end, Weber's end, of the spectrum, there is high management control, and on the chaos end, that's less so. Peters recommended we do away with the rigidity of the hierarchical structure to increase flexibility and focus on delivering to customers. So . . . is his suggestion a more team-based organization, with high employee involvement and control? Maybe.

Today's organizations tend to be more middle-of-the-road in their use of teams. They've kept some of their managerial control and traditional structure, and use teams to accomplish work on specific tasks.

As organizations move to more team-based structures, the control shifts from management to employees. Upper management still sets the general direction, vision, mission, goals and objectives. But then employees, with that understanding, make decisions and control their own activities. If an organization is going to see a team succeed, they need to:

Provide a clear standard of high performance expectations. Management can set expectations-preferably challenging expectations, as we learned earlier-and then teams decide how to accomplish those goals on their own.

Provide organizational support. The organization's structure and culture must support the success of the team. Organizations that forego an all-individual reward system and remove other cultural barriers are more likely to see their teams succeed.

Adjust internal and external leadership. Team leaders should guide groups but not necessarily dictate what has to be done.

Researchers like Taylor, Weber and Fayol never got to the point where they could conceive of a team in a working environment. But those concepts that still exist in management principles studied today certainly don't exclude the use of teams, do they? Teams undoubtedly look for the most efficient way to perform, they reward their members based on achievement and experience, they understand the importance of management decision makers and resource managers in their numbers. Those principles are still at work every day.

Consider the structural elements of an organization as they conceived them and how they change (but don't disappear) in a team-based organization.

Traditional Organization

Team-Based Organization

In spite of all those traditional organizational elements being in place for team-based organizations, there are a lot of growing pains and changes needed if an organization is going to go from a traditional one to one based on teams. What would make an organization do that?

Organizations like Goldman Sachs, American Airlines and Kellogg's do fine with a traditional organizational structure, with teams used to tackle particular tasks and issues. But some organizations, like Lucent Technologies, have adopted a team-based structure throughout several of their areas.

SEI Investments

SEI Investments in Pennsylvania adopted a team-based organizational structure when its CEO realized that the company lacked competitive advantage. SEI declared their new strategy: Become more responsive to customers than other firms in the industry. The decision to restructure as a team-based organization was the result of that strategy.

SEI decided to form teams specifically to handle a client problem. Once that problem was handled, the team disbanded, and then another one was created to address the next client. As a result, SEI became more profitable, realizing their strategy of becoming more responsive to customers than other companies in the industry.

SEI's teams were tied to their strategy, and organizations that don't get specific in attaching team goals to strategy are setting themselves up for failure. When teams aren't clear on how they're furthering organizational strategy, they lose focus and motivation. In most cases, those teams won't live up to expectations. Jon Katzenbach, director at McKinney & Co and team-based organizational expert, points out that it's not about the numbers for teams. "Teams aren't motivated by numbers-even big numbers," he explained. "They're motivated by something to do in the marketplace, like beating a competitor.

Pre-industrial revolution, our economy was based on the textile merchant, the grocer, and all the individual business owners that made their towns go. But once the industrial revolution found its way to the United States, managers were suddenly faced with the task of managing many workers and ensuring that they reached some level of productivity. Science and research improved efficiency, and as the world changed, new views emerged to help managers adapt.

Teams and team-based organizations are not an entirely new concept, but as we continue to innovate and realize what teams can do to help organizations realize their goals, we will continue to use these management approaches to help us move forward.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Organizational Behavior / Human Relations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We talked at some length about self-managed teams. They're often high-performing, but found only in certain situations within organizations. They're not that common. More often than not, leaders are called upon to lead their groups and teams to goal fulfillment. How is that done?

# data[].attributes.headline
Support is Provided to All Class Members

# data[].attributes.subject
Support is Provided to All Class Members

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Assigning group work is a good teaching strategy, right? Research shows that by working together in small groups, students can develop critical thinking skills, exchange knowledge, share expertise, increase motivation and improve their attitudes toward learning. So why do so many students dislike group work?

Common student complaints about group work include unequal workloads -- due to freeloaders or do-everything control takers -- and group members who work independently rather collaboratively. But the root cause for students' antipathy to group work may lie in the fact that many don't know how to work that way effectively. Instructors tend to provide plenty of information about the assignment itself but little to nothing about how to get the work done. Without such structure, differences in work style -- such as starting and completing tasks early versus waiting until the last minute -- can lead to drama within a student group.

Educators who have implemented group work realize that the use of small group activities doesn't always result in shared learning. Comprehensive approaches to such work, like cooperative learning, define how the learning is accomplished. Cooperative learning requires peer interaction with positive interdependence and individual accountability. That is, individual goals depend on group efforts and students are assessed through individual learning outcomes.

Other essential elements for successful cooperative learning experiences include promotive interaction (team building), interpersonal skills and group processing. For students at the college level, the instructor also needs to communicate the value of working together, explaining the purpose of involving groups and assuring students that activities are related to the assessments for the course.

To make group work more palatable and more successful for your students, you must first acknowledge that group dynamics are important. Then you should provide your students with tools to establish and improve how they work together. Here are some tips:

Call them teams, not groups. A group consists of people who coordinate their individual efforts. A team, however, has a common purpose and a shared responsibility for success. And although it may sound corny, having a team name is the first step to thinking as a team.

Nurture team relationships from the start. Asking students to come up with a team name is a simple team-building activity. By creating a name for themselves, they will start developing a group identity. It's also easy to ask new student teams to answer several questions about themselves. To assist students who may not be comfortable speaking up among new friends, teams can gather around a whiteboard or flip chart and write out their answers.

Provide opportunities for teams to reflect on their dynamics and decide on ways to improve. A midterm "learning cycle" requires students to ponder the success of the team and its individual members thus far in the course and to consider changes that may improve their outcomes. Students may be reluctant to complete this assignment. After all, in a matter of weeks, the course will be over and team members will move on. But why should they just wait it out when it could be better? Ask teams to answer three questions: What does your team do well? What could your team improve upon? What changes will you implement to improve your team processes?

One team in my class realized that if they didn't immediately recognize how to solve a problem, they tended to sit and stare at it, losing valuable class time. They decided to have the team leader for that assignment ask each member what they were thinking while reading the question and why they were confused. The goal was to determine if everyone had the same difficulty, if team members had different interpretations of the question or if one person remembered something from the notes that others didn't.

Require teams to set expectations for their own behavior. Don't tell teams what type of behavior is expected -- let them decide for themselves. When teams establish their own ground rules (such as "everyone must participate") and processes for conflict resolution (vote, flip a coin, etc.), they address key components of successful teamwork such as positive interdependence, individual accountability and interpersonal skills. Ground rules are an important tool for helping people function together as a team by recognizing that, in addition to getting the work done, how the work gets done is key. Ground rules reflect what is important to the members of the team about how they work together and show respect for each other. They help teams hold members accountable for their actions -- after all, each team member agreed to the rules at the start of the term.

In the workshops and faculty learning communities that I facilitate, we stress that students themselves do the heavy lifting needed to make teams successful. Faculty members provide the framework, offer suggestions and act as a guide, but it is ultimately up to the students to ensure that their teams are working effectively.

Before I required students to establish ground rules in my courses, I experienced the use of such rules in both professional and personal settings. While on sabbatical, I worked with a local company where setting ground rules was an established practice for newly formed teams. And in my spiritual group at church, where we share personal stories and discuss sensitive topics, ground rules -- called the group covenant -- are the subject of the very first meeting.

Having a mechanism for accountability is especially important when other social dynamics such as gender or seniority may be at play. On a family road trip from Rochester, N.Y., to Yellowstone National Park last summer, ground rules helped the trip go smoothly. More than once my son reminded the adults in the car that we all agreed to "no talking about politics, work or annoying people." Similarly, in a class several years ago, a team consisted of two hearing and two deaf members. Their ground rules acknowledged the communication challenge, identified several resources to facilitate communication and established the expectation that communication was everyone's responsibility.

By implementing simple tools such as ground rules and learning cycles, I have seen improvements in team outcomes in courses from introductory to upper division. Team assignments are now more likely to be completed on time and to be of higher quality.

The assignments differ greatly: some are in class and completed within the class period, some are out of class and stretch across the entire term. Yet whatever the task, the time and effort devoted to team dynamics has allowed me to spend more time on content and less dealing with student complaints. More important, it has helped students to get more out of team assignments with less drama.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tips for improving student teamwork in class (opinion)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Assigning group work is a good teaching strategy, right? Research shows that by working together in small groups, students can develop critical thinking skills, exchange knowledge, share expertise, increase motivation and improve their attitudes toward learning. So why do so many students dislike group work?