Organisational Context for Teams

A team can be defined as a small number of people, with a set of performance goals, who have a commitment to a common purpose and an approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable (Katzenbach & Smith 1993). This definition implies that teams must be of a manageable size and that all team members must be dedicated to reach team goals. Furthermore, the team members must be equally accountable for their actions and the outcomes of these actions. Teams can do a several things. For example: they can provide services, co-ordinate project works, make products, negotiate discussions or deals, offer conjecturally or make decisions. Organizations are the grand strategies created to bring order out of chaos when people work together. Organizations provide the skeletal structure that helps create predictable relationships among people, technology, jobs and resources.  At whatever timer people join in a common effort, organization must be used to get productive results. The organizing of people and things is essential for coordinated work.

Classical Concepts

Teams often outperform individuals when dealing with tasks involving multiple skills, precise judgment and dependable experience. Many successful organizations have structured themselves to compete effectively and efficiently by turning to formation of teams as a technique to use the employee’s talents in a better manner. By the way, teams are said to be more adaptable and reacting to changing events than the usual departments of an organization. Classical organization theory is the process of commencing with the total amount of work to be done and dividing it into divisions, departments, jobs and assignments of responsibilities to people. It is accomplished by means of division of work creating levels of authority and functional units and delegation allocating duties, authority and responsibility to others. The result is an operating hierarchy, which is visually highlighted in an organization chart. Each organization structures itself and operates somewhat differently. Some managers, for example, delegate more often than others do.

One study of claims adjusters and their supervisors in an insurance company indicated that, several factors it seems that contributed to a higher degree of delegation. Among them were the supervisor’s perception of subordinates as able and trustworthy and the presence of a heavy work load on the supervisor. Delegation of authority is also possible when supervisors believe that employees hold the necessary background information to make a wise decision and when the outcome of an employee’s decision would create only minimal risk for the organization. Where as a work team generates positive energy through co-ordinate efforts. in effect the efforts of each individual in the team, has a certain level of performance which is greater than the sum total of all individuals. Management is always looking for increasing the organizational performance and for that purpose they make heavy use of teams. Effective teams have definitely certain common characteristics and forming a team doesn’t always increase its performance.

There are many types of teams created by different types of organization. These creations are after identifying common types of terms usually noticed in the present managerial organizations. They are:

• Problem solving teams
• Self-managed teams
• Cross functional teams
• Virtual teams

Manager as linking pins

When division of work and delegation are planned correctly, the result is a complex web of relationships that links people into a efficient working organization. Each level has functional teams that are linked to the next level above and below them. This is known as linking pin concept. Each manager serves as a linking pin connecting that manager’s group with the rest of the organization. If all linking pins are effective, then the organization can function as an integrated whole. Conversely, if there is a weakness anywhere in the chain of linking pins, the organization will be inclined to be less effective. When managers see themselves as linking pins uniting and catering to the whole organization, they operate more effectively. Maintaining such an organization-wide perspective can be problematic, especially when managers are held responsible for their own unit’s results and are compensated on the basis of its performance. Nonetheless, when employees understand a manager’s role as a linking pin for the whole organization the managers can serve to both their unit and the organization as a whole more effectively.

Contingency Organizational Design

The trend is towards more contingency organizational design. This identifies that, different organizational structures and processes are needed for effectiveness in different situations. Some major elements affecting the choice of structures are the organization’s strategy, its technology, its size and even the preferences of its top managers. Environments differ also, and what is suitable in organizational design in one environment may not be suitable in another. Since environments change over time (sometimes rapidly), there is a special need for organizational designs to be adaptable so that they can be changed to best fit the changing environment. The contingency point of view requires a significant change in philosophy from the traditional view that, there are preferred ways of organizing that could remain relatively fixed over time.

Mechanistic and organic forms

Some of the earliest research on contingency design was by Tom Bums and George Stalker in Britain. They distinguished between mechanistic and organic organizations. Mechanistic organizations fit the traditional hierarchical way of organizing. People are specialized into many activities that are directed by levels of supervision. Each higher level has higher power and influence until the top is reached, where central direction of the whole organization takes place. Work is carefully scheduled, tasks are certain, roles are defined strictly and most formal communication flows along the lines of hierarchy. The whole structure is organized like a well oiled machine and collaborates many of the features of a bureaucracy. Organic organizations are more flexible and open. Tasks and roles are less rigidly defined, allowing people to adapt them to situational requirements. Communication is more multidirectional. It consists more of information and advice and joint problem solving rather than instructions and decisions. Authority and influence flow more directly from the person who has the capacity to handle the problem at hand. Decision making is more decentralized, being shared by several levels and different functions. The organization also is more open to its environment. Bums and Stalker showed that mechanistic forms are more effective than organic forms in certain situations.

If tasks are constant and well defined, varying very little from month to month and year to year, a mechanistic form tends to be superior. If changes in the technology, market and other parts of the environment are minimal, then a mechanistic structure seems to be more efficient. Worker attitudes also are a contingency factor. If workers like more routine tasks and direction from others, then a mechanistic form better meets their needs. If they are threatened by uncertainty and insecurity, then a mechanistic approach is better. Organic forms are more efficient in other situations and these situations tend to be more archetypal in modem society. Organic forms work better if the environment is dynamic, requiring frequent changes within the organization. They also work better when the tasks are not defined well enough to become routine. If employees seek autonomy, openness, variety, change and chances to try new approaches, then an organic form is better. If they do not, a mechanistic form may still be preferred. Teams are more likely to be utilised within an organic form of organization, because they provide the flexibility that modern organizations require.

A contingency approach to organizing may be useful within an organization, with the result that various departments may be organized differently to meet their particular needs. The research department may have an organic structure and the production department may demand a mechanistic structure.