Why Teams Don’t Work
Kristie Barela
July 9, 2013
Business Communications
South University Online

Why Teams Don’t Work
Within our business culture, the use of teams is something wonderful, but it’s also not so wonderful. In the U.S. there is a common held assumption that working in teams produces better results (Teel, 2009). Teams have often been thought of as safe hubs where individuals can feel supported, creative, and productive (Teel, 2009). According to research by Richard Hackman, this assumption is being challenged. In May 2009, the Harvard Business Review published an article titled “Why Teams Don’t Work - An Interview with J. Richard Hackman,” and many heads were turned because of his research (Elliot. 2010). This research completely contradicts how we run our business here at Barela Industries; however, I believe the information presented before you will shed some light as to the various factors, according to Hackman, as to why using teams to complete a complex project may not be the best approach. The purpose of this report is provide information about the history and characteristics of teams, the benefits of using teams, as well as the reasons behind why teams fail and the possible solutions.
HISTORY OF TEAMS
Although the idea may seem quite new, I will tell you that teams have been around for quite some time. Even thousands of years ago, there were teams that collaborated together for the purpose of hunting and gathering for the people in villages. In today’s society, the use of teams is but a slight variation and a smaller scale. Over many generations, the idea of teaming has continued to evolve (Robbins, 1998). This process has changed very slowly over the years, as people discovered new ways to put their heads together and new reasons to do it (Robbins, 1998). Technology is altering the way teams are expected to work - and occasionally (but not usually), making it easier and more fluid (Robbins, 1998).
“The renewed trend toward mergers means that teams will be operating across cultural grains, facing all the challenges that come with that. Already we are seeing virtual organizations that are wholly team-based -- ad-hoc organizations thrown together for a single purpose, that do their work, make their money, and then disband” (Robbins, 1998). It seems as though the use of teams is becoming a way of life within company, but as you will see, so are the problems associated with them.
WHAT ARE TEAMS?
A team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, set of performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable (Katzenbach, 1993). Teams usually are created for a temporary or ongoing project, where members work together to identify problems, form consensuses about actions to be taken, and implement the most viable ones, but their purposes and goals often differ (Encyclopedia of Business, 2013). For example, they may be formed to develop new products, act as liaisons between and among different departments within a corporation, or resolve problems (Encyclopedia of Business, 2013). Teams are not, however, intended to be a panacea to all business problems, nor do they always work smoothly (Encyclopedia of Business, 2013).
It can also be noted that using teams may not be appropriate for all organizations or in all types of businesses. Behavioral scientists are still working to determine exactly when teams will be most effective, what motivates team members, what types of business can best benefit from the implementation of teams, etc. (Encyclopedia of Business, 2013). “While effective teams can produce extraordinary results, studies have found that an estimated 50 percent of self-directed work teams result in failure. But as more and more businesses introduce the team concept, the wrinkles in the process are being ironed out and team popularity is growing” (Encyclopedia of Business, 2013). Based on this information, it appears as though using teams is the future in business and corporate lifestyle.

CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE BUSINESS TEAMS * “There is a clear unity of purpose. There was free discussion of the objectives until members could commit themselves to them; the objectives are meaningful to each group member” (Katzenbach, 1993). * “The group is self-conscious about its own operations. The group has taken time to explicitly discuss group process -- how the group will function to achieve its objectives. The group has a clear, explicit, and mutually agreed- upon approach: mechanics, norms, expectations, rules, etc. Frequently, it will stop to examine how well it is doing or what may be interfering with its operation. Whatever the problem may be, it gets open discussion and a solution found” (Katzenbach, 1993) * “The group has set clear and demanding performance goals for itself and has translated these performance goals into well-defined concrete milestones against which it measures itself. The group defines and achieves a continuous series of "small wins" along the way to larger goals” (Katzenbach, 1993). * “The atmosphere tends to be informal, comfortable, relaxed. There are no obvious tensions, a working atmosphere in which people are involved and interested” (Katzenbach, 1993). * “There is a lot of discussion in which virtually everyone participates, but it remains pertinent to the purpose of the group. If discussion gets off track, someone will bring it back in short order. The members listen to each other. Every idea is given a hearing. People are not afraid of being foolish by putting forth a creative thought even if it seems extreme” (Katzenbach, 1993). * “People are free in expressing their feelings as well as their ideas” (Katzenbach, 1993). * “There is disagreement and this is viewed as good. Disagreements are not suppressed or overridden by premature group action. The reasons are carefully examined, and the group seeks to resolve them rather than dominate the dissenter. Dissenters are not trying to dominate the group; they have a genuine difference of opinion. If there are basic disagreements that cannot be resolved, the group figures out a way to live with them without letting them block its efforts” (Katzenbach, 1993). * “Most decisions are made at a point where there is general agreement. However, those who disagree with the general agreement of the group do not keep their opposition private and let an apparent consensus mask their disagreement. The group does not accept a simple majority as a proper basis for action” (Katzenbach, 1993). * “Each individual carries his or her own weight, meeting or exceeding the expectations of other group members. Each individual is respectful of the mechanics of the group: arriving on time, coming to meetings prepared, completing agreed upon tasks on time, etc. When action is taken, clears assignments are made (who-what-when) and willingly accepted and completed by each group member” (Katzenbach, 1993). * “Criticism is frequent, frank and relatively comfortable. The criticism has a constructive flavor -- oriented toward removing an obstacle that faces the group” (Katzenbach, 1993). * “The leadership of the group shifts from time to time" (Katzenbach, 1993). * “The issue is not who controls, but how to get the job done” (Katzenbach, 1993).
TYPES OF TEAMS
Many different types of teams exist in the business world. “There are, for example, functional, task, project, ad hoc, and standing committees; interest and friendship groups; autonomous, integrated, and entrepreneurial work teams; quality circles; and others. Often, people lose sight of the fact that some of these entities are actually teams. But that is just what a committee is: a team put together for a specific purpose. Placed in that context, virtually every business uses one form of team or another” (Encyclopedia of Business, 2013).
“Groups fall into two categories, formal and informal. Formal groups are those given legitimacy by the organization. Informal groups tend to be more social in nature. Nevertheless, they are sometimes sanctioned by the organization in order to stimulate innovation or increase employee morale. The type of group utilized by individual companies depends to a large extent on the business, the problems to be solved, and the level of participation (e.g., executive, managerial, supervisory, etc.). That is why it is so important that management choose the right team format” (Encyclopedia of Business, 2013).
ADVANTAGES OF TEAMS
The use of teams, within a business, have the power to achieve many goals. Here is a list of some of the advantages to using teams within your organization: * INCREASES PRODUCTIVITY
“Organizations are continuously looking for efficiency or productivity gains as a source of competitive advantage. Teams, especially those that are close to the point of delivery can identify what needs to change to boost productivity better than any group of senior managers could ever hope to. Let the team focus on productivity and the organization gains” (Brodie, 2007). * IMPROVES COMMUNICATION SKILLS
“For teams to succeed they need to be able to get their messages across, listen effectively to other points of view and build on ideas. As a result of being on the team, people are getting the opportunity to develop and improve their communication skills” (Brodie, 2007). * DIVERSITY OF SKILLS
“Some people in organizations thrive in dealing with the big picture stuff. Others get their kick from getting immersed in the detail. There will be others who thrive on idea generation and others who love to take something from concept to finished article. This diverse range of people skills and working together have the potential to deliver a much better solution than any one individual could ever hope to do (Brodie, 2007). * IMPROVED PROBLEM SOLVING
“Think about a time when you had a problem that you needed to solve. You probably get so far and then end up getting stuck because of your own range of experience or knowledge. When you have access to the wider range of skills and knowledge you ultimately solve problems faster and better” (Brodie, 2007). * PROCESS IMPROVEMENT
“Few business processes operate in isolation just within one area of the organization. They tend to cross functions and even geographical boundaries. A team with insights of different parts of the process will clearly be better placed to make successful process improvements” (Brodie, 2007). * SMARTER USE OF RESOURCES
“When a team has focus on getting a specific result, chances are they will find creative ways of using the resources at their disposal rather than focusing on the constraints" (Brodie, 2007).
DISADVANTAGES OF USING TEAMS * DISAGREEMENTS
Within every business setting, it is inevitable that disagreements will occur. One example could be a disagreement on how to approach a sales goal. “When more than one person has to make a decision, everyone will have their opinions. This can cause disagreements amongst team members and possibly even slow the process down entirely” (Krow, 2013). * TEAMS TAKE THE GLORY AND THE FALL
Like previously stated, teams come together by working towards a common goal. “When the team fails, everyone in the team fails - even if a particular individual did not agree with the method used to fail. When a team wins, everyone in the team wins - even if a particular individual did the majority of the work to make the team win” (Krow, 2013). What this means, is that by using a team, the whole team is responsible for the outcomes versus putting the congratulations or blame upon one specific person. When not having to answer for your own errors it can cancel out the effect of learning from you mistakes (Krow, 2013). * FEELING LEFT OUT
“When a team is comprised of different individuals, there will be different skill levels, educational levels and personalities in the same group. If one individual is not up to par with the other team members they can feel left out of discussions or even planning towards the team’s goal. Also when individuals in the team feel they have a weaker link, they may be less apt to give assignments or duties to that team member ultimately making them feel left out of the team itself” (Krow, 2013). * TAKING LONGER
“In the workplace, team work sometimes can take longer to complete a task than when a single individual works on that task. This is due to the fact that with a team you must first converse about the goal at hand, how you are going to go about it as well as work through any disagreements. On top of which teams will also have to compensate for slower workers or those that take longer to complete their assigned tasks, thus slowing down the entire team” (Krow, 2013).
WHY DO TEAMS FAIL?
Now that we know what it takes to establish an effective team through some of the characteristics, and what the advantages and disadvantages are of using teams, let’s take a look at some of the factors as to why teams fail. * FEAR OF CONFLICT - We often times hide our true thoughts and feelings to keep harmony on the team. No one will voice their opinions or question shaky opinions (Bunn, 2011). * AVOIDANCE OF ACCOUNTABILITY - How many of us have worked on teams where no one wanted to work or take responsibility for a task. Some team members will even shirk their responsibility (Bunn, 2011). * ABSENCE OF TRUST - Any time new teams are formed the individual team members want to get a feel for their teammates. New teams are a breeding ground for trust issues. Often times individuals have to prove themselves. This is true in the forming stage of any team. The members want to know what you add to the team (Bunn, 2011). * INATTENTION TO RESULTS - The sole purpose of any team is to produce. Remember the old saying "I can do bad by myself" no one wants to be a part of a losing team. Some team members are on board for the status of being on the team (Bunn, 2011). * LACK OF COMMITMENT - We have all been a party to teams that just cannot get it together. Decisions are made only to have them later changed. No one seems to want any sort of agreement nor will anyone commit to a common vision (Bunn, 2011).

HOW TO CREATE SUCCESSFUL TEAMS * “Forming a team involves a great deal more than just throwing several people together and assigning them a goal. Consideration must be given to motivation, conformity, rewards, intragroup relationships, and norms. Most importantly, a clear and meaningful mission statement must clearly state the team's shared vision at the outset” (Encyclopedia for Business, 2013). * “Extensive research has demonstrated that the effectiveness of a team begins to diminish over 12 members. The ideal size is typically centered around 6 and can drift as high as 9. Some groups encompass as many as 25 members. With more members, of course, the possibility of fracturing and redundancy escalates. Usually, when formal groups are established with large numbers, they inevitably partition into subgroups. While the specific size determination is obviously best tailored to the specific needs of the company and project, most analysts agree that a tight, cohesive group will generally outperform a large, less associative team” (Encyclopedia for Business, 2013). * “However, when considering the size of a team, a firm must also be conscious of the necessity of assembling a diversity of skills and functional expertise, which can help foster creative solutions and techniques and avoid stagnation. Conversely, however, it can lead just as easily to animosity and division. Therefore, the authority structure of the team must be carefully designed, implemented, and mediated” (Encyclopedia for Business, 2013). * “One element that can make or break a team's effectiveness is the degree of mutual accountability. Teams must be fostered to ensure that their loyalty and accountability are directed toward the team and its overall performance, rather than toward the boss. The equal sharing of and dependence on the entire team's outcome is a crucial factor if a team is going to prove worth the trouble of its assembly” (Encyclopedia for Business, 2013). * “There are two basic types of groups: homogeneous and heterogeneous. Homogeneous groups comprise people who have similar needs, motives, and personalities. They are generally effective at handling simple, routine tasks. Their members' compatibility usually leads to high levels of cooperation and effective communications. The hallmark of the homogeneous group is the fact that the members have few interpersonal problems. Their group harmony is conducive to high group effectiveness—although that is not always the case. At times, the members of homogeneous groups tend to overconformity, which makes it difficult for them to deal effectively with non-routine matters” (Encyclopedia for Business, 2013). * “Heterogeneous groups, on the other hand, are most often effective at handling complex tasks, especially those requiring innovative approaches to problem solving. For the most part, the members possess different backgrounds and areas of specialization. What one member may lack in training and background, another has. And because they tend to have different types of personalities, they are not afraid to ask questions of one another or to differ on issues. They will challenge one another's conclusions, hypotheses, ideas, etc. Their willingness to confront other group members leads to a valuable exchange of ideas, which in turn leads to innovative solutions to problems. Of course, that is not always a positive thing. It can also lead to intra-group conflict, which is a barrier to productivity” (Encyclopedia for Business, 2013).
CONCLUSION
Although Richard Hackman is quite the scholar and through his research he was able to show how using teams under-perform, despite all the extra resources they have, I believe this is not the case. We have all learned that working with teams is one of the best ways to understand creativity by expanding our knowledge with the help of others. We learned about the synergy of the team, how teams help overcome the weaknesses of the individuals that make up the team, how many hands make light work, and that if you want something done better, give it to a team (Elliot, 2010). I don’t think Richard Hackman meant to say that using teams to complete complex projects may be a bad idea. I think what he meant by the statement is that using teams to complete complex projects may not be good practice when there is lack of an effective managerial support system.

References
Brodie, D. (2007). 6 advantages of teams. Retrieved July 10, 2013, from www.ezinearticles.com/?6-Advantages-of-Teams&id=3240033
Bunn, G. (2011). Why do teams fail. Retrieved July 10, 2013, from www.tips4teamwork.com/why-do-teams-fail.html
Elliot, J. (2010). Why teams don't work. Retrieved, July 10, 2013, from www.leadershipdiamond.blogspot.com
Encyclopedia of Business. (2013). Teams. Retrieved, July 10, 2013, from http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/Str-The/Teams.html
Katzenbach, J., & Smith, D. (1993). The discipline of teams. Retrieved, July 10, 2013, from http://extension.missouri.edu/staff/sdeteams/Documents/The_Discipline_of_Teams.pdf
Krow, S. (2013). The disadvantages of teams. Retrieved, July 10, 2013, from www.ehow.com/info_8166228_disadvantages-teams.html
Robbins, H., & Finley, M. (1998). The new why teams don't work. Retrieved July 10, 2013, from http://mfinley.com/bizbooks/list-teamsbook.htm
Teel, S. (2009). Why teams don't work. Retrieved, July 10, 2013, from www.timrosablog.com