Friday, November 30, 2012

Evaluating and Rewarding Team/Group Performance






            Regularly, within teams, companies, and organizations, employees or team members are offered incentives for achieving or exceeding production goals.  This concept is commonly referred to as reward systems which in conjunction with performance management tools encourage individuals and teams to thrive.  Generally, performance is measured to determine the effectiveness of a program and assess target or task results in order to ascertain whether or not modifications are necessary (Russ-Eft, & Preskill, 2009).  Furthermore, monitoring these elements enables organizational leaders to track resources from financial and legal aspects.  The organization aims to ensure individuals and teams are maintaining performance levels while appropriately utilizing resources.  Such practices are a means of organizational accountability (Russ-Eft, & Preskill, 2009).  According to Fleisher’s 2007 survey of the American Evaluation Association, the majority of participants considered organizational evaluation to afford the following:
-          Enabled the organization to learn from its experiences.
-          Encouraged strategies for adjustment.
-          Enhanced evaluative decision-making proficiencies.
(Russ-Eft & Preskill, 2009, p. 14).
In terms of performance management tools, individual evaluations, team member evaluations, and team evaluations are employed.  Respectively, organizational leaders administer individual evaluations upon a subordinate, colleagues administer team member evaluations to measure individual performance, and organizational leaders administer team evaluations to determine the overall effectiveness of the team (Levi, 2011).  Additionally, the organization may evaluate behavioral performance.  Such evaluations are utilized to rate actions which are beneficial or detrimental to team processes.  In do so, organizations aspire to promote cooperation and team participation (Levi, 2011). 
Regarding reward systems, organizations typically offer individual, team, or organizational incentives (Levi, 2011).  Such incentives may include pay-rate increase, bonus money, promotion, or in the form of gifts.  However, each type of incentive may foster negative and positive affects.  First, individual rewards may inspire a person to surpass production requirements, yet the incentive obstructs team cohesion.  Next, team and organizational rewards allows the organization to efficiently manage and accommodate the staff.  Each team member is compensated in a similar manner regardless of job assignment or role.  Such practices tend to promote cooperation and team work.  Conversely, at times these means may form rivalries within the organization, obstructing relations and cohesion.  In addition, lack of individual compensation may hinder high performers from executing at their best (Levi, 2011).
            In general, organizations are more productive granted individual or team rewards.  For instance, in certain industries staff members tend to stay on task, adhere to company procedures, and exceed sales goals at a higher rate when offered free meals, bonus money, or time off.  Typically, individuals and teams within an organization perform more effectively granted the incentive to do so.                     

References
Levi, D. (2011). Group dynamics for teams (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Russ-Eft, D. & Preskill, H. (2009). Evaluation in organizations: A systematic approach
to enhancing learning, performance, and change. (2nd ed.). New York:
Basic Books.

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Virtual Groups





            In a global economy, the use of internet and telecommunications provide significant means of enabling individuals to interact and work in conjunction.  Accordingly, the concept of a virtual team refers to the utilization of communication technologies which allow team members to work collaboratively regardless of distance or physical boundaries.  The goal is to complete tasks in a time and cost efficient manner.  Individuals are allotted an ample amount of flexibility as well.  Additionally, virtual teams are capable of sharing and processing information, networking within the organization, interacting with pertinent third parties, and maintaining internal operations (Levi, 2011).
            However, virtual teams have the potential to lack cohesion.  Establishing effective social support may prove to be difficult.  Furthermore, individuals could be bombarded with information or suffer from structural inconsistencies, misinterpretation, or a sense of seclusion.  Such issues create an environment in which unity or connectedness are compromised and conflict is more prevalent and less manageable (Levi, 2011).
            Another factor to consider is the role of leadership within the virtual team.  Under these circumstances, leaders are required to promote task and goal achievement, improve team behavior and performance, and determine impending alterations (Carte, Chidambaram, & Becker, 2006).  Although such responsibilities parallel leadership requirements in face-to-face organizations, virtual assemblies present additional challenges.  Researchers note that “leadership mediated by technology, while likely focused on the same performance and relationship enhancing outcomes, may take a different form due to changes in the availability of information, dispersion of the team, and permanence of the communications” (Carte, Chidambaram, & Becker, 2006, p. 324).  Furthermore, establishing rapport, managing conflict, and handling personal issues raises concern (Zigurs, 2003).  In effort to overcome such issues the leader may implement project management software, encourage team members to participate in discussion forums, or utilize instant messaging, or chat rooms (Levi, 2011).  Additionally, social media sites such as Facebook or LinkedIn may enhance virtual cohesion. 

References:

Carte, T.A., Chidambaram, L., & Becker, A. (2006). Emergent leadership in self
managed virtual teams: A longitudinal study of concentrated and shared
leadership behaviors. Group Decision & Negotiation, 15, 323-343.
Levi, D. (2011). Group dynamics for teams (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Zigurs, I. (2003). Leadership in virtual teams: Oxymoron or opportunity? Organizational
          Dynamics, 31(4), 339-351.