Learn free form Wikipedia’s selection and earn gcl, European Chamber’s world recognized commercial certificate



Download 7.78 Mb.
Page55/173
Date19.10.2016
Size7.78 Mb.
#3503
1   ...   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   ...   173

Team composition


Team composition can be defined as the aspect of a team created by the configuration of team member attributes (Bell, 2007). It also has been identified as a causal factor that affects other aspects of a team (Moreland & Levine, 1992). The composition of a team is considered to have a strong influence on team processes and outcomes (Bell, 2007).

Team composition can either be homogeneous, all the same, or heterogeneous, containing differences. There are conflicting opinions on which is best. Homogeneous teams may perform better due to similarities in experience and thought, while heterogeneous teams may perform better due to diversity and greater ability to take on multiple roles (Mello &Ruckes, 2006). These terms, however, must be given a framework, as a team could be homogeneous for some characteristics and heterogeneous for others. The importance placed on team design derives from the need to align a team’s composition with organizational goals and resources. (Koslowski&Ilgen, 2006).

Team composition is a complex issue with an endless number and combination of elements contributing to each team configuration. The possible outcomes resulting from a team’s composition are as numerous.

Antecedents of team composition

Size


The preferred team size influences team composition (Moreland & Levine, 1992). Team size is determined by organizational task types, goals, and processes.

While the size of a team is clearly dependent on many factors, the concept of “ideal” team size also varies. Traditionally, it was perceived that increasing the size of a team had more powerful effects on team structure, dynamics, and performance (Thomas & Fink, 1963) because increased size generally translates into a wide range of member abilities and skills (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008; Moreland & Levine, 1992).

Recently, however, some researchers have identified a general preference for a small team, containing less than 10 members (Katzenbach& Smith, 1993; Moreland, Levine, &Wingert, 1996). Smaller teams experience better work-life quality (Campion et al., 1993; Hausknecht et al., 2009) and work outcomes (Aube et al., 2011). Smaller teams also may experience less conflict, stronger communication, and more cohesion (Moreland & Levine, 1992; Mathieu et al., 2008). Regardless of the chosen ”ideal” size, organizational preference of team size determines team composition and its effects (Mathieu et al., 2008).

Team structure


Team structure can be seen as a “bridge between organization-level strategy and staffing decisions” (Hollenbeck et al., 2002, p. 600). Team structure is an essential element in establishing guidance for team composition. It is helpful to consider the desired composition of the team when deciding which type of structure will be used to unite team members.

Functional structure

Functional structure is present when members within a team are organized around performing similar tasks (Mathieu et al., 2008).



Divisional structure

Divisional structure is present when members within a team are organized based on the similar organizational area (i.e. working on the same, specific product) in which they have responsibility (Mathieu et al., 2008).


Leadership structure


Teams generally have a leader (Mello &Ruckes, 2006). Leadership within a team has been shown to impact the outcome of team processes (Koslowski&Ilgen, 2006) such as team member selection. A standard leadership structure for teams involves a hierarchical leadership structure where there are leaders and subordinates.

Top Management Teams

An alternative leadership structure is when the team itself is composed of individuals who hold top management positions. Top Management Teams (TMTs) consists of an organization’s administrative members, in the upper echelons of the organization. New venture groups (i.e. technology start-ups), are commonly known for embracing the TMT model. TMT members are often selected by founders of organizations and have origins from sources with which the founders share network ties; thus, the level of homogeneity in these groups is often high (Ensley &Hmieleski, 2005). The similarity among TMT members could influence decisions regarding the composition of teams they create within the organization, as characteristics of TMT’s have been shown to strongly align with organizational outcomes because of their administrative powers (Mathieu et al., 2008).


Outcomes of team composition

Demographic traits


Diversity of age, gender, and race are considered to be the most important demographic factors resulting from team composition (Moreland & Levine, 1992).

Age is more than just number to team composition: as tenure with an organization and age increase, so can performances (Avolio, 1986; Ng & Feldman, 2008). Older individuals may contribute more professional expertise, years of experience, and gathered knowledge (Hess &Auman, 2001; Ng & Feldman, 2008).

Gender is another important factor of demographic team composition (Moreland & Levine, 1992). Men and women differ in their levels of conformity, preference of power distribution, and behavioral norms. These differences influence team behavior, climate, leadership, and norms (Wood & Rhodes, 1992; Moreland & Levine, 1992).

Race is a third demographic factor of team composition and has gained additional salience due to the globalization and increasing diversity of the workforce (Riordan & Shore, 1997). Traditionally, researchers have focused primarily on Whites and African Americans for race studies. That scope has more recently been extended to other races, such as Asians, Native Americans, Middle Easterners, and Hispanics.

Differences in ability, culture, and personalities among races have been shown to impact job-related outcomes (Harrison & Klein, 2007). The level of individual similarity and dissimilarity in racial attributes affect work-related processes (Riordan & Shore, 1997; Tsui& O’Reilly, 1989).

Knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs)


The team composition determines the array of knowledge, skills, and abilities within a team.

Knowledge includes the facts and principles that apply to the domain of the team (The O*Net Content Model, n.d.).

Skills can be either basic or cross-functional. Basic skills include developed capabilities that assist in the learning or faster acquisition of knowledge. Cross-functional skills assist in the ability to carry out tasks that occur across jobs. Skills can also be categorized into technical skills (adequate ability to do a variety of jobs), human skills (the ability to interact with others), and conceptual skills (the ability to learn and use newly acquired knowledge). (The O*Net Content Model, n.d.)

Abilities are long-lasting individual traits that impact performance (The O*Net Content Model, n.d.). Abilities can include multiple dimensions ranging from scope (general vs. specific) to origin (innate vs. learned) to focus (task vs. social) (Moreland et al., 1996).

Researchers have focused on different abilities, varying on dimensions such as scope (general vs. specific), origin (innate vs. learned), and focus (task vs. social). They found that individual abilities combine additively to determine team performance (Moreland & Levine, 1992), and "if members collectively lack necessary knowledge, skills, abilities, or resources to resolve the team task, the team cannot be effective,” (Koslowski&Ilgen, 2006, p. 80).

Experience – tenure


A member’s expertise and industry experience also contribute to the composition of the team (Ensley &Hmieleski, 2005). Job experience can be characterized by job knowledge, backgrounds, and patterns of behavior. (Schmidt, Hunter, &Outerbridge, 1986) Experience, overall, has been shown to have direct and indirect effects on performance (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).

Personality


Since the early 1990’s, researchers have considered the effects of individual personality traits on team dynamics and performance to be an important team factor (Moreland & Levine, 1992). TheBig Five personality traits include extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, openness to experience, and neuroticism (also referred to as emotional stability).

It is evident that individual personality traits affect the team’s processes and outcomes (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998; Bell, 2007; Bradley & Herbert, 1997). Empirical support has shown the following: the presence of extraversion in team members leads to increased team viability and communication; the presence of conscientiousness leads to an increase in overall performance; the presence of agreeableness in team members leads to an increase in cohesion, communication, productivity, and overall performance; the presence of openness to experience in team members leads to an increase in communication; the presence of neuroticism in team members leads to an increase in cohesion and overall performance (Mathieu et al., 2008).


Faultlines


A faultline is an imaginary line that divides a heterogeneous team into homogenous sub-teams. For example, a mixed team of men and women would have an imaginary split between the two genders. When a team is in its initial stages of forming, members may use demographic traits, such as gender, to place themselves into a sub-team (Lau &Murnighan, 1998).

Similar to faults, or breaks, in the earth’s crust, faultlines often need to be activated by external forces (i.e. task demands) in order to shake things up, or, cause an “earthquake.” When this happens, team members split along faultlines to form sub-teams. Individuals begin to create more interpersonal connections within the sub-team than with the team as a whole (Lau &Murnighan, 2005). In severe cases, the members of a sub-team may feel like the split is irreconcilable and break away completely from the team or organization (Dyck& Starke, 1999).


Context


The composition of a team creates a context--conditions that surround and influence the team--for individual team members’ actions as well as teamwork and performance (Moreland & Levine, 1992).

For example, high levels of diversity in the team roles (such as coordinator and implementer) held by members have been shown to better help teams successfully complete complex tasks (Higgs, Plewnia, &Ploch, 2005). This does not mean, however, that high levels of diversity always enhances actions, teamwork, or performance. For example, the chosen attribute could be disagreeableness, where high levels could lead to decreased sharing of ideas by team members, lower amounts of teamwork (such as less communication), and poorer performance.

In addition to highs and lows in diversity, the ideal composition of a team may also exist at a moderate level. For example, using extraversion as the chosen attribute, a team with a high or low number of extraverts does not perform as well as a team with a moderate (around a third of the members) number of extraverts (Barry & Stewart, 1997). In all of these scenarios, the team composition, in terms of a chosen attribute, affect the team differently at different levels.

Climate


Climate is most commonly thought of as the typical way that members in the organization describe their team or organization (Chan, 1998). Team composition creates climate, and team climate moderates the relationship between individual perception of an organization and organizational outcomes such as performance and satisfaction (Schneider, Salvaggio, and Subirats, 2002).

Although climate is influenced by individuals’ attributes, it is manifested at the organizational or team level (Schneider et al., 2002). Generally, climate encompasses the work environment, acting as a continuous factor that influences team composition and team performance. When individuals in the workplace create a positive climate, job satisfaction and job performance increase (Wiley and Brooks, 2000; Schneider et al., 2002). As a moderator, team climate influences the relationship between team composition and team performance.




Download 7.78 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   ...   173




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page