Team Development and Intergroup Development Are Similar Interventions That Occur at Different

Page 1 of 7

#2:

Team development and intergroup development are similar interventions that occur at different levels of the organization.

Team development seeks to increase the effectiveness of work units (i.e., teams) by assessing and intervening in team problems that come from a variety of sources, including: goals, size, leadership, decision making, member needs, norms, and homogeneity. Team development gets teams to “spend some time on the process of team interaction, that is, on how they work together and what they accomplish” (p. 315). The specific interventions include outdoor labs, role negotiation, role analysis, and several others. In short, team development gets the individuals that comprise a team to understand how the members can best work together in order to make an effective team.

Intergroup development is quite the same as team development except that it addresses cooperation and effectiveness at an organizational level. Its goal is to “increase cooperation among organization subsystems” (p. 346). It addresses issues like suboptimization (when a group optimizes its own goals at the expense of organizational goals), intergroup competition, role conflict & ambiguity, and others. In short, intergroup development gets the groups that comprise an organization to understand how the groups can best work together in order to make an effective organization.

As can hopefully be seen from the previous discussion, the two interventions are similar in that they both are centered around increasing cooperation and clarifying roles. The substantial difference between the two methods is the unit of intervention: team development helps individuals to work together effectively; intergroup development helps teams to work together effectively.

#3:

Intergroup team building is a technique used to work out inter-group conflicts and improve cooperation and effectiveness between two groups. Usually, “the key members of conflicting groups meet to work on issues” (p. 354).

The process of intergroup team building usually takes one to two days and can involve several practitioner strategies, including role-playing and conflict management. For example, a practitioner must make sure that communications are problem-centered rather than hostile and make sure that the flow of communication between groups is free and open. It is also recommended that each group undergo team development before attempting to undergo intergroup team building. This is so that intragroup issues are worked out before trying to work out intergroup issues.

Intergroup team building usually takes five steps. Step 1 is to have each group independently prepare three lists that answer the following questions: (1) How do we see ourselves? (2) How do we think the other department sees us? and (3) How do we see the other department? In Step 2, the groups meet and present their lists—each group is not allowed to argue or defend itself. In Step 3, the groups meet separately and discuss the “discrepancies in perception and react to the feedback” (p. 355). In Step 4, the groups divide into subgroups composed of members from both groups. These subgroups have the task of “agreeing upon a diagnosis…and developing conflict-reducing…alternatives with action plans and follow-up activities” (p. 355). Step 5 is usually a follow-up meeting for the groups to assess the effectiveness of their action plan and to evaluate progress.

#4:

High-performing systems (HPS) have the following eight characteristics:

1. Knows why it exists. These systems are clear about their broad-level goals and their short-term objectives to meet those goals.
2. High motivation. The commitment to system goals is real and driving. Members are engaged and energetic about meeting objectives.
3. Task focused. The task at hand is at the center of all teamwork.
4. Strong leadership. An HPS has visible and strong leadership.
5. Innovation. An HPS comes up with new ideas and ways of doing things that are directly related to the task at hand.
6. Clear separation. There is a distinct feeling within the system that the system is different than its environment. It is clear where the system ends and begins.
7. Perceived negatively. An HPS is often viewed by other systems as problematic. That is, because an HPS tends to live and thrive by its own standards, other systems view the HPS negatively.
8. Cohesive. The system functions together ‘like a well-oiled machine.’ Its processes occur with little friction or hesitation.

High-performing systems are most often led by enthusiastic and energetic leaders whose vitality and ethos permeates the system, invigorating the workplace.

#6:

Likert’s System 4 management suggests that there are four different management systems. System 1 is the least effective, and System 4 is the most effective.

System 1. This refers to an exploitative-authoritative (i.e., autocratic) approach to management. In System 1 organizations, communications (both downward and upward through the chain of power) are viewed with suspicion. Subordinates are rarely asked for their input and opinions, leaders do not show warmth or consideration for subordinates, and there are a lot of confusing, unclear, and unnecessary policies and procedures.

System 2. This refers to a benevolent-authoritative approach. In System 2 organizations, there may be a little less suspicion of communication, and the flow of communication may be slightly more two-way than a System 1 organization. There may be a small degree of warmth and support from leadership, and the policies aren’t quite as arcane and nebulous as those of a System 1.

System 3. System 3 organizations use a consultative approach. Communications are freer than those in System 2 or 1 organizations. Leadership takes an active role in supporting subordinates and acquiring feedback and input. The organization’s policies are well understood, and there are less unnecessary rules and procedures.

System 4. System 4 organizations use a participative approach. They are “based on participative methods of decision-making and supervision,” and they emphasize “employee involvement and participation” (p. 434). Communication is free and open and travels in all organizational directions. Leaders seek out and support subordinate opinions and decisions. Subordinates are given personal responsibility and are allowed to make decisions. Organizational policies are easily understood, and there is very little unnecessary “red tape.”

#7:

In order for third-wave organizations to be successful in the information age, they must posses the following characteristics:

1. Flexibility. This means there cannot be a lot of hierarchy—the organization has to be flat and able to change rapidly. Bureaucracy and red-tape has very little place in the information age. The culture of the organization allows for rapid change and reorganization.
2. Creativity. In third-wave organizations, the members must be involved in an a part of the vision or cause. Members are excited about achieving new levels of creativity, production, and personal growth.
3. Innovation. Third-wave organizations encourage growth, innovative thinking, and taking risks. The culture encourages participation of all employees in the development of new ideas and products.

Michael J. Walk

Organizational Development

Final Exam

11 December 2007