CHAPTER 6

Leadership and Team Building: Gaining Cooperation from Team Members

YOU ARE A project manager, and you face a mission impossible. You must assemble a crack team of individuals, each possessing talents and skills, specialists assigned to a specific task, yet working together as a finely tuned instrument. Each member must possess personal insight drawn from her own functional area, yet develop the ability to gel with others to produce a synergy seen only on…television?

If only life was like television. We would assemble our team, things would go according to plan, and the group would roll off in the van just as the closing credits started to roll. Yet, for too many project managers, forming a team is a mission that they would rather choose not to accept. The difficulties involved in building and coordinating an effective team are daunting. Inattention to these demands has caused numerous projects to fail.

Team building is one of the most difficult tasks that a manager can face; all too often it blows up in one's face. What makes this set of duties so frustrating for many project managers is that it is never part of the formal job description. They may come roaring into the project with ideas, energy, personal commitment, and more only to hit a wall before they even get started when they discover that their responsibilities include creating and maintaining the effectiveness of a team of other people. Many managers, uncomfortable with these duties, often are willing to turn a blind eye to them, perhaps under the mistaken belief that the rest of the team are professionals who are willing to put the implementation effort first and bury personal or departmental conflicts and animosities.

Unfortunately, the reverse is often the case. While nominally being a member of the team, usually composed of members from different functional departments or with varying degrees of technical training, individuals still retain loyalties to the concerns and interests of their own functional departments. Consequently, in addition to harboring prejudices about members of other functional groups, team members will also often view their primary responsibility as being to their own functional group, rather than to the implementation team. This, then, is the challenge that is faced by project managers: how to take a disparate group of individuals with different backgrounds, attitudes, and goals and mold them into a team in every sense of the word.

CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE TEAMS

A great deal of research has investigated the qualities that effective teams possess and the degree to which those same qualities are missing from less effective groups. While much has been written, there are a great many common aspects of successful teams that these sources share. Briefly, the most common underlying features of successful implementation teams tend to be: 1) a clear sense of mission, 2) an understanding of interdependencies, 3) cohesiveness, 4) trust among team members, and 5) a shared sense of enthusiasm. Each of these factors can be examined in turn.

A Clear Sense of Mission

One of the key determinants of implementation success is a clear project mission. Further, that sense of mission must be mutually understood and accepted by all team members. In fact, research has not only demonstrated the importance of this factor, it has showed that it is the number one predictor of project implementation success (Pinto and Prescott 1988). Team members need a purpose to rally around. They must have some sense of the overall goals that drive the implementation effort. Our professional experiences with project successes and failures have very clearly differentiated the efficacy of team performance in both the presence and absence of overall goals. A further key point is that it is not enough for the implementation team leader to know the goals; this knowledge must be shared by all concerned parties.

A common but often tragic mistake made by many managers—particularly those who are insecure about their authority vis-à-vis the project team—is to segment the team in terms of duties, giving each member a small, well-specified task but no sense of how that activity contributes to the overall project implementation effort. This approach is a serious mistake for several important reasons. First, the project team is the manager's best source of troubleshooting for problems, both potential and actual. If the team is kept in the dark, members who could potentially help, with the smooth transition of the project through participating in other aspects of the installation, are not able to contribute in ways that they may be most helpful. Second, team members know and resent when they are being kept in the dark about other features of the project. Consciously or not, when project managers keep their teams isolated and involved in fragmented tasks, they are sending out the signal that they either do not trust their teams or do not feel that their teams have the competence to address issues related to the overall implementation effort. Finally, from a fire-fighting perspective, it simply makes good sense for team leaders to keep their people abreast of the status of the project. The more time spent defining goals and clarifying roles in the initial stages of the team's development, the less time will be needed to resolve problems and adjudicate disputes down the road.

Understanding the Team's Interdependencies

This characteristic refers to the degree of knowledge that team members have and the importance that they attach to the inter-relatedness of their efforts. Interdependence refers to the degree of joint activity among team members that is required in order to complete the project. In many situations, a project team leader may be required to form a team out of members from various functional areas within the organization. For example, a typical IS introduction at a large corporation could conceivably require the development of a team, which included members from R&D, MIS, engineering, accounting, and administration. Each of these individuals brings to the team her preconceived notions of the roles that each should play, the importance of various contributions, and other parochial attitudes. Developing an understanding of mutual interdependencies implies developing a mutual level of appreciation for the strengths and contributions that each team member brings to the table and is a necessary precondition for team success. Team members must become aware not only of their own contributions but how their work fits into the overall scheme of the IS installation and, further, how it relates to the other, necessary work of team members from other departments.

Cohesiveness

Cohesiveness, at its most basic, simply refers to the degree of mutual attraction that team members hold for each other and their tasks. In other words, cohesiveness is the strength of desire that all members have to remain a team. In many ways, cohesiveness is built and strengthened by demonstrating to the team members the advantages that individuals will derive from successful project introduction. It is safe to assume that most members of the implementation team need a reason, or reasons, to contribute their skills and time to the successful completion of the project. In other words, when asked to serve on the implementation team and actively contribute to the process, they often first consider why they should do so. It is important not to feel betrayed by any initial lack of enthusiasm on their parts, as it is understandable and predictable. Part of the job of a project team leader is to give the team a sense of value, of why it should perform to its optimal level.

Further, perceived value directly affects the members’ efforts toward establishing a degree of cohesiveness and solidarity as a project team. Project managers work to build a team that is cohesive as a starting point for performing their tasks. Cohesiveness is predicated on the attraction that the group holds for each individual member. Consequently, managers need to make use of all resources at their disposal, including reward systems, recognition, performance appraisals, and any other sources of organizational reward, to induce team members to devote time and energy in furthering the team's goals.

Trust

Trust means different things to different people. For a project team, trust can best be understood as the team's comfort level with each individual member. Further, given that comfort level, trust is manifested in the team's ability and willingness to squarely address differences of opinion, values, and attitudes and deal with them accordingly. Trust is the common denominator without which ideas of group cohesion and appreciation become moot.

Consider the situation of any implementation effort involving personnel from a variety of departments. Conflict and disagreements among team members are not only likely, they should be treated as a given. Trust is embodied in the belief of various team members that they are able to raise issues of conflict and disagreement without concern for retaliation or other sanctions. Because intragroup conflicts are so frequent within project teams, the manner in which they are dealt with is often a determinant of the group's ultimate success or failure. In our experience, managers make a big mistake in trying to submerge or put off disagreements and conflict, believing that they are counterproductive to group activities. In a sense, these managers are correct: no one wants conflicts among members of his team. On the other hand, we would argue that he is missing the larger picture, which is that these conflicts are inevitable. The mark of managerial success lies not in dampening conflict but in the manner that conflict, once having arisen, is handled. It is through establishing trust among team members that conflicts and other disagreements over procedures or activities can be most effectively discussed and concluded with a minimal loss of time and energy.

Enthusiasm

Enthusiasm is the key to creating the energy and spirit that drives effective implementation efforts. The point that the project team leader needs to keep addressing is the belief among team members that they can achieve the goals set for them. This point is best illustrated by an example that one of the authors recently witnessed.

A project leader had been assigned a task and given a team composed of mostly senior, rather jaded, individuals from other departments. Initial enthusiasm for the project was quite low; many project team members claimed that they had seen other examples of this project in the past, and “they never worked before.” Despite his initial enthusiasm and energy, the project leader was getting increasingly frustrated with his project team. His chief concern was the constant litany of “We can't do that here” that he heard every time he offered a suggestion for changing a procedure or trying anything new. One Monday morning, his team members walked into the office to the vision of the words Yes We Can! painted in letters three feet high across one wall of the office. (Over the weekend, the team leader had come in and done a little redecorating). From that point on, the motto—Yes We Can!—became the theme of the implementation team and had a wonderful impact on adoption success.

This story illustrates an important point: enthusiasm starts at the top. If the team senses that the leader is only going through the motions or has little optimism for system success, that same sense of apathy is quickly communicated to the team and soon pervades all of its activities. The team cannot be fooled; it senses when managers truly believe in the project and when they do not.

STAGES IN GROUP DEVELOPMENT

The importance of molding an effective project team is further supported by the work of Tuchman and Jensen (1977), who argue that the group development process is a dynamic one. Groups go through several maturation stages that are often readily identifiable and are generally found across a variety of organizations and involve groups formed for a variety of different purposes. These stages are illustrated in Figure 13.

Stage One: Forming

The first step in group development consists of the stage where there is no group but instead a collection of individuals. Forming consists of the process or approaches used in order to mold a collection of individuals into a coherent team. Team members begin to get acquainted with each other, talk about the purposes of the group, how and what types of leadership patterns will be used, and what will be acceptable behaviors within the group. In essence, forming constitutes the rule-setting stage in which the ground rules for interaction (who is really in charge, and how are members expected to interact) and activity (how productive are members expected to be) are established and mutually agreed to. It is important that this step be completed early in the group's life in order to eliminate ambiguities further down the implementation process. In many instances, the role of the team leader will be to create structure to these early meetings, as well as to set the tone for future cooperation and positive member attitudes.

Stage Two: Storming

Storming refers to the natural reaction to these initial ground rules as members begin to test the limits and constraints placed on their behavior. Storming is a conflict-laden stage in which the preliminary leadership patterns, reporting relationships, and norms of work and interpersonal behavior are challenged and, perhaps, reestablished. During this stage, it is likely that the team leader will begin to see a number of the group members demonstrating personal agendas and prejudices (e.g., the conviction by marketing staff that all accountants are bean counters). These behaviors are bound to create a level of hostility and conflict among team members that the leader must be prepared to address.

It is also important to point out that the process of storming is a very natural phase through which all groups go. One of the worst things that the leader can do when confronted with storming behavior is to attempt to suppress that behavior through ridicule (“Why don't you both start acting like adults?”) or appeals to professionalism (“We are all on the same side.”) in the hope that members will be shamed or coaxed into dropping the conflict. This approach almost never works because it simply pushes the conflict below the surface. Consequently, team members who have not been allowed to resolve difficulties during an active storming phase may begin engaging in a campaign of guerrilla warfare against each other, constantly sniping or denigrating each other's contributions to the implementation effort. Taken to its extreme, unresolved conflict can sink the implementation process as it reduces the group's efforts to ineffectiveness.

Team leaders should acknowledge storming behavior for what it is and treat it as a serious, but ultimately healthy, sign of team growth and maturation. One of the most productive behaviors that they can engage in is to provide a forum for group members to air concerns and complaints, without indulging in judgmental behavior. The team leader who acts as a problem solver and coach is likely to be far more effective in building a productive team than is the manager who views all intragroup conflict with alarm and actively seeks to suppress it in the mistaken hope that if ignored, it will simply go away.

Stage 3: Norming

A norm is most often defined as an unwritten rule of behavior. Norming behavior in a group implies that the team members are establishing mutually agreed-to practices and attitudes. Norms serve to help the team determine how it should make decisions, how often it should meet, the degree of openness and trust that team members will exhibit toward each other, and how conflicts will be resolved. Research has showed that it is during the norming stage that the cohesiveness of the group grows to its highest level. Close relationships develop, a sense of mutual concern and appreciation emerges, and feelings of camaraderie and shared responsibility are in evidence. The norming stage establishes the playing field upon which the actual work of the team will commence.

Stage 4: Performing

It is during the performing stage that the actual work of the project team is performed; that is, the implementation plan is executed. It is only when the first three phases have been properly dealt with that the team will have reached the level of maturity and confidence to effectively perform its duties. One of the most common mistakes that occurs among novice project managers is to push the team immediately into the work of the implementation plan. Typically, this approach consists of holding an initial meeting to get acquainted, parceling out the work, and essentially telling the team members to get started with their piece of the process. The reason that this approach, although quite erroneous, is so often used is the impatience of the top management and team leader to be doing something. The real fear that these project leaders exhibit is based on their expectation of retribution from top management and is articulated by the belief that top management expects results. Naturally, this assumption is correct, to a degree. However, bear in mind that what top management is expecting is a successfully completed project. Its rightful concern is with results, not the process. A more seasoned manager, while taking the time to develop a productive team, is also communicating with top management to keep it informed on the progress of team development as part of the project implementation. It is only when top management knows nothing of what a manager is doing that it assumes that the manager is doing nothing.

Stage 5: Adjourning

Adjourning recognizes the fact that implementation does not last forever. At some point, the project has been completed, and the team is disbanded, with each member to return to her other functional duties within the organization. In some cases, the group may downsize slowly and deliberately; for example, as various components of the marketing project come online, a team that contains a cost accountant may no longer require that individual's services, and he will be reassigned. In other circumstances, the team will complete its tasks and be disbanded completely. In either case, it is important to remember that during the final stages of the implementation process, group members are likely to be exhibiting some concern about their futures: Where will they be reassigned? What will their new duties be? Project managers need to be sensitive to the real concerns felt by these team members and, when possible, help to smooth the transition from the old team to new assignments.

In addition to presenting the stages in group development, we have also attempted to describe some of the leadership duties for project managers that are a necessary part of their jobs. The moral of this message is to pay particular attention to the current stage of team development, and tailor leadership behaviors to facilitate the attainment of that stage. For example, during the early stages of forming and storming, project managers can be most effective when they play the dual roles of developing task assignments, and nurturing and influencing interpersonal relationships. In other words, they need to foster a combination of work and people skills as they set the agenda for the implementation effort within the context of the human interactions that are bound to lead to conflict and disagreement.

On the other hand, later in the team's implementation efforts, the leader can begin to develop a more exclusively task-oriented style. Assuming that the leader has spent adequate time developing the team, by the performing stage, the leader can devote time almost entirely to creating a work-related atmosphere. Finally, in the adjourning stage of the project, leaders should again be aware of and use their people skills as the project starts to ramp down toward completion. It goes without saying that this combination of people and task skills is difficult to develop. Further, it is even more difficult, particularly for new project managers, to know when to differentially employ them. Nevertheless, the mark of successful team leaders is often their acknowledgement that the team development process is dynamic, and that their leadership style can and must change at appropriate points to address the relevant issues that have surfaced. These issues will be discussed in detail in Chapter 8.

DETERMINANTS OF CROSS-FUNCTIONAL COOPERATION

Earlier in this chapter, we painted a picture in which many project teams are staffed by a skilled but disparate group of organizational members. Because these members come from a variety of different backgrounds and, further, are inculcated with certain beliefs and value sets once they join a functional department, the challenge for creating a viable, cohesive team out of these different individuals is often daunting. So far in this chapter, we have examined the characteristics of effective teams, as well as addressed how team attitudes and behaviors change across various, identifiable stages in group maturation. However, we have not yet examined the basic concern of many project managers: Exactly how does one begin to create cohesion, trust, enthusiasm, and other characteristics of winning teams? In other words, what are some tactics that managers can employ to encourage the type of effective team development so important for project success? The purpose of this section is to report on some of the factors under a project manager's control that can help foster cross-functional cooperation among project team members.

The factors that are discussed below were uncovered as part of a recent research project investigating the causes of cross-functional cooperation on project teams (Pinto, M. B. 1988). The study affirmed the importance of a set of factors that can help encourage cross-functional cooperation and, further, offered some managerial implications that will be discussed below.

Superordinate Goals

Every organization and, indeed, every manager has more than one goal that guides activities and actions. Often, project managers are faced with trying to resolve situations in which team members from different functional areas perceive conflicting goals for a project. For example, consider a common form of conflict between two functional departments: accounting and engineering. For a new product introduction, accounting's primary goal is to minimize cost while engineering's primary goal is to enlarge the range of applications in hopes of increasing client satisfaction and, therefore, use of the project. In order for this development effort to be successful, one functional area may be required to sacrifice, or at least compromise, its primary goals. Aware of these areas of potential cross-functional conflict, managers charged with the responsibility for implementation success are continually looking for ways of developing goals that increase, rather than detract from, cross-functional cooperation.

A superordinate goal refers to an overall goal or purpose that is important to all functional groups involved, but whose attainment requires the resources and efforts of more than one group (Sherif 1958). The superordinate goal is an addition to, not a replacement for, other goals that the functional groups may have. The premise is that when project team members from different functional areas share an overall goal or common purpose, they tend to cooperate toward this end. To illustrate, let us return to the earlier example of a new product introduction. A superordinate goal for this project team may be to develop a high-quality, user-friendly, and competitively priced project that will enhance the operations of its customers. This overall goal attempts to enhance, or pull together, some of the diverse function-specific goals for cost effectiveness, schedule adherence, quality, and innovation. It provides a central objective or an overriding goal toward which the entire project team can strive.

Rules and Procedures

Rules and procedures are central to any discussion of cross-functional cooperation because they offer a means for coordinating or integrating activities that involve several functional units (Galbraith 1977). For years, organizations have relied on rules and procedures to link together the activities of organizational members. Rules and procedures have been used to assign duties, evaluate performance, solve conflicts, and so on. Rules and procedures can be used to address formalized rules and procedures established by the organization for the performance of the implementation process, as well as project-specific rules and procedures developed by the project team to facilitate its operations.

In some instances, project teams do not have the luxury of relying on established rules and procedures to assist them with their tasks. Therefore, they often must create their own rules and procedures to facilitate the progress of the project. Organizational rules and procedures are defined as formalized rules and procedures established by the organization that mandate or control the activities of the project team in terms of team membership, task assignment, and performance evaluation. Project team rules and procedures, on the other hand, refer to the degree to which the project team must establish its own rules and procedures to facilitate the progress of the project. It is likely that greater levels of cross-functional cooperation will result from the establishment of these rules and procedures.

Physical Proximity

Both the literature and common observations seem to suggest that individuals are more likely to interact and communicate with others when the physical characteristics of buildings or settings encourage them to do so (Davis 1984). For example, the sheer size of spatial layout of a building can affect working relationships. In a small building or when a work group is clustered on the same floor, relationships tend to be more intimate, since people are in close physical proximity to each other. As people spread out along corridors or in different buildings, interactions may become less frequent and/or less spontaneous. In these situations, it is harder for employees to interact with members of either their own departments or other departments.

Many companies seriously consider the potential effects of physical proximity on project team cooperation. In fact, some project organizations relocate personnel who are working together on a project to the same office or floor. These organizations contend that when individuals work near each other, they are more likely to communicate and, ultimately, cooperate with each other.

Accessibility

While physical proximity is important to the study of cross-functional cooperation, another factor—accessibility—is equally important. Separate from the issue of physical proximity, additional factors can inhibit the amount of interaction that occurs between organizational members—e.g., an individual's schedule, position in an organization, or out-of-office commitments (Peters 1986). These factors often affect the accessibility among organizational members.

For example, consider an organization in which a member of the engineering department is physically located near a member from accounting. While these individuals are in close proximity to one another, they may rarely interact because of different work schedules, varied duties and priorities, and commitment to their own agendas. These factors often create a perception of inaccessibility among the individuals involved. Accessibility is defined as an individual's perception of her ability to approach, communicate, or interact with another organizational member.

IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGERS

The results of Pinto's research study suggest some pragmatic implications for project managers who are interested in increasing the cooperation among project team members.

Cooperation Is a Vital Element in Implementation Success

Cross-functional cooperation can truly result in higher levels of project implementation performance. While this result should not be surprising to most project managers, the strength of the relationship between cooperation and implementation success has important implications. It suggests, for example, that because cooperation is so important for project success, factors that facilitate cross-functional cooperation will also greatly enhance the likelihood of successful project development. In other words, cooperation is more than an element in project success, it is often the key link in helping managers develop a project team that is both capable and motivated to successfully develop the project.

Superordinate Goals Are a Strong Predictor of Cross-Functional Cooperation

Superordinate goals are vital for attaining cross-functional cooperation among project team members. In fact, research has shown that superordinate goals are the strongest individual predictor of cooperation, suggesting that their importance for project success cannot be estimated too highly. The implications for project managers reinforce the necessity of establishing overriding goals, goals toward which the entire implementation team as a whole must work. Superordinate goals are only useful if they require the combined efforts of different members of the project team. If any one individual or subgroup can independently attain the goals, they are not helpful in fostering cooperation. Further, these goals need to be clearly specified and laid out. Excessively vague goals can result in increased confusion, rather than in clarity. Finally, the project manager needs to continually reinforce the pursuit of these goals.

It is important, finally, to note that superordinate goals are not intended as a substitute for other project goals. By their definition, superordinate goals are overriding and are intended to complement, rather than replace, other specific project team goals. Consequently, team members from different functional areas may still hold some of their own specific departmental goals, while also being committed to the overall project or common goal of the project.

Set up Policies to Ensure That Team Members Remain Accessible to Each Other

An important way to promote cooperation among members of the project team is to ensure that they remain accessible to each other both during and outside of their regular project duties. Accessibility was previously defined as one's perception of her liberty to communicate with another project team member. A variety of methods can be used to encourage such accessibility, including establishing regular project meetings, setting up formal channels of communication, and encouraging informal get-togethers, e.g., in the hall, over coffee, and at lunch. It is important that team leaders promote an atmosphere in which team members feel that they can approach or get into contact with other team members outside of formally developed hierarchical channels or project meeting times.

Physical Proximity Is Important for Achieving Cooperation

The factor of physical proximity was also found to have an important influence on achieving cooperation. These results suggest that in addition to fostering an atmosphere of accessibility, project managers may wish, under some circumstances, to consider relocating team members to improve cooperation. The importance of physical proximity for cooperation stems from the contention that when individuals work near each other, they are more likely to interact, communicate, and cooperate with each other. Research on the design of the engineering offices at Corning Glass provides support for this claim. As one individual noted: “Engineers get more than 80 percent of their ideas through direct, face-to-face contact with their peers. They will not travel more than 100 feet from their desks to exchange ideas…and they hate to use the telephone to seek information” (Leibson 1981, 8).

Work to Establish Standard Operating Rules and Procedures for the Project Team

An additional implication reemphasizes the importance of establishing standardized rules and operating procedures for new system implementation. It has been found that rules and procedures can be quite useful in mandating, or determining, exactly how members of different departments and functional areas are required to interact with other project team members. If managers set up standardized rules of behavior, they can better regulate and facilitate the degree and quality of cross-functional cooperation. To illustrate, consider a policy that was instituted by one project manager, which stated: “All major changes to the project, either scheduling, budgetary, or technical, will require input from and active involvement of project team representatives from each functional department.” When adequately enforced, this type of operating procedure is a very simple, yet effective, method for promoting cross-functional cooperation.

Because of the relative simplicity of the use of the rules and procedures as a tool for encouraging cross-functional cooperation, some organizations tend to over-rely on this method while ignoring other techniques that have been discussed, such as project member accessibility, physical proximity, or the creation of superordinate goals. While it is true that each of these factors has been found to lead to enhanced cross-functional cooperation, we are not suggesting that project managers choose the technique, or factor, that is most available or easiest to implement. To truly create and maintain an atmosphere in which cross-functional cooperation can take place on the project team, it is highly advisable to make use of a combination of all of the aforementioned factors, including superordinate goals, accessibility, and rules and procedures. Used individually, each may be helpful to the project manager. Used in conjunction with each other, they represent a significantly more powerful tool for creating a cooperative business climate and, consequently, aiding in project success.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this chapter has been to discuss some of the important issues in developing and maintaining effective implementation teams. Team building and development is an important and ongoing challenge for project managers because, while often time consuming, it can reap large dividends. This chapter has developed a basis for understanding the factors that characterize successful teams. Further, the various stages of team development have been argued to be not only an important, but healthy, sign of implementation team performance. Finally, in an attempt to offer some usable advice to project managers, this chapter concluded with some practical advice on promoting cross-functional cooperation among team members by discussing the results of a recent study that investigated this phenomenon. Experience, as well as research and anecdotal evidence, have long pointed to the fact that the project implementation process is difficult and complex. Many issues and factors go into creating a project team atmosphere that is conducive of successful project implementation. Among the most important elements to be considered are those of team development and cooperation among project team members, particularly when the implementation team is composed of members from various functional departments.

Portions of this chapter were adapted from Successful Information System Implementation by J. K. Pinto, Project Management Institute: Upper Darby, PA (1994).