Importance of Teams in Organisational Performance

This presentation explores the importance of teams in organisational performance. It discusses how teams contribute to goal fulfillment, diversity, problem-solving, communication, and workflow speed. It also examines different leadership styles and their impact on teams. The presentation concludes with a comparison of formal and informal groups in the organization and society, as well as the stages of team development and the role of leadership in team development.

STRATEGIC
LEADERSHIP
Name of Student
Name of University

Introduction
 In an organisational context, a leader is the individuals who are in charge of developing the
strategies that are required to overcome the market barriers and competition (Mahembe and
Engelbrecht 2014).
 Leaders inspire vision to the subordinates
 Motivate the subordinates for the fulfilment of the vision
 Execute the strategy for fulfilling the vision
 Effectively builds a team for effectively fulfilling the vision and gain organisational productivity.
 Leaders individually differ in the style or approach of doing what is necessary.
 Mahembe and Engelbrecht (2014) indicated the styles are democratic, autocratic, supportive,
charismatic and transformational depending on the nature of the individual.

Importance of teams in
organisational performance
 Group support: The members of the team support each other in
performing task requirements to fulfil short and long-term
objectives (Katzenbach and Smith 2015).
 Goals fulfilment: The fulfilment of the organisational objectives is
easier within a team as the distribution of work helps in the
completion of the tasks faster (Katzenbach and Smith 2015).

Importance of teams in
organisational performance
 Diversity: Chipulu et al. (2014)
showed cultural and ethnic
diversities improve the team
relationship and thereby
improving idea generation due to
its origin from different heritages.
 Collective strength: Individual
strength of the team members
compensate for the drawbacks to
overcome the obstacles for
fulfilling the objectives
(Mahembeand Engelbrecht 2014).
 Problem Solving: the team
members are able to solve
problems faster in comparison
individuals by generating unique
ideas in a short span of time.

Importance of teams in
organisational performance
 Communication: effective communication can be achieved
in teams, which in turn facilitates the transparency to
provide effective task completion (Katzenbach and Smith
2015).
 Workflow Speed: Teamwork cultivates cohesion within the
individual members and improves the decision-making
within the organisation (Katzenbach and Smith 2015).

Autocratic Team Leadership
 In this leadership style, the team members feel dominated by
their leader.
 The orders, assign tasks and duties without consultation, and this
negatively influences the bonding within the team (De Hoogh et
al. 2015).
 The creative decision making is also hampered with this form of
leadership and might give rise to conflict within the team

Democratic or Participative
Team Leadership
 Leaders who prefer participative of democratic approach
usually decentralise the authority within the team.
 This improves the relationship between the team members,
along with the leader itself (Cunningham et al. 2015).
 This form of leadership is cultivated good teamwork and
effectively overcomes the organisational objectives.

Laissez-Faire Team Leadership
 The leaders in this category do not prefer to rely on the
responsibility and power attainment, which is reflected in the
activities of the members.
 The leader, in this case, relies on the capability of the members
to complete the organisational objectives (Skogstad et al. 2015).

Paternalistic Team Leadership
 In this leadership
style, the leaders take
the role of the guide
and protector of the
team members (Chen
et al. 2015).
 The leader takes care
of the needs of the
team members, and
there is a sense of
gratitude within
members.

Difference between Work
Groups and Teams
Work Group Team
Only individuals are accountable All members are collectively
accountable
Concern for individual goal fulfilment Focus on fulfilling the team goals
Only come together for information
sharing
Frequently have meetings, and
discussions for planning and solving
problems
The produced is submitted individually Work is submitted collectively
Individual roles, tasks and
responsibilities are important
Even distribution of the
responsibilities, tasks and team roles
Leader individually controls the group Leader controls and monitors the

Impact of Leadership in
Workgroups
 The working groups within organisations are
positively directed towards specified goals
 The domain-specific tasks are usually done
individually by the workgroup members
 Leaders usually undertake a delgative approach
towards handling the individuals in the workgroup
(Folger et al. 2015)

Impact of Leadership in Teams
 Balance
 Trend analysis (Liu et al. 2015)
 Productivity improvement
 Diplomacy along with dictatorship
 Removal of self-importance

Comparison of Formal and Informal
Groups in the Organisation
Informal Group Formal Group
Control Social control Formal control
Leadership Formal leader Informal leader
Influence Personality Hierarchical authority
Orientation Relationship-oriented Task-oriented
Structure Not designated Hierarchical
Origin Individual members Executives
Objective Member satisfaction Task accomplishment

Comparison of Formal and
Informal Groups in Society
 Formal groups that work within wider society are charitable
organisations, sports teams, military units and court
systems (Scott 2015).
 These organisations are bound with the rules and
regulations of the social system (Brunsson and Olsen 2018).
 Informal groups like reading clubs, cookery clubs etc. are
recreational in nature.

Team Development
Tuckman
 Forming stage
 The members are highly dependent on the leader
 The individual members have high conflict
 Unclear roles and responsibilities (Natvig and
Stark 2016)

Team Development
Tuckman
 Storming stage
 Difficulty in decision-
making
 The team members
start getting to know
each other
 Clarity and purpose of
the team is evident
(Natvig and Stark
2016)
 Power struggles may
give rise to conflicts

Team Development
Tuckman
 Norming stage
 The team members are in agreement and form a
consensus (Natvig and Stark 2016)
 The decision-making is more seamless with proper
discussion
 The team commitment is strong in this stage

Team Development
Tuckman
 Performing stage
 The strategic decision within the team is more
consistent with organisational performance.
 The shared organisationl vision is archived in the
team (Natvig and Stark 2016)
 The team develops autonomy for achieving the
task

Team Development
Tuckman
 Adjourning stage
 In this stage, the group is broken up into its former structure after
the completion of the objective (Cameron and Green 2015).
 Natvig and Stark (2016) indicated employees feel a sense of
detachment from the team but feel accomplished in achieving the
objective.
 The change and disruption of the team might impose insecurity
within the members

Role of Leadership in Team
Development
 McCleskey (2014) showed
situational leadership could be
useful in explaining the leader's role
in team development within the
Tuckman’s model.
 Forming stage: Telling mode
 Storming stage: Seling mode
 Norming stage: Participation mode
(Betts and Healy 2015)
 Performing stage: delegating mode

Conclusion
 The effectiveness of a leader’s approach is dynamic
with respect to the need of the organisation.
 The development of the team is dependent on the
nature and participation of the leader.

References
 Betts, S. and Healy, W., 2015. Having a ball catching on to teamwork: an experiential
learning approach to teaching the phases of group development. Academy of
Educational Leadership Journal, 19(2), p.1.
 Brunsson, N. and Olsen, J.P., 2018. The Reforming organization: making sense of
administrative change. Routledge.
 Cameron, E. and Green, M., 2015. Making sense of change management: A complete
guide to the models, tools and techniques of organizational change. Kogan Page
Publishers.
 Chen, L., Yang, B. and Jing, R., 2015. Paternalistic leadership, team conflict, and TMT
decision effectiveness: Interactions in the Chinese context. Management and
Organization Review, 11(4), pp.739-762.
 Chipulu, M., Ojiako, U., Gardiner, P., Williams, T., Mota, C., Maguire, S., Shou, Y., Stamati,
T. and Marshall, A., 2014. Exploring the impact of cultural values on project performance:
The effects of cultural values, age and gender on the perceived importance of project
success/failure factors. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 34(3), pp.364-389.
 Cunningham, J., Salomone, J. and Wielgus, N., 2015. Project Management Leadership
Style: A Team Member Perspective. International Journal of Global Business, 8(2).
 De Hoogh, A.H., Greer, L.L. and Den Hartog, D.N., 2015. Diabolical dictators or capable
commanders? An investigation of the differential effects of autocratic leadership on
team performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), pp.687-701.

References
 Folger, J., Poole, M.S. and Stutman, R.K., 2015. Working through conflict:
Strategies for relationships, groups, and organizations. Routledge.
 Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K., 2015. The wisdom of teams: Creating the
high-performance organization. Harvard Business Review Press.
 Liu, M.L., Liu, N.T., Ding, C.G. and Lin, C.P., 2015. Exploring team performance
in high-tech industries: Future trends of building up teamwork. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 91, pp.295-310.
 Mahembe, B. and Engelbrecht, A.S., 2014. The relationship between servant
leadership, organisational citizenship behaviour and team effectiveness. SA
Journal of Industrial Psychology, 40(1), pp.01-10.
 McCleskey, J.A., 2014. Situational, transformational, and transactional
leadership and leadership development. Journal of Business Studies
Quarterly, 5(4), p.117.

References
 Natvig, D. and Stark, N.L., 2016. A project team analysis using Tuckman's
model of small-group development. Journal of Nursing Education, 55(12),
pp.675-681.
 Scott, W.R., 2015. Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open
systems perspectives. Routledge.
 Skogstad, A., Aasland, M.S., Nielsen, M.B., Hetland, J., Matthiesen, S.B. and
Einarsen, S., 2015. The relative effects of constructive, laissez-faire, and
tyrannical leadership on subordinate job satisfaction. Zeitschrift für
Psychologie.