Team Performance

Work Teams

Before we talk about team performance, we need to define what we mean by “team.” In this entry, we will focus on bona fide organizational teams that perform tasks within an organizational context, as opposed to other work forms such as ad hoc student teams compiled for research purposes. Hackman outlined in 2002 that such teams have certain features that characterize them as “real teams.”

First, they have clear boundaries that clearly demarcate them from other work units within an organization. Team membership is clear, and everyone knows who is and isn't on the team. Second, they are stable over time, which means that there are few membership changes in the team. Third, generating the outcome or product of the team requires a great deal of communication and coordination among members—thus, team members work interdependently together. Finally, beyond actually carrying out their work, team members have varying degrees of authority over their work. This may include monitoring of the team's work, but might also extend to selecting new team members or asking existing members to leave.

Input-Process-Output Models of Team Performance Effectiveness

The dominant thinking about team performance has been guided by so-called “input-process-outcome” models of team effectiveness (see Figure 1). Such models distinguish the basic building blocks for the team, i.e., the inputs (e.g., composition of team members) from the processes (e.g., team members' collective knowledge and skills) and team outputs (e.g., team performance outcome). Even though researchers have disagreed on the exact contents of each of the three categories, using such a model bears great heuristic value as it allows us to both understand and structure the key predictors and outcomes of team performance.

In the following paragraphs, we will integrate factors of each of the model's components, starting with team outcomes. Many researchers and practitioners refer to team performance as a wide variety of indicators present, such as the quantity of output produced by a manufacturing team. Hackman stresses that such criteria are frequently insufficient in addressing other relevant outcome dimensions, such as customers' assessments of a team's work or social and personal criteria of team working. In 1987, Hackman therefore defined team performance effectiveness as including three components: first, the team's productive outcome in the form of a service or product, as evaluated by those who receive or review the outcome, such as the team's customers or evaluators; second, as the extent to which a team develops as a well-functioning performing unit in the course of time—ideally, the social processes within a team enhance members' capability of working together interdependently in the future, thereby resulting in teams representing betterperforming units after than before the work has been done. Conversely, some teams may deliver high-quality products, but “burn themselves up,” as a consequence of which future tasks might be difficult to accomplish; and finally, the extent to which individual members become more knowledgeable or skilled as a result of their team experiences. This might also include personal growth and satisfaction with the team and its members. While all three criteria might have differential importance, effective teams never sacrifice one aspect completely for the sake of the others.

...