Proposing a Conceptual Team-Building Framework

 < Day Day Up > 



Based on the above theoretical discussion, a conceptual team-building framework, consisting of five steps, is derived as shown in Figure 1. After embedding this framework into a GSS system, the GSS may be able to support virtual team-building.

click to expand
Figure 1: A Conceptual Team-Building Framework.

  1. Team members have an electronic (GSS) dialogue which aims to enhance team-building by generating shared team meanings (i.e., the common basis of a team). Before a formal dialogue begins, team members have a small talk where they introduce themselves in terms of name, sex, individual background information, and even sharing jokes (Goerge, 1987; Jarvenpaa & Knoll, 1996) (this can be achieved through using e-mail or web home page for a virtual team). The purpose of this informal and relaxing small talk is to make it easier for team members to put aside their formal roles and mentalities (Dyer, 1987), so that they can better interact with each other in a formal dialogue.

  2. At this step, team members have a GSS dialogue on defining and generating shared team goals. A team goal is an objective or end result that a team seeks to achieve, and toward which a team works (Johnson & Johnson, 1987).

Generating shared team goals is very important to a successful team (Dyer, 1987; Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Locke & Latham, 1990), especially to a new team (Adams, 1988; Hare, 1992). Team members generally possess multiple individual and team goals because they normally belong to multiple teams simultaneously (McGrath, 1990). These individual and team goals may not be originally compatible (Galegher & Kraut, 1990). As a result, various goal conflicts exist due to differences between what some team members want and need, and what others want and need (Schultz, 1992). Hence, a specific and explicit step of generating shared team goals that can minimize these goal conflicts is necessary and important to team-building.

The shared vision discipline provides a guideline for generating shared team goals (Senge, 1990). First, team members start to disclose their own purposes or goals for joining the team (Jarvenpaa & Knoll, 1996). Second, because shared team goals should emerge from individual goals (Banks, 1996; Senge, 1990), team members propose clear and challenging team goals based on their disclosed individual goals. In this way, team members can better align and reconcile possible incompatible individual and team goals (Culbert & McDonough, 1980). Third, after exchanging and discussing proposed team goals, team members rank these team goals. Then, they choose the top ranked goals as shared team goals. This way of ranking and choosing proposed team goals is a pooled coordination exercise for team members (Turoff et al., 1993).

Shared team goals can guide coordinating behaviors for team members, since all coordinating activities in a team are for the purpose of attaining shared team goals (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). Further, shared team goals is one element of a team's common basis (Borgatta & Borgatta, 1992), and provides a basis for developing shared team norms and standards (Mechener et al., 1990). Moreover, shared team goals can motivate a team (Locke & Latham, 1990) to effectively attend a dialogue, and such a motivating element is missing in dialogue (Schein, 1993). Hence, this step of generating shared team goals may form a good basis for an effective dialogue.

  1. This step, the core of this theoretical framework, is a dialogue session guided by the MIT dialogue procedure. MIT dialogue sessions were all conducted manually without the support of information technology (Schein, 1993). The current study, however, intends to embed the dialogue procedure into a GSS system for supporting virtual team-building. Thus, the dialogue here is actually an electronic (GSS) dialogue. The MIT dialogue procedure is adapted and modified below:

    • First, team members are asked to think of their past team working experiences in terms of good team communications. Because the GSS simultaneity (Bostrom & Anson, 1992) provides an open, equal, and parallel electronic communication channel to every member, there would be a better sense of equality in a GSS dialogue than in a manual dialogue.

    • Second, members simultaneously disclose and share their past team working experiences and identify related characteristics of their experiences in terms of good team communication protocols, team roles (Nath & Lederer, 1996; Turoff et al., 1993), and the four basic elements of a team (Borgatta & Borgatta, 1992). Because this sub-step allows members to disclose their own experiences and thinking about good team communications (i.e., turning a mirror inward, as suggested by the mental models discipline), team members could start to know themselves and others (see Step 3 of Figure 1).

    • Third, given the shared team goals, members simultaneously exchange and clarify their reactions to the above-identified characteristics of good team communications. More specifically, members make enquiries about the characteristics identified by others, and clarify with justifications of the characteristics identified by them. This sub-step with the inquiring structure may help surface and understand each other's mental models (Senge, 1990), so that members could know themselves and others better.

    • Fourth, in this step, members are not allowed to criticize others' ideas and justifications to meet the requirement of the container and suspension of a dialogue. When necessary, a dialogue facilitator/administrator could be arranged to intervene (e.g., through e-mail in such a GSS dialogue) to clarify or elucidate, using concepts and data that illustrate problems of communication.

    • Fifth, the dialogue will be closed when no further exchange and clarification from team members are required.

  2. At this step, outcomes of a dialogue, described as laser by Bohm (1990), can be generated. More specifically, given the shared team goals, team members rank the characteristics discussed at Step (3), another round of pooled coordination activity (Turoff et al., 1993). In other words, team members are asked to determine (by ranking) what characteristics of team communications are most important to the attainment of the shared team goals. This can result in specific team interaction rules shared by all members, which will guide the team's future communications, interactions, and activities.

In general, two types of dialogue outcomes can be generated. The first type can be termed as shared ground rules of a team (or tangible shared team meanings), which may include the four basic team elements discussed in the introduction-the team structure (e.g., leadership and role differentiation), team identity (e.g., team goals), team interdependence (e.g., team coordination), and team history (e.g., the frequency of team meeting). The second type is a kind of shared team conventions and norms (or intangible shared team meanings), which may guide team interactions consciously (e.g., respecting differences in team interactions), and most of the time, maybe unconsciously (e.g., a team norm may exist in some cultures where ideas given by senior people will be automatically and unconsciously considered with higher weights in team interactions).

The generated outcome of both tangible and intangible shared team meanings indicates that team members reach a level of team consciousness, so that the team can think together in the future (Schein, 1993).

  1. The above two types of dialogue outcomes can be measured using the instrument proposed by Larson and LaFasto (1989) to check whether or not a team achieves a satisfied level of team-building. If not, the team can repeat the dialogue procedure until a satisfied level is achieved.

In summary, because this conceptual team-building framework can support the generation of shared team meanings (i.e., the common basis of a team), a GSS embedded with this framework may have a potential to enhance virtual team-building. Further, at the dialogue Steps (2) and (3), shared team goals are generated based on individual goals; shared team meanings are generated from disclosing each individual's past experiences, preferences, and values, and from surfacing and understanding each individual's mental models. In this way, individual values and actions could be aligned with a team's collective values and actions. As a result, the proposed framework is generally in line with the "I & We" paradigm as discussed in the literature review, since it recognizes and emphasizes the mutual dependency between individual and collective action (Etzioni, 1988). This "I & We" paradigm is considered to be superior to the "I" or "We" paradigm (e.g., DeSanctis, 1993), which is a target for our proposed theoretical framework as discussed in the literature review.



 < Day Day Up > 



Advanced Topics in Global Information Management (Vol. 3)
Trust in Knowledge Management and Systems in Organizations
ISBN: 1591402204
EAN: 2147483647
Year: 2003
Pages: 207

flylib.com © 2008-2017.
If you may any questions please contact us: flylib@qtcs.net