Building the emotional intelligence of groups

The management world knows by now that to be effective in the workplace, an individual needs high emotional intelligence. What isn't so well understood is that teams need it, too. Citing such companies as IDEO, Hewlett-Packard, and the Hay Group, the authors show that high emotional intelligence is at the heart of effective teams. These teams behave in ways that build relationships both inside and outside the team and that strengthen their ability to face challenges. High group emotional intelligence may seem like a simple matter of putting a group of emotionally intelligent individuals together. It's not. For a team to have high EI, it needs to create norms that establish mutual trust among members, a sense of group identity, and a sense of group efficacy. These three conditions are essential to a team's effectiveness because they are the foundation of true cooperation and collaboration. Group EI isn't a question of dealing with a necessary evil--catching emotions as they bubble up and promptly suppressing them. It's about bringing emotions deliberately to the surface and understanding how they affect the team's work. Group emotional intelligence is about exploring, embracing, and ultimately relying on the emotions that are at the core of teams.     

Online relationship marketing and affective customer commitment – The mediating role of trust

The pervasive use of information technology has implications for consumer relationship management among financial services organisations. There is a need for increased understanding of how digital channels might influence the development and maintenance of firm–customer relationships and in particular the role of the Internet upon commitment and trust outcomes. Thus, this research aims to determine the relationship between online relationship marketing practices and affective customer commitment, and how this relationship is mediated by online channel trust. Data were collected from 200 online retail bank customers and Structural Equation Modelling was used to test the impact of five key online relationship marketing practices on affective commitment, and how trust mediates these relationships. We found that advocacy and collaboration have a direct relationship with affective commitment, while trust mediates the influence of engagement and personalisation on affective commitment. The article highlights the significance of trust in technology when using online channels to build customer relationships.     

高管团队内部网络与并购绩效

近年来,高管外部社会网络特征对企业决策的影响受到学术界的广泛关注。与以往研究侧重点不同,本文探究高管团队内部网络结构对企业决策是否产生重大影响,并构建了上市公司高管团队内部网络结构指标。基于社会网络和信息不对称等相关理论,本文实证检验了高管团队内部网络对企业并购决策绩效的影响。结果显示,高管团队内部网络结构密度越高,高管成员之间的沟通越有效,公司并购绩效越好。进一步地分析发现,当并购的复杂度和风险较高、企业所在地区制度环境较差以及高管任职时间较短时,高管团队网络密度对于并购绩效的影响更为明显。最后,本文还发现高管团队内部网络密度高的企业并购后,公司的会计业绩和市场业绩也优于其他公司。     

Lift outs: how to acquire a high-functioning team

More and more, expanding companies are hiring high-functioning groups of people who have been working together effectively within one company and can rapidly come up to speed in a new environment. These lifted-out teams don't need to get acquainted with one another or to establish shared values, mutual accountability, or group norms; their long-standing relationships and trust help them make an impact very quickly. Of course, the process is not without risks: A failed lift out can lead to loss of money, opportunity, credibility, and even native talent. Boris Groysberg and Robin Abrahams studied more than 40 high-profile moves and interviewed team leaders in multiple industries and countries to examine the risks and opportunities that lift outs present. They concluded that, regardless of industry, nationality, or size of the team, a successful lift out unfolds over four consecutive, interdependent stages that must be meticulously managed. In the courtship stage, the hiring company and the leader of the targeted team determine whether the proposed move is, in fact, a good idea, and then define their business goals and discuss strategies. At the same time, the team leader discusses the potential move with the other members of his or her group to assess their level of interest and prepare them for the change. The second stage involves the integration of the team leader with the new company's top leadership. This part of the process ensures the team's access to senior executives-the most important factor in a lift out's success. Operational integration is the focus of the third stage. Ideally, teams will start out working with the same or similar clients, vendors, and industry standards. The fourth stage entails full cultural integration. To succeed, the lifted-out team members must be willing to re-earn credibility by proving their value and winning their new colleagues' trust.     

高管团队内部网络与并购绩效

近年来,高管外部社会网络特征对企业决策的影响受到学术界的广泛关注。与以往研究侧重点不同,本文探究高管团队内部网络结构对企业决策是否产生重大影响,并构建了上市公司高管团队内部网络结构指标。基于社会网络和信息不对称等相关理论,本文实证检验了高管团队内部网络对企业并购决策绩效的影响。结果显示,高管团队内部网络结构密度越高,高管成员之间的沟通越有效,公司并购绩效越好。进一步地分析发现,当并购的复杂度和风险较高、企业所在地区制度环境较差以及高管任职时间较短时,高管团队网络密度对于并购绩效的影响更为明显。最后,本文还发现高管团队内部网络密度高的企业并购后,公司的会计业绩和市场业绩也优于其他公司。     

The myth of the top management team

Companies all across the economic spectrum are making use of teams. They go by a variety of names and can be found at all levels. In fact, you are likely to find the group at the very top of an organization professing to be a team. But even in the best of companies, a so-called top team seldom functions as a real team. Real teams must follow a well-defined discipline to achieve their performance potential. And performance is the key issue--not the fostering of "team values" such as empowerment, sensitivity, or involvement. In recent years, the focus on performance was lost in many companies. Even today, CEOs and senior executives often see few gains in performance from their attempts to become more teamlike. Nevertheless, a team effort at the top can be essential to capturing the highest performance results possible--when the conditions are right. Good leadership requires differentiating between team and nonteam opportunities, and then acting accordingly. Three litmus tests must be passed for a team at the top to be effective. First, the team must shape collective work-products--these are tangible performance results that the group can achieve working together that surpass what the team members could have achieved working on their own. Second, the leadership role must shift, depending on the task at hand. And third, the team's members must be mutually accountable for the group's results. When these criteria can be met, senior executives should come together to achieve real team performance. When the criteria cannot be met, they should rely on the individual leadership skills that they have honed over the years.     

团队断裂带与新产品研发团队创新绩效研究——团队快速信任和知识转移渠道的情境机制

基于新产品研发团队这一临时性组织情境,探讨团队断裂带对新产品研发团队创新绩效的影响,尤其是团队快速信任和知识转移渠道在其中的情境机制。通过选取本土企业内98个新产品研发团队的团队领导-团队成员配对样本,运用层级回归分析对假设进行验证。研究结果发现,团队断裂带与新产品研发团队创新绩效之间存在倒“U”字型关系,团队快速信任和知识转移渠道均显著调节这一非线性关系。即在团队快速信任水平越高或知识转移渠道越丰富的情况下,团队断裂带与新产品研发团队创新绩效之间的倒“U”字型关系越不明显。     

Team earnings forecasting

While brokerage houses use both teams of sell-side analysts and individual analysts to conduct earnings research, there is no empirical research examining whether teams and individuals differ with regard to their forecasting performance or purpose. We first examine the most-often researched dimension of forecasting performance, earnings forecast accuracy, and show that teams are less accurate than individual analysts in general and their own individual team members in particular. We conjecture that teams focus their efforts on an alternative dimension of forecasting performance, timeliness, and show that team forecasts are timelier than those of individual analysts in general and their own individual team members in particular. Consistent with the notion that teams trade-off forecast accuracy for timeliness to comply with a market research demand, we show that team forecast revisions are associated with larger market responses than those of individuals. Finally, we illuminate the nature of team assignments by documenting that the firms that teams follow are in greater financial distress and larger in size.     

Factors influencing the performance of activity based costing teams: a field study of ABC model development time in the automobile industry

This paper examines how the group dynamics of activity based costing (ABC) development teams and the level of organizational resources devoted to model development affect model complexity and development time. A theoretical framework is developed based on the organizational literature on teams. The framework is tested using objective data from 18 ABC projects in two automobile manufacturing firms and survey data from ABC team members. Results show that ABC team cohesion is the key determinant of the time it takes to develop the first ABC model. Further, ABC models become more complex in the presence of an external consultant and as the level of competition increases.     

Relationships between leader behaviors and audit team performance

This study considers the nature and importance of leadership in the audit process. The relationships between audit team performance and leader behaviors, which are practised by in-charge auditors to supervise staff assistants, are examined in a field experiment. The results identify a number of leader behaviors which relate, either directly or through some intermediary factors, to audit team performance. For example, high performing audit teams tended to be supervised by in-charge auditors who allowed staff innovation, were considerate to the staff's personal needs, administered frequent positive reinforcement, relied heavily on time budgets, assigned a small number of tasks per staff member and administered negative reinforcement infrequently. These and other results appear to have implications for practicing auditors as well as future research in the area.     

The discipline of teams

Groups don't become teams because that is what someone calls them. Nor do teamwork values by themselves ensure team performance. So what is a team? How can managers know when the team option makes sense and what they can do to ensure team success? In this article, drawn from their recent book The Wisdom of Teams, McKinsey partners Jon Katzenbach and Douglas Smith answer these questions and outline the discipline that makes a real team. The essence of a team is shared commitment. Without it, groups perform as individuals; with it, they become a powerful unit of collective performance. The best teams invest a tremendous amount of time shaping a purpose that they can own. The best teams also translate their purpose into specific performance goals. And members of successful teams pitch in and become accountable with and to their teammates. The fundamental distinction between teams and other forms of working groups turns on performance. A working group relies on the individual contributions of its members for group performance. But a team strives for something greater than its members could achieve individually. In short, an effective team is always worth more than the sum of its parts. Katzenbach and Smith identify three basic types of teams: teams that recommend things--task forces or project groups; teams that make or do things--manufacturing, operations, or marketing groups; and teams that run things--groups that oversee some significant functional activity. For managers, the key is knowing where in the organization real teams should be encouraged. Team potential exists anywhere hierarchy or organizational boundaries inhibit good performance.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Beyond the contract: Managing risk in supply chain relations

As a consequence of the development of intensified relations with suppliers, for many firms the supply chain has become a significant source of risk exposure. In this paper we examine firms’ use of control practices to manage risks associated with intensified collaboration with supply chain partners. Specifically, we examine how buyers manage risks associated with interfirm transactions through their choice of supply partner, in terms of perceived goodwill and competence trust, and their use of multiple interrelated supply chain management (SCM) control practices. These control practices include contractual contingency planning, performance target setting, operational reviews, information sharing, supplier support and joint problem solving. We collect survey data from Japanese manufacturing firms about their relations with part suppliers to test hypotheses about the associations between transaction risks, selection of trusted suppliers and use of SCM practices. Our results support that transaction characteristics that are at the basis of transaction risks significantly affect the selection of trusted partners to collaborate with as well as their use of various control practices to manage relationships. We also find that in particular competence trust facilitates the use of control practices to support effective SCM.     

Managing multicultural teams

Multicultural teams offer a number of advantages to international firms, including deep knowledge of different product markets, culturally sensitive customer service, and 24-hour work rotations. But those advantages may be outweighed by problems stemming from cultural differences, which can seriously impair the effectiveness of a team or even bring itto a stalemate. How can managers best cope with culture-based challenges? The authors conducted in-depth interviews with managers and members of multicultural teams from all over the world. Drawing on their extensive research on dispute resolution and teamwork and those interviews, they identify four problem categories that can create barriers to a team's success: direct versus indirect communication, trouble with accents and fluency, differing attitudes toward hierarchy and authority, and conflicting norms for decision making. If a manager--or a team member--can pinpoint the root cause of the problem, he or she is likelier to select an appropriate strategy for solving it. The most successful teams and managers, the authors found, dealt with multicultural challenges in one of four ways: adaptation (acknowledging cultural gaps openly and working around them), structural intervention (changing the shape or makeup of the team), managerial intervention (setting norms early or bringing in a higher-level manager), and exit (removing a team member when other options have failed). Which strategy is best depends on the particular circumstances--and each has potential complications. In general, though, managers who intervene early and set norms; teams and managers who try to engage everyone on the team; and teams that can see challenges as stemming from culture, not personality, succeed in solving culture-based problems with good humor and creativity. They are the likeliest to harvest the benefits inherent in multicultural teams.     

When failure isn't an option

Some teams, by the very nature of their work, must consistently perform at the highest levels. How do you--as a team leader, a supervisor, a trainer, or an outside coach--ensure that this happens? To answer this question, Harvard Business Review asked six people who work with high-performance teams to comment on developing and managing these teams. The result is a collection of commentaries from Michael Hillmann, deputy chief of the Los Angeles Police Department and commander of its Special Operations Bureau, which includes the SWAT team; Philippe Dongier, who headed up a joint United Nations/World Bank/Asian Development Bank reconstruction team in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban; the National Fire Academy's Robert Murgallis, who trains firefighting teams; Mary Khosh, former career coach for players with the Cleveland Browns; Elizabeth Allen, a planner of society weddings, charity galas, and corporate events; and Ray Evernham, who, as a stock-car-racing crew chief, helped driver Jeff Gordon win three NASCAR championships. The types of teams represented in these commentaries are very different. Some are ad hoc, formed for a specific task, while others are ongoing, typically improving their performance with each task they undertake. For all of them, the stakes are high. Despite their differences, some similarities emerge in the ways they achieve top performance. For example, selection of team members is crucial-as is a willingness to get rid of members who don't consistently deliver. A leader who supports and builds confidence in members is also key, and high-performance teams without such a leader will often informally create one. Finally, the stress that defines the work of these teams helps generate peak short-term performance--and poses the constant risk of members burning out.     

Performance measurement and managerial teams

Organisations increasingly face greater competition and uncertainty. One important organisational development is the creation of inter- and intra-departmental teams that improve both the speed and quality of an organisation’s response. Successful teams require the empowerment of team members, an adequate information base, rewards for team performance, and the requisite abilities in team members. Management accounting systems can provide an integral part of the information base necessary for decision-making and rewarding performance. We investigate the incidence and importance of performance measurement for team performance. Team performance is positively associated with the variety and comprehensiveness of performance measures used. This relationship is enhanced if members participate in setting performance targets. Further, team performance is enhanced when team performance is given a greater weight in compensation. Finally, these effects are mutually reinforcing, such that team performance is substantially better when comprehensive performance measurement is combined with the participation of team members and a larger weight for team performance in their compensation.     

The lean service machine

Jefferson Pilot Financial, a life insurance and annuities firm, like many U.S. service companies at the end of the 1990s was looking for new ways to grow. Its top managers recognized that JPF needed to differentiate itself in the eyes of its customers, the independent life-insurance advisers who sell and service policies. To establish itself as these advisers' preferred partner, it set out to reduce the turnaround time on policy applications, simplify the submission process, and reduce errors. JPF's managers looked to the "lean production" practices that U.S. manufacturers adopted in response to competition from Japanese companies. Lean production is built around the concept of continuous-flow processing--a departure from traditional production systems, in which large batches are processed at each step. JPF appointed a "lean team" to reengineer its New Business unit's operations, beginning with the creation of a "model cell"--a fully functioning microcosm of JPF's entire process. This approach allowed managers to experiment and smooth out the kinks while working toward an optimal design. The team applied lean-manufacturing practices, including placing linked processes near one another, balancing employees' workloads, posting performance results, and measuring performance and productivity from the customer's perspective. Customer-focused metrics helped erode the employees' "My work is all that matters" mind-set. The results were so impressive that JPF is rolling out similar systems across many of its operations. To convince employees of the value of lean production, the lean team introduced a simulation in which teams compete to build the best paper airplane based on invented customer specifications. This game drives home lean production's basic principles, establishing a foundation for deep and far-reaching changes in the production system.     

Extreme negotiations

CEOs and other senior executives must make countless complex, high-stakes deals across functional areas and divisions, with alliance partners and critical suppliers, and with customers and regulators. The pressure of such negotiations may make them feel a lot like U.S. military officers in an Afghan village, fending off enemy fire while trying to win trust and get intelligence from the local populace. Both civilian and military leaders face what the authors call "dangerous negotiations," in which the traps are many and good advice is scarce. Although the sources of danger are quite different for executives and officers, they resort to the same kinds of behaviors. Both feel pressure to make quick progress, project strength and control (particularly when they have neither), rely on force rather than collaboration, trade resources for cooperation rather than build trust, and make unwanted compromises to minimize potential damage. The authors outline five core strategies that "in extremis" military negotiators use to resolve conflicts and influence others: maintaining a big-picture perspective; uncovering hidden agendas to improve collaboration; using facts and fairness to get buy-in; building trust; and focusing on process as well as outcomes. These strategies provide an effective framework that business executives can use to prepare for a negotiation and guide their moves at the bargaining table.     

Error Detection by Industry-Specialized Teams during Sequential Audit Review

To improve audit effectiveness, public accounting firms have organized their practices to include hierarchical review by teams organized along industry lines. We examine how industry specialized auditor teams detect errors, using a sophisticated experimental design. Our analysis of nominal teams created from seniors and managers working individually shows that seniors add value to the team by detecting more mechanical errors while managers detect more conceptual errors. Working within specialization, managers and seniors both contribute in a nonredundant way to the team's overall effectiveness. We also find that the nominal teams outperform real teams in the detection of mechanical but not conceptual errors. These results only hold when the auditors work within in their industry specialization. Out of specialization the auditors are not effective at detecting errors, and real teams perform below the nominal team benchmark in the detection of both mechanical and conceptual errors.     

Coming through when it matters most

All teams would like to think they do their best work when the stakes are highest-when the company's future or their own rests on the outcome of their projects. But too often something else happens. In extensive studies of teams at professional service firms, Harvard Business School's Gardner has seen the same pattern emerge over and over: Teams become increasingly concerned with the risks of failure rather than the requirements of excellence. As a result, they revert to safe, standard approaches instead of delivering original solutions tailored to clients' needs. Gardner has a name for this phenomenon: the performance pressure paradox. Here's how it develops: As pressure mounts, team members start driving toward consensus in ways that shut out vital information. Without even realizing it, they give more weight to shared knowledge and dismiss specialized expertise, such as insights into the client's technologies, culture, and aspirations. The more generically inclined the team becomes, the more concerned the client grows, which turns up the pressure and pushes the team even further down the generic road. But forewarned is forearmed. By measuring each person's contribution deliberately, ruthlessly insisting that no one's contribution be marginalized, and framing new information within familiar contexts, teams can escape the performance pressure paradox and keep doing their best work when it matters most.