high performing teams infographic€¦ · developing high performing teams in today’s disruptive...

1
As disruption continues to redefine the business landscape, teams must adapt. However, research suggests organisations have been slow to respond and retrain their high performing teams. As this infographic illustrates, disruption brings new considerations and opportunities for team performance which are currently being overlooked. Global and multicultural It's common for teams to be globalised and multicultural in nature. However, research suggests leaders are yet to maximise the potential of this contextual shift. Fast changing As businesses strive to stay agile in a volatile, rapidly changing environment, teams are becoming more dynamic in their structure. Increasingly virtual Advances in technology have triggered what's been called a 'spatial revolution' with flexible and virtual working becoming the new norm. What's not changed in teams? While the context of teams has changed, human nature hasn’t. Trust remains a critical ingredient to any effective team. 8 High performing teams in a disruptive age: What's changed and what hasn't © Lane 4 Management Group Ltd 6/2018. All Rights Reserved. 1 Martin, A., & Bal, V. (2015). The State of Teams. Centre for Creative Leadership. Retrieved from: http://www.ccl.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/state-of-teams-center-forcreative-leadership.pdf 2 O’leary, M. B., Mortensen, M., & Woolley, A. W. (2011). Multiple team membership: A theoretical model of its effects on productivity and learning for individuals and teams. Academy of Management Review, 36, 461-478. 3 RW3 CultureWizard (2016). Trends in Global Virtual Teams: virtual teams survey report. Retrieved from: http://cdn.culturewizard.com/PDF/Trends_in_VT_ Report_4-17-2016.pdf 4 McDowell, T., Argawal, D., Miller, D., Okamoto, T., & Page, T. (2016). Organisational Design: The rise of teams. Article, retrieved from: https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/en/ focus/human-capital-trends/2016/organizational-modelsnetwork- of-teams.html 5 RW3 Culture Wizard (2016). Trends in Global Virtual Teams. Retrieved from: http://cdn.culturewizard.com/PDF/ Trends_in_VT_Report_4-17-2016.pdf 6 SHRM (2012). Virtual teams - Survey findings. Retrieved from: http://www.shrm.org/research/surveyfindings/ articles/pages/virtualteams.aspx 7 Hoegl, M., & Muethel, M. (2016). Enabling shared leadership in virtual project teams: A practitioners’ guide. Project Management Journal, 47, 7-12. 8 De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1134. 9 Marlow, S. L., Lacerenza, C. N., Paoletti, J., Burke, C. S., & Salas, E. (2018). Does team communication represent a one-size-fits-all approach?: A meta-analysis of team communication and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 144, 145-170. 10 Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of applied psychology, 87, 819. 11 Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A metaanalytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70, 113-165. 12 DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 32–53. 13 Bradley, B. H., Postlethwaite, B. E., Klotz, A. C., Hamdani, M. R., & Brown, K. G. (2012). Reaping the benefits of task conflict in teams: The critical role of team psychological safety climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 151. 14 Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A metaanalysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness. Journal of applied psychology, 99, 181. 15 D’Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2016). A meta-analysis of different forms of shared leadership-team performance relations. Journal of Management, 42, 1964-1991. LEADING EXPERTS IN HUMAN PERFORMANCE +44(0)1628 533 733 [email protected] lane4performance.com @Lane4Group To find out more about developing high performing teams head over to lane4performance.com/teams-today and view our white paper More temporary Multi-team membership is commonplace 37% of teams are temporary (together less than one year) 1 65-95% of people are contributing members of more than one team 2 At least 28% of people are working as part of five or more teams 3 37% 2017 2018 28% While the vast majority of employees encountered challenges in virtual work, only 16% have had any training to prepare them 5 16% and 41% of virtual team members report never to have met their virtual colleagues face-to-face 5 46% of organisations use teams who interact primarily through virtual communication 6 50% of all team leaders significantly underestimate the level of shared leadership within their highly virtual teams. These underestimated teams demonstrate significantly lower levels of performance 7 46% 41% 48% of teams have over half their team members made up of people from other nations 4 Almost 1 in 4 of global teams are failing to reap the benefits of cultural diversity 4 58% of global team members indicated that their leaders are not prepared to lead their multicultural teams 5 58% 48% Dynamically structured Sales Marketing Logistics Finance Only 38% of companies are now functionally organised (i.e. sales, marketing, finance) 4 82% of companies are currently reorganising, or planning to reorganise their teams so they can respond quicker to changing customer needs and the volatile business environment 4 82% Similarly, other well-established predictors of team performance (many of which interrelate to trust) remain fundamental, including: communication, 9 collective belief in ability, 10 psychological safety, 11 shared mental models, 12 task conflict 13 and shared leadership. 14,15 Developing high performing teams in today’s disruptive business environment is therefore less about discovering any new factors and more about understanding how these fundamental ingredients play out in different contexts. It’s about knowing what to focus on, and when. Trust High performing teams in a disruptive age LEADING EXPERTS IN HUMAN PERFORMANCE WHITE PAPER In a fast paced, globalised and increasingly virtual world, are your teams keeping up? By Amy Walters, Senior Research Consultant Thomas Hau, Research Executive Dominic Mahony, Product & Delivery Director www.lane4performance.com/teams-today www.lane4performance.com/ https://twitter.com/lane4group www.lane4performance.com/

Upload: others

Post on 20-May-2020

7 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: High Performing Teams Infographic€¦ · Developing high performing teams in today’s disruptive business environment is therefore less about discovering any new factors and more

As disruption continues to redefine the business landscape, teams must adapt. However, research suggests organisations have been slow to respond and retrain their high performing teams.

As this infographic illustrates, disruption brings new considerations and opportunities for team performance which are currently being overlooked.

Global and multiculturalIt's common for teams to be globalised and multicultural in nature. However,

research suggests leaders are yet to maximise the potential of this contextual shift.

Fast changingAs businesses strive to stay agile in a volatile, rapidly changing environment,

teams are becoming more dynamic in their structure.

Increasingly virtualAdvances in technology have triggered what's been called a 'spatial revolution'

with flexible and virtual working becoming the new norm.

What's not changed in teams?While the context of teams has changed, human nature hasn’t.

Trust remains a critical ingredient to any effective team.8

High performing teams in a disruptive age: What's changed and what hasn't

© Lane 4 Management Group Ltd 6/2018. All Rights Reserved.

1 Martin, A., & Bal, V. (2015). The State of Teams. Centre for Creative Leadership. Retrieved from: http://www.ccl.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/state-of-teams-center-forcreative-leadership.pdf

2 O’leary, M. B., Mortensen, M., & Woolley, A. W. (2011). Multiple team membership: A theoretical model of its e�ects on productivity and learning for individuals and teams. Academy of Management Review, 36, 461-478.

3 RW3 CultureWizard (2016). Trends in Global Virtual Teams: virtual teams survey report. Retrieved from: http://cdn.culturewizard.com/PDF/Trends_in_VT_ Report_4-17-2016.pdf

4 McDowell, T., Argawal, D., Miller, D., Okamoto, T., & Page, T. (2016). Organisational Design: The rise of teams. Article, retrieved from: https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/en/ focus/human-capital-trends/2016/organizational-modelsnetwork- of-teams.html

5 RW3 Culture Wizard (2016). Trends in Global Virtual Teams. Retrieved from: http://cdn.culturewizard.com/PDF/ Trends_in_VT_Report_4-17-2016.pdf

6 SHRM (2012). Virtual teams - Survey findings. Retrieved from: http://www.shrm.org/research/surveyfindings/ articles/pages/virtualteams.aspx

7 Hoegl, M., & Muethel, M. (2016). Enabling shared leadership in virtual project teams: A practitioners’ guide. Project Management Journal, 47, 7-12.

8 De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main e�ects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1134.

9 Marlow, S. L., Lacerenza, C. N., Paoletti, J., Burke, C. S., & Salas, E. (2018). Does team communication represent a one-size-fits-all approach?: A meta-analysis of team communication and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 144, 145-170.

10 Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-e�cacy, potency, and performance: interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of applied psychology, 87, 819.

11 Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta‐analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70, 113-165.

12 DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of e�ective teamwork: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 32–53.

13 Bradley, B. H., Postlethwaite, B. E., Klotz, A. C., Hamdani, M. R., & Brown, K. G. (2012). Reaping the benefits of task conflict in teams: The critical role of team psychological safety climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 151.

14 Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A metaanalysis of shared leadership and team e�ectiveness. Journal of applied psychology, 99, 181.

15 D’Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2016). A meta-analysis of di�erent forms of shared leadership-team performance relations. Journal of Management, 42, 1964-1991.

LEADING EXPERTS IN HUMAN PERFORMANCE

+44(0)1628 533 733 [email protected] lane4performance.com @Lane4Group

To find out more about developing high performing teams head over to lane4performance.com/teams-today and view our white paper

More temporary Multi-team membership is commonplace

37% of teams are temporary (together less than one year)1

65-95% of people are contributing members of more than one team2

At least 28% of people are working as part of five or more teams3

37% 2017

2018

28%

While the vast majority of employees encountered challenges in virtual work, only 16% have had any training to prepare them5

16%

and 41% of virtual team members report never to have met their virtual colleagues face-to-face5

46% of organisations use teams who interact primarily through virtual communication6

50% of all team leaders significantly underestimate the level of shared leadership within their highly virtual teams. These underestimated teams demonstrate significantly lower levels of performance7

46%

41%

48% of teams have over half their team members made up of people from other nations4

Almost 1 in 4 of global teams are failing to reap the benefits of cultural diversity4

58% of global team members indicated that their leaders are not prepared to lead their multicultural teams5

58%

48%

Dynamically structured

Sales Marketing LogisticsFinance

Only 38% of companies are now functionally organised (i.e. sales, marketing, finance)4

82% of companies are currently reorganising, or planning to reorganise their teams so they can respond quicker to changing customer needs and the volatile business environment4

82%

Similarly, other well-established predictors of team performance (many of which interrelate to trust) remain fundamental, including: communication,9 collective belief in ability,10 psychological safety,11 shared mental models,12 task conflict13 and shared leadership.14,15

Developing high performing teams in today’s disruptive business environment is therefore less about discovering any new factors and more about understanding how these fundamental ingredients play out in di�erent contexts.

It’s about knowing what to focus on, and when.

Trust

High performing teams in a disruptive age

LEADING EXPERTS IN HUMAN PERFORMANCE

WHITE PAPER

In a fast paced, globalised and increasingly virtual world, are your teams keeping up?

By Amy Walters, Senior Research Consultant Thomas Hau, Research Executive Dominic Mahony, Product & Delivery Director

www.lane4performance.com/teams-todaywww.lane4performance.com/ https://twitter.com/lane4group

www.lane4performance.com/