University of Maryland Libraries
Working Paper #5 on Team Management
Establishing a Self-Managed Social Sciences
and Allied Professions Team
August 1, 2001
Zaida Diaz, Gerri Foudy, Bob Garber, Lily Griner, Paula Hayes,
Barbara Lay, and Glenn Moreton
Introduction |
Team Organization and Administration
Decision-Making |
Perfomance Assessment |
Conclusion
References
Introduction
The Social Sciences and Allied Professions Team's mission is to contribute to the goals and mission of the Libraries, and specifically, to the research, teaching, and learning activities of the Colleges of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Education, Journalism, Health and Human Performance, the School of Public Affairs, and the Robert H. Smith School of Business, through reference services, library instruction and collection management.
The Social Sciences and Allied Professions Team was created in 1998 in response to the Libraries'
need to serve the UM students, faculty, and staff more efficiently and effectively. In support of our
mission, Social Sciences and Allied Professions Team members serve at the Service Plus desk, teach
classes, consult with students and faculty, provide liaison services to our departments, manage the
collections, and attend appropriate departmental and library faculty meetings. We also serve on other
teams (Information and Research Services Team, Collection Management Team, Information Literacy Team,
and Access Services Team), and participate in SIRS, ERC, LAG and other library committees.
Since August 2000, team members have met these responsibilities without a team
leader. Team members have learned to collaborate and communicate collectively and we are now
in a position to re-create ourselves as Dean Lowry has envisioned in Working Paper #1 --
We have successfully taken on shared responsibility for achieving our mission and are
strongly motivated to continue our evolutionary growth as a self-managed team. 1
In Fall 2000, the team started to discuss the concept of making Dean Lowry’s vision of a
self-managed team into a reality. After extensive research and consultation with Henry Sims,
a self-managing team expert on the faculty of the Robert M. Smith School of Business, we submitted a
self-managing team proposal to the Dean. The proposal was reviewed by LEC, and after a written
response and a meeting with the Dean, we further refined our proposal to ensure its consistency with
other changes in the Libraries. In May, 2001, our final proposal was approved by LEC.
They requested that we disseminate our proposal as Working Paper #5, and that our team serve as the
pilot before the Dean’s vision of self-managed teams is implemented Libraries-wide. In June 2001,
a search committee, with a membership recommended by our Team, was formed. Eligible candidates for
the Team leader position will come from within the Social Sciences Team.
Since August 2000, when the team became self-managing, we have become a more cohesive,
efficient group. We communicate more effectively with each other, and feel more connected to the
Libraries as well. We have a renewed vigor, and an even greater commitment to our individual and
collective responsibilities. In particular, we have collaborated on classes, collection decisions,
student assistant supervision, team meeting agendas and facilitation, reference desk scheduling, training of
new team members, our office relocation, evaluations and goal setting, our annual report, and other
administrative and/or reporting duties. Management literature is rife with examples of self-managed
teams’ improved functionality. In a landmark study of 111 self-managed work teams in four
organizations, researchers reported that "more empowered teams were more productive and
proactive than less empowered teams and had higher levels of customer service, job satisfaction,
and organizational and team commitment."2
In Working Paper #1, Dean Lowry answers the question of "why self-managed teams?"
with the response, "The simple answer is that it is consonant with the University and University
Libraries’ strategic plans."3 In fact, Dean Lowry’s description of a team is a group in which
"staff at all levels will be on a team and are responsible for the roles of leadership
and membership at different times."4 Our team is ready and eager to embrace the Dean’s
vision of a self-managed team organization, and believe that this is the logical next step for
our team development. As stated in Working Paper #1: "it follows naturally that teams themselves
may be re-formulated and changed as we discover the best way to work and the right work to do."5
This proposal outlines our plans for reorganization, decision-making, and evaluation as a
self-managed team. As a team, we encourage Dean Lowry to use this opportunity to move the
reorganization of the Libraries forward by using our team as a pilot for a self-managed team
organization.
Team Organization and Administration
In regard to carrying out its various responsibilities, the team proposes a system of rotation
based on a modification of the "wheel concept." In their book Teaming Up: Making the
Transition to a Self-Directed, Team-Based Organization, Darrel Ray and Howard Bronstein outline
the principles of the wheel concept as:
- Most members hold a team job at any given time.
- All members must perform a team job when it falls to them.
- Everyone will serve in every team job once before the rotation begins again.6
According to the authors, benefits of the wheel concept include increased work efficiency,
integration of the social and technical aspects of the job, and increased commitment to quality
and customer satisfaction. We also contend that additional benefits would include enhanced
professional development and job satisfaction for team members, and an increased level of creativity
resulting from the fresh perspective engendered by rotation. In addition, we feel that rotation of
task responsibilities, including that of team leader, is very much in keeping with the spirit of
Working Paper #1, which stresses vigorous experimentation 7 and "empowering employees
at all levels,"8 and states that "Management assignments too can be more
ephemeral, particularly for library faculty."9
The following list enumerates the responsibilities to be incorporated into the wheel concept as it applies to the Social Sciences and Allied Professions Team, with suggested terms of service. It should be noted that most of these responsibilities are already being performed by team members.
Wheel Concept Applied to the Social Sciences and Allied Professions Team
Core non-rotating responsibilities of all team members (primarily based on subject expertise):
Guides/Tutorials/Web Pages Development
Core rotating responsibilities (external to team):
Functional/program team service: Information Research Services Team, Information Literacy Team, Collection ManagementTeam/Electronic Resources Committee,
Access Services Team (membership and length of service determined by the guidelines developed by these
teams).
Standing committee assignments: Preservation Committee (2 years);
Peer Training Collective (annual):
SIRS (2 years)
Core rotating responsibilities (internal to team):
Coordinate desk schedule (annual)
Coordinate student assistant activities (annual)
Coordinate supplies/equipment requests (annual)
Team Leader responsibilities: Service as Team Leader (every 3 years)
Serve on relevant managerial groups
Act as primary contact person for the team
Compile and submit required team reports, such as annual reports,
and other necessary documentation
Serve as ex-officio member of relevant search committees
Coordinate peer evaluations and merit recommendations and
submit necessary documentation
Rotating team leadership responsibilities:
Meeting Facilitator (weekly)
Team Project Coordinator (based on project): Coordinate projects/programs undertaken by entire team
Team Evaluation Coordinator (annual)
Coordinate evaluation of team process and performance
Selection of the Team Leader:
The Team Leader will be selected from the team membership to serve a 3-year term. Consecutive terms are permitted. The selection committee will consist of the following individuals:
Two representatives from the Social Sciences and Allied Professions Team (chair will be a member from the Team)
One representative each from the other subject teams
One representative from one of the program/functional teams
Director of Public Services as ex-officio member
Director of Collection Management & Special Collections as ex-officio
member
Decision Making
In "Working Paper #1," Dean Lowry notes that "a library team is capable of arriving at sound decisions through effective group process and consensus."10 From the outset of its role as a self-managed team, the Social Sciences Team will need to decide and understand how these decisions are to be made.
The "Working Paper" cites The TEAM Handbook, by Peter R. Scholtes, et. al., as a useful tool; this book provides a number of practical, concrete steps that help teams make effective decisions.11 The book identifies three key "Steps for Effective Decisions": (I) Understand the context of the decision; (II) determine who should be involved; and (III) choose a decision-making process. The following section examines these steps in the context of what will be effective specifically for our team:
I. Understand the context of the decision:
Understanding the context of the decision requires these four further steps:12
A. Clarify the decision to be made so that everyone on the team has the same understanding:
It will be the responsibility of the person who relays an issue to the Social Sciences Team to ensure that all aspects of the issue are presented clearly and completely, so that the team can make fact-based decisions.
B. Know the deadline by which the decision must be made, and know the risks of failing to meet this deadline or failing to make a decision:
One responsibility of the person serving as leader of the Social Sciences Team may be to see that these deadlines are met, or it may be the responsibility of the person who presented the issue to the Team. This is a logical assignment particularly since that person is probably relaying the issue from another team or committee, and thus already has the responsibility of apprising that team or committee of the Social Sciences Team’s decision once it is made.
C. Learn how the decision affects the team’s work:
This is something that the members of the Social Sciences Team will discuss and identify.
D. Gather relevant information about other decisions (past, pending, or implicit) that relate to this decision:
The extent of this information gathering will vary according to the complexity or importance of the issue. In some cases the information gathering will require no more than a discussion in which related issues will be identified and discussed. In more complex issues, several Social Sciences Team members may be asked to volunteer to gather further background information. As mentioned previously, the purpose of this information gathering is to help ensure rational, fact-based decisions.
II. Determine who should be involved:
Depending on the nature of the decision, the decision-maker can be: one person on the team (e.g., the team leader), a subgroup of the team, or the team as a whole. Criteria that help determine the choice of decision-maker include: who is ultimately responsible for the results of this decision, who is significantly affected by the decision, and who has vital information pertaining to the issue at hand.13
Of these options, it is most likely that the entire Social Sciences Team will make collective decisions on issues affecting all or a majority of Team members. The entire Team will also work to make those decisions which will represent the team to the larger UM Libraries community.
Because the Social Sciences Team is a relatively small group, there is probably little reason to assign many (or any) decisions to a subgroup of the Team. An exception may be decisions on issues that affect only a certain group within the Team.
Finally, there are those decisions that are to be made by individuals. In this category are relatively unimportant decisions that will need to be made on a somewhat routine basis. Another type of decision that may lend itself to an individual response is a decision that requires a quick response or is considered an emergency. Since our group has already identified what we see as all of the different categories of duties performed by the team, one of our first activities as a team will to be to identify which individuals are linked to which respective duties. These individuals then will have responsibility to make decisions in routine situations or when quick decisions are required.
Even when individuals have been given the authority to make an individual decision, it is important that the person ask for input from the others when it will enhance the decision-making process. Also, it is important that the respective individual decision-makers keep the other members of the Social Sciences Team informed of individual decisions that may have a significant impact on the other members. At any time when a Team member is unsure about whether something should be a group decision or an individual decision, that person may quickly solicit (e.g., via e-mail) other Team members’ input.
III. Decide how to decide:
The four most common methods of decision-making are "consensus, voting, assigning the decisions to a subgroup (who decides by consensus), or identifying one person as the "decision maker." The TEAM Handbook provides a chart that identifies the pros and cons of each method.14
Consensus, in contrast to voting, lends itself to small groups of ten or fewer persons, and therefore is the most appropriate decision-making process for the Social Sciences Team. Consensus is effective "when the group is informed and individual members feel a similar level of investment or when group input is critical to a good decision."15 Not coincidentally, consensus is the method recommended by Dean Lowry in "Working Paper #1."16
Thus, the Social Sciences Team will make our decisions by consensus. A consensus decision is one in which all members of a group find a common ground, however, it does not necessarily mean that everyone comes to a unanimous opinion. In consensus, everyone understands the issues involved, and agrees upon the best course of action. Therefore, although the decision might have not been everyone’s first choice, everyone accepts it. This description of consensus does not merely mean reaching a compromise, on the contrary, it is a means of seeking the best decision by exploring everyone’s ideas. This synthesis of team members’ contributions often leads to a decision that is superior to that of any one team member.17
The four requirements of the consensus method are:18
I. Time:
In applying this first requirement specifically to the Social Sciences Team, one should mention that the group already has begun planning for the allotment of time needed for successful decision-making by consensus. Currently we hold biweekly Team meetings, and Team members have decided that we will conduct weekly meetings when the Team becomes self-managing.
II. Active participation of all team members:
As for active participation and communication skills, the members of the Social Sciences Team already have been actively participating in making group decisions. In the period of several months during which we have been without a Team leader, the group has conducted regular meetings in which we share ideas, discuss opinions, and agree upon decisions.
III. Skills in communication, listening, conflict resolution, and facilitation:
The Social Sciences Team welcomes training opportunities to further develop our skills in communication, conflict resolution, and facilitation. Dean Lowry explained that "the Libraries must also have consulting resources continuously available to support the teams through facilitation and to train them in the use of basic team tools for decision-making" and has designated Sue Baughman as an "internal resource" to provide this support.19 The Team also views our current situation as an opportunity for the Libraries to begin using our team as a laboratory, before instituting programs Libraries-wide, to determine which team-building tools and training are most effective at the UM Libraries. Furthermore, by consulting and occasionally working directly with our team as facilitator, Sue Baughman, in her capacity as Assistant to the Dean of Libraries for Organizational Development, will also help to ensure that our Team consistently works within the context of the Libraries’ larger mission.
IV. Creative thinking and open-mindedness:
Although the consensus process is demanding, its use is justified by the advantages reported by Dale E. Yeatts and Cloyd Hyten in High Performing Self-Managed Work Teams: A Comparison of Theory to Practice.20 They note that because team members spend much time looking for alternatives as they work toward a mutually acceptable decision, this process enhances the opportunity for innovation, creativity, and high-quality decisions.21 As it develops as a self-managed team, the Social Sciences Team will find that this opportunity for enhanced innovation, creativity, and decision making will enhance our contributions to the Libraries and its users.
Performance Assessment
"In a team environment, everyone must take responsibility for his or her own performance and for the performance of the team."22
The Social Sciences and Allied Professions Team proposes to move from a performance appraisal system in which individuals are evaluated by supervisors, to a performance assessment system in which the work of Team members (and the work of the Team) is evaluated by both the Team and by external stakeholders. At the core of the evaluation process is the Team’s mission statement and its goal of serving the needs of library users. We see the assessment process moving away from the one-on-one team leader/team member method to a system based on 360-degree feedback, where many people (not only members of the Team) will be involved in creating an evaluation.
The Team recognizes the need for ongoing evaluation processes that cover efforts in three areas -- individual performance review, team review, and individual merit review. To insure effective, objective evaluations, all of these reviews would rely upon lists of standards by which performance would be reviewed, and would be based on observable or documented facts; evaluations must not be based on personal feelings. The reviews would use both quantitative and qualitative assessment tools. Regarding the three areas of evaluation:
1. The Performance Review Task Force is working on procedures for individual performance review. Team member Lily Griner will chair the task force. Additionally, all of the members of the Social Sciences Team have spent time reading about and discussing 360-degree feedback methods of assessment and would be available to offer our ideas to the task force.
The goal of a typical individual performance review should be to provide feedback to the individual to identify areas of strong performance that need to be continue, and to identify and suggest areas in which one can improve performance. An extensive article in The Academy of Management Executive asserts that "the primary objective of 360-degree feedback is to develop, rather than to appraise, the participating organizational members."23 Thus the individual performance review would be a very different process than the individual merit review, in which individual’s performance is appraised to determine eligibility for salary rewards.
This year the Social Sciences Team took a further step in moving toward a team-focused individual performance review process -- we held a meeting during which each team member shared self-evaluations. Each person described and discussed her/his accomplishments of the previous year and received feedback from the team. The entire team found this process to be informative and helpful.
2. A team review would certainly be a process that would make a working group operate more like a true team. Although the Libraries have no history of team reviews to draw upon, we interpret this process to be one that would involve evaluation of an entire team, rather than focus on individuals.
This evaluation would also use 360-degree feedback and involve self-assessment by team members and by persons from outside the team, particularly peers from other teams. In the Harvard Business Review, Maury A. Peiperl notes that "occasionally, peer appraisal is used to improve ties between groups," with feedback between groups becoming extensive and constructive when each group realizes that the institution is using the feedback not to reward or punish individuals, but to enhance cooperation between groups. Peiperl adds that he has observed 360-degree peer appraisal programs that were introduced "as part of larger empowerment programs, aimed at distributing authority and responsibility more broadly throughout an organization."24
3. We understand that the process of merit review will be revisited as a result of our faculty status. This Spring the Social Sciences Team engaged in a merit review process that did not use the traditional method of having the team leader directly evaluate each team member individually; instead we all evaluated each other and ourselves (anonymously). Team members submitted evaluations to the Team Leader who made no personal assessments, but instead acted as coordinator: the Team Leader compiled the data and averaged the ratings assigned by the team members. If we were to conduct any future merit reviews in the same way that we did this year, the Team Leader would likely contribute assessments — but as a peer, not as a supervisor. Because this year’s Team Leader was serving in an "acting" capacity on a temporary basis, she did not submit any peer appraisals of the Team members. The hope was for more objectivity through input by all members of the team, with a fairer and more accurate picture evolving; this hope appears to have been fulfilled, as members tended to find this review process to be an effective one. We would likely wish to continue using this process until something like a Libraries-wide merit review committee is established.
As previously indicated, we see the process used in merit review as being very different than the 360-degree feedback procedure described previously. Similar to the review structure that the University of Maryland Libraries is proposing, the library at the University of Arizona has separate individual performance review and merit review systems. In their merit system, staff must apply for a merit review by submitting requisite supportive documentation to the library’s merit review committee. This committee is comprised of members from a broad, representative range of staff who rotate their membership after terms of several years. We suggest that our Libraries examine and consider eventually developing a comparable system of merit review. The Team is willing to function as a "pilot" for the Libraries’ developing 360-degree merit review process.
Conclusion
As prominent organizational management specialist Margaret Wheatley has noted, "We have known for nearly half a century that self-managed teams are far more productive than any other form of organizing. There is a clear correlation between participation and productivity; in fact, productivity gains in truly self-managed work environments are at a minimum 35 percent higher than in traditionally managed organizations."25 The Social Sciences and Allied Professions Team can best contribute to the libraries’ missions and serve our constituencies in the most effective way possible by being self-managing.
References
1 Charles B. Lowry, "Working Paper #1 on Team Management: The Vision of a Team-Based Learning Organization," (May 1, 2000).
2Bradley L. Kirkman, et. al., "Beyond Self-Management: Antecedents and Consequences of Team Empowerment," Academy of Management Journal, (February 1999): 58.
3Lowry, 2.
4Lowry, 4.
5Lowry, 3.
6Darrel Ray and Howard Bronstein, Team Up: Making the Transition to a Self-Directed, Team-Based Organization (NY: McGraw Hill, 1995), 145.
7Lowry, 3.
8Lowry, 5.
9Lowry, 4.
10Lowry, 4.
11Peter R. Scholtes, Brian L. Joiner and Barbara J. Streibel, The Team Handbook (Madision, WI: Oriel, Inc., 1996): 4-20 - 4-21.
12Scholtes, et. al., 4-20.
13Scholtes, et. al., 4-21
14Scholtes, et. al., 4-22.
15Scholtes, et. al., 4-22.
16Lowry, 4.
17Scholtes, et. al., 4-23.
18Scholtes, et. al., 4-23.
19Lowry, 6.
20Dale E. Yeatts and Cloyd Hyten, High-Performing Self-Managed Work Teams: A Comparison of Theory to Practice, (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998).
21Yeatts and Hoyten, 300.
22Lowry, 4.
23Jai Ghorpade, "Managing Five Paradoxes of 360-degree Feedback," The Academy of Management Executive, (February 2000): 142.
24Maury A. Peiperl, "Getting 360-degree Feedback Right," Harvard Business Review, (January 2001): 146.
25Margaret Wheatley, "Goodbye, Command and Control," Leader to Leader, (Summer 1997): 21.
|
|
© 2001 University of Maryland Libraries
Last Revised: 1 August 2001
|