Articles

Integrated Theoretical Model for Building Effective Teams

Advances in Developing Human Resources 12(1) 7­–28 © 2010 SAGE Publications Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1523422310365309 http://adhr.sagepub.com

Jerry W. Gilley1, M. Lane Morris2, Alina M. Waite1, Tabitha Coates1, and Abigail Veliquette1

Abstract The purpose of this article is to construct an integrated theoretical model for building effective teams based on a literature review guided by several research questions on all aspects of teams, team building, team member selection, team development, and theoretical constructs that affect the development of effective teams. The principal outcome of this article is a relationship model that is grounded in the teams, teamwork, and team building literature and based on several theoretical frameworks. This rigorous model may be applied consistently among human resource development (HRD) practitioners and scholars to assist them in building effective teams. Keywords change curve, community of practice, group potency, lean, organizational ambidexterity, scenario planning, synergistic relationship theory, team building, teamwork, temperament theory Organizations have been examining ways of developing and improving teams for more than 50 years (Gibson, Ivancevich, Donnelly, & Konopaske, 2009). Hackman (2002) suggested that the use of teams has become an ever-increasing popular work design in all types of organizations, both nationally and internationally. Research has demonstrated that when organizations use teams appropriately, they develop a practical 1

Colorado State University, Fort Collins University of Tennessee, Knoxville

2

Author Note: This article was subjected to a two-tier blind review process that did not involve any of the contributing authors who are currently members of the editorial board. Corresponding Author: Tabitha Coates, 3945 Landings Drive Unit H6, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Email: [email protected]

8

Advances in Developing Human Resources 12(1)

strategy that enhances business results and outputs (Humphrey, Morgeson, & Mannor, 2009; Klein et al., 2009). To this end, organizations benefit by improving their decisionmaking capacity, enhancing employee commitment and involvement, increasing organizational collaboration and cooperation, and providing performance growth and development opportunities for employees, which occur by building effective teams (Gilley & Gilley, 2007).

Purpose of the Article The purpose of this article is to construct an integrated theoretical model for building effective teams based on a literature review guided by several research questions on all aspects of teams, team building, team member selection, team development, and theoretical constructs that affect the development of effective teams. Specifically, we examined the literature on teams that provided insights in what constitute teams, the selection criteria used when forming teams, the competencies and temperaments of team members, the characteristics of teams, and the developmental stages of teams.

Research Questions Based on the literature review, several research questions were developed to examine teams, team building, team member selection, team development, and theoretical constructs that affect the development of effective teams. An integrated theoretical model for building effective teams (see Figure 1) was subsequently developed from the following research questions: 1. What constitutes effective teams (Clutterbuck, 2007; Harvey & Drolet, 2004; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993)? 2. What is an appropriate team-building philosophy for building effective teams (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001; Buckingham & Coffman, 1999; Clifton & Nelson, 1992)? 3. What selection criteria should be used to balance the strengths and weaknesses of team members of effective teams (Spiegel & Torres, 1994)? a. What are the competencies (skills, knowledge, and attitudes) of team members needed to build effective teams (Levi, 2007; Stevens & Campion, 1999)? b. How does temperament theory affect the selection of team members (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001; Buckingham & Coffman, 1999; Clifton & Nelson, 1992; Whichard & Kees, 2006)? c. What are the characteristics of effective teams (Levi, 2007)? 4. What are the phases of team development (Lenhardt, 2004; Spiegel & Torres, 1994; Tuckman & Jenson, 1977)? a. What are the theoretical constructs that affect each phase of team development?

9

Gilley et al.

Charge & Charter Theory

Change Curve Theory

SKAs of Team Members Team Building Philosophy

Forming

Storming

Norming

Performing

Adjourning

Temperament Type Theory Team Development Theory Characteristics of Effective Teams Performance Theory

Synergistic Relationship Theory

Selection Theory

Figure 1. Integrated theoretical model for building effective teams

b. How do (a) charge and charter, (b) change, (c) performance, and (d) relationship theory affect the effectiveness of teams (Bridges, 2003; J. W. Gilley & Boughton, 1996; McGrew, Bilotta, & Deeney, 1999; Scott & Jaffe, 1988; Tuckman & Jenson, 1977; Weaver & Farrell, 1997)? Once these research questions were addressed, the authors constructed an integrated theoretical model for building effective teams (see Figure 1). This relationship model consists of seven components: team-building philosophy, selection criteria, team dev­ elopment theory, charge and charter theory, change theory, performance theory, and relationship theory.

Definition of Teams There are countless definitions of teams and what constitutes a team. Clutterbuck (2007) contended that a team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performing goals, and approach, for which they hold themselves mutually accountable. Similarly, Katzenbach and Smith (2003) believed that an effective team also consists of a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, established performance goals, and approach that hold themselves mutually accountable. Sinclair (1992) defined a team as a distinctive class of group that is more task oriented than other groups and that has a set of obvious rules and rewards for its members. Finally, one of the simplest definitions of teams is that they are a special type of work group, consisting of two or more individuals, responsible for achieving a goal(s) or objectives (Gibson et al., 2009).

10

Advances in Developing Human Resources 12(1)

Harvey and Drolet (2004) asserted that a team consists of members with a common identity and tenets, common tasks, sense of potency/success, clear definition of team membership, recognition of individual contributions, and balanced roles. Others believed that a team consists of a shared vision, member involvement, clearly def­ ined goals, collective teamwork, individual-team accountability, team identity, pos­itive team culture, and open and honest communication (Antai-Otong, 1997; Voight & Callaghan, 2002). However, the most distinguishing attribute of a team is that its members have, as their highest priority, the accomplishment of team goals (Quick, 1992). Sassenberg, Jones, and Shah (2007) indicated that teams should be used when a complicated problem requires employees with diverse talents and functional expertise and when a task lends itself to a division of labor. They further believed that teams are appropriate when making the wrong decision is too costly. West (2004) suggested that teams can respond to a fast-changing environment, enable learning, bring financial benefits, and facilitate effective change more effectively than can a collection of individuals that does not share a common purpose in the organization. Accordingly, organizational leaders should address the following questions before placing employees in teams: 1. Can the work be performed better by more than one individual? 2. Does the work lend itself to a common set of goals for members in a team? 3. Are team members interdependent? 4. Do team members have the appropriate skill mix to excel (Gibson et al., 2009; Sassenberg et al., 2007)? The benefits of a team are significant in that team participation improves morale and leadership skills of team members, processes, and procedures and organizational productivity (Gibson et al., 2009; Klein et al., 2009; Pellerin, 2009; Sassenberg et al., 2007; Spiegel & Torres, 1994; West, 2004). Benefits also include improving employees’ abilities to problem-solve, and to isolate and eliminate barriers that hinder creativity (West, 2004). Quick (1992) and Spiegel and Torres maintained that team participation can improve collaboration, communication, productivity, quality, utilization of resources, decision-making and solution identification, commitment, employee morale, and quality. Teams can also reduce adversarial relationships, create problem-solving approaches, and facilitate achievement of common goals (Albanese, 1994). Finally, team participation helps employees clearly define goals and objectives to be achieved while providing an opportunity for team members to demonstrate their strengths and weaknesses (Voight & Callaghan, 2002).

Team-Building Philosophy The first phase of the integrated theoretical model for building effective teams is to develop an appropriate team-building philosophy (see Figure 1). This requires an understanding of team building, types of teams, purpose of teams, and teameffectiveness strategy.

Gilley et al.

11

Team Building “Team building is the process of helping a work group become more effective in accomplishing its tasks and satisfying the needs of group members” (Cummings & Worley, 2005, p. 676). Team building is an important component in building effective teams because it requires performance improvement of team members, ensures self-development, promotes positive communication, encourages effective leadership, and enhances employees’ ability to work closely together to solve problems (Pellerin, 2009). In addition, team building improves work environments and makes them more enjoyable, motivates employees to work in teams, teaches team members self-regulation strategies, and identifies and utilizes the strengths of team members (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999). Team building is important when there is a need to quickly respond to change (agility and flexibility); decision making and problem solving are better handled by teams, when people develop a sense of belonging, and products/services can be produced at the highest quality and lowest cost and most efficiently (Gibson et al., 2009) Goals of team building. Team building is designed to provide skills and promote high levels of team performance, and to help employees increase their levels of interest in and commitment to teamwork (Driskell, Goodwin, Salas, O’Shea, & Patrick, 2006; J. W. Gilley & Gilley, 2007). Another goal of team building is to help employees develop awareness, practical skills, and a profound belief in the power of teamwork (Senécal, Loughead, & Bloom, 2008). Klein et al. (2009) reported that team building is designed to help employees understand the role and value of team leadership in achieving results; the necessity of effective personal and interpersonal communication; the importance of goals and vision; and the need for team unity, cohesiveness, and commitment. Williams, Graham, and Baker (2003) identified a number of team-building goals: 1. Discover new solutions to enhance team effectiveness and cohesiveness. 2. Explore ways to build team motivation and commitment. 3. Discover tools and resources that can help strengthen a team and build wholehearted cooperation. 4. Gain personal insight about how individual actions and behaviors either add to or detract from teamwork and team building. 5. Understand: • the role and value of team leadership in achieving results, • the necessity of effective personal and interpersonal communication, • the management of resources and talents within the team, • the importance of goals and vision, • the methods of problem solving and ways to handle conflict and differences, and • the need for team unity, cohesiveness, and commitment. A final goal of team building is to provide methods of problem solving and ways to handle conflicts and differences while providing structures and procedures to manage human and material resources (J. W. Gilley & Gilley, 2007).

12

Advances in Developing Human Resources 12(1)

Types of Teams Depending on duration and objectives, Gibson et al. (2009) classified teams as problemsolving, work, virtual, cross-functional, and self-directed. Larson and LaFasto (1989) suggested that there are three types of teams: tactical, problem-solving, and creative. Hackman (2002) believed that problem-solving teams are created on an interim basis to concentrate on a specific problem or need that confronts the organization. Next, work teams are small groups of interdependent individuals who share responsibility for outcomes of their organization (Sundstrom, De Meuse, & Futrell, 1990). Solomon (2001) defined virtual teams as those that rely on interactive technology to work together when separated physically, which included bulletin boards, e-mail, instant messaging, meeting managers, teleconferencing, videoconferencing, Web casts, and white boards. Cross-functional teams are composed of individuals from differing departments or work areas that come together on a task, problem, or project basis (Gibson et al., 2009). Kirkman, Jones, and Shapiro (2000) maintained that self-directed work teams consist of 10 to 15 individuals that have taken on the responsibilities of their former supervisors while retaining their prior responsibilities; they are unmanaged teams that run themselves. To be successful, self-directed work teams should be consistent with the organization’s competencies, business requirements, and culture (Hollenbeck, Meyer, & Ilgen, 2007).

Purpose of Teams The purpose for forming teams varies from organization to organization and from situation to situation but the most common reasons for forming teams are to enhance productivity, the flattening of organizations, the need for flexibility and speed of decision making, workforce diversity, quality, and customer satisfaction (Gibson et al., 2009; Hollenbeck et al., 2007; Larson & LaFasto, 1989). However, Albanese (1994) suggested that the purpose of a team is to improve project results by developing a common mission statement of shared goals, building and developing trust and commitment, resolving differences, removing roadblocks, creating interdependence and accountability among team members, and developing problem-solving skills.

Team Effectiveness Strategy Klein et al. (2009) maintained that building effective teams requires top-level commitment and specific, clear, and agreed on goals; management–employee trust and invo­lvement; willingness to take risks and share information; and time, resources, and a commitment to training. Unfortunately, many teams are formed by selecting people with similar competencies and personalities (temperaments) as a way of minimizing conflict (Humphrey et al., 2009). When teams are formed around similarities, they have a greater potential for groupthink, which exists when a cohesive group’s desire for agreement interferes with the group’s consideration of alternative solutions

Gilley et al.

13

(Gibson et al., 2009; Janis & Mann, 1977). Groupthink leads to the deterioration of mental efficiency, moral judgment, and reality testing in the interest of group solidarity (Gibson et al., 2009). Building on the research of Clifton and Nelson (1992), Buckingham and Clifton (2001) asserted that organizational effectiveness requires managers to change their team effectiveness strategy. Rather than balancing a team with similarities, they maintained that excellence can only be achieved by building on employees’ strengths and managing their weaknesses. Nothing is more important when fostering effective teamwork than shifting the focus of one’s team effectiveness strategy to that of maximizing strengths and managing weaknesses (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999).

Selection Criteria Once a team-building philosophy has been developed, the second phase of the integrated theoretical model for building effective teams is to identify specific team member selection criteria that facilitate team interaction, teamwork, and performance achievement (Spiegel & Torres, 1994). Criteria include competencies needed by team members, temperament-type theory, and characteristics of effective teams (see Figure 1). Clifton and Nelson (1992) identified four characteristics to be used in determining employee strengths. These characteristics include passionate interest in a particular activity or subject, high levels of personal satisfaction when performing a particular task or activity, rapid and continuous learning, and achieving exceptional results when participating in a particular task or activity. Buckingham and Coffman (1999) believed that team effectiveness strategy should also include the identification of team members’ weaknesses. Certain identifying cha­ racteristics that highlight employee weaknesses are slow learning on the part of the employee, inability to remember simple steps and procedures of a task, defensiveness regarding performance, and avoidance of particular tasks or activities. When managing weaknesses, identification is only the first step. The next step is development of strategies that help employees manage their weaknesses. Buckingham and Clifton (2001) identified four strategies that managers can use to help their emp­ loyees manage weaknesses. These strategies are as follows: (a) delegating, which allows team members to work on tasks and activities they are best suited for, rather than on those where they are unable to produce positive results; (b) partnering, which is a process of combining two employees’ strengths to achieve a goal; (c) preventing, which occurs when team members exercise their right of refusal to participate in certain tasks or activities; and (d) accepting alternatives, which occurs when team leaders are willing to accept different ways of accomplishing the same tasks.

Competencies Needed by Team Members To build effective teams, team members need to develop competencies (i.e., skills, knowledge, and attitudes [SKAs]) in several areas. These areas include conflict

14

Advances in Developing Human Resources 12(1)

resolution, problem solving, communication, organizational understanding, decision making, goal setting and performance management, and planning and task coordination (J. W. Gilley & Gilley, 2007; Spiegel & Torres, 1994; Stevens & Campion, 1999; Sundstrom et al., 1990). Conflict resolution. During team interactions, it is sometimes difficult to maintain positive interpersonal relationships because people have different agendas, values, beliefs, and interpersonal communication styles, which can create interpersonal tension and decrease the productivity of the team (J. W. Gilley, 2006). When conflict occurs, people resist alternatives, solutions, and options used to resolve the conflict. The only solution for dealing with political resistance is to understand its underlying reasons and then learn how to address them (Kirkman et al., 2000). Furthermore, conflict-resolution competencies are absolutely critical to the effectiveness of teams. Such competencies require team members to be able to recognize and encourage desirable conflict but discourage undesirable, team conflict; recognize the type and source of conflict; and implement an appropriate conflict resolution while using an integrative (win–win) negotiation strategy rather than the traditional, distributive (win–lose) strategy (Stevens & Campion, 1999). Problem solving.  Spiegel and Torres (1994) believed that problem solving is the “objective examination of issues to arrive at a solution” (p. 127). Accordingly, this requires team members to have the skills to properly define the problem, identify the desired future state, identify and analyze forces acting on the problem, develop a strategy to resolve the problem, and evaluate the result of the decision (J. W. Gilley & Gilley, 2007; Levi, 2007). Communication. Communication competencies are used to improve interpersonal exchanges between team members directly and indirectly and in verbal and nonverbal ways that are satisfactorily received and acted on by all parties (Spiegel & Torres, 1994). Using communication competencies helps establish rapport with other people, which leads to more successful team interactions. J. W. Gilley (2006) believed that these skills can play a critical role in relating successfully with others and involves the proper use of active listening, questioning, encouraging, and silence. Klein et al. (2009) suggested that communication skills are multifaceted in that they include dialogue, presentation, writing, and reading. Stevens and Campion (1999) maintained that communication competencies should include an awareness of communication networks, both formal and informal, and the use of communications that are open, supportive, and maximize consonance between verbal and nonverbal messages. Decision-making skills. Spiegel and Torres (1994) believed that decision making is the “process by which individuals or groups arrive at a decision, judgment, or conclusion through a process of deliberation” (p. 92). This activity requires team members to be able to clarify the purpose of the decision, establish criteria used in judging options, assess the risks of each option, and make the most appropriate decision (Holpp, 1999). Goal setting and performance management skills. According to Stevens and Campion (1999), team members need to acquire competencies that help them establish specific, challenging, and accepted goals. Once goals are established for the team, team members

Gilley et al.

15

will need to develop competencies useful in “monitoring, evaluating, and providing feedback on overall team performance and individual team member performance” (Stevens & Campion, 1999, p. 505). Performance management competencies of team members are useful in defining team and individual performances that are causally linked to the desired business goals and objectives of an organization (Holpp, 1999). The business goals of the organization are the targets to which team and individual performance models are directed (Salas, Nichols, & Driskell, 2007). Planning and task coordination. Team members need planning and task coordination competencies to synchronize activities, information, and task interdependencies between team members (Klein et al., 2009; Stevens & Campion, 1999). They further need to develop competencies to help them establish task and role expectations of individual team members, and to ensure proper balancing of the workload in the team (Humphrey et al., 2009; Stevens & Campion, 1999).

Temperament Type Theory When selecting employees for teams, it is important to select individuals with the competencies needed to achieve the team’s purpose and objectives and to balance the team with individuals having different but complementary approaches to problem solving, communication, and critical thinking (Bolton & Bolton, 2009; J. W. Gilley & Gilley, 2007). One proven way of achieving these goals is to use temperament type theory when forming teams (Bolton & Bolton, 2009; Whichard & Kees, 2006). Accordingly, for more than 25 centuries, observers of human behavior have been recording major patterns of behavior, which has become known as temperament theory (Whichard & Kees, 2006). Clearly, differences between people are sources of interpersonal tension and conflict; moreover, differences are a major factor in misunderstandings and resistance during team development (Bolton & Bolton, 2009; J. W. Gilley & Gilley, 2003). Because people are important to the success of any team, it is critical to discover how individuals think, make decisions, and use time differently (Bolton & Bolton, 2009; Whichard & Kees, 2006). Behavioral science researchers have discovered that 75% of the population is significantly different from any one person (Merrill & Reid, 1981). People may communicate, handle emotions, manage stress, and deal with conflicting opinions differently, which is not necessarily a bad thing. However, these differences can lead to negative interpersonal interactions, which can be sources of conflict during any team activity (Bolton & Bolton, 2009). In the past century, Whichard and Kees (2006) reported that temperament theory has been examined by a number of researchers (e.g., Jung’s Archetypes, Myers-Briggs, DISC, True Colors, Birkman Method). Several researchers believed temperament theories require extensive analysis to determine one temperament (personal) type, which significantly limits their practical application and usefulness in building effective teams (Bolton & Bolton, 2009; J. W. Gilley, 2006; Merrill & Reid, 1981; Whichard & Kees, 2006). One temperament theory that was developed by Merrill & Reid and is

16

Advances in Developing Human Resources 12(1)

commonly known as the Social Styles Profile is particularly useful because it uses extensive analysis as well as personal observation to identify another person’s temperament type. The Merrill and Reid interpersonal styles inventory allowed teams and their team members, who have precious little time, to conduct extensive analysis of someone’s temperament type and make adjustments quickly (J. W. Gilley & Gilley, 2003). Consequently, the value of the Merrill and Reid interpersonal styles inventory is that it required team members to observe just two dimensions of human interaction: assertiveness and responsiveness. These two dominions are incredibly helpful in predicting how other people are likely to behave during one-on-one and group interactions (Bolton & Bolton, 2009; J. W. Gilley & Gilley, 2003). In this theoretical model, assertiveness is the degree to which a person is perceived as attempting to influence the thoughts and actions of others. It is helpful to think of a continuum of assertiveness, in which a person’s behavior is typically more assertive or less assertive than that of half the population (J. W. Gilley & Gilley, 2003). Responsiveness is the other crucial dimension of behavior in the model. Responsiveness is the degree to which a person is perceived as expressing feelings when relating with others. It is helpful to think of a continuum of responsiveness in which a person’s behavior is typically more responsive or less responsive than that of half the population (J. W. Gilley & Gilley, 2003). Each individual’s interpersonal style is his or her own unique blend of assertiveness and responsiveness. Nevertheless, most people fall more or less into one of four styles, known as Analytical, Driver, Amiable, or Expressive (Bolton & Bolton, 2009). These four styles can be described this way: • Analytical Style is perceived as ask-assertive/control-responsive. Analyticals are task oriented, precise, and thorough. Analyticals like to deal in facts, work methodically, and use standard operating procedures (Bolton & Bolton, 2009). • Driver Style is perceived as tell-assertive/control-responsive. Drivers are goal oriented, disciplined, determined “bottom-line” thinkers who push for results and accomplishments. Drivers like control (Bolton & Bolton, 2009). • Amiable Style is perceived as ask-assertive/emote-responsive. Amiables are people oriented, friendly, accepting, cooperative, and like to be liked. Amiables are motivated to help others in a team effort (Bolton & Bolton, 2009). • Expressive Style is perceived as tell-assertive/emote-responsive. Expressives are idea oriented, vigorous, enthusiastic, and spontaneous. They like to initiate relationships and motivate others toward goals (Bolton & Bolton, 2009). Regardless of the activity, team members need to appreciate the differences in their fellow team members. Merrill and Reid (1981) believed that people need to adapt, adjust, and mirror interpersonal interactions when interacting with others. They referred to this as versatility. It begins with understanding what drives or motivates each individual interpersonal style reflected in one’s team members. The following is a guide to rel­ ating most effectively to each interpersonal style (J. W. Gilley & Gilley, 2003):

Gilley et al.

17

• Analyticals are motivated by a need for respect. They value hard work and attention to detail. Things for them must be logical and carefully worked out. Their specialty is Technical. • For Drivers, the motivation is power. Drivers like to know they are in charge. They need information that allows them to make decisions quickly and get tangible results. Their specialty is Control. • The payoff for Amiables is approval. Amiables deal in building personal relationships. They want warmth, understanding, friendship, and trust in their communications. Their specialty is Supportive. • Expressives thrive on recognition. They need to know others are with them in spirit. They appreciate information that allows them to move, create, or take action. Their specialty is Social.

Characteristics of Effective Teams Hackman (2002) identified five characteristics of effective teams. First, he believed every team needs a clear direction and goals used to focus its efforts and evaluate performance. Second, all teams need good leadership that is used to manage the internal and external relations of teams and orient teams toward their goals. Levi (2007) added that teams need quality leadership to facilitate team interactions and provide assistance to team members when problems and conflicts occur. Third, Hackman contended that teams need tasks that are suited for teamwork; tasks that are complex, important, and challenging, requiring the integrated efforts of team members and those that can be performed by individuals. Accordingly, teams need clear direction and a goal(s), tasks that are appropriate for teamwork, and work that is challenging and important. Fourth, teams need the appropriate resources to perform tasks, which include material, financial, and human resources. Finally, Hackman insisted that teams need supportive organizational environments that allocate the adequate power and authority to allow team members to make and implement decisions. Levi believed that such support includes management, the organizational system, and the organizational culture. Team effectiveness can be enhanced by limiting the number of members, having a clear agenda, training members together, minimizing links in communication, and setting clear performance goals (Driskell et al., 2006). When these criteria are present, it minimizes social loafing, which is present when individuals avoid or contribute less than their optimal effort (Gibson et al., 2009). Social loafing often occurs because it is difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate individual contributions to achieving an outcome; thus, employees can hide within a team (Jones & George, 2009). However, an appropriate team effectiveness strategy can take advantage of the Rinelmann effect, which describes the inverse relationship between the size of a team and the magnitude of the members’ individual contributions to achieving a task so that the total efforts exe­ rted by the team increases, but the average effort exerted by each member declines (Kravitz & Martin, 1986). Social loafing can be minimized when all team members

18

Advances in Developing Human Resources 12(1)

are committed to the team, decisions are made by consensus, a process for managing conflict and creativity exists, and a procedure exists to manage discussion and dialogue (Jones & George, 2009). Spiegel and Torres (1994) suggested that effective teams exist when team members share a common identity, goals, objectives, and leadership as well as share their successes and failures. Jones and George (2009) asserted that effective teams have members that are cooperative and collaborative and make decisions effectively and efficiently. They also believed that effective teams are ones where people express both their feelings and their ideas and decisions are usually based on consensus, not by majority vote. Levi (2007) added additional characteristics of effective teams. Accordingly, teams need to develop skills in social relations so they can resolve internal conflicts and function smoothly. Teams need fair and objective criteria to evaluate the outputs they produce as well as clear and specific criteria to evaluate the performance of team members specifically related to their team contributions (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). Consequently, team members should be rewarded when their teams are successful (Clutterbuck, 2007). The characteristics outlined in this section are critical inputs to the selection phase of the relationship model (see Figure 1) because they provide useful criteria when assembling a group of employees into a functioning team. They also serve to remind organizations that effective teams simply do not emerge but require careful attention to the elements needed for them to achieve the results required of them (J. W. Gilley & Gilley, 2007). Furthermore, the selection criteria can guide team leaders when they evaluate the outputs produced by teams to determine the degree to which these criteria were present in successful and unsuccessful team efforts. Ultimately, team success should be evaluated on the quality of its decision making, communication, cohesion, clarity and acceptance of goals, and acceptance of minority views (Sinclair, 1992).

Stages of Team Development The third phase of the integrated theoretical model for building effective teams is to identify the five stages of team development and discuss how each one influences team effectiveness. Wheelan and Williams (2003) believed that as teams evolve through the various stages of development they demonstrate several characteristics: structure, status hierarchy, roles, norms, leadership, cohesiveness, and conflict. Brown and Cregan (2008) identified four stages of a team: meaning and purpose; challenges, creativity, and options; unfolding, becoming, and interdependence; and summarizing, evaluating, and culminating. Lenhardt (2004) reported three aspects of team development: collection of individuals, cohesive group, and effective team. Quick (1992) indicated that team development consists of searching, defining, identifying, processing, and assimilating/ reforming. Tuckman and Jenson (1977) are credited with having identified the five most commonly used stages of team development, which include forming, storming, norming,

Gilley et al.

19

performing, and adjourning. The authors maintained that all of these stages are necessary and inevitable in order for the team to grow and develop, confront challenges, resolve problems, and identify and implement solutions that achieve desired results.

Forming In the first stage of team development, the forming of the team takes place. The forming stage is characterized by a high degree of uncertainty about the group’s purpose and goals, tentativeness, feelings of anxiety, and awkwardness, but members are enthusiastic and motivated to achieve desired results (Tuckman & Jenson, 1977; Weaver & Farrell, 1997; Whichard & Kees, 2006). At this point, mutual trust is low and members are not forthright with their opinions and ideas (J. W. Gilley & Boughton, 1996). Weaver and Farrell (1997) contended that the accomplishment during this first stage is to achieve an understanding of the group and the charge of the group and learn about other members of the group. Whichard and Kees (2006) indicated that members also establish initial group interaction protocol, identify available resources, and initiate activities that improve their interaction, working styles, and maximize the knowledge and skills of members. Spiegel and Torres (1994) suggested that teams have a greater chance of success during the forming stage if several conditions are present. These conditions include a specific, measurable objective that can be achieved by a team effort; an organizational culture that supports the team concept; sufficient time for adequate training, debate, and discussion; and knowledge and use of various problemsolving techniques (Spiegel & Torres, 1994, p. 7).

Storming As a team begins its work, reality starts to become apparent and members enter the storming stage, in which different ideas, agendas, approaches, and work styles com­pete for consideration (Bilder, 1989; Spiegel & Torres, 1994; Tuckman & Jenson, 1977). This second stage is characterized by conflict both within and outside the team, frustration because of role ambiguity, competition among members for influence, and strong resistance to team development (Whichard & Kees, 2006). In discussing teams that are in a storming stage, Spiegel and Torres (1994) used the term pueudo-teams, because they have not yet established the procedures and protocols required to achieve desired results. However, this stage is necessary to develop the team so that team members can identify role identity, expectations, and how group members will work with one another (Weaver & Farrell, 1997). The storming stage can be contentious, unpleasant, and even painful to team members who are averse to conflict; however, teams that exercise tolerance and patience of differences and celebrate them as strengths can experience constructive conflict (J. W. Gilley & Gilley, 2007).

20

Advances in Developing Human Resources 12(1)

Norming Once conflict has been lessened, teams can begin the process of resolving differences and establishing procedures and protocols for accomplishing their work (Tuckman & Jenson, 1977; Weaver & Farrell, 1997). The third stage, norming, is characterized by clarifying roles and responsibilities, shifting from interpersonal relations to decisionmaking activities related to the team’s task accomplishment, resolving difference, negotiating among members, and re-dedicating to accomplish their mutual goals (Jones & George, 2009). Harmony, trust, and respect become commonplace during this stage (Whichard & Kees, 2006). At some point, when the team has entered the norming stage, team members adjust their behavior to each other as they develop work habits that make teamwork seem more natural and fluid. Motivation increases as the team gets more acquainted with the project, team members agree to share goals and norms, and closer relationships develop (Katzenbach & Smith, 2003). During this stage, the team reexamines its charge and charter to refocus its efforts, reestablishes group rules, and identifies how team members will interact and perform with one another (Whichard & Kees, 2006). Finally, team members often work through the norming stage by agreeing on values, professional behavior, shared methods, and working tools, and even by identifying taboos (Bilder, 1989; Katzenbach & Smith, 2003; Spiegel & Torres, 1994).

Performing The fourth stage of team development is known as performing, which is characterized by interdependence of team members; achievement of consistent, excellent performance and results; and a high level of team satisfaction that is common among team members (Tuckman & Jenson, 1977; Whichard & Kees, 2006). By this stage, team members are motivated, knowledgeable, competent, autonomous, and able to handle the decisionmaking process without direct supervision (Gibson et al., 2009). Respectful dissent and disagreements are expected and allowed as long as they are channeled through means acceptable to the team (A. Gilley, 2005). Accordingly, team members are producing the outputs expected, role clarity is continual, and conflicts are addressed without experiencing the negative consequences common in earlier stages (Jones & George, 2009). During the performing stage, teams are experiencing both high performance impact and team effectiveness (Katzenbach & Smith, 2003).

Adjourning The final stage of team development is known as adjourning. During this stage, the emphasis is on wrapping up the project, and task performance is no longer the priority of the team (Daft & Marcic, 2009; Tuckman & Jenson, 1977). Team members may feel happy about accomplishing the mission but sad about the loss of friendship and association as well as feel heightened emotionality, strong cohesiveness, and depression or

Gilley et al.

21

regret over team disbandment (Daft & Marcic, 2009). As a way of achieving closure and completeness, it may be helpful for the team leader to celebrate the disbanding of the team by honoring team members, providing plaques and/or awards for a job well done (Jones & George, 2009; Tuckman & Jenson, 1977).

Theoretical Constructs That Affect Team Development The fourth phase of the integrated theoretical model for building effective teams is to examine the theoretical constructs that affect team development and their implications. Four theoretical constructs are examined: charge and charter theory (Weaver & Farrell, 1997; Whichard & Kees, 2006), the change curve (Bilder, 1989), the performance curve theory (Katzenbach & Smith, 2003), and synergistic relationship theory (J. W. Gilley & Boughton, 1996).

Charge and Charter Theory The first theoretical construct that affects team development is charge and charter theory (Weaver & Farrell, 1997; Whichard & Kees, 2006). It was reported that team clarity can be improved by defining the team’s charge and charter early in the team development process (forming stage, see above; Weaver & Farrell, 1997). The team charge is its overall assignment or tasks that must be achieved and is typically a fairly straightforward process (Whichard & Kees, 2006). The charge should be stated as specifically and concisely as possible to provide team members clear focus throughout the team’s task. A charter is the description of how the team will function (Whichard & Kees, 2006). Bridges (2003) identified these as purpose, picture, part, and plan, respectively. Team charters have four components (Weaver & Farrell, 1997). According to Whichard and Kees (2006), a team’s charter includes a purpose that explains why a team exists, how it relates to the overall organizational strategy, to whom it is responsible, and how it will benefit the organization. The authors reported that a charter also includes the goals of the group, which provides details about what the team will do, how it will accomplish its responsibilities, who will assume responsibility for what, and when the activities will be accomplished. Whichard and Kees added that a team’s charter clearly defines the roles of each team member, which delineates what group members will be responsible for accomplishing; roles are usually based on members’ respective expertise, competencies, and experience. Finally, a team’s charter provides the procedures a team will follow, which defines how teams plan to work together; interaction (social) and activity (technical) procedures assist teams in relating and sharing information appropriately and expeditiously (Weaver & Farrell, 1997).

Change Curve The second theoretical construct that affects team development is the change curve, which consists of four quadrants that represent phases people experience when they

22

Advances in Developing Human Resources 12(1)

begin a new activity and/or project or a major change is experienced (Bilder, 1989). The upper left quadrant represents the denial phase and is a period of uninformed enthusiasm because of the team members’ lack of knowledge related to the complexity of the project. It is a period when many team members feel enthusiastic about joining the team and believe that the task they will be working on will have a positive impact on the organization. This period is what Tuckman and Jenson (1977) referred to as the forming stage of team development. The second, lower left quadrant is where team members first realize the complexity of their task and begin to realize how difficult it will be to achieve the desired outcome of the project. This produces a state of uncertainty and at least temporarily, leads into a state of informed cynicism (Bilder, 1989; A. Gilley, 2005; J. W. Gilley, 2006). Consequently, many team members begin to actively resist change; therefore, this period is known as the resistance phase, which resembles the storming stage. As we discussed previously, moving through the storming stage depends on providing team members appropriate information and skills in managing conflict constructively. According to Whichard and Kees (2006), people need to go through this portion of the change curve (storming) before they can move toward accepting and supporting the charge and charter of the team. This is a critical period in the change curve because this is when team members typically choose to check out, emotionally and even physically, in a state of anger, frustration, and disappointment (J. W. Gilley, 2006). If teams do not address and overcome these symptoms, they cannot successfully move into the norming stage (Bilder, 1989; Katzenbach & Smith, 2003). The third quadrant, in the lower right corner, is where progress can be realized in the journey toward team development (exploration), which is symptomatic of the norming stage (Bilder, 1989; Tuckman & Jenson, 1977). In the state of exploration, the realities of the team’s charge and charter are perceived more positively than negatively (Whichard & Kees, 2006). Team members enter a period of hopeful adoption, where they accept and agree on values, professional behavior, shared methods, and working styles customary during the norming stage (J. W. Gilley, 2006). Once these new rules of engagement are accepted, team members can begin to produce the desired results they were assembled to accomplish. The final stage, commitment, in the upper right quadrant, is where team members accept their charge and charter and produce performance results that enhance performance impact and team effectiveness (Katzenbach & Smith, 2003). During this period, team members are fully committed to the new way of doing things and totally focused on achieving results (Bilder, 1989). As with the performance stage in team development, this is where team members can utilize collective energies and finally realize the full, positive impact of generating the results required (J. W. Gilley, 2006). Unfortunately, some teams never reach this period or stage of team development, simply because they do not manage team members well through the previous three phases (Bilder, 1989; Gibson et al., 2009; Klein et al., 2009).

Gilley et al.

23

Performance Curve Theory The third theoretical construct that affects team development is what Katzenbach and Smith (2003) referred to as the team performance curve, which demonstrates the relationship between performance impact and team effectiveness. As teams mature and develop, they begin producing improved performance results that positively improve team effectiveness. They contended that high-performance teams are the only ones that maximize performance impact and team effectiveness. Katzenbach and Smith’s (2003) model reflected the same pattern of behavior as Bilder’s (1989) model as teams move from loosely organized working groups, to pseudo-teams, potential teams, real teams, and high-performing teams. In both models, the authors asserted that teams experience a downturn in performance as they enter into the storming stage and an upturn in performance as they enter the norming and performing stages. Katzenbach and Smith (2003) believed that team effectiveness is positively correlated with performance impact as teams achieve their desired results. Collectively, these models provide a theoretical way of explaining performance results and team effectiveness as teams move through the four stages of team development before adjourning.

Synergistic Relationship Theory The fourth theoretical construct that affects team development is the synergistic relationship theory, which was introduced by J. W. Gilley and Boughton (1996). Accordingly, Wright (2005) believed that relationship skills allow team members to enhance their relationships with others so that they can build a positive, comfortable, and nonthreatening communication climate with others—one that encourages other people to discuss organizational issues, problems, and other ideas openly and honestly, without fear of reprisal. J. W. Gilley and Boughton theorized that such an environment establishes conditions that will expedite the synergistic relationship process. Synergistic relationships, therefore, are the interdependence of individuals working toward a common goal, which simultaneously provides for growth and development opportunities for participants and the organization. Such relationships yield five benefits: enhancing and building managers’ and employees’ self-esteem, enhancing productivity, enhancing and building organizational communication, enhancing and building organizational understanding, and enhancing and building organizational commitment (J. W. Gilley & Boughton, 1996, p. 72). When team members are respectful, caring, and cooperative, world-class results can be unlocked (Whichard & Kees, 2006). In fact, it is extremely difficult to produce the performance results desired by a team without team members establishing positive working relationships (J. W. Gilley & Gilley, 2007). The ultimate outcome of a positive (synergistic) relationship between individuals is known as rapport, which is the unconditional positive regard for one another and is

24

Advances in Developing Human Resources 12(1)

further defined as a deep concern for the well-being of others (Whichard & Kees, 2006). Rapport is established through sincere interest in and acceptance of others (Kirkman et al., 2000).

Conclusion Developing a better understanding of the seven components of the integrated theoretical model for building effective teams and their unique sequence provides HRD scholars the opportunity for future research, which advances HRD theory, and HRD professionals with objectives to guide HRD practice.

Implications for HRD Research and Theory The theoretical model presented in this article is based on a team-building philosophy and a set of theories. By integrating the selection, team development, charge and charter, change, performance, and relationship theories into one theoretical model, HRD scholars and professionals can better design, develop, manage, and facilitate effective teams to improve organizational results. Furthermore, the use of such theoretical frameworks provides a means of demonstrating the synergy of theoretical integration for the purpose of producing new knowledge to improve the field of HRD and its professionals. As a result of this article, several independent and disconnected theories have been combined into one comprehensive relationship model that is synergistic. That is, separately, each theory cannot be used to improve team selection or execution but together, the collection of theories provides a framework, which can be used to build effective teams. The theoretical model demonstrates the importance of selection theory when assembling effective teams, and we provide three separate criteria used in this process. In addition, the model demonstrates the relationship between team development theory and four other theoretical constructs (see Figure 1), which can be used to better understand outside influencers that must be accounted for as a team evolves through each of the five stages of team development. Accordingly, the new theoretical paradigm is useful in that it provides HRD academics and scholars a model they can examine, study, test, and quantify to determine whether these combined theories, assembled as we purport, can indeed improve the effectiveness of teams.

Implications for HRD Practice The purpose of this article was to construct an integrated theoretical model for building effective teams based on a targeted literature review guided by several research questions on all aspects of teams, team building, team member selection, team development, and theoretical constructs that affect the development of effective teams. Such a comprehensive model can serve to improve HRD practice by helping HRD practitioners and scholars in their continuing efforts to research teams, teamwork, and team building as well as to improve best practices. Based on our

Gilley et al.

25

research, we developed a seven-phase relationship model that (a) examines the importance of developing an appropriate team-building philosophy; (b) incorporates selection theory, which identifies three selection criteria used in assembling effective teams; (c) incorporates the five stages of team development so that team leaders and members can accurately assess and evaluate their teams to make appropriate adjustments, which will inform decision making and improve team deliverables; (d) demonstrates the impacts that charge and charter theory has on each of the five stages of team development; (e) demonstrates the impacts that change theory has on each of the five stages of team development; (f) demonstrates the impacts that performance theory has on each of the five stages of team development; and (g) demonstrates the impacts that synergistic relationship theory has on each of the five stages of team development. Accordingly, the integrated theoretical model for building effective teams can be used by HRD professionals and scholars as a schematic useful in designing, developing, managing, and building effective teams in organizations. Furthermore, this model demonstrates the complexity of building effective teams and can be used as an evaluative instrument when accessing the practices used in organizations regarding the utilization and management of teams. HRD professionals and organizational leaders can use this model to improve organizational results by improving the quality of teams. Finally, the model is based on a theory to practice philosophy that demonstrates the importance of both constructs and their synergistic relationship, which is critical to the advancement of evidence-based best practices in HRD and the continuous improvement of HRD practice. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References Albanese, R. (1994). Team-building process: Key to better project results. Journal of Management in Engineering, 10, 36-44. Antai-Otong, D. (1997). Team building in a health care setting. American Journal of Nursing, 97(7), 48-51. Bilder, R. S. (1989). The Arthur Young management guide to mergers and acquisition. New York, NY: John Wiley. Bolton, R., & Bolton, D. G. (2009). People styles at work: Making bad relationships good and good relationships better (2nd ed.). New York, NY: AMACOM. Bridges, W. (2003). Managing transitions: Making the most of change. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.

26

Advances in Developing Human Resources 12(1)

Brown, M., & Cregan, C. (2008). Organizational change cynicism: The role of employee involvement. Human Resource Management, 47, 667-686. Buckingham, M., & Clifton, D. O. (2001). Now, discover your strengths. New York, NY: Free Press. Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest managers do differently. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Clifton, D. O., & Nelson, P. (1992). Soar with your strengths. New York, NY: Delacorte. Clutterbuck, D. (2007). Coaching the team at work. Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey International. Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2005). Organization development and change (9th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College. Daft, R. L., & Marcic, D. (2009). Understanding management (6th ed.). Mason, OH: SouthWestern College. Driskell, J. E., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & O’Shea, P. G. (2006). What makes a good team player? Personality and team effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 249-271. Gibson, J. L., Ivancevich, J. M., Donnelly, J. H., & Konopaske, R. (2009). Organizations: Behavior, structure, process (13th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Gilley, A. (2005). The manager as change leader. Westport, CT: Praeger. Gilley, J. W. (2006). The manager as change leader. Westport, CT: Praeger. Gilley, J. W., & Boughton, N. W. (1996). Stop managing, start coaching: How performance coaching can enhance commitment and improve productivity. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Gilley, J. W., & Gilley, A. (2003). Strategically integrated HRD: Partnering to maximize organizational performance. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. Gilley, J. W., & Gilley, A. (2007). Manager as coach. Hartford, CT: Praeger. Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Harvey, T. R., & Drolet, B. (2004). Building teams, building people: Expanding the fifth resource. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education. Hollenbeck, J. R., Meyer, C. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2007). Trait configuration in self managed teams: A conceptual examination of the use of seeding for maximizing and minimizing trait variance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 883-889. Holpp, L. (1999). Managing teams. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Humphrey, S. E., Morgeson, F. P., & Mannor, M. J. (2009). Developing a theory of the strategic core of teams: A role composition model of team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 48-61. Janis, I. L. & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press. Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (2009). Contemporary management (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review, 71, 111-120. Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2003). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization (3rd ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Gilley et al.

27

Kirkman, B. L., Jones, R. G., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). Why do employees resist teams? Examining the “resistance barrier” to work team effectiveness. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 74-92. Klein, C., DiazGranados, D., Salas, E., Le, H., Burke, C.S., Lyons, R., & Goodwin, G. F. (2009). Does team building work? Small Group Research, 40, 181-222. Kravitz, D. A., & Martin, B. (1986). Ringelmann rediscovered: The original article. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 936-941. Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, F. M. J. (1989). Teamwork: What must go right/what can go wrong. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lenhardt, V. (2004). Coaching for meaning: The culture and practice of coaching and team building. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Levi, D. (2007). Group dynamic for teams. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mcgrew, J. F., Bilotta, J. G., & Deeney, J. M. (1999). Software team formation and decay: Extending the standard model for small groups. Small Group Research, 30, 209-234. Merrill, D. W., & Reid, R. H. (1981). Personal styles and effective performance. Radnor, PA: Chilton. Pellerin, C. J. (2009). How NASA builds teams: Mission critical soft skills for scientists, engineers, and project managers. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Quick, T. L. (1992). Successful team building. New York, NY: American Management Association. Salas, E., Nichols, D. R., & Driskell, J. E. (2007). Testing three team training strategies in intact teams: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 38, 471-488. Sassenberg, K., Jones, K. L., & Shah, J. Y. (2007). Why some groups just feel better: The regulatory fit of group power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 249-267. Scott, C. D., & Jaffe, D. T. (1988). Survive and thrive in times of change. Training and Development Journal, 42(4), 25-27. Senécal, J., Loughead, T. M., & Bloom, G. A. (2008). A season-long team-building intervention: Examining the effect of team goal setting on cohesion. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 186-199. Sinclair, A. (1992). The tyranny of a team ideology. Organization Studies, 13, 611-626. Solomon, C. M. (2001). Managing virtual teams. Workforce, 80(6), 60-78. Spiegel, J., & Torres, C. (1994). Manager’s official guide to team working. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer. Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1999). Staffing work teams: Development and validation of a selection test for teamwork skills. Journal of Management, 25, 207-228. Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120-133. Tuckman, B. W., & Jenson, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Management, 2, 419-427. Voight, M., & Callaghan, J. (2002). A team building intervention program: Application and evaluation with two university soccer teams. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 420-431. Weaver, R. G., & Farrell, J. D. (1997). Managers as facilitators. San Francisco, CA: BerrettKoehler.

28

Advances in Developing Human Resources 12(1)

West, M. A. (2004). Effective teamwork: Practical lessons from organizational leadership (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: BPS Blackwell. Wheelan, S. A., & Williams, T. (2003). Mapping dynamic interaction patterns in work groups. Small Group Research, 34, 443-467. Whichard, J., & Kees, N. L. (2006). Manager as facilitator. Hartford, CT: Praeger. Williams, S. D., Graham, T. S., & Baker, B. (2003). Evaluating outdoor experiential training for leadership and team building. Journal of Management Development, 22, 45-59. Wright, J. (2005). Workplace coaching: What’s it all about? Work, 24, 325-328.

Bios Jerry W. Gilley is a Professor and Program Chair of the Organizational Performance and Change and Human Resource Studies (OPC) Program at Colorado State University. He has been the Program Chair in organizational development at Iowa State University and the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, and the Chair of the Human Studies Program at Western Michigan University. He served as Principal (Senior Partner) and Director of Organizational Development for Mercer Human Resource Consulting (formerly known as William M. Mercer Inc.), the world’s largest compensation, benefits, and human resource consulting firm. He has authored and coauthored 20 books and more than 100 refereed journal articles, book chapters, and monographs. He was appointed the editor of the Manager As . . . series for Praeger Publishing Business Books Division and served as editor of the New Perspectives in Organizational Learning Performance and Change Book Series for Basis Books Business Division. Michael Lane Morris is a 2005-2006 William B. Stokely Faculty Scholar and an Associate professor/Program Director of Human Resource Development in the Department of Management, College of Business Administration at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. He also serves as the President of the Academy of HRD (2008-2010). Alina M. Waite is an Assistant Professor of the Organizational Performance and Change and Human Resource Studies (OPC) Program at Colorado State University. She teaches performance consulting, action research, analysis in organizations, intervention strategies, and learning transfer courses at the graduate level. Her research interests include performance improvement, teams, and innovation. She has more than 15 years of experience working in the health care industry and has served in a variety of leadership capacities both in the United States and abroad. Prior to her current position, she was the Director of Research and Development of an international organization specializing in the design, development, and manufacture of medical devices. Tabitha Coates is a graduate research assistant in the Organizational Performance and Change (OPC) Program at Colorado State University. Abigail Veliquette is a graduate research assistant in the Organizational Performance and Change (OPC) Program at Colorado State University.