team performance essay business studies

Leadership and Team Performance Essay

Explain the difference between leadership and management, explain why leadership is important within own team, describe a range of different leadership styles, describe the most commonly used leadership style within an organisation, explain the likely effect this leadership style has on a team’s performance..

Although the concepts of leadership and management have in the past been used simultaneously to imply comparable contexts, it is now clear that the two are distinct in major ways.

In their contextual definitions, it can be argued that leadership is distinct from management as the former involves a process of influencing others to willingly follow, while the latter underscores the capacity to achieve objectives with the resources available by maintaining the organisation in operation.

In terms of the main differences, scholars argue that leadership entails setting a direction and aligning people with organisational or team objectives, while management is largely involved in tasks such as planning, budgeting, organizing, and staffing.

Additionally, leadership employs the mastery of context and charisma to motivate people into action, while management utilises the control of the environment to achieve compliance. These elucidations clearly demonstrate that leadership has more strengths than management as it employs a whole range of human-centred factors to achieve compliance.

As an example, in team settings where participation is voluntary, a manager may have several difficulties in getting the team to deliver as he or she is unable to control the environment.

Work teams are as effective and successful as their leaders, hence effective leadership is of primary importance within own team. The importance of leadership within own team is embedded in the fact that team members need to be influenced and motivated to achieve their personal best.

Additionally, in team settings, there is always the need to have a leader who is committed to clarifying about the expectations concerning how things might be done to achieve the set objectives.

Leadership is also important as it is charged with the responsibility of implementing metrics of performance and facilitating team cohesion, which basically entails creating an enabling environment through which members stick to each other and remain united as they pursue the team’s set objectives.

For example, most teams in work-related settings consist of multidisciplinary as well as multicultural members, implying that leadership has an important role in developing strategies aimed at enhancing members’ self-esteem and efficacy, reducing stress levels, and increasing their willingness to share ideas with the view to achieving team cohesion.

Consequently, it can be argued that leadership within own team cannot be divorced from the success or failure of the team in meeting set objectives. The implications for ineffective leadership include disengaged team members, lack of clarity in group tasks or objectives, selective communication, lack of effective conflict handling mechanisms, and failure in the attainment of set goals and objectives.

Numerous leadership styles have been documented in the literature, but this section samples three such styles, namely servant leadership, charismatic leadership, and transformational leadership. Servant leadership basically entails leading by first making a conscious decision to be of service to followers, with the view to influencing their growth and well-being.

Available leadership literature demonstrates that servant leaders are most likely associated with the participative leadership style and that the main characteristics of being a servant leader include listening effectively to others, understanding the feelings and perspectives of others, fostering the emotional and spiritual health and wholeness of members, as well as influencing them through persuasiveness.

As an example, it can be suggested that the behaviours and characteristics of Jesus Christ fit the description of being a servant leader.

Charismatic leadership style involves the use of charismatic traits, emotions and extroverted nature of leaders to move followers or team members into compliance.

Available literature demonstrates that charismatic leaders rise to positions of authority or influence due to their achieved status, ability to inspire others and instil moral values and/or acceptable models of behaviour, and capacity to have effective communication and interaction strategies with subordinates.

In team settings, for example, a leader may be viewed as charismatic not only for demonstrating capacity to relate well with the problems or struggles facing team members, but also instilling moral values in them with the view to effecting change.

Lastly, transformative leadership style works by inspiring positive changes in those who follow through the demonstration of energy and zeal to succeed, enthusiasm, involvement, and passion to assist every member of the group succeed.

Transformational leaders are proactive, visionary, adaptable and inspired, not mentioning that they demonstrate organisational consciousness, internal motivation and self-management, ability to make challenging decisions, and enthusiasm to listen and entertain new ideas.

In team settings, for example, a transformative leader is able to take control of the group and influence others by demonstrating traits/behaviours such as ability to convey a clear vision of the team’s short-term and long-term objectives, capacity to express his or her passion for the work and commitment to the team, as well as ability to make other team members feel recharged and energized.

Transformational leadership is definitely the most commonly used leadership style in own organisation, as leaders and managers have realised that employees need to be motivated using mutually fulfilling endeavours rather than rewards or punishments.

In this type of leadership style, leaders demonstrate commitment, enthusiasm, involvement and passion for the organisation and followers, with the view to not only creating a vivid organisational vision which elicits followers’ loyalty and trust, but also inspiring positive changes and prompting the highest levels of motivation and commitment amongst their followers.

In own organisation, most leaders demonstrate intellectual stimulation (challenging the status quo and encouraging creativity among employees), individualised consideration (providing support and encouragement to individual employees), inspirational motivation (articulating to employees a clear vision), and idealised influence (serving as a role model for employees), hence the justification to acknowledge that most leaders are transformational.

In own organisation, these leadership styles and behaviours are identified using a leadership assessment tool that is duly filled by employees regarding their perceptions of particular leadership styles and behaviours demonstrated by leaders.

Existing leadership scholarship demonstrates that transformational leadership has many positive effects not only on team members, but also in the attainment of the set goals and objectives.

For instance, idealised influence, or the ability to serve as a role model for other team members, has been positively associated with varied intermediate outcomes such as shared vision, team commitment to the set objectives, and an energised team environment where members corroborate with each other and with the team leader to generate results.

Equally, intellectual stimulation on the part of the transformational leader has been positively associated with team creativity and innovativeness, shared vision, as well as openness and independent thinking in the team. For example, team members led by a transformational leader often develop innovative problem-solving strategies and utilise them effectively in the pursuit of the set objectives.

A transformational leader demonstrating individualised consideration, for instance, has far more capacity to influence and motivate team members than a transactional leader employing the reward and punishment system, hence transformational leadership style is more effective in team contexts.

It is important to note that, in turn, the mentioned intermediate outcomes impact positively on the team’s performance by reducing conflicts, enhancing team communication and cohesion, as well as focussing the team members on the attainment of the set goals.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, April 10). Leadership and Team Performance. https://ivypanda.com/essays/leading-work-team-essay/

"Leadership and Team Performance." IvyPanda , 10 Apr. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/leading-work-team-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Leadership and Team Performance'. 10 April.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Leadership and Team Performance." April 10, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/leading-work-team-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "Leadership and Team Performance." April 10, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/leading-work-team-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Leadership and Team Performance." April 10, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/leading-work-team-essay/.

• Charismatic and Transformational Approaches
• Charismatic Leadership
• Charismatic vs. Inspirational Leadership
• Servant and Ethical Leadership Definition
• Achieving the Best Possible Team Cohesion
• Leadership Theories: Charismatic and Transformational Approaches
• Leadership Types: Transformational, Transactional and Charismatic
• Ronald Reagan as a Charismatic Leader
• Barack Obama's Charismatic Leadership
• Oprah Winfrey as a Charismatic Leader
• Equity Concept: Motivation and Features in Leadership
• Performance Management Fundamentals
• Differences between BPR and BPM
• The mess gets worse at the Hanford’s nuclear site
• The Impact of Leadership Styles on Organizational Effectiveness

High-performing teams: A timeless leadership topic

The value of a high-performing team has long been recognized. It’s why savvy investors in start-ups often value the quality of the team and the interaction of the founding members more than the idea itself. It’s why 90 percent of investors think the quality of the management team is the single most important nonfinancial factor when evaluating an IPO. And it’s why there is a 1.9 times increased likelihood of having above-median financial performance when the top team is working together toward a common vision. 1 1. Scott Keller and Mary Meaney, Leading Organization: Ten Timeless Truths , New York, NY: Bloomsbury, 2017. “No matter how brilliant your mind or strategy, if you’re playing a solo game, you’ll always lose out to a team,” is the way Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn cofounder, sums it up. Basketball legend Michael Jordan slam dunks the same point: “Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence win championships.”

The topic’s importance is not about to diminish as digital technology reshapes the notion of the workplace and how work gets done. On the contrary, the leadership role becomes increasingly demanding as more work is conducted remotely, traditional company boundaries become more porous, freelancers more commonplace, and partnerships more necessary. And while technology will solve a number of the resulting operational issues, technological capabilities soon become commoditized.

Cutting through the clutter of management advice

Every year, more than 10,000 business books are published, and that’s before you add in hundreds of thousands of articles, blogs, and video lectures. The demand for good advice is clear, but how can senior executives identify what really matters in this mountain of guidance? Our book, Leading Organizations: Ten Timeless Truths , seeks to answer this question by addressing a set of timeless corporate leadership topics—those with which every leader has grappled in the past and will do so in the future. One of the lenses we used to determine this was to look at all the articles published in the Harvard Business Review between 1976 and 2016 on different aspects of organizational leadership, and how the amount of coverage of each varied (exhibit). Top teams was number eight on a list dominated by talent, decision making and design, and culture and change—topics that reflect our own experience of what leaders struggle with, judging by McKinsey’s client-engagement records dating back some 70 years.

Building a team remains as tough as ever. Energetic, ambitious, and capable people are always a plus, but they often represent different functions, products, lines of business, or geographies and can vie for influence, resources, and promotion. Not surprisingly then, top-team performance is a timeless business preoccupation. (See sidebar “Cutting through the clutter of management advice,” which lists top-team performance as one of the top ten business topics of the past 40 years, as discussed in our book, Leading Organizations: Ten Timeless Truths .)

Amid the myriad sources of advice on how to build a top team, here are some ideas around team composition and team dynamics that, in our experience, have long proved their worth.

Team composition

Team composition is the starting point. The team needs to be kept small—but not too small—and it’s important that the structure of the organization doesn’t dictate the team’s membership. A small top team—fewer than six, say—is likely to result in poorer decisions because of a lack of diversity , and slower decision making because of a lack of bandwidth. A small team also hampers succession planning, as there are fewer people to choose from and arguably more internal competition. Research also suggests that the team’s effectiveness starts to diminish if there are more than ten people on it. Sub-teams start to form, encouraging divisive behavior. Although a congenial, “here for the team” face is presented in team meetings, outside of them there will likely be much maneuvering. Bigger teams also undermine ownership of group decisions, as there isn’t time for everyone to be heard.

Stay current on your favorite topics

Beyond team size,  CEOs should consider what complementary skills and attitudes each team member brings to the table. Do they recognize the improvement opportunities? Do they feel accountable for the entire company’s success, not just their own business area? Do they have the energy to persevere if the going gets tough? Are they good role models? When CEOs ask these questions, they often realize how they’ve allowed themselves to be held hostage by individual stars who aren’t team players, how they’ve become overly inclusive to avoid conflict, or how they’ve been saddled with team members who once were good enough but now don’t make the grade. Slighting some senior executives who aren’t selected may be unavoidable if the goal is better, faster decisions, executed with commitment.

Of course, large organizations often can’t limit the top team to just ten or fewer members. There is too much complexity to manage and too much work to be done. The CEO of a global insurance company found himself with 18 direct reports spread around the globe who, on their videoconference meetings, could rarely discuss any single subject for more than 30 minutes because of the size of the agenda. He therefore formed three top teams, one that focused on strategy and the long-term health of the company, another that handled shorter-term performance and operational issues, and a third that tended to a number of governance, policy, and people-related issues. Some executives, including the CEO, sat on each. Others were only on one. And some team members chosen weren’t even direct reports but from the next level of management down, as the CEO recognized the importance of having the right expertise in the room, introducing new people with new ideas, and coaching the next generation of leaders.

Would you like to learn more about our People & Organizational Performance Practice ?

Team dynamics.

It’s one thing to get the right team composition. But only when people start working together does the character of the team itself begin to be revealed, shaped by team dynamics that enable it to achieve either great things or, more commonly, mediocrity.

Consider the 1992 roster of the US men’s Olympic basketball team, which had some of the greatest players in the history of the sport, among them Charles Barkley, Larry Bird, Patrick Ewing, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Karl Malone, and Scottie Pippen. Merely bringing together these players didn’t guarantee success. During their first month of practice, indeed, the “Dream Team” lost to a group of college players by eight points in a scrimmage. “We didn’t know how to play with each other,” Scottie Pippen said after the defeat. They adjusted, and the rest is history. The team not only won the 1992 Olympic gold but also dominated the competition, scoring over 100 points in every game.

What is it that makes the difference between a team of all stars and an all-star team? Over the past decade, we’ve asked more than 5,000 executives to think about their “peak experience” as a team member and to write down the word or words that describe that environment. The results are remarkably consistent and reveal three key dimensions of great teamwork. The first is alignment on direction, where there is a shared belief about what the company is striving toward and the role of the team in getting there. The second is high-quality interaction, characterized by trust, open communication, and a willingness to embrace conflict. The third is a strong sense of renewal, meaning an environment in which team members are energized because they feel they can take risks, innovate, learn from outside ideas, and achieve something that matters—often against the odds.

So the next question is, how can you re-create these same conditions in every top team?

Getting started

The starting point is to gauge where the team stands on these three dimensions, typically through a combination of surveys and interviews with the team, those who report to it, and other relevant stakeholders. Such objectivity is critical because team members often fail to recognize the role they themselves might be playing in a dysfunctional team.

Leading Organizations: Ten Timeless Truths

Read more about the most challenging organizational issues leaders face, and practical steps to address them, in our new book.

While some teams have more work to do than others, most will benefit from a program that purposefully mixes offsite workshops with on-the-job practice. Offsite workshops typically take place over two or more days. They build the team first by doing real work together and making important business decisions, then taking the time to reflect on team dynamics.

The choice of which problems to tackle is important. One of the most common complaints voiced by members of low-performing teams is that too much time is spent in meetings. In our experience, however, the real issue is not the time but the content of meetings. Top-team meetings should address only those topics that need the team’s collective, cross-boundary expertise, such as corporate strategy, enterprise-resource allocation, or how to capture synergies across business units. They need to steer clear of anything that can be handled by individual businesses or functions, not only to use the top team’s time well but to foster a sense of purpose too.

The reflective sessions concentrate not on the business problem per se, but on how the team worked together to address it. For example, did team members feel aligned on what they were trying to achieve? Did they feel excited about the conclusions reached? If not, why? Did they feel as if they brought out the best in one another? Trust deepens regardless of the answers. It is the openness that matters. Team members often become aware of the unintended consequences of their behavior. And appreciation builds of each team member’s value to the team, and of how diversity of opinion need not end in conflict. Rather, it can lead to better decisions.

The ‘bike-shed effect,’ a common pitfall for team effectiveness

Many teams benefit from having an impartial observer in their initial sessions to help identify and improve team dynamics. An observer can, for example, point out when discussion in the working session strays into low-value territory. We’ve seen top teams spend more time deciding what should be served for breakfast at an upcoming conference than the real substance of the agenda (see sidebar “The ‘bike-shed effect,’ a common pitfall for team effectiveness”). One CEO, speaking for five times longer than other team members, was shocked to be told he was blocking discussion. And one team of nine that professed to being aligned with the company’s top 3 priorities listed no fewer than 15 between them when challenged to write them down.

Back in the office

Periodic offsite sessions will not permanently reset a team’s dynamics. Rather, they help build the mind-sets and habits that team members need to first observe then to regulate their behavior when back in the office. Committing to a handful of practices can help. For example, one Latin American mining company we know agreed to the following:

• A “yellow card,” which everyone carried and which could be produced to safely call out one another on unproductive behavior and provide constructive feedback, for example, if someone was putting the needs of his or her business unit over those of the company, or if dialogue was being shut down. Some team members feared the system would become annoying, but soon recognized its power to check unhelpful behavior.
• An electronic polling system during discussions to gauge the pulse of the room efficiently (or, as one team member put it, “to let us all speak at once”), and to avoid group thinking. It also proved useful in halting overly detailed conversations and refocusing the group on the decision at hand.
• A rule that no more than three PowerPoint slides could be shared in the room so as to maximize discussion time. (Brief pre-reads were permitted.)

After a few months of consciously practicing the new behavior in the workplace, a team typically reconvenes offsite to hold another round of work and reflection sessions. The format and content will differ depending on progress made. For example, one North American industrial company that felt it was lacking a sense of renewal convened its second offsite in Silicon Valley, where the team immersed itself in learning about innovation from start-ups and other cutting-edge companies. How frequently these offsites are needed will differ from team to team. But over time, the new behavior will take root, and team members will become aware of team dynamics in their everyday work and address them as required.

In our experience, those who make a concerted effort to build a high-performing team can do so well within a year, even when starting from a low base. The initial assessment of team dynamics at an Australian bank revealed that team members had resorted to avoiding one another as much as possible to avoid confrontation, though unsurprisingly the consequences of the unspoken friction were highly visible. Other employees perceived team members as insecure, sometimes even encouraging a view that their division was under siege. Nine months later, team dynamics were unrecognizable. “We’ve come light years in a matter of months. I can’t imaging going back to the way things were,” was the CEO’s verdict. The biggest difference? “We now speak with one voice.”

Hard as you might try at the outset to compose the best team with the right mix of skills and attitudes, creating an environment in which the team can excel will likely mean changes in composition as the dynamics of the team develop. CEOs and other senior executives may find that some of those they felt were sure bets at the beginning are those who have to go. Other less certain candidates might blossom during the journey.

There is no avoiding the time and energy required to build a high-performing team. Yet our research suggests that executives are five times more productive when working in one than they are in an average one. CEOs and other senior executives should feel reassured, therefore, that the investment will be worth the effort. The business case for building a dream team is strong, and the techniques for building one proven.

Scott Keller  is a senior partner in McKinsey’s Southern California office, and  Mary Meaney is a senior partner in the Paris office.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Three steps to building a better top team

Why effective leaders must manage up, down, and sideways

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

The Secrets of Great Teamwork

• Martine Haas
• Mark Mortensen

Over the years, as teams have grown more diverse, dispersed, digital, and dynamic, collaboration has become more complex. But though teams face new challenges, their success still depends on a core set of fundamentals. As J. Richard Hackman, who began researching teams in the 1970s, discovered, what matters most isn’t the personalities or behavior of the team members; it’s whether a team has a compelling direction, a strong structure, and a supportive context. In their own research, Haas and Mortensen have found that teams need those three “enabling conditions” now more than ever. But their work also revealed that today’s teams are especially prone to two corrosive problems: “us versus them” thinking and incomplete information. Overcoming those pitfalls requires a new enabling condition: a shared mindset.

This article details what team leaders should do to establish the four foundations for success. For instance, to promote a shared mindset, leaders should foster a common identity and common understanding among team members, with techniques such as “structured unstructured time.” The authors also describe how to evaluate a team’s effectiveness, providing an assessment leaders can take to see what’s working and where there’s room for improvement.

Collaboration has become more complex, but success still depends on the fundamentals.

Idea in Brief

The problem.

Teams are more diverse, dispersed, digital, and dynamic than ever before. These qualities make collaboration especially challenging.

The Analysis

Mixing new insights with a focus on the fundamentals of team effectiveness identified by organizational-behavior pioneer J. Richard Hackman, managers should work to establish the conditions that will enable teams to thrive.

The Solution

The right conditions are

• a compelling direction
• a strong structure
• a supportive context, and
• a shared mindset

Weaknesses in these areas make teams vulnerable to problems.

Today’s teams are different from the teams of the past: They’re far more diverse, dispersed, digital, and dynamic (with frequent changes in membership). But while teams face new hurdles, their success still hinges on a core set of fundamentals for group collaboration.

• Martine Haas is the Lauder Chair Professor of Management at the Wharton School and Director of the Lauder Institute for Management & International Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. She holds a PhD from Harvard University. Her research focuses on collaboration and teamwork in global organizations.
• Mark Mortensen is a professor of organizational behavior at INSEAD and for over 20 years has studied and consulted on collaboration and organization design, with a focus on hybrid, virtual, and globally distributed work. Mark publishes regularly in Harvard Business Review , MIT Sloan Management Review , and INSEAD Knowledge, and is a regular fixture in popular press outlets like the BBC, the Economist , the Financial Times , and Fortune .

Partner Center

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Teamwork — Team and Team Performance Evaluation

Team and Team Performance Evaluation

• Categories: Performance Teamwork

About this sample

Words: 1723 |

Published: Feb 9, 2022

Words: 1723 | Pages: 4 | 9 min read

Table of contents

Definition of team, types of teams, internal process of team, effective strategies for enhancement, social loafing, incentive pay system.

• Problem solving team
• Self-managed team
• Cross-functional team and
• Virtual team.

Problem Solving Team

Self-managed team, cross-functional team, virtual team.

• Effort or contribution of individual member.
• Individual member’s skill and knowledge.
• Strategies employed.
• The organization will make sure that we are keeping the talent with us only by providing this incentives either in the form of finance or hike in their position.
• Its gives a Job satisfaction for the employees which makes them feel that they can stay with the organization.
• The organization will also have a benefit that the deliverables will be delivered on time if they provide such incentives to the member.
• This grows the competition between employees in their work and also helps to know the ability of team mate.
• Confidence in the team mate will build up.

Disadvantages

• Behavior of the team mate may look irrelevant on the other team mate who got an incentive for their work.
• The confidence and the contribution to the team will be less when compared to his previous cooperation on the work.
• May not support the plan in resolving the problem or thinking new approaches if there is any proof of concept has to be provided.
• Coming to the results by not providing incentive performance of team will be reduced.
• Ancona, D. Gladstein. Outward Bound: Strategic for Team Survival in an Organization. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 33, no. 2, 1990, pp. 334–365.,
• Baninajarian, N., & Abdullah, Z. B. (2009). Groups in context: A model of group effectiveness. European Journal of Social Sciences, 8(2), 335-340.
• Hollenbeck, John R., et al. Beyond Team Types and Taxonomies: A Dimensional Scaling Conceptualization for Team Description. Academy of Management Review, vol. 37, no. 1, 2012, pp. 82–106., doi:10.5465/armr.2010.0181.
• Mestrovic, S. (2005). Anthony Giddens: the last modernist. Routledge.
• Parker, G. M. (2003). Cross-functional teams: Working with allies, enemies, and other strangers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Patrick Gleeson, P. D. (2018, June 29). Internal & External Factors That Affect an Organization. Retrieved from https://smallbusiness.chron.com/internal-external-factors-affect-organization-16641.html
• Schippers, M. C. (2014). Social Loafing Tendencies and Team Performance: The Compensating Effect of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(1), 62–81. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0191
• Thompson, L. L. (2018). Making the team: A guide for managers. NY: Pearson.
• Zaccaro, S. J., Heinen, B., & Shuffler, M. (2009). Team leadership and team effectiveness. Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches, 83-111.
• Zárraga, C., & Bonache, J. (2005). The Impact of Team Atmosphere on Knowledge Outcomes in Self-managed Teams. Organization Studies, 26(5), 661-681.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Business Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 406 words

2 pages / 1053 words

1 pages / 633 words

1 pages / 515 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Teamwork

Being part of a team is a transformative experience that extends beyond mere collaboration. Whether in sports, academics, or professional settings, the dynamics of a team environment offer individuals a unique opportunity to [...]

Group work is a common practice in academic settings, with many courses incorporating group projects and assignments as part of the curriculum. In this reflection paper, I will discuss my experiences with group work, the [...]

Why is teamwork important in the workplace? Teamwork is a fundamental concept that underpins the success of organizations in today's complex and interconnected business world. This essay explores the significance of teamwork in [...]

Undertaking missions is a crucial aspect of many organizations, whether they are non-profit, government, or corporate entities. Missions are defined as specific tasks or objectives that an organization sets out to achieve within [...]

Canada is an internationally known country with the long reputation for high quality of life with the growing number of citizens competing for limited resources, hence; making homelessness a reality. The main populations making [...]

In the words of Dr Meredith Belbin, a Team Role is “A tendency to behave, contribute and interrelate with others in a particular way. ” The concept originated in a study conducted at the Henley Management College in the UK. The [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

More From Forbes

Empowering high-performance teams with the overall team effectiveness framework.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Nico Röpnack, CEO of Lighthouse Consultings , Expert in Transformation & High-Performance Teams Champion of Operational Excellence.

In the rapidly evolving business landscape, characterized by technological advancements and organizational complexities, the essence of high-performing teams has become increasingly paramount.

The development of the overall team effectiveness (OTE) framework represents a pioneering approach, offering a nuanced tool for enhancing team dynamics. I recently introduced this framework at a management conference in Germany and led a small workshop with 20 people. Drawing on extensive professional insights and inspired by seminal works such as Jeffrey Liker's principles and Harvard Business Review's deep dives into organizational behavior, I developed the OTE framework for cultivating environments conducive to exceptional team performance.

This framework emphasizes four critical dimensions: innovation, decision making, agility and collaboration, each designed to propel teams toward unparalleled success.

1. Innovation

Innovation, the linchpin of competitive advantage, demands a culture where risks are embraced and failures are viewed as milestones towards success. The OTE framework underscores the importance of diversity in thought and the freedom to explore, essential for fostering creativity.

A prime example can be found in Google's "20% time" policy , which empowers employees to dedicate a portion of their workweek to passion projects, leading to breakthrough innovations like Google News.

AEW Dynasty 2024 Results Winners And Grades As Swerve Makes History

A psychologist reveals 8 secret ingredients for ‘manifesting’ success, xiaomi 14 ultra review: the camera phone to beat.

With this aspect of the OTE framework, business leaders should evaluate the systemic support for creative endeavors; this challenges organizations to dismantle barriers to innovation such as rigid hierarchical structures and a lack of psychological safety that stifles idea sharing.

2. Decision-Making

Effective decision-making is a hallmark of high-performance teams, blending speed with inclusivity to navigate through uncertainty. The OTE framework examines the mechanisms in place for making collective, informed choices, emphasizing the need for clear communication channels and a shared vision.

For instance, Amazon's "disagree and commit" principle exemplifies a culture that values decisive action after inclusive deliberation, ensuring agility in execution while fostering a sense of unity and purpose.

When focusing on this metric, aim to identify and mitigate common obstacles such as information silos and a prevailing culture of indecision, advocating for an environment where accountability is embraced.

3. Collaboration

At the core of high-performance teams lies an unparalleled capacity for collaboration, transcending departmental boundaries to foster a culture of shared knowledge and mutual growth. The OTE framework places a significant emphasis on the mechanisms and platforms facilitating such collaborative endeavors.

In today's digital age, the increasing reliance on collaborative work management (CWM) platforms underscores the critical need for strategies and tools that enable seamless interaction and integration across various functions within an organization. As CEO of a company that specializes in these tools, I've seen firsthand how offering a versatile environment where teams can not only coordinate tasks and projects but also share insights and lessons learned in real time can be beneficial.

This shift toward comprehensive, digitally-enabled collaboration reflects a broader organizational imperative: to break down silos and cultivate a workspace where information flows freely and collective efforts are amplified.

Through this lens of the OTE framework, I suggest leaders evaluate the organization's commitment to fostering cross-departmental collaboration. Make sure you understand the importance of adopting technologies that enhance connectivity and streamline collaborative processes. By addressing the barriers to effective teamwork, organizations can unlock new dimensions of performance, driving innovation and achieving strategic goals with unprecedented cohesion and efficiency.

Agility in the contemporary business context signifies the capacity to swiftly adapt and pivot in response to emerging challenges and opportunities. The OTE framework's agility dimension is inspired by agile development methodologies , advocating for flat team structures that enhance responsiveness.

The success of Spotify's squad model , which organizes teams around specific features or products, illustrates the effectiveness of empowering small, cross-functional teams to operate with autonomy, thereby accelerating product development cycles. When considering this component of the OTE, assess the organization's procedural and cultural flexibility, aiming to overcome bureaucratic inertia and resistance to change.

The OTE framework can be a comprehensive tool for diagnosing and enhancing the elements that underpin high-performing teams. By meticulously assessing innovation, decision-making, agility and collaboration, organizations are equipped to foster an environment where teams can truly excel.

As businesses navigate the complexities of the modern workplace, I've found the OTE framework offers a blueprint for building resilient, innovative and cohesive teams capable of achieving extraordinary outcomes. Embrace the OTE framework and embark on a transformative journey towards cultivating high-performance teams within your organization. Discover the potential that lies in a strategic, data-informed approach to team development.

Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

The Effectiveness of Teamwork Training on Teamwork Behaviors and Team Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Interventions

Desmond mcewan.

1 School of Kinesiology, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Geralyn R. Ruissen

Mark a. eys.

2 Departments of Kinesiology/Physical Education and Psychology, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Bruno D. Zumbo

3 Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Mark R. Beauchamp

• Conceptualization: DM ME BZ MB.
• Data curation: DM.
• Formal analysis: DM.
• Investigation: DM GR.
• Methodology: DM MB.
• Project administration: DM MB.
• Resources: DM MB.
• Supervision: MB.
• Validation: DM GR MB.
• Visualization: DM GR ME BZ MB.
• Writing – original draft: DM MB.
• Writing – review & editing: DM GR ME BZ MB.

Associated Data

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Raw data (taken from the studies in our meta-analysis) are available upon request from the corresponding author.

The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of teamwork interventions that were carried out with the purpose of improving teamwork and team performance, using controlled experimental designs. A literature search returned 16,849 unique articles. The meta-analysis was ultimately conducted on 51 articles, comprising 72 ( k ) unique interventions, 194 effect sizes, and 8439 participants, using a random effects model. Positive and significant medium-sized effects were found for teamwork interventions on both teamwork and team performance. Moderator analyses were also conducted, which generally revealed positive and significant effects with respect to several sample, intervention, and measurement characteristics. Implications for effective teamwork interventions as well as considerations for future research are discussed.

Introduction

From road construction crews and professional soccer squads to political parties and special operations corps, teams have become a ubiquitous part of today’s world. Bringing a group of highly-skilled individuals together is not sufficient for teams to be effective. Rather, team members need to be able to work well together in order for the team to successfully achieve its purposes [ 1 , 2 ]. As a result, there has been a proliferation of research assessing whether, and how, teams can be improved through teamwork training. A wide range of studies have shown positive effects of teamwork interventions for improving team effectiveness across several contexts such as health care (e.g., [ 3 ]), military (e.g., [ 4 ]), aviation (e.g., [ 5 ]), and academic (e.g., [ 6 ]) settings. Similarly, improvements in teamwork have been observed as a result of training with a variety of team types including new teams (e.g., [ 7 ]), intact teams (e.g., [ 8 ]), and those created for laboratory-based experiments (e.g., [ 9 ]). In sum, the extant empirical evidence to date appears to suggest that teams can be improved via teamwork training.

What is Teamwork?

Within teams, members’ behaviors can be categorized in terms of both taskwork and teamwork processes [ 2 ]. Marks et al. [ 10 ] differentiated between the two by suggesting that “taskwork represents what it is that teams are doing, whereas teamwork describes how they are doing it with each other” (p. 357). Specifically, while taskwork involves the execution of core technical competencies within a given domain, teamwork refers to the range of interactive and interdependent behavioral processes among team members that convert team inputs (e.g., member characteristics, organizational funding, team member composition) into outcomes (e.g., team performance, team member satisfaction) [ 2 , 10 ]. Some examples of teamwork (and respective comparisons to taskwork) include: the seamless communication between a surgeon, nurse, and anaesthesiologist, rather than the technical competencies of these practitioners; the synergy between a quarterback and receiver to complete a passing play, rather than their respective skill sets related to throwing or catching a football; the collaborative adjustments a flight crew makes in response to adverse weather or system problems, rather than each individual’s aviation skills; and so forth. Research from an assortment of studies indicates that teamwork—the focus of the current paper—is positively related to important team effectiveness variables, including team performance, group cohesion, collective efficacy, and member satisfaction [ 1 ].

Teamwork has been conceptualized within several theoretical models. For example, in their review, Rousseau et al. [ 2 ] reported that 29 frameworks related to teamwork have been published. Although there is much overlap across these models, there are also some notable differences. These relate to the number of dimensions of teamwork being conceptualized as well as the specific labelling of these dimensions. One thing that is generally agreed upon, however, is that teamwork is comprised of multiple observable and measurable behaviors . For instance, two highly cited frameworks by Marks et al. [ 10 ] and Rousseau et al. [ 2 ] consist of 10 and 14 dimensions of teamwork, respectively. In general, teamwork models focus on behaviors that function to (a) regulate a team’s performance and/or (b) keep the team together. These two components coincide with the two respective processes that Kurt Lewin, the widely recognized father of group dynamics, originally proposed all groups to be involved in: locomotion and maintenance [ 11 ].

With regard to regulating team performance (i.e., locomotion), teamwork behaviors include those that occur (a) before/in preparation for team task performance, (b) during the execution of team performance, and (c) after completing the team task [ 2 ]. First, with regard to teamwork behaviors that occur before/in preparation for team task performance, these include the active process of defining the team’s overall purpose/mission, setting team goals, and formulating action plans/strategies for how goals and broader purposes will be achieved. These behaviors help ensure that all team members are clear in terms of what is required of them in order for the team to function effectively. Second, teamwork behaviors that occur during the execution of team tasks include actions that correspond to members’ communication, coordination, and cooperation with each other. At this stage, team members translate what they have previously planned (during the preparation phase) into action. Third, in terms of teamwork behaviors that occur after completing the team task (i.e., reflection), these include monitoring important situations and conducting post-task appraisals of the team’s performance and system variables (e.g., internal team resources, broader environmental conditions), solving problems that are precluding team goal attainment, making innovative adjustments to the team’s strategy, and providing/receiving verbal and behavioral assistance to/from teammates. Hence, team members determine whether their actions have moved them closer towards accomplishing the team goals and objectives, and whether any modifications are required in order to facilitate future success. In addition to these three dimensions concerned with the regulation of team performance, a fourth dimension of teamwork involves behaviors that function to keep the team together (i.e., maintenance). These behaviors focus on the team’s interpersonal dynamics , and include the management of interpersonal conflict between members and the provision of social support for members experiencing personal difficulties. Managing interpersonal dynamics is critical as it is theorized that teams cannot operate effectively when these issues are present [ 2 ].

How Can Teamwork Be Trained?

Teamwork interventions have utilized a number of training methods in order to target the regulation of team performance (i.e., preparation, execution, reflection) and management of team maintenance (i.e., interpersonal dynamics) dimensions. These intervention strategies generally fall under one of four categories. First, the most basic approach to training and developing teamwork involves providing didactic education to team members in a classroom-type setting, such as lecturing about the importance of providing social support within the team or promoting ways to manage interpersonal conflict among teammates. This type of training has been found to be useful for enhancing team effectiveness (e.g., [ 12 ]). A second category of team training involves utilizing a more interactive workshop-style format, wherein team members take part in various group activities, such as having discussions about the team’s purposes and goals (e.g., [ 13 ]) or working through case studies together (e.g. [ 14 ]). The third broad category of team training involves simulation training, wherein teams experientially enact various teamwork skills, such as interpersonal communication and coordination, in an environment that mimics upcoming team tasks (e.g., airline simulators or medical patient manikins). Although often used as a means of fostering taskwork competencies (e.g., teaching new surgeons how to perform the technical skills of a medical operation), simulation training has been found to be an efficacious approach to teamwork intervention (e.g., [ 15 ]). In addition to these three training approaches that occur outside of the team task environment (i.e., training within classroom and simulation settings), teamwork can also be fostered by incorporating team reviews in-situ (i.e., where the team actually performs its tasks), which allows teams to monitor/review their quality of teamwork on an ongoing basis. These team reviews involve some form of team briefs before (e.g., creating action plans), during (e.g., monitoring team members’ actions), and/or after (e.g., assessing the team’s performance) team task execution, and have also been shown to be efficacious in previous studies (e.g., [ 16 ]).

The effectiveness of teamwork interventions can be determined with an assortment of criteria, including team- and individually-based behaviors, cognitions, and affective states. Hackman and Katz 2010 [ 17 ] posit that team effectiveness can be determined by examining the extent to which the team has achieved its a priori objectives. Since the broad purpose of forming a team is to produce something of value, it is perhaps unsurprising that the most widely tested criterion of team effectiveness has been team performance [ 18 – 20 ]. Thus, although teams come from an array of settings and are idiosyncratic in their own ways, one question that essentially all teams address at some point during their tenure is whether they are performing well. For example, is that road construction crew fixing potholes adequately? Does the local soccer squad have a respectable winning percentage? Has an elected political party successfully completed the tasks for which they campaigned? Did a special operations corps achieve the mission it set out to accomplish? When taken in concert, questions related to team performance are often of central interest when characterizing a team’s effectiveness.

In addition to assessing the outcome variable of team performance, researchers have also been interested in whether teamwork training actually improves teamwork itself. The efficacy of these interventions can be determined with a number of objective (e.g., products produced by an industry team), self-report (e.g., questionnaires regarding perceived social support amongst team members), and third-party assessments (e.g., expert ratings of team behaviors). Both general/omnibus measures of teamwork (e.g., [ 21 ]) as well as those assessing specific dimensions of teamwork (e.g., communication [ 22 ]) have been operationalized to examine the effectiveness of these interventions. For example, do team goal setting activities actually result in members creating and pursuing effective team goals? Does simulation training improve the requisite coordination processes among aviation cockpit crews? Has a didactic lecture contributed to improved conflict management among team members? Answering these types of questions is important for determining whether an intervention is actually efficacious in changing the variable that is targeted for improvement (i.e., teamwork behaviors).

The Current Review

Prior to outlining the purposes of this systematic review, it is important to recognize that previous quantitative reviews have been conducted that addressed—to some degree—teamwork training. In preparation for this systematic review, we conducted a scoping review which revealed that eight previous meta-analyses have assessed teamwork intervention studies in some way. However, these reviews were delimited based on various sample and/or intervention characteristics. For example, some reviews included studies that were only conducted with certain team types (e.g., intact teams [ 23 ]) or within a particular context (e.g., sports [ 24 ]; medical teams [ 25 ]). Others were delimited to specific training programs/strategies that were restricted to a narrow range of teamwork strategies (e.g., [ 23 , 25 – 29 ]). Finally, studies that used a combination of teamwork and taskwork intervention components have been systematically reviewed [ 30 ]; however, these types of interventions result in a limited ability to determine the extent to which the resulting effects were due to teamwork training versus taskwork training.

It should also be noted that all but one [ 23 ] of these previous reviews pooled together studies that included a control condition (i.e., wherein teams do not receive any type of teamwork training) and those that did not (as mentioned above, that study only analyzed the effects of certain teamwork strategies). This is an important consideration, as it has been suggested that controlled and uncontrolled studies should not be combined into the same meta-analysis due to differences in study quality (which is a major source of heterogeneity) and since stronger conclusions can be derived from controlled interventions compared to uncontrolled interventions (e.g., [ 31 ]). Therefore, while previous systematic reviews have provided valuable contributions to the teamwork literature, a systematic review that assesses the effects of controlled teamwork interventions across a range of contexts, team types, and involving those that targeted diverse dimensions of teamwork appears warranted. In doing so, a more comprehensive assessment of the efficacy of these teamwork interventions is provided, while also having the capacity to look at the potential moderating effects of various sample, intervention, and measurement characteristics. Moreover, by including only controlled studies, one is able to make stronger conclusions regarding the observed effects.

The overall purpose of this study was to better understand the utility of teamwork training for enhancing team effectiveness. Specifically, a meta-analysis was conducted on controlled studies (i.e., comparing teams who have received teamwork training with those who have not) that have examined the effects of teamwork interventions on teamwork processes and/or team performance. To better disentangle the effectiveness of these studies, we also sought to assess potential moderators of these main effects; that is, to determine whether there are certain conditions under which the independent variable of teamwork training more strongly (or weakly) causally influences the dependent variables of teamwork behaviors or team performance [ 32 ]. The specific moderators that we assessed included: (a) the team context/field of study, (b) the type of teams that were trained, (c) the primary type of intervention method employed, (d) the dimensions of teamwork that were targeted in the intervention, (e) the number of dimensions targeted, (f) the types of measures used to quantify the training effects, and (g) in studies where teamwork was assessed as an outcome variable, the dimensions of teamwork that were measured. It was hypothesized that teamwork training would have a positive and significant effect on both teamwork and team performance and that these effects would be evident across a range of the aforementioned sample, intervention, and measurement characteristics/conditions.

Literature Search

Searches for potential articles were conducted in the following databases: PsycInfo , Medline , Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials , SportDiscus , and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses . Hand searches were also conducted across thirteen journals that typically publish articles on group dynamics (e.g., Group Dynamics : Theory , Research , and Practice ; Small Group Research , Journal of Applied Psychology ; Personnel Psychology , Human Factors ; Academy of Management Journal , Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology ). In each database and journal search, the following combination of search terms were used: ( team OR interprofessional OR interdisciplinary ) AND ( intervention OR training OR building OR simulation ) AND ( teamwork OR mission analysis OR goal specification OR goal setting OR planning OR strategy OR coordination OR cooperation OR communication OR information exchange OR information sharing OR monitoring OR problem solving OR backing up OR coaching OR innovation OR adaptability OR feedback OR support OR conflict management OR situation awareness OR confidence building OR affect management ). These terms were based on various models of teamwork that exist within the literature (see Rousseau et al. [ 2 ] for an overview of these models). An additional search was conducted within these databases and journals using the search terms ( TeamSTEPPS OR Crew Resource Management OR SBAR [Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation]), as several articles in the initial search used these specific training programs. We also searched the reference sections of the articles from past teamwork training review papers as well as from articles that initially met inclusion criteria to determine if any additional articles could be retrieved. The searches were conducted in September 2015 and no time limits were placed on the search strategy. Each article was first subjected to title elimination, then abstract elimination, and finally full-text elimination.

Eligibility Criteria

To be included in the meta-analysis, a study needed to examine the effects of teamwork training by comparing teams in an experimental condition (i.e., those who received teamwork training) with those in a control condition (i.e., where teams did not receive teamwork training). Cross-sectional/non-experimental studies were excluded, as were intervention studies that did not include a control condition. As this review was only concerned with teamwork interventions, studies that focused on training taskwork—whether independent of, or in addition to, a teamwork intervention—were excluded. For example, as previously mentioned, simulation-based training (SBT) has been used as a means of training individuals to perform technical skills and also to enhance teamwork. In order for a SBT intervention to be included in this meta-analysis, it had to be clear that only teamwork (not technical skills) was being targeted during training. In order to address our primary research question, the study had to provide data on at least one teamwork dimension and/or team performance. The study also needed to provide sufficient statistics to compute an effect size. In cases of insufficient data, corresponding authors were contacted for this information. The articles were delimited to those published in the English language.

Data Analysis

Articles that met the aforementioned eligibility criteria were extracted for effect sizes and coded independently with respect to seven moderators by two of the authors (DM and GR). Interrater reliability for the coding of these moderators was over 90%, kappa (SE) = 0.80 (0.01). The moderators examined were based on a scoping review (the purpose of which included identifying pertinent characteristics that were commonly reported in previous teamwork intervention research), which was conducted in preparation for this systematic review. The moderators that were examined in this review included (1) the context within which an intervention was conducted ( health care , aviation , military , academia , industry , or laboratory experiment) , (2) the type of team targeted ( intact or new ), (3) the primary training method applied to conduct the intervention ( didactic education , workshop , simulation , or team reviews ), (4) the dimension(s) of teamwork ( preparation , execution , reflection , and/or interpersonal dynamics ) targeted in the intervention as well as (5) the number of dimensions targeted (between one and four), (6) the type of measure used to derive effect sizes ( self-report , third party , or objective measures ), and—when teamwork was assessed as the criterion variable—(7) the specific dimension(s) of teamwork that were measured ( general , preparation , execution , reflection , and interpersonal dynamics ).

Once coded, data were entered into the software Comprehensive Meta-Analysis , Version 2 [ 33 ] and analyzed as a random-effects model (DerSimonian and Laird approach). This type of model assumes that there is heterogeneity in the effect sizes across the included studies and is the appropriate model to use in social science research, as opposed to a fixed-effects model (which assumes that effect sizes do not vary from study to study) [ 34 , 35 ]. Where possible, effect sizes for each study were derived from means, standard deviations, and sample sizes at baseline and post-intervention [ 34 , 36 ]. If these statistics were not fully provided, they were supplemented with F -statistics, t scores, correlations, and p -values to compute the effect size. Each study was given a relative weight based on its precision, which is determined by the study’s sample size, standard error, and confidence interval (i.e., the more precise the data, the larger the relative study weight) [ 34 ].

In instances where a study provided data to calculate multiple effect sizes (such as when several measures of the criterion variable—teamwork or team performance—were examined), these effects were combined into one overall effect size statistic (i.e., a weighted average) for that study. This was done to ensure that those studies that had multiple measures of teamwork or team performance were not given greater weight compared to studies that only provided one effect size (i.e., only had one measure of performance or teamwork), which could potentially skew the overall results [ 34 ]. The exception to this was when articles reported the effects of more than one intervention (i.e., had multiple experimental conditions), each of which had a unique teamwork training protocol. In these cases, an effect size from each intervention was computed. Thus, these articles would contribute multiple effect sizes to the total number of comparisons within the meta-analysis. To correct for potential unit-of-analysis errors in these particular articles, the sample size of the control condition was divided by the number of within-study comparisons [ 31 ]. For example, if three different types of teamwork interventions were compared to one control condition (e.g., which had a sample size of 30 participants), the n of the control condition was divided by 3 (i.e., 30/3 = 10) when calculating the effect sizes of those interventions. Cohen’s d was used as the effect size metric to represent the standardized effect (i.e., the average magnitude of effectiveness) of teamwork interventions on teamwork and team performance [ 37 ]. Standard errors and 95% confidence intervals were computed to test for the accuracy of the standardized effects obtained.

To reduce heterogeneity and improve the interpretability of the results, we pooled studies into those that measured teamwork as its criterion variable and those that measured team performance. Pooling studies in this manner not only reduces heterogeneity but also allowed us to identify the extent to which teamwork interventions impact team performance and, separately, the extent to which they affect teamwork processes. Heterogeneity within the meta-analysis was also assessed by computing a Q value—which estimates the variability in the observed effect sizes across studies—and an I 2 statistic—which estimates the ratio of the true heterogeneity to the total observed variation across studies. High Q and I 2 statistics can be problematic for interpreting the results of a meta-analysis and can also indicate that the meta-analysis includes outlier studies. We also planned to identify and exclude outliers from subsequent moderator analyses in two ways. First, sensitivity analyses were carried out by removing a single intervention from the meta-analysis and noting the resulting effect size—this estimates the impact that each individual intervention has on the overall effect size of teamwork or team performance. If the resulting effect size with an intervention removed (i.e., K– 1) is substantially different than the effect size with that intervention present, this may suggest that it is an outlier and needs to be removed [ 34 ]. Second, we noted any studies that had abnormally high effect sizes and standardized residuals (above 3.0), especially when these values were accompanied by narrow confidence intervals. If heterogeneity ( Q and I 2 ) is substantially reduced upon removal of a study, this further confirms that the study is an outlier and should be omitted from subsequent subgroup/moderator analyses.

Once the two pools of studies were produced, bias within each pool was assessed. First, publication bias was examined by calculating a fail-safe N statistic, which estimates the number of unpublished studies with null findings that would have to exist to reduce the obtained effect size to zero [ 38 ]. If this number is sufficiently large—Rosenberg [ 39 ] recommends a critical value of 5 N +10—then the probability of such a number of studies existing is considered to be low. For example, if 20 studies were included in a meta-analysis, then the resulting fail-safe N should be larger than 110 (i.e., 5*20 + 10); if this value was not larger than 110, then publication bias is likely within this pool of studies. We also obtained two funnel plots (one for studies where teamwork was the outcome variable and one for team performance as the outcome) to provide a visual depiction of potential publication bias. We then conducted an Egger’s test as a measure of symmetry for these two funnel plots. If this test statistic is significant ( p < 0.05), this denotes that the distribution around the effect size is asymmetric and publication bias is likely present [ 34 ].

The literature search from the five databases returned 22,066 articles, while the hand searches of the 13 journals returned 3797 articles, vetting of studies from previous team training reviews returned 191 articles, and the ancestry search of reference lists returned 471 articles (see Fig 1 ). After removing duplicates, 16,849 articles were subject to title and abstract screening, where they were dichotomously coded as ‘potentially relevant’ or ‘clearly not relevant’. 1517 potentially relevant articles were then full-text reviewed and coded as meeting eligibility criteria or as ineligible for the following reasons: (1) not a teamwork intervention; (2) teamwork-plus-taskwork intervention; (3) insufficient statistics to compute an effect size; (4) not including a measure of teamwork or team performance; or (5) not including a control group. As a result of this eligibility coding, 51 articles were included in the meta-analysis. 13 of these studies reported results on two or more interventions, bringing the total number of comparisons ( k ) to 72 with 8439 participants (4966 experimental, 3473 control). See S1 Table for descriptions of each study with regard to study context, type of team and participants, targeted teamwork dimensions of the intervention, number of effect sizes, the criteria measured, and an overview of the intervention.

Summary Statistics

Results of the overall effect of teamwork interventions on teamwork processes along with summary statistics and sensitivity analyses (i.e., the final column marked ‘ES with study removed’) for this pool of studies are presented in Table 1 . This pool included a total of 39 interventions from 33 studies. The results revealed that teamwork interventions had a significant, medium-to-large effect on teamwork, d ( SE ) = 0.683 (0.13), 95% CI = 0.43–0.94, Z = 5.23, p < 0.001; Q ( df ) = 660.7 (38), I 2 = 94.2. The funnel plot for this pool of studies is shown in Fig 2 . The fail-safe N was 3598, which is sufficiently large, as it exceeds the critical value of 205 (5*39+10). The funnel plot for this pool of studies is presented in Fig 2 . Egger’s value for this funnel plot was not significant ( B = 0.364, SE = 1.30, 95% CI = -2.26–2.99, t = 0.28, p = 0.78), which also suggests that bias was not present. Two studies were identified as outliers within this pool of studies: Morey et al. [ 3 ] and Marshall et al. [ 22 ]. The resulting effect size when these studies were excluded was d (SE) = 0.550 (0.08), 95% CI = 0.39–0.71, Z = 6.73, p < 0.001; Q ( df ) = 187.53 (36), I 2 = 80.8. Subsequent moderator analyses were conducted with these two outlier studies being omitted.

Circles filled with black indicate outlier studies.

Note . a, b, c = intervention groups within study; SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval; ES = effect size.

* = Study identified as an outlier and removed from subsequent moderator analyses.

The final column marked ‘ES with study removed’ indicates the results of the sensitivity analysis for each respective intervention.

Results of the overall effect of teamwork interventions on team performance as well as summary statistics and sensitivity analyses (i.e., the final column marked ‘ES with intervention removed’) for this pool of studies are presented in Table 2 . This pool of studies included a total of 50 interventions from 32 studies. It was shown that teamwork interventions had a significant, large effect on team performance— d ( SE ) = 0.919 (0.14), 95% CI = 0.65–1.19, Z = 6.72, p < 0.001; Q ( df ) = 851.3 (49), I 2 = 94.2. The funnel plot for this pool of studies is shown in Fig 3 . The fail-safe N was 6692, which is sufficiently large, as it exceeds the critical value of 260 (5*50+10). The funnel plot for this pool of studies is presented in Fig 3 . Egger’s value for this funnel plot was not significant ( B = 0.131, SE = 1.19, 95% CI = -2.26–2.54, t = 0.11, p = 0.91), which also implies that bias was not present. There were five outlier interventions (from four studies) in this pool of studies that assessed team performance: Morey et al. [ 3 ], Smith-Jentsch et al. [ 4 ], one of the interventions from Buller and Bell [ 63 ]; teambuilding condition), and both interventions from Bushe and Coetzer [ 43 ]. When these outliers were removed, the resulting effect size was d ( SE ) = 0.582 (0.06), 95% CI = 0.47–0.69, Z = 10.30, p < 0.001; Q ( df ) = 101.1 (44), I 2 = 56.5. Subsequent moderator analyses were conducted with these five interventions omitted.

Note . a, b, c, d = intervention groups within study; SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval; ES = effect size.

Moderator Analyses

The results of the moderator analyses are shown in Table 3 (for teamwork behaviors) and Table 4 (for team performance). With respect to sample characteristics, significant positive effects of teamwork interventions were found for enhancing teamwork across all contexts ( d s = 0.46–1.23) except for the single effect size from an industry setting ( d = 0.50). In terms of team performance, significant effects were evident across all settings ( d s = 0.40–1.76). In addition, interventions were effective for enhancing teamwork with intact teams ( d = 0.33) and newly-formed teams ( d = 0.67), with the effect size for new teams being significantly larger ( Q = 4.04, p = 0.004) than that for existing teams. Teamwork training was also effective at fostering team performance for both team types; however, in contrast to the findings on teamwork, the effect size for intact teams ( d = 0.99) was significantly larger ( Q = 6.04, p = 0.02) than that for new teams ( d = 0.54).

Note . The df of the Q-value represents the total number of combinations of the targeted dimensions minus 1.

a : The total k of this moderator is greater than 37 as many interventions targeted more than one dimension of teamwork. Because of this, each category within this moderator was analyzed independently (i.e., whether each teamwork dimension was targeted or not targeted in the intervention); as a result, it was not possible to calculate a Q value for this moderator.

b : The total k of this moderator is less than 37 as seven interventions were unclear in terms of the exact teamwork dimensions targeted.

c : The total k of this moderator is greater than 37 as many studies used more than one type of criterion measure of teamwork. Because of this, each category within this moderator was analyzed independently.

a : The total k of this moderator is greater than 45 as many interventions targeted more than one dimension of teamwork. Because of this, each category within this moderator was analyzed independently (i.e., whether each teamwork dimension was targeted or not targeted in the intervention); as a result, it was not possible to calculate a Q value for this moderator.

b : The total k of this moderator is less than 45 as one intervention was unclear in terms of the exact teamwork dimensions targeted.

c : The total k of this moderator is greater than 45 as many studies used more than one type of criterion measure of team performance. Because of this, each category within this moderator was analyzed independently.

Three intervention characteristics were analyzed as potential moderators. First, with regard to the intervention method utilized, significant effects on teamwork were found for workshop training ( d = 0.50), simulation-based teamwork training ( d = 0.78), and team reviews ( d = 0.64) but not for didactic education ( d = 0.19). All training methods were effective for enhancing team performance ( d s = 0.41–0.69). Second, significant effects of training on teamwork were evident when two or more dimensions of teamwork were targeted ( d s = 0.65–0.98) but not when only one dimension was targeted ( d = 0.05). Team performance, however, improved significantly as a result of teamwork training regardless of the number of teamwork dimensions that were targeted ( d s = 0.46–0.67). Third, significant effects were shown regardless of which dimension (i.e., preparation, execution, reflection, interpersonal dynamics) was targeted for both teamwork ( d s = 0.64–0.75) and team performance ( d s = 0.52–0.60).

With regard to measurement characteristics, significant improvements on teamwork emerged when either third-party ( d = 0.80) or self-report ( d = 0.38) measures of teamwork were utilized; the effect size for third-party measures was significantly larger ( Q = 6.02, p = 0.014) than the effect size for self-report measures. For team performance outcomes, significant effects were shown for both objective ( d = 0.61) and third-party measures ( d = 0.56). Finally, significant effects on teamwork were found when general/omnibus measures of teamwork were taken ( d = 0.71), as well as when a specific dimension of teamwork was measured ( d s = 0.45–0.70).

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to quantify the effects of the extant controlled experimental research of teamwork training interventions on teamwork and team performance. We found positive and significant medium-to-large sized effects for these interventions on teamwork and large effects on team performance. When outlier studies were removed, medium-sized effects were found for both criteria. Additional subgroup/moderator analyses also revealed several notable findings, each of which will be discussed in turn. The paper concludes with a discussion of the limitations associated with this meta-analysis as well as considerations for future teamwork training research.

Who Can Benefit From Teamwork Training?

With regard to sample characteristics, teamwork interventions were shown to be effective at enhancing both teamwork and team performance across a variety of team contexts, including laboratory settings as well as real-world contexts of health care, aviation, military, and academia. This highlights the efficacy of teamwork training as a means of improving teams; this is an important finding as effective teams (i.e., those that work well together and perform at a high level) are vital in many of the aforementioned contexts. For example, it has been estimated that approximately 70% of adverse events in medical settings are not due to individuals’ technical errors but, rather, as a result of breakdowns in teamwork [ 78 ]. Thus, there is a critical need to ensure that teams are effective across these settings, as these teams greatly impact (among other things) the welfare of others. The results of this meta-analysis suggest that teamwork training can indeed be a useful way of enhancing team effectiveness within these contexts.

We also examined whether there were differential effects of teamwork training for new teams compared to intact teams. It was shown that these interventions were effective for both team types. The effects of teamwork training on teamwork outcomes were significantly larger for new teams (who showed a medium-to-large effect size) compared to existing teams (who had a small-to-medium effect size). Interestingly, when we examined team performance as the criterion variable, the training effects were significantly larger for intact teams (who showed a large effect size) compared to newly-formed teams (who again showed a medium-to-large effect size). It should be noted that there were many more studies conducted with new teams compared to intact teams—thus, caution should be exercised in directly comparing these findings. Nonetheless, at this point, the existing research seems to suggest that teamwork interventions work particularly well at enhancing teamwork processes for newly established teams—and also work with existing teams—but not the same extent. It is possible that teamwork processes might be more malleable and display greater potential for improvement with new teams compared to more established teams whose teamwork processes may be more entrenched. On the other hand, it is notable that the effects of teamwork training on team performance were stronger for established teams. In line with this, it is plausible that, while intact teams may show less pronounced changes in teamwork, they might be better able to translate their teamwork training into improved team performance outcomes.

What Type of Training Works?

Three moderator variables were assessed with regard to intervention characteristics. First, with regard to the training method utilized, it was shown that all four training methods were effective for enhancing team performance. These included the provision of didactic lectures/presentations, workshops, simulation training, and review-type activities conducted in situ. Although significant effects were shown for the latter three training methods for teamwork outcomes, those interventions that targeted didactic instruction did not result in significant improvements in teamwork itself. This suggests that simply providing educational lectures wherein team members passively learn about teamwork is not an effective way of improving teamwork. When taken together these findings suggest that teamwork training should incorporate experiential activities that provide participants with more active ways of learning and practising teamwork. These may include various workshop-style exercises that involve all team members, such as working through case studies of how teams can improve teamwork, watching and critiquing video vignettes of teams displaying optimal versus suboptimal teamwork, discussing and setting teamwork-related goals and action plans, or other activities that help stimulate critical thinking and active learning of effective teamwork. Teams may also find it useful to conduct simulations of specific team tasks that the group is likely to encounter in-situ, such as aviation teams using an airplane simulator, surgical teams conducting mock-surgeries on medical manikins, military teams practising various field missions, and so on. Teamwork can be also fostered by having team members participate in team reviews/briefings before, during, and/or after the execution of team tasks that occur in-situ. In summary, simply lecturing about the importance of teamwork is not sufficient to create meaningful improvements in teamwork; rather, substantive positive effects can be derived by having team members engage in activities that require them to actively learn about and practise teamwork.

We also sought to assess how comprehensive an intervention should be—specifically, the number of teamwork dimensions that need to be targeted—in order to be effective. With regard to improving team performance, there were significant effects when one or more dimensions were targeted. However, in terms of improving teamwork behaviors, significant effects only emerged when two or more dimensions were targeted. From an applied perspective, individuals concerned with intervention (e.g., team consultants, coaches, managers, team leaders) can utilize these findings by targeting more than one dimension of teamwork within their training protocol. For instance, if the purpose of an intervention is to improve a health care team’s communication, greater effects may be derived by not merely targeting communication during the execution phase alone (e.g., with a structured communication tool), but by also incorporating strategies that target other dimensions of teamwork, such as setting goals and action plans for how communication will be improved (i.e., the preparation dimension of teamwork) as well as monitoring progress towards those goals, resolving any communication-related problems that arise, and making adjustments to action plans as necessary (i.e., the reflection dimension).

Relatedly, we sought to address whether there were differential effects of teamwork interventions on teamwork and team performance based on the dimensions of teamwork that were targeted. It was found that interventions had a significant effect on both teamwork behaviors and team performance when any dimension of teamwork was targeted. This is important as it means that if those concerned with intervention target any one of the four dimensions of teamwork, this will likely result in improvements in team functioning. While the preparation (i.e., behaviors occurring before team task performance such as setting goals and action plans), execution (i.e., intra-task behaviors such as communication and coordination), and reflection (i.e., behaviors occurring following task performance such as performance monitoring and problem solving) dimensions have each been theorized to be implicated in fostering team performance [ 2 , 79 ], is particularly noteworthy that interventions targeting the interpersonal dynamics of a team (i.e., managing interpersonal conflict and the provision of social support between members) also displayed significant effects in relation to team performance. Specifically, efforts to enhance interpersonal processes have generally been theorized to be related to supporting team maintenance more so than supporting team performance [ 2 , 79 ]. However, the results from the current review provide evidence that training teams with regard to social support and interpersonal conflict management processes may actually be a useful way to enhance team performance. While the exact reason for this effect is not immediately clear from this review, it may be that improving interpersonal dynamics has an indirect relationship with team performance. That is, teamwork training focused on improving social support and conflict management may improve the functioning of a team, which, in turn, improves the team’s performance. As Marks et al. [ 10 ] contend, these interpersonal processes “lay the foundation for the effectiveness of other processes” (p. 368). Relatedly, Rousseau et al. [ 2 ] suggest that problems related to social support and conflict management “may prevent team members from fully contributing to task accomplishment or from effectively regulating team performance” (p. 557). Further research examining this potential relationship is required as this would have implications in both research and applied teamwork settings.

Does It Matter How Criterion Variables Are Measured?

Two measurement characteristics were examined as moderators within this meta-analysis. First, significant, large- and small-to-medium sized effects were found for third party and self-report measures of teamwork, respectively. Significant medium effects were also evident for third party and objective measures of team performance. It is worth noting that significantly larger effect sizes emerged for third party assessments of teamwork compared to self-report measures. Taken together, these findings suggest that the positive effects that were found for teamwork interventions are not merely perceptive and/or due to individuals’ self-report biases (i.e., social desirability). Rather, these results indicate that the effects of these interventions on both teamwork and team performance are clearly observable with measures beyond self-report indices.

Finally, we sought to assess whether the effects of teamwork training varied based on which teamwork dimension(s) were measured. Medium-to-large effects emerged when general/omnibus measures of teamwork—that is, those that provided an overall score of teamwork as opposed to examining individual dimensions of teamwork—were taken. Measures that tapped into the specific dimensions of teamwork (e.g., those that provided individual scores on preparation, execution, reflection, and interpersonal dynamics) also yielded comparable effect sizes. Hence, teamwork interventions appear to have a somewhat similar effect on each of the components of teamwork. In summary, the results of the above two moderators (i.e., type of measure and dimension of teamwork examined) suggest that teamwork training has a positive impact on teamwork and team performance regardless of the way in which these variables are assessed.

Limitations

Despite the contributions of this meta-analytic review, it is not without limitations. First, there were additional variables that we had planned to analyze as moderators a priori including team size and length of/contact time within the intervention. However, there was an insufficient amount of reliable data across the studies on these variables to conduct these subgroup analyses appropriately. For instance, although many studies noted the total number of participants within an organization (e.g., a hospital) that took part in an intervention, information on the size of the teams within the organization (e.g., various units within the hospital) was often missing. Team composition variables such as this have been noted as important factors to take into account when examining teams (e.g., [ 30 , 80 ]). Similarly, although some studies were explicit about the total length of the intervention and the contact time between interventionists and participating teams, this information was not provided consistently. This too would have been a valuable feature to analyze in order to provide more specific recommendations about how teamwork training programs should be designed—that is, how long an intervention should last? Unfortunately, due to the paucity of information available in the included manuscripts, we were unable to determine whether these variables moderated the observed effects of teamwork training on teamwork and team performance in the current meta-analysis.

Furthermore, there was a considerable amount of variability within some of the moderator categories that were coded. For instance, with regard to intervention methods, ‘workshops’ consisted of many different types of activities including team charter sessions, strategy planning meetings, case study activities, and so on. Combining these activities into one category was done for the sake of being adequately powered to conduct moderator analyses (i.e., include a sufficient number of studies within each of the resulting categories). However, while the above examples are indeed activities that teams do together, they are of course each different in their own ways. Hence, although it is evident that workshop-type activities are effective overall, it is unclear if specific workshop activities are more effective than others. This example underscores the difficulty that can occur when trying to balance statistical power with accuracy for each moderator category when conducting subgroup analyses in a meta-analysis.

Relatedly, effect sizes were only computed with the statistics that were provided from baseline and post-intervention, even if studies provided additional data on teamwork and/or performance at some other point in between or at a follow-up point in time (although it is worth noting that relatively few studies actually did this). This was done in order to minimize heterogeneity within the meta-analysis and improve the interpretability of the results (i.e., determining the effects of teamwork training from pre- to post-intervention). However, by not taking these measurement time-points into consideration, two questions in particular are raised. First, do certain dimensions of teamwork and team performance evolve differently over time and, if so, how? For instance, do improvements in teamwork occur immediately in response to training and then plateau; or do they improve in a slower, more linear fashion from the onset of training? Second, what are the long-term implications of teamwork training? That is, does teamwork training result in sustained improvements in teamwork and team performance beyond the intervention period or do these effects eventually wane? Answers to these types of research questions would certainly be of interest to teamwork researchers and applied practitioners.

Future Directions

In addition to summarizing the previous research on teamwork interventions for improving teamwork and team performance, the findings from this systematic review also highlight several potential avenues of future research. First, with regard to sample characteristics, the majority of studies that examined the effects of teamwork interventions on team performance were conducted within laboratory settings, with relatively fewer controlled studies having been conducted in real-world settings. Thus, although significant effects on team performance (and teamwork) were found in health care, aviation, military, and academic settings, the extant literature would be strengthened by conducting further controlled intervention research within these contexts. It was also shown that teamwork training was less effective for improving teamwork for intact teams compared to new teams. Since many teams seeking teamwork training are likely to be intact, it is important that future research continue to test various training strategies that can be utilized with these types of teams. In addition, there are other contexts in which controlled interventions have not yet been conducted such as with police squads, firefighting crews, sports teams, political parties, and so on. Research in these areas is clearly ripe for future inquiry.

Further research on the ideal combination of teamwork dimensions (i.e., preparation and/or execution and/or reflection and/or interpersonal dynamics) targeted in an intervention would also enhance our current knowledge in terms of how to train teamwork most effectively and efficiently. We had originally planned to further assess this moderator by conducting a method co-occurrence analysis [ 81 ]. Specifically, since there would likely be a variety of combinations of dimensions that were targeted in the teamwork interventions (e.g., preparation only; preparation and execution; preparation, execution, reflection, and interpersonal dynamics; etc), we had hoped to examine if there would be differential effects of these combinations with regard to intervention effectiveness. Unfortunately, since there were such a large number of combinations of dimensions targeted in the included studies, there was an insufficient number of interventions that fell into each category. We were, therefore, unable to pursue this method co-occurrence analysis [ 81 ] of the various combinations of dimensions. Thus, although our findings suggest that interventions are more effective when two or more dimensions are targeted, further research that examines the effects of the ideal combinations of these dimensions would certainly enhance our current knowledge of teamwork training. For example, if the objective of teamwork training is to improve the coordination and cooperation of the team, should the training also target (in addition to targeting these execution behaviors) both the preparation and reflection dimensions of training (or simply one or the other)? Answering such complex questions will help to advance our understanding of what makes for an effective teamwork training program.

Balanced against the contributions and insights provided by the various moderator analyses conducted in this study, the overall take-home message is that teamwork training is an effective way to foster teamwork and team performance. These effects appear to be evident across a range of samples, utilizing numerous intervention methods, and when considering various measurement characteristics. Interventions appear to be particularly effective when they target multiple dimensions of teamwork and include experiential activities for team members to actively learn about, practise, and continually develop teamwork.

Supporting Information

Summaries of each study and intervention included in the meta-analysis is provided in the S1 Table.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Checklist [ 82 ] for this review is presented in the S1 File.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Data Availability

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser or activate Google Chrome Frame to improve your experience.

Gr 11 T4 W3 Business Studies Lesson: Team Dynamics & Conflict Management

2020 FET Gr 11 Term 4 week 3 Business Studies Lesson: Team Dynamics & Conflict Management

Do you have an educational app, video, ebook, course or eResource?

Contribute to the Western Cape Education Department's ePortal to make a difference.

Home Contact us Terms of Use Privacy Policy Western Cape Government © 2024. All rights reserved.

BUSINESS STUDIES GRADE 12 QUESTIONS - NSC PAST PAPERS AND MEMOS NOVEMBER 2019

BUSINESS STUDIES GRADE 12 NATIONAL SENIOR CERTIFICATE EXAMINATIONS NOVEMBER 2019

INSTRUCTIONS AND INFORMATION Read the following instructions carefully before answering the questions.

• This question paper consists of THREE sections and covers all FOUR main topics. SECTION A: COMPULSORY SECTION B: Consists of FIVE questions Answer any THREE of the five questions in this section. SECTION C: Consists of FOUR questions Answer any TWO of the four questions in this section.
• Read the instructions for each question carefully and take particular note of what is required. Note that ONLY the first THREE questions in SECTION B and the first TWO questions in SECTION C will be marked.
• Number the answers correctly according to the numbering system used in this question paper. NO marks will be awarded for answers that are numbered incorrectly.
• Except where other instructions are given, answers must be in full sentences.
• Use the table below as a guide for mark and time allocation when answering each question
• Begin the answer to EACH question on a NEW page, e.g. QUESTION 1 – new page, QUESTION 2 – new page.
• You may use a non-programmable calculator.
• Write neatly and legibly.

SECTION A (COMPULSORY) QUESTION 1 1.1 Various options are provided as possible answers to the following questions. Choose the answer and write only the letter (A–D) next to the question numbers (1.1.1 to 1.1.10) in the ANSWER BOOK, e.g. 1.1.11 D. 1.1.1 The aim of this Act is to protect consumers against unfair reckless lending by businesses:

• Consumer Protection Act (CPA), 2008 (Act 68 of 2008)
• Employment Equity Act (EEA), 1998 (Act 55 of 1998)
• National Credit Act (NCA), 2005 (Act 34 of 2005)
• Labour Relations Act (LRA), 1995 (Act 66 of 1995)

1.1.2 Teddy Car Manufacturers implemented the … integration strategy when they bought Tail Motors Spares.

1.1.3 ABC Paints operate in the … sector as they specialise in the manufacturing of paint.

1.1.4 William, the manager of Eden Supermarket, applies the … leadership style when delegating tasks to followers without supervision.

• bureaucratic
• laissez-faire/free-reign
• charismatic

1.1.5 The … company provides essential services such as water and electricity at reasonable prices.

• personal liability
• state-owned

1.1.6 An example of a non-verbal presentation is information in the form of a/an …

• written report.
• data projector.
• video conferencing.
• oral report.

1.1.7 This problem-solving technique requires each employee to first generate his/her own ideas and then share them with members:

• Brainstorming
• Force-field analysis
• Empty chair technique
• Nominal group technique

1.1.8 Goal Ltd contributes towards the well-being of their employees by …

• giving them the right to freedom of association.
• providing recreational facilities.
• allowing them longer break intervals despite tight deadlines.
• providing transport to all employees regardless of working hours.

1.1.9 The … function ensures reliable capturing and storing of data/ information.

• human resource
• administration

1.1.10 The process of matching a new employee's skills and abilities with the requirements of a job is known as ...

• recruitment.
• training. (10 x 2) (20)

1.2 Complete the following statements by using the words provided in the list below. Write only the word(s) next to the question numbers (1.2.1 to 1.2.5) in the ANSWER BOOK. simple interest; quality management; health and safety representative; one and a half of; recruitment; employer; compound interest; double; screening; quality 1.2.1 Ricky received … his normal rate of pay for working on a public holiday. 1.2.2 Thandeka earned … calculated on the principal amount and accumulated interest. 1.2.3 The responsibility of the … is to provide all the necessary equipment for workers to perform their duties in a favourable work environment. 1.2.4 The ability of goods/services to meet the specific needs of customers/clients, is known as … 1.2.5 Candidates' application forms are checked against the requirements of the job during the … process. (5 x 2) (10) 1.3 Choose a description from COLUMN B that matches a term in COLUMN A. Write only the letter (A–J) next to the question numbers (1.3.1 to 1.3.5) in the ANSWER BOOK, e.g. 1.3.6 K.

(5 x 2) (10) TOTAL SECTION A: 40 SECTION B Answer ANY THREE questions in this section. NOTE: Clearly indicate the QUESTION NUMBER of each question that you choose. The answer to EACH question must start on a NEW page, e.g. QUESTION 2 on a NEW page, QUESTION 3 on a NEW page.

QUESTION 2: BUSINESS ENVIRONMENTS 2.1 Name THREE types of diversification strategies. (3) 2.2 Outline the role of SETAs in supporting the Skills Development Act (SDA), 1998 (Act 97 of 1998). (8) 2.3 Identify the leave provision stipulated in the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA), 1997 (Act 75 of 1997) that Quick Shoe Manufacturers complied with in EACH statement below: 2.3.1 Ruth, the secretary, was allowed to stay home for four consecutive months after her baby was born. 2.3.2 Ashley, the supervisor, is entitled to take up to 21 days leave per year. 2.3.3 John, the financial clerk, was given permission to take three to five days off work to attend to his sick mother. 2.3.4 Zodwa, the production manager, brought a medical certificate for taking three days off to recover from flu. (8) 2.4 Explain the purpose of the Labour Relations Act (LRA), 1995 (Act 66 of 1995). (8) 2.5 Discuss any THREE consumer rights as stipulated in the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), 2008 (Act 68 of 2008). (9) 2.6 Read the scenario below and answer the questions that follow. MEAT MARKET LTD Meat Market Ltd specialises in supplying fresh meat to customers. The company gave some of its shares to their previously disadvantaged employees. They were also offered learnership programmes. 2.6.1 Name the Act that Meat Market Ltd is complying with in the scenario above. (2) 2.6.2 Identify TWO pillars of the Act identified in QUESTION 2.6.1 that Meat Market Ltd implemented. Motivate your answer by quoting from the scenario above. Use the table below as a GUIDE to answer QUESTION 2.6.2.

(6) 2.7 Explain how the following PESTLE elements/factors may pose challenges to businesses: 2.7.1 Economic (4) 2.7.2 Social (4) 2.8 Suggest practical ways in which businesses may comply with the Employment Equity Act (EEA), 1998 (Act 55 of 1998). (8) [60]

QUESTION 3: BUSINESS VENTURES 3.1 State FOUR types of preference shares. (4) 3.2 Outline the advantages of unit trusts as a form of investment. (8) 3.3 Read the scenario below and answer the questions that follow. MOUNTAIN HOTEL (MH) Sihle, the owner of Mountain Hotel, applies the democratic leadership style in managing his employees. He has a positive attitude and knows that there is always more to learn. Sihle models the behaviour that he wants to see in his followers. 3.3.1 Quote TWO roles of personal attitude in successful leadership displayed by Sihle in the scenario above. (2) 3.3.2 Advise Sihle on the impact of the democratic leadership style on MH as a business. (8) 3.4 Discuss the importance of insurance for businesses. (8) 3.5 Explain the following factors that may be considered when making investment decisions: 3.5.1 Return on investment (4) 3.5.2 Liquidity (4) 3.6 Read the scenario below and answer the questions that follow. TOP TRADERS (TT) Top Traders bought stock worth R400 000, but insured it for R300 000. A fire in the warehouse destroyed stock to the value of R60 000. 3.6.1 Name the insurance clause that is applicable to the scenario above. (2) 3.6.2 Calculate the amount that Top Traders will receive as compensation from the insurer. Show ALL calculations. (4) 3.7 Discuss the advantages of a non-profit company as a form of ownership. (8) 3.8 Advise businesses on how management and legislation could contribute to the success and/or failure of a public company. (8) [60]

QUESTION 4: BUSINESS ROLES 4.1 State FOUR steps in problem-solving. (4) 4.2 Elaborate on the roles of the health and safety representatives in protecting the workplace environment. (6) 4.3 Read the scenario below and answer the question that follows. NORMAN ACCOUNTING SERVICES (NAS) The management of Norman Accounting Services employs both males and females. They also encourage older employees to be mentors for young employees to develop their full potential. Identify TWO diversity issues that are applicable to NAS. Motivate your answer by quoting from the scenario above. Use the table below as a GUIDE to answer QUESTION 4.3.

(6) 4.4 Explain how businesses could apply the Delphi-technique to solve business problems. (8) 4.5 Discuss the advantages of creative thinking in the workplace. (6) 4.6 Read the scenario below and answer the questions that follow. JUNE TRADERS (JT) June Traders decided to invest their surplus profit in corporate social investments (CSI) projects. They invested in communities by donating school uniforms. Sporting facilities were also provided by JT to promote a healthy lifestyle. 4.6.1 Quote TWO ways in which JT contributed to the well-being of their communities. (2) 4.6.2 Discuss the impact of corporate social investment (CSI) on JT as a business. (6) 4.7 Explain how businesses can apply the King Code principles of transparency and accountability to improve their ethical business practices. (8) 4.8 Suggest ways in which businesses can deal with the following unethical/unprofessional business practices: 4.8.1 Pricing of goods in rural areas (4) 4.8.2 Abuse of work time (4) 4.9 Advise businesses on how they could promote the cultural rights of employees in the workplace. (6) [60]

QUESTION 5: BUSINESS OPERATIONS 5.1 Name FOUR methods/sources of external recruitment. (4) 5.2 Read the scenario below and answer the questions that follow. KHAN PRIVATE HOSPITAL (KPH) Khan Private Hospital has advertised a vacancy for a nurse. The advertisement includes the following aspects regarding the position:

• Applicants must have a diploma in nursing as a minimum requirement.
• Responsible for observing patients and giving medication.
• Two years' experience in nursing will be an advantage.
• Compiling daily reports on the progress of the patients. The advertisement indicates that only shortlisted candidates will be contacted for an interview.

5.2.1 Quote TWO examples of job description and TWO examples of job specification in the scenario above. Use the table below as a GUIDE to answer QUESTION 5.2.1.

(4) 5.2.2 Explain the role of the interviewee/applicant during the interview. (8) 5.3 Discuss the implications of the Skills Development Act (SDA), 1998 (Act 97 of 1998) on the human resources function. (6) 5.4 Evaluate the impact of fringe benefits on businesses. (8) 5.5 Elaborate on the meaning of quality performance. (4) 5.6 Read the scenario below and answer the question that follows. PURPLE ENTERPRISE (PE) Purple Enterprise is a large retail business that provides a variety of products. They prepare their own accounting records to ensure accurate tax payments. PE responded quickly when one of their clients was not happy with their service. Identify TWO business functions that are applicable to PE. Motivate your answer by quoting from the scenario above. Use the table below as a GUIDE to answer QUESTION 5.6.

(6) 5.7 Discuss the impact of TQM if poorly implemented by businesses. (8) 5.8 Explain the advantages of continuous improvement to processes and systems on large businesses. (6) 5.9 Recommend ways in which the quality of performance of the purchasing function could contribute to the success of the business. (6) [60]

QUESTION 6: MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS BUSINESS ENVIRONMENTS 6.1 Name THREE types of business environments and state the extent of control businesses have over EACH of these environments. Use the table below as a GUIDE to answer QUESTION 6.1.

(6) 6.2 Read the scenario below and answer the questions that follow. LEGEND PROJECTS (LP) The management provided the Commissioner with false information regarding serious accidents that took place at Legend Projects. They also bribed one of their employees not to report injuries sustained while performing his/her duties. 6.2.1 Identify the Act that is applicable in the scenario above. (2) 6.2.2 Quote TWO actions that can be regarded as discriminatory according to the Act identified in QUESTION 6.2.1. (2) 6.2.3 Advise the management of LP on penalties they could face for non-compliance with the Act identified in QUESTION 6.2.1. (4)

BUSINESS VENTURES 6.3 Identify the types of business investment opportunities that were used by Prime Plumbers in EACH statement below: 6.3.1 Prime Plumbers invested R50 000 for six months at 12% interest with a financial institution. 6.3.2 Prime Plumbers received dividends for their portion of ownership in Blue Range Ltd. (4) 6.4 Outline the functions of the Johannesburg Securities Exchange Ltd (JSE). (6) 6.5 Discuss the situational leadership theory. (6)

BUSINESS ROLES 6.6 State TWO criteria for successful team performance. (2) 6.7 Explain how businesses could deal with HIV/Aids as a socio-economic issue. (6) 6.8 Recommend ways in which businesses could create an environment that stimulates creative thinking in the workplace. (8)

BUSINESS OPERATIONS 6.9 Name any THREE steps of the PDCA model/cycle. (3) 6.10 Read the scenario below and answer the questions that follow. SKY LTD Helen has been working for Sky Ltd for the past 30 years. The management terminated her employment contract when she reached the age of 65. 6.10.1 Identify the reason why Helen's employment contract was terminated. Motivate your answer by quoting from the scenario above. (3) 6.10.2 Explain other reasons for the termination of an employment contract. (4) 6.11 Discuss the purpose of induction as a human resources activity. (4) [60]

TOTAL SECTION B: 180

SECTION C Answer ANY TWO questions in this section. NOTE:  Clearly indicate the QUESTION NUMBER of each question chosen. The answer to EACH question must start on a NEW page, e.g. QUESTION 7 on a NEW page, QUESTION 8 on a NEW page.

QUESTION 7: BUSINESS ENVIRONMENTS (BUSINESS STRATEGIES) Businesses realise the importance of the strategic management process when devising suitable business strategies. Some businesses maintain that Porter's Five Forces model plays an important role in remaining competitive in the market environment. Write an essay on business strategies in which you include the following aspects:

• Describe the strategic management process.
• Discuss the THREE types of defensive strategies that businesses may use to address challenges in the macro environment
• Explain how businesses could apply Porter's Five Forces model to analyse the market environment.
• Advise businesses on the steps they should consider when evaluating strategies. [40]

QUESTION 8: BUSINESS VENTURES (PRESENTATION AND INSURANCE) Mr Meyer, a sales representative, planned to make a presentation on the principles of insurance. He decided to use a PowerPoint slideshow to enhance his presentation. However, the presentation was unsuccessful due to his inability to handle feedback in a professional manner. Keeping the above scenario in mind, write an essay on presentation in which you include the following aspects:

• Outline the factors that Mr Meyer should consider during his presentation.
• Discuss any THREE principles of insurance.
• Evaluate the impact of a PowerPoint presentation.
• Advise Mr Meyer on how he can improve on his next presentation. [40]

QUESTION 9: BUSINESS ROLES (TEAM PERFORMANCE AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT) Businesses encourage employees to work in teams, which may lead to conflict sometimes. For this reason, it is important for businesses to familiarise themselves with the stages of team development. They should also find ways to deal with conflict and difficult people in the workplace. Write an essay on team performance and conflict management in which you address the following aspects:

• Describe FOUR stages of team development.
• Discuss the causes of conflict in the workplace.
• Explain how businesses could handle conflict in the workplace.
• Suggest ways in which businesses could deal with difficult people in the workplace. [40]

QUESTION 10: BUSINESS OPERATIONS (TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT) Total quality management (TQM) enables businesses to strive for continuous growth and customer satisfaction. The effective implementation of TQM elements will enable businesses to keep abreast with changes and to reduce the cost of quality. Write an essay on total quality management (TQM) in which you address the following aspects:

• Outline the benefits of a good quality management system.
• Distinguish between quality control and quality assurance.
• Total client/customer satisfaction
• Continuous skills development
• Adequate financing and capacity
• Suggest ways in which TQM can reduce the cost of quality. [40]

TOTAL SECTION C:80 GRAND TOTAL:300

Related items

• TECHNICAL SCIENCES PAPER 1 GRADE 12 QUESTIONS - NSC PAST PAPERS AND MEMOS JUNE 2022
• MATHEMATICS LITERACY PAPER 2 GRADE 12 QUESTIONS - NSC PAST PAPERS AND MEMOS JUNE 2022
• MATHEMATICS LITERACY PAPER 1 GRADE 12 QUESTIONS - NSC PAST PAPERS AND MEMOS JUNE 2022
• LIFE SCIENCES GRADE 12 QUESTIONS - NSC PAST PAPERS AND MEMOS JUNE 2022
• HISTORY PAPER 2 GRADE 12 QUESTIONS - NSC PAST PAPERS AND MEMOS JUNE 2022

Caps Business Studies 10

Caps bs 10 term 4 week 3 – 4 relationship and team performance, topic – relationship and team performance.

• Ways in which people need to work together to accomplish business objectives; discuss factors that can influence these relationships (e.g. prejudice, beliefs, values and diversity) — Understanding business objectives (e.g. profit, productivity, service) — Interpersonal relationships in the workplace (e.g. different hierarchies, management levels, the importance of each individual in achieving business objectives) — Personal beliefs and values and how they influence business relationships (e.g. prejudice, discrimination, equity, diversity) • Criteria for successful and collaborative team performance in a business context and assessment of a team against these criteria — Working in a team to accomplish business objectives, e.g. clear objectives and agreed goals, openness, mutual respect, support and mutual trust, members committed to achievement, sound inter-team relations, individual development opportunities, review of the team processes, etc.