Team collectivist culture: A remedy for creating team effectiveness

Abstract

This article provides a review of literature on collective orientation and effective teams by theoretically elucidating the relationship between these two constructs. The relationship between these two constructs is found by identifying the elements that go into creating an effective team, which are also found in a collectivist orientation. As those elements are identified, a model encompassing "team collectivist" corporate culture is proposed. The model depicts the development of team collectivist corporate culture, including members' attitudes, behaviors, and characteristics that reflect collectivist orientation that would aid in the development of effective teams, thus increasing performance and productivity within the organization. The model seeks to provide the Human Resource Development (HRD) professional with a tool that will (a) enable them to predict whether or not certain individuals have the potential to be an effective team player, (b) enable the organization to be proactive in building effective teams, and (c) allow team managers to diagnose and provide solutions to dysfunctional teams.Sony, a Japanese electronics company, used to be well known for its engineering expertise and its ability to produce innovative and successful products (Chandler, 2005). In the 1990s, the company produced on average four new ideas every day! Their ability to be creative came in large part from their collectivist culture and use of effective teams. At Sony, the collectivist culture emphasized communication, cooperation, and harmony between teams of engineers across the organization to facilitate change and innovativeness. Then changes happened within Sony and the external environment. As external competition from companies like Nokia and Apple became more intense, Sony had trouble responding to these changes. Engineers were given freedom to pursue their own ideas, and managers took individual credit for their own McAtavey, Nikolovska success. Managers began to share less with other divisions. This trouble seemed to stem in part from Sony' s change in culture and the long-standing tradition of lifelong employment. Top managers became more individualistic, acting as if they had complete control of their domain, and teamwork declined tremendously. Competition increased, while Sony' s bureaucracy slowed its decision-making process, making it difficult for the company to respond to its competitors.Sony eventually was able to turn itself around, in part by returning to its collectivist roots while simultaneously turning to a non-Japanese executive, Sir Howard Stringer, who was able to cut costs and streamline operations, which increased Sony' s profits (Jones & George, 2008).As the Sony example illustrates, today's turbulent economic environment creates even a greater necessity for corporations to seek more efficient means to remain competitive in the market. In order to accomplish this, corporations have undergone major changes over the past two decades in order to achieve higher levels of work performance. The development o...

The self‐construal of nurses and doctors: beliefs on interdependence and independence in the care of older people

“…The study indicates doctors to have dominant independent self-construal; this may develop through training and socialization processes and a lack of awareness of the interdependence of team members. Although dominant independent self-construal is not a negative construct, in highly collaborative environments it has the potential to result in problems with group functioning (Oetzel & Bolton-Oetzel 1997, McAtavey & Nikolovska 2010. This is especially the case in healthcare environments, where nurses can prioritize teamwork more highly than medical staff, but often rate the quality of team functioning less well (Thomas et al 2003).…”

“…Team members with high interdependent self‐construal show greater levels of relational effectiveness (Oetzel & Bolton‐Oetzel ), whereas high independent self‐construal (i.e. beliefs in the separateness of individuals, Barrick ) results in weaker beliefs for the collective importance of a team (McAtavey & Nikolovska ). Factors such as power and hierarchies shape beliefs about self‐construal (Caza et al .…”

“…Team members with high interdependent self-construal show greater levels of relational effectiveness (Oetzel & Bolton-Oetzel 1997), whereas high independent self-construal (i.e. beliefs in the separateness of individuals, Barrick 2002) results in weaker beliefs for the collective importance of a team (McAtavey & Nikolovska 2010). Factors such as power and hierarchies shape beliefs about self-construal (Caza et al 2011) and individuals who are subconsciously (and temporarily) primed to have dominant independent self-construal demonstrate lower levels of cooperation with others (Utz 2004).…”

Team engagement in an executive human resource development program: A closed cohort model perspective

“…The collective knowledge propelled deeper level interactions, such as seeking advice, which facilitated additional knowledge retrieval and sharing. Team Y shared commitment to achieving their goal depended on the collective efforts of the team (McAtavey & Nikolovska, 2010). Additionally, shared leadership added to Team Y's cohesion.…”

“…In exploring the intricacies of cohesion and performance, researchers differentiated task and social cohesion (Van den Bossche, Gijselaers, Segers, & Kirschner, 2006). Task cohesion is the shared commitment among members to achieve a goal that depends on the collective efforts of the team (McAtavey & Nikolovska, 2010). Social cohesion, on the other hand, is about the emotional bonds of friendship, such as liking, caring, and closeness among group members (Mullen & Copper, 1994).…”