Constructive Culture, Teamwork and Problem Solving
Board rooms, team rooms, and other meeting areas are like theaters in which you can see the cultural norms play out. In organizations with strong and pervasive cultures, meeting across diverse functional areas and hierarchical levels seem to be guided by the same script-positive or negative. While the personal needs and objectives of team members have an impact on how things proceed, the interaction styles pervading meetings clearly are also influenced by the culture. In turn, these interaction styles represent one of the most important routes though which culture impacts effectiveness.
Studies have shown that, constructive styles (organizations that have an achievement -, self-actualizing, humanistic-encouraging - and affiliative culture), at the individual level are associated with better problem solving, whereas aggressive/defensive (organizations that have an oppositional -, power -, competitive - and perfectionistic culture), and passive/defensive styles (organizations that have an approval -, conventional -, dependent - and avoidance culture), detract from effective problem solving. Similarly, group and teams with constructive interaction styles develop more effective solutions to problems than those with passive/ defensive or aggressive/defensive styles.
Maier (1967) considered acceptance necessary, given that even a high-quality decision will not be fully implemented unless those responsible for doing so understand and accept it Research on the group styles has proven that constructive versus defensive styles affect the quality and acceptance of solutions. Tasks-oriented constructive styles, such as achievement, promote high-quality solutions as group members set goals, analyze the situation, and consider multiple alternatives. People-oriented constructive styles, such as affiliative, promote solution acceptance, as members treat one another with respect and listen attentively to each other. Teams demonstrating such styles benefit from good group processes and synergy.
In contrast, passive/defensive interactions detract from solution effectiveness. Conventional and approval styles, for example, interface with quality by limiting the diversity of viewpoints and constructive criticism (which are withheld to minimize disagreement) that otherwise might improve solutions. Similarly, these styles fail to promote true acceptance. Instead, members tend to feign agreement to solutions with which they have little attachment. Management Professor Jerry B. Harvey called this situation - in which members agree to a solution that inwardly they do not endorse - the “Abilene Paradox”.
On the other hand, groups with strong aggressive/defensive styles are characterized by confrontation, conflict, power struggles, and time wasted by members trying to get their way. The quality of their solutions - although inconsistent and difficult to predict - typically ends up being only as good as the quality of the solution proposed by the members who won the argument or dominated the group. Similarly, acceptance tends to be mixed, with those who prevailed being much happier with the decision than those who lost the battle. Similar effects are evident in virtual teams, in which members rely on electric means to communicate. Constructive interaction styles and trust within such teams are positively related to cohesiveness and, in turn, higher levels of performance. Interestingly, when driven by constructive interaction styles, this kind of cohesiveness does not seem to result in groupthink - that is, dysfunctional processes that lead some tightly knit groups to ignore alternatives and discourage disconfirming opinions.
Constructive styles are as important to problem-solving effectiveness of virtual teams as they are to groups whose members work face-to-face. The early research on virtual problem-solving teams showed that they are more prone to interacting in defensive ways than teams working face-to-face. This tendency, which is referred to as the electronic disintegration of interpersonal process, is partly due to the lack of nonverbal cues and the individualization promoted by the technology.
In conclusion, research carried shows that work teams with relatively strong constructive cultures attain higher levels of cooperation, teamwork, and therefore, performance than those with defensive cultures. Studies shown that constructive norms are associated with better communication and trust- which are essential to the effective coordination and problem solving that prevent accidents and maintain safety. More generally, featured cases confirmed that solutions are more likely to be effective (equality and acceptance, per Maier’s formula) when people think and behave in a constructive manner. And this is true regardless of whether we are talking about identifying a solution to a problem or selecting and implementing a strategy.
Source: ‘Creating Constructive Cultures; Leading People and Organizations to Effectively Solve Problems and achieve Goals, by J. L. Szumal and R.A. Cooke.
Blog written by: Sherwin M. Latina February 23, 2021