It’s the details, details and more details that “trip” up students, especially with respect to the most important part of this chapter – the model of team effectiveness. Just when you finished putting in all that effort remembering all the nuances of the model, your prof will throw an application problem at you. So, now it isn’t just about listing the elements or various parts anymore. As you study the parts of the model, continually ask, “How would I use this information to assemble the most effective team?” This will not only help you remember, but it will also help you anticipate what you might be asked to do on an exam.

There are certain parts of the team effectiveness model that invariably seem to cause difficulties for students. One of these relates to team composition and the concept of team diversity. In contrast to diverse teams, non diverse teams comprise members who are similar in any number of ways (expertise, ethnicity, gender, etc.). Making this distinction is not a problem. However, what’s difficult to remember is which one is best suited for a given task, and the strengths and weaknesses associated with each type of team. Even though the potential for conflict is higher in diverse teams they are especially effective in cases that involve complex problems and where innovative solutions are sought.

Another topic to watch out for relates to the relationship between team cohesion, organizational goals, and task performance. This is highlighted in Exhibit 8.5. Students have a tendency to think teams that are highly cohesive also exhibit high task performance. That is not always the case. As Exhibit 8.5 suggests, the determining factor is whether the team’s norms conflict or support the organization’s goals.

The other part that requires careful attention refers to the four constraints or problems associated with team decision making. We learned in the previous chapters about all the virtues of employee involvement and how teams generally come up with better solutions than individuals working alone (playing the odds thing). Yes, teams make better decisions generally (most of the time), but only when they aren’t plagued by: 1) pressure to conform, 2) production blocking, 3) evaluation apprehension, 4) time constraints, or 5) inflated team efficacy.