Models for Team Effectiveness

Many models have been proposed to better understand how teams work or don’t work.  Below, I describe 4 of these models:

• the GRPI model - 1977
• the Katzenbach and Smith model - 1993
• the Lafasto and Larson model - 2001
• the Lencioni model - 2005

The GRPI Model

This model is one of the oldest team effectiveness models, developed by Rubin, Plovnick, and Fry (1977).  The model consists of four elements: goals, roles, processes and interpersonal relationships.  The team should begin with a goal, define the roles, then the team members work together (processes), seeking to maintain harmonious interpersonal relationships.

• Goals:  The team must be clear about it’s purpose and the results that it desires to achieve.  Lack of goals can lead to conflict.  Considered the most important element of this model.
• Roles: Everyone on the team must know his or her responsibilities, authority, and accountability.  Lack of clarity about roles can also be a major source of conflict.
• Process:  Several processes must be in place for successful team functioning:  communication, methods for decision making, conflict management techniques, procedures and work flow,
• Interpersonal relationships: An environment must be fostered in which team members trust each other, care about each other.

Read more about the GRPI model here.

Katzenbach and Smith Model

The Katzenbach and Smith modelrecognizes the challenges of transitioning from an individualistic mode of working towards a teamwork manner of working. 

 The team can be assessed for 3 outcomes:

• collective work products
• personal growth
• performance results

which are located at the vertices of the triangle.  To achieve these outcomes, the team requires 3 elements:

• skills
• accountability
• committment

The functioning of the team may be assessed as being somewhere along this graph:

• Working group: Team members are functioning with individual accountability, not mutual accountability, and are aware that they are operating as individuals

• Pseudo-team:  Team members believe that they are functioning as a team, yet are still operating at the level of individual accountability.  Performance of a pseudo-team is worse than the performance of a working group.

• Potential Team:  The team members are beginning to function at a level of shared accountability, towards a common goal instead of individual goals.

• Real team:  The team has solidly achieved a common goal and shared accountability.

• High-performing team:  The team members are committed to each other’s personal growth and development.

LaFasto and Larson Model

Lafasto and Larson studied 600 teams and developed a set of five dynamics of teamwork and collaboration.

• team members: do team members have experience, problem-solving ability, openness, supportiveness, action orientation, and a positive personal style?
• team relationships: can team members give and receive feedback?
• team problem-solving:  how focused is the team?  is it a positive climate? is there open communication?
• team leader: does the team leader focus on the goal? ensure a collaborative climate? build confidence? demonstrate sufficient technical know-how? set priorities? manage performance?
• organizational environment: are there helpful management practices, structure and processes, systems?

Lencioni Model

Patrick Lencioni describes his model in a video lecture here.

Each of the 5 dysfunctions identified by Lencioni build upon each other.  The 5 dysfunctions of teams are:

• Absence of Trust - Team members do not possess vulnerability-based trust, cannot communicatet:  apologies, confessions of weakness/inadequacy, compliments, ask for help, accept criticism.  A leader must be able to accept that team members can be more skilled or more knowledgeable.  If a single member of the team does not possess trust, it can weaken to entire team.
• Fear of Conflict - Team members are not able to engage in debate, resulting in poor decisions.
• Lack of Commitment - An environment without open expression of ideas leads to team members not feeling invested in decisions.
• Avoidance of Accountability - Because there is no commitment to a plan of action, team members do not hold other team members to account.
• Inattention to Results - Because they are unaccountable to others, team members think only of themselves.

Summary of the four models

The four models have much in common.  All four models include mention of the relationships between team members, of open communication between them.  All of them make some mention of the clear definition of roles or accountability of team members to each other.

Interestingly, only the LaFasto and Larson model mentions the role of the team leader.  In this model, it is the team leader who clarifies the goal that the team is pursuing.  The team leader fosters a particular climate, which in other models is described as ‘fear of conflict’ or ‘process’, but only LaFasto and Larson’s model suggests that the primary inspiration for the environment rests with a single person.  Their model also suggests that it is the team leader who prioritizes for the team, choosing which actions are more important than others.  Finally, every member of the team is accountable to the team leader, because the leader manages performance.  It appears that the other models are missing the key role of the leader in the team environment.

References

Katzenbach, J. R. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. Harvard Business Press.

Lafasto, F. and Larson, C.  (2001). When teams work best. Retrieved from https://leadershiphq.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/when-teams-work-best1.pdf.

Quioxte Consulting.  (2011).  GRP Model: Introduction to the GRPI tool.  Retrieved from http://quixoteconsulting.com/News_articles/Topics/grpi.html.