Initiating cooperation in the Noorderpoort teams

Initiating cooperation in the

Noorderpoort teams

Groningen, September 2009

MsC Business Administration: Change Management University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business Agnes Kempeneers 1346261 Parelstraat 84, 9743 JD Groningen A.C.Kempeneers@gmail.com Noorderpoort Education Verzetsstrijderslaan 4 9727 CE Groningen

Internal supervisor: drs. A.J.E. Schilder Second internal supervisor: dr. K.S.Prins External supervisor: drs. K. Reinbergen

Acknowledgments

INITIATING COOPERATION IN THE NOORDERPOORT TEAMS

Bertrand Russel (1872-1970)

ABSTRACT

The Noorderpoort would like to know how leaders could initiate cooperation within teams. A literature study is conducted to provide interventions for initiating cooperation, with a specific focus on the group dynamics group development, norms, communication and decision-making. To make a good fit with the organization, interviews are done to research which dynamics the leader should focus on, given the current cooperation circumstances. A first step could be organizing a kick-off meeting. The primary focus of this meeting should be on group development by getting to know each other, setting goals collectively and assigning roles. Furthermore, during this meeting norms should be developed, agreements on communication should be made and an interaction framework should be formed. After the kick-off meeting the leader should focus on aspects of cohesiveness, commitment to goals, providing feedback, let rules become behaviors, structure communication and make sure all information is shared. However, two conditions on organizational level should be fulfilled before cooperation could be initiated. First, there needs to be determined who the actual leader of the triangle should be. Second, clearness about purpose, interdependence, roles, tasks and responsibilities on organization level should be provided.

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION ... - 4 -

1.1 Changes into competence directed education ... - 5 -

1.2 The Noorderpoort organization ... - 6 -

1.2.1 Triangles within Noorderpoort... - 6 -

1.3 Key variables and conceptual model... - 7 -

4. RESULTS... - 33 -

4.1 Current cooperation... - 33 -

4.2 Desired cooperation... - 33 -

4.3 Initiating cooperation in general ... - 35 -

4.5 Initiating cooperation by principal ... - 36 -

1. INTRODUCTION

A specific type of change interventions that has grown in popularity is implementing work teams (Eby et.al, 2000). Work teams are often implemented based on the concept that teams can have positive consequences on change in the organization (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). The Noorderpoort also formed teams to facilitate a change in the organization. In response to the obligatory change into competence directed education (CDE) for all intermediate vocational education (In dutch: MBO) in the Netherlands, the Noorderpoort decided to form triangles (teams) of members of three departments, Human Relations, Planning and Control and Education Development, to facilitate and support the principals and the teaching teams with the implementation of CDE.

Although implementing work teams is a common change intervention, few teams are managed for success. One of the reasons is that often managers expect teams to cooperate independently when thrown in cooperative teams (Dougherty & Handy, 1996). The Noorderpoort also expected their teams to cooperate without leadership. But after communicating the significance of the new triangles last year, no real cooperation is accomplished yet. According to the Noorderpoort the necessary tasks for supporting the implementation of CDE are not performed at all. While the schools and the teaching teams are already working on the change by taking actions for implementing CDE, the support triangle for the CDE change should function as well. In response, the Noorderpoort would like to initiate cooperation as soon as possible, because they expect this to lead to an effective team, with as a result a better CDE program.

While the Noorderpoort experienced that the employees will not start cooperating on their own, they propose that the principal of the school should lead the initiation of cooperation in the triangle. However, the Noorderpoort thinks it is too complex to start this process, because according to them the organization has not enough expertise and information available on interventions regarding the initiation process of cooperation. Therefore, they requested a research on how cooperation could be initiated by the principal.

team leaders an insight in teams, dynamics in teams and team based interventions regarding the process of initiating cooperation.

The following part of the introduction will clarify the foundation for the research. First the change into competence directed education will be described, because this is the reason the triangles should function in the first place. Next, the organization and the triangles will be explained. This is followed by an elaboration of the concepts important for this research, like groups, cooperation, group dynamics and leadership. The introduction will enclose with an conceptual model and the research question.

1.1 Changes into competence directed education

The ROC schools in the Netherlands (Regionaal Opleidings Centra) are required to implement Competence Directed Education (CDE) or in Dutch: Competentie Gericht Onderwijs (CGO) in the year of 2009-2010. Competence Directed Education is education which makes it possible for students to gain the required knowledge, the skills and professional attitude (www.minocw.nl). Especially the third factor, the focus on professional attitude is missing in the current education programs, while according to the ministry of Education, Culture and Science this is exactly what is important in the Dutch service economy. Thus, with CDE, students learn to function in a particular vocational situation. The Dutch government has formulated qualification files for each education program, including the requirements for the student to obtain a degree. Based on these files, the schools should determine how the content of their education programs should fit the requirements of the government, while serve the students best.

1.2 The Noorderpoort organization

The Noorderpoort also needs to implement CDE. The Noorderpoort is an education organization (Regionaal Opleidings Centrum, ROC) oriented towards intermediate vocational education (Middelbaar Beroeps Onderwijs, MBO) and adult education. Furthermore, the Noorderpoort offers education on high school level. The Noorderpoort is divided in 15 schools in the province Groningen, located in for example, Groningen, Delfzijl, Appingedam and Winsum. The organization counts approximately 1800 employees who serve roughly 20.000 students in fields of for example Education, Catering Industry and Tourism.

Each school has a principal. Consequently, 15 principals are operating in the organization. The employees of the schools are divided in teams, mainly teaching teams. These teams are guided and controlled by the principal. Both the teams and the principal also receive support from the staff departments Education Development, Human Relations, Marketing and Communication, Finance and ICT. Moreover, there is a department of Planning and Control, who has a coordinating function. Covering, a management team leads the whole organization.

1.2.1 Triangles within Noorderpoort

Figure 1.1 The triangle under research

The triangle form for CDE, existing of HR, PC and ED, is the second triangle construction functioning in the organization. Alongside this new ‘education content’ driven triangle, a financial triangle existing of PC, HR and Finance operates in the organization. For both triangles counts they are formed to serve the individual schools. In the case of the triangle under research, each principal will obtain a triangle to support the implementation of CDE on the school. Consequently 15 ‘education driven’ triangles will operate in the Noorderpoort organization for supporting CDE. While the staff members function at several schools they will participate in a number of ‘education’ triangles. In the various triangles they need to cooperate with diverse team members. Moreover, the other team members function at several schools as well, so the triangle members will not be operating at the same location. In addition, the members of HR and PC will now operate in both the financial triangle and the education triangle. Consequently, some employees function in more than eight triangles.

1.3 Key variables and conceptual model

After introducing competence directed education, the Noorderpoort organization and the triangles, the key variables will be presented, functioning as a foundation for the research question.

First, the definition of groups and teams will be described. Next, cooperation in teams and effective teams are explained, followed by group dynamics and leadership. The explanation of these key variables lead to the formulation of a conceptual model.

1.3.1 Teams

The subject under research are the triangles within the Noorderpoort, created to support the implementation of CDE. As explained before, the triangles are formed as a group, operating in

Human Relations

Planning and Control

emphasize on their complex, adaptive and dynamic character (McGrath and Argote, 2001). With this in mind, the definition of Guzzo and Dickson (1996) regarding groups in the workplace is chosen for this research ‘A group is made up of individuals who see themselves and who are seen by others as a social entity, who are interdependent because of tasks they perform as members of a group, who are embedded in one or more larger social systems (e.g. an organization), and who perform tasks that affect others.’

But, the Noorderpoort would like the triangles to function as teams and according to Katzenbach and Smith (1993) teams differ from workgroups. In example, workgroup performance is a function of what it’s members do as individuals and team performance is based on both individual results and group products. Based on the research of Katzenbach and Smith, this research proposes that the triangles should function as teams, with the interpretation of teams as a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, set of performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable.

The triangles under research are formed of members of different departments, who are working on different locations. Meaning, the triangles are both cross-functional and virtual. Within this research the definition of Pinto, Pinto and Prescott will be used for cross-functional teams: A team formed of members of different departments, with their own expertise, and often also different views, interests and working habits. For virtual teams, the definition of Kratzer, Leenders and van Engelen (2003) functions as the basis: Virtual teams are groups of individuals collaborating in the execution of a specific project while geographically and often temporally distributed, possibly anywhere within (and beyond) their parent organization.

1.3.2 Team cooperation

until now, but this doesn’t mean the members are in conflict. Therefore, the definition of Tyler and Blader (2000: 5) suits the situation best, while many other articles approach cooperation as the alternative for competition and conflict (i.e. Stapel & Koomen, 2005). According to Tyler and Blader: cooperation refers to whether or not people act to promote the goals of the group. This indicates that people have to make a decision about how actively to engage themselves in the group by taking actions that will help the group to be effective and successful. This type of cooperation is similar to what social psychologists refer to as helping behaviour or proactive social behaviour.

1.3.3 Effective team

Initiating cooperation is important for the Noorderpoort while this will not only change the triangles in teams, but also into effective teams. This is proposed by Tyler (2002) who explains that the more people engage in desirable cooperative behavior, the greater the effectiveness of the group. According to Sheard & Kakabadse (2001) a cooperative team is in fact an effective team, while they claim that an effective team is one in which development of a supportive social structure has occurred, with each individual adapting his behavior to optimize his personal contribution to the team. The review article of Guzzo and Dickson (1996) shows there is no singular, uniform measure of performance effectiveness. Therefore this research uses the broad definition of the authors: ‘effectiveness in groups is indicated by a). group-produced outputs, b). the consequences a group has for its members, or c). the enhancement of a team’s capability to perform effectively in the future.

1.3.4 Group dynamics

In summary, the triangles should be changed into (effective) teams by initiating cooperation in the triangles. But how could cooperation be initiated in teams?

behaviour (B) of group members is a function (f) of the interaction of their personal characteristics (P) with environment factors (E), which includes features of the group, the group members and the situation. In response to this definition, Stevenson and Wright (1998) approach group dynamics as the study of how individuals effectively or ineffectively, function as a group. According to these researchers, a basic understanding of dynamics in groups is fundamental to the success of any group in any given situation. They propose for example that a basic understanding of leadership styles, communication skills, decision-making processes and organizational behavior contribute to an effective team. This research supports the theory of Stevenson and Wright (1998) that understanding of group dynamics is important. But in line with the statement of Forsyth (2004: 161), that organizational experts often draw on principles of group dynamics to identify ways to design, develop and improve organizational teams, this research proposes that not only an understanding of group dynamics is important to create cooperation, but that team based interventions concerning group dynamics could be used to initiate cooperation.

1.3.5 Leadership

Although teams are dynamic and will change without leadership, this is often not the desired direction of development (Vroemen, 1995: 125). Therefore, a leader should direct the dynamics of groups, because leaders are in the position to influence behavior of others (Brown, 2000: 91).

Based on the description of groups, cooperation, effective teams, group dynamics and leadership, including their relationships, a conceptual model is developed.

Figure 1.2: Conceptual model

1.4 Research question

Based on the concepts described above, the research question is formulated.

This paper will focus on how the Noorderpoort triangles could be changed into (effective) teams by initiating cooperation. As explained, team based interventions regarding group dynamics could help the triangles to cooperate more and to become a (effective) team. However for the interventions to be successful, the Noorderpoort should choose interventions that fit the current level of the team (Vroemen, 1995: 125).

In response, to this information the research question is formulated as:

How could the principal use group dynamics to initiate cooperation in the Noorderpoort triangles and on which group dynamics should the principal primary focus, given the current cooperation circumstances?

To answer the research question both a literature study and in-depth interviews will be used. The first part of the research question, how could the principal use group dynamics to initiate cooperation in the Noorderpoort triangles is answered by literature. Because the Noorderpoort isn’t familiar with the use of group dynamics and the possible interventions regarding group

PROCESS OF INITIATING COOPERATION

Use of group dynamics

Cooperation (Effective)

The second part of the research concentrates on empirical research by the use of interviews. The interview will function as a means to answer the second part of the research question: On which group dynamics should the principal primary focus, given the current cooperation circumstances?

2. GROUP DYNAMICS

Understanding group dynamics is essential to the success of any group in any given situation (Stevenson & Wright, 1998). The theory of group dynamics exists of a lot of dynamics and influencing factors. However, for this research only the dynamics concerning the initiating phase of cooperation are relevant. The review of Van Oudenhoven and Giebels (2004) about group dynamics is used as a foundation of this research. The dynamics of Van Oudenhoven and Giebels (2004) are commonly discussed in other summarising research (i.e. Hogg & Vaughan, 1995; Levine & Moreland, 1998) and therefore they seem the most common and relevant group dynamics. Consequently, the dynamics group development, norms, communication and decision-making are the dynamics discussed in this research.

In this chapter the dynamics will be discussed in detail. First, the content of the specific group dynamic will be explained, while understanding group dynamics is essential for managing teams. Second, the usefulness of the dynamic regarding cooperation will be described. Understanding the usefulness of the dynamic is essential, because recognizing the usefulness of the dynamics increases the acceptance of the use of the dynamics. While the Noorderpoort is familiar with the negative consequences of the dynamics, this research especially focuses on the positive effects of the group dynamics. Last, the interventions regarding the group dynamic will be illustrated with the explanation why the interventions are important. Again this should lead to the understanding and acceptance of the interventions.

The first group dynamic discussed in this chapter is group development, divided in goal setting, role differentiation and cohesiveness.

2.1 Group development

2.1.1. Goals

The first important factor of group development is goals. Goals refer to both purpose and performance goals as well as tasks. To be precise, first the team needs a purpose. This purpose functions as the reason to operate as a team, and therefore should meet the need of the members (Stevenson & Wright, 1998). Next, the purpose should be translated in performance goals. These performance goals relate to results the team is required to deliver (Sheard and Kakabadse, 2001). Last, the goals could not be delivered without clarity on the tasks. Therefore, tasks are related to goals as well.

Usefulness goals Literature shows that goals are useful for several reasons. A common goal will

This affects the direction of action, the degree of effort exerted and the persistence of action over time of the team. Last, shared goals act to spark group effort by providing team members clear direction and buy-in (Mealiea & Baltazer, 2005).

Interventions goals The first main intervention regarding goal setting is to bring the group

together and set goals collectively (Locke & Latham, 1990). Although the goal setting should be accompanied by logic or rationale from a leader (Latham & Locke, 2006), using the team members to set goals makes it possible to tap the expertise of the variety of team members, leading to more appropriate goals and better strategies for achieving them. During the participative goal setting, the main concern for the leader is to formulate a subordinate goal (Pinto et.al, 1993) as a team, to break the subordinate goals into sub goals (Sheard & Kakabadse, 2001) and to articulate what needs to be accomplished for the good of the team (Dvir et.al, 2002). Moreover, the leader should make clear the formulated goals are difficult and specific (Latham & Locke, 2006; Locke, 1996), because high goals lead to greater effort, focus and persistence. Also, specific goals will lead to a higher performance. Latham & Locke (2006) add that the leader should set a reasonable time frame for attaining the goals, that the leader makes clear the knowledge to perform the goals is present, and that goals are formulated as a challenge.

The third central intervention is developing a feedback system. According to Kirkpartrick (1991) and Locke (1996), goals must be accompanied by regular feedback systems, indicating progress in relation to the goals. For people to pursue goals effectively, they need some means of checking or tracking their progress toward the goal (Locke, 1996). When provided with feedback on their own performance or that of others, people often spontaneously set goals to improve over their previous best or beat the performance of others simply as a way of challenging themselves.

Interventions Source

Formulate goals collectively during the first meeting. Locke & Latham (1990) ; Sheard & Kakabadse (2001)

Set a subordinate goal Pinto et.al, (1993) Break down subordinate goal in sub goals Sheard&Kakabadse (2001)

Articulate needed tasks for team performance Dvir et.al, (2002) Formulate difficult and specific goals Latham&Locke (2006); Locke (1996)

Set goals that fits expertise Latham&Locke (2006) Set a challenging goal Latham&Locke (2006) Formulate a reasonable time frame Latham&Locke (2006) Create commitment to goals Kirkpatrick (1991) Providing and communicating vision Locke (1996) Act as role model Locke (1996) Expect outstanding performance Locke (1996) Delegate responsibility Locke (1996) Promote employees who embrace vision Locke (1996) Express confidence in employee capabilities Locke (1996) Enhance capabilities by training Locke (1996) Ask for commitment in public Locke (1996) Developing feedback system Kirkpatrick (1991)

Plan points at which feedback reviews will be conducted Sheard&Kakabadse (2001) Let team present what they achieved and the process used to do so Sheard&Kakabadse (2001) Let the team and leader give concise, constructive feedback Sheard&Kakabadse (2001)

2.1.2 Roles

The second element concerning group development are roles. Levine and Moreland (1998) explain that roles are shared expectations about how a particular person in a group ought to behave. Roles are very much like norms, as they describe and prescribe behavior (Hogg & Vaughan, 1995: 243), but roles apply to subgroups of people instead of the group. Van Oudenhoven and Giebels (2004: 99) explain that roles are especially designed to distinguish people within the group for the greater good of the group as a whole, that they emphasize the difference of team members and that they roles often connected with positions in the organization. Besides, roles often fit capacities, characteristics and skills of the team member. Within groups two role categories may overlap, according to Van Oudenhoven & Giebels (2004: 100). They explain that both task roles and socio-emotional roles emerge in groups. Especially task roles make a team feasible, because team members know what to do and how to behave (Van Oudenhoven & Giebels, 2004: 100).

Usefulness roles A clear set of well-played roles can be helpful for a group, improving both

group processes and performance (Barley & Bechky, 1994). As described by Van Oudenhoven and Giebels (2004: 101) roles are helpful because they prescribe behavior and make a group feasible and roles could be used to make clear what behavior is expected from whom. Also, roles imply a division of labor among the group members, which facilitates the group goal (Brown, 2000: 71). Therefore, groups in which roles are assigned can work efficiently, smoothly and productively, participation could be stimulated and interaction can be managed (Cohen, 1994). Last, roles could also have direct implications for improving task performance and satisfaction according to Zigurs and Kozar (1994), because roles stimulate members’ awareness of the overall group performance and each member’s contribution.

Intervention roles To initiate cooperative behavior the leaders intervention regarding roles is

role behavior and performance needs to be clear, otherwise the team member does not know how to behave according to his role (Levine & Moreland, 1998; Stevenson & Wright, 1998). Furthermore, the expectations of the team members should be consistent, there should be agreement about the roles that should be played and the resources necessary for fulfilling the role should be available (Levine & Moreland, 1998; Van Oudenhoven & Giebels, 2004: 102). This could be solved by making decisions about roles collectively, so all expectations and needs are clear. However, role differentiation should be flexible, so the group can adapt to new situation if necessary (Gersick & Hackman, 1990). In addition, the leader should be aware of the fact that the use of roles only appears to be relevant when a group pursues a shared goal that requires a certain level of task division, coordination and integration of individual activities, as explained by Strijbos, Martens, Jochems and Broers (2004).

Interventions Source

Participative role assignment Levine&Moreland (1998) Exhibit necessary behavior Levine&Moreland (1998) Negotiate about roles Mickan&Rodger (2000)

Formulate formal roles Levine&Moreland (1998)

Discuss expectations about roles Levine&Moreland (1998); Stevenson&Wright (1998) Set clear, consistent expectations Levine&Moreland (1998); Van Oudenhoven&Giebels (2004) Make sure the resources are available Levine&Moreland (1998); Van Oudenhoven &Giebels (2004) Pursue a shared goal, with divided tasks Strijbos et.al (2004)

Table 2.2. Interventions regarding roles

2.1.3 Cohesiveness

Usefulness cohesiveness The goal of cohesion is to help groups to become more successful

(Levine & Moreland, 1998). According to Levine & Moreland (1998) cohesion has a direct influence on cooperation, because cohesive groups are more likely to sit close together, pay attention to one another, show signs of mutual affection and coordinate their behavior. Furthermore, they are more likely to participate actively in conversations, or engage is collaborative narration. Moreover, cohesiveness will improve performance within groups according to Mullen and Copper (1994). This effect is due primary to commitment to the task and is even bigger for smaller groups.

Intervention cohesiveness

According to Michalisin, Karau and Tangpong (2007) both task oriented and social oriented leadership could contribute to team cohesiveness. Therefore the interventions regarding cohesiveness should focus on being task oriented and being social oriented towards cohesiveness. The first step within task oriented leadership is simply assembling people into a group, and let them spend time together (Levine & Moreland, 1998). Next, the leader should formulate a clear group vision and goals (Jung & Sosik, 2002; Guthrie & Hollensbe, 2004; Van Oudehoven & Giebels, 2004; Zaccaro et.al, 2001), with the awareness of a shared outcome (Michelasin et.al, 2007; Mullen & Copper, 1994) because this will lead to a more cohesive group. Especially, articulating what members need to accomplish for the good of the team will lead to cohesiveness, Dvir and colleagues (2002) explain. Beal, Cohen, Bruke and McLeddon (2003) add that cohesive groups perform better when performance is conceptualized as behavior, instead of an outcome. Besides formulating the performance, the task of the leader is to develop a shared commitment to completing the team tasks, and to keep group members focused on completing the important tasks (Michelasin et.al, 2007). Forming a shared identity will also contribute to cohesiveness (Hogg & Terry, 2000). Levine & Moreland explain that cohesiveness will be higher within a rewarding group. A group can be rewarding when people enjoy the tasks, approve of it’s goals and succeed in this goal. Van Oudenhoven & Giebels (2004: 22) show that cohesiveness could also be increased by rewarding desired behavior.

for other team members, maintaining group harmony, foster positive group experience, encourage information sharing among members, facilitate meaningful interaction and prevent members from exerting a negative influence on the group.

Interventions Source

Be task oriented towards cohesiveness Michelasin et.al (2007) Assemble group and let them spend time together Levine & Moreland (1998)

Develop clear vision and goals, approved by team Jung&Sosik (2002); Guthrie&Hollensbe, 2004); Mullen&

d with the awareness of shared outcome Coppen (1994); Van Oudenhoven & Giebels (2004)

d Zaccaro et.al. (2001) Articulate what members need to accomplish in terms of behavior Michelasin et.al (2007) Keep group members focused on completing the tasks Michelasin et.al (2007) Develop shared commitment to tasks Michelasin et.al (2007) Form a shared identity Hogg&Terry (2000) Reward desired behavior Levine&Moreland (1998); Van Oudenhoven &Giebels (2004) Be social oriented towards cohesiveness Michalisin et.al (2007) Establish clear behavioral norm Michalisin et.al (2007) Encourage respect for other members Michalisin et.al (2007) Maintain group harmony Michalisin et.al (2007) Foster positive experiences Michalisin et.al (2007) Encourage information sharing Michalisin et.al (2007) Facilitate meaningful interaction Michalisin et.al (2007) Prevent members from exerting a negative influence Michalisin et.al (2007)

Table 2.3. Interventions regarding cohesiveness

2.2 Norms

Following the explanation of the dynamic group development, with a focus on goals, roles and cohesiveness, the second group dynamic will be explained, that is norms. Norms play an important role in cooperation, while team members interact with each other and mutually influence each others perceptions and behavior (Marcus, 1998). Cialdini and Trost (1998) define norms as: rules and standards that are understood by members of a group, and that guide and/or constrain social behaviour without the force of laws. Norms may or may not be stated explicitly, and any sanctions for deviating from them come from social networks.

show that norms are necessary because without norms the team members don’t know how to behave in certain situations. Norms may be used as arbitrary rules for behavior, which will lead to accomplishing the goals of the group. Van Oudenhoven & Giebels (2004: 92) discuss four other functions of norms. According to them norms retain the continuity of the group, they offer security and predictability, they express the identity of the group and function as a framework for testing individual beliefs. Norms could also help build cohesiveness within the groups (Zaccaro et.al, 2001), ensures satisfaction of members and prevents interpersonal conflicts (Feldman, 1984). The last influence might be by formulating norms of cooperativeness (Cook & Hardin, 2001). According to them, cooperation could be motivated by developing norms of cooperativeness, or through relationships of trust.

Intervention norms Norms can emerge by human design (Opp, 2002). Leaders have a significant

role in establishing these team norms (Zaccaro et.al, 2001), while they may create the mechanism for development and reinforcement of norms and behaviors. Norms could be developed by imposing rules based on agreement with the group members (Tuomela. 2007), therefore the first intervention regarding norms is imposing rule norms. According to Graham (2003) the norms should be formulated soon after the team is formed, because this could help prevent potential problems. Norms develop in a cycle, where the leader should adapt on. First, the leader should do a norm proposal. In response to this proposal, the norm boundaries will be discussed and negotiated, with an acceptance of the norm as response. The norms should start as general norms that reflect expectations regarding values that should be shared among members. However, next the norms should be specifically designated, because a lack of ambiguity makes them more useful. However, the leader should realize that the norms should be consistent with the team members interests, because for a rule to be a norm it must be accepted by it’s group members (Horne, 2001). Nevertheless, a rule will not become a norm on his own. Mechanisms need to be created that transform rules into actions (Horne, 2001). These actions (or behaviors) might become the norm after some time.

that is stimulating desired behavior by incentives. After a while the behaviors will be the norm, helping the leader to accomplish his goals. A leader might also implicitly form norms by function as a role model (Bass & Avolio, 1994), communicate their own image to their followers, and reward desired behavior (Hogg & Reid, 2006).

Interventions Source

Impose rule norms based on agreement with group Graham (2003); Opp (2002); Tuomela (2007) Develop norm proposal Graham (2003) Discuss and negotiate norm boundaries Graham (2003) Accept norms as a group Graham (2003) Transform rules into behaviors Horne (2001) Create mechanism to transform rules into norms Horne (2001) Use incentives and punishment for behavior Hogg & Reid (2006); Opp (2001) Communicate own image Hogg & Reid (2006) Function as a role model Bass & Aviolo (1994)

Table 2.4: Interventions regarding norms

2.3 Communication

Usefulness communication Communication is important within cooperation because

communication increases performance, according to Martins (2004). Moreover, Van Oudenhoven and Giebels (2004) explain that communication facilitates group functioning. This is supported by Fussell and colleagues (2007), who clarify that communication functions to provide members with information on what their fellow team members are doing. Thus, communication coordinates the effort of the team members. Last, communication creates a social identity in the group and cohesiveness could be created (Becker-beck et.al, 2005).

Interventions communication The first intervention regarding communication is formulating a

reliable communication process (Leenders et.al, 2003; Mickan & Rodger, 2000). For the process to be effective, the leader should include clearly defined responsibilities (Mickan & Rodger, 2000) and a network of information exchange should be established (Stevenson & Wright, 1998). Eppler and Sukowaki (2000) add that communication norms should be agreed on, while this will increase confidence in the communication process. An example of communication norms is listening (Mickan & Rodger, 2000). While a lot of teams in the current business settings operate at different locations, the leader should provide differing communication technologies (Martins et.al, 2004). This will increase the amount of communication in the teams. Last, Becker-Beck and colleagues explain that the leader should make sure the members utter knowledge that fit the situation and the assumed knowledge of the communication partner. To be precise, members should check whether the communication partner understands the message. Moreover, members should communicate in a task-oriented and a social oriented way. However, to work effectively the leader should make sure the members of the team respond to oriented messages in a task-oriented way, because of the balance.

The last intervention is to structure meetings. Structuring meetings will function as a tool to let every member contribute in the team (Mickan & Rodger, 2000). The use of an agenda and making sure everyone participants are the main actions for the leader concerning this intervention.

Interventions Source

Formulate a reliable communication process Leenders et.al (2003); Mickan & Rodger (2000) Include clearly defined responsibilities Mickan & Rodger (2000) Establish network of information exchange Stevenson & Wright (1998) Agree on guiding communication norms Eppler & Sukowski (2000) Provide differing communication technologies Martins et.al (2004) Let members utter knowledge that fit the situation Becker-Beck et.al, (2005)

Reinforce that group members interact in a task-oriented way Becker-Beck et.al, (2005) Create open communication Eppler & Sukowski (2000)

Stimulate sharing feelings openly Mealiea & Baltazar (2005) Provide timely and relevant feedback Mealiea & Baltazar (2005) Let team members share relevant information Mealiea & Baltazar (2005) Provide the team with real and virtual communication spaces Eppler & Sukowski (2000) Structure meetings Mickan & Rodger (2000) Use an agenda Mickan & Rodger (2000) Let everyone participate Mickan & Rodger (2000)

Table 2.5.: Interventions regarding communication

2.4 Decision-making

The last group dynamic used in this research is decision-making. Groups make better decisions than individuals according to Van Oudenhoven and Giebels (2004: 44). This is because two know more than one, groups may come up with creative alternatives and members could critique each other (Schwarber, 2005; Van Oudenhoven, 2004: 44). But, group decision-making is difficult. As said by Van Oudenhoven and Giebels (2004), groups need more time to make the decision, dominant people may take over the decision-making process and conformity may take place. Furthermore, people have the tendency to make riskier decisions within a group (risky shift) and when there is no clarity about responsibility they may operate less effective (social loafing).

Usefulness decision-making

solutions. Moreover, joint decision-making increases the use of all available information, thus making the best decisions according to Van Ginkel and Knippenberg (2008). Therefore it is important to understand the conditions under which members choose to share information (Bonito et.al, 2006). Last, decision-making also functions to solve problems in the team (Van Oudenhoven & Giebels, 2004), to build a cohesive team and to create commitment in the team (Schwarber, 2005).

Interventions making Group making functions better than individual

decision-making, however group decision-making is difficult (Nijstad & Kaps, 2008), because individual preferences need to be mapped into a collective group decision (Bonner et.al, 2002). A leader could play a significant role in facilitating group decision-making. The first main intervention regarding decision-making is setting decision-rules like majority rules or unanimity rules, that a group adopts for combining individual preferences into collective decisions (Levine & Moreland, 1998).

Second,, how team members interact with each other should be established. According to Schwarber (2005) decision-makers are far more successful with a process to guide them through their conversations. A leader could guide such a process and should focus on three critical aspects of the decision: objectives, alternatives and risks (in this sequence) (Schwarber, 2005; Stevenson & Wright, 1998). In response to the objective, it is important for the leader to make sure there is consensus about the goal for decision-making (Van Oudenhoven & Giebels, 2004), this could be established by an open discussion about why the decision must be made (Stevenson & Wright, 1998). For alternatives, the leader should take care that the needed information is shared, so all the alternatives could be evaluated. Often team members withhold their information, which limits the level of the decision (Bonitio et.al, 2006), therefore the leader should focus on motivating members to share all the necessary information. For that reason, leaders need to understand the conditions under which members choose to share their information, which is central intervention three.

expertise. Therefore, the decision-making should be structured according to the team objective, members should not only focus on their own functional area because this will not lead to the best decision (Chakravorty & Franza, 2005). In addition, cohesion (Stevenson & Wright, 1998; Van Oudenhoven & Giebels, 2004: 45), norms (Postmes et.al, 2001) and clear tasks (Levine & Moreland, 1998) will also have a positive impact on the decision-making process.

Interventions Source

Set decision rules Levine & Moreland (1998) Let people adopt the rules Levine & Moreland (1998) Establish interaction framework Schwarber (2005) Create consensus on goal of decision-making Van Oudenhoven& Giebels (2004) Focus on goals, alternatives and risk Schwarber (2005); Stevenson&Wright (1998) Create open discussion Stevenson&Wright (1998) Make sure all needed information is shared Bonito et.al. (2006) Understand conditions for sharing information Bonito et.al. (2006) Motivate to share information Bonito et.al. (2006) Use expertise of members if necessary Bonner et.al (2002); Schwarber (2005) Structure communication Chakravorty&Franza (2005) Focus on group goal, not only on function Chakravorty&Franza (2005)

Table 2.6: Interventions regarding decision-making

2.5 Conclusion

The dynamics group development, norms, communication and decision-making are all useful for the leader to initiate cooperation in teams. Moreover, literature shows that the dynamics are interdependent. For example: 1) goals are important for cohesiveness and roles, 2) cohesiveness is created through clear goals, norms and decision-making and 3) structured communication is a precondition for good decision-making. Therefore, the leader should focus on all dynamics discussed above.

3. METHODOLOGY

Chapter two answered the first part of the research question: how could the principal use group dynamics to initiate cooperation. The remaining part of this research focuses on the second part of the question: Which group dynamics should the principal primary focus on, given the current cooperation circumstances.

This methodology chapter explains the research design, the participants for the interview, the interview procedure, the interview questions and last data analysis.

3.1 Research design

The Noorderpoort wants to know how the principal could initiate cooperative behavior in their triangles. To answer this question an exploratory study will be conducted. An exploratory research fits the research question best, because up until now the Noorderpoort has too little information within the organization on usable interventions for initiating cooperative behavior. Furthermore, the organization needs to know which dynamics the Noorderpoort should focus on, given the current cooperation circumstances. The exploratory study will be conducted by the use of interviews. Interviews are chosen because interviews give the possibility to explore what the members of the triangle think and/or feel about the cooperation, the desired interpretation of the group dynamics and the interventions the principal could undertake to reach the desired interpretation of the dynamics. Adapting to the beliefs and feelings of the members provides the opportunity to formulate suitable solutions for the Noorderpoort triangles that actually fit the circumstances of the triangle. Moreover, using interviews with a focus on the participants’ feelings, beliefs and thoughts might also increase the change of success of the cooperation initiation process and the acceptation level of the members of the triangles. This is in line with the theory of Maier (1968), who argues that the effectiveness of an action is dependent of both the quality of the action and the acceptance of the action (E = k*a).

3.2 Participants

the 15 triangles will be led by 15 principals. Subsequently, on the operational level 40 employees (25 staff + 15 principals) are involved with the triangle project, with the 25 staff employees actually forming the triangles and functioning as teams.

Two employees of each department, plus two principals, participated in the research, hence every department is heard and differences of opinions and expectations between departments may be explored. Consequently, two of the five HR employees are interviewed, two of the five PC employees, two of the 15 ED employees and two of the 15 principals. Accordingly, from the 40 employees involved in the triangles, eight are chosen to participate in interviews.

Because the primary goal of the interviews is to search for thoughts, feelings and opinions, the participants are selected on their differing features. In collaboration with an employee of HR who is operating at the central organization level, the participants are chosen. They are selected because of their gender, their work experience, their function in the organization and their expected differing position toward the triangles according to the HR employee. Access to the participants was realised through the same employee of HR. She has sent an email to the selected employees to ask them to participate in this research. In the email was a short description of the research, the duration of the interview and the message that they will be contacted by an intern by telephone within two weeks. In order to make arrangements for meetings as easy as possible, the interviews are held at the location the participant chooses for.

3.3 Interview procedure

The in-depth interviews lasted for approximately 45 minutes and are accomplished through semi-structured open ended questions. The questionnaire is topic-guided, so the questions are formulated before the interviews, and act as the connection of the interview. Furthermore, follow up questions are asked whenever suitable, to gain more insight in the motives and underlying thoughts behind the answers.

will not receive answer possibilities (Emans, 2002: 69) and presumptions about answers (Emans, 2002:68) are avoided during the interviews by asking neutral questions without a direction towards possible answers.

To protect the reliability and validity of the research other adjustments are made. First, the interviews are confidential. This makes it easier for the participant to talk openly, and increase the possibility of receiving true answers of the participants. Second, the interview is recorded, so no time will be lost with writing down the answers (Emans, 2002: 25). By recording the interview, the answers could be written down literally (Baarda & deGoede, 2005: 195), with a minimal subjectivity in elaborating the interview. Moreover, the interview is reported in a data-file within 24 hours, so subjectivity of the researcher will not take place. Last, the appendix presents raw data so the reader could understand the interpretation made by the researcher (Smith, 1996).

3.4 Interview scheme

The primary purpose of the interviews was to research the group dynamics and their interventions in detail. The idea was to ask about the thoughts, feelings and wishes of the participants on the desired interpretation of the group dynamics and which actions the principal should undertake regarding the group dynamics. By combining this information with literature, recommendations on for example the interpretation of norms, communication patterns and decision-making could have been made, together with interventions for the principal to accomplish this. However, after 3 interviews it appeared that the participants could not answer these detailed questions. The participants explained that there was too much lack of clarity about primer issues like the goal, tasks and expectations, therefore thinking about dynamics as norms, communication and decision-making was too hard for them. While the questions resulted in frustration and anger and no relevant answers were given, the decision is made to change the focus of the interviews. Therefore, the second part of the research question is changed into the question as described in the introduction: In response to the current cooperation circumstances of the Noorderpoort, on

which group dynamics should the principal primary focus on?

and feelings, all questions are asked in the way of: According to you, … This probably makes it easier to talk openly, to avoid socially desired answers and for the researcher to actually receive usable answers for this research.

Current cooperation While the research question focuses on the current cooperation

circumstances, the first interview question is about the current cooperation in the form of which grade will you give for the current cooperation in the triangle between HR, PC and ED? This is followed by the question: What elements are in that grade? This question is asked to explore how the members think of the cooperation at this moment. This makes it possible to explore if efforts should be made concerning cooperation, and what the members of the triangle think should be changed within the triangle.

Desired cooperation The second question is about the desired cooperation. The research

question focuses on the group dynamics the principal should focus on. Asking about the desired cooperation probably highlight group dynamics the participants appreciate. Moreover, asking about the desired cooperation makes it possible to get an idea about how the members of the triangle would like to cooperate, functioning as an end result the leader could focus on.

Initiating cooperation To get a precise idea on the primary important group dynamics regarding

cooperation, the third interview question asked what should be done to initiate cooperation within the triangle. Although the participants are not experts on group dynamics and relating interventions regarding initiation of cooperation, they will have thoughts on group dynamics that need to be taken care of to initiate cooperation. The participants will probably mention the group dynamics they feel are most important to focus on regarding initiation of cooperation. Like the question on the desired cooperation, this question will also function as a foundation for answering the question what group dynamics should the principal focus on.

Initiating cooperation by the principal The former question should give an idea about the focus

principal, and what should be undertaken by others in the organization. Besides, this question gives the participant the change to tell about more necessary actions for initiating cooperation. The interview ended with the question if all important aspects were treated, to make sure all relevant topics concerning the cooperation are covered.

3.5 Research execution

The first question of the interview: What grade do you give for the cooperation? And what elements are in this grade? is formulated as a scale question. However, in the execution of the interviews the question isn’t answered in a scale question like way. Within a scale question the participants give their grade for cooperation, and next they need to answer which elements are already in this grade, and which elements miss for getting a higher grade. Unfortunately, the participants found it too hard to answer, while according to them there was no cooperation yet. Asking follow up questions resulted in frustration of the participant, and didn’t provide correct answers for the scale question.

3.6 Analysis

4. RESULTS

As explained in the method section the participants were asked four questions during the interviews. The remaining part of this section illustrates the answers of the participants on the interview questions.

4.1 Current cooperation

The first question of the interview was: What grade will you give for the current cooperation in the triangle on a scale of 1 to 10? Including the follow up question: What’s in this grade?

All participants give an insufficient grade, with seven of the eight grades below five. The principals and the several interviewees of the departments all agree on the fact that the triangle just isn’t working yet. There are several grounds why cooperation isn’t initiated so far. First, two interviewees don’t even know who their team members are. According to some, this is especially due to the changes within the Education Development department. While they were functioning central at first, they should operate at the individual schools since this year. The content of their tasks has changed, and they are still adapting to this new situation. Next, there is lack of clarity about factors like the goal of the triangle, roles, tasks and responsibilities. One of the interviewees pointed out that ‘she tried to search for information on the triangle, but couldn’t find it on intranet, in policy plans, by colleagues, nothing.’ Also, interviewees have the feeling that the financial triangle had priority according to the higher level of the organization, because of an organizational change.

4.2 Desired cooperation

A wide variety of answers is given to the second question: What is the desired cooperation within the triangle, according to you?

One principal would like to meet once a month, the other ‘really does not need a monthly meeting’. The employees of the departments also differ in the opinion about the amount of structured meetings. While some explain they do not need a consultation, because they prefer to walk into someone’s office, others say they would like a monthly meeting. One employee of HR would like to meet on a regular basis, like once a week or once in the two weeks.

Moreover, the interviewees of the departments have a variety of explanations on their desired cooperation. They all have a unique explanation on the desired cooperation, but there two collective themes. First, the interdependence of the departments is discussed by the interviewees. One interviewee does not see the purpose of cooperation, or the connection of the departments. Besides, the interviewee describes the triangle will be more effective if the departments have collective themes. Another interviewee has doubts about the interdependence of the departments. Therefore the participant suggest she should not be with the consultation between the other departments. Therefore, the triangle should work in bilaterals. But, as stated this is the opinion because the purpose and the content of the triangle is not clear. Second, clarity on the other team members and their tasks is desired. One interviewee explains that: ‘Everyone should know what the expertise is of the other members. And which tasks belong to whom, so you will not duplicate tasks or hamper someone. So you have a notion who you should ask for advice, or who is the best member to cooperate with for a specific task’. The focus on tasks and team members is shared with another interviewee. This participant explains that agreements on tasks should be made. But the team members should also think about the consequences of operating in the triangle more. According to the interviewee: ‘Based on team plans of the schools we need to consider what it means for our function, for the other functional areas, and how we could deliver integrated support.’

4.3 Initiating cooperation in general

to the interviewee it will be too hard to deliver good support to the schools with this amount of triangles. Last, once the suggestion is made that clarity on shared goals, understanding of roles and expertise of the members is important.

4.5 Initiating cooperation by principal

After the general question on what needs to be accomplished to initiate cooperation in the triangles the question: According to you, what should the principal do to initiate cooperation? is asked. While the Noorderpoort suggested that the principal should lead the triangle, the interviewees disagree. Seven of the eight interviewees think the principal should not lead the triangle. They explain that while the triangle should function as an advisory body, the principal should not interfere in the tasks and actions of the members. However, the principals would like the highest power in the triangles. One principal states he should manage the triangle, but after he has send invitations for a meeting, guided the meeting and made agreements, the triangle should function on his own without leadership. As explained: ‘I just does not see why they wouldn’t cooperate if they are brought together’. The other principal agrees with the fact that the principal should convene the members of the triangle. But after that, the P&C should have the leading role, because ‘the P&C employee has organization wide coverage, because he or she operates at several schools’. For the other members it is also unclear who should lead the initiation process of cooperation. Three of the six employees figure the P&C member should take the lead in the triangle, which is in line with the opinion of one principal. But, before the P&C member could lead the triangle, information on Noorderpoort management level should be provided first according to four interviewees. Two interviewees suggest that the new staff director should be responsible for providing clarity on the triangles. Especially, the purpose, goals, roles and tasks should made clear to start cooperation.

4.6 Conclusion

5. CONCLUSION 5.1 Conclusion

The aim of this research is to provide the Noorderpoort with solutions for initiating cooperation within their triangles by a team leader. Both a literature study and interviews are used to answer the research question: How could the principal use group dynamics to initiate cooperation in the

Noorderpoort triangles and on which group dynamics should the principal primary focus, given the current cooperation circumstances?

The interviews show that the primary dynamic the leader should focus on is developing the group. According to the participants three main issues should be addressed for initiating cooperation in the triangle: 1. bring the triangle together and get to know each other 2. establish clear goals for the triangle and 3. provide clarity on roles, tasks and responsibilities for the specific triangle. Based on the theory of Van Oudenhoven and Giebels, these issues belong to the dynamic group development.

Thus, the primary dynamic the leader should focus on is group development. Interventions regarding group development could be performed during for example a kick-off meeting (s) (Leenders et.al, 2003). While the participants feel that getting to know each other and getting clarity on goals, roles and tasks are the main concerns for initiating cooperation, this should be the primer focus of this meeting. Literature shows possible interventions for the leader regarding these dynamics. First of all, the leader should provide time for getting to know each other. This makes it possible for the members to understand the expertise and the functional area of the team members. After this social talk, the meeting should continue with setting a subordinate goal and sub goals as a group, which should be formulated in a reasonable timeframe. While the members highlight their abstruseness about necessary tasks, the interdependence of tasks and expectations concerning the tasks, the leader should focus on tasks as well. After this goal setting, roles should be assigned together, including agreements on expectations concerning the roles.

Therefore, setting rule norms, creating communication patterns and forming decision-making frameworks, are interventions the leader should not forget during the kick-off.

A well performed kick-off meeting is a good start for initiating cooperation. Nevertheless, the leader should focus on the group dynamics after the kick-off as well. The participants key concern after the kick-off is communicating with the other members, while most of the time they are not operating in the same building. Virtual team literature shows possibilities to solve this problem (i.e. Leenders et.al, 2003; Martins et.al, 2004; Eppler & Sukowski, 2000). The leader should promote open communication trough electronic technologies, for example email and telephone and real and virtual spaces for communication should be provided. This is not only convenient for asking questions, but for sharing information as well. In addition, during the starting phase of cooperation the leader should be focused on both task oriented cohesiveness and social oriented cohesiveness of the group, creating a shared identity, creating commitment to goals, using feedback regarding behavior and goals, transforming rules into behavior and making sure all information is shared.

The second concern is whether the principals should have a the leading role in the triangle. The interviews illustrate that most participants including the principals, think the principal should not lead the triangle. As said by the participants, the principal should bring the members of the triangle together for a meeting to ask them for advice, but the participants believe the lead should be with somebody else, for example the member Planning & Control or the new director of staff support. Because of the lack of clarity on who should be the leader on the operational level, there should be decided who the leader should be on Noorderpoort level before the triangle could start cooperating.

Concluding, based on this research the Noorderpoort triangles will become effective teams. After the Noorderpoort management assigns the new team leader and provides information in the organization about the purpose and expectations, the leader could start adapting this research. While the participants are willing to get more information about the purpose, goals, tasks and team members, they probably are open towards the kick off. When the leader focuses on getting to know each other, setting goals collectively and assigning roles, the first important step towards cooperation are made. Fortunately, after reading this paper the leaders know that establishing communication patterns, creating an interaction framework and setting rule norms should play a role during the kick-off meeting as well. Especially important for the Noorderpoort leaders after the kick-off is stimulating communication through electronic systems, as well as generating cohesiveness, forming a shared identity, creating commitment to goals, using feedback, let rules become behavior and let members share information.

While the interventions are based on a literature study, team leaders of other organizations could use the interventions for initiating cooperation as well. The only thing to leaders should be aware off is that the interventions should be adapted to the current cooperation situation of the organization.

5.2 Additional recommendations

the participants have doubts about the current structure. The triangle members are suppose to work in several triangles, which will cost a lot of time. Suggestions of the participants are to operate per sector instead of per school or to work in bilaterals. Moreover, all participants feel the triangles should operate close to the school. A solution is to schedule the employees in such a way that they operate at the school, they already work for. Another suggestion is to make sure the triangle members operate at one school at the same day, covering all schools during the week. This way the triangles will be more visible and applicable for both the principal as well as the teaching teams. Also, the members will spend more time together, which will create cohesiveness, and increases the feeling that they could walk into each others office to ask questions.

5.3 Limitations

The limitations of this paper are primarily based on the empirical part of the research. The purpose of the research is to examine how cooperation could be initiated by the principal. While information about interventions was not available in the organizations, literature is used to gain information on interventions. After the literature study, the intention was to interview employees of the Noorderpoort on how they would like to cooperate in terms of group dynamics, with the possibility to conclude which interventions suit the organization and the cooperation circumstances. After three interviews it appeared that the triangles were not cooperating yet and that the implementation of triangles was in the first stadium. As a result the participants could not say anything useful on preferred interpretation of group dynamics, not to mention interventions for the leader. Therefore, the focus of the interviews is changed into: which dynamic should the leader primary focus on. However, if there was more time, the research could be performed differently. For example, instead of relying on interventions from literature, consultants or project managers could have been interviewed to ask or check which interventions are useful. Researching successful initiation process of cooperation in other teams or organizations is another possibility, for answering the management question. A third solution could have been to start with diagnosing why the members haven’t started cooperation, with as a response adapting interventions to these reasons.

two of the 15 principals. However, the results of the interview were rather similar, so it seems that the chosen participants are representative for all the members of the triangle.

Moreover, the participants are requested to participate in the interviews by a colleague. This might have caused for some group pressure to participate. Furthermore, the message of the colleague included the information that the board was supporting the research session. This might have led to socially desired answers because the participants might have feared the consequences of telling the whole truth. Also, the execution of the interview results is not checked with the participants, however this is solved by using raw data of the interviews.