Supplementary files are available for this work. For more information about accessing
these files, follow the link from the Table of Contents to "Reading the Supplementary Files”.
Table of Contents
Go Back
Organizational Change at the Team Level:
The Dynamics Of High Performing Self-directed
Work Teams From A Learning Organizational
Perspective.
Ralph L. Levine, Ph.D.
Department of Resource Development
and Department of Psychology
314 Natural Resources Building
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
Ph. 517-332-2317
Fax. 517-353-8994
leviner@pilot.msu.edu
ABSTRACT
This paper describes a model that explains the changes workers go through in formation
and evolution of self-directed work teams (SDWT) over a six year period. The formation
phase is characterized by major increases in worker commitment to the team concept.
Upper management has to convince workers that the company will give them the freedom
and resources to function as a SDWT. Once the team comes into existence, another set of
processes dominate. The model describes the tradeoff between being empowered to set
work intensity and worker accountability. High performing teams may seek external
resources to raise the performance bar, through internal pressure to excel. Raising the
bar generates burnout as an unintended consequence. However, high performing teams
can be relatively immune to burnout. The model hypothesizes that loop processes,
associated with team spirit and zeal for the job, appear late in the game to ameliorate the
effects of burnout.
Key Words: — Self-directed-work-teams, commitment, learning-organization, trust,
empowerment, accountability, team-sprit
INTRODUCTION
As economic pressures force companies to face up to global competition, organizations
look for ways to increase productivity and market share. One way is through organizing
the firm into new units that may generate higher levels of sustained performance. Over
the past twenty years or so, self-directed work teams, as an organizational innovation,
have been a popular way of increasing productivity. Indeed, there is an ever-increasing
literature on self-directed work teams that outline their strengths and weaknesses (e.g.,
Hitchcock and Willard, 1995). Recently, the dynamics of self-directed work teams have
been explored by Rahmandad and Vieira da Cunha (2001), who looked at the formation
of norms in groups. In addition, Levine, Leholm, and Vlasin (2001) modeled the
dynamics of leadership in those groups.
PURPOSE
This is the second of a series of papers on modeling the dynamics of self-directed work
teams (SDWT)’s. The previous paper, cited above, emphasized the changing role of
leadership in the transition from a command and control culture to more of a participative
culture. The present paper deals with the dynamics of the team members themselves.
Self-directed team members, when moving from old work patterns and structures to
(SDWT)’s have to make some revolutionary changes in patterns of work, responsibilities,
and the commitment to the self-directed team concept itself. The model incorporates
processes of learning, communication, and tolerance of diverse ideas. It captures the
dynamics of emotional and social aspects of work teams, such as trust, zeal, and loyalty
to the group. It also features the process of burnout under pressure to produce, and shows
under what conditions “raising the bar’ can be accomplished in the face of burnout.
Finally, the model focuses on changes in team spirit, which is hypothesized to play a
leading role in establishing extremely high performing teams (Katzenbach, 1993, 1998;
Klein and Izzo, 1999).
DEFINITION AND DESCRIPTION OF SELF-DIRECTED TEAMS
Self-directed work teams are composed of workers who characteristically take charge of
routine affairs, such as planning daily work flow, doing elemental accounting, deciding
what new equipment to order, and bringing in customers to talk about how products
could be improved. In most traditional organizations, many of these roles would be the
responsibility of the immediate supervisor. However, leadership in self-directed teams is
sometimes more diffuse than other work groups. If there is single team leader, he or she
will have a very different set of roles, compared to traditional command and control
supervisors. Levine et. al. (2001) described a model of leadership in self-directed teams.
Much information is shared and gathered from sources within the team, from the
organization, and from the environment (e.g., customers, suppliers, governmental
agencies). SDWT’s fit the pattern of a learning organization, for there is emphasis on
keeping up with technology and taking a more holistic view of what is made, sold, or
serviced by the team and the company.
Burnout. Another characteristic of SDWT’s, especially high performing teams, is that
there appears to be more emphasis on monitoring performance, re-evaluating goals, and
sometimes “raising the bar,” meaning that self-directed work teams may, from internal
pressure, raise their goals and target performance levels themselves without external
influences. In order to do that, they may have to obtain resources outside of the
organization, by being entrepreneurial. Raising the bar has its tradeoffs, however,
because higher performance levels have to be maintained, which can lead to burnout of
team members. The model hypothesizes what processes dissipate burnout if it were to
accumulate over time.
OUR EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON HIGH PERFORMING TEAMS
In the team literature, some of the soft variables (processes) are said to be responsible for
the advantages of SDWT’s. Recently, the author has worked closely with his colleagues,
Arlen Leholm and Raymond Vlasin at Michigan State University to interview several
SDWT?’s that have been designated as high performing teams. The author’s modeling
efforts helped these researchers to generate a semi-structured interview, lasting, in total,
four or five hours, which probed the history of the team as a working unit, sought out
descriptions of the problems faced at the its initial existence, and elicited responses to
questions about what happens over time to the key processes the team members thought
to be important in their success. Those researchers have gone on to apply this interview
format with a number of additional teams associated with many different companies and
economy economic sectors.
The author had participated in interviewing the first three non-profit teams, two from
Michigan and one from Ohio. In order to get some idea about what happened over time,
we asked the team members to draw some of the key variables from the literature over
time, such as performance and quality of inter-member communication, as well as any of
the variables that came up in the interview that they felt was important. First we went
over the definitions of the variables so that everyone more or less agreed on the meaning
of the terms used to define each concept. We then gave them standardized forms to do
the task of drawing what happened to that variable over the time horizon, which varied
somewhat from team to team, depending on its age. For social variables, such as “a
feeling of empowerment” we quantified the variable to range from 0.0, no
empowerment, to 100, which was defined as the maximum empowerment they could ever
feel, something most if not all would ever attain. For non-social variables, the Y axis was
quantified in the units that were appropriate to variable being plotted. If for example,
they wanted to plot performance, which might be the amount of dollars brought in by
grants every year, they would do the plots in dollar units.
We were looking for general patterns of behavior rather than an accurate behavior over
time curve. We were studying very high performance teams, so trying this out on our
first team, everyone wanted to show that all of the indices were monotonic. For them, the
easiest way to do this was to draw a straight line over time. Their initial drawings, to a
person, did not show any limits to growth. The author asked a few questions about the
implications of constant change that is inherent in straight-line behavior. It became
apparent to everyone that a straight line did not represent the behavior pattern they were
thinking about. The author then drew a sample of five patterns on the board: Straight
line, logarithmic, s-shaped, exponential-overshoot-and-collapse, staircase, _i.e.,
logarithmic rise to an asymptote, followed by another logarithmic rise. Everyone revised
his or her drawings. Most behavior over time graphs were drawn as s-shaped curves,
with the exception of performance, which most people, in this elite team, drew a staircase
pattern to signify that the team had surpassed its asymptotic performance at least one
additional time.
We discovered the efficacy of “multiple choice” patterns with the first group. We used
this method from that point on to elicit behavior over time graphs for all additional
interviews. As far as I know, my colleagues have used the choice of patterns in their
recent, ongoing research with other teams.
Differences in the curves. It should be pointed out that the team members were required
to draw behavior over time curves, not just pick a pattern. They also were told that they
were not limited to any of the curves they see on the board. By having them draw the
curves, we found that, as one would guess, some of the curves developed faster than
others. This substantiated our existing experience with teams as well as the literature that
speaks of different stages of team dynamics.
Additional Notable Processes Found In Self-Directed Teams
Trust. We also noted that in every case, people reported that they “really liked and
respected “ fellow teammates. They wanted to spend time with each other, not only in the
work environment, but also in many other settings. Thus the notion of trust appears
frequently in our interviews and in the literature. From theses sources, it became obvious
that trust was used in several contexts. Therefore, the author disaggregated trust into
several key processes. For example, there is the trust that team members have for each
other, i.e., fellow team members. Then there is trust in the team leader by team members.
This type of trust is particularly important in forming the team. Once the team comes into
existence and begins to function as a unit, if team members cannot trust each other, then
there may not be strong motivation to get new resources to perform at higher levels.
Empowerment. Although trust in team members is an important process that can
determine high performance levels, it is only one of several processes that lead to
successful functioning. For example, the model captures a potentially important problem
with organizational policies that give SDWT’s so much power. There is a complex
interaction between empowerment and mutual accountability. From an organizational
perspective, if an organization suddenly gives the team freedom to set its own schedules
and allows the team members to be prematurely empowered, the team members may take
advantage of this new freedom by going in the opposite direction. Instead of working
harder, they may try cutting their work hours or coming in late. The model captures the
dynamics of the interaction between the level of empowerment and accountability to give
a picture of the necessary conditions for eliciting innovative and entrepreneurial
behavior.
THE THEORY BEHIND THE MODEL
As a guiding principle and as a framework for the organization of this paper, one can
think of the processes of team dynamics in terms of a hierarchy of processes embedded in
a triangle (see Figure 1). At the base of the triangle, the first tier, a number of very
important processes have to occur in order for the team to come into existence. For
example, the potential team members have to perceive that there will be adequate
resources available for obtaining higher performance levels. There has to be a certain
level of commitment by team members to the successfully form the team. The processes
associated with the second tier deal with what happens after the formation of the team.
High performance teams focus on becoming a learning organization within the company.
There is emphasis on innovation. Clarity of vision becomes quite important. Finally,
good teams strive to obtain high levels of team functioning, allowing more time for
entrepreneurship, perhaps leading to external sources of resources. The third tier of the
triangle only occurs in relatively rare cases. Those are described by Katzenback and
Smith (1993) and in most self-directed teams observed in our study. According to our
theory, the key concept is team spirit. Most if not all of the variables associated with the
previous levels of the triangle must be extremely high to elicit high levels team spirit.
High levels of team spirit are associated with extreme motivation to perform and a certain
zeal for the job. The team members have a fierce loyalty for the team per se, and the
company they work for. There is almost a spiritual quality to their functioning. Most
teams never get to those intensities necessary to generate such high levels of the variables
and processes associated with the third tier. Once they attain such levels, however, then
the high levels of zeal and loyalty feed back to inhibit burnout and turnover.
Potential Higher
Team|Spirit Order Processes
Team Zeal
Loyalty
Level of Team
Function Member Trust After Team
Comes Into Existence
Clarity of Vision | Member Skills
Knowledge
Prior To Forming
Commitment
Internal Resources The Team
Availability
Fig. 1. The hierarchical relationships among processes that are
associated with high performing self-directed teams.
Modeling Team Dynamics
The triangle metaphor can provide a organizational framework for modeling the
dynamics of self-directed teams. Thus far we have discussed some of the characteristics
of very high performing teams. As a system dynamicist, the author frequently wants to
look at poorly performing teams to model their problems. Indeed, what he found from
his own experience with these high performing teams is that they seem to circumvent,
through planning, or never experience many of the problems described in the literature.
For example, in a previous paper on leadership in self-directed teams (Levine, Leholm,
and Vlasin, 2001), we modeled the transformation of supervisors to team leaders. The
literature (e.g., Hitchcock and Willard 1995) describes how hard it was to move from a
command and control leadership style to the take on a completely different style and set
of roles when working with the team members. In high performing teams, many of the
people who became fine team leaders initially showed qualities that would adapt them
quickly to the new culture. They may even have had problems adjusting to the command
and control climate prior to forming the self-directed team.
The model of team dynamics has all of the elements of the hierarchical triangle (Figure 1)
taken from our theoretical framework and tries to incorporate much of the literature,
which emphasizes problems and tribulations, i.e. what can go wrong with this type of
team. The triangle itself presents a static view of many of these processes. The dynamics
will be forthcoming in the rest of this paper. Originally, the author wanted to model what
happens to self-directed teams after their formation, but team members that he
interviewed made it very clear that it was necessary to include the preparation and
formation stage to appropriately model the dynamics. Too many things happened early in
the formation stage not to include them in the model.
Table 1
Key Processes represented in the model and organized according to the level of
the hierarchy
Level Of The Hierarchy Process
Knowledge Acquisition and Ambiguity
Formation The Role of Commitment To the Formation Process
The Potential Problem of Inadequate Internal Resources
After Formation Empowerment and Sense of Responsibility
Trust in Members and Care and Respect
Raising Performance Goals and Level of Functioning
Higher Level Structures The Emergence of Team Spirit, Zeal, and Loyalty
Burnout
Table 1 shows some of the processes represented in the model and discussed in the
remainder of the paper. One sub-sector of the model deals with the loop structure
associated with behavior generated prior to becoming a functioning self-directed team.
Much of the work to be done is in dealing with role ambiguities and acquiring knowledge
of working in a new way. Here in many situations, workers do not trust the promises of
higher administration, and the new team leader, especially with respect to resources.
Commitment to the concept of self-directed teams may be very low. The first sub-sector
deals with loop structures connecting role ambiguity, knowledge of team functioning and
commitment. The second sub-sector deals with trust in higher administration over
resources. The two sub-sectors combined pretty well describe formation stage of these
teams.
Once the team begins to function as a self-directed team, to operate effectively, team
members have to learn a lot very quickly. In many companies, initially performance
levels may go down, not up in the intended direction. The model tries to capture the
problems of having too much freedom too soon, without developing a high sense of
responsibility. During this period, many things happen. The model includes experiential
learning on the job, the gain of new skills as additional member assets and in particular,
deals with the role of trust and respect for fellow members.
The model shows under what conditions the team may raise the performance bar as the
members become more efficient, successful, and perhaps more entrepreneurial.
Obtaining extra resources and having time to seek external resources seems play a major
role in raising goals from time to time and reaching them. In addition, the performance
sub-sector represents the role of member trust in being entrepreneurial. Finally,
maintaining high performance and productivity has its costs. The performance sub-sector
of the model attempts to show how burnout may prevent high performance standards
from being maintained.
The model also includes a sub-sector that deals with the loop structures that determine
team spirit, which emerges very slowly and depends on what happens in the previously
mentioned sub-sectors of the model. High levels of team spirit increase loyalty and zeal
(intense satisfaction in being in the group and great enjoyment of the work activities).
Loyalty helps to cut down on turnover and zeal helps to deal with burnout caused by
working so hard.
As one can see from the Figure 1 and Table 1, the theory appears to highlight stages of
development. Stage theories describing team dynamics are not new (e.g., see Colenso,
1995). However, in this system dynamic model, with the exception of the process of the
team coming into existence, all of the processes, associated with transitions are
continuous. Some loop processes are important and dominant at earlier stages than
others. The later stages, characterized by high levels of team spirit, zeal, and loyalty, will
not come into fruition unless second level processes are sufficiently high enough to have
an effect on team spirit. Without sufficient learning of new skills, acquiring
communication skills, and gaining respect and trust for fellow team members, team spirit
is unlikely to emerge as a potent force in this model.
Linkages to other parts of the literature. The three tiered representation of team
functioning reminds the author somewhat of Edgar Schein’s work on the dynamics of
organizational culture (Schein, 1990), where he defined organizational culture roughly as
a pattern of assumptions that are invented or discovered by a given group as it learns to
deal with both external and internal problems, and to find what works reasonably well so
it might be passed on to new members. In essence, the model captures the dynamics of
many of the elements of Schein’s theory of the development of an organization’s culture.
In particular, the model represents the dynamics of two types of consensus building
described in Schein’s article, namely external consensus, dealing with such things as
mission and goals, and internal consensus, dealing with boundaries and language
(communication). The model attempts to describe the dynamics of moving from what
Schein calls an “multi company”, which is associated with an authoritarian/paternal style
of leadership to an “action company”, which is more egalitarian in nature and stresses
sharing information at all levels.
The remaining parts of this paper are organized to follow the dynamics of each of the
levels of the hierarchy, starting with the base of the triangle and ending with the apex of
the triangle. We introduce the variables and some of the main structural characteristics
for each level. Since each tier depends on the previous level of the hierarchy, it was
thought best to present a base run that demonstrates high performance team behavior and
arun that demonstrates problem areas that may occur for the many of self-directed teams
for each level of the hierarchy.
THE PREPARATION AND FORMATION OF THE TEAM
The model’s time horizon includes activities of the organization during the formation
period and what happens after the self-directed work team comes into existence. The
time horizon was chosen to be 72 months or six years. In the formation stage, the firm
may be looking for ways to match the external competition from the world economy.
Self-directed teams lead to higher productivity when there are strong interdependencies
among members performing a complex set of tasks. Before the team actually comes into
existence, the potential team members have to go through drastic changes. In some
organizations, it is truly a radical transformation. Typically, workers know nothing about
self-directed teams. They most likely did not have much to do with the organizational
decision to create one or more self-directed work teams. In the old, scheme, workers were
usually told what to do in terms of day-to-day operations. There are new roles to take on
and old roles to drop. The old reward system was geared to reinforce and promote high
performing individuals. That has to change when the team comes on line.
Thus, during this formation stage, team members have to gain vast amounts of vicarious
knowledge about self-directed teams. This moves them into a learning organizational
mode. There is much ambiguity about their new roles. As time goes on in this formation
period, when knowledge goes up, role ambiguity should go down. Another salient
process that affects potential team members is their trust in their supervisor to deliver the
resources the team needs to get the job done. Usually in the control and command
climate, trust might initially be quite low. The commitment to the concept of the self-
directed team is another major motivational variable that determines the success of the
program. The members get to know and believe that the company as well as their team
will have to increase productivity to higher levels to meet competition. That is a very
important factor that increases attitudes towards forming these special types of teams.
So, in summary, success in the early formation stage depends on (1) the accumulation of
a vicarious knowledge base concerning the roles members will take as a team, (2) on the
increased trust in the supervisor to deliver the resources, and (3) the commitment by the
team members to form the team and get the work done.
Some Structural Characteristics of the Formation Stage
When employees are told about the possible formation of teams, most workers know
nothing about them. Indeed there is a much ambiguity about what roles they will play and
what changes in behavior will have to me made to deal the new situation. Figure | shows
a small portion of the model that deals with the reciprocal interaction between ambiguity
and vicarious knowledge. The model hypothesizes that Member_Ambiguity is a
characteristic of the situation. There is a large emotional element to this variable, unlike
Knowledge, which is more cognitive in nature. Generally in the model, all psychological
variables have been set to range from an absolute zero, which in this situation would be
anchored to mean “no ambiguity” at all about the team situation to 100 units, meaning so
much ambiguity that the person should be totally confused.
Figure 2 demonstrated some knowledge/ambiguity relationships that take place in the
formation stage, in the form of a causal loop diagram and a abbreviated stock and flow
diagram. The author assumes Member_Ambiguity never increases, but decrease over
time in terms of a draining process represented in Loop B1. A lot of ambiguous situations
clear up when persons learn something about the topic. The stock, Knowledge, was
introduced to represent information workers need to know to form and function as a real
team. Here is where principles of learning organizations come in. To form a stable
successful self-directed team, everyone must do their homework. The emphasis is on
learning in this situation.
In Figure 2, we also see that Knowledge feeds upon itself as it increases over time. Loop
RI has been deliberately included as a self-loop to represent this psychological process.
Member_Ambiguity inhibits learning about new tasks. On the other hand, as the team
member’s stock of Knowledge increases, Member_Ambiguity goes down. Loop R2
indicates that Knowledge should rise over time as Member_Ambiguity decreases. Figure
2 also includes a schematic flow diagram showing the elements of the Knowledge
Acquisition/Ambiguity sub-sector of the model.
‘ole_Ambiguity
Loss_of_Mem_Am|
‘Ambig_Ga
Tolorance_4_Ambig
“
Ef_Ambig_Qn_Know 5 LeOBEcii
FrincIn_learn
Knowlesige Loss_Of_Knowledge
Learning it_ New_tasks
Ambiguity
Loss of 4
Ambiguity (=)
im %
Increase In
Knowledge (™) Knowledge
Re
Fig. 2. The reciprocal influence of ambiguity about teams
and vicarious knowledge occurring in the formation stage
Commitment
Another motivational variable that is crucial to launching the team deals with the
members’ Commitment to the self-directed team concept. Figure 3 deals with a principal
positive loop mechanism that aids in pumping up enthusiasm for moving toward building
a self-directed work team. It is interesting also because the loop spans two sectors of the
overall model, namely the team worker sector, being described in this paper, and the
leadership sector, reported in Levine (2001). Commitment by future team members helps
to motivate them to learn more about their new roles in the future. As Knowledge
increases, the team leader, who at this stage is most likely their supervisor, begins to trust
that the group can carry their weight and not fall apart. Thus, the Leader’s Trust in Team
Members increases when Knowledge increases. When the leader’s Trust in Team
Members increases, the tendency to fall back on control and command behavior, the
antithesis of the new, promised leadership style decreases. Thus, an increase in Trust in
Team Members decreases the Leader’s Degree of Control. Finally a decrease in the
Leader’s Degree of Control increases Trust in the Team Leader, which in turn increases
Commitment.
Leader’s :
Degree Of ; -
Control
Leadership i
- Sector Trust In Team
a Leader
Leader’s Trust in Team
Team Members (x) Workers +
4 Sector
Commitment
+ _/
Knowledge
fe
Fig. 3. A principal growth loop for commitment to the self-
directed work team concept. The loop goes across the team and
leadership sectors.
Note that the Leader's Degree of Control was represented as an exogenous input into the
team worker’s sector model used as the basis for discussion in this paper. Actually,
sensitivity runs show that the Leader’s Degree of Control can have a profound effect on
growth Commitment and Knowledge. Potentially it can be a strong lever of change. To
put it in context, we are describing the early phases of forming the team. If the workers
do not “go for it”, either the company has to hire new people or most likely drop the idea.
When Commitment is low, the workers do not seem to learn very much about Self-
directed work teams.
Internal Resources Before Coming On Line As a Real Team
In the formation stage, workers look for signs that higher management is serious about
moving toward actual team formation. Is the company ready to supply the resources
(e.g., time, expertise, and money) necessary for the team established itself and move
forward? Depending on past experiences, the workers may be pessimistic about this
latest idea that comes from management. Commitment is greatly affected by the support
and resources given to the workers to start and maintain these teams. The model at this
point only has a very small upper management sector that estimates about how much
resources will be allocated for this new venture. That amount may or may not equal what
they tell the team leader or the workers. If total internal resources are low, then the
workers will not be committed to the self-directed work team concept. They will not
learn enough have a good chance of increasing and sustaining productivity.
To be general, the stock of Internal Resources ranges from 0.0 to 100, and captures the
all of the resources needed to set up and maintain the team, at least initially. The
literature stresses the importance of upper management giving more than lip service to
new the implementation of new ideas (e.g., Katzenbach, 1998). Without the overall
support given by the organization, then there is only a small possibility that the team
could be successful.
The model used for this paper has a very small closed loop Organization Sector.
However, sensitivity runs indicated that at the early stage of formation, in particular, lack
of resources lead to dire consequences in terms of dynamics of Commitment. In
formulating the model, the effect of Internal Resources on Commitment assumed that, if
you do not have resources, you can not become committed. To be a bit more specific, a
table function was set so that, when the value of the table function goes between 0 and 1,
the resource factor inhibits the growth of the Commitment. When it goes above 1.0, it
increases the stock of Commitment.
Base Run For the Formation Period
Let us see how the interactions between Member_Ambiguity, Knowledge, and
Commitment play out over time, during the formation phase. In this base run, the
parameters have been set to represent potentially high performance teams that have
adequate resources to become extremely successful. Figure 4 shows the output of the
model for team formation period, having a time horizon of 24 months, i.e., it took about
two years to prepare to come on line for such teams in this computer run. In Figure 4a,
one sees that this group of workers endured about 12 months of very high degrees of
Member_Ambiguity as Knowledge increased slowly at first and then very rapidly a bit
later. However, Member_Ambiguity, after about a year fell steadily as one would expect
of a draining process (see Figure 2). By the end of the formation period, many of the
uncertainties and confusion about self-directed teams had cleared up.
100), 4 -_ iw
80 2
1 Member_Ambiguity 5 80
60 2. Knowledge & 60
Z
40 5
& 40
20 0
o 0
0 6 12 18 24 0 6 12 #18 24
(a) (b)
Fig. 4. Output of the base run describing the characteristics
of high performance teams during the formation stage.
Potential Problems: Inadequate Resources Given By Upper Management
ge
—1—Internal_Resources
—y-Manage_Delivered_Res
409 —3— Team_Expected_Res
11141
—4—Member_Ambiguity
Commitment
Knowledge
—
12
Months
6 12 18 24
Months
Fig. 5. Output of a run in which upper management did not deliver
on Internal Resources.
Run #2: Inadequate resources.
The base run assumed management would supply adequate resources in the formation
stage. On the other hand, suppose there was a discrepancy between what upper
management told the workers and the team leader and what resources they delivered. In
the model, the organization’s Internal Resources ranges from 0.0 to 100. In the next
simulation run, the workers and the team leader expected a large amount of resources, so
that in the model the variable, Team_Expected_Resources was set at 85, and all the upper
management wanted to give the team was only a moderate amount on Jnternal Resources,
namely 40 on the same scale. According to the model, this can devastate group morale.
The top figure shows what happens over time to the allocation of Jnternal Resources
given to the team for the first 24 months, the period of formation. The figure on the left
indicates that Member-Ambiguity remains virtually constant over time. It does not go
down. Knowledge remains relatively stable over time, but at essentially its initial low
level of knowledge units. In comparison to Figure 4a, at the end of 24 months, the
workers know very little about self-directed teams. Finally commitment stays
approximately constant over the time horizon.
S
Ss
2
S
Base Run
Trust_In_Team
2
gs
10
Trust_In_Team.
uate Resources
12 18 24
°
o4
Months
(b)
Fig. 6. Comparison of the members’ trust in the team
leader when resources are adequate or inadequate
Figure 6 shows the behavior of Trust_In_Team-Ldr when resources were perceived as
inadequate, compared to the base run, where resources for starting the self-directed work
team were perceived as adequate. In Figure 6a, (adequate resources) one can observe a
slight falling of trust over the first year with this parameterization, indicating that the
potential team members were not sure if the resources expected would be there when they
came on line. However, as one can see from the top figure, gradually the workers began
to trust the team leader, who is a spokesperson for upper management. The team leader
also has to go through a trust enhancing process with respect to upper management.
In Figure 6b, one can see that trust for the leader coasted down during the formation
period, not up. Initially, one of the tasks for the supervisor/team leader is to try to
persuade workers that it is to their advantage to be a member of a self-directed team.
They have to sell the idea, and to assure the workers that it is not another management
fad. The leader puts his or her reputation on the line by promising that resources will be
forthcoming. When management does not come through, Trust_In_Team-Ldr goes down
as one sees in lower figure.
AFTER THE TEAM IS ESTABLISHED AND IS FUNCTIONING
At this point, the team has been established and is functioning on its own. Consider the
variables in the next tier in Figure 1. Once the team comes into existence, a new set of
processes comes into play. Some of them have their counterparts with variables already
described in the previous section. When the team is functioning, it becomes apparent that
vicarious learning can only go so far. High performance teams, in particular, continue
learning organizational habits. They have so much to learn experientially. They have
skills to learn and practice, and perhaps unanticipated new sets of problems to face for the
first time.
Empowerment and A Sense Of Responsibility
Many teams are told specific objectives and over-all goals that they have to attain in a
certain period of time. There usually are traditional constraints on how their goals have to
be accomplished. However, management may not be clear about those constraints. In
some situations, initially members might take advantage of the situation, and instead of
increasing the intensity of work, they may opt for not coming in regularly, perhaps
decreasing productivity. Conceptually, there is an tradeoff between empowerment and
member accountability that needed to be made explicit before it could be incorporated in
the model. The main idea for moving from a work group, subject to corporate culture of
command and control, to a self-directed team format was that workers would increase
productivity to meet or exceed competitive standards. Successful self-directed work
teams only occur when the team members strive to raise productivity. In order to do that,
they would have to be responsible. Too much freedom without responsibility can lead to
immediate problems.
Responsibility frequently has to do with the development of norms. Recently,
Rahmandad and Vieira da Cunha (2001) developed a interesting model studying the
development of norms in these self-direct groups. Alternatively, the notion of
empowerment has been a favorite topic in management (e.g., Bucholz and Roth, 1987;
Colenso,1997). Empowerment is also a key fixture in the area of community psychology
(e.g., Rappaport, 1981, 1987; Zimmerman, 1995, 2000). In many cases, responsibility has
either been assumed to be directly included in the definition of empowerment or it is
assumed that people who become empowered will use their newly acquired powers in an
ethical manner. However, there are a number of instances where people and individuals
who have not used their sense of empowerment in an ethical way. Thus, it was felt
necessary to disaggregate the process somewhat for the purpose of the model by defining
a stock of Mutual Accountability and a separate Empowerment stock.
Table 2. The tradeoffs between empowerment and
a sense of mutual responsibility on setting work
goals.
Mutual Accountability
Low High
3 Low No change No change
e in goals in goals
é
= Decrease Increase
ica] High goals goals
The two may interact in a very complex and interesting way. Table 2 represents the
interaction hypothesized to occur at various combinations of values of both level
variables on setting goals. If workers are low in power and are not very responsible, they
cannot do much to change the intensity of work, like decreasing hours. Likewise, going
across the first row, if they are low on Empowerment, but are high in Mutual
Accountability, they cannot change their performance goals. They have no authority to do
so. On the other hand, consider the second row. If the workers are high on
Empowerment, but and low on Mutual Accountability, they may decide to decrease their
work goals by coming into work less often or leaving earlier. On the other hand, those
who are high on Empowerment and high on Mutual Accountability may voluntarily
increase their work intensity by working harder and perhaps working more hours, etc.
In terms of modeling, it was difficult dealing with suitable multipliers for the interaction
between Empowerment and Mutual Accountability if one wanted to included all four of
the cells depicted in Table 2. The author wants to thank David Lane, for suggesting the
general form of the multipliers in this case. Figure 7 gives a rough sketch of the table
functions associated with the multipliers. Consider Mutual Accountability first. At low
levels, the value of the multiplier goes negative, reversing the direction of flow under
those conditions. On the other hand, if Mutual Accountability is at moderate or high
values the value of the multiplier is positive. Now consider the table function associated
with Empowerment. The value of the function, ranging from 0.0 to 1.0 is always positive
and ogival in form. Low values of Empowerment are very low, close to zero in the
parameterization of this s-shaped function.
05 10
0
0
0 100 0 100
countability Empowerment
-.05
Fig. 7 Table functions that represent the interaction between
Mutual Accountability and Empowerment. Note the change
the direction of goals when Mutual Accountability is low and
Empowerment is either high or low.
Although this interaction may operate to decrease productivity, there are other negative
loop processes that prevent a very rapid decrease in performance due to the immaturity of
the workforce. For example, management will be monitoring productivity of the new
team very closely, and may, if productivity falls too far and too fast, upper management
may step in and return to a control and command format by disbanding the team structure
after a few months. Levine et. al. (2001) described how the model could react to a
decrease in performance by disbanding the team concept after an initial period of
observation, where the team was showing a worse performance record than before the
team came into existence.
Other Early Important Processes
There are several key things that the team has to learn once it comes into existence. One
is the experiential counterpart to the Knowledge variable described in the previous
sections. The team members have to obtain a number of new skills. In terms of the
model, I have designated the stock, Memb_Skills, as the cumulated skill set members
have to learn to work competitively for the company. Another aspect of the job is to gain
a broader perspective about the role of the team in the organization and the relationship
between the team and the outside stakeholders, such as customers, suppliers, and
governmental agencies. Team members have to work hard on clarifying a vision of what
the team wants to do in the future. Thus, Clarity_Of_ Vision, a stock, became another
important early process that needed attention by the team leader and team members. For
example, as Clarity_Of_Vision increases, members can see what new skill sets they
would have to learn and master. On the other hand, as they become more skilled in
technical matters, members could get greater insights about their role in the company and
what they realistically could do in the future. An increase in Memb_Skills increased their
Clarity-Of Vision, thus generating a reinforcing loop between those two state variables.
These two psychological concepts are distinct from each other. A reviewer of the
original manuscript rightly stated that, on the surface, psychological concepts such as
Clarity_Of Vision and Memb_Skills might have overlapping meanings. If so, loop
mechanisms, such the loop described previously, that include such concepts are not
robust. This is certainly true if these concepts did overlap, but fortunately that is not the
case. Memb_Skills include bread and butter skills, such as learning basic accounting
practices, because the group now needed those skills. In the model, Clarity_Of Vision
takes on a very different role. It partly represents some very interesting phenomena, not
yet pointed out in the literature, but nevertheless can be found if look for. In parts of the
literature, the vision of the company or the team frequently gets clarified in what my
colleagues, Arlen Leholm and Raymond Vlassin call “triggering events or insights.” For
example, Katzenbach and Smith (1993) describe how in about 1981, a newly formed
team, working for the Burlington Northern Railroad, changed the business concept of the
company (eventually an industry) by moving toward a different vision of what the
company was and where it should go. Initially, Burlington Northern perceived itself as a
traditional railroad. This team began to think about piggybacking trucks which then
could continue on to their destination more efficiently than by rail alone. The insight was
structural. The “intermodal” team clarified their vision about who they were by thinking
of themselves, not as a railroad company, but as a total transportation company. That
allowed them to do whatever they wanted to do to be more productive..
Empirical basis of triggering insights. In our research, we find in our high performance
team interviews evidence of these triggering insights that lead to rapid clarity of the
vision. For example, one of the teams interviewed was of a crack university extension
team, whose mission was to deal with issues of hiring personnel as people retired from
the system. Up until the team was formed, each county had their own personnel
specialists who only performed their duties in that county. When someone retired or left,
it was not always possible to replace that person very easily, especially because there was
sometimes fierce, competitive pressure from neighboring counties to take away the slot
for themselves. In many cases, they were at each others’ throats. The team members
began to think about these competitive relations among the neighboring counties. They
made a structural change in their vision by redefining who they were. Their job was to
find the best person for a particular county. The slot could be filled with someone who
also could work for other counties in the region. So they began to hire a group of
specialists who were available at any time on a regional basis. The model uses the
variable Clarity_Of_Vision to deal with such insights, which open the way for more and
more productivity.
Social Processes Important During Intermediate Phase Of Development
Self-directed teams are noted for the trust and respect members show for each other. The
model tried to capture this process by including a _ stock called
“Trust_In_Team_Members.” ‘Trust begins to increase slowly even before formally
becoming a team. As Mutual_Accountability increases in the early phase of team
functioning and the team begins to meet its goals by performing at or above higher
standards of performance, team members begin to trust each other even more. The model
also assumes that trust (Zrust_In_Team_Members) aides members to communicate
(Member_Communication) better among themselves and with other stakeholders. As
Member_Communication increases, members are more open to listening to and accepting
diverse ideas and perspectives (Acceptance_Div_Ideas). This openness in turn affects
Trust_In_Team_Members. Thus, there is a reinforcing loop between interfaces these three
social variables, Trust_In_Team_Members, | Member_Communication, and
Acceptance_Div_Ideas.
Level_Of_Team_Functioning
As the team members acquire work and communication skills, they also gain information
from other parts of the organization, and from people outside of the company, such as
customers or clients. Gradually the team begins to function very well, assuming that the
members get the necessary resources to accomplish their work. This level of team
functioning, which is represented by the stock, Level_Of_Tm_Functioning, takes time to
accumulate after the initial startup phase. It is a function of resources, ability of members
to communicate with each other and to gain relevant information about clients and the
competition. When the Level_Of_Tm_Functioning is high, things are humming. It is
influenced by Trust_In_Team_Members, Member_Communication, and
Acceptance_Div_Ideas
Goals, Routine Effort, and Hours Devoted to Getting External Resources
Previously discussion focused on modeling a set of social and psychological variables,
such as Commitment, Knowledge, and Level_Of Tm_Functioning. Most system
dynamics models contain variables that have conservative properties, and act as
material/energy processes (see Levine, Van Sell, and Rubin, 1992). The model also has
some typical “hard variables,” like hours worked per month per worker, frequently found
in other system dynamic models. Earlier, the setting of goals was briefly discussed in
describing the interaction between Empowerment and Mutual_Accountability. This
section will be devoted to the very important topic of performance and the process of
potentially raising the bar, i.e., raising performance goals. The model assumes that
changes in performance goals are due to the empowerment/accountability interaction and
a very important factor, Trust_In_Team_Members. The basic assumption is that the team
members will only raise the bar if they feel empowered to do so and know that fellow
members will come through for the team. There must be trust that others in the group can
accomplish what the group set out to do. In addition, the model assumes that team
members also may eventually not raise goals if there are not enough internal and external
resources to increase and maintain new levels of performance. The constraints due to
total resources are represented in the form of a multiplier, which can decrease the overall
performance goal when resources are not available.
Performance.
In this general model, Performance is treated as a cumulative stock variable, varying
from 0.0 to 100 and not an action variable. Note that the term, Performance (level) is
used. However, in any application of the model, the variable, Performance, would be
changed to match the type of index being monitored, such as sales or profit. _ Initially,
before the team came into existence, the old standard was set to 40 performance units,
which is too low, compared with the competition, which was set in computer runs to 60
units. When the team comes into existence, it is assumed that Performance is at the old
equilibrium level, 40 performance units. At that point, there is a gap between the old
performance level, 40, and the new competitive performance level, which at the time the
team came into existence is set at a minimum of 60 units. So there is a gap between
where the team wants to go and where it is at when the members officially began working
together.
The model assumes that at first the team works harder, which is very common to observe
in self-directed teams. This generates a negative loop process that has been included in a
number of system dynamics models (e.g., Morecroft, 1983; Homer, 1985). One way of
working harder is to put in more hours just to do fairly routine tasks that are necessary for
the group to function. This is a normal reaction of the team to cope with so many new
tasks, etc. However, fortunately, another process comes into play. As
Member_Communication, Memb_Skills, and ultimately the Level_Of_Team_Functioning
develop and increase, the team gradually becomes more efficient in doing routine, but
necessary tasks. As Clarity_Of_Vision increases, it may become apparent that the teams
must look to external sources of funding and resources to raise performance.
Base Run. Consider the output of the model in Figure 8. Note, at first the neophyte team
has to put in many more hours per month to stay competitive, but as they become
efficient, and obtain additional resources they raise the bar by increasing the Performance
Goal variable. It is the opposite of the problem of drifting goals. Thus, Figure 8 shows a
typical run, using the parameterization of the previous base run, that represents what
might happen to a high performance team as it becomes more efficient. This is related to
the Level_Of Team_Functioning variable in taking care of routine matters and utilizes
surplus hours, which normally would be devoted to routine matters, to gain additional
resources. Frequently, the newly acquired resources come from outside the organization..
Productivity goes up to the new standard and then gradually drifts upward, due to
augmented resource capacities and increased performance goals.
304
2
Hrs_Gained
eo
i}
—,— Performance
—p~Performance_Goal
=,
°
£ 0 12 24 36 48 60 72
5 -
3
g Time
§ 754
8 sol
= 35
0.
0 12 240 386 Bw
Fig. 8. Hours gained by team members that is put into getting more
external resources that help to increase performance.
Getting External Resources
Obtaining new resources is not a particularly easy task for team members. Figure 9
shows a portion of the model that deals with how the team gets its resources. There are
two types of resources, internal and external. The stock variable, /nternal_Res,
represents resources emanating from the upper management sources. These are the
original resources generated over time by the organization to form and to maintain the
team’s functioning. However, in many cases, the team is encouraged to enlarge the pie
by generating suitable additional resources externally. The model assumes that the
generation of External_Resources occurs when team members feel empowered to take
the time to apply for additional resources and have built up enough trust in the leader to
move on their own. In order to get funds, members have to gain knowledge of the
external environment concerning what are the needs of their clients and/or what the
competition has to offer. Finally, they have to have the extra time devoted to obtaining
and maintaining External_Resources by functioning at a very efficient level.
Decin_ExtResrs>
Ef_LvTm_FunctOn_ExRes Tm_To_Dissp_ExRes
Internal_Res Changeln_Res
fal_Team_Expected_Res
TimeToGet_Resources
Resource_Ratio
Uppr_Management_Target_Resources
Fig. 9. A stock and flow view of the external
and internal resource subsector.
Run # 3, Ineffective team leadership. Some of the most interesting structure in the
model is associated with loops that span sectors of the total system. In this case, if an
organization does not foster the development of their team leaders, the lack of support
from the team leader can inhibit the motivation for team members to elicit external
funding. Figure 10a shows what happened in a simulation run when the quality of
leadership was relatively low, thus not providing enough support for the team to seek
external funding. On the other hand, when leadership develops adequately over time, and
other conditions are met, new external resources will be obtained. Figure 10b shows that
the team in this situation utilized internal funds until about 3 and half years into the base
run, and then began to obtain additional capacity to generate higher productivity. The
performance graph for this group had been shown in Figure 8.
“ee Coming On line
Total_Resources
100.
<— Coming On line
Total_Resources
(b)
Fig. 10. Simulated Total_Resources when leadership was lacking (a) and (b)
when the team leader helped support the team’s entrepreneurship.
THE EMERGENCE OF HIGHER LEVEL STRUCTURES
The model can deal with self-directed teams that potentially can meet and sometimes go
beyond the competition. However, sustaining higher levels of performance has its
limitations and a potential downside, namely the very real problem of burnout. The
system dynamics literature has a number of models that deal with various forms of
burnout (Morecroft, 1983; Homer, 1985; Levine, Van Sell, and Rubin 1985). It is
extremely hard sustaining such high levels of performance in the face of burnout, yet
apparently, high performing teams can keep producing at a high level year after year.
What mechanisms allow these elite teams from burning out? The author’s work with A.
Leholm and R. Vlasin on studying high performing work teams seemed to indicate that
there was more going on than meets the eye. Yes, it is true that one that members of high
performing teams have more sophisticated work skills, more trust among members and in
general a much higher level of functioning over time. However, in comparing
moderately good teams with elite, high performing teams, what we noticed was that the
latter group was filled with, what we might call “team spirit.” They were fiercely loyal to
the group and to the organization. They seemed to show a high degree of zeal for what
they were doing. The intensity of team spirit, in particular, was missing in self-directed
teams that were only moderately successful.
-4- Commitment
a Level_of_Tm_Func
—3- Team_Spirit
0 12 24 36 48 60 72
Months
Fig. 11. The emergence of different team processes at different times
in a six year period.
The Timing of the Variables
The notion of team spirit is certainly not new. It has been loosely used in management
circles for a long time. What is new is the idea that, if one considers Team Spirit as a
state variable of the system, then (1) it takes time for it to emerge and influence other key
variables and (2) may not emerge to any extent for only moderately productive self-
directed teams. Team Spirit will not grow unless the team has done those things to attain
a high Level_Of Tm_Functioning, act in an empowered way to obtain External
Resources, and build up a degree of care and trust for each other, i.e. build up social
capital, so that the level variable, Trust_In_Team_Members was high. Figure 11, from the
base run, shows the behavior of the model simulating a highly successful self-directed
work team. As one can see, Commitment peaked very early is followed by
Level_of_ Tm_Functioning, which peaked around year three. Finally, note that
Team_Spirit, only took off when the Level_of_Tm_Functioning had reached its peak.
Hours Per
Month mS _ Relative
/ : Team Size +
Slack Time
For Greater Loyalty
Performance
Burnout
+ +
Performance Team Zeal
\ + .
Empowerment
Team Spirit
Fig. 12. Two of the main reinforcing loop structures that increase
loyalty and lower burnout through Team Sprit.
From a dynamic viewpoint, increases in Team Spirit increases (1) Loyalty for the team
and the organization and (2) Team Zeal, which is an intense happiness and satisfaction
for doing things on the job. Two of the main loop structures involving the action of Team
Spirit are seen in Figure 12. Loop R4 shows that, as Team Spirit gets large, team
members become very loyal to the team, sometimes passing up great offers to go
elsewhere in the company or to other organizations. Loyalty, in turn, keeps people from
leaving, so that it is easier to hire and retain the desired size of the team. As the relative
size increases towards it optimal value, the number of hours per month per team member
doing routine tasks decreases over time, generating slack time to devote to new and
challenging projects. An increase in slack time increases Performance, which will
enhance the team members’ feeling of Empowerment. Finally, an increase in
Empowerment will in turn increase Team Spirit even more.
As Team Spirit becomes large, a second reinforcing loop, R5, takes hold. As described
previously, there is an amazing kind of extreme enthusiasm for the team that in the model
is called Team Zeal. It may be somewhat similar to the zeal one might find in cult groups
or in terrorist cells. The assumption here is that, even though the high performance team
is raising the performance bar far above the standards set by competition, they can
maintain long periods of high performance levels because of the intense Team Zeal they
feel when working or when bowling together, etc. In R5, an increase in Team Spirit
increases Team Zeal, which in turn inhibits Burnout. A decrease in Burnout increased
Performance Goals, which in turn increases Performance. When Performance increases,
Empowerment increases, which in turn would increase Team Spirit.
Burnout Revisited
Let us see what happens to Burnout in the high performance base run. The right hand
panel in Figure 13 shows what happens to Burnout in the formation period as well as
after the team was formed. As one can see, Burnout grew very slowly prior to coming on
line on month 24. Recall that the period after month 24 was devoted to changing goals to
meet competition. This was a very difficult time, and thus the team members had to work
overtime to catch up. This is reflected in the initial rapid rise in Burnout, just after month
24. Around month 48 or 49, Burnout reached it peak, and then dropped down to
eventually come into equilibrium at a low value.
To get a better idea about what processes caused the rise in Burnout, as well as what
caused it to eventually dissipate, consider the left side of Figure 13. Figure 13a shows the
indicated number of hours per month per worker needed to deal with standard, routine
tasks. Initially, until month 24, workers put in about 160 hours per month. The figure
indicates just after the initial period of functioning, starting from month 24, workers put
in a longer number of hours, starting from a baseline of 160 hours per month per person
to about 200 hours per month per person. Shortly afterwards, the
Level_of_Tm_Functioning began to rise, so that the workers became more efficient. One
sees in Figure 13a a drop in the number of hours, eventually to a low point of 125 hours
per month per person for routine tasks. The “work harder” process, followed by “getting
better at it” process accounts for the initial rapid rise in Burnout after month 24 as well as
the leveling off process that occurred around month 32 to month 48. Thus, the initial
reaction to working as a team was responsible for about half the Burnout curve. The
other half of the curve is due to the rapid effects of Team_Zeal. Figure 13b shows the
changes of the multiplier representing the effects of Team_Zeal on the dissipation of
Burnout. The multiplier changes the time factor associated with a drainage process. Low
values of the multiplier increase the dissipation rate. One can see that Team Zeal
essentially had an effect on Burnout after month 48. It drastically reduces Burnout
during the last half of the simulation run. Finally, consider Figure 13c. It portrays the net
gain or loss of Burnout over time. It supports the contention that burnout was generated
by the work harder process and was dissipated by the zeal members felt for the work.
Indicated_HPh
3S
0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72
Months
lal
bd
Ed
Formation
Period
EfZeal_On_Brn
°
FS
0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72
Months
OF ttt
0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72
Months
3
3
€
3
a
c=
‘G
[o}
3
Zz
16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72
Months
lel
Fig. 13. The influence of team effectiveness and team zeal on burnout
at different stages of the team’s development.
CONCLUSIONS
Attaining high performance in self-directed work teams is relatively rare, but achievable.
Besides from good leadership and adequate initial resources, much of the activities
initiated when teams come into existence are associated with a learning environment.
Workers have to learn new roles and obtain new skills that help them keep up with the
competition. In addition to these new skill sets, something else happens to the group, if
the members have worked on the basics, namely there is definitely a social process that
helps them trust the leader and trust and respect their fellow members. This leads to a
sense of empowerment and the motivation to become entrepreneurial. If the team can
generate external resources, it becomes even more empowered to raise the bar and
eventually raise its level of attainment.
We have introduced the notion that something happens to high performing teams that
allows them to increase and maintain those high productivity levels. We have
hypothesized that those teams move towards a high degree of team spirit, which in turn
generates so much zeal in everything members do that burnout is eventually neutralized..
In the future, we would hope to expand the boundary of the model to include important
components, such as an enlarged upper management sector and sector dealing with the
problems the team might have with other company units. This would enlarge the scope of
the model in dealing with problems faced by such work teams. Potential conflicts with
other departments and internal competition for funding are certainly potentially
problematic and challenging processes to model..
REFERENCES
Buchholz, S., Roth, T. 1987. Creating the High-Performance Team. John Wiley Sons:
New York: .
Colenso, M. 1997. High Performing Teams In Brief: Butterworth-Heinemann : Oxford,
England.
Hitchcock, D. E., & Willard, M. L. 1995. Why teams can fail and what to do about it.
Chicago: Irwin Publications.
Homer, J. B. 1985. Worker burnout: A dynamic model with implications for prevention
and control. System Dynamics Review, 1: 42-62.
Katzerbach, J.R., Smith. D.K. 1993. The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-
Performance Organization. Harper-Collins: New York.
Katzenbach, J.R. 1998. Teams at the Top: Unleashing the Potential of Both Teams and
Individual Leaders. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, Mass.
Klein, Eric, Izzo, J. B. 1999. Awakening corporate soul: Four paths to unleash the
power of people at work. FairWinds Press: Vancouver, Canada.
Levine, R. L., Leholm, A., & Vlasin, R. (2001). The dynamics of the transition from
being a supervisor to a team leader. Proceedings of the 2001 International System
Dynamics Conference, Atlanta, Georgia.
Levine, R. L. Theoretical underpinnings of the dynamics of very high performance self-
directed work teams. In Release of the Human Spirit from High Performance Teams,
Leholm, A and Vlasin, R. (eds.), (Michigan State University Press (In Press).
Levine, R. L., Van Sell, M., & Rubin, B. 1985. A model of burnout in the workplace.
Proceedings of the 1985 International Conference_on System Dynamics. Warkentin. M (ed.),
Keystone, CO.
Levine, R. L., Van Sell, M., & Rubin, B. 1992. System Dynamics. In Analysis of
Dynamic Psychological Systems (Vol. 1, pp. 267-330), Levine, R. L. and Fitzgerald, H.
E. (eds.). Plenum Publishing Company.
Morecroft, J. D. W. 1983. Rationality and structure in behavioral models of business
systems. Proceedings of the 1983 International Conference of the System Dynamics
Society, 60-127.
Rahmandad, H., & Vieira da Cunha, J. 2001. Tightening the iron cage or path
dependence in norm formation? A system dynamics approach. Proceedings of 2001
International System Dynamics Conference, Atlanta, Georgia.
Rappaport, J. 1981. In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over
prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9: 1-25.
Rappaport, J. 1985. The power of empowerment language. Social Policy, 16:15-21.
Schein, E. H. 1990. Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45: 109-119.
Zimmerman, M. A. 1995. Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 23: 581-599.
Zimmerman, M. A. 2000. Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational, and
community levels of analysis. In Handbook of Community Psychology, Rappaport, J and
Seidman, E. (eds.). Academic/Plenum Publishers New York
Back to the Top
Ralph L. Levine
Michigan State University
May, 2002
Basic Model Equations of Team Dynamics — Base Run
Level Acceptance_Div_Ideas
init
flow
doc
Level
init
flow
doc
Level
init
flow
doc
Acceptance_Div_Ideas = 20
Acceptance_Div_Ideas = -dt*Loss_Of_AcceptDiv
+dt*Ch_in_Accept
Acceptance_Div_Ideas = The degree in which members tolorate diversity in ideas
and personalities, etc. This is a stock of openness. At the moment this is
principally an aggregated level or stock in the model.
Burnout
Burnout = 0
Burnout = -dt*DissOf_Brnout
+dt*BrnoutGeneration
Burnout = This fatigue process is modeled as a first order material delay.
Care Respect
Care_Respect = 10
Care_Respect = +dt*ChIn_CareForTeam_Members
Care_Respect = How strongly members care for each other. This is a stock that
represents a more emotional side of team members.
Level
init
flow
doc
Clarity_Of_Vision
Clarity_Of_Vision = 10
Clarity_Of_Vision = +dt*IncInVision
-dt*DecrIn_Vision
Clarity_Of_Vision = Deals with how clear the vision of the team is to the team
members. This model does not deal with the overall vison of the company as a whole and
the potential gap between the companies vision and that of the team.
Level
init
flow
doc
Commitment
Commitment = 20
Commitment = -dt*Loss__of_Commit
+dt*Gain_Of_Commit
Commitment = A key stock in the model reflecting the readiness and motivation
of potential team members to accept the concept of a self-directed team.
Level
init
flow
Empowerment
Empowerment = 10
Empowerment = +dt*In_In_Empowr
-dt*LossOf_Empowr
doc Empowerment = The feeling of self-efficacy and ability to be free to take on new
challenges.
Level External_Resources
init External_Resources = .25
flow External_Resources = -dt*DecIn_ExtResrs_1
+dt*IncInExt_Resrs
doc — External_Resources = Resources, such as time, money, and equipment from
sources outside of the company.
Level Indicated_Goals
init Indicated_Goals = 60
flow Indicated_Goals = +dt*IncrIn_TLevAspir
-dt*Erosion_Of_Goal
doc — Indicated_Goals = Goals that are indicated by the general level of competition in
the business environment. Note that this is without considerating the resources needed to
meet the team's goals.
Level InfAbout_CBaseYCompet
init InfAbout_CBaseYCompet = 10
flow InfAbout_CBaseYCompet = +dt*IncIn__Inform
-dt*LossOf_Inform
doc InfAbout_CBaseYCompet = This state variable represents External Information
of client base and what the competitors are doing. I have initially set it quite low because
before forming self-directed teams, information was held "close to the vest". Currently it
is being modeled as a first order material delay.
Level Internal_Resources
init Internal_Resources = 25
flow Internal_Resources = +dt*ChangeIn_Res
doc —_Internal_Resources = Resources, such as time, money, and equipment from
sources internal to the company.
Level Knowledge
init Knowledge = 20
flow Knowledge = +dt*Learning_about_New_tasks
-dt*Loss_Of__Knowledge
doc Knowledge = Knowledge about self-directed teams. This is non-experiential
accumulated knowledge for the most part.
Level Level_of_Tm_Function
init Level_of_Tm_Func = 10
flow Level_of_Tm_Func = -dt*Dec_InTm_Func
+dt*Inc_In_Tm_Funct
doc = Level_of_Tm_Func = Level of Team Functioning. Overall indicator of how well
the team is working with each other, with the rest of the organization, and with the
external custormer/client base. Note: Increases in the Level_of_Tm_Func feeds upon
itself, and thus has a self-loop. This is consistent with Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's "flow"
concept.
Level Loyalty
init Loyalty = 20
flow Loyalty = -dt*OutRt_Loyal
+dt*InR_Loyalt
doc Loyalty = The degree of loyalty towards the team, it members, as well as loyalty
to the company. At the moment, this is an aggregated stock.
Level Memb_Skills
init Memb_ Skills = 10
flow Memb_Skills = -dt*DecInTLrdrshpSkills
+dt*IncrInTlrdsshpSkills
doc Memb_Skills = An aggregated stock of skills that are related to the tasks done by
the team over time.
Level Member_Ambiguity
init | Member_Ambiguity = 90
flow Member_Ambiguity = -dt*Loss_of_Mem_Amb
doc Member_Ambiguity = his version of the model assumes that preteam
performance generates much ambiguity, which can decrease over time as the potential
team members obtain knowledge of self-directed teams.
Level Member_Communication
init Member_Communication = 20
flow Member_Communication = -dt*Loss_of_Commun
+dt*Gain_In_ MembComm
doc Member_Communication = The degree in which members are able to
communicate with each other, the rest of the organization, and to the outside
custormer/clients/supplier stakeholders.
Level Mutual_Accountability
init Mutual_Accountability = 20
flow Mutual_Accountability = -dt*Decr_In_Acc
+dt*Inc_Acc
doc Mutual_Accountability = The degree that members hold each other accountable
for their actions and performance behavior.
Level Performance
init Performance = 40
flow Performance = +dt*InIc_Perf
-dt*LossOf_Perf
+dt*PreTeam_PerfChRate
doc Performance = This is the generic performance level or attainment that would
vary from team to team and company to company.
Level Team_Spirit
init Team_Spirit = 20
flow Team_Spirit dt*LossOf_TSpirt
+dt*IncIn_TSpirit
doc Team_Spirit = An intense identification with the team in which work is a
vocation and people on the team have a large sense of connectedness with other team
members. This is congruent with Russ Moxley's use of the term "spirit."
Level Team_Zeal
init Team_Zeal = 20
flow Team_Zeal = +dt*GainZl
-dt*Loss_of_Zl
doc Team_Zeal = The degree of intense happiness and dedication in performing tasks
as a team member.
Level TeamSize
init TeamSize = Desired_Team_Size
flow TeamSize = +dt*Gen_Hire_Rate
-dt*Quit_Fire_Rate
doc TeamSize = The size of the team
Level Trust_In_Team_Ldr
init Trust_In_Team_Ldr = 20
flow Trust_In_Team_Ldr = -dt*DecreaseIn_Team_Ldr
+dt*Inc_In_Team_Ldr
doc Trust_In_Team_Ldr = The amount of trust the team members have in the team
leader. Very important especially in the formation phase.
Level Trust_In_Team_Members
init Trust_In_Team_Members = 20
flow Trust_In_Team_Members = +dt*IncInTrust_Of_Team
-dt*Dec_In_Trust
doc Trust_In_Team_Members = The degree of trust members feel about each other.
Flow BrnoutGeneration =
((Base_Burnout_Rt*Ef_PostLaunchHPM_On_Burn)*Limits_To_Burnout)*On_Off+1
Flow Ch_in_Accept =
Acceptance_Div_Ideas*Ef_MemTrust_On_AcceptDiv*EfComm_On_Acceptance*Fr_Di
ver
Flow Changeln_Res =
(AminTarget_Resources-Internal_Resources)/TimeToGet_Resources
doc ChangeIn_Res = Standared stock adjustment process.
Flow ChIn_CareForTeam_Members =
(EffTrustOn_Care-Care_Respect)/TimeToCareForTeam_Membrs
Flow Dec_In_Trust =
(Trust_In_Team_Members/TmTodec_Trust)*EffCare_On_Decr_Trust
Flow Dec_InTm_Func = Level_of_Tm_Func/Time_to_Dec_Tm_Func*Scale_Limit
Flow DecIn_ExtResrs_1 = External_Resources/Tm_To_Dissp_ExRes
Flow DeclInTLrdrshpSkills = (Memb_Skills/TimeToLose_TLshpSkills)*On_Off
Flow Decr_In_Acc = (Mutual_Accountability/Time_To_Lose_Account)*On_Off
Flow DecreaseIn_Team_Ldr = Trust_In_Team_Ldr/Time_toDecTrust_In_T_Ldr
Flow DecrIn_Vision =
Clarity_Of_Vision/(TmTp_Dissp_Vision*Eff_Man_Bound_On_Keeping_vision)
Flow DissOf_Brnout = (Burnout/Tm_to_DEDBurn)*Limits_To_Burnout
Flow Erosion_Of_Goal = (Indicated_Goals/TimeDecGoal)*On_Off
Flow Gain_In_MembComm =
CoumpFrCommun*EfZeal_on_M_Commun*EfAcceptDiv_On_Commun*EfSkills_Tech
noON_Commun*EfMemTrust_On_Commun*Member_Communication
Flow Gain_Of_Commit =
(Commitment*CompFrac_for_Committ*EfAm_On_Commit*EfftrustOn_Commit*Ef{NQ
ROn_Commit*Ef_Kn_on_Commit*EfResrcOn_Commit)*ScaleLimit
Flow GainZ] = CompFracZl*Team_Zeal
Flow Gen_Hire_Rate =
(Desired_Team_Size-TeamSize)/Time_To_Fill_General_Positions
Flow In_In_Empowr =
Base_EmpRt*EfTot_Res_On_Emp*EfNewQualOn_Emp*Effect_MemSkls_On_Empr*E
f_InfClienta_and_Compet_on_Emp*Empowerment
Flow Inc_Acc =
(Base_Inc_In_Account*Ef_ClarityVis_On_Acc*EfCommitOnAccnt*Mutual_Accountab
ility)*On_Off
Doc _ Increase in Accountability
Flow Inc_In_Team_Ldr =
CompFrac_TrustLdr*EfControl_On_TrustTL*Ef_ResrceOnTrust*Trust_In_Team_Ldr
Flow Inc_In_Tm_Funct =
FracCompLTFunct*EfEffctv_Res_On_LTFunc*EfM_SkillsOn_LTFunc*EfInOnFunc*E
fCommunOn_T_Func*EfClVis_On_LTFunc*Level_of_Tm_Func*Scale_Limit
Doc _ Increase in Level of Team Functioning
Flow InclIn__Inform =
(Base_Inform_rate*Ef_Managing_BndryOn_Inf*Ef_LT_FunctOnInfCBase)*On_Off
Flow IncIn_TSpirit =
(CompFrac_IncT_Sprt*EfEmprw_OnTSpirit*EfCareOn_Spirt*Ef_LFunctOn_T_Spirit*
Team_Spirit)*On_Off
Flow IncInExt_Resrs =
Ef_EmpOn_ExRes*Ef_LvTm_FunctOn_ExRes*EfInf_Clients_Compet_On_EXRes*EfL
drTrust_On_ExternRes*BaseInc_In_ExtRes*EfGain_OnExt_Res
Flow InclInTrust_Of_Team =
Trust_In_Team_Members*Ef_Acc_On_Trust_in_Tm_Membs*EfAccepDivtOn_Trust*E
fKno_of_RoleOnMemTrust*EfGoal_On_Trust_Tm*BaselncTrustInTeam
Flow IncInVision =
FractCompCVis*EMemb_Skills_On_Vision*EfKnowAbt_T_on_Vis*Clarity_Of_Vision
Flow IncrIn_TLevAspir =
(GoalMultiper*Indicated_Goals*EfMemTrust_On_Goals)*On_Off
Flow IncrInTlrdsshpSkills =
(BaseInc_InMembSkls*EfVis_On_MembSkills*EfManagBoundOn_Skls*GoalOnMemb
_Skills*Memb_Skills)*On_Off
Flow Inlc_Perf = (Tm_Gap/(Time_For_Perf))*Ef_Rel_GainOnPerf*On_Off
aux InR_Loyalt =
CompFrac_Level*Loyalty*EfCareOn_Loyalty*Ef_Trust_InTmLdr_On_Loyalty*On_Off
+5,
Flow Learning_about_New_tasks =
FrincIn_learn*EfTaskRatioOnLearning* Knowledge*EfCommit_on_GainKn*Ef_Ambig
_On_Know
Flow Loss__of_Commit = (Commitment/CommitConstraint)*ScaleLimit
Flow Loss_Of__Knowledge =
(Knowledge/Time_To_Loose_Kn)*EfCommit_On_LossKn
Flow Loss_Of_AcceptDiv = Acceptance_Div_Ideas/Constraint_On_Diversity
Flow Loss_of_Commun = Member_Communication/Time_ToLoose_Commun
Flow Loss_of_Mem_Amb =
(Member_Ambiguity/Time_For_Loss_ofAmb)*EfKnOn_Am
Flow Loss_of_Zl = Team_Zeal/(Constraint_onZeel*EfSpOnZeal1)
Flow LossOf_Empowr = Empowerment/Tm_To_Lose_Emp_SIfEfficacy
Flow LossOf_Inform = (InfAbout_CBaseYCompet/Tm_To_Lose_Inf)*On_Off
Flow LossOf_Perf =
(Performance/(Time_for_Loss_of_Perf))*EfAch_Opport_OnPerf*On_Off
Flow LossOf_TSpirt = (Team_Spirit/Constraints_On_TSpirit)*On_Off
Flow OutRt_Loyal = Loyalty/(ConstraintOn_Loyalty*Spirit_OnLoyalty)*On_Off
Flow PreTeam_PerfChRate =
(EfOldGapOnO_Perf/PerformTime)*EfTmSizeOn_PreTmPerf*(1-On_Off)
Flow Quit_Fire_Rate = TeamSize/Av_Timeto_Leave
aux Actual_HPM = On_Off*Indicated_HPM + (1-On_Off)*BaselIne_HrsPerMnth
aux AlItEf_Tm_Funct_On_ActlEffrrt = GRAPH(Level_of_Tm_Func,0,10,
[1.23,1.23,1.18,1.07,0.99,0.87,0.74,0.67,0.64,0.64,0.64"Min:0;Max:1.5"])
doc AIJtEf_Tm_Funct_On_ActlEffrrt = This is a bit different. If the level of
functioning is very low, it amplifies the effort it takes to get standard things done. The
values of the table function would be above 1.0. On the other hand, as the level of
function goes up, then it decreases the number of hours it takes to do most things.
aux AltHours_Mult = GRAPH(Tm_Gap,-6,4,
(1,1,1,1.03,1.11,1.19,1.2,1.22,1.22,1.22,1.22"Min:0;Max:2"])
aux Ambig_Gap = Tolorance_4_Ambig-Member_Ambiguity
aux Av_Timeto_Leave = EF_LoyaltyOn_QuitRt
aux CommitConstraint = GRAPH(Commitment,0,10,
[200,199,178,64,34,18.5,12.3,7.3,4,3.1,1"Min:0;Max:200"])
aux Constraint_On_Diversity = GRAPH(Acceptance_Div_Ideas,0,10,
[39.4,38.9,38.1,37.2,34.2,28.5,22.3,7.2,3.6,2.5,1.5"Min:0;Max:40"])
aux Constraint_onZeel= ©GRAPH(Team_Zeal,0,10,
[79.2,77,73.2,63,51.7,14.7,7.9,5.3,3.4,1.5,1.1"Min:0;Max:80"])
aux ConstraintOn_Loyalty = GRAPH{(Loyalty,0,10,
[79.2,77,73.2,63,51.7,14.7,7.9,5.3,3.4,0.8,0.3"Min:0;Max:80"])
aux ConstraintOnGoals = GRAPH(Indicated_Goals,0,10,
[4000,4000,4000,4000,4000,4000,3980,3000,200,1,0.5"Min:0;Max:4000"])
aux Constraints_On_TSpirit = GRAPH(Team_Spirit,0,10,
[60,59.7,56.3,52.6,41.6,26.5,9.9,4.5,2.5,1.5,1"Min:0;Max:60"])
aux Ef_Acc_On_Trust_in_Tm_Membs = GRAPH(Mutual_Accountability,0,10,
[0.3,0.4,0.52,0.62,0.94,1.22,1.4,1.7,1.83,1.88,1.9"Min:0;Max:2"])
doc Ef_Acc_On_Trust_in_Tm_Membs = You need Mutual Accountabilty to trust
members. It ranges from less than 1.0 to a value greater than 1.0.
aux Ef _Ambig_On_Know = GRAPH(Ambig_Gap,-100,10,
[2.84,2.7,2.46,2.08,1.74,1.49,1.34,1.2,1.09,1.03,1"Min:0;Max:3"])
doc Ef_Ambig_On_Know = The X axis deals with the Ambiguity Gap which is large
at first and then goes down as the gap goes to zero. It starts with a negative gap, because
the gap is defined as tolarance for Ambiguity - Ambiguity. Since Member Role
Ambiguity is large initially, the gap will almost always be negative for most runs. The
table function is large at first with a large negative gap, but goes down to 1.0 as the gap
narrows.
aux Ef Burn On IGoal = GRAPH(Burnout,0,10,
[1,1,1,1,0.99,0.89,0.8,0.73,0.65,0.61,0.61"Min:0;Max:1"])
doc Ef_Burn_On_IGoal = The effect of Burnout does not come into play until
Burnout gets to be around 40 units and then it decreases the Indicated Goal by making the
table function take on values which are below 1.0.
aux Ef_ClarityVis_On_Acc = GRAPH{(Clarity_Of_Vision,0,10,
(0.7,0.77,1,1.23,1.37,1.46, 1.5,1.51,1.51,1.53,1.53"Min:0;Max:2"])
doc Ef_ClarityVis_On_Acc = Low Clarity of vision, inhibits Accountability. The
table function ranges from below 1.0 to > 1.0.
aux Ef _EmpOn_ExRes = GRAPH(Empowerment,0,10,
[0,0.02,0.83,0.93,0.96,0.97,0.98,0.99,0.99,1,1"Min:0;Max:1"])
doc Ef_EmpOn_ExRes = This table function was like the table function associated
with the effect of Empowerment on raising the goal. With perfect empowerment, the
value of the table function equal 1. while, when Empowerment is 0.0, the value of the
table function equals 0.0, because, if you are not empowered, you will not go after
external resources.
aux Ef_InfClienta_and_Compet_on_Emp = GRAPH(InfAbout_CBaseYCompet,0,10,
(1,1,1,1.01,1.05,1.14,1.17,1.17,1.17,1.17,1.17"Min:0;Max:1.25"])
doc Ef_InfClienta_and_Compet_on_Emp = At first, information does not have much
to do with empowerment, but as information about competition and outside resources
increases, it can increase the feeling of empowerment.
aux Ef_Kn_on_Commit = GRAPH(Knowledge,0,10,
[1,1,1,1.02,1.08,1.16,1.24,1.3,1.39,1.41,1.41"Min:0;Max:2"])
doc Ef_Kn_on_Commit = If you have no knowledge about the team concept, you can
still increase your Commitment if other factors come into play. So here the multiplier is
1.0 at low decrees of Knowledge and above 1 for more extreme degrees of Knowledge.
aux Ef _LFunctOn_T_Spirit = GRAPH(Level_of_Tm_Func,0,10,
[0.65,0.65,0.73,0.77,0.9,1.1,1.85,2.25,2.4,2.45,2.45"Min:0;Max:4"])
doc Ef_LFunctOn_T_Spirit = Low levels of Functioning inhibit spirit, while high
levels generate spirit. Table function starts below 1.0 and then at high levels of
functioning goes above 1.0.
aux EF _LoyaltyOn_QuitRt = GRAPH(Loyalty,0,10,
[13,16,19,26,71,204,464,555,586,600,600"Min:0;Max:600"])
doc EF _LoyaltyOn_QuitRt = Table function starts with low average time and
increases time to loose team members as loyalty gets high.
aux Ef_LT_FunctOnInfCBase = GRAPH(Level_of_Tm_Func,0,10,
[1,1,1,1.02,1.08,1.22,1.37,1.47,1.49,1.49,1.49"Min:0;Max:1.74"])
doc Ef_LT_FunctOnInfCBase = At first, there is no effect of team functioning, but
then as it increases, it helps to get information to the team.
aux Ef _LvTm_FunctOn_ExRes = GRAPH(Level_of_Tm_Func,0,10,
[1,1,1.06,1.2,1.43,2.94,3.25,3.3,3.3,3.3,3.3"Min:0;Max:4"])
doc Ef_LvT'm_FunctOn_ExRes = If the team has a low Level Of Functioning, then
they certainly will not increase in getting external forces. I let that value be equal to 1.0,
assuming that the External Resource level variable was represented by a first order
material delay in equilibrium. As the level of functioning goes up, the value of the table
function goes up beyond 1.0.
aux Ef Managing BndryOn_Inf = GRAPH(Man_Bound,0,10,
(1,2.2,4.2,7,10.1,12.2,12.9,13,13,13,13"Min:0;Max:13"])
doc Ef_Managing BndryOn_Inf = Low degrees of managing the boundary do not
affect the baseline, but as Managing the Boundary increases, this type of guidance is
quite helpful in getting information to the team.
aux Ef _MemTrust_On_AcceptDiv = GRAPH(Trust_In_Team_Members,0,10,
[0,0.08,0.2,0.61,0.9,1.03,1.25,1.64,1.82,1.87,1.89"Min:0;Max:2"])
doc Ef_MemTrust_On_AcceptDiv = No trust implies implies no growth of
Acceptance of Diverse Ideas. Goes from 0.0 to a value greater than 1.0.
aux Ef _PostLaunchHPM_On_Burn = GRAPH(Indicated_HPM, 100,30,
[1,1,1,1.58,1.83,1.979,2,2,2,2,2"Min:0;Max:2"])
doc Ef_PostLaunchHPM_On_Burn = At first, low number of hours do not cntribute to
burnout, but as hours increase, burnout will accumlate. The table function starts at a
value of 1.0 initilaly, but then goes up to a value of 2 as the number of work hours
increases.
aux Ef_Rel_GainOnPerf = GRAPH(Rel_GainHrs,-0.5,0.1,
[0.67,0.7,0.71,0.76,0.84,1,1.1,1.13,1.18,1.22,1.23"Min:0;Max:1.5"])
doc Ef_Rel_GainOnPerf = This is one of the variables which assumes that if you do
not have gain hours per month, you cannot increase beyond what you would have with
the standard effort. When the table function goes between 0 and 1, the factor inhibits the
growth of the state variable. When it goes above, 1.0 it helps to increase the input rate.
aux Ef_ResrceOnTrust = GRAPH(Resource_Ratio,0,0.1,
[0,0.02,0.03,0.03,0.04,0.05,0.14,0.92,1,1,1,1,1"Min:0;Max:1"])
doc Ef_ResrceOnTrust = This is the main source of variation in generating trust in the
team leader. Will there be resources available to get started. When the resource ratio,
equals 0.0, the multiplier = 0.0. The range goes from 0.0 to 1.0.
aux Ef _TmFuncOn_IndHPM = GRAPH(Level_of_Tm_Func,0,10,
(1,1,1,1,1,0.86,0.83,0.82,0.81,0.79,0.79"Min:0;Max:1.5"])
doc Ef_TmFuncOn_IndHPM = In this alternative, high level of functioning helps to
make the team more efficient and thus free up more hours for exploring external funding
sources.
aux Ef_Trust_InTmLdr_On_Loyalty = GRAPH(Trust_In_Team_Ladr,0,10,
[0.75,0.77,0.83,0.91,1.15,1.3,1.42,1.52,1.57,1.63,1.63"Min:0;Max:2"])
doc Ef_Trust_InTmLdr_On_Loyalty = Trust is a substitute for liking the leader. The
table function goes from below 1.0 to being above 1.0.
aux EfAcc_On_Goals = GRAPH(Mutual_Accountability,0,10,[-0.01,-0.0082,-
0.0062,-0.0044,-0.0025,-0.0001,0.0022,0.0048,0.007,0.0088,0.01"Min:-0.01;Max:0.01"])
doc | EfAcc_On_Goals = Here we have a sense of mutual accountabilty. Low values of
accountability leads to lowering the goal. High values of accountability, on the othter
hand, raises the goal or the bar.
aux EfAccepDivtOn_Trust = GRAPH(Acceptance_Div_Ideas,0,10,
[0.76,0.79,0.83,1.02,1.25,1.54,1.62,1.64,1.64,1.64,1.64"Min:0;Max:2"])
aux EfAcceptDiv_On_Commun = GRAPH(Acceptance_Div_Ideas,0,10,
[0.68,0.68,0.69,0.71,0.76,0.83,0.99,1.04,1.19,1.21,1.27"Min:0;Max:1.5"])
doc — EfAcceptDiv_On_Commun = Low acceptance of diverse ideas tends to inhibit
communication while high acceptance tends to increase communication.
aux EfAch_Opport_OnPerf = GRAPH(Man_Bound,0,10,
(1,1,1,1,0.99,0.85,0.58,0.34,0.07,0,0"Min:0;Max:1"])
aux EfAm_On_ Commit = GRAPH(Member_Ambiguity,0,0.1,
[1,1,1,0.99,0.86,0.83,0.83,0.83,0.83,0.83,0.83"Min:0;Max:1"])
doc EfAm_On_Commit = high degrees of Ambiguity inhibit the growth of
Commitment, but low degrees do not have much if any effect on increasing Commitment.
aux EfCareOn_Loyalty = GRAPH(Care_Respect,0,10,
[0.24,0.27,0.33,0.62,1.01,1.13,1.21,1.4,1.83,1.88,1.89"Min:0;Max:2"])
doc EfCareOn_Loyalty = Care for team members is a very proccess for loyalty, but
zero care can still generate some loyaty. Table function starts below 1.0 and extends
above 1.0.
aux EfCareOn_Spirt = GRAPH(Care_Respect,0,10,
[0.29,0.36,0.41,0.49,0.71,1,1.07,1.25,2.26,2.39,2.43"Min:0;Max:3"])
doc EfCareOn_Spirt = If you do not care for each other, then there cannot be mcuh
growth in team spirit. The range of the table function goes from below 1.0 to above 1.0.
aux EfClVis_On_LTFunc = GRAPH(Clarity_Of_Vision,0,10,
[0.41,0.79,0.92,0.96,0.98, 1,1.33,1.97,2.18,2.26,2.29"Min:0;Max:3"])
doc EfClVis_On_LTFunc = The Clarity of Vision inhibits the growth of Level of T
Funcion when it is low, but enhances the growth when Clarity of Vision is high. The
table function ranges from below 1.0 to above 1.0.
aux EfComm_On_Acceptance = GRAPH(Member_Communication,0,10,
[0.72,0.72,0.74,0.76,0.81,0.92,1.2,1.29,1.35,1.38,1.39"Min:0;Max:1.5"])
doc EfComm_On_Acceptance = Goes from a pt below 1.0 to a pt above 1.0
aux EfCommit_on_GainKn = GRAPH(Commitment,0,10,
[0,0.01,0.04,0.06,0.15,0.71,1.2,1.41,1.57,1.61,1.62"Min:0;Max:2"])
doc | EfCommit_on_GainKn = This is one of the variables which assumes that if you
do not have Team Commitment, you cannot learn anything. When the table function
goes between 0 and 1, the factor inhibits the growth of the state variable. When it goes
above, 1.0 it helps to increase the input rate.
aux EfCommit_On_LossKn = GRAPH(Commitment,0,10,
(1.27,1.25,1.17,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1"Min:0;Max:1.5"])
doc EfCommit_On_LossKn = I have assumed that low commitment, helps to increase
the loss of Knowledge.
aux EfCommitOnAccnt = GRAPH(Commitment,0,10,
[0,0.12,0.25,0.63,1.13,1.56,1.81,1.85,1.9,1.93,1.94"Min:0;Max:2"])
doc EfCommitOnAccnt = Commitment ot the team is a necessary condition. No
Commitment implies no increase in Mutual Accountability. The multiplier ranges from
0.0 to a number above 1.0
aux EfCommunOn_T_Func = GRAPH(Member_Communication,0,10,
[0.79,0.78,0.79,0.81,0.88,1,1.4,2.19,2.33,2.39,2.42"Min:0;Max:3"})
doc EfCommunOn_T_Func = Low degrees of Communication inhibit T Functioning,
while high degrees of Communiton enhances it. The table function starts below 1.0 and
then rises above 1.0 for high degrees of Communiication.
aux EfControl_On_TrustTL = GRAPH(Memory_Of_Control,0,10,
[1,1,1,0.94,0.68,0.35,0.18,0.1,0.1,0.1,0.1"Min:0;Max:1"])
doc EfControl_On_TrustTL = If control is very high, then the members are getting a
direct and symbolic message that this will not be a self-directed group. How can they
trust the leader when he or she is still controlling? Thus, if control is low, the multiplier
=1.0, but goes down as control increases toward 100.
aux EfEffctv_Res_On_LTFunc = GRAPH(Effective_Tot_Res,0,10,
[0,0.03,0.03,0.06,0.1,0.17,0.29,0.46,0.74,1.25,1.32"Min:0;Max:2"])
doc EfEffctv_Res_On_LTFunc = No resources makes the table function equal to 0.0.
High or adequate resources makes the table function attain a value above 1.0.
aux EfEfftv_Tot_Rs_OnAspir = GRAPH(Effective_Tot_Res,0,10,
[0.76,0.83,0.85,0.87,0.9,0.94,0.96,0.98,1.08,1.15,1.17"Min:0;Max:1.5"])
doc EfEfftv_Tot_Rs_OnAspir = If one does not have the resources to do the job, the
Level of Aspiration would be lower than the intended goal. The table function value
would be less than 1.0. On the other hand, if the resources are adequate, then the Level
of as piration will be above the intended goal.
aux EfEmp_On_Goals = GRAPH(Empowerment,0,10,
[0,0.02,0.03,0.03,0.04,0.07,0.17,0.85,0.95,0.99,1"Min:0;Max:1"])
doc EfEmp_On_Goals = Empowerment allows one to do something. It is self-
efficacy. On the other hand, if empowerment is low, then the multiplier will be below
1.0. We have set the max value at 1.0, at perfect empowerment. If you are empowered,
you still may not increase the goal, so we set the maximimum value at 1.0,instead of
being greater than 1.0.
aux EfEmprw_OnTSpirit = GRAPH(Empowerment,0,10,
[0.77,0.78,0.81,0.87,1,1.3,2.15,2.36,2.45,2.45,2.45"Min:0;Max:4"])
aux Eff _Man_Bound_On_Keeping_vision = GRAPH(Man_Bound,0,10,
[0.61,0.62,0.67,0.83,1,1.05,1.08,1.08,1.1,1.11,1.13"Min:0;Max:2"])
doc Eff_Man_Bound_On_Keeping_vision = Managing the Boundaries helps to keep
and guide Clarity of Vision. It ranges from below 1.0 to above 1.0. When the table
function is less than 1.0 it decrease Vision, while it will increase or maintain Clarity of
Vision for high values of Managing the Boundary.
aux EffCare_On_Decr_Trust = GRAPH(Care_Respect,0,10,
[1,1,1,0.99,0.97,0.96,0.96,0.95,0.94,0.94,0.94"Min:0;Max:1"})
doc EffCare_On_Decr_Trust = This is a discounting processes. When care is high,
the multiplier is less than 1.0. It slows down the loss of trust.
aux Effect_MemSkls_On_Empr = GRAPH(Memb_Skills,0,10,
[0.28,0.4,0.99,1.2,1.51,1.72,1.89,1.98,2.02,2.08,2.08"Min:0;Max:2.5"})
doc Effect_MemSkls_On_Empr = One can become empowered slightly with no
Skills, but I the value of the multiplier is close to 0.0. It starts below 1.0 and eventually
goes above 1.0. Thus it inhibits and enhances growth.
aux Effective_Tot_Res = TrustFilterOn_Tot_Res*Total_Resources
aux EffTrustOn_Care = GRAPH(Trust_In_Team_Members,0,10,
[4,7,9,15,24,35,47,59,80,90, 100"Min:0;Max:100"))
aux EfftrustOn_Commit = GRAPH(Trust_In_Team_Ldr,0,10,
[0.04,0.14,0.48,0.95,1.12,1.19,1.24,1.25,1.3,1.31,1.31"Min:0;Max:2"])
doc — EfftrustOn_Commit = This is one of the variables which assumes that if you do
not have trust in the team leader, you cannot become Committed. When the table
function goes between 0 and 1, the factor inhibits the growth of the state variable. When
it goes above, 1.0 it helps to increase the input rate.
aux EfGain_OnExt_Res = GRAPH(Rel_GainHrs,-0.5,0.1,
[0,0,0,0,0,0,1.57,1.76,1.85,1.87,1.87"Min:0;Max:2"])
doc EfGain_OnExt_Res = Relative gain represent slack hours to apply to gaining
additional resources that are external to the company.
aux EfGoal_On_Trust_Tm = GRAPH(New_QualityRatio,0.6,0.1,
[0.62,0.65,0.7,1.04,1.5"Min:0;Max:1.5"])
doc EfGoal_On_Trust_Tm = In this situation, reaching the goal has a positive effect
on generating in fellows team members. In this case, a low ratio tends to inhibit trust, but
as the team moves toward reaching the goal, trust increases.
aux EfInf_Clients_Compet_On_EXRes = GRAPH(InfAbout_CBaseY Compet,0,10,
[0.26,0.31,0.36,0.41,0.53,0.9,1,1,1,1,1"Min:0;Max:1"])
doc — Efnf_Clients_Compet_On_EXRes = Low information can inhibit the generation
of External Resources. High information can enhanse the generation of External
Resources.
aux EfInOnFunc = GRAPH(InfAbout_CBaseYCompet,0,10,
[1,1,1.01,1.07,1.3,1.7,1.84,1.95,1.98,2,2"Min:0;Max:2"])
doc EfInOnFunc = The table fuction starts at 1.0 and then goes above a value of one
for high degrees of Extennal information.
aux EfKno_of_RoleOnMemTrust = GRAPH(Knowledge,0,10,
[0.5,0.61,0.7,0.84,0.99,1.21,2.11,2.46,2.6,2.67,2.69,2.69"Min:0;Max:3"])
doc EfKno_of_RoleOnMemTrust = Ranges from below 1.0 to above 1.0
aux EfKnOn_Am = GRAPH(Knowledge,0,10,
[0,0.05,0.13,0.25,0.5,1,2.4,4.3,17.8,19.5,20"Min:0;Max:20"])
aux EfKnowAbt_T_on_Vis = GRAPH(Knowledge,0,10,
[1,1,1.08,1.15,1.27,1.56,1.85,2.05,2.15,2.17,2.17"Min:0;Max:3"])
doc EfKnowAbt_T_on_Vis = Lack of Knowldge does not have an effect on clarity of
vision, but as Knowledfe increases, it has more impact on Clarity of vision. The table
function ranges from 1.0 to above 1.0.
aux EfLdrTrust_On_ExternRes = GRAPH(Trust_In_Team_Ldr,0,10,
[0,0.02,0.04,0.08,0.14,0.21,0.32,0.73,0.88,0.94,1"Min:0;Max:1"])
doc EfLdrTrust_On_ExternRes = No trust in leader generates 0.0 table function value.
As trust in leader increases, then the value of the table function approaches 1.0.
aux EfM_SkillsOn_LTFunc = GRAPH(Memb_Skills,0,10,
(1,1,1,1.01,1.04,1.08,1.23,1.4,1.49,1.51,1.52"Min:0;Max:2"])
doc EfM_SkillsOn_LTFunc = The table fuction starts at 1.0 and then goes above a
value of one for high degrees of Skills.
aux EfManagBoundOn_Skls = GRAPH(Man_Bound,0,10,
[0.39,0.42,0.45,0.6,1.01,1.1,1.34,1.45,1.49,1.49,1.49"Min:0;Max:1.5"})
doc EfManagBoundOn_Skls = Poor management can waste time getting the wrong
skills. This falls under both guidence and opportunity. The range of the table is below
1.0 to greater than 1.0.
aux EfMemTrust_On_Commun = GRAPH(Trust_In_Team_Members,0,10,
[0.63,0.65,0.71,0.95,1.03,1.13,1.35,1.65,1.84,1.9,1.91"Min:0;Max:2"])
doc EfMemTrust_On_Commun = Lack of trust will inhibit communication, while
high degrees of T member trust will enhance Communicaton.
aux EfMemTrust_On_Goals = GRAPH(Trust_In_Team_Members,0,10,
[0,0,0.03,0.06,0.63,0.95,1,1,1,1,1"Min:0;Max:1"])
doc EfMemTrust_On_Goals = This is one of the variables which assumes that if you
do not have trust in the team, you cannot raise the goal. When the table function goes
between 0 and 1, the factor inhibits the growth of the state variable. When it goes above
1.0, it helps to increase the input rate.
aux EfNewQualOn_Emp = GRAPH(New_QualityRatio,0.6,0.1,
[1,1.15,2.08,2.21,2.21"Min:0;Max:2.5"])
doc | EfNewQualOn_Emp = Empowerment increases with success. Thus, when the
ratio = 0.0, the multiplier = 1.0, and as it increases to 1.0, success, it increases
empowement. This is the opposite of the situation where the small ratios generate action
to close the gap.
aux EfNQROn_Commit = GRAPH(New_QualityRatio,0.6,0.1,
[8,7.74,7.28,1.89,1.27,1.11,1.08,1.05,1.04,1.02,1.01"Min:0;Max:8"])
doc | EfNQROn_Commit = A low ratio implies that the organization is in big touble. It
needs to do something to "bridge the gap", so to speak. In this situation, a low ratio
drives the increase in Commitment. The smaller the ratio , the more likely the team will
be commited to the team concept. When the New_Quality Ratio gets to be 1.0, then there
is still some influence of Performance, but this is only a little bit above 1.0.
aux EfOldGapOnO_Perf = GRAPH(Perf_Gap,-50,10,
[0,0,0,0,0,0,10,20,30,40,50"Min:0;Max:50"])
doc EfOldGapOnO_Perf = This table function is set up so that if Performance is
below the Old Standard, the system will try to raise performance. On the other hand, for
negative values of the Perf_Gap, the system will not try to decrease performance down to
the old standard. There will not be an effort to ever lower performance.
aux EfResrcOn_Commit = GRAPH(Effective_Tot_Res,0,10,
[0,0.03,0.04,0.1,0.16,0.34,0.54,2.18,2.24,2.26,2.25"Min:0;Max:3"])
doc EfResrcOn_Commit = This is one of the variables which assumes that if you do
not have Resources, you cannot become Committed. When the table function goes
between 0 and 1, the factor inhibits the growth of the state variable. When it goes above,
1.0 it helps to increase the input rate.
aux EfSkills_TechnoON_Commun = GRAPH(Memb_Skills,0,10,
(1,1.01,1.1,1.18,1.32,1.42, 1.48, 1.5,1.5,1.5,1.5"Min:0;Max:1.5"])
doc — EfSkills_TechnoON_Commun = The table function starts at 1.0 and increases as
Sills increase.
aux EfSp OnZeal = GRAPH(Team_Spirit,0,10,
[0,0.1,0.2,0.4,0.8,1.8,8,10.8,11.7,12.3,12.4"Min:0;Max:15"])
doc EfSp_OnZeal = No Spirit, no Zeal. Low values of spirit inhibit Zeal, but large
values of Spirit enhance Zeal.
aux EfSpOnZeall = GRAPH(Team_Spirit,0,10,
[0,0.1,0.2,0.4,0.8,1.8,8,10.8,11.7,12.3,12.4"Min:0;Max:13"])
aux EfTfaskRatioOnLearning = GRAPH(Task_Ratio,0,0.1,
[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0.32,0.11,0"Min:0;Max:1"])
doc EfTaskRatioOnLearning = This is one way to reach a stable point with a positive
loop. As the task ratio goes near 1.0, namely when all the tasks are learned, the table
function goes to 10.0. This prevents it from going negative.
aux Effm_Size_On_HrperMnt = GRAPH(Rel_Tm_Size,0,0.1,
(1.27,1.25,1.24,1.22,1.19,1.11,1.06,1.04,1.03,1.01,1,1,1"Min:0;Max:1.4"])
doc EfT'm_Size_On_HrperMnt = When the relative size of the team is low, then the
number of hours goes up. As the relative size of the team goes down to one, the number
of hours goes down to 1.0. Finally, when the relative size is ideal, then the multiplier
equal 1.0.
aux EffmSizeOn_PreTmPerf = GRAPH(Rel_Tm_Size,0,0.1,
[0.54,0.56,0.57,0.59,0.62,0.65,0.67,0.74,0.82,0.91,1,1.09,1.1"Min:0;Max:1.5"])
aux EfTot_Res_On_Emp = GRAPH(Effective_Tot_Res,0,10,
[0,0.04,0.1,0.19,0.28,0.37,0.54,0.75,0.97,2.36,2.46"Min:0;Max:2.5"})
doc EfTot_Res_On_Emp = No resources, shuts off the input to the Empowerment
variable. Resources below 1.0 inhibit empowerment and then after resources get to be
about 80, the multiplier becomes greater than 1.0
aux EfVis_ On _MembSkills = GRAPH(Clarity_Of_Vision,0,10,
[0.59,0.62,0.75,1.02,1.02,1.07,1.11,1.29,1.8,1.96,2"Min:0;Max:2"])
doc EfVis_On_MembSkills = This takes the function of guidence. The table function
ranges from below 1.0 to above 1.0.
aux EfZeal_On_ Brn = GRAPH(Team_Zeal,0,10,
[1,0.97,0.94,0.85,0.76,0.43,0.23,0.16,0.09,0.04,0.04"Min:0;Max:1"])
doc EfZeal_On_Brn = Low values of Zeal do not have an effect on the loss of
burnout. However, as Zeal increases, the value of the table function decreases below 1.0,
cutting down the product of the time constant and the table function. A decrease in this
product, quickens the loss of Burnout.
aux EfZeal_on_M_Commun = GRAPH(Team_Zeal,0,10,
[1,1,1.01,1.04,1.08,1.16,1.25,1.32,1.35,1.36,1.37"Min:0;Max:1.5"])
doc EfZeal_on_M_Commun = Zeel has no effect at first, but later helps to increase
Communication. The table function starts at 1.0 and then goes above 1.0.
aux EMemb_Skills_On_Vision = GRAPH(Memb_Skills,0,10,
[0.98,1,1,1.03,1.23,1.61,2,2.67,2.94,2.99,3"Min:0;Max:3"])
doc EMemb_Skills_On_Vision = Lack of skills does not have an effect on clarity of
vision, but as Skills increase, it has more impact on Clarity of vision. The table function
ranges from 1.0 to above 1.0.
aux GoalMultiper = EfAcc_On_Goals*EfEmp_On_Goals
doc GoalMultiper = Note the product of these two gives one the abiltiy to show that if
empowerment is low and a sense of accountability is low, then the bar is not raised, And,
if empowerment is high and accountabilyty is low, then the bar is also not raised.
aux GoalOnMemb_Skills = GRAPH(New_QualityRatio,0.6,0.1,
[1.99,1.84,1.63,1.35,1.17,1.06,1.02,1.02"Min:0;Max:2"})
doc GoalOnMemb_Skills = New QualityRatio motivates getting the skills necessary
to do the job well. Low values of the ratio stimulate getting skills.
aux HoursMult = GRAPH(Tm_Gap,-6,4,
{1,1,1,1.03,1.06,1.07,1.07,1.07,1.07,1.07,1.07"Min:0;Max:2"])
aux Hrs_Gained = Basellne_HrsPerMnth-Actual_HPM
aux Indicated_HPM =
BaselIne_HrsPerMnth*EfTm_Size_On_HrperMnt*AltHours_Mult*Ef_TmFuncOn_IndH
PM
aux Limits_To_Burnout = GRAPH(Burnout,0,10,
[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0.9,0"Min:0;Max:1"])
doc —_Limits_To_Burnout = A way of keeping Burnout from going over 100 untis.
aux Lv_AspirationPost_Launch = Indicated_Goals*EfEfftv_Tot_Rs_OnAspir
aux Man Bound = GRAPH(TimeSeries,0,10,
[5,5,13,22,40,83,89,91,92,92,92"Min:0;Max:100"})
doc Man_Bound = First one should note that in this team dynamics model, the
variable is exogenous. It is an internal variable in the leadership model, i.e., in the
leadership model its values over time are determined internally. Man_Bound (Managing
the boundaries) is a variable that represents the team leader's ability to work well with
other parts of the organization, help the team get information from clients and customers,
as well as information about relevant competitor behavior.
aux Memory_Of_ Control = GRAPH(TimeSeries_1,0,10,
[75,53.56,39.9,28.4,20.86,15.26,11.17,8.19,5.99,4,3"Min:0;Max:100"])
aux Net_Gain_Burnout = BrnoutGeneration-DissOf_Brnout
aux New_QualityRatio = Performance/(Lv_AspirationPost_Launch +.001)
doc New_QualityRatio = This is a relative performance index under realistically
changed competitive conditions.
aux OldQualityRatio = Performance/(Old_Standard + .001)
doc OldQualityRatio = Relative performance under conditions insulated from more
general competition.
aux On_Off =0+STEP(1,24)
doc On_Off =A necessary external switch to deal with the pre-formation and
formation stages of the evolution of the team. Note that this team model can be
connected with the team leadership model that internally determines if and when actual
teams come on line.
aux Perf_Gap = Old_Standard - Performance
aux Performance_Goal = On_Off*Lv_AspirationPost_Launch + (1-
On_Off)*Old_Standard
aux PerformTime = GRAPH(Memory_Of_Control,0,10,
[24,24,23,22.9,21.8,20.4,17.5,11.9,5.1,2,1.7"Min:0;Max:60"])
doc PerformTime = If the performance is below the old standard, the teams perception
of the supervisor's control takes over, and the team is "whipped" into trying to go back to
the old standard. Thus when perceived control is high, the delay is small. On the other
hand, under the old standard, when the perceived control is low, the lag is longer.
aux Rel_GainHrs = Hrs_Gained/Basellne_HrsPerMnth
doc _Rel_GainHrs = Essential the percentage gained or lossed over or under the
baseline hours per month which usually will be set at 160 hours per month per person.
aux Rel_Tm_Size = TeamSize/Desired_Team_Size
aux Resource_Ratio = Total_Resources/Initial_Team_Expected_Res
aux Scale_Limit = GRAPH(Level_of_Tm_Func,0,10,
[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0.97,0.93,0"Min:0;Max:1"])
aux ScaleLimit = GRAPH(Commitment,0,10,
[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0.93,0"Min:0;Max:1"])
doc ScaleLimit = Commitment is explosive!
aux = Spirit_OnLoyalty = GRAPH(Team_Spirit,0,10,
[1,1,1.02,1.02,1.05,1.33,1.58,2.58,5.18,5.94,6"Min:0;Max:7"])
doc — Spirit_OnLoyalty = Low degree of Spirit has no effect on loyalty, but it tends to
shut off decreases in loyalty as Spirit increases. The table function starts at 1.0 and
increases above that value as Spirit increases.
aux Task_Ratio = Knowledge/Total_Roles
aux Time_to_Dec_Tm_Func = GRAPH(Level_of_Tm_Func,0,10,
[41.8,41,38.4,36.1,32.5,26.5,15.3,10.4,5.5,3.8,1.8"Min:0;Max:45"])
doc Time_to_Dec_Tm_Func = If the system were to stop the team from functioning,
then the level of functioning would decline with an average time of 9 months, assuming
that the team were to go on for that time
aux Time_To_Lose_Account = GRAPH(Mutual_Accountability,0,10,
[23.9,25,24.8,24.6,21.5,18.5,15.2,10.4,3.8,1.5,1.2"Min:0;Max:25"})
aux Time_toDecTrust_In_T_Ldr = GRAPH(Trust_In_Team_Ldr,0,10,
[24.4,24.2,23.9,22.1,19.1,14,7.2,4.6,3.4,2.9,2.5"Min:0;Max:25"])
aux Time_ToLoose_Commun = GRAPH(Member_Communication,0,10,
[44.8,44.8,44.4,42.2,35.4,23.6,12.3,9.1,4.7,3.2,2.25"Min:0;Max:45"])
aux TimeDecGoal = Ef_Burn_On_IGoal*ConstraintOnGoals
aux TimeSeries = TIME
aux TimeSeries_1 = TIME
aux TimeToLose_TLshpSkills = GRAPH(Memb_Skills,0,10,
[23.9,23.8,23.7,22.6,21.5,18.5,14,10.4,4.5,2.4,1.7"Min:0;Max:25"])
aux Tm_Gap = Performance_Goal-Performance
aux Tm_to_DEDBurn = BsTime_ToDec_Burn*EfZeal_On_Brn
aux Tm_To_Lose_Emp_SIfEfficacy = GRAPH(Empowerment,0,10,
[23.9,23.8,23.7,22.6,21.5,18.5,14,6,1.5,0.9,0.4"Min:0;Max:40"])
aux TmTodec_Trust = GRAPH(Trust_In_Team_Members,0,10,
[23.8,23.8,23.7,23.5,23.5,22.6,21.3,18.5,2.2,1.2,0.9"Min:0;Max:25"])
aux TmTp_Dissp_Vision = GRAPH(Clarity_Of_Vision,0,10,
[23.9,23.8,23.7,22.6,21.5,18.5,14,8.5,5.1,3.2,1.9"Min:0;Max:25"])
aux Total_Resources = External_Resources+Internal_Resources
aux‘ TrustFilterOn_Tot_Res = GRAPH(Trust_In_Team_Ldr,0,10,
[0,0.11,0.42,0.69,0.8,0.9,0.99,1,1,1,1"Min:0;Max:1"])
doc TrustFilterOn_Tot_Res = Generates the validity of the resources filtered by the
trust the members have on resources coming down the line. No trust, filters out what
comes down the pipeline.
const AminTarget_Resources = 85
doc AminTarget_Resources = This figure may or not may be based on knowledge of
the amount of resources needed to make the team work by upper management.
const Base_Burnout_Rt = 4
const Base_EmpRt = .09
const Base_Inc_In_Account = .06
const Base_Inform_rate = 1.25
const BaseInc_In_ExtRes = .415
const BaseInc_InMembSkls = .15
const BaselncTrustInTeam = .08
const BaselIne_HrsPerMnth = 160
const
const
const
const
const
const
const
const
const
const
const
const
const
doc
BsTime_ToDec_Burn = 16
CompFrac_for_Committ = .97
CompFrac_IncT_Sprt = .06
CompFrac_Level = .15
CompFrac_TrustLdr = .4
CompFracZl = .07
CoumpFrCommun = .08
Desired_Team_Size = 10
Fr_Diver = .23
FracCompLTFunct = .2
FractCompC Vis = .06
FrincIn_learn = .3
Initial Team_Expected_Res = 85
Initial_Team_Expected_Res = This figure corresponds to the amount of resources
told to the supervisor gy upper management.
const
doc
Old_Standard = 40
Old_Standard = This is the old standard of performance that is not competitive in
the general, perhaps global market.
const
const
const
const
const
const
const
Time_for_Loss_of_Perf = 100
Time_For_Loss_ofAmb = 100
Time_For_Perf = 6
Time_To_Fill_General_Positions = 6
Time_To_Loose_Kn = 35
TimeToCareForTeam_Membrs = 6
TimeToGet_Resources = 6
const Tm_To_Dissp_ExRes = 6
const Tm_To_Lose_Inf =4
doc Tm_To_Lose_Inf = The time constant probably should be fairly short if the team
is somewhat cut off from getting information concerning the customer base.
const Tolorance_4_Ambig = 0
const Total_Roles = 100
Run #2. Changes Due to Inadequate resource run
init Internal_Resources = 25
Run #3. Changes Due to Ineffective Team Leadership
aux Memory_Of Control =
GRAPH(TimeSeries_1,0,10,[80,78,73,72,72,71,71,71,71,71,71"Min:0;Max:100"])
const Man_Bound = 3
doc Man_Bound = First one should note that in this team dynamics model, the
variable is exogenous. It is an internal variable in the leadership model, i.e., in the
leadership model its values over time are determined internally. Man_Bound (Managing
the boundaries) is a variable that represents the team leader's ability to work well with
other parts of the organization, help the team get information from clients and customers,
as well as information about relevant competitor behavior.
