Development teams. practical example

This article exemplifies an intervention for the development of a work team, based on a fictitious practical assumption.

Teamwork is widely spread in our companies, but frequently the productivity of these teams is reduced with respect to their potential due to problems in group dynamics. In a situation like the current one, the competitiveness of our companies is vital to overcome the recession and to compete globally. Therefore, we understand that intervening in work teams to develop their full potential is an investment of time and effort that must be carried out, since it increases their effectiveness and efficiency, adding more value to the processes of the company and increasing the productivity and competitiveness of its members. We intend with this example, that we have wanted it to be as practical as possible, to contribute, even with a grain of sand,to overcome the critical situation that many of our companies are going through. Teamwork can be a good element of the core competencies to achieve competitive advantages. Only the productivity and competitiveness of our companies can really get the country out of the crisis.

The assumption is developed in an international courier company. The action will be carried out on a team of six people in charge of generating process optimization solutions to reduce costs in light of the company's situation in this time of recession. The group's objective involves analyzing the different business processes and support areas. It must detect opportunities for process improvement that reduce costs, propose levers for improvement, guaranteeing efficiency without compromising the quality of the service and the delivery time to the client. The work of this team is inserted in a global project, for this project to be effective, it is necessary for the team to carry out its task quickly but ensuring efficiency in the organization.

The results of this work team have been good in quality, but there is a delay in the deadlines, which affects the overall project due to a bottleneck.

The Director of Human Resources discusses the issue with the Team Leader and detects the need for an intervention for its development.

An expert from the Human Resources Department attends some team meetings and interviews their members individually.

Some of the detected problems you see are the following:

The Team Leader supervises all the tasks of the members and assigns them dynamically. Communication does not flow properly because a star network is produced, where it is the Responsible who occupies the central place. The Responsible receives the information in supervisory meetings with each of the other team members and it is he who makes one or the other intervene in a certain task. In this way, when a delay occurs, the Person in Charge assigns part of that task to another member of the team to unblock the situation, but it is he who explains the task, the background and the current state, so synergies are lost that could be obtained from communication between members, bottlenecks occur in decision-making because the supervision of the Responsible is necessary,and the overall vision of the project is only held by the leader, hindering team members from making important contributions to project tasks that have been assigned to another. In reality, this prevents the team from working as such and becomes a set of isolated members with a common Manager who is almost the only link between them in terms of the performance of their work.

The task force would have become what Schein calls a coercion group: Members work independently on the team's tasks. The work required is distributed and each individual, alone, performs it. Individual efforts are coordinated by a central control point. The coordinator collects contributions from individuals to create a "group" end product. These co-acting teams do well on simple tasks with well-identified work items. This formula requires a centralized communication network. In this type of network, the person who experiences the greatest job satisfaction is the person who coordinates the center. The problem is that in this specific case, it is not a simple task that has been assigned to you,It is a complex activity that requires the interaction of the knowledge and skills of all team members, as well as their interdisciplinarity.

• Despite the fact that the team was created with people trained in the various disciplines that such a complex project requires, the Manager has chosen to assign them specialized tasks based on their training and previous experience. Therefore, functional barriers are being established and there is a tendency to specialize in work, losing the richness of a multidisciplinary approach like the one originally intended, as it is a star network in which the Manager supervises all tasks and takes the As a last decision, the autonomy of the team members is very limited, despite their training and experience, and this, along with not having a global vision of the project, is demotivating. Group objectives are only a small percentage of their variable remuneration.,the rest corresponding to individual objectives. It is often not possible to identify how much of the team's goals are assignable to each team member. This provokes some discussions within the team. The objectives, both individual and group, are assigned hierarchically without the prior agreement with the worker, or the consensus of the group respectively.The team has differences with respect to its Manager especially focused on decision-making. The issue of how deadlines are managed and the quality of work is recurring in many meetings and has become a "discussion of the deaf" that is repeated over and over again without any solution being reached. Even though team members are critical of the leader,The latter tends to react in a less self-critical way and to impose its criteria based on its hierarchical power. We can say that the team is in the phase of counter-dependency. The members begin to demonstrate against the state of submission or dependence in which they are with respect to the leader. This means that members do not repress and express openly, without fear, their opinions, ideas, disagreements and feelings. Individual roles appear, some of which may be untimely, due to the need for people to assert themselves individually. The team has not managed to pass to the independence phase. The confrontations and tensions within the group are understood by the members as personal, without thinking that they are the effect of the groups' own evolution dynamics.This prevents criticism from being assumed as constructive.

The conflict between team members, and more specifically between the Responsible and specific members, is undergoing a progressive escalation towards a greater magnitude, depending on the variables that Pruitt and Rubin mention that may influence the generation of negative attitudes towards the other. part and, as a consequence, increase the magnitude of the conflict:

Trying to find a culprit for the negative experiences that, logically, will always be the other party.

When the parties, which are distrusted, carry out an ambiguous action, it is usually considered a threat.

They tend to increase aggressiveness between the parties.

They interfere with communication between the parties.

They hinder empathy between the parties; that is, the understanding of the posture and attitudes of the other.

They lead us to suppose that what is good for one party is bad for the other.

As the conflict escalates, negative attitudes and perceptions about the other party increase, causing a vicious circle.

Given that the situation of the work team affects the deadlines set in the global project, assuming a bottleneck, the Director of Human Resources makes the decision to carry out an intervention aimed at the development of the team: These interventions seek to facilitate an adequate motivational climate, in which members can meet their needs, enabling them to make decisions, achieve successes, experience friendship and influence their destiny. It also seeks to train them to detect the problems caused by the interactions of team members and to act in a timely manner in solving them. The objectives of the actions aimed at developing the teams are to ensure that their members establish the appropriate mechanisms to perceive the pressures,demands and demands of the environment and to get the right change from them. Efforts are also made to develop the mechanisms that allow them to assess whether they use all of their resources, use coordination and adequate decision-making to achieve their objectives, as well as face the expected and unforeseen dysfunctional effects of adaptation to your work environment.

Before any organizational unit initiates a team development program, a thorough study must be done to diagnose the nature of the team's problems. This will help determine what changes are needed and whether team development is an appropriate activity.

Only when the leader and team members obtain an accurate assessment of the current condition and contrast it with the desirable future condition, is it that the need for change is obvious to everyone. In such circumstances, it is possible to carry out such changes without resentment. Leaders who display development-oriented behavior have more satisfied subordinates, and those same subordinates view them as more competent.

The fact that the main effectiveness rates of this team, the productivity, the satisfaction and the valuation of the managers are not adequate, is even more evidence of the need for change.

In this case, the intervention of an expert is sought in those areas with which the team is not familiar. Some teams, and we understand that we are in that case, have very serious problems: there is a lot of mistrust and mutual recrimination. For them, there is no possibility of transforming themselves into an excellent team based solely on their own energies, but they need the presence of an advisor.

Some advisers consider their role to be managerial and inadvertently take over the team. The best choice seems to be to avoid such problems entirely whenever possible, so we will establish early on that the advisor is not going to be involved in the team's actual functions.

It is agreed to search for an external advisor or consultant among those whose policy is to help their clients help themselves. The external expert will collaborate in all team strengthening activities. As the development of the team is based more on the example than on the word, the other teams of the company realize that they are not asked to do something that has not already been done by the teams that are on them. When the sequence of team development starts from the top, then it may be helpful to have an external person present to increase the chances of success.

The most important contribution of this consultant is to unmask self-deception in order to help team members escape their current style.

After the management team has completed its development, there is almost no need to rely on outside consultants to assist lower-level teams during their development process. The other teams in the company can benefit from the help of someone from inside, someone who is not a member of the team, but who is a member of the organization, and who has already participated in development actions as a member of a higher-level team.. By meeting with others while team strengthening is taking place, you can perform the same functions that an outside consultant would have been hired for.

The most important risk involved in launching into the development of a team without the means of participation or external help is the omnipresence of self-deception when evaluating both personal and team achievement. Most teams need more than good intentions to break with the past through objective and contrasting examination with high standards of their previous performance.

The team development method is part of the intervention programs that are usually applied in Organizational Development. It is derived from the Sensitization Groups or T-Groups (Sensitivity Training Groups) and is applied for several days to a work team, whose members will receive the help of an external consultant, with whom the Directorate collaborates, to find solutions to their work problems, learning new skills and improving their functioning as a team. As these objectives are achieved, the presence of the consultant will become less necessary.

The criteria that will inform the intervention, and that will be known by all those explicitly involved, are the following:

Real questions must be attacked.

The means of participation are essential to ensure success.

You should not create a continuous dependency on an external source (consultant). Changes that respond to the presence or absence of an external force are elastic; that is, they return to their original state by withdrawing the external force.

Indications, techniques and novelties increase the ever-present risk of self-deception.

The effort made must be active and participatory. The passive programs that are instituted in the people involved without their support raise very few commitments.

The process must be results-oriented. Without productivity, satisfaction is transitory. Therefore, in this case, the objective will focus on deadlines.

It is necessary to integrate content and process. Without content, the process is rare and illusory; without process, the content is fleeting and unstable.

A certain sense of externalization must prevail over the introspective review of problems.

1. Preparation stage

In this first stage, preconditions are necessary and an adequate climate is created so that the method can be applied effectively. We will ensure these conditions with the following actions:

1. Preconditions for its effective application. You must have the consent of the Directorate, who will know the characteristics and nature of the method, and will undertake to facilitate and support its application, providing the necessary human and financial resources. Likewise, Management must delegate part of its real power to the team, so that members can make those decisions that affect both the team itself (group processes, production processes, technology, etc…) and those that affect to the environment external to the team (intergroup and organizational processes). At the same time, Management must commit to these decisions and their consequences.

In this case the Director of Human Resources will meet with the team to show:

• Your trust in each and every one of the people that make up the team. The intervention is an attempt to optimize the team and a demonstration of the confidence of the Management, which invests time and resources in its development. It will be clarified that this is not an evaluation situation, nor is the dissolution of the team being considered, but on the contrary, it is betting from the highest level on its development. The intervention is sponsored by the Director of Human Resources, who He is aware of the methodology to be used, the objectives and that he has had an interview with the external consultant who will support the development of the team. The Director will assume the decisions made in the team for its own development and its processes. and internal functioning, without altering, obviously,the objectives and deadlines that have been set as a contribution to the global project.

2. Creating the right climate. Having established the prerequisites, a climate must be created that facilitates the effectiveness of the method in the work team.

This will be achieved through three different phases, in which all the relationships between the actors are considered:

Management relationship with the team leader. The team leader or team leader is the bond between Management and the team. Due to his position, he is the main agent of change for the team, since without his motivation and involvement, any effort on the part of the Management would be ineffective. For this reason, Management will be informed of the decision taken to apply said method in its work team, of the objectives to be achieved, of the delegated power margin for decision-making and of its commitment to accept said decisions. Also in this phase, the external consultant will inform the team leader about the characteristics of the method and her role as leader in the meetings; It will also help you examine your motivation and your willingness to participate in activities. By last,The boss will provide the consultant with data regarding the current state of the team, so that the team can carry out a group diagnosis.

In this intervention, this point is delicate, since a large part of the discomfort of the work group is attributed by its members to the Responsible's behaviors. For this reason, in the conversation with said person by the Director of Human Resources and the consultant, great care will be taken so that the Person in Charge does not get the wrong impression of the intervention that puts him on the defensive. It should be clarified:

• The intervention is not a criticism of its management. The stage that the team is going through is common in many groups and is not attributable to its poor performance as Responsible. An external consultant can give specialized support that should not be taken as an interference in their functions as leader.The Management reiterates its confidence in him as Team Leader.He must accept as positive the criticisms that may arise from the members in the intervention and an open attitude is requested, since the objective is none other than development of the team, which implies his development as a leader and the experience will be very positive for his professional career in the company. The purpose is not criticism, but the optimization of teamwork,so that it can meet the objectives set in time and quality and so that the work is carried out in a positive climate of collaboration in which each member of the best of himself, taking full advantage of the synergies resulting from interdisciplinarity. What will be its role in the entire process and its importance, for which it has the full support of the Directorate.

Relationship between consultant and work team. This phase is based on the relationship between the consultant and the work team considered globally, since it is very important to establish a good relationship between the two for the proper development of the subsequent stages.

Some consultant sessions will be held with the entire team, to clearly establish:

Inform the method and its techniques.

Inform of the objectives that the Management seeks to achieve with the application of the method and the conditions agreed for the team's decision making.

Determine the place, duration and beginning of the method, as well as the conditions of participation of each of the members.

Relationship between consultant and team members. The communication established between both parties should serve the consultant, not only to help team members to get to know each other better, each one analyzing their motivations, attitudes and willingness to get involved in activities, but also to give them greater knowledge between each of the parties.

This phase will be carried out through individual consultant interviews with each of the members.

2. Introductory stage of team development activities

At this stage, the team leader will start the meetings at the place and time set, which in our case will be in a hotel outside the context of the usual office and during business hours, and will remember all the objectives and conditions previously agreed. For their part, the consultant will remind them of the characteristics of the method and will ask the team to express their opinions and expectations about the activities to be started.

Later, the team will carry out a group activity not related to their work. It will be a joint decision-making exercise based on a game. The duration will be approximately one hour and will allow establishing an adequate climate, in addition to serving as a basis for explaining the rules that the team must have for group work (such as sharing information, respecting and accepting different opinions, expressing their own perceptions, etc…).

The development of work teams implies the establishment of a code of conduct. The code of conduct is equivalent to the norms or rules that must apply throughout the time that the work team develops its activity. The Code must be concretized and defined with the consensus of all team members, all of them assuming the commitment to respect it.

One of the first activities that a work team has to do to facilitate its development and effectiveness is to agree on the elaboration of its internal code. The agreed rules / norms / actions will establish how the meetings will be conducted, how members will interact and what type of behavior is appropriate in their meetings. The team code will not make sense unless all its members are involved in its definition and agree to commit to abide by it.

The elaboration of the code begins with an individual reflection and annotation of the own ideas about the content of the same, and then goes on to put them in common. After their discussion, the 5/10 most weighted by the team members will be selected, which will be written in the corresponding place. Its contents will express:

The aspects on which all team members agree are important for the development of the work.

The values ​​that the team must have: attitudes towards the opinions and ideas of others, loyalty to them, mutual respect, behavior towards tasks, etc…

Standards that support the needs of team members.

The existence of the code ensures that each team member knows and agrees with what is expected of him or her. It also serves as a reference to carry out the evaluation of the quality of work, and to a possible future new member, to quickly learn how to work in that environment.

In later days the team will return to work in a group, this time in the operation of the work team. This brings with it, that the members of the team begin to exercise in the new norms of group operation.

3. Diagnostic stage

This stage consists of diagnosing the state of the equipment, in order to be able to detect and isolate those malfunctions that could negatively affect its operation. For this, it is necessary to carry out a series of activities:

1. Collection of information. The information collected is referred to both objective data (production, absenteeism, rotation, complaints,…), and subjective data (perceptions of work, of others, of the organization, etc…). All this information, generally, is obtained by the consultant through the use of different data collection techniques, among which we can highlight direct observation, questionnaires and / or interviews.

In our case, in addition to the individual interviews and the observation of group work, the consultant is given access to performance evaluations (annual objectives and compliance percentages), evaluations of member competencies (carried out by another external consultant within of the framework of individual studies to detect managerial potential) and the behavioral evaluations that both the Responsible has made of the other members, and vice versa, since they are 360-degree evaluations. Human Resources is made available to the consultant for absenteeism data, results of climate studies, etc…

2. Determination of problems. The data collected is brought to the attention of the team so that it can proceed to its examination and serve to determine the existing problems in the working group. This task is facilitated using the brainstorming technique, through which a list of problems perceived by the team is drawn up and which in our case is similar to the one headed by this article.

At this time a session will be held following the non-directive or acceptance method, since it is understood that the tensions within the team must be the first stumbling block to be overcome so that the team can then learn to work together. It takes the form of non-managerial advice. The activities of the team are investigated with questions expressly aimed at it, but without giving directions. In the process of answering these questions, team members gain knowledge of their own actions and motives and the effect they have on others. This method is based on the recognition that all team members feel frustrated at one time or another,and that most people often do not have enough opportunities to air their feelings about the team or their individual members.

Over time, team members build walls around themselves, and the team develops performance habits with which to stay away from sensitive issues. The non-directive or acceptance method is aimed at solving these types of problems. In this case, the role of the advisor is to allow team members to express their feelings appropriately. Each team member is helped to understand the emotional reactions that they provoke in others and to express what they feel towards others. The objective is to heal the team of emotional tensions.

The acceptance method often has the positive effect of bringing people closer together and promoting cohesion and high moral standards. The catharsis produced by sincerity usually relieves the accumulated tensions.

However, and due to the Responsible's leadership style and his tendency not to delegate and prioritize his opinions over those of the rest of the team, it is possible that with him the use of the mandatory method is necessary. This takes place when teams or their members are told what they have to do to improve their performance. Willingness to accept the precepts is rooted in expert judgment. The precepts usually take the form of facility changes, location changes, or organizational changes, avoiding behavioral issues that may be the actual cause of the mismatch. In the mandatory method, the consultant carries out his work person to person. The advisor therefore studies the structure and distribution of the work and skills of each team member.The agenda items that constitute the main activity of the team are also reviewed.

Based on all of this, the advisor then prescribes how else things could be done to make the team better. The suggestions should be aimed at changes in the way of leading the team and in decision-making. The adviser's recommendations may be personal in this case. For example, depending on the advisor's assessment, perhaps directing the team coordinator to issue more or fewer orders. It is necessary to be very careful not to generate rejection in the Responsible or who feels attacked in his way of directing or who thinks that he will lose personal power.

Mandatory interventions often consist of telling teams or their members what to do. The system of control values ​​and authority that is implicit in the use of an external prescription contradicts the search for change through active participation.

We opted to rule out an intervention based on content programs. Content programs are invaluable to teams that have their weather issues solved and have developed a sense of the need to get involved and participate. However, they are not effective in improving a team full of problems like the one we analyzed. The added burden of a content program often accentuates problems rather than sanitizes them.

3. Redefinition of the problems. It is about submitting the list of problems, previously made, to a group elaboration, where each problem is redefined by the person who has issued it, so that everyone understands it, and those who may overlap are recast.

4. Systematic analysis of problems. This activity is decisive for the diagnosis, since the analysis carried out by the team in collaboration with the consultant, aims to determine what are the basic problems, what are their symptoms and what are their causal interrelations. The clarification that all this produces will facilitate the choice of measures to be taken in order to solve these problems.

5. Assessment and selection of problems. The previous activity provides the team with a list of real problems to be solved, but this requires an assessment that allows the establishment of an order of priorities for their resolution, based on their urgency, importance, and relevance.

4. Stage of problem solving and decision making

Once the problems have been selected according to the established order of priorities, the next step is to determine the most appropriate measures for their solution. The procedure to follow is as follows:

1. Proposal for actions to solve problems. Again, through the brainstorming technique. The proposed actions will be annotated so that they are visible to all, while avoiding any critical comment that may inhibit the manifestation of proposals. Assessment of proposed actions. The actions proposed for the solution of problems, as was done in the previous stage, are redefined by their authors, identical actions are recast and similar ones are grouped. Subsequently, the criteria for their evaluation are established, in which the availability of human and material resources to carry out the action and the time of its application will prevail, that is, that this time is not greater than the time in which the problem.The valuation of the actions will make it possible to compile a list following an order of priorities. Selection of options. In order to select the actions to solve the problem, global effectiveness criteria must be established that take into account the team's human and material resources, which in this case is the responsibility to implement the action, and that the effect of applying the Actions are whichever is desired to resolve the problem.

5. Action planning stage

At this stage, the aim is to organize and coordinate the actions for their implementation: apply the actions, the starting time, duration time, and the determination and allocation of the necessary resources.

6. Stage of implementation or execution of the actions

It is about carrying out the actions as planned in the previous stage. Given that the execution of the actions can suppose an overload of work and create conflicts in the team, the Management must put the means to solve them, either rewarding the time dedicated by the members in the new activities, or discharging them from other activities that usually perform.

In our case, and due to the pressing deadlines of the global project, we choose to financially reward the time dedicated to it outside of the working day, with a reward that we will ensure that the team considers as fair.

It is probable that one of the actions that must be carried out is the redefinition of the role of the Responsible in the team, to avoid its autocratic action. This may be a job carried out by the external consultant with the Person in Charge, dedicating an individual interview time to explain what their role in the team should be, which role is the most productive to achieve its objectives, and then return to retake the topic after some team meetings, sitting down with the Manager and discussing their role, giving feedback, preferably viewing videos of the meetings that have been recorded and emphasizing specific behavioral aspects, reinforcing appropriate behaviors and commenting, to correct them, the autocratic.

Feedback is important, since no human skill can be improved, whatever its nature, if there is no feedback or feedback on the effects of actions. Now, just as with physical activities, feedback is immediate and visible, with social behavior, feedback is usually fragmentary, if not non-existent. This is why social skills progress so slowly or stabilize in rigid and ineffective behavior patterns.

In this case, it is especially interesting that it is not only based on observations of the external consultant, that the Responsible could be taken as a critical interference, but that once the role that is most operative for the Responsible has been established, they can carry out self-criticism through the Viewing videos of the meetings with the consultant, so that he can check the inappropriate behaviors himself and correct them, based on information that he can verify objectively and not on observations of the consultant that he can consider subjective.

For feedback to be productive, we must ensure that, in this intervention, it meets the following characteristics (these are the reasons why we have considered that feedback should occur in our case as we have previously described):

1. Descriptive. It must be more descriptive than evaluative, so the tone of censorship, negative and personalized evaluation should be avoided, since evaluative language provokes defensive reactions. The information that is transmitted must be descriptive about what is done or said and must avoid evaluations, interpretations or any type of judgment. Descriptive information reduces the opposition of the interlocutor. Positive. When communicating information, positive information should be underlined. This is usually more effective for change, as behavioral models in Psychology have amply demonstrated. Specific. Concrete and detailed information is usually more useful for change and avoids misunderstandings. If the feedback is abstract, the result will probably be negative. Reliable.The source or origin of feedback is an important dimension. If the person providing the feedback is not a credible person, it will not be effective. There must be clarity in the message, focus on the problem, use of examples and avoidance of detours and evasions. Timely. The one we ask ourselves is the type of feedback that involves revealing sensitive information because there is some behavior that is not entirely correct and that needs to be modified. In these circumstances, it is understandable that one does not want to receive certain "warnings" in front of other people and, above all, that one is not always receptive to assume this type of information. The timing, circumstance, and place of making such disclosures is of utmost importance.The convenience of doing it in public or in private, for example, is in question. If it is a reproach, the person concerned may feel hurt in his personal pride; if it is a praise, some of those present may consider it to be undeserved. Therefore, this time we understand that it must be done privately after team meetings and in a meeting in which only the Manager and the consultant participate. Feedback is most effective if it occurs immediately after the behavior occurs. The immediacy of the feedback gives you a greater opportunity to offer or reveal specific and valuable information that is more useful for change and progress than if you do it a long time later. It must refer to behaviors or situations that are subject to improvement or change.If you make remarks to someone about what you cannot change, you are creating frustration. Therefore, it must be directed to identifiable and modifiable behaviors. More than tax feedback should be requested. There are always signs, both verbal and non-verbal, that allow us to intervene and "offer help" as deemed appropriate. The most effective feedback occurs when the recipient himself has asked the question or his wish or has been seriously interested in receiving feedback. In this sense, the consultant must create conditions in which it is easy for the other to ask for advice or willingly accept information. And for this, there are two ways that can be effective. One is lavishing the ability to listen, and the other is reporting, clearly and simply,To the interlocutor of why and why transmit the perception that you have about what you do, which is the option we opted for in our case. Quite simply, telling someone that you have done something wrong does not give you clues on how to improve. It is more helpful to transform it into concrete action on what you would have to do specifically to improve it. Respectful. Tax feedback tends to provoke rejection. On the contrary, when the personal origin of it is recognized without transmitting any obligation to accept it, it is more effective, not dogmatic. Especially when what is involved is appreciation and value judgments in relation to interpersonal behavior. Considering the possibility of an erroneous judgment in the appreciation that is transmitted is a way of reducing the emotional charge that, inadvertently,it can cause when you are judging a behavior. When this is done, the significance of the feedback increases. Verified. It is very convenient to ask for the repetition of the messages with different words. The greater or lesser effectiveness of the information that is transmitted depends on whether what is reported is understood or, at least, is not misinterpreted. If the feedback is about performance, in addition to transmitting information orally, it can be done through graphic, written procedures or through combinations of several of them. Graphical and frequent information is a powerful feedback procedure, not punitive. Although punishment is a logical consequence of certain behaviors,The truth is that punishment is not useful for the growth and development of new habits and behaviors because it does not give clues about how to improve and, above all, it does not encourage doing so. Punishment can be useful to stop certain behaviors that are not functional, as long as it is used in certain conditions. If feedback is requested, then it must be accepted. There are managers who declare from the beginning their purpose to receive feedback. However, relatively frequently, this declaration of intent remains only there. The absence of formal channels in which information flows easily, the lack of time or the emotional reaction against the information that shows that the equipment does not work as expected, may be some of the reasons, among others,for which it fails to receive feedback. Thus, a great opportunity to improve the organization itself is lost, while credibility is undermined by the inconsistency between what is said and what is done. Feedback must be offered personally and directly, especially if it is going to be negative, such as disapproval or displeasure. In this same sense, if it is going to be negative, it should never be done through a third party. If feedback is received improperly, it should not be rejected a priori. It is true that there are styles of transmitting information that have the "virtue" of provoking emotional reactions against them and of even dismissing the content of what is said. However, it is necessary to know how to discriminate between content and form, and the opportunity to obtain relevant information should not be missed.You have to receive it, you have to take note, you have to show appreciation if necessary and only afterwards make a criticism, if you want, for how the information was received. The only way to give adjusted and correct feedback is to listen through the system and capture all the subtle information that may indicate the interlocutor's state of mind, whether or not he wants to receive what is being said, his emotional reactions, if there are bad understood or if it is more convenient to wait for a better time and situation.The only way to give adjusted and correct feedback is to listen through the system and capture all the subtle information that may indicate the interlocutor's state of mind, whether or not he wants to receive what is being said, his emotional reactions, if there are bad understood or if it is more convenient to wait for a better time and situation.The only way to give adjusted and correct feedback is to listen through the system and capture all the subtle information that may indicate the interlocutor's state of mind, whether or not he wants to receive what is being said, his emotional reactions, if there are bad understood or if it is more convenient to wait for a better time and situation.

To be empathetic, you have to avoid the "ping-pong effect", in which each one waits for the other to finish saying what he wants to say but without capturing what the other is saying or feeling.

For feedback or feedback to be effective, it requires a sequence of two distinct steps. The usual sequence followed in the feedback process is as follows:

1. It begins by giving positive information about the correctness of the executions. Example: "I liked it…"

2. Alternatives are suggested on how to improve the wrong performance. Example: "could be improved…"

According to this sequence, feedback has two basic functions. On the one hand, it serves as a reward for what, in your opinion, is right, correct or adequate. And, on the other hand, it stimulates change. It has an antecedent or stimulating function of new behaviors.

The consultant will also focus on this part, and in coherence with what has been seen so far in the programming of this phase, in the management of the conflict that occurs between the members and their manager, following the Borisoff model in conflict management phases. and Victor:

1. Assessment: Take time to calm down and assess the situation. Gather the appropriate information or documentation. Assess the points in which you are, or are not, willing to yield. Value what the other party wants. Determine what should be, in principle, the appropriate behavior for managing the conflict with respect to the relationship and with respect to the environment. Acceptance: Hear what the other party has to say. Try to understand the other party's point of view. Attitude: Avoid resorting to stereotypes and prejudices. Try to maintain objectivity. Stay as flexible and open as possible. Action: Control vocabulary. Monitor non-verbal communication. Observe how the other party communicates, verbally and non-verbally. Stick to problems, not go off on a tangent. Do not promise anything that cannot be kept.Do not present the topics in the form of "win or lose". Do not skip the problems to the bullfighter. Be sincere and trustworthy. Try to stay flexible and responsive. Analysis: Make sure that the interests of all parties have been raised and considered. Summarize and clarify decisions. Review the procedures to implement any changes.

A negotiation will take place focused on the main issue of the conflict, which is apparently the autocratic behavior of the Responsible, which implies that he is the last decision maker, the only one with a global vision of the work, lack of autonomy of the members, etc… The idea is not to impose a solution from above, but to reach an agreement, following the following phases:

1. Presentation of their demands by the parties. Arguments and counter-arguments aimed at modifying the position of the other party. Modifications of the demands. D. Agreement.

Points B and C will be repeated, in cycles, the necessary number of times so that the parties' demands get close enough to reach an agreement.

The external consultant will act as mediator. It should be avoided through the advice and influence of the consultant that the Responsible adopts a competitive style of facing conflict.

In our opinion, the collaborative style should be encouraged, as it is the most appropriate for this specific conflict and its characteristics.

Collaboration involves an attempt to work together with other people to find a solution that fully meets everyone's wishes. It means, therefore, delving into an issue to identify the underlying concerns in all individuals and find a common solution.

The Collaboration can take the form of exploring a disagreement to learn about the other party's points of view, concluding, in consequence, in the resolution of some questions that, otherwise, would have caused more or less serious confrontations; or, also, in the search for a creative solution to a common problem.

Collaboration is appropriate when an integrative solution needs to be found because the two sets of interests are too important to attempt a compromise solution; when the objective pursued is to learn; to get the sharing of different versions of the same theme; to gain confidence by incorporating other people's points of view into a crucial decision for the organization; to study the angry feelings that may have been interfering in interpersonal relationships. All these situations are present in the conflict that we are trying to manage in this case.

One result that we should be able to obtain from this negotiation is the holding of meetings of the entire team to learn about the projects, contribute ideas from the multidisciplinary perspective and for decision-making, which substitute a certain percentage of the Responsible's meetings individually with each one. of the team people. For this, the team must also be trained to hold effective meetings, since the few that are currently held, in addition to being conflictive, consume too much time. Of course, avoid going to the other extreme, that is to say continuous unnecessary meetings or with more people than necessary.

The philosophy should be that in meetings it is not a matter of exposing the boss's opinion to the collaborators, of convincing them, of "selling ideas", but precisely of knowing the collaborators' points of view and taking advantage of them as important elements of judgment in decision making. The task of the head as director of the meeting does not consist of managing them skillfully to persuade them of an end already preconceived by him, but rather to stimulate them to think autonomously, through an adequate approach to the problem and based on additional questions. This, in fact, can quite well describe what is happening in the meetings so far.

7. Follow-up stage

This last stage has a double objective: to apply the plans and actions established during the planning stage, and to maintain group learning for the application of its resources to group tasks. Therefore, monitoring implies the establishment of control systems, which, on the one hand, involves the development of indicators that allow the team to be informed if the tasks are being carried out according to the established action plan (quality and deadlines) and, on the other hand part, the choice of people or subgroup in charge of collecting the information according to the established indicators. But, in addition, monitoring requires the development of a monitoring process that will have three complementary forms of action:

• Follow-up group meetings. Monthly there will be a meeting of one or two hours dedicated to discuss group issues and evaluate what has been achieved so far from the perception of the members. Quarterly interviews with the Director of Human Resources. Additionally, the external consultant will be hired again so that, in the Within two months, go as an observer to the group's work meetings for a couple of sessions and then you can interview each of the members, which will help us to obtain feedback from the evaluation, both to the team and to the Management and It will allow potential additional or past unresolved issues to be identified to the consultant by members at meetings or interviews.

In the intervention process, some sessions will be devoted to training members in problem solving techniques and team decision making.

They will be trained for joint decision-making, since an important problem was detected in this regard, so that synergies occur due to the diverse experience and training of the members. The decision-making methodology in which the team will be formed must emphasize that the following stages are carried out together:

1. Define the problem, so that all team members understand it the same way. All members will participate, so that they have an idea of ​​the problem from the beginning of the work, unlike how it had been previously.

This stage is crucial in the decision-making process, to such an extent that a well-defined problem can be said to be a partially solved problem. It often blocks the search for a "good solution" when the only viable solution is a "less bad solution."

2. Define the criteria to be followed to choose the solution, and which must be accepted by consensus of all team members. In this case, the Responsible's opinion will not only be taken into account (the Responsible should be made not to feel this change in the way of making decisions as a loss of personal power or an attack on their way of acting).

3. Weigh the criteria, based on the importance that each of them has according to the team's objectives, an aspect in which consensus must also be reached.

4. Define the possible solutions that can be adopted to achieve the objectives set.

5. Evaluate each solution, based on the criteria previously adopted by the group. This stage requires a rigorous mental posture. It is a question of seeing the degree to which the formulated alternatives comply with the previously established criteria and, secondly, of examining their viability: risks that are run, costs, etc. When there is a great variety of alternatives and criteria, it can be useful to build a matrix, placing the alternatives in the columns and the criteria in the rows or vice versa and using the weights that are considered appropriate. At the end of this stage, the land is fertilized so that it is chosen among the duly elaborated and valued alternatives. The time has come for the decision.

6. Group decision making. From the evaluation carried out in the previous step, the decision will be given by itself. When the work of solving a problem falls on a team, the process under review becomes especially important for several reasons. First, from a problem-solving angle, a team is "a constellation of thinking heads," whose intellectual activity must be somewhat coordinated. Now, the easiest way to achieve this synchronization is to invite the participants to carry out the same intellectual activity at all times and all simultaneously, be it gathering information or formulating alternatives, etc…

Regarding troubleshooting techniques, they will be trained in the following two.

1) Cause-Effect Diagram.

Once the causes of the problem have been listed, they can be logically structured using the Cause-Effect Diagram or Ishikawa Diagram, also popularly known as “fish scrap” (because of its shape).

This Diagram is an excellent means of communication, due to its simplicity, clarity and specificity; and it allows to structure in a logical and systematic way the causes of the problem that is being tried to solve. For all the above, it becomes an important working instrument for the team. The following shows how a Cause-Effect Diagram is constructed.

First, the central axis of the Diagram (the "backbone" of the fish scrap) is drawn, in the form of an arrow to the right and ending in the effect to be eliminated by solving the problem. Next, the "main spines" are placed, which correspond to the five families in which the causes of the problems are most commonly grouped:

Machines. All aspects related to them and that are relevant to the problem.

Personal. Aspects related to people.

Methods The way of doing things.

Materials. Raw materials, paper, parts, electricity, etc…

Medium. Physical and human environment; that is, working conditions, ergonomics, clients, etc…

These five families are placed in the form of arrows that strike the central axis. The next step will be to place the detected causes, in the specific problem that is being solved, in each of the families, also in the form of arrows. For each cause, a name (one or two words) will be used that allows its identification in an easy and unequivocal way.

In some cases, the causes can be broken down into other simpler components, which will also be included in the diagram.

It should not be forgotten that the more complicated the diagram, reaching an increasing degree of detail, the more useful it will be for the team. It should be borne in mind that, when constructing the Cause-Effect diagram, one works, as we have explained, from the most general to the particular; while to interpret it and work with it, one advances in the opposite direction; that is, from the most particular to the general.

2) Pareto Analysis.

The Pareto Analysis was developed by Vilfredo-Frederigo Samoso (1848-1923), Marquis de Pareto. In general, the so-called Pareto Law or the 80/20 Law, comes to say, very simply, in the case that interests us, that 20% of the causes will explain 80% of the problem (obviously, it is necessary to take 80 and 20 for guidance). Therefore, the objective of the Pareto Analysis will be to detect 20% of the causes of the problem that produce 80% of its consequences. In this way, the group's actions will be aimed at solving those most significant aspects of said problem. The following indicates how the Pareto Analysis would be carried out.

1. First, the detected causes of the problem are ordered by importance. The importance will be determined by the costs, the loss of time involved, etc… The previous data is represented in a Bar Diagram. This graph is called the Pareto Diagram, and it allows to put in front of all the team members the ordered data, so the discussion is encouraged, although it is necessary to continue working. Prepare the Distribution Curve; that is, the one that joins the midpoints of the upper sides of the rectangles that form the Pareto Diagram. Make the Distribution Curve; that is, the cumulative polygon of the data. Apply the ABC Method. This method developed by Connellan (1978) is also called Functional Analysis of Behavior. A shows the analysis of the history of current behavior;B shows the specific behaviors and C indicates the contingent consequence. Specific ABC analyzes attempt to determine where the problems are located.

Once the Distribution Curve has been drawn up, it is possible to decide towards which causes to direct the efforts.

In this way, the team can make objective decisions on where to focus their efforts, since, in most cases, trying, at first, to eliminate all the causes of the problem is usually unrealistic, so it is preferable to focus the group's efforts in those aspects that would have a greater impact on the desired results.

We understand that this training will be relevant, not only because it provides members with tools that they did not know, but because these tools require everyone to consider their opinion, value creativity and different points of view, and is a complement to facilitate the group decision making. Additionally, they make the entire team have to know the analysis process as a whole and therefore the specialized task distribution that was the source of one of the problems, which was demotivating and lost synergies in the approaches of the problems and allows everyone to have a global vision so that they can add value from their perspective.

In parallel to the group intervention, the Human Resources Department will work in the team's Management by Objectives system to give greater weight to its group objectives, reducing the weight of the objectives of the entire company and of the individual ones.

Finally, as an additional intervention, and given that the group's work involves creativity to find new efficiency solutions to the processes they analyze, it might be appropriate to train the team in creativity techniques. The team members have not performed poorly in this regard, however they are used to working individually in creating solutions due to the dynamics that the group had been experiencing. For this reason, and in addition to the aforementioned intervention process, it could be interesting to train them in team creativity techniques, which could be, for example:

• Synectics Lateral thinking Synapses Attribute lists (this technique can be especially well suited to process optimization)

Bibliography

• ANTONS, K. ​​(1990). Practice of group dynamics. Barcelona: Herder. BALLENATO PRIETO, G. (2005). Teamwork. Ediciones Pirámide, SA CARTWRIGHT, D. and ZANDER, A. (1992): Group Dynamics. Mexico: Trillas.GONZÁLEZ, P. CORNEJO ÁLVAREZ, JM, SILVA VÁZQUEZ, M. (1996). Effective Work Teams. Barcelona: Ediciones Universitarias de Barcelona, ​​SLFERNÁNDEZ LOSA, N. (1999): Management of work teams in organizations, Civitas, Madrid.GONZÁLEZ, P. (2004). Fundamental theoretical orientations in group psychology. Barcelona: EUB.GONZÁLEZ, P. (2007). Group psychology: Theory and application. Madrid: Síntesis.LAPASSADE, GEORGES: «Groups, Organizations and Institutions». Edit. Gedisa. Chap. IVPERETTI, JM (1997). We are all directors of human resources. Barcelona: Gestión 2000.PINAR SUSIN, MM, ALONSO LEACHE, B.,LOBATO GÓMEZ, FJ (2005). Relationships in work teams. Edebé.SÁNCHEZ, JC (2002): Psychology of Groups. Theories, processes and applications. Aravaca: McGraw-Hill.SCHVARSTEIN, LEONARDO: «Social Psychology of Organizations». Paidós Publishing House. Chap. 1.SHAW, ME (1986). Group dynamic. Barcelona: Herder.TRECHERA, JL (2003): Teamwork: talent and talent. Group dynamics techniques. Bilbao: DDB.