Team Training & Performance

In the business world, individuals almost always require training of some kind - whether it be through a group training or from self-directed learning. Whether the training is for a new skill or to further develop a project, training allows companies and corporations to ensure that employees are as productive as they can be. Training becomes all the more important considering most, if not all aims and objectives that a company has for themselves is team-oriented. As such, companies employ training classes and modules for the staff with the express intent of ensuring that they are successful both within the employees' respective careers and for the overall success of the business.

Training Defined

The common consensus is that learning is a lifelong process. Both Aguinis & Kraiger (2009) and Zhang & Venkatesh (2013) define training as the opportunity to assist employees' in expanding their knowledge and to provide the company with extensive benefits that ultimately drive success (2009; 2013). Zhang & Venkatesh (2013) further assert that organizations see training as significant investments in their viability within a particular industry and that these dollars serve the purpose of encouraging staff to make impressive strides in productivity and performance (p.1-3).

Aguinis & Kraiger (2009) reveal that organizations must continually execute employee training programs and classes amidst their workforce to both enhance the wellbeing of the individuals working there as well as the performance of the organization. Training itself has three particular characteristics: a psychological component - being that the individual feels their skills and talents are exercised and developed further; second, that training can be used in team-related structures; and third, training information can be delivered utilizing the Internet and social media platforms in addition to traditional classroom training (p.452-453). Each respective training characteristic has its place in the world of business and factors heavily into the dynamics of the workforce and in turn, the business.

Training Benefits

To understand the benefits of training, they must be broken down into two subsets: the individual and the team. In terms of the individual, training hones in on their capabilities both as a human and their performance at work (Eraut & Hirsh, 2007). When looking at the benefits of the group, there are a plethora of advantages. Individuals can have more job satisfaction, (Riketta, 2008) a loyalty factor for the employee is built ("Employee Engagement," n.d.; Leblebici, 2012; Delise et al., 2010) and the workplace becomes much more attractive in the industry it is in (Johnson, 2014). Thus, the benefits of training are beneficial, particularly when executed in a joint or team effort. For this express purpose, companies and corporations more or less utilize team training on the basis that it will engender a more productive workforce and reputation for them.

Salas et al. (2008) argue that the nature of work has not only changed, but collaboration is necessary for the growth of a business. Whether it is a private or public enterprise, companies are relying more and more upon the dynamics of team. Team training offers the opportunity for employees to engage with each other and for a variety of suggestions, recommendations and opinions to be shared (p.903-904). Brown et al. (2011) assert that team training reinforces the mission and vision of a particular company and assures commitment and loyalty from an employee on the basis that they feel as if their rationale matters (p.2-3). Moreover, the employees feel that the company has fully thought out its strategies and objectives as far as where the company is headed in the 21st century (Ooi et al, 2006; Green, 2008). Furthermore, participation from employees seems to be more in focus and deemed more positive (Brown et al., 2011). Psychology then plays a pivotal role in the overall context of training – whether that training is individualistic or team-centered. The former, however, denotes less of engagement than team training per a considerable amount of research.

Team Training & the Workforce

Aguinis & Kraiger (2009) document that training effects are subtle in the area of team training, adding that effectiveness is not as overt as one might assume. The reason for this is that performance cannot be immediately measured. As much as companies and corporations seek to expedite the process of workplace productivity to remain whirlwind forces in the business world, it is, unfortunately, does not work that way when examining the effects of team training, irrespective of formal or informal training - and despite what model a company opts to use to measure effectiveness (p.454). This suggests that even though employees are engaged during the team training exercises and teaching classes, that the benefits cannot be documented until much later because of the psychological elements that are woven into the motivational fabric. In other words, because training is psychology based in terms of what skills are enhanced, what knowledge retained, and companies only learn the overall definitive outcomes of the training when they examine the workforce after a notable amount of time.

Delise et al. (2010) suggests that there is enough empirical data to purport this assertion as a myriad of studies have unearthed that teams of all types of individuals, with varying personality types, and from diverse backgrounds - and in a variety of industries - have only perfected the so-called productive and fruitful workforce for a time after training has concluded (p.54). Most, if not all studies performed on the topic of team training deliver this assertion based on qualitative and/or meta-analysis. Few, if at all quantitative analyses have been performed throughout the years on the topic because many researchers believe that an expansive amount of participants in a certain experiment or study cannot contend precise evaluation (Klein et al, 2009).

It is important to mention that individual training should not be discounted. For the company and/or corporation to benefit substantially from a team training focus, the individual must be equipped with particular skills and knowledge (Goldstein & Ford, 2002; Klein et al., 2009; Delise et al., 2010). Each specific individual that is a part of the team training has a certain level of abilities and capabilities that affect the overall effectiveness outcome of team training (Rapp & Mathieu, 2007; Klein et al., 2009). Due to this particular fact, companies must construct evaluations of the individuals before including them on a team to discover what individuals fit better with others and to delineate key performance indicators of how well the team will be effective post-training (Delise et al., 2010). Companies can use a variety of psychological evaluations to comprehend the best KPI’s for their organization post-training. Each type of psychological evaluation shows the company which individual fits best with another individual – and potentially what type of training should be employed to produce better performance.

Switzer et al. (2006) state that the need for training has rapidly skyrocketed over the last 20 years. Companies are continually reevaluating their training methods - even in the area of team training - to assure themselves a productive workforce after said training (p.350). Sultana et al. (2012) write that companies often use a combination of training methods, including but not limited to, eLearning, questionnaires, interactive training and peer learning even in the area of team training. Considering how much training plays a role in the performance improvement of a company, the techniques that a company opts to use to both unveil and enhance employee skills and talents will position them to be that much better (p.646-648). Employee Engagement (n.d.) conceives that it is the engagement of the employee that is the most beneficial aspect of team training and in turn, organizational effectiveness. Engagement of employees requires "a fit for purpose organizational structure; capable leadership and a culture that is positive in its dynamics" (p.6). These elements are key in terms of excellence across the board for assuring productivity and excellent team performance.

Employee Engagement (n.d.) goes on to state that engagement means that the company must be committed to the individual they are training; that the trainer must have pride in the task at hand; that the trainer should advocate the benefits and advantages of the organization to the individual they are training and this will assure engagement of the employee. This is what builds employee loyalty and longevity with the business they work for. The employee essentially should feel a connection between their skills and talents and what they are being trained to do once the training has concluded. Further, communication is essential as well. After psychological assessment of the individuals have been performed by the leadership at the organization, team training modules that are created should have well-planned and detailed messages that communicate success to the employees and allow them to see how their talents can benefit the productivity of the company they work for (p.6-8).

Salas et al. (2008) describes the essential reasoning for team training and why communication is crucial by noting that content can be curated for the appropriate teams if there is evaluation beforehand and that employees like to see that companies are actively involved in ensuring that training is geared toward their particular industry and not something out of the ordinary (p.905). For example, if the business is a part of the hospitality industry, with a specific emphasis on luxury restaurants, the training should be geared toward that as opposed to a topic that is diametrically different. Salas et al. (2008) continues to state that training should be designed and created based on teamwork and task work, (p.905) and that the employees should be able to form a camaraderie based on feeling that they belong to that group of individuals (Salas et al., 2006) and that the company can perform an analysis on the effectiveness of the team training (Salas et al., 2008).

What Is Included in Team Training?

Vemic (2007), Salas et al. (2008), & Obisi (2011) write that every company has requirements that they should include in their team training after evaluating which employees go best with other employees. The requirements essentially are to educate the employee on how best to create a solid and productive environment. Obisi (2011) adds that there is a precise philosophy to training and that without proper training, it becomes very difficult for organizations to achieve objectives. Therefore, training should be centered on identifying what is missing from the productivity elements in a workforce. This could mean placing significance on time management, compliance or the needs of the business - but whatever the particular need(s) are, the company is responsible to ensure that before venturing into a team type training that these proverbial kinks are worked out (p.82-84). Moreover, one particular framework that has become popular over the years is CRM or customer relationship management.

CRM

Customer relationship management identifies how the company will deal with its customers and interact with them. Companies and businesses usually manage their relationships with the customer via a system. The CRM system helps businesses better ascertain the customer, retain customers and attract new ones (Parvatiyar & Sheth, 2001; Chen & Popovich, 2003; Mishra & Mishra, 2009). Mishra & Mishra (2009) observe that the customer relationship management system allows companies to focus on relationship building and to understand the needs of the customers. Organizations tend to use customer relationship management systems in a variety of different ways in terms of analyzing and examining the best way to achieve their goals (p.83-84). In the area of team training, customer relationship management can be quite effective because it allows for continual engagement among employees in learning the particular apparatus and thereby unequivocally understanding the goals of the company they work for. Since customer relationship management is such a prime focus for companies in terms of building relationships with them, employees should know and understand the advantages and the disadvantages associated with it.

Mishra & Mishra (2009) write that CRM implementation is critical to the analysis of team training outcomes because of the fact that failure can result if the organization has not evaluated their employees and if they have not created a specific strategy that can educate their employees (p.84-85). In other words, if a company is relying on the customer relationship management system to build consumer relationships, the employees should be taught the fundamentals of the CRM so the company can glean the information needed to build the relationships - but if the training dynamics are scattered or not all together, that creates failure and leads to non-productivity and lack of performance of the overall workforce.

How Can Team Training Be Executed Properly?

After companies have created the particular training modules for their employees, consideration has to be given to how they will execute the programs. All businesses typically mandate that employees undergo training on an annual basis. Some companies may require the employee to attend mandatory training every six months.

Training Program & Team Performance Evaluation

Rosen et al. (2010) describe that the assessment methods for team training and performance are needed for the organization to understand what is working and what is not. Additionally, it provides an assessment of the trainers as well. Team members are allowed to give their recommendations and suggestions on the training also (2010). There is an array of evaluation techniques that can be used that include graphic rating scales, forced distribution, narrative essays, peer evaluations and management by objectives. Each has various pros and cons.

According to Mayhew (2014), graphic rating scales are known as the easiest way to evaluate a team. They can be utilized in fast-paced environments. Essentially, the scales work on a number scale where the employees are determined based on productivity in the area of incentive or bonus (p.1). Both Royal et al. (2010) and Vautier (2011) reason that this particular model of evaluation can be tailored to be specific down to the degree of employee type (i.e. how long they have been in an industry, their skillset, etc.). Further, smaller samples tend to yield the best results for productivity as larger data sets often become increasingly problematic for measurement purposes (2010; 2011). Lipman (2012) writes that forced distribution is a type of ranking associates against each other to evaluate performance and productivity. In essence, those who fall at the top of the ranking system are rewarded and those that fall toward the bottom are identified as needing additional training and/or coaching (p.1).

Chattopadhayay & Ghosh (2012) consider the implications of this method of rating employees, especially in the area of team training because everyone operates on a different learning level and it forces managerial staff to differentiate between high and low performers. Discrimination is also a potential factor in this evaluation method because one member of a team may feel that they did more than another member - and are being penalized in conjunction with others if performance is unsatisfactory (2012). Moreover, Roch et al. (2007) conclude that forced distribution can also engender bias and therefore skew evaluation results of team training and in effect, productivity outcomes. Additionally, Madan (2006) finds that when a forced distribution is used that individuals tend to be looked at separately rather than as a team, which is the intended purpose when companies and organizations opt to use team training.

Narrative essays are another type of performance evaluation. In these types of evaluations, managers create written records of an employee or team's performance. These are often seen as being extremely complete and accurate in terms of achievements, disciplinary actions, and other aspects that affect performance (Grote, 1996). Aggarwal & Thakur (2013) rationalize that this particular method is one of the more traditional evaluation techniques among many and that some companies do utilize it because of its thoroughness. There is a considerable amount, however, of bias that can be factored into this if the manager does not have a positive rapport with the employee (p.618).

Both Nanda & Sorensen (2008) and Spiller (2012) note that peer evaluation is when individuals on a team assess each other. Peer evaluation can be quite effective in allowing businesses to understand the training that employees received and the productivity of the employees post-training. The reviews, which are often given in the form of surveys or questionnaires allow for immediate feedback and can, in essence, be quite informative and specific (2008; 2012). Hagler (2011) writes that peer reviews can put employees in positions that are extremely uncomfortable due to the demoralization that can take place both of reviewing their peers and their respective trainers (p.1). Some companies and corporations use peer evaluation because it has an anonymous factor and because there are many different individuals involved in team training. Peer evaluation does not work effectively in the area of individual training because bias is more likely to occur. Bias can potentially occur in team training, however, the company is less likely to know the particular biases associated with the evaluation because each survey and questionnaire is anonymously filled out and examined at a later time.

Management by objectives is a particular type of results-driven evaluation that allows organizations to specifically assess whether what they have executed is working toward their overall aim or goal. Management by objectives expressly places the importance of the goal's fulfillment on the employee and in the area of team training - the team. The advantages associated with management by objectives are: that the strategies of the organization are clear because the company can straightforwardly describe what they want to achieve; and there are better coordination and communication (Thomson, 1981). Better coordination and communication mean the capability of the team to be forward-looking in terms of what tasks and duties need fulfillment thereby providing each worker on the team a certain element to both controls and be accountable for.

Thomson (1981) goes on to state that the employees are motivated by management by objectives because they can immediately see the effects of their training and overall dedication. Basically, in the area of team training, the employee is given specifics on how they best fit into the organization about their skills and talents. This produces job satisfaction and empowerment. Finally, management by objectives is advantageous because managers’ can make sure that each goal that the trainer identifies during training adheres to the overall vision of the company (1981). As such, there is minimal miscommunication that occurs and the evaluation process can be successful in both the short and long term. As with the other evaluation models, management by objectives does have some cons. One of the main ones is the fact that objectives are poorly executed by the team and the evaluation of the team is tarnished and/or damaged because of the poor quality that was delivered. While clarification can be obtained throughout the execution of a particular duty or task, this is one of the disadvantages of management by objectives.

Bradt (2013) believes that in the 21st century, management by objectives is not a sustainable process for businesses. The data received from such an evaluation is not reliable on the basis that it is individual-focused rather than team-oriented. This is problematic in the sense that many companies as aforementioned are team-centered. There is also a psychological aspect to this evaluation because the individual can begin to reason that they are more important than the team itself in achieving a particular objective. The concept of not being able to move mountains by oneself goes proverbially out the window as the ego takes over (p.1). Psychology indeed plays a pivotal role in how well individuals adapt to team training and overall team performance assessment, so Bradt's (2013) diagnosis is accurate in the sense that objectives cannot be achieved by one individual specifically. Thus, management by objectives is only a viable evaluation model to the extent that businesses understand this at the onset in the overall picture they hope to glean from the team training mandates.

Contradictions

In an examination of the literature, there does not appear to be contradictions about team training and subsequently, the evaluation of the performance of the team. Companies essentially must first decide which type of training will be the most effective to their workforce following a psychological assessment and then decide which evaluation model is best. There is conflicting research on the viability of team training versus individual training in the area of productivity. A vast and voluminous body of literature exists that speaks to the benefits to an organization on doing individual training alone and the aforementioned discussion validates the effects of team training being the optimum to productivity and longevity of a company.

Conclusion

This paper reviewed the specifics of what training is and how it factors into the success of an organization. Additionally, the benefits of training were examined to assess with specific emphasis on team training and why more companies are gravitating toward that particular type. A discussion of team training and the effects it has on the workforce was then analyzed including what is used in team training and why it needs to be precise if companies plan on utilizing it in achieving their objectives. Evaluation models were examined as well, to contextualize the preceding discussion on team training and to properly ascertain which framework is the most effective.

Unfortunately, there is no definitive evaluation tool for team performance in an organization. Companies and businesses must assess their goals and strategies first and foremost, then derive a specific plan on what will work best for their employees. Training, ultimately, is a type of trial and error practice where businesses can assess what is and is not working among their employees concerning productivity and performance. While the results and subsequent outcomes are not immediate and overt, in time, data can be measured and specifically analyzed for a precise conclusion to be made. Because each workforce is different and diverse, and every company has a different mission and vision, the performance of the team and ultimately the objectives set forth by the company can only be analyzed on a case by case scenario. There will undoubtedly be an article after article that emerges on the subject of team training and team performance, but a definite explanation of what works and what does not will be difficult to determine given that assertion.

References

Aggarwal, A., & Thakur, G. S. (2013, February). Techniques of Performance Appraisal - A Review. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology, 2(3), 617-621. Retrieved from http://www.ijeat.org/attachments/File/v2i3/C1188022313.pdf

Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of Training and Development for Individuals and Teams, Organizations, and Society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451-474. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505

Bradt, G. (2013, February 6). Why Management by Objective Is Unsustainable. Forbes, Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgebradt/2013/02/06/why-management-by-objective-is-unsustainable/

Brown, S., McHardy, J., McNabb, R., & Taylor, K. (2011, January). Workplace Performance, Worker Commitment and Loyalty. IZA, 1-35. Retrieved from http://ftp.iza.org/dp5447.pdf

Chattopadhayay, R., & Ghosh, A. K. (2012). Performance appraisal based on a forced distribution system: its drawbacks and remedies. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 61(8), 881-886. doi:10.1108/17410401211277138

Chen, I. J., & Popovich, K. (2003). Understanding customer relationship management (CRM) People, process and technology. Business Process Management Journal, 9(5), 672-688. Retrieved from http://cis.csuohio.edu/~ichen/CRM.pdf

Delise, L. A., Gorman, C. A., Brooks, A. M., Rentsch, J. R., & Steele-Johnson, D. (2010). The Effects of Team Training on Team Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 22(4), 53-80.

Employee Engagement [Report]. (n.d.). Retrieved from Right Management website: http://www.right.com/thought-leadership/research/employee-engagement---maximizing-organizational-performance.pdf

Eraut, M., & Hirsh, W. (2007). The Significance of Workplace Learning for Individuals, Groups and Organisations [Report]. Retrieved from ESRC Centre on Skills, Knowledge and Organisational Performance website: http://www.skope.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Monogrpah%209.pdf

Goldstein, I. L., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Training in organizations (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Green, F. (2008). Leeway for the Loyal: A Model of Employee Discretion’,. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(1), 1-32.

Grote, D. (1996). The Complete Guide to Performance Appraisal. New York, NY: AMACOM.

Hagler, K. (2011, December 1). Pros and Cons of Peer Reviews. Retrieved from NFIB website: http://www.nfib.com/article/pros-and-cons-of-peer-reviews-58824/

Johnson, A. W. (2014). The Importance of Workplace Training. Inside India Business, Retrieved from https://www.insideindianabusiness.com/contributors.as p?id=923

Klein, C., DiazGranados, D., Salas, E., Le, H., Burke, C. S., & Lyons, R. (2009). Does team building work? Small Group Research,, 40(2), 181-222.

Leblebici, D. (2012). IMPACT OF WORKPLACE QUALITY ON EMPLOYEE’S PRODUCTIVITY: CASE STUDY OF A BANK IN TURKEY. Journal of Business, Economics & Finance, 1(1), 38-49.

Lipman, V. (2012, July 19). The Pros And Cons Of Forced Rankings: A Manager's Perspective. Forbes, Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2012/07/19/the-pros-and-cons-of-forced-rankings-a-managers-perspective/

Madan, A. (2006). Appraising the performance appraisal – the Indian scenario. Indian Journal of Training and Development, 37(1), 43-54.

Mayhew, R. (2014). Team Member Performance Evaluation Techniques. Houston Chronicle, Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/team-member- performance-evaluation-techniques-19096.html

Mishra, A., & Mishra, D. (2009). Customer Relationship Management: Implementation Process Perspective. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 6(4), Retrieved from http://www.uni-obuda.hu/journal/Mishra_Mishra_20.pdf

Nanda, R., & Sorensen, J. B. (2008). Workplace Peers and Entrepreneurship [Working Paper]. Retrieved from Harvard Business School website: http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/08-051.pdf

Obisi, C. (2011, December). Employee Training and Development in Nigerian Organisaitons: Some Observations and Agenda for Research. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 1(9), 82-91. Retrieved from http://www.ajbmr.com/articlepdf/AJBMR_16_09i1n9a9.pdf

Ooi, K., Safa, M. S., & Arumugam, V. (2006). TQM Practices and Affective Commitment: A Case of Malaysian Semiconductor Packaging Organizations’,. International Journal of Management and Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 37-35.

Parvatiyar, A., & Sheth, J. N. (2001). Customer Relationship Management: Emerging Practice, Process, and Discipline. Journal of Economic and Social Research, 3(2), 1-34. Retrieved from http://parvatiyar.net/articles/CustomerRelationshipManagement.pdf

Rapp, T. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2007). Evaluating and individually self-administered generic teamwork skills training program across time and levels. Small Group Research, 38(4), 532-555.

Riketta, M. (2008). The Causal Relation Between Job Attitudes and Performance: A Meta-Analysis of Panel Studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 472-481. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.472

Roch, S. G., Sternburgh, A. M., & Caputo, P. M. (2007). Absolute vs. relative performance rating formats: implication for fairness and organizational justice. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15(3), 302-316.

Rosen, M. A., Weaver, S. J., Lazzara, E. H., Salas, E., Wu, T., Silvestri, S., ... King, H. B. (2010, October). Tools for evaluating team performance in simulation-based training. Journal of Emergencies, Trauma and Shock, 3(4), 353-359. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2966568/

Royal, K. D., Ellis, A., Ensslen, A., & Homan, A. (2010, Winter). 607 RATING SCALE OPTIMIZATION IN SURVEY RESEARCH: AN APPLICATION OF THE RASCH RATING SCALE MODEL. JAQM, 5(4), Retrieved from http://jaqm.ro/issues/volume-5,issue- 4/pdfs/7_royal_ellis_ensslen_homan.pdf

Salas, E., Wilson, K. A., Burke, C. S., & Wightman, D. (2006). Does crew resource management training work? An update, an extension, and some critical needs. Human Factors, 48, 392-412.

Salas, E., DiazGranados, D., Klein, C., Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Goodwin, G. F., & Halpin, S. M. (2008). Does Team Training Improve Team Performance? A Meta-Analysis. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50, 903-933. doi:10.1518/001872008X375009

Sultana, A., Irum, S., Ahmed, K., & Mehmood, N. (2012, October). IMPACT OF TRAINING ON EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE: A STUDY OF TELECOMMUNICATION SECTOR IN PAKISTAN. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research In Business, 4(6), 646-661. Retrieved from http://journal-archieves24.webs.com/646-661.pdf

Switzer, S., Thomas, L., & Featheringham, R. (2006). EMPLOYEE TRAINING. Issues in Information Systems, VII(2), 350-353. Retrieved from http://iacis.org/iis/2006/Switzer_Thomas_Featheringham.pdf

Thomson, T. M. (1981). MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVES. Retrieved from The Pfeiffer Library website: http://home.snu.edu/~jsmith/library/body/v20.pdf

Vautier, S. (2011). Measuring Change with Multiple Visual Analogue Scales: Application to Tense Arousal. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27, 111-120. Retrieved from http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/80/14/53/PDF/inpress_Vautier.pdf

Vemić, J. (2007). EMPLOYEE TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT AND THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION. FACTA UNIVERSITATIS, 4(2), 209-216. Retrieved from http://facta.junis.ni.ac.rs/eao/eao200702/eao200702-13.pdf

Zhang, X., & Venkatesh, V. (2013). EXPLAINING EMPLOYEE JOB PERFORMANCE: THE ROLE OF ONLINE AND OFFLINE WORKPLACE COMMUNICATION NETWORKS. MIS Quarterly, X(X), 1-XX.