The three criteria that are most important for the efficient functioning of work groups are the level of effort, the amount
of knowledge and skill, and the work
performance. Upon these criteria depends the ultimate success or failure of the work group.
The three basic design features of the work group are:
1) The design of the group task – the nature of the group task affects the amount of effort each member puts into the group. The group task should require the use of different skills (skill variety), the group task should be a whole and meanigful piece of work (task identity), the group task should provide the
members with sufficient freedom to do the work (autonomy), the group should receive reliable information about its performance (feedback), and the outcome of the group task should make a difference (task significance).
2) The composition of the group – how the group is composed affects the group task. The group should include members with a lot of work experience, and the group must be large enough to get the work done – but not so large as to become unwieldly. There should be some variety in the group; if the group members are too much alike, the advantages of having a group are lost. Group members must possess some interpersonal skill, especially when the group is composed of people who differ in age, gender, nationality and race.
3) Group norms about performance – these norms play an important part in determining how well the group performs. The main advantage in having clear performance norms is that everybody knows what is expected of them.
There are two factors that are crucial in determining the success of self-managing work groups in organizations:
1) The first factor is how well the work groups fit with the people who compose them, and with the organizations in which they have to function. These groups work best when its team members have a strong need for personal growth as well as social relationships. Further, the work groups must not clash with the over-riding culture of the organization.
2) The second factor is the feasability of the work group. Sometimes, it is not possible to form work groups, and we must not insist upon the formation of work groups in such an environment.