CHAPTER 10 INTERPERSONAL AND GROUP PROCESS APPROACHES 277

the time for the meeting (that is, a meeting should not be started until a time has been
agreed on to conclude or adjourn), and the careful selection of those who should attend
the meeting are all elements of this context.
In addition, the third-party consultant must decide on an appropriate role to assume
in resolving conflict. The specific tactic chosen will depend on the diagnosis of the situa-
tion. For example, facilitating dialogue of interpersonal issues might include initiating the
agenda for the meeting, acting as a referee during the meeting, reflecting and restating
the issues and the differing perceptions of the individuals involved, giving feedback and
receiving comments on the feedback, helping the individuals diagnose the issues in the
conflict, providing suggestions or recommendations, and helping the parties do a better
job of diagnosing the underlying problem.
Third-party consultants must develop considerable skill at diagnosis, intervention, and
follow-up, and be highly sensitive to their own feelings and to those of others. They must
recognize that some tension and conflict are inevitable and that although there can be an
optimum amount and degree of conflict, too much conflict can be dysfunctional for both
the people involved and the larger organization. The third-party consultant must be sensi-
tive to the situation and able to use a number of different intervention strategies and tac-
tics when intervention appears to be useful. Finally, he or she must have professional
expertise in third-party intervention and must be seen by the parties as neutral or unbiased
regarding the issues and outcomes of the conflict resolution.
Application 10.2 describes a third-party intervention at a law firm. The OD consul-
tant was brought in by another consultant to help rescue a struggling strategic planning
process. The OD consultant initially used structural interventions to simply help the
partners get work done but eventually had to utilize more interpersonal process interven-
tions to address the personality conflicts.23

10-4 Team Building

Team building refers to a broad range of planned activities that help groups improve the
way they accomplish tasks, help members enhance their interpersonal and problem-
solving skills, and increase team performance.24 Organizations comprise many different
types of groups including permanent work groups, temporary project teams, and virtual
teams. Team building is an effective approach to improving teamwork and task accom-
plishment in such environments. It can help problem-solving groups make maximum
use of members’ resources and contributions. It can help members develop a high level
of motivation to implement group decisions. Team building also can help groups over-
come specific problems, such as apathy and general lack of member interest; loss of pro-
ductivity; increasing complaints within the group; confusion about assignments; low
participation in meetings; lack of innovation and initiation; increasing complaints from
those outside the group about the quality, timeliness, and effectiveness of services and
products; and hostility or conflicts among members.
Team building also can facilitate other OD interventions, such as employee involve-
ment, work design, restructuring, and strategic change. Those change programs typically
are designed by management teams, implemented through various committees and work
groups, and result in new teams that need to operate at a high level of effectiveness
quickly. Team building can help the groups design high-quality change programs and
ensure that the programs are accepted and implemented by organization members.
Indeed, most technostructural, human resource management, and strategic interventions
depend on some form of team building for effective implementation.
278 PART 3 HUMAN PROCESS INTERVENTIONS
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AT ROSS & SHERWIN
R
oss and Sherwin (R&S) is a 40-year-old,
Chicago-based law firm with 65 lawyers
and one of the largest specialty intellectual
property (IP) firms in the country. Since the
firm’s founding, a single Managing Partner has
run the partnership meetings and worked with
the firm’s operations director to make adminis-
trative decisions about staff and lawyers. Its
clear niche and consistently strong results
meant that the Managing Partner could spend
most of his/her time continuing their law prac-
tice. In fact, it was easy to keep your head
down and “just practice law” at R&S.
Beginning in 2008, changes in the firm’s
strategy and pressure from clients and compe-
titors began to challenge the easy-going style
of the organization. For example, the recently
added IP litigation services required new law-
yers with different skill sets. In addition, clients
were pressuring the firm to lower hourly rates
for basic transactional work, such as trademark
and patent applications, and to increase the
number of litigation cases under a “contin-
gency” arrangement. That is, R&S’s fees
would depend on the court’s findings and sig-
nificantly increase the firm’s risks compared to
the bill-by-the-hour arrangement that had
worked for years.
Most of the transactional lawyers had
reservations about the contingency work.
Although the payoff could be good for the vic-
torious inventor and the law firm who repre-
sented him, the possibility of sinking a million
dollars of billable time into a case with poten-
tially no return was terrifying to some. As a
result, the firm’s Managing Partner began call-
ing for regular meetings to discuss whether to
invest in contingency cases and how steeply to
discount transactional work. In 2009, the firm
lost two partners to competitors and partner
income dipped in 2009 and 2010.
By the end of 2010, the partners had
agreed on two things: they needed to think
more about firm strategy and they needed a
new leadership structure. The R&S partners
believed that a single managing partner could
no longer lead the firm because the two very
application 10 2
different businesses, IP litigation (increasingly
contingency work) and IP transactions (hourly
work with significant rate pressure) required
representation at the highest level. Moreover,
Andrew, the Managing Partner since 2000,
was eager to retire and fully endorsed the
need for new leadership.
In 2011, R&S named its first-ever "Co-
managing Partners,” Brad and Ron. Brad is
conservative in every way. He is slow to dele-
gate and even slower to endorse the litigation
group’s growth through contingency work.
Ron, on the other hand, is a risk taker in
terms of the work he will take on, and in
terms of his willingness to pass responsibilities
to other lawyers early in their careers.
Brad and Ron also share certain character-
istics, however. While they are effective at
navigating thorny conversations with clients
and adversaries, they have little patience for
working through the firm’s internal differences.
Both of them will say what people want to hear
and then go off and do things as they see fit.
The downside of this common trait
showed up in their first action as Comanaging
Partners. They agreed to lead the firm through
a strategic planning process and hired an exter-
nal consultant familiar with law firm strategy to
assist. Brad believed that Ron was eager to
have a discussion about expansion, including
contingency litigation but believed that he
was so focused on his own group’s success
that he might jeopardize the core business
and push risk-averse lawyers into uncomfort-
able situations. Ron believed that Brad’s pri-
mary interest was in stabilizing the firm and
“protecting” the hourly work that “paid the
bills,” and worried that Brad saw litigation as
a dispensable part of the firm.
However, instead of engaging in a thorough
discussion and exchanging views about the mer-
its of the different options, they chose to gather
input from others. They argued publicly that this
was the right thing to do. Privately, they weren’t
so much gathering data as they were avoiding
one another and an uncomfortable conflict. They
walked into their initial all-partners planning
 CHAPTER 10 INTERPERSONAL AND GROUP PROCESS APPROACHES
meeting as Comanaging Partners with different
agendas and considerable distrust for one another.
Twenty minutes into the meeting, Dan, the
firm’s leading transactional practice partner and
enemy of any planning process that was unrelated
to supporting his work, began his cross-
examination of the two new leaders. While Dan
had some good questions about where Ron and
Brad thought the planning process would lead, he
quickly attached his remarks to the supremacy of
his own practice, his potential new clients, and that
any other investment represented a threat to him
and his team. The questions carried a hostile tone
and were met with defensiveness by Ron and
Brad. Ron was feeling alone and needing to defend
the idea of expanding contingency work, and Brad
felt attacked by an influential partner in one of his
first efforts at firm-wide leadership. The meeting
limped along but ended with everyone feeling
that nothing was accomplished and wondering
how or if Ron and Brad were going to be able to
effectively lead the firm.
Ron and Brad each blamed the other for not
having a clearer plan and structure for the meeting.
They each believed that the others’ misplaced
agenda created the opening for Dan to torpedo
the proceedings. Again, however, rather than look-
ing at and dealing with one another, they turned
away from each other and pointed at Dan.
The strategy consultant had seen enough. She
could see the conflict derailing the strategy formu-
lation process and recommended an OD consul-
tant with conflict resolution experience.
As the OD consultant entered the system, Ron
and Brad presented their recommendation: “fix”
Dan and everything would be ok. Each of them
agreed that Dan was a trouble-maker and would
remain a challenging presence as they tried to
lead the firm. When they did finally drop the sub-
ject of Dan and compare visions for the firm, Ron
would waive the banner about the importance of
growth and balancing hourly work with the poten-
tial for big victories, and Brad would dig into his
position that too much risk scared transactional
lawyers and threatened the stability of the firm.
They would quickly get frustrated, shorten the
meeting, and go back to what they each did so
well—practicing law.
The most detrimental aspect of the unresolved
tension between them was the conversations that
279
took place behind each other’s backs. Ron would
worry aloud that Brad did not see an important role
for litigation going forward. He described Brad as
chummy with his old friends and unwelcoming of
anything that threatened his conservative view of
the firm. Brad would describe litigation as Ron’s
pet project and motivated by their inability to
develop hourly work. He told his partners that he
didn’t trust that Ron provided all relevant informa-
tion about the cases he wanted the firm to invest
in. They said they talked more about their conflict
to their other partners than they did to one another.
To make the recommendation palatable for
Dan, Ron and Brad proposed that the three part-
ners work together in a leadership development
process. Initially, Dan pretended to be on board
with the plan. Soon thereafter, however, it was
clear that Dan wanted nothing to do with coaching,
leadership development, or help of any kind. Ron
and Brad were left looking at each other. Realizing
that the firm was, indeed, at a precarious juncture
and needed strong leadership from them, the OD
consultant proposed, and Ron and Brad agreed to
engage in a process designed to help the two of
them manage their conflict so that they could
develop and implement a strategy for the firm.
The OD consultant’s initial impression was
that these two brilliant lawyers rarely, if ever,
stopped to think about the impact of their style
on others in the firm. Before they could have a
constructive dialogue about working together
more effectively, Ron and Brad needed some
understanding of their own roles in the dysfunc-
tional dynamic. The first step was to gather feed-
back and help them see how others perceived
them.
Ron and Brad each went through a full day of
meetings with the consultant to discuss the feed-
back, to articulate a vision for the firm, and to
describe a collaborative relationship with the
other. Over the course of the day, they were
each quite articulate about what they wanted to
help the firm accomplish, where they found them-
selves frustrated, and how each of them viewed
the other.
For the first time since their appointment as
managing partners, each of them drafted bullet
points describing a vision for the firm. The premise
of this exercise was that there might be a good
amount of common ground; and, if all of the key
280 PART 3 HUMAN PROCESS INTERVENTIONS
items were laid out on the table, it might be possi-
ble to work through the various interests, see what
was attainable, and what they could agree on.
Each of the partners also created a set of steps
that the two of them could take to develop a
more trusting, coordinated relationship as Comana-
ging Partners.
After the one-on-one meetings, the OD consul-
tant asked that they share with each other their
visions for the firm and their own action steps to
create collaborative leadership. They were genu-
inely surprised by the similarities on the lists.
Brad, to Ron’s surprise, did want to expand the
firm. He had a different timeline and his view
included satellite offices, but he wanted to build.
Ron was pleased to see that Brad was not “hun-
kering down” and riding things out until his retire-
ment. Ron, to Brad’s relief, never envisioned the
contingency work consuming more that 20% of
the firm’s billable time. This was still a bigger num-
ber than Brad would like, but it was a meaningful,
reasonable limitation that Ron put forth.
Walking through these and other concrete
items on their respective bullet lists, they saw
that they were largely wrong in their assumptions
about what the other person did or did not want to
accomplish as Comanaging Partner. Similarly,
walking together through their respective “better
collaboration” lists, they saw that they both knew
they needed more time with just the two of them
together communicating (the norm had been to
include the COO, third member of the Executive
Committee, in all of their meetings). They realized
that they both tended to posture and take exagger-
ated positions in front of an audience. They also
agreed to be more open and quicker to raise issues
and concerns with one another.
The OD consultant had follow-up calls with
each of them over the next six months to follow
up on commitments that they made to each other
based on the two lists. They made significant prog-
ress. For example, they developed a contingency
work strategy that created a portfolio of cases with
different levels of investment. The portfolio would
ramp up only as positive verdicts and rewards
materialized. This allowed Ron to see that growth
was possible depending on the success of his
group, and it allowed Brad to see that there were
manageable limitations on the risk. They also were
successful in carving out some meeting time for
just the two of them. However, they were not suc-
cessful in being open with one another and speak-
ing up when they had a concern about how they
were working together or what the other person
was up to.
Despite the forward progress and excellent
financial results in six months since engaging in
the process, both Ron and Brad remained “worn
out,” “exhausted,” “stressed,” and believed they
were on thin ice as leaders and with one another.
For example, Ron and Brad presided over a part-
nership meeting that Dan hijacked in the first
15 minutes. Dan asked pointed questions about a
new contingency case. In Ron’s mind, this should
have been an easy distraction to dismiss. He and
Brad were aligned on the plan related to the intake
of contingency work and the partners had signed
on. If Brad, the transactional partner of the duo,
had simply and clearly told Dan that the new case
was accepted pursuant to the agreed-upon sys-
tem, the discussion would have ended. However,
Brad said nothing and left Ron to defend (with the
potential appearance of self-interest) the decision
to take the case. Ron felt hung out to dry.
Despite some excellent progress together, the
partnership meeting and other similar events trig-
gered old patterns and familiar flare-ups. Feeling
frustrated, Ron and Brad described the hijacked part-
nership meeting in their next session with the OD
consultant. The consultant reminded them of the
important steps that they had taken together over
the previous months and that they had jointly
steered the firm out of a difficult business cycle for
many law firms in the country. He assured them that
a “conflict-free” partnership was not possible and
not even the goal. They had gotten to the point
where they could remain focused on joint business
goals and related tasks despite the occasional flare-
ups; however, their relationship needed more resil-
ience. They were too quick to doubt one another
and to doubt themselves as an effective unit.
Any “team building” to date had been done
through the work of managing the firm. Ron and
Brad, both doers, related easily to the task-
orientation of making lists and checking items off
of the list. The consultant had remained focused on
structural interventions as well. However, seeing
the frustration in both of them, he believed it was
time to take a chance and introduce a more explicit
relationship-building component to the meetings.
 CHAPTER 10 INTERPERSONAL AND GROUP PROCESS APPROACHES 281

The OD consultant proposed that the partners join
him on a stand-up paddle-board outing on the
ocean. They had not seen one another looking
quite so foolish and despite a couple of mishaps
getting out through the surf, they had never before
shared much laughter.
The freeing, shared experience created a very
different tone for the meeting that followed and
the most direct discussion of trust between
them. Ron talked about Brad’s silence at the part-
ners meeting and Brad talked about his feeling that
Ron was less than completely forthcoming about
all material facts related to contingency cases he
brought into the firm. Brad’s concerns were about
the timing of the information and the level of detail.
The comments from each of them came across as
confronting, but rather than the usual defensive-
ness or steering the conversation to Dan or some-
thing else; they both owned up to what they could
and should have done differently. The conflict res-
olution intervention followed a traditional OD pro-
cess. It began with diagnosis, working with the
energy of the client, and initially focused on struc-
tural and behavioral changes that helped the part-
ners get work done. As trust was developed, the
consultant was able to suggest other interventions
that helped the two partners begin building trust at
deeper levels of their relationship.

The importance of team building is well established, and its high use is expected to
continue in the coming years. Management teams are encountering issues of greater
complexity and uncertainty, especially in such fast-paced industries as software and
hardware development, entertainment, and health and financial services. Team building
can provide the kind of teamwork and problem-solving skills needed to tackle such
issues. When the team represents the senior management of an organization, team build-
ing can be an important part of establishing a coherent corporate strategy, and can pro-
mote the kind of close cooperation needed to implement complex strategies and new
forms of governance.25 As manufacturing and service technologies continue to
develop—for example, just-in-time inventory systems, lean manufacturing, and service
quality concepts—there is increasing pressure on organizations to implement team-
based work designs. Team building can assist in the development of group goals and
norms that support high productivity and quality of work life.
The globalization of work and organizations implies that people from different cul-
tures and geographic locations will increasingly interact over complex management and
operational tasks using a variety of information and communication technologies. Team-
building activities for these “virtual” and cross-cultural teams have increased substan-
tially over the past several years.26 Most team-building processes are based on assump-
tions of face-to-face interaction and relationships are built partially on the basis of visual
cues. In virtual teams, research suggests that closeness between team members is created
through proactive offers of help and support on task-related issues, and maintained
through frequent, short, and task-focused communications (often technology mediated).
Thus, team-building can help virtual teams to examine cross-cultural issues and their
impact on decision making and problem solving, facilitate communication processes
where tone and body language clues are absent, and build trust.
Finally, mergers and acquisitions, restructurings, and strategic alliances continue to
proliferate. The success of these endeavors depends partly on getting members from
different organizations to work together effectively. Team building can facilitate the
formation of a unified team with common goals and procedures.
In the OD literature, team building is not clearly differentiated from process consul-
tation and group facilitation. This confusion exists because most team building includes
282 PART 3 HUMAN PROCESS INTERVENTIONS

process consultation—helping the group diagnose and understand its own internal
processes—and facilitation—providing structure to a group’s interactions so that it can
focus on an agenda and exchange information. However, process consultation is a more
general approach to helping relationships than is team building. Team building focuses
explicitly on helping groups perform tasks and solve problems more effectively. Process
consultation, on the other hand, is concerned with establishing effective helping relation-
ships in organizations while facilitation often represents a substitute for group process. It
is seen as key to effective management and consultation and can be applied to any help-
ing relationship, from subordinate development to interpersonal relationships to group
development. Thus, team building consists of process consultation plus other, more
task-oriented interventions.
Team building is applicable in a large number of situations, from starting a new team,
to resolving conflicts among members, to revitalizing a complacent team. Dyer has devel-
oped a checklist for identifying whether a team-building program is needed and whether
the organization is ready to start such a program (Table 10.1).27 If the problem is a struc-
tural or technical one, an intergroup issue, an administrative mistake, or a conflict between
only two people, team building would not be an appropriate change strategy.

10-4a Team-Building Activities

A team is a group of interdependent people who share a common purpose, have common
work methods, and hold each other accountable.28 The nature of that interdependence var-
ies, creating the following types of teams: groups reporting to the same supervisor, manager,
or executive; groups involving people with common organizational goals; temporary groups
formed to do a specific, one-time task; groups consisting of people whose work roles are
interdependent; and groups whose members have no formal links in the organization but
whose collective purpose is to achieve tasks they cannot accomplish alone. Another impor-
tant variable in teams is location. When team members are in close proximity, a traditional
team exists; when members are geographically dispersed and their interaction is mediated
by information technology, a virtual team exists.
Several factors can affect the outcomes of any specific team-building activity: the
length of time allocated to the activity, the team’s willingness to look at its processes,
the length of time the team has been working together, the cultural backgrounds of
team members, and the team’s permanence. Consequently, the results of team-building
activities can range from comparatively modest changes in the team’s operating mechan-
isms (e.g., meeting more frequently or gathering agenda items from more sources) to
much deeper changes (e.g., modifying team members’ behavior patterns or the nature
and style of the group’s management, or developing greater openness and trust).
Hackman has proposed that effective teams produce outputs that satisfy external
stakeholders, constantly improve their team functioning, and have members that are
learning.29 As a result, team-building interventions can be categorized according to
their purpose and focus (see Table 10.2). Team-building activities can be oriented toward
(1) individual behavior, (2) group behavior, or (3) the group’s integration with its orga-
nizational context. They also can be classified according to whether their purpose is
(1) diagnostic or (2) improvement. A particular team-building activity can overlap these
categories, and, on occasion, a change in one area will have negative results in other
areas. For example, a very cohesive team may increase its isolation from other groups,
leading to intergroup conflict or other dysfunctional results, which in turn can have
a negative impact on the total organization unless the team develops sufficient diagnostic
skills to recognize and deal with such problems.
 CHAPTER 10 INTERPERSONAL AND GROUP PROCESS APPROACHES 283

TABLE 10.1
Team-Building Checklist
I. Problem identification: To what extent is there evidence of the following problems in your work unit?

Low Evidence Some Evidence High Evidence

1. Loss of production or work-unit output 1 2 3 4 5
2. Grievances or complaints within the work unit 1 2 3 4 5
3. Conflicts or hostility between unit members 1 2 3 4 5
4. Confusion about assignments or unclear 1 2 3 4 5
relationships between people
5. Lack of clear goals or low commitment to goals 1 2 3 4 5
6. Apathy or general lack of interest or 1 2 3 4 5
involvement of unit members
7. Lack of innovation, risk taking, imagination, 1 2 3 4 5
or taking initiative
8. Ineffective staff meetings 1 2 3 4 5
9. Problems in working with the boss 1 2 3 4 5
10. Poor communications: people afraid to speak up, 1 2 3 4 5
not listening to each other, or not talking together
11. Lack of trust between boss and members or 1 2 3 4 5
between members
12. Decisions are made that people do not 1 2 3 4 5
understand or agree with
13. Good work is not recognized or rewarded 1 2 3 4 5
14. Lack of encouragement for working together in 1 2 3 4 5
a better team effort
Scoring: Add the scores for the 14 items. If your score is between 14 and 28, there is little evidence your
unit needs team building. If your score is between 29 and 42, there is some evidence but no immediate
pressure, unless two or three items are very high. If your score is between 43 and 56, you should think
seriously about planning the team-building program. If your score is over 56, team building should be top
priority for your work unit.

II. Are you (or your manager) prepared to start a team-building program? Consider the following
statements. To what extent do they apply to you or your department?

Low Medium High

1. You are comfortable in sharing organizational leadership and decision 1 2 3 4 5

making with subordinates and prefer to work in a participative
atmosphere.
continued
284 PART 3 HUMAN PROCESS INTERVENTIONS

TABLE 10.1
Team-Building Checklist, (continued )

Low Medium High

2. You see a high degree of interdependence as necessary among 1 2 3 4 5
functions and workers in order to achieve your goals.
3. The external environment is highly variable or changing rapidly, and you 1 2 3 4 5
need the best thinking of all your staff to plan for these conditions.
4. You feel you need the input of your staff to plan major changes or 1 2 3 4 5
develop new operating policies and procedures.
5. You feel that broad consultation among your people as a group in goals, 1 2 3 4 5
decisions, and problems is necessary on a continuing basis.
6. Members of your management team are (or can become) compatible 1 2 3 4 5
with each other and are able to create a collaborative rather than a
competitive environment.
7. Members of your team are located close enough to meet together as 1 2 3 4 5
needed.
8. You feel you need to rely on the ability and willingness of subordinates 1 2 3 4 5
to resolve critical operating problems directly and in the best interest of
the company or organization.
9. Formal communication channels are not sufficient for the timely 1 2 3 4 5
exchange of essential information, views, and decisions among your
team members.
10. Organization adaptation requires the use of such devices as project 1 2 3 4 5
management, task forces, or ad hoc problem-solving groups to augment
conventional organization structure.
11. You feel it is important to bring out and deal with critical, albeit sensitive, 1 2 3 4 5
issues that exist in your team.
12. You are prepared to look at your own role and performance with your 1 2 3 4 5
team.
13. You feel there are operating or interpersonal problems that have 1 2 3 4 5
remained unsolved too long and need the input from all group
members.
14. You need an opportunity to meet with your people to set goals and 1 2 3 4 5
develop commitment to these goals.
Scoring: If your total score is between 50 and 70, you probably are ready to go ahead with the team-
building program. If your score is between 35 and 49, you probably should talk the situation over with your
team and others to see what would need to be done to get ready for team building. If your score is
between 14 and 34, you probably are not prepared to start team building.

SOURCE: W. G. Dyer, Team Building: Issues and Alternatives, 42–46. © 1987. Reprinted by permission of the Estate of W. G. Dyer.
 CHAPTER 10 INTERPERSONAL AND GROUP PROCESS APPROACHES 285

TABLE 10.2
Categories of Team-Building Interventions

Focus of Integration with

Intervention Individual Behavior Group Behavior Organization
Diagnosis Assessment instruments Team surveys, Interviews and surveys
and interview data to interviews, and from internal customers
Purpose of Intervention

understand personal observations to and other group stake-

style and motivation
Improvement Individual coaching and
feedback
360-degree feedback
Third-party conflict
resolution
understand group holders to understand
operations group’s role and
effectiveness
Group vision, mission, Strategic planning and
purpose stakeholder mapping
development Large group intervention
Role clarification and Intergroup conflict
decision rights resolution

SOURCE: Adapted from W.G. Dyer, Team Building: Issues and Alternatives, 1987.

10-4b Interventions Relevant to Individual Behavior

People come into groups and organizations with varying needs for achievement, inclu-
sion, influence, and belonging. These needs can be supported and nurtured by the
team’s structure and process or they can be discouraged. Diagnostic interviews and
personal-style instruments can help members to better understand their motivations,
preferences, or emotions in the group context. It results in one or more of the members
gaining a better understanding of the way inclusion, emotions, control, and power affect
problem solving and other group processes, and provide choices about their degree of
involvement and commitment. Such activities provide information so that people have
a clearer sense of how their needs and wants can or will be supported.
Improvement activities that address an individual’s behavior in a group include coaching,
360-degree feedback, and assistance with conflict. These interventions attempt to alter the
group’s ongoing processes by focusing on the behaviors and attitudes of individual members.
For example, one team’s typical decision-making process included the leader having several
agenda items for discussion. Each of the items, however, had a predetermined set of actions
that she wanted the group to take. Most members were frustrated by their inability to influ-
ence the conclusions. The team-building process consisted of coaching the team leader and
group members about ways to change this process. The leader received feedback about
specific examples of her not-so-subtle manipulation to arrive at preconceived decisions and
how group members felt about it. At the next meeting, the leader acknowledged the feedback
and indicated her willingness to be challenged about such preconceived decisions. Team
members expressed their increased willingness to engage in problem-solving discussions,
their trust in the leader, and their ability to make the challenge without fear of reprisal.

10-4c Interventions Relevant to the Group’s Behavior

The most common focus of team-building activities is behavior related to task perfor-
mance and group process. In an effective team, task behavior and group process must
be integrated with each other as well as with the needs and wants of the people making
286 PART 3 HUMAN PROCESS INTERVENTIONS

up the group. Diagnostic activities involve gathering data through the use of team sur-
veys or, more commonly, through interviews. The nature of the data gathered will vary
depending on the purpose of the team-building program, the consultant’s knowledge
about the organization and its culture, and the people involved. The consultant already
may have obtained a great deal of data by sitting in as a process observer at staff and
other meetings. The data gathered also will depend on what other OD efforts have
taken place in the organization. By whatever method obtained, however, the data usually
include information on leadership styles and behavior; goals, objectives, and decision-
making processes; organizational culture, communication patterns, and interpersonal
relationships and processes; barriers to effective group functioning; and task and related
technical problems. Diagnostic activities often establish a framework within which fur-
ther work can be done.
Improvement activities aim to improve the group’s process and functioning. A vari-
ety of exercises have been described by different authors.30 They include role clarifica-
tion, improving goal clarity and member commitment, modifying or clarifying the
decision-making or problem-solving process, changing norms, increasing risk taking
and trust, and improving communication.
Application 10.3 presents an example of a team-building meeting involving a top-
management team.31 Ask yourself the following questions as you read this case.
• Do you agree with Ted’s and the executive committee’s decision to make the work-
shop’s focus task-oriented vs. more interpersonally oriented on the relationships?
What do you think of Ted’s choices during the workshop?
• Could an external consultant have followed Ted’s approach and gotten a similar
result? What other choices, as an internal consultant, did Ted have?
• What were the benefits and risks associated with Ted’s decision to start working
with the directors before engaging the executive committee first?

10-4d Interventions Affecting the Group’s Integration with the

Rest of the Organization
As a team gains a better understanding of itself and becomes better able to diagnose and
solve its own problems, it focuses on its role within the organization. A group’s relation-
ship to the larger organizational context is an important aspect of group effectiveness.32
Diagnostic activities usually focus on understanding the group’s organizational role, how
its goals support the larger organization, or how the group interacts with other groups by
interviewing internal customers and other stakeholders.
Improvement activities involve strategic planning and stakeholder mapping
interventions to modify the group’s contribution to the organization, how it acquires
resources, or alters its outputs in terms of cost, quality, and quantity. Sometimes,
the team may recognize a need for more collaboration with other parts of the
organization and may try to establish a project team that crosses the boundaries of
existing teams.
As the team becomes more cohesive, it usually exerts a stronger influence on other
groups within the organization. This can lead to intergroup conflict and the need for
large group interventions or intergroup conflict resolution interventions (Chapter 11).
Because that is one area in which team building can have negative effects, the process
consultant must help the group understand its role within the larger organization,
develop its own diagnostic skills, and examine alternative action plans so that intergroup
tensions and conflicts do not expand.
 CHAPTER 10 INTERPERSONAL AND GROUP PROCESS APPROACHES
ALIGNING SENIOR TEAMS AT VAYCOT PRODUCTS
application 10 3
V
aycot Products (a disguised name) is a pub-
licly traded, 28-year-old $750 million medi-
cal equipment manufacturer and marketer.
Their products include MRI, ultrasound,
and X-ray machines. Corporate performance
in 2011 had been dismal, and the organization
was under a great deal of pressure to improve
results. The organization had missed sales and
earnings targets for seven consecutive quar-
ters, revenues were down 7%, and growth
rates were half the industry average. Vaycot’s
board, industry analysts, and a well-known cor-
porate raider were vocal with their concerns.
People described Vaycot’s culture as
“strong and toxic.” Forty-eight percent of
employees were disengaged and 58% were
considering leaving the company. A recent sur-
vey asked employees to describe the culture,
and more than 35% of employees used the
terms angry, disrespectful, fear-based, para-
lyzed, penalizing, risk-averse, or untrusting.
Employees often felt pressured to cut corners
or engage in unethical practices to get work
done and achieve overly aggressive goals.
The organization was managed by two
teams: the executive committee and the oper-
ating committee. The executive committee con-
sisted of Oscar (the CEO) and eight functional
vice presidents. The broader operating commit-
tee consisted of the executive team plus the
directors who reported to them. Decision mak-
ing in these groups was slow to nonexistent
because the directors and vice presidents
feared being derided in public by the CEO over
a wrong decision. Despite being very capable,
the vice presidents had learned how to deal
with Oscar’s autocratic, volatile, and intimidat-
ing leadership style. Most of their time was
spent in meetings being told how to do their
job or making course corrections to adjust to
Oscar’s ever-changing mind.
Not surprisingly, the vice presidents were
distracted, demotivated, and disengaged, and
the negativity flowed down directly to the
directors. The directors were under constant
pressure and usually in crisis mode. A small
group of directors asked the internal OD
287
consultant, Ted, for help. Ted knew most of
the directors primarily through one-on-one
coaching over the years, and he guided a sub-
group of the operating committee through a
process to increase trust, collaboration, and
team effectiveness.
ENTRY AND CONTRACTING
After hearing from several of the directors
about how well the process worked, and see-
ing firsthand the directors’ improved relation-
ships and results, the CFO and the vice
presidents of sales and operations approached
Ted to see if he would work with the executive
committee.
Ted was candid. “I’m hesitant to do it
because of Oscar. Based on my interactions
with him, I’m concerned that his need for con-
trol and resistance to getting feedback will keep
him from being a constructive participant.” The
vice presidents agreed with Ted’s assessment
and asked if he’d work with just them. Ted was
reluctant on this point as well. He explained that
team building works best when the leader
actively participates and is willing to deal with
any emergent issues. That left the ball in the
vice presidents’ court. They needed to convince
their boss to participate and that would require
giving Oscar feedback on why they believed a
team-based intervention was needed.
As Ted continued the conversations, he
came to the conclusion that the only way that
the vice presidents could actually influence
Oscar was with hard data. He offered to inter-
view the vice presidents and then facilitate a
meeting where they would deliver the feed-
back to Oscar. When the interviews were com-
plete, he walked the group through about a
dozen findings and insights. After some brief
discussion and a few minor revisions, the
group confirmed that the conclusions were
valid and they agreed unanimously that it was
finally time to meet with Oscar.
Ted asked how the feedback meeting
should be structured. No one spoke. Despite
their promise to follow through and talk to
288 PART 3 HUMAN PROCESS INTERVENTIONS
Oscar, no one wanted to be in the room when
Oscar heard their feedback. Despite Ted’s frustra-
tion, he offered to meet with Oscar on their behalf.
They still hesitated because they feared the reper-
cussions if Oscar were to know who said what.
Ted promised anonymity and then got the go
ahead to talk to Oscar.
This was a pivot point for Ted. On one hand, he
didn’t want to make a career-limiting move by
angering Oscar. On the other hand, he feared that
all of the good work and progress made by the
directors would die on the vine unless someone
could convince Oscar to come along. Ted scheduled
a time to meet with Oscar and prepared himself for
a difficult conversation. Not wanting to overwhelm
Oscar, Ted focused on three key messages:
1. Trust your team. Let go of the day-to-day, even
if things start to go in the wrong direction.
Avoid the temptation to jump in and do your
people’s jobs.
2. Facilitate, don’t dominate. Continue to use
your style of direct communication to ensure
that the right issues are put on the table, but
then back off more often to allow your team to
add value.
3. Let go and take issues offline when appropri-
ate. Know when to let go of an issue and when
to include fewer people in the discussion.
Especially when you have an issue with a sin-
gle individual—no one likes to get yelled at in
front of others.
Oscar was clearly irritated by the data and he
vented for a few minutes. Ted listened without
interrupting. Eventually, they got back on track
when Oscar asked what to do next. Ted sug-
gested a team-building process to align members
of the executive committee. He described the
process he used with the operating committee
and suggested that the executive committee
could go through a similar process. At this point,
Oscar was still fuming from the feedback but he
asked Ted several detailed questions about how
the process would work, what he’d need to do,
and what outcomes to expect. Ted answered
each question.
Then Oscar asked how much time an off-site
would take. Ted knew he’d be pushing it too far if
he asked for the full three days he thought were
needed. So he proposed two days and Oscar
agreed. Though the feedback session was un-
comfortable for both Oscar and Ted, it ended on
a high note.
DATA FEEDBACK AND INTERVENTION
DESIGN
Ted’s review of the business strategy, organization
design (structures, processes, systems, and con-
trols), engagement surveys, customer surveys,
and exit interviews identified a variety of misfits
that could drive the team building. For example,
even though customers rated Vaycot high in inno-
vation, engagement surveys rated it low. In addi-
tion, bonuses were supposed to be tied to
performance, yet 94% of people got the full target
bonus amount. This didn’t make sense given the
organization’s poor financial performance. Another
misfit was that leadership effectiveness was highly
rated in the engagement survey but it was consis-
tently disclosed in the exit surveys as a reason
people resigned. Ted viewed this as a symptom
of a fear-based culture. As a final step he inter-
viewed the vice presidents again individually and
asked them to rate the following statements, on
a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being “totally agree”:
• Current roles and accountabilities of all mem-
bers of the team are clear.
• The decision-making process is effective and
appropriate to the task.
• Team members openly speak their mind with
each other.
• The team is effective at resolving conflicts.
• Team meetings are productive.
Ted analyzed and organized the data. The interview
responses were low, ranging between 1.5–2.25; it
was clear that these critical operating factors
needed work.
Ted shared the data and his assessment with
Oscar and the vice presidents. They were not sur-
prised by the low ratings; they had been living in
the system every day and were well aware of its
poor condition. They validated Ted’s assessment
and agreed that they owned the data.
Ted used the data to design a two-day work-
shop. He knew designing a set of activities would
be a challenge. The relationships among the execu-
tive committee members were fragile, and he knew
from experience that this group would not tolerate
a more personal approach. Oscar had famously
 CHAPTER 10 INTERPERSONAL AND GROUP PROCESS APPROACHES
referred to highly interpersonal processes as “tou-
chy feely flavor-of-the-month garbage.” As a result,
he decided that the design needed to be task-
oriented and focused on getting things done.
He reviewed the objectives and workshop
agenda with the full executive committee. To
keep the group focused on tasks, much of the
design addressed the team’s data related to work-
ing together to avoid personal grudges and fear
from getting in the way. The executive team
approved the design and expressed optimism
that the off-site would be productive.
WORKSHOP IMPLEMENTATION
The workshop opened with a recap of how the
executive committee got to this point. Ted asked
everyone to tell a short story about their experi-
ence with the process so far. It was a lively
conversation—very positive in tone—and everyone
spoke. Oscar thanked the group for their hard work
and dedication so far in the process. He assured
them that he was going to be an active participant
in the session.
Next, Ted proposed a set of ground rules, such
as “what’s said in the room stays in the room,”
“attack issues not people,” and “don’t speak for
others.” Everyone agreed to abide by them. Ted
reiterated that the objective of the meeting was
to address the team’s ability to get work done.
“The data show that this team has some signifi-
cant interpersonal challenges that need to be
addressed, but these are outside of the scope of
this workshop.” Most participants expressed a
sense of relief and no one objected.
Ted then divided the group into two subgroups
and asked one group to list its hopes for the ses-
sion on a flipchart. The second group was
instructed to list its fears for the session on
another flipchart. Each group presented its list
and the top three hopes and top three fears were
recorded on a new piece of paper and taped to the
wall. Ted’s intention in this exercise was to set a
baseline of how safe the group members were
going to play. This would serve as a point of com-
parison later to see if people became more trusting
and open as the workshop progressed.
The next exercise facilitated the development
of a group purpose statement. Ted asked everyone
289
to write a sentence that described why they
thought the executive committee existed. Then
each member read their sentence. Most sen-
tences and statements addressed achieving
results, allocating resources, and making strategic
decisions. Only two statements, however, men-
tioned employee or human capital issues, and
Ted commented on that output. The group
debated whether their role involved employees or
not and agreed that there needed to be more con-
sideration given to the workforce. The statement
of purpose eventually evolved to the point where
it included the idea that part of the executive
team’s purpose was to help people understand
how their work contributes to driving the strategy
and assure that recognition and rewards were tied
to contributions.
The rest of the first day was spent working on
the interview data. They discussed the data asso-
ciated with each statement and developed actions
to improve the ratings. The discussions were tense
and strained at first, but they evolved. Initially,
there was a lot of finger pointing and pouting.
Ted facilitated these discussions away from the
interpersonal issues toward a more productive
problem-solving approach based on data and beha-
viors. Over time, the team developed a productive
rhythm. The day ended with the executive commit-
tee agreeing to the following positive statements
and to working on the items required to deliver
those results.
The current roles/accountabilities of all mem-
bers of the team are very clear.
• As a group, we need to work better across
functions, clarify the roles of sales vs. mar-
ket development vs. marketing, and be
more deliberate in setting and communicat-
ing top priorities by function
The decision-making process on this team is
effective and appropriate to the task.
• As a group, we need to take the emotion out
of decision making, create more collaboration
around issues and engage in less unilateral
decision making, and be clearer about our
decision-making process. Who is the decision
maker (e.g., function lead, team, CEO) and
what style of decision making is appropriate
(consensus, majority, unilateral)?
290 PART 3 HUMAN PROCESS INTERVENTIONS
Team members are very candid and openly
speak their mind with each other.
• As a group, we need to increase trust, allow
more time for dialogue to develop, and ask
Oscar to play a facilitator role more often
This team is very effective at resolving conflicts.
• As a group, we need to use an objective, fact-
based approach to analyze and resolve issues,
reduce emotion, and decrease the number of
CEO overrides and decreed solutions
Team meetings are very productive.
• As a group, we need to do less venting and
going over the same issues time and time
again, give more respect and credence to
subject-matter experts, and limit atten-
dance to the people who need to be there
The second day started with a brief recap of
Day 1 and a discussion of the hopes and fears
posted on the wall. There was consensus that the
group had “played it safe” and identified hopes and
fears that were shallow and noncontroversial. For
example one of the top three fears was “not getting
enough done.” The conversation that ensued was
animated; executive team members were more at
ease in sharing their deeper hopes and fears.
Oscar was pretty quiet during the exercise
until the end. “It seems like dealing with these
fears would increase performance significantly,
and I have to admit that it appears I am the source
of much of it,” said Oscar. As the conversation
around Oscar’s role expanded, Ted dropped an
activity and introduced the dialogue technique. He
described the importance of suspending assump-
tions, actively listening, asking and reflecting, and
advocating during conversations. The participants
took turns practicing dialogue skills and developed
a deeper understanding of theirs and Oscar’s roles.
After a period of time, Ted decided to look for
common themes and asked, “How did this exercise
go, and what topics were covered?” Everyone
agreed that the hardest part of dialoging was to listen
intently and to not interrupt when another person was
speaking. Common topics included that the functions
needed to better collaborate and support each other,
and that training on conflict resolution and negotiation
would be beneficial. The group agreed they had got-
ten a lot out of the dialogue module.
The next exercise, “give and get,” was
intended to build awareness of interdependencies.
Going around the group two at a time, each pair of
executives took turns saying what he or she spe-
cifically needed from the other person to be more
effective. Then the other person would repeat the
request. Together, they either committed to
actions or said why they could not. The exercise
continued until everyone had gotten/made commit-
ments from/to everyone else. The output of the
exercise neatly summarized and operationalized
the actions listed under the positive statements
of group operation from Day 1.
The agenda then called for the development of
a short list of enterprise projects to move the orga-
nization forward and drive performance. Despite the
progress made so far, there was still some risk that
Oscar would strong arm the project selection pro-
cess. At Ted’s urging, Oscar excluded himself
from the exercise. He didn’t want him to influence
or limit what the vice presidents came up with. Next
Ted asked everyone to come up with a headline to
describe what the team needed to do immediately
to improve organizational effectiveness.
Topping the list was:
• Shared ownership of common goals, and goal
alignment throughout organization
• More collaboration between functions
• Increased employee engagement and
productivity
Ted then asked the team to identify two or
three large-scale change projects to drive sustain-
able high performance. The session concluded
with the executive committee endorsing the fol-
lowing enterprise projects:
• Cascade goals to link every employee’s daily
work to the strategy
• Conduct cross-function “give and get” round-
robins to increase trust and collaboration
• Deploy an enterprise change program to
improve the culture and increase engagement
At the end of Day 2, Ted wrapped up the ses-
sion just as he started it. He asked each participant
to tell a story about their workshop experience.
Again, it was a lively conversation—very positive in
tone—and everyone spoke. Oscar thanked the
group for their commitment and work during the
two days. He told them that they could count on
him to help drive and complete the initiatives that
were selected.
 CHAPTER 10 INTERPERSONAL AND GROUP PROCESS APPROACHES 291

After Oscar left to go to another meeting, the • Engagement index was up 21 points
vice presidents lingered to discuss the events of • Turnover was in line with industry averages
the past two days. They felt relieved and optimistic
Being a realist, Ted knew that Oscar had not
that things, and most importantly Oscar, would be
undergone an overall personal transformation—he
different going forward. Ted believed that the
was still basically the same guy. Oscar’s few key
group was grateful for the outcomes, committed
behavior changes were mostly motivated by the
to implementing the initiatives, and thoroughly
realization that he could get a lot more perfor-
exhausted. All signs of a good two days’ work by
mance out of his team, and the whole organization,
a team of executives that stepped up and changed
if he changed the way he led. In the end, Oscar
its mindset and behaviors to commit to making sig-
became a better leader and, in part, that led to an
nificant changes in how the business would be run
organizational transformation.
in the future.
Looking back, Ted would have preferred work-
ing with the executive committee first and then the
RESULTS AND REFLECTION operating committee. However, based on his orga-
nizational knowledge and his relationships with sta-
Following the workshop, teams were formed and
keholders, he had decided that there was no harm
chartered, and work began immediately on the
to be done by building cohesion and momentum
three enterprise projects. The executive commit-
with the directors. He had trusting relationships
tee asked Ted to work with them throughout
built up through coaching, the subgroup of direc-
the year and to design and facilitate structured
tors was less encumbered by the fear that held
workshops every six months. Gradually, the oper-
back the vice presidents, and the directors were
ating committee, then the managers, and then
closer to the workforce and customers and were
the rest of the workforce felt the positive impacts
in a better position to impact the business. Oscar
of the executive committee’s increased team
would have surely shut things down before any
effectiveness.
progress had been made if they started with the
Three years later, the numbers told the story
executive committee.
of Vaycot’s turn around:
The whole experience reminded Ted of his
• Beat sales and earnings targets five quarters in mentor’s advice. “Follow the energy and start where
a row, and year-to-year sales were up 9% the client is, not where you want them to be.”

10-4e The Manager’s Role in Team Building

Ultimately, the manager is responsible for team functioning, although this responsibility
obviously must be shared by the group itself. Therefore, it is management’s task to develop
a work group that can regularly analyze and diagnose its own effectiveness and work pro-
cess. With the team’s involvement, the manager must diagnose the group’s effectiveness
and take appropriate actions if it shows signs of operating difficulty or stress.
Boss and McConkie surveyed over 3,500 team-building participants and found that
92% identified the team’s leader as the single most important role in successful team
building.33 Many managers, however, have not been trained to perform the data gather-
ing, diagnosis, planning, and action necessary to maintain and improve their teams con-
tinually. Thus, the issue of who should lead a team-building session is a function of
managerial capability. The initial use of an OD consultant usually is advisable if a man-
ager is aware of problems, feels that he or she may be part of the problem, and believes
that some positive action is needed to improve the operation of the team, but is not sure
how to go about it.34
292 PART 3 HUMAN PROCESS INTERVENTIONS

Basically, the role of the OD consultant is to work closely with the manager (and
members of the team) to a point at which the manager is capable of engaging in team
development activities as a regular and ongoing part of overall managerial responsibili-
ties. Assuming that the manager wants and needs a consultant, the two should work
together in developing the initial program, keeping in mind that (1) the manager ulti-
mately is responsible for all team-building activities, even though the consultant’s
resources are available; and (2) the goal of the consultant’s presence is to help the man-
ager learn to continue team development processes with minimum consultant help or
without the ongoing help of the consultant.
Thus, in the first stages, the consultant might be much more active in data gather-
ing, diagnosis, and action planning, particularly if a one- to three-day off-site workshop
is considered. In later stages, the consultant takes a much less active role, with the
manager becoming more active and serving as both manager and team developer.

10-4f The Results of Team Building

The early research on team building’s effectiveness produced inconsistent, but generally
positive, results. Several studies reported positive results across a range of variables
including feelings, attitudes, and measures of performance.35 Other studies produced
less positive outcomes.36
Less powerful research designs, short time frames, and the confounding impact of
other interventions occurring in conjunction with team building were the most important
explanation for the lack of consistent results.37 For example, one review of 30 studies found
that only ten tried to measure changes in performance. Buller and Bell attempted to differ-
entiate the effects of team building from the effects of other interventions that occur along
with team building.38 Specifically, they tried to separate the effects of team building from
the effects of goal setting, an intervention aimed at setting realistic performance goals and
developing action plans for achieving them. In a rigorous field experiment, Buller and Bell
examined the differential effects of team building and goal setting on productivity measures
of underground miners. Their results showed that team building affected the quality of per-
formance and goal setting affected the quantity of performance. This differential impact was
explained in terms of the nature of the mining task. The task of improving the quality of
performance was more complex, unstructured, and interdependent than was the task of
achieving quantity. This suggests that team building can improve group performance, par-
ticularly on tasks that are complex, unstructured, and interdependent.
More recently, a 2009 meta-analysis of 20 studies representing 579 teams found positive
and moderate overall effect sizes; there was a significant tendency for team building to posi-
tively influence team outcomes.39 Four team-building activities—goal setting, interpersonal
relations, problem solving, and role clarification—and four team outcomes—cognitive,
affective, process, and performance—were examined more closely. Goal-setting and role
clarification interventions were the most powerful, while affective and process outcomes
registered the largest improvements.
Team building, like OD at the organization level, is a process over time, and OD
practitioners need to be aware of the full range of reasons teams are effective. Research
by Hackman and his colleagues have suggested that too much time may be spent trying
to help teams that were designed and launched incorrectly. They argue that one of the
most important tasks of the OD practitioner is to be sure that any team gets chartered
and started correctly.40 In a related study where the teams’ launching was held
 CHAPTER 10 INTERPERSONAL AND GROUP PROCESS APPROACHES 293

constant, Woolley found that task-focused (as opposed to process-focused) interven-

tions given at the midpoint of a team’s lifecycle had the biggest impact on team
performance.41
The results of team building in virtual teams is still emerging, but shows that many
of the lessons learned from face-to-face team-building practice can be transferred. For
example, one lab study found that when communications technologies were augmented
to include goal-setting processes, team functioning and team performance improved42
while another lab study of Chinese undergraduates found that a dialogue intervention
intended to improve shared mental models among team members was as effective in
face-to-face teams as it was in video-conferenced teams.43 Because virtual teams are
usually geographically dispersed, they can also take advantage of a variety of asychnro-
nous facilitation tools, such as wikis, shared portals, or other groupware.44 Hart and
Mcleod found that interpersonal closeness between members of a virtual team is cre-
ated when one member proactively helps another member to solve a problem or
address a concern, and that the closeness is maintained by frequent, short, but
content-oriented (as opposed to process-oriented) messages.45 Gibson and Cohen
found that team performance was enhanced by initial face-to-face team-building meet-
ings in the start-up stage of a team’s work.46
Finally, Boss has presented considerable evidence to support the effectiveness of per-
sonal management interviews (PMIs) in sustaining the long-term effects of off-site team
building.47 A PMI is a follow-up intervention that arrests the potential fade-out effects of
off-site team building.48 A team leader negotiates roles with each member and then holds
regular meetings with each team member to resolve problems and increase personal
accountability. Boss and his colleagues have amassed a large, longitudinal data set,
mostly in public administration, hospital, and health care settings. When team-building
interventions have included PMI activities (compared to those that have not included
PMI follow-ups), they have found consistent and sustained improvement in measures
of team functioning and operational performance.

SUMMARY
In this chapter, we presented human process interven-
tions aimed at interpersonal relations and group
dynamics. Among the earliest interventions in OD,
these change programs help people gain interpersonal
competence, work through interpersonal conflicts, and
develop effective groups.
Process consultation is used not only as a way of
helping groups become effective but also as a means
whereby groups learn to diagnose and solve their own
problems and continue to develop their competence
and maturity. Important areas of activity include
communications, roles of group members, difficulties
with problem-solving and decision-making norms,
and leadership and authority. The basic difference
between process consultation and third-party inter-
vention is that the latter focuses on interpersonal
dysfunctions in social relationships between two or
more individuals within the same organization and
is targeted toward resolving direct conflict between
those individuals.
Team building is directed toward improving group
effectiveness and the ways in which members of teams
work together. Teams may be permanent or temporary
or traditional or virtual, but their members have either
common organizational aims or work activities.
The general process of team building, like process
consultation, tries to equip a team to handle its own
ongoing problem solving.