|
Article Excerpt
INTRODUCTION
The primary objective of the present paper is to present information on the development of three team task analysis scales. A goal was to develop these scales in such a manner that they could be easily incorporated into existing job and task analysis systems to identify team-based tasks and quantify the degree of team interdependency. The scales also allow for a quantitative assessment of the degree to which a job is team based. Initial validation data for the scales from a lab study are presented. The results of the lab data are supplemented with descriptions of applications of the scales in operational field settings.
Job and Task Analysis Scales
Task analysis entails the description of jobs in terms of identifiable units of activities. Although the level of specificity of analysis and description may vary, job and task analysis techniques are typically focused at the task level. Hence, job and task analysis is the process by which the major work behaviors and associated knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) that are required for successful job or task performance are identified. Thus it is recognized, from both a professional and legal perspective, that job analysis is the critical foundation for most, if not all, human resource functions (Binning & Barrett, 1989; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al., 1978).
Procedurally, at some point in the job analysis process, task ratings on a number of dimensions are obtained from subject matter experts. These dimensions or scales typically encompass but are not limited to importance, frequency, time spent, criticality, difficulty of performing, difficulty of learning, time to proficiency, and consequences of errors (Arthur, Doverspike, & Barrett, 1996). Although these scales have generally been studied in the context of tasks performed by individuals (e.g., Sanchez & Fraser, 1992; Sanchez & Levine, 1989), they are clearly applicable to tasks performed by teams. However, because teams consist of two or more individuals who have specific role assignments, perform specific tasks, and must interact and coordinate to successfully achieve common goals or objectives (Baker & Salas, 1997), team tasks have an additional element of complexity that is not present in the analysis of individual tasks. These differences between individual and team tasks and the resultant need for additional task analysis scales to describe and obtain information about team tasks are described in the next section.
Overview and Summary of the Team Task Analysis Literature
Although there has been an increased amount of attention paid to teams in recent years (e.g., Artman, 2000; Bartone, Johnsen, Eid, Brun, & Laberg, 2002; Brannick, Prince, & Salas, 1997; Dyer, 1984; Hackman, 1987; Rasker, Post, & Schraagen, 2000; Salas, Burke, Bowers, & Wilson, 2001), team task analysis has received very little of this attention. For instance, a comprehensive search of the published literature identified only a small number of team task analysis papers, such as Bowers, Baker, and Salas (1994), Bowers, Morgan, Salas, and Prince (1993), Dieterly (1988), and Swezey, Owens, Bergondy, and Salas (1998; see also Baker, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1998). A review of this literature highlights the differences and commonalities between individual and team tasks and, subsequently, the need for task analysis scales to describe team tasks.
First, as noted, there are some commonalities between team task analysis and individual job and task analysis. Thus rating scales such as importance, frequency, time spent, and time to proficiency are equally applicable and relevant to both individual and team tasks. In addition, individual and team task analysis share a commonality of data collection methods, such as the use of questionnaires, critical incident techniques, observation, interviews, expert judgments, and archival data. Also, as with individual job and task analysis, the use of multiple methods is strongly recommended in the implementation of team task analyses along with the use of multiple rating sources, including incumbents and supervisors, who should be selected to ensure a representative sample.
Second, in spite of these commonalities, there are important differences between individual and team task analysis. For instance, the team performance literature (e.g., Glickman et al., 1987; Morgan, Glickman, Woodward, Blaiwes, & Salas, 1986) draws a strong distinction between taskwork and teamwork--one that is by definition not germane to individual tasks. Teamwork refers to the team's efforts to facilitate interaction among team members in the accomplishment of team tasks. In addition, the associated team process KSAs are generally generic rather than task or job specific. Taskwork, however, refers to the team's efforts to understand and perform the requirements of the job, tasks, and equipment to be used. So, unlike Bowers et al. (1994), who focused on task analysis indices for coordination, a teamwork variable, we present scales focused on taskwork variables.
Third, taskwork or team tasks can vary in terms of their degree of team interdependency or "teamness." In the team task analysis approach that we present, team interdependency is operationalized in terms of team relatedness and team workflow pattern. Team relatedness represents the extent to which tasks cannot be performed by any one individual alone, and team workflow represents the paths by which work or information flows through the team in order to allow the team to complete the task. Both of these metrics can be used to empirically and quantitatively represent the extent to which a task (or job) is team based. There would also appear to be different ways of operationalizing or describing the interdependency of a team's taskwork.
An implication of the varying levels of task-level team interdependency is that in the context of team-based tasks or jobs, a distinction can be made between team performance and individual performance. Thus it is important to distinguish tasks and task elements that are dependent on more than one individual for their successful performance from those that are not. Both are essential to the success of a team, and omitting either class will result in an incomplete and deficient analysis of the team. Information about the nature of team interdependency is important because the level of interdependency at which the team is operating has implications for its selection, training, composition, work design, motivation, compensation, and leadership needs (Tesluk, Mathieu, Zaccaro, & Marks, 1997). For instance, individual-based rewards may be most appropriate when the level of interdependency is low; in contrast, team-based rewards may be most appropriate when the level of team interdependency is high. Likewise, high levels of interdependency might increase the criticality of team-based KSAs, such as teamwork knowledge and skills in selection (Stevens & Campion, 1994). Finally, remedial and developmental interventions directed at team performance, such as team building and process consultation, may be misplaced if the level of interdependency is so low that team performance resides primarily at the individual and not the team level. Thus an effective team task analysis guides researchers and practitioners to the critical team tasks and associated behavioral requirements. So, like traditional individual job and task analysis, team task analysis can and should serve as the foundation for pertinent human resource functions.
In summary, the critical issue is that in the context of teams and team taskwork, team members have some specified level of interdependency. The centrality of interdependence in distinguishing individual from team tasks is highlighted by the fact that it is the feature that is used to distinguish teams from groups (e.g., Morgan et al., 1986). Consequently, describing the nature of this interdependence is essential to an effective team task analysis. So, in the context of this framework, the objective of the present paper was to develop and provide initial validation data on new task analysis scales for assessing the team interdependency or "teamness" of tasks and jobs. Team interdependency was operationalized using metrics of team relatedness and team workflow.
Developing the Team Task Analysis Scales
The team task analysis approach presented in this paper is based on the premise that in a population of tasks that constitute a job, the percentage of tasks that are team based can range from 0% to 100%. Furthermore, the percentage of team-based tasks proportionately covaries with the extent to which the job can be described as team based. Two examples of jobs that might fall at the ends of this continuum are an avionics troubleshooting technician and a C5 (or C130) transport flight crew, with the former having few or no team-based tasks and the latter actually having distributed teams at two levels: the flight crew (operators--i.e., pilot, copilot, and navigator) and other aircrew (e.g., load master, air medica technicians, pararescuers [Pls], and flight nurses). Other jobs, such as medical technicians and crew chiefs, may fall in the midrange of this continuum. Specifically, medical technicians function autonomously and individually when performing intake tasks such as taking temperature and blood pressure readings, but they are members of triage or operating room teams when performing those specified tasks....
|
