Team performance: Using financial measures to evaluate the effect of support systems on team performance.

Organizations invest in team-based systems in order to generate innovative practices that will give them a competitive edge. High-performing teams require training and other support systems to gain the skills they need as well as to create and maintain an environment conducive to their success. The challenge for managers is to make resource allocation decisions among investment alternatives to maximize team effectiveness and still ensure a financial return for company investors. This study has three objectives. The first objective is to investigate whether there is a positive relationship among organizational environment, team potency (the team's collective belief it will succeed) and team performance. Results indicate that the presence of four organizational support systems influences team potency and performance. These support systems are the Design and Measurement, Rewards, Training and Communications Systems. In addition, results indicate that team potency is a mediating variable between the Design and Measurement and Communications Systems and team performance. These results suggest that companies are able to influence team performance by investing in environmental support systems. The second objective is to examine whether team members and managers view the organizational environment differently. Results indicate that managers view the Training and Communications Systems as more important, while teams perceive the Design and Measurement System and the Rewards System to be more important to their success. Since the systems that team managers view as important may influence their investment decisions, these differences may suggest a resource alignment issue. Third, a measure of team effectiveness based on financial measures is introduced. Published literature emphasizes attitudinal, behavioral and operational measures of performance. A financial measure offers a method of evaluating performance that is similar to methods used in capital budgeting and may be consistently applied across different types of teams with different purposes. The data collection process was performed by persons external to the team and covered a 12-month period. This method led to a loss of information and did not accurately portray team performance. However, the teams that were successful in calculating project savings were different types of teams from both manufacturing and service industries. This result is encouraging and warrants further investigation.