Perrin, R and Price, A D F (2004) Developing teams and the allocation of rewards within a team environment. Journal of Construction Procurement, 10(2),
Abstract
Team development requires commitment and effort from senior managers who must be prepared to challenge the "status quo" in order to provide an environment within which teams can flourish. Furthermore, team development is not a finite activity and requires sustained efforts to improve performance. Understanding the characteristics of effective teams and recognising the restraints within which the team operates can enhance the effectiveness of a team development programme. This paper explores whether effective teams exhibit particular characteristics and how these characteristics can be encouraged in establishing a new team. Rewards and recognition processes have been identified as key characteristics of effective teams and efforts should be made to develop appropriate system. It can be argued that individual rewards are not appropriate within a team environment. However, there is little evidence that companies have developed processes for the allocation of financial rewards on a team basis. As a consequence, it is likely that any attempts to develop team rewards will need to start from first principles. The process outlined in this paper provides practical advice to those involved in the establishing such a system.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | teams, partnering, alliance, rewards, financial |
| Index terms: | effectiveness, commitment, partnering, evidence, programme, manager, team development |
| Subjects: | project controls, management, psychology, performance management, evaluation and assessment methods, practitioner, partnership management |
| Topics: | Time Control, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Quality Management, Roles and Professions, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here