The Analysis of Team Effectiveness: Case Study in Sabcanty Company
Innaya Aristya Alfath1*, Aria Bayu Pangestu1
1 School of Business and Management, Bandung Institute of Technology, Bandung, Indonesia
*Corresponding Author: [email protected] Accepted: 15 September 2022 | Published: 1 October 2022
DOI:https://doi.org/10.55057/ajrbm.2022.4.3.43
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: Along with the times, many new start-ups have emerged, including students.
However, as new start-ups emerged, it was also found that many failed start-ups were caused by the team. Therefore, team effectiveness is one of the most influential factors in the running of a start-up. Team effectiveness focuses on how a team can achieve the goals that have been determined and agreed upon by maximizing its resources and potential. Many models have been found regarding the variables that make up an effective team. In this study, researchers used a model from Google, namely the Aristotle Project Model. Project Aristotle's model is formed from five dynamics consisting of psychological safety, reliability, structure and clarity, meaning and impact. This study aims to determine how the effectiveness of the team affects the performance of the team and to find out how the performance of the team affects the achievement of OKR in Sabcanty company, a start-up company engaged in the fishing industry.
In addition, this study was also conducted to identify the dynamics that have the most significant influence on team effectiveness. In this study, researchers used qualitative methods in the process of data collection and data analysis. At the end of this study, the author provides recommendations for companies to improve team effectiveness to optimize team performance and improve OKR achievement.
Keywords: start-up, team effectiveness, team performance
___________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
The development of startups in Indonesia is quite fast. The number is increasing from year to year, there are thousands of start-up companies and some of them have gained success in the international arena. Data from the Financial Services Authority (OJK) states that Indonesia has 2,100 startup companies. Indonesia is also a fertile country for startup business growth.
According to data from the Startup Ranking, Indonesia ranks 5th in the world with 2,219 startups by 2021, after the United States, India, Britain, and Canada.
Nowadays, the development of startups is also happening among students. Entrepreneurial knowledge and mindset have been instilled in students through programs and curriculums. The development of entrepreneurship among students is also influenced by the environment. From Harvard Business Review data shows us that 60% of new ventures fail due to problems with the team. It’s obvious that teams have a big influence on business success. Managing an effective team is the important thing to do in a startup business. When evaluated in the context of teams, measures of effectiveness aid researchers and managers in determining the extent to
which a team is functional and productive. Researchers assess team effectiveness by evaluating commitment, satisfaction, performance, environmental factors, and numerous other factors (Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Janz et al., 1997). As noted by Cohen and Bailey (1997), internal team processes, such as cooperation and communication, are essential to team effectiveness.
Team effectiveness plays an important role in a team at a startup and is a complex thing. As mentioned by Rozovsky (2015), the measurement of on team effectiveness is one way to monitor the team and can assist the team in evaluating and improving team effectiveness.
Rozovsky (2015) also mentions that an effective team has five dynamics team, which is called Model Project Aristotle. Aristotle's Project Model, which contains five dynamics of Psychological Safety, Dependability, Structure & clarity, Meaning, and Impact.
In the School of Business and Management ITB Entrepreneurship study program, the existence of startups founded by students is carried out by forming team member. Startups are run with a company team of between 3-5 students per company. Sabcanty was established as a student startup that focuses on the fishery industry. Sabcanty is a company that produces high quality organic fish feed and offers an affordable price. This business was formed based on observations in the field and saw the problem experienced by fish farmers, especially catfish, who had problems in their cultivation, mainly due to high fish mortality and expensive feed.
Therefore, Sabcanty is here to offer solutions to their problems by presenting catfish feed products that have high nutrition, organic material based and affordable prices.
From preliminary data that was collected according to the founders' interview, discussion and meetings, it was found that Sabcanty still has many problems in running business. There were so many obstacles that faced which also greatly affected the effectiveness of the team and in the end also hampered the team's performance. When run our business, analyzed that the team is performing very poorly. This can be seen from our non-achievement of OKR. In addition, also found that team was in a stuck phase. Elements on the team feel like they aren't working as they should and this leads to the activities team to be disrupted. The roles and responsibilities given to each member of the company are also sometimes not carried out according to what they should be. The existence of blurred boundaries causes the team's effectiveness in carrying out their duties to decrease and there is overlap. Unclear boundaries also cause the team to be unable to work according to their respective jobdecs and maximize performance for company development.
In this study, the researcher wanted to analyze the factors that caused the inhibition of team effectiveness at Sabcanty's company because it still had shortcomings, while team effectiveness at startups was crucial to developing and succeeding. Among the several factors analyzed, the most dominant factor will be sought. By doing this research, after identifying the root cause of the problems that occur in team effectiveness, solutions can be given according to the problems that happened and what is needed to solve the problem.
The results of this study are to find the factor that has the lowest value in the effectiveness of the team at Sabcanty by knowing the dominant factor in the future in running a business, and improvements can be made in those areas that are lacking. By knowing the shortcomings, it is hoped that the effectiveness of the Sabcanty team can be improved and increasing so that the team's performance can also develop. Thus, based on the urgency above and the problems that occurred at Sabcanty, this research can have a good impact on how Sabcanty goes in the future and hopes that the results of this research can help Sabcanty develop well, build a team effectively.
1.2 Research Question
RQ 1: How does the team effectiveness influence team performance?
RQ 2: How does the team performance perspection influence the OKR achievement?
RQ 3: What are the significant factors influencing the team effectiveness towards team performance?
2. Literature Review
2.1 Team performance
According to Ilyas (2011) said that the definition of performance is appearance, good quality personnel work, as well as the quantity of individual appearance and personnel working groups, unlimited works of art to personnel who hold office functional and structural but also to the entire line of personnel in in the organization. Team performance is influenced and related to several factors, one of which is effectiveness. The effectiveness of the team will affect the results of the performance of a team. As the results of research conducted by Syam (2020) show that there is a significant relationship between the effectiveness and performance of a work unit.
2.2 Team effectiveness
Team effectiveness models help managers or team leaders identify their team members' areas of strength and opportunity, and therefore optimize their team for optimal levels of performance. Effectiveness is the degree to which an organization which is a social system with all available resources and certain means fulfills its goals without wasting and avoiding unnecessary tension between its members (Etzioni, 2005). The effectiveness model is based on the idea that, while individuals can be highly skilled and have many talents, the most difficult problems are solved by teams. Therefore, if individuals cannot work as part of a team, it does not matter how many skills they have. Therefore, this model is best suited for people who want to learn about the dynamics of teamwork and collaboration. (LaFasto and Larson).
2.3 La Fasto and Larson Model.
Larson and LaFasto (1989) in Northouse (2012) through research that carried out on successful teams shows that no matter what type of teams, eight characteristics are found consistently in the winning teams. The eight characteristics are clear and motivating goals, structure results oriented, competent team members, united commitment, climate collaborative, standards of excellence, external support, and leadership principles.
2.4 Aristotle Project Model
The Aristotle Project researcher began by reviewing half a century of academic studies looking at how teams worked. Starting in 2012, the company embarked on an initiative — codenamed Project Aristotle — to study hundreds of Google teams and find out why some teams stumbled while others jumped. Project Aristotle is the name of the research conducted by Google Inc.
According to Rozovsky (2015), this study aims to identify characteristics of an effective team.
The results of Aristotle's Project reveal that it doesn't matter who being in a team, but how the team works together is a very important thing affect team effectiveness. There are five key team dynamics to make a team successful, these are psychological safety, dependability, structure and clarity, meaning and impact. From these two models, it can be seen that the Larson and LaFasto (1989) Model and Project Aristotle Model had many similarities. There is one advantage of the Project Aristotle model over the Larson and LaFasto (1989) model.
Project Aristotle Model emphasizes the importance of harmony between teams and individual personally that is in the dimension of Meaning. Model Project Aristotle shows that team
effectiveness cannot be achieved if the goals and what done within the team is not in accordance with the values and goals of each individual team. This dimension is considered important for this study because SABCANTY is a student organization, which of course really considers each individual in the team. Therefore, in this study the researcher prefers to use the Project Aristotle Model.
2.4.1 Psychological safety
Variables in the Psychological safety construct were selected based on research Schein and Bennis (1965) are mentioned in Edmondson (1999). Edmondson mentions that the need to create psychological safety in each individual team emerges so they can feel safe and capable to change. Feelings of security and the ability to change are important because these two things are crucial so that the team can experience the process learning (Edmondson, 1999). When the team goes through a learning process that effectively, individuals in the team can do the job effectively also. Therefore, security and ability to change is determined as a variable of this construct.
2.4.2 Dependability
Dependability is ability members to be able to complete their tasks in accordance with expectations appropriately time. In other words, Dependability measures a member's ability to perform in a team. According to De Jong and Elfring (2010), team performance is mediated by team member effort and monitoring against the team. Therefore, team effort and team monitoring were chosen as variables in this construct.
2.4.3 Structure and Clarity
Cohen and Bailey (1997) in Stewart and Barrick (2000) explained that understanding of team structure is important as capital to understand interactions between team members at work. The interaction process will have an effect on team performance. In their research, Stewart &
Barrick (2000) mentions: In the team structure there are two important elements, namely interdependence and interdependence team autonomy. Both elements are mediated by intra- relate it to team performance. Team interdependence and autonomy then in this research it becomes a variable for the Structure & clarity construct
2.4.4 Meaning
There are several things that become a source of "meaning" for someone at work. Rosso et al.
(2010) describe that the meaning of work can be sourced from within individual self, others, work context, and spiritual life. Source of meaning can be transformed into meaningful work through a mechanisms that mediate (Rosso et al., 2010). From these mechanisms, Rosso et al.
(2010) synthesized and proposed four paths towards meaningful work (represented in four quadrants), namely individuation, contribution, self-relatedness, and unification. Definition of construct Meaning emphasizes the meaning of personal work that focuses on the individual.
By therefore, the variables compiled in this study also focus on meaning of work that comes from within the individual. Focusing mechanism on the individual as a source of meaningful work in the team is authenticity or originality in the self-related quadrant. Rosso et al. (2010) further mentions that the manifestation of originality is divided into 3, namely: compatibility, identity verification, and personal attachment. The mechanism in the individuation quadrant is not a variable in this study because this study examines the team, while the individuation in the framework does not describe the relationship between an individual and a team.
2.4.5 Impact
Grant (2008) said that work performance is highly dependent on how workers perceive (significance) their work. When a workers perceive their work to be of high significance, performance will also increase. Based on research conducted by Grant (2008), a person's perception of his work can be explained by the relationship between the person's actions and the person who is benefited from it his actions. Perception becomes a mediating mechanism between job significance and work performance. The perception of the mediator by Grant (2008) in research, the same thing is divided into two, namely the perception of social impact and the perception of value social. This description underlies the selection of perceptions of social impact and perceived social value into two variables in the Impact construct.
2.5 Objective Key Results
OKR stands for Objective and Key Result, is a goal management framework that dates back to the 1970s, but became popular in 1999 when John Doerr had a Performance Management project with Google. OKR itself developed from the MBO or Management by Objective concept popularized by world management guru, Peter Drucker. Objective-Key Result (OKR) is a collaborative goal setting protocol for helps ensure that the organization consistently focuses and prioritizes efforts to achieve the same goals within the organization (Doerr, 2018).
The OKR method helps in defining and monitoring of objectives and expected results, so this method become widely used in various industries. The process to be able to define OKR is to determine objectives, then determine the key result for each objective, and take action to achieve objective, and ends by providing input on a regular basis (Trinkenreich et al., 2019).
The Andy Grove is one of the method of grading OKRs, this is a simple “yes” or “no” approach with criteria :
- 0.7 to 1.0 = greens. (We delivered.)
- 0.4 to 0.6 = yellow. (We made progress, but fell short of completion.) - 0.0 to 0.3 = red. (We failed to make real progress.)
3. Method
3.1 Data Collection 3.1.1 In Depth Interview
In-depth interviews are one of the most effective ways of gathering primary data. Showkat et al .(2017) state that an in-depth interview is the one that is done with the purpose of uncovering in-depth 29 knowledge of an interviewee's experience and viewpoint on a topic. During the interview, the author will interview Sabcanty business members. The interview scheme will be asked with the same questions related to personality traits and motivational factors in running a business. With this In-depth interview the author is expecting to gain deeper information about this research topic.
3.1.2 Focus Group Discussion
In qualitative analysis, focus group discussion consists of a data collection approach which focuses on sharing and exchanging views and perspectives with members. Furthermore, using this approach, Barbour RS (2010) said that the researcher will examine and speak to the participants, covering the different topics that have arisen during the discussion and using them for further study. Author conducts focus group discussion on Sabcanty business members, the FGD approach performed by authors due to explain the root cause problems during discussions.
This focus group discussion mainly focuses on assessing and observing team effectiveness factors in running Sabcanty business, the result and findings from the FGD interview can be summarized as a source of information that will be analyzed more deeply.
3.2 Data Analysis 3.2.1 Open Coding
To analyze the results of the interview and FGD the author using coding, which is open coding.
In this research, the author conducted two types of data collection there are In-depth Interview , and Focus Group Discussion that integrated with coding approach; open coding, axial coding and selective coding as a data analysis process. The coding includes physicological safety, dependability, structure and clarity, meaning, and impact in running Sabcanty business. The author has arranged the questions category of physiological safety, dependability, structure and clarity, meaning, and impact for respondents to answer in descriptive responses.
3.2.2 Qualitative Descriptive Analytics
Qualitative descriptive analysis techniques have been widely used in many fields, including education, psychology, and social sciences. Descriptive analysis investigates how learning occurs in general and what factors influence it, but it also includes a more in-depth study and interpretation of particular learners and their attitudes and perceptions. Nassaji and Hossein, (2015) ever state that the aim of descriptive analysis is to identify a phenomenon and its characteristics. Naturalistic information is used in qualitative descriptive analysis, with no interference or modification of variables. They collected data using a variety of methods, including assessment, field notes, interviews, questionnaires, and focus group discussions. In this research authors conducted qualitative descriptive analysis to comprehend deeply of physiological safety, dependability, structure and clarity, meaning, and impact, also examine the most influencing factors in team effectiveness in Sabcanty company.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1 Team Performance
From the data analysis, it is found that the axial codes are average team performance and low team performance. From these axial codes, it can be concluded that the team's performance conditions in the company is not good and need further improvement. The founders of Sabcanty also thought that it was true that their team's performance was low and needed to be improved.
This happens because there are several things that are holding back, as one of the founders said that the biggest problem is in the fund. This leads to low performance in other areas.
4.1.2 Team Work
Based on the interview process, it is found that Sabcanty has a good team work. This team work is going well because from the analysis found that Sabcanty is a fair team. The axial codes of good team work comes from these open incidents work as a team, joint task tackle, never decide for yourself. This means that in carrying out the task Sabcanty works together with a good team work. In addition, from the results of the interview, it was also found that they have the division of tasks each part and the division of tasks is quite even, this is where the axial codes fair team is obtained. From the two axial codes, namely good team work and fair team, it was concluded that the implementation of team work at Sabcanty was good which also resulted in good team work.
4.1.3 Team Process
From the analysis data found that the team process according to the perspective of Sabcanty's founders, the team process at Sabcanty occurs with low effort. This is shown from the explanation of open incidents that in Sabcanty the “effort is so-so, half and half” and “for bigger things it can't be like general companies”. This is also explained from the substantial open
coding, because each one is busy, so for doing the process and the effort is sometimes it's good, sometimes it's not.
For axial codes, team effort is obtained from open incidents which state that effort is not the same for each individual but can be said to be high. This means that in carrying out Sabcanty the effort owned by the team members is not the same but is quite high, and one of the founders also mentioned that the effort of each individual is with the level of each. In addition, founder also mentioned that the effort as a college project has been liked, but for bigger things it can't be like a company in general because it doesn't only focus on one interest in Sabcanty but also in other things, makes the effort should be maintained properly
4.1.4 Team Evaluation
Based on the interview and data analysis it is resulted that for the team evaluation in Sabcanty is that Sabcanty should improving the team strategy. This is resulted from several axial codes of aligning goals, sense of team work and document archiving. Improving team strategy from Sabcanty’s founders perspective can be done by aligning goals of team members to be same goals that mutually agreed. They stated that they need to align the vision first and make sure the goals are clear. From the same goals it can be a direction of what to do and what to achieved, so they have a way and not deviate from what it should be, not too abstract and random which can lead to misperception and miscommunication. After all of the vision and goals is clear Sabcanty can be developed more and go further.
Beside aligning goals, from the interview result it is found that they should have sense of team work. Based on the open incidents data analysis, the sense of team work means that they have to increase sensitivity and don't wait for the trigger to move. It will affect performance if the team only relies on triggers. Sensitivity and consistency should be established so that the flow in the company can be maintained well and without significant obstacles that will disrupted team performance of Sabcanty.
Another axial codes that formed based on the open incidents to improve team strategy is document archiving. The document archiving means that Sabcanty need to do reporting must have master document for all team members. One of the founder stated that Sabcanty must have a master document that records all of the works and records everything that have done, so whenever there is new information, it can be immediately updated there. From this, each member can access the document without having to go through the one who has the first information/idea/data to explain one by one to all of them. The point is to let each of all members have the same knowledge about SABCANTY and work more effectively and efficiently. Founder think that with this master document and reporting process, member are more able to express their own ideas based on the knowledge that already have together.
4.1.5 Team Effectiveness
Based on the analysis it is found that Sabcanty has a low level of team effectiveness, this because of the inconsistency that occur in the team itself. The axial code of inconsistency were formed based on the open incidents. The founders of Sabcanty stated that from their perspective team effectiveness in Sabcanty is shortfalls in business. Shortcomings that occur in business because members have other business not only in Sabcanty, such as college, organization and all kinds of things. According to interview found that each member has his own business, from there it's also impossible to just focus on Sabcanty. This causes the effectiveness of the team to be categorized as low because the focus is divided not only on Sabcanty. Moreover, based on the interview founder also stated that in Sabcanty there is time when it comes to really
serious, it's will result in really effective, but if there's still time, they will be relax and be less serious. The Sabcanty’s OKR was also partially achieved although some were not achieved, some were below fifty percent.
4.1.6 Psychological Safety
Based on the interview result it is found that there is healthy work environment in Sabcanty team. This healthy work environment selective code comes from several axial codes, these are pleasant team, freedom of speech and good communication team. The pleasant team is because of according to the founders' statement that the implementation of psychological safety at Sabcanty is that they really feel very safe when they are at Sabcanty and work together. It was further explained that at Sabcanty they were given time to speak, everyone was heard and there was a right to speak within the team. This shows that Sabcanty has freedom of speech and does not limit its members in expressing opinions, opinions, ideas, concerns, and voices. By not feeling silenced, they feel that they can be better to develop their potential and it will have a good impact on company performance. From the results of data collection, it was also found that a healthy work environment occurs because of good communication within the team.
Founders think that feeling safe psychologically is very important, by giving them time to talk and provide inputs to the team. Because if individuals do not feel safe in the team, they would not have the courage to express opinions and can get stuck if members cannot communicate comfortably.
4.1.7 Dependability
The data analysis resulted that from the Sabcanty’s founders dependability in team is because of autonomy. This autonomy selective code is come up from several axial codes of team discussion, work distribution, dependency and the ability of each team member. Team discussion in Sabcanty company based on the interview result is when they have meeting to discuss together as a team and they also stated that they’re mostly do the task together. Sabcanty also have a work distribution in their team, from the open incidents analysis it is found that they discuss, work on each one, then discuss again. This means that they have work allocation in completing their task. Besides that founder’s also stated that each member have responsible for their respective parts. The distribution is fair so they do not feel under pressure. However, it was also found dependency that it is depends on the CEO. When this founder got an assignment, will re-confirm to the CEO, then do the job, and confirm again to make sure everything has gone right.
Based on the founders perspective of the importance of dependability in Sabcanty team it was found that dependability is important, and it shouldn’t be too much for the job takeover in team.
They also stated that it is important because each individuals don't have to wait for another to complete their job and so as not to get stuck and hinder others. From interview and open incidents result also found that they have to manage in order to make sure they can do the atleast job description of their ownselves.
These several axial codes eventually formed a selective code of autonomy, where each individual in the team is expected to be able to maximize the potential that exists within themselves, carry out their respective responsibilities without hindering and disturbing other individuals in the team.
4.1.8 Structure and Clarity
Based on the results of interviews and analysis, it was found that there is good teamwork but non-implemented structure and clarity in Sabcanty’s team. First reason that can be happened
is because of non-implemented job description, when the implementation is lacking. The job- desc is written, but in reality it is still done together and overlaps. This can make unclear task where there are tasks that are still gray and not too clear who is responsible for which. From the results, it was also found that according to the founders perspective there is democracy where there are always discussions and always seek the opinion of the team, but in the final decision making it goes back to the CEO. Because it would be wiser for the CEO to decide, its the CEO responsibility to make the decision for the team.
And for the founders perspective of the importance of structure and clarity in Sabcanty team are important, as a responsibility. The founders also stated that it was important because if it was clear it wouldn't interfere with the work of others, and if it wasn't clear it would interfere with the team's performance
4.1.9 Meaning
Meaning is personal meaning of work for individuals in the team. In this case, after conducting interviews and analysis, it was found that the meaning from Sabcanty’s founders means self- complacency or self-fullfilment. This self-complacency is formed by several points such as good attachment, social value, business experience, enjoyment, relation of personal contentment. The first axial code for the selective code of self-complacency is a good attachment. Good attachment is exist because according to the results of the interview, Sabcanty founders feel related between what they are doing at Sabcanty and the life-goals they have in the future. Felt intersect too because Sabcanty add value and experience that can be useful afterwards. The value they get is one of the efforts to realize the dream to have an impact on many people. In addition, the goal of a longer life is to help others without feeling disadvantaged. These are the social values they feel they can get when they are at Sabcanty. In addition, from the interview results, it was also found that they got business experience from Sabcanty, partly because they needed experience in making a business and how to manage a business, as well as for practicality in the future. In running the business, Sabcanty founders feel enjoyment where they are enjoy and feel honored. Feel happy because it fits your passion, so enjoy while doing it. However, there are also founders who find it hard because it doesn't match their passion. Do not have aspirations to jump into related fields so that it makes work challenging. Some of these points form the axial code of unrelated business because the main problem is that he feels that he is not in the right field, which is business and entrepreneurship.
Even though there are differences, all founders feel that it is important to be able to enjoy because it makes work easier, so it is not burdened and can go all out. If individuals are happy, they will try to give the best to the company and goals will be easier to achieve. And if enjoy and happy, there is definitely no pressure and the work looks more enjoyable to do, the goals can be achieved, the performance is also getting better.
4.1.10 Impact
Team effectiveness can also occur because of the impact that the team has. And from the results of interviews and coding analysis, it was found that according to Sabcanty's founders they felt that Sabcanty was impactful, by having a good impact, well-planned, mutual respect, and a good environment. Axial codes good impact was formed because from the interview results the founders stated that according to them Sabcanty made a difference in their lives. The impact is to make things better because many things from Sabcanty can be practiced in other organizations, and vice versa. Furthermore, for well-planned because according to them Sabcanty makes them more organized, have planning because it has a clear schedule that really
helps them in other aspects of life. Besides being well-planned, they also feel mutual respect where team respect is important and they felt the team respect is high at Sabcanty. Respect includes respect for their duty, mutual respect and also appreciation in the team, they said that get it at Sabcanty which also makes them feel comfortable being at Sabcanty. Based on the interview, it was also found that it is important to create a healthy environment to grow together because it will greatly affect the work. There is a cause and effect if team want to perform well so team have to take good care of everything in it. Because if members don't respect each other, it's a hassle, if the environment isn't healthy it will definitely hinder the works. They also stated that there must be an impact in order to feel more encouraged.
4.1.11 OKR Achievement
Based on the interview result it is found that OKR achievement in Sabcanty is for academic fulfillment. The axial codes show about non-achieveable OKR and academic vision. Founders stated that the OKR might not be achieved or the OKR achievement was lacking. The number of OKR achievements is in one area only , while others are less. This can be caused of they only want to fulfill their academic needs and the solutions they did for these deficiencies turned out to be less effective. This causes OKR achievement in business to have drawbacks because the focus is only on college grades. From this, it shows that the achievement of OKR in Sabcanty is to fulfill academic needs which causes some parts in OKR to have shortcomings.
The lack of achievement in OKR shows that the performance in the team is not good as well as the effectiveness of the team.
4.1.12 Consideration
The result of an analysis of the consideration from the Sabcanty team in determining their OKR, from the data collection interviews that have been conducted, it was found that capability and time-framing are Sabcanty's considerations in determining OKR. Axial code capability is formed from the information on open incidents that have been obtained. The Sabcanty founders state that they determine OKR from what they have, potentially capable of being done. Team effectiveness is also one of the points to be considered, when the team is projected to be able to meet the intended goals. The another consideration is feasibility, means that they estimate whether the OKR is capable of being achieved or not. Furthermore, what is taken into consideration when determining OKR is time framing. Time framing in this case is the lecture timeline. From the results of the interview the founders stated that they consider the time, when midterm, final semester, or assignments. They will determine the OKR according to the lecture timeline, what should be less and what should be more.
4.1.13 Strategy
Based on the data analysis, it is found that there is an ineffective operational implementation in Sabcanty's team. According to Sabcanty’s founders, the strategy in achieving OKR is clarity, to discuss and determine what the objective is first then break it down into key results.
However, this turned out to be a too rigid structure in its application. In the context of their realization, they are structured and sometimes still too much together so they are even less effective. From further information obtained, according to the founders, because they are start- ups, there is still "working together", who can do it, then it will be the one who does it in the implementation.
4.1.14 Improvement
Based on the interview and data analysis, Sabcanty improvement of the OKR is an enhancement that can be done with well-execute and team effectiveness. Axial code well execute is obtained from the results of the analysis of open incidents, namely the awareness
that all members must maintain in order to carry out the execution of the task properly. In addition, other statements state that in increasing OKR is to just do it, and do the best. By giving their best according to them, their performance will also increase. Focus on how to move forward and solve problems with OKR that are lacking. Another axial code analysis result is team effectiveness, which here means to increase team effectiveness in achieving the company's OKR. From the results of the interview founders statement is to improve from his own team to be effective. If the team can work effectively then it will have an impact on the effectiveness in meeting the key results in the OKR.
4.1.15 Influence
Variable influence discusses how the influence of team effectiveness on team performance and okr achievement. From the data that has been obtained through interviews, it shows that according to sabcanty's founders, an effective team is highly related to their performance and okr achievement. If the team is not effective, the okr is difficult to achieve and if the work is effective, the team performance is also effective therefore it must be managed properly.for further explanation, according to the founders perspective, the most influential factor on team effectiveness at sabcanty is the structure. Based on the interview they stated that in team effectiveness what is important is a clear structure and dependability first. In addition to a clear structure, social impact is also an influential factor because if the company has an external impact, it will have a big impact and of course from outside parties will want to join sabcanty and from there the enthusiasm will also be even greater.
4.2 FGD
FGD (focus group discussion) is a discussion technique used by researchers to collect validation on the results of the analysis that has done to Sabcanty. From FGD that conducted by founders and researchers, researchers will draw conclusions from opinions about the topic of team effectiveness in Sabcanty. Based on the FGD, all founders agreed and validate that the team performance in Sabcanty is need improvement. It needs improvement because there are still some things that still need to be improved, especially in terms of reporting. In the FGD the founders also agreed that for the evaluation of the Sabcanty team, it was necessary to improve the team strategy, because realistically they still focus on other businesses, so they have to align their vision first. In addition, the founders also validated that there were inconsistencies at Sabcanty, the reason was the same as before that sometimes they still focus on other business, so when they focus more on other business and not paying much attention to Sabcanty.
Therefore, they confirmed that there was indeed inconsistency in the Sabcanty team because sometimes it was the main focus but sometimes it wasn't.
The FGD also discussed the variables that make up the effectiveness of the team, including psychological safety, dependability, structure and clarity, meaning and impact. In psychological safety it was found that they felt psychologically safe because of a healthy work environment and they validated it. They stated that there is no cornering, and no enemies within the team. Team members collaborate together to give the best for Sabcanty. The relationship for two years at Sabcanty is also quite healthy, there are no camps in the camp so they feel comfortable and create a healthy work environment. Dependability is also considered important at Sabcanty and has been implemented, for example when each task has been assigned to team members. The discussion about good teamwork but the implementation of the structure is still lacking has also been validated by the founders. In the founder's opinion, maybe because they are start-ups that have just been established, sometimes they are still "jointly responsible" so they are used to it. But according to them, sometimes it can interferes at the individual level, but at the organizational level it doesn't really matter. From the FGD results,
the founders also agreed that they had self-satisfaction from Sabcanty. Sabcanty as a place to learn to build a business as taught by SBM ITB and a lot of collaboration with other people and mutual cooperation. The discussion also found that Sabcanty had a good impact on founders' lives, more aware of what to do, more sensitive, and more scheduled.
In the discussion about OKR the founders also validated that OKR's achievement was less due to focusing on academic fulfillment, because Sabcanty was more focused on academics than the business. In addition, in the FGD process according to the founders, in preparing the OKR, Sabcanty prioritized the potential in the team because focused at the team abilities, how can they achieve or not. Besides that, it is also a time-frame because when it comes to academics, deadlines for mid-test, final test etc. must be pursued. The discussion about ineffective operational implementation was also validated by the founders, according to them because there were no specialized activities and because online communication become a barrier, so it was more about “who could do the work” or consideration of resources to fulfill the task to be achieved. The FGD also discussed performance and effectiveness at Sabcanty and the most influential on this was the structure. A structure that is not strong in its implementation underlies the lack of performance and effectiveness. Team performance greatly influences OKR because if members don't perform well then the tasks in OKR are also difficult to achieve.
From individual performance it will also affect team performance. If a team can perform well, the OKR achievement will also be high, and vice versa.
5. Conclusion
5.1 Team Effectiveness and Team Performance
One of the things that need to be achieved to have a good team performance is to have an effective team. The team effectiveness model helps to understand the best management techniques to get optimal performance from the team. Team effectiveness according to the Aristotle Project Model, is formed by five dynamics of psychological safety, dependability, structure and clarity, meaning and impact. From the results of data collection, it was found that according to the Sabcanty founders they felt psychologically safe when they are at Sabcanty because there is a healthy work environment and this has also been validated by all founders.
The second dynamic that shapes team effectiveness is dependability, which is when members can be relied on to complete a job. In terms of dependability, after going through the interview process and FGD at Sabcanty, it was found that members do have independence in completing their tasks. The next dynamic is structure and clarity where it was found that although Sabcanty has a good team work, the implementation of their operational structure are not appropriate and there are still unclear or “gray” tasks because it was done together. The fourth dynamic is meaning, discussing the work carried out that is considered important for each member personally. From the results of interviews and after being validated in the FGD process it was found that the founders felt self-satisfied of Sabcanty. This is because they get a lot of good things from Sabcanty where Sabcanty helps them learn new values and experiences, such as about business experiences and this is related to the life goals of the founders. The last dynamic that makes up an effective team is impact, which means that members have a perception that the work they do is important and can bring about change. From the results of the analysis that has been done, it was found that according to founders, Sabcanty is impactful. Sabcanty gives better impacts and changes in their lives, such as social impact and improving individual impact.
All of these dynamics are very influential on team performance because they are interconnected. With psychological comfort it will make individuals feel comfortable in a team,
independence in completing tasks is also able to make the flow in the team good, a clear structure will make each understand their responsibility, the existence of a team that is able to make individuals feel content and satisfied will lead to good performance, a company that has a good impact will also encourage its members to progress and develop, and of all these things can determine how the team performs because each other is very influential and related.
5.2 Team Performance and OKR Achievement
OKR is a goal setting method that helps to improve performance and drive change. From the results of interviews which have also been validated by the FGD, Sabcanty has a team performance that must be improved. This is in accordance with Sabcanty's OKR achievement, which is lacking due to OKR being made for academic fulfillment purposes only. Founders agree that team performance has a very big influence on the achievement of OKR Sabcanty.
This is because if individuals in the team do not have good performance, it will also affect the performance of their team. From there, it can be seen that if the performance of a team is low, then OKR achievement will also low, and vice versa and this has also been validated by Sabcanty's founders.
5.3 Significant Factor Influencing Team Effectiveness towards Team Performance The low level of team effectiveness and also the team's performance that needs improvement must have factors behind it. The results of data collection and analysis showed that the most influential factor on team effectiveness was the structure. It is proven that despite having good teamwork, in the application of the structure it still has shortcomings. The implementation of the written structure was not applied properly. Because too much work is done together, the structure and the actual job are biased. This make them are less able to delegate tasks to each team member. In its operation, overlapping tasks make the structure blurry and the responsibilities is also questioned.
References
A. Ellis, J. Holloway, D. Ilgen, C. Porter, B. West, H. Moon. (2003). Team learning:
Collectively connecting the dots. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 , pp. 821-835 Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research
from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–
290. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639702300303
C. Durham, D. Knight, E. Locke. (1997). Effects of leader role, team-set goal difficulty, efficacy, and tactics on team effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72, pp. 203-231
Davidson, Elizabeth & Vaast, Emmanuelle. (2010). Digital Entrepreneurship and Its Sociomaterial Enactment. 1 - 10. 10.1109/HICSS.2010.150.
D. Kayes. (2004). The 1996 Mount Everest climbing disaster: The breakdown of learning in teams. Human Relations, 57 , pp. 1263-1284
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383.
Edmondson, A. (2002). Managing the risk of learning: Psychological safety in work teams.
Harvard Business School Working Paper, 02-062.Hellerstedt, Karin. (2009). The Composition of New Venture Teams : Its Dynamics and Consequences.
Honig, Benson & Davidsson, Per. (2000). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Proceedings. 2000. B1-B6.
10.5465/APBPP. 2000.5438611.
Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A. & Noe, R. A. (1997), Knowledge Worker Team Effectiveness: The Role of Autonomy, Interdependence, Team Development, And Contextual Support Variables. Personnel Psychology, 50, 877-904. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.
1997.tb01486.x
J. Hackman (Ed.). (1990). Groups that work [and those that don’t]: Creating conditions for effective teamwork (1st ed.), Jossey-Bass, Inc, San Francisco, CA
J. Cummings, R. Cross. (2003). Structural properties of work groups and their consequences for performance. Social Networks, 25 , pp. 197-210
J. Strijbos, R. Martens, W. Jochems, & N. Broers. (2004). The effect of functional roles on group efficiency: Using multilevel modeling and content analysis to investigate computer-supported collaboration in small groups. Small Group Research, 35, pp.
195-229
Kamm, J. B., & Nurick, A. J. (1993). The Stages of Team Venture Formation: A Decision-
making Mode. Research Article, 17(2), 17-27.
https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879301700202
Klotz, A. C., Hmieleski, K. M., Bradley, B. H., & Busenitz, L. W. (2014). New venture teams:
A review of the literature and roadmap for future research. Journal of Management, 40(1), 226-255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313493325
Kraus, S., Palmer, C., Kailer, N., Kallinger, F. L., & Spitzer, J. (2019). Digital entrepreneurship: A research agenda on new business models for the twenty-first century. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research. 25(2), 353- 375. https://doi.org/10.11 08/IJEBR-06-2018-0425
McKelvie, A., Wiklund, J., & Brattström, A. (2017). Externally Acquired or Internally Generated? Knowledge Development and Perceived Environmental Dynamism in New Venture Innovation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 42. 24-46.
10.1177/104225871 7747056.
N. Sivasubramaniam, W. Murry, B. Avolio, & D. Jung. (2002). A longitudinal model of the effects of team leadership and group potency on group performance. Group Organization Management, 27 (1), pp. 66-96
Pereira, J. A., & Bernardo, A. (2016). Empreendedorismo Digital: estudo do Projeto Negócios Digitais desenvolvido pelo SEBRAE-PR em Maringá. Desenvolvimento Em Questão, 14(37), 293–327. https://doi.org/10.21527/2237-6453.2016.37.293-327 P. Morgeson, M. Reider, & M. Campion. (2005). Selecting individuals in team settings: The
importance of social skills, personality characteristics, and teamwork knowledge Personnel Psychology, 58 , pp. 583-611
re:Work. (2016): Guide: Understand team effectiveness. Diperoleh dari https://rework.with google.com/guides/understanding-team-effectiveness/
Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. New York: Crown Business.
Rosso, B., Dekas, K., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the Meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91-127.
Rozovsky, J. (17 November 2015). The five keys to a successful Google team. re:Work.
Diperoleh dari https://rework.withgoogle.com/blog/five-keys-to-a-successful- google-team/
Ruef, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial Groups. Historical Foundations of Entrepreneurship Research.
R. Hirokawa, R. Cathcart, L. Samovar, & L. Henman. (2003).Small group communication:
Theory and practice (8th ed.), Roxbury Publishing Company, Los Angeles, CA R. Guzzo, & J. Waters. (1982). The expression of affect and the performance of decision-
making groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67 (1), pp. 67-74.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest and the Business Cycle (2nd edition). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Shofiana Syam. (2020). Pengaruh Efektifitas Dan Efisiensi Kerja Terhadap Kinerja Pegawai Pada Kantor Kecamatan Banggae Timur. Jurnal Ilmu Manajemen. Vol 4
Steffens, P., Terjesen, S., & Davidsson, P. (2012). Birds of a feather get lost together?
Homogeneity of venture teams and performance. Small Business Economics - SMALL BUS ECON, 39, 1-17. 10.1007/s11187-011-9358-z.
S. Alper, D. Tjosvold, & K. Law. (1998). Interdependence and controversy in group decision making: Antecedents to effective self-managing teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74 , pp. 33-52
S. Johnson, C. Suriya, S. Won Yoon, J. Berrett, & J. La Fleur. (2002). Team development and group processes of virtual learning teams. Computers & Education, 39, pp. 379-393 S. Henry, & K. Stevens. (1999). Using Belbin’s leadership role to improve team effectiveness:
An empirical investigation. The Journal of Systems and Software, 44, pp. 241-250 S. Gully, K. Incalcaterra, A. Joshi, & J. Beaubien. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy,
potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, pp. 819-832
T. Baldwin, M. Bedell, & J. Johnson. (1997). The social fabric of a team-based MBA program:
Network effects on student satisfaction and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40, pp. 1369-1397
T. Katz-Navon, & M. Erez. (2005). When collective- and self-efficacy affect team performance. The role of task interdependence. Small Group Research, 36, pp. 437- 465.
