| Course | COM 140 Managing Performance and Developing Teams |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 5 |
| Paper type | Team performance analysis |
| Length | About 1,038 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for COM 140 Module 5
Real Teams or Just Groups? Deciding Where Team Performance Management Fits in a Distribution Center
Student Name
Business Administration Program, Aspen University
COM 140: Managing Performance and Developing Teams
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Real Teams or Just Groups? Deciding Where Team Performance Management Fits in a Distribution Center
After the pick and pack team at Ridgeline Outdoor Supply's Aurora distribution center raised its same-day shipping rate with shared team goals, the center manager, Paul Jensen, proposed moving the whole center to team-based performance management: team goals, team recognition and a team bonus for every group. The idea fits a common view that teams have replaced individuals as the basic unit of performance. This paper tests that idea against the way each group at Aurora actually works.
Why Teams Became Central
Kozlowski and Ilgen (2006) reviewed fifty years of research on work groups and teams for a general audience. They observed that organizations had shifted from individual jobs to team-based work systems as work became more complex, faster and more dependent on combining people's skills. But they also stressed that teams are not automatically effective. Their effectiveness depends on processes inside the team and on how the organization supports them.
What Makes a Real Team
Hackman (2002) argued that most of what determines a team's success is set before the team begins its work, by the conditions leaders create. He identified five. The first is a real team: members share a task, the team has clear boundaries so everyone knows who is on it, members depend on one another to do the work and membership is reasonably stable. The second is a compelling direction, a clear and challenging purpose. The third is a structure that helps rather than hinders: work designed as a whole task, a sensible size and blend of members, and agreed rules of conduct. The fourth is a supportive organizational context, with rewards, information and training that support teamwork. The fifth is expert coaching available when the team needs it.
Testing Aurora's Work Groups
| Group | Shared task | Interdependent | Stable membership | Real team? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pick and pack, 24 people | Yes, the same orders flow through all | Yes, packers wait on pickers | Yes | Yes |
| Receiving, 10 clerks | No, each logs separate shipments | Little | Yes | No, a group of individuals |
| Returns, 6 people | No, items inspected one at a time | Little | Yes | No |
| Maintenance, 4 technicians | Partly, large repairs need two or three | Sometimes | Yes | Partly |
How Teams Perform
Kozlowski and Ilgen organized the processes that drive team effectiveness into three kinds. Cognitive processes include team mental models, shared understanding of the task, equipment and one another, and transactive memory, knowing who knows what. Motivational and affective processes include collective efficacy, the team's belief that it can succeed, and cohesion. Behavioral processes include coordination, cooperation and communication. These processes are why team goals helped pick and pack: the shared target gave pickers and packers a common picture of the work and a reason to coordinate during the afternoon rush.
Organizing the Analysis
Mathieu et al. (2008) reviewed a decade of team effectiveness research and organized it in an input, mediator, outcome framework. Inputs include team composition, task design and organizational context. Mediators include the processes above and emergent states such as trust and cohesion. Outcomes include performance and members' attitudes. The framework emphasizes that the same input, such as a team bonus, works only if it strengthens the mediators that link it to performance. For receiving clerks who work independently, a team bonus would not change coordination or shared understanding, because there is little to coordinate. It would only tie each clerk's reward to work they cannot influence.
Recommendation
Aurora should use a mixed system. Pick and pack continues with team goals, daily team results and a team bonus. Maintenance receives team goals for large repairs and planned maintenance completion, with individual goals for routine calls. Receiving and returns keep individual goals for accuracy and volume, with a shared goal only for safety, which everyone affects. If Paul later redesigns receiving so that clerks work in pairs on large shipments, the analysis should be repeated.
The Risks of Team Rewards
Team rewards carry risks even where they fit. Members who believe others are not pulling their weight may resent sharing a bonus with them, and a team can pressure a slower member in ways that harm morale. In pick and pack, the supervisor will keep individual accuracy data visible to each person privately, so problems with one member can be handled through coaching rather than left to the team. The team bonus will be a modest share of pay, big enough to notice yet small enough that one member's off week will not set the others against them. And members will have a say, through their team meetings, in how new pickers are trained, giving them a constructive way to act on concerns about a teammate's performance.
Explaining the Decision
Paul proposed a center-wide change, so the recommendation needs careful explanation. The receiving and returns staff may hear "no team bonus" as being left out. The center manager will explain that the decision follows how each group's work is designed, not how much the company values them, and that the shared safety goal and recognition apply to everyone. Module 6 describes a redesigned returns team that will meet Hackman's conditions, which shows that the door to team measures is open where the work changes.
Supporting the Real Teams
Hackman's remaining conditions apply to the teams that qualify. Pick and pack needs a compelling direction, which the same-day promise supplies, and a supportive context, including daily data and cross-training. Maintenance needs clear norms for when technicians call for help.
Judging the Result
After two quarters, Paul can compare results and survey employees on whether they see their goals as fair. For pick and pack and maintenance, he should also watch the processes Kozlowski and Ilgen described, asking whether members help one another during busy periods and whether they know who to ask about a problem, because results can rise for reasons unrelated to teamwork, such as a slow season.
Conclusion
Hackman's conditions show that only one of Aurora's four groups is fully a real team, Kozlowski and Ilgen explain why team measures help where coordination matters, and Mathieu and colleagues show why the same measure fails where it does not. Teams are the right unit of performance only where the work makes them so.
References
Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Harvard Business School Press.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77-124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410-476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316061
COM 140 Module 5 instructions, in plain terms
Module 5 of COM 140 turns to teams as the unit of performance, and students commonly analyze whether and how an organization should manage performance through teams. The Module 5 directions in your classroom govern; this example uses a composite distribution center. Explain why teams have become central to performance. Identify what makes a group a real team. Explain the processes through which teams perform. Test the organization's work groups against these ideas. Recommend where team and individual measures should apply, and address the risks of team rewards. Cite research in APA 7 form.
Inside the COM 140 Module 5 example
The center has four work groups: pick and pack, with twenty-four people working on the same orders; receiving, with ten clerks each logging separate shipments; returns, with six people inspecting items one at a time; and maintenance, with four technicians who split up repair calls. Hackman's book Leading Teams names five conditions: a real team, a compelling direction, an enabling structure, a supportive context and expert coaching. Kozlowski and Ilgen's Psychological Science in the Public Interest review explained how team cognition, such as shared mental models, team motivation, such as collective efficacy, and team behavior, such as coordination, shape effectiveness. Mathieu and colleagues' Journal of Management review described the input, mediator, outcome framework. The table finds that pick and pack is a real team, receiving and returns are not, and maintenance is partly one. The recommendation applies team goals and recognition to pick and pack and partly to maintenance, and keeps individual measures elsewhere.
Reading the COM 140 Module 5 grading rubric
Team performance analyses earn credit when they test the claim that teams should be the unit of performance rather than accepting it. This example uses Hackman's conditions to separate real teams from groups, Kozlowski and Ilgen to explain how teams perform and Mathieu and colleagues to organize the analysis. The table applies the ideas to each work group, and the recommendation fits measures to how work is actually done. Avoiding a single answer for the whole center is a sign of careful analysis. Addressing the risks of team rewards, and how the decision will be explained to groups that do not receive them, shows attention to how employees will actually experience the system.
COM 140 Module 5 help: mistakes that cost marks
Team papers often assume that every group of employees is a team. Check whether members share a task and depend on each other to complete it. Another weakness is recommending team rewards without considering whether individuals can affect team results; where they cannot, team measures feel unfair. Explain the processes, such as coordination and shared understanding, that team measures are meant to strengthen. Consider a mixed system. Use research to justify each choice. Finally, explain how you would know whether the change improved performance. Plan how to explain the decision to employees in groups that keep individual measures.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More COM 140 and Business Administration sample papers
- COM 140 Module 1: Performance and Strategy
- COM 140 Module 2: Goals and Measures
- COM 140 Module 3: Feedback and Coaching
- COM 140 Module 4: Addressing Poor Performance
- COM 140 Module 6: Forming and Developing Teams
- COM 140 Module 7: Team Conflict and Decisions
- COM 140 Module 8: Leading a High-Performance Team
- MGT 464 Module 8: Organizational Culture
- MGT 424 Module 7: Leading Change
- MGT 215 Module 1: CRM as a Business Strategy
- BUS 484 Module 2: Opportunity Assessment
COM 140 Module 5 questions, answered
What does COM 140 Module 5 usually ask for?
Aspen's COM 140 turns to teams as the unit of performance in this module, so an analysis of whether and how to manage performance through teams is typical. Check your classroom prompt.
What makes a group a real team?
Hackman described a real team as one with a shared task, clear boundaries, interdependence among members and stable membership over time.
What processes drive team effectiveness?
Kozlowski and Ilgen reviewed cognitive processes such as shared mental models, motivational ones such as collective efficacy and behavioral ones such as coordination.
Where can I find a free COM 140 Module 5 sample paper?
The example above tests a distribution center's work groups against the conditions for real teams and recommends where team measures fit.
Should all performance be measured by team?
Not always. Where work is not interdependent, individual measures may be fairer and more useful, so a mixed system often fits best.