For the River in the North-East of England, see
River Team.
A team comprises a group of people or animals linked in a common purpose. Teams are especially appropriate for conducting tasks that
are high in complexity and have many interdependent subtasks.
A group in itself does not necessarily constitute a team. Teams normally have members with complementary skills and generate
synergy through a coordinated effort which allows each member to maximize his or her strengths and minimize his or her
weaknesses.
Thus teams of sports players can form (and re-form) to practice their craft. Transport
logistics executives can select teams of horses, dogs or
oxen for the purpose of conveying goods.
Theorists in business in the late 20th century popularized
the concept of constructing teams. Differing opinions exist on the efficacy of this new
management fad. Some see "team" as a
four-letter word: overused and under-useful. Others see it as a panacea that finally
realizes the human relations movement's desire to integrate what that movement
perceives as best for workers and as best for managers. Still others believe in the
effectiveness of teams, but also see them as dangerous because of the potential for exploiting workers — in that team
effectiveness can rely on peer pressure and peer surveillance.
Compare the more structured/skilled concept of a crew, and the advantages of formal and informal
partnerships.
Team size, composition, and formation
Team size and composition affect the team processes and outcomes. The optimal size (and composition) of teams is debated and
will vary depending on the task at hand. At least one study of problem-solving in groups showed an optimal size of groups at four
members[1]. Other works estimate the optimal size between 5-12 members.[citation needed] Less than 5 members results in
decreased perspectives and diminished creativity. Membership in excess of 12 results in increased conflict and greater potential
of sub-groups forming.
David Cooperrider suggest that the larger group, the better. This is because the
larger groups is able to address concerns of the whole system. So while it may not be effective
at solving a given task, Cooperider asks us to consider the relevance of that task: "effective at what?"
Regarding composition, all teams will have an element of homogeneity and heterogeneity. The more homogeneous the group, the
more cohesive it will be. The more heterogeneous the group, the greater the differences in perspective and increased potential
for creativity, but also the greater potential for conflict.
Team members normally have different roles, like team leader and agents. Large teams can sub-divide into sub-teams according
to need.
Many teams go through a life-cycle of stages, identified by Bruce Tuckman as: forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning.
Types of Teams
Independent and Interdependent Teams
Of particular importance is the concept of different types of teams. A bright line is usually
drawn between "independent" and "interdependent" teams. To continue the sports team example, a
football team is clearly an interdependent team: no significant task can be accomplished
without the help of essentially all team members; team members typically specialize in
different tasks (running the ball, goal
kicking & scrum feeding), and the success of every individual is inextricably
bound to the success of the whole team. No Rugby player,
no matter how talented, has ever won a game by playing alone.
On the other hand, a tennis team is a classic example of an independent team: matches
are played and won by individuals or partners, every person performs basically the same actions, and whether one player wins or
loses has no direct effect on the performance of the next player. If all team members each perform the same basic tasks, such as
students working problems in a math class, or outside sales employees making phone calls, then it is likely an independent team. They may be able to help each other —
perhaps by offering advice or practice time, by providing moral support, or by helping in the background during a busy time — but
each individual's success is primarily due to each individual's own efforts. Tennis players do not win their own matches merely
because the rest of their teammates did, and math students do not pass tests merely because their
neighbors know how to solve the equations.
Coaching an 'interdependent" team like a football team necessarily requires a different
approach from coaching an "independent" team because the costs and benefits to individual team members — and therefore the
intrinsic incentives for positive team behaviors — are very different. An interdependent team benefits from getting to know the
other team members socially, from developing trust in each other, and from conquering artificial challenges (such as offered in
outdoors ropes courses).
Independent teams typically view these activities as unimportant, emotion-driven time wasters. They benefit from more
intellectual, job-related training. The best way to start improving the functioning of an
independent team is often a single question, "What does everyone need to do a better job?"
Self-managed Teams
Normally, a manager acts as the team leader and is responsible for defining the goals, methods, and functioning of the team.
However, interdependencies and conflicts between different parts of an organization may not be best addressed by hierarchical
models of control.
The main idea of the self-managed team is that the leader does not operate with positional authority. In a traditional
management role, the manager is responsible for providing instruction, conducting communication, developing plans, giving orders,
and disciplining and rewarding employees, and making decisions by virtue of his or her position. In this organizational model,
the manager delegates specific responsibility and decision-making authority to the team itself, in the hope that the group will
make better decisions than any individual. Neither a manager nor the team leader make independent decisions in the delegated
responsibility area. Decisions are typically made by consensus in successful
self-managed teams, by voting in very large or formal teams, and by hectoring and
bullying in unsuccessful teams. The team as a whole is accountable for the outcome of its
decisions and actions.
Self-managed teams operate in many organizations to manage complex projects involving research, design, process improvement,
and even systemic issue resolution, particularly for cross-department projects involving people of similar seniority levels.
While the internal leadership style in a self-managed team is distinct from traditional leadership and operates to neutralize the
issues often associated with traditional leadership models, a self-managed team still needs support from senior management to
operate well.
Self-managed teams may be interdependent or independent. Of course, merely calling a group of people a self-managed team does
not make them either a team or self-managed.
As a self-managed team develops successfully, more and more areas of responsibility can be delegated, and the team members can
come to rely on each other in a meaningful way.[2]
Project Teams
A team used only for a defined period of time and for a
separate, concretely definable purpose, often becomes known as a project team.
Managers commonly label groups of people as a "team" based on having a common function. Members of these teams might belong to
different groups, but receive assignment to activities for the same project,
thereby allowing outsiders to view them as a single unit. In this way, setting up a team allegedly facilitates the creation,
tracking and assignment of a group of people based on the project in hand. The use of the "team" label in this instance often has
no relationship to whether the employees are working as a team.
Sports Teams
A sports team is a group of people which play a sport together. Members include all players (even those who are waiting their
turn to play) as well as support members such as a team manager.
Virtual Teams
A virtual team consists of members
joined together electronically, with nominal in-person contact. Virtual teaming is made
possible with technology tools, especially the Internet. This allows teams to be formed of
players otherwise unavailable. Research can be performed using input from the best minds around the world. Work projects can be
completed by spreading the workload among long-distance players. Many businesses build their competitive edge on the
capabilities and efficiencies of virtual
teams.
Not All Groups are Teams
Some people also use the word "team" when they mean "employees." A "sales team" is a common
example of this loose or perhaps euphemistic usage, though interdependencies exist in
organisations, and a sales team can be let down by poor performance on other parts of the
organisation upon which sales depend, like delivery, after-sales service, etc.. However
"sales staff" is a more precise description of the typical arrangement.
See also
External links
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
