Groups and teams

Behind the research literature on groups and teams lies a rich tradition of social psychology.

Theoretically there are many different ways examining group phenomena, which are complementary rather than exclusive. The group and team literature segments itself in many ways: group conflict, group decision-making, problem solving, creativity, intergroup behaviour and so on (Thompson 2003, 185). Concerning group research, there are various research traditions enshrining various philosophical views on persons and their social nature. However, basically three schools or traditions can be distinguished in the examination of groups and teams: 1) the cognitive tradition based on the theory of social identity, 2) the micro sociology tradition, and 3) the psychodynamic tradition. The first is a traditional theory, based on group research partly by Lewin (the head of group dynamic movements), in which the main idea is that the membership of the group affects the information processing (knowledge) and identity formation of the group members. The groups are seen as greater than the sum of their parts (e.g. van Knippenberg & Hogg 2003; Brown 1988;

Haslam 2004; Paulus & Bernard 2003).

The micro sociology school understands the group as a unique micro culture and focuses on the study of small groups and the face-to-face interactions among humans. The micro cultures involve an emphasis on the importance of culture, roles, language, norms and ethical standards. A view based, for example, on American pragmatism, upon which many post-modern views also rest (e.g. Holstein & Gubrium 2003; Cahill 2004). Finally, the psychodynamic tradition is based on psychoanalysis (e.g. the unconscious, suppositions, and model learning). Teamwork reflects the subconscious actions of people, e.g. the group membership learned in early childhood (e.g.

Niemistö 2000; Bion 1979; 2001). Moreover, there are numerous further classifications and

Meaning of the group Environmental factors Group members

Basic task and Physical and social group size, goals of the group environment, status of diversity of

the group members, leader

Phenomena developed in the group:

norms and roles, leadership, coherence, group motivation, involvement, communication…

group composition

Results:

group experience, profitability, productivity…

theories within these research traditions. This study comes close to the research subject mainly through the cognitive tradition as the mainstream literature.

All the phenomena and the social problems related to the functioning of small groups are of interest to group dynamics. This branch of social science has been developed in response to the need for a comprehensive and systematic understanding of how people work in groups and how they compose and develop, and what are the interrelations between groups and individuals, other groups and larger entities (Cartwright & Zander 1953; Kelly 1998, 115; Johnson & Johnson 2004, 36). There are numerous “mini-issues” in group dynamics, but the most important centre around two major questions: what is the best approach to the study and analysis of groups, and do we need groups? At the level of theory, there are a wide variety of approaches (Shaw 1981, 11-12).

Small-group researchers have long pondered why people spend so much time working in groups, and the resulting theories can be summarised as falling into one of two categories: 1) the functional perspective, i.e. people join groups because groups are able to accomplish that which is beyond the capacity of individuals working alone, and 2) the interpersonal perspective, i.e. groups help people to fulfil their social needs (Stewart et al. 1999, 4). According to Helkama et al. (1998) the three fundamental elements of teamwork are initial factors, phenomena developed in the group, and results.

The initial factors are conditions for development because they affect both the boundaries within which the group can act and what it can achieve. The phenomena born in the group reveals the group dynamics, the intentional and unintentional group phenomena and the changing character of the group. Finally, the results refer to the internal and external achievement of the group (Niemistö 2000, 20-22), the work of the group always being controlled by certain external and internal conditions. The former include environmental factors and the basic task of the group whether it has been formed, whereas the latter are related to the group members (Niemistö 2000, 34-35). The model of group process, terms of group and essential factors of group work are shown in Figure 3 (Niemistö 2000).

Figure 3: Model of group process, terms of group and essential factors of group work

In many cases the concepts ‘small group’ and ‘team’ are used interchangeably in the group dynamics literature, but not all groups can be considered as teams, since group is a more inclusive term than team. Groups range in size from two to thousands, whereas teams have a narrower range of sizes

INITIAL FACTORS OF GROUP WORK

(Levi 2001, 5). Normally a group is defined as two or more people who interact in some way, whereas teams are one type of small group rather than simply a number of people working together.

Teams are usually thought of as groups with shared commitments and goals, suggesting that a team is more than a group (Johnson & Johnson 2004, 544-545; Stewart et al. 1999, 3). Katzenbach and Smith (1993) believe that the concept of a team should be limited to a fairly small number of people with complementary skills who interact directly. This helps to distinguish teams from work groups whose members jointly carry out the same tasks but do not require integration and coordination to perform the tasks. Katzenbach and Smith (1993, 213-214) distinguish teams and other forms of working groups in organisations as follows (Table 3):

Table 3: Differences between working groups and teams

Working groups vs. teams

Working groups Teams

A strong, clearly focused leader Shared leadership roles The group's purpose is the same as the broader

organisa-tion mission

Specific team purpose that the team itself delivers

Individual work-products Collective work-products

Effectiveness is measured indirectly by the group's influ-ence on others (e.g. financial performance of business)

Measures performance directly by assessing collective work-products

Individual accountability alone is evident Both team and individual accountability are evident

Individual accomplishment are recognised and rewarded Team celebration occurs, individual efforts that contribute tot he team's success are also recognised and celebrated

Meetings are efficiently run and last for short periods of time

Meetings have open-ended discussions that include active problem solving

In meetings members discuss, decide and delegate In meetings members discuss, decide and perform real work together

In a working group interdependence is low and accountability focuses on individual members rather than the group as a whole. The product of a working group is the sum of all the work produced by the members, members taking responsibility only for their own tasks. In meetings, members share information and make decisions which assist each person to do their work better, but the focus is always on individual performance (Johnson & Johnson 2004, 545). Perhaps the most critical element in this distinction is interdependence (Levi 2001, 5) which exists when an individual cannot perform a given task or fulfil a set of responsibilities alone, without the assistance of others. This is also the basic assumption in MTs: essentially, the message of teamwork is delegation and empowerment.

Team working is all about passing responsibility to working teams, and these need to be given sufficient authority to make day-to-day decisions about their work, and sufficient power to make sure that things are done properly (Haynes 1997, 2).

The success of a team depends on many factors (Levi 2001, 23, 31): the team must have the appropriate group for the performance of the task; the task must be suitable for teamwork; the team needs to combine its recourses effectively to complete the task; and the organisation must provide a supportive context for the team. Moreover, a team needs goals to focus its efforts and to evaluate its performance. A leader is also needed both to help manage the internal and external relations of teams and to orient teams toward their goals. A group’s performance depends greatly on the qualities of the individuals involved, and these qualities can be viewed in three different ways. First, the group must contain those having the knowledge, skills, and abilities which match the requirements of the task.

Second, the group must have members with the authority to represent the relevant parts of the

organisation and the power to implement the group’s decisions. Third, the group’s members must have the necessary group process skills in order to operate effectively. The creation of an effective group involves ensuring that the required diversity of knowledge and skills is present (Levi 2001, 23-24). Team member compatibility is a further important factor for understanding team composition, and a common prescription for teams is the choice of mutually compatible members (Stewart et al.

1999, 42). This can be referred to as ‘fit’ (e.g. Chatman 1991), team fit signifying positive social relationships among team members. With the exception of a few traits such as extroversion, positive relationships usually result from some level of team member similarity (Stewart et al. 1999, 42). The correct fit will depend on many factors including the industry itself, its organisational goals, values and performance, and the external environment (Flood et al. 2001, 18).

However, even though the use of teams has been seen as increasingly important in organisations, teamwork can bring with it several disadvantages. Team members often complain about wasting time in meetings which do not result in any action. Small group research has identified a number of factors and phenomena impacting negatively team performance and member satisfaction (Adams et al. 2004): for example, overdependence on a dominant leader (Edmondson et al. 2001), groupthink (Janis 1982), over-commitment to goals (Staw 1976), diffusion of responsibility (e.g. Guerin 2003), social loafing (Liden et al. 2004), and the Abilene paradox (Harvey et al. 2004), in which groups act in a manner with which members disagree because they fail to express their true feelings (Adams et al. 2004). However, Adams et al. (2004) argue that these negative factors associated with teamwork can be overcome when teams become able to learn from experience.