What is a team?

A team is a group of individuals who must work interdependently in order to attain their individual and organizational objectives. Teams can be differentiated from other types of groups by certain definable characteristics. According to Reilly and Jones (1974), there are four essential elements: (1) The group must have a charter or reason for working together; (2) members of the group must be interdependent—they need each other’s experience, ability, and commitment in order to arrive at mutual goals; (3) group members must be committed to the idea that working together as a group leads to more effective decisions than working in isolation; (4) the group must be accountable as a functioning unit within a larger organizational context. (p. 227) The most obvious example of a team is an athletic team. The members have a purpose, which gives them an identity. Each player has a unique function (position) that must be integrated with that of the other members. The players are aware and supportive of the need for interdependent interaction, and the team usually operates within the framework of a larger organization (a league). Not all working groups, however, are teams, nor should they necessarily be. The faculty of a department in a university is a good contrast to an athletic team. Although there is a reason to work together, and departmental faculty members do function as part of a larger organization, there is very little need for interdependent action, since normally each member is totally responsible for the design, execution, and evaluation of his or her own work, i.e., teaching and/or research. In this case, team building would have little or no relevance. (Recently, a professor jokingly described her department as “a bunch of screaming anarchists held together by a common parking lot.”) Other examples of work groups that are not teams are committees, in which the purpose is representation, rather than interdependence; training groups, for which no charter exists; and “love puddles,” in which the emphasis is on getting along well rather than on working together effectively. From a Gestalt point of view, there are several necessary assumptions concerning the nature of teams. The first assumption is that all the talent necessary to allow the team to be anything it wishes is already present within the group. The second is that everyone already knows what he or she wants to do; the prime focus is on how the members are stopping themselves from doing what they want. Third, the team’s maximum potential for strength and effectiveness is limited only by the limitations each individual member sets on his or her potential. And, fourth, the work itself is potentially exciting. Two perspectives can be applied to the question of how team effectiveness is achieved: vertical (through leadership) and horizontal (through group dynamics). Much has been written and spoken advocating the participative leadership approach as the one best way to manage team development; currently, the participative approach is highly favored in the business setting. Nevertheless, autocracy or any other particular leadership style is not precluded from being effective; one has only to look at the sports team to see that this is true. It is highly unlikely that either the Green Bay Packers or a high school football team would vote as a team, prior to each game, on what plays will be run. More important than the particular leadership style is the team leader’s ability to combine individual efforts into group output, provide the necessary liaison between the team and the total organization, and accomplish this in a manner consistent with the values of the team leader and other members. The very nature of teamwork depends on the effectiveness of the interaction among team members. The concepts of contact, role, and values are elements of effective team interaction. Contact Good contact is based on authenticity among team members. It implies that each individual is aware of his or her individuality and is willing to state views and ideas clearly and to support the principles of awareness and conscious choice. Effective work teams are also characterized by relationships that are fairly relaxed but not necessarily warm; i.e., team members get along well enough to attain organizational objectives. The norm can be stated: “You are free to be who you are, and I am free not to like you, as long as this does not detract from team effectiveness.” An environment that encourages the open expression of disagreement as well as agreement accepts the reality that an individual may like some people more than others. This is legitimate as long as openly stated preferences do not result in discriminatory, unfair, or task-destructive behavior. Role Two elements, function and relationship, are combined in the concept of role. Function is the specific task each member is there to perform; relationship relates to the interaction necessary to get the task completed—with whom each member must interact and how the interaction occurs. In the well-functioning team, role clarity is evident. The team’s objectives are clear and agreed on, and each team member knows each member’s unique contribution to those objectives, thus eliminating any duplication of effort. Usually, the effective team consists of individuals who have complementary, rather than similar, talents and approaches. Values All decisions, whether made by individuals or by groups, are based on values. Three specific values seem to identify good working teams: task effectiveness, dealing in the present, and conflict viewed as an asset. Task Effectiveness. The well-functioning group places a high value on task effectiveness, with greater emphasis on doing the right things, rather than on doing things right. This value implies that the team also focuses on the objective, or end result, rather than only on the team’s ongoing activity. Dealing in the Present. The effective team focuses on “right here, right now,” an emphasis that allows a flexible response to changing conditions within the team itself and within the larger organization. The team can make more appropriate decisions when it is concentrating on what is happening rather than why it is happening. Conflict Viewed as an Asset. Conflict provides two very necessary elements to the effective work group. First, it is the prime source of energy in systems, and, second, it is the major source of creativity. Since conflict is absolutely unavoidable, in any case, an effective team’s approach to dealing with it is to use it rather than to try to resolve, avoid, or suppress it. More potential for ineffectiveness and marginal performance exists in avoiding conflict than in conflict itself. When conflict is seen as an asset, the preferred approach is to deal with it through collaboration, although competition or even compromise is not precluded, when called for by the situation (Karp, 1976). Although establishing teams frequently involves much hard work, the effort provides three important factors to group effectiveness: synergy, interdependence, and a support base. What energy is to the individual, synergy is to groups. The synergy of a group is always potentially greater than the sum of the combined energies of its members. Thus, it is not infrequent in laboratory exercises that a group effort results in a better performance than that achieved by the group’s most competent member (Nemiroff & Pasmore, 1975). When team concepts are applied to group formation, the result is not only the effective use of energy, but also the creation of new energy. Effective teams are made up of highly independent individuals who must combine their separate efforts in order to produce an organizational result. The focus of the team effort is on combining, rather than on coordinating, resources. Interdependence in today’s organizations is a simple reality. Most products and services are too complex, and their respective technologies too specialized, for any one individual to accomplish alone. The team concept provides the necessary link to approach organizational objectives from a position of strength and creativity. It is no overstatement that the average adult spends most of his or her waking hours in a work setting. It is also a reality that the individual carries all his or her needs with him or her at all times, regardless of the location or situation. From this perspective, the quality of life must be attended to in the work setting as much as in the home setting. The team constructed along authentic lines has the potential to provide social and emotional support for its members, producing a more satisfying and work productive environment. It is important to note that, in order for a group truly to function as a support base, the group norms that emerge for any specific team must originate from within the team itself and not represent a set of “shoulds” from the behavioral sciences, social institutions, or other external sources. Sometimes, also, it is simply more fun to work with someone else than to work alone. Team construction is one of many viable organizational approaches and structures. It is a situational alternative and not a matter of organizational dogma and clearly needs to be based on conscious choice. Some questions can help determine whether teams are appropriate in a particular organizational situation: Is there a need for interdependent work in order to meet organizational objectives and, if so, to what extent? Can individual satisfaction or higher and better output be better attained through the combination of individual efforts? If the responses to these questions are positive, team building would seem to be a good choice.