Groups or teams?

Revision as of 13:59, 18 February 2023

Abstract

In the complex practice of project management, the most important role is given to groups and teams. Initially, this article introduces the reader to the main differences between groups and teams in the project management field itself, explaining how the members interact and coordinate the tasks assigned, and generally observing how the project manager is involved in the two different cases.

Subsequently, according to Katzenbach and Smith (1993)^[1], the focus is switched to the impact that groups, or teams can have on a project in terms of performance and effectiveness. In this paragraph, a deep explanation of the features of different types of teams is provided. In addition, following the team performance curve, the attention is paid on the path that leads working groups to become high-performing teams.

At this point, it results important to explain, according to an adapted model of David Casey (1993)^[2], when the organizations ought to choose a group instead of a team for managing a project. The crucial role is played by uncertainty, which is a clear indicator of when a team is needed, or if the “individual bests” of a group are enough to face the intricacies of the project.

But how is a team created and which phases a team go through during its development? The Tuckman-Jensen’s model^{[2] [3]}is introduced, guiding the reader to the Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing-Adjourning steps of the model. This model, indeed, is correlated to the Katzenbach and Smith (1993) one, previously mentioned.

Eventually, possible issues within the team and groups are discussed. This is the case, in particular, of social loafing and groupthink ^[2], opposite situations that can occur when working in a project, but which lead to the same, counter-productive, results. This last part is followed by a final reflection of what argued in the whole article.

Introduction: groups vs teams

In order to dive into the criteria used within a company to form groups and teams, an introduction about the main differences between the two is first needed. In our everyday life, the words “teams” and “groups” are often used equally just to refer to a number of people combined together due to their common interests, or to their friendship and so on. Regarding the project environment, it is most likely that groups and teams are working on the same project itself, and this is the reason why a strict distinction has to be underlined.

A group is a collection of individuals^[3] working individually on their own agenda, without collaborating with the other members, in order to reach a common purpose. In this case, there is no cross-sharing of information, no synergy, and lack in unity of purpose^[2]. In groups, the project manager is responsible to take decisions and each member of the group communicates only with the manager, who represents their only reference point. This type of management kills creativity and also decision making process, and individual problem-solving cases are set to be the least possible for group members, while the responsibility of the decisions taken depends just on the project manager^[2].

On the other hand, a team is defined as a cohesive smaller group of people working towards the same aim (the team agenda). Team members have authority and autonomy to pursue their own ideas and are committed to the common vision of the team ^[3]. They work to reach relevant solutions for the project and are highly motivated, involved and responsible for their own work^[2]. According to ^[4] in a more and more uncertain and risky market, the improvement of productivity and job satisfaction through the creation of a team is the best starting point for success. “A team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they are mutually accountable (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993)^[1].”

Figure 1 not uploaded yet.

From group to team: The Team Performance Curve

^{[3] [2] [1]}

Katzenbach and Smith in 1993 ^[1] developed the “Team performance curve” which illustrates the steps a generic group have to go through in order to become a high-performing team. Looking at Figure 2 (figure 2 not uploaded yet), the working group can turn into four different types of teams with the final scope to reach the best performance impact and team effectiveness.

Working group

The curve starts with the working group. It is a group of individuals whose total output is the sum of “Individual bests” ^[5]. The members’ interaction is focused mainly on sharing information useful for each individual to operate and manage the respective area of responsibility, so there is no jointly effort in reaching the goal predetermined. The group is created for a specific task and, for this reason, frequent changes to the group do not affect the overall performance. The group is considered as a low-risk environment, where the members do not have to take responsibilities beyond their tasks ^[2].

Pseudo team

According to Katzenbach and Smith, 1993^[1]: “In pseudo-teams, the sum of the whole is less than the potential of the individual parts”. The process of turning into a team rather than a working group, requires the members to be ready to face conflicts (this is the “Storming” stage of Tuckman’s model, see below), but what happens is that some teams can remain blocked in this stage creating what are called “Pseudo-teams”. As stated before, in order to become a team, the members have to commit to common aims and work collectively to achieve them. In “pseudo-teams”, however, members are not willing to take the risk of being a team, avoiding to cooperate towards the same purposes. As a consequence, performance goals are not set and the “pseudo-teams” stand at the bottom of the graph (Figure 2), being the weakest team in terms of performance. The project, or team managers, have to go through this phase focusing on how the members can effectively contribute to the common aim and, as a consequence, to become a stronger team. A potentially dangerous idea related to pseudo teams is for them to pretend to be considered as a “Real team”, while delivering lower-quality results ^[2].

Potential team

Potential teams are part of each organization. Members strive to improve the overall performance of the team, as usually there should be either more clarity regarding the final objective, or a stricter form of discipline towards a combined working approach^[1]. In addition, workers are still on their way to reach a mutual accountability. Looking at the graph, the path from “Potential team” to “Real team” is the steepest as teams in this stage go through different relationships-related difficulties and problems in delivering high-performance tasks. “Potential teams that take the risks to climb the curve inevitably confront obstacles. Some teams overcome them, others get stuck. The worst thing a stuck team can do, however, is to abandon the discipline of the team basics. Performance, not team building, can save potential teams, no matter how stuck”.^[1] Moreover, the line between “Working Group” and “Potential Teams” represents the concern of the groups to become teams. Developing a team attitude means fully commitment to the common purpose, willingness to face project-related issues and interpersonal team-members problems, and to embrace the idea of mutual responsibility within the whole team; not all the members are capable to be part of a team, this is why the process requires proper competencies, high-level of expertise, and a rigorous hands-on attitude to work closely with others.

Real team

Real teams include precise features^[1]:

• Small number of people: theoretically, also a large number of people can become a team; however, the possibility that a big team of people split into sub-teams is high. The main causes could be the difficulties of collaborating, sharing information and taking jointly accountability. Moreover, issues in finding common spaces and the right time to meet all together can spring up (Reference: Wisdom).
• Complementary Skills: three main categories of skills are underlined. Technical or functional expertise, problem-solving and decision-making skills and interpersonal skills. The combination of all the three categories make a team successful and ensure noticeable levels of performance. On the contrary, overemphasizing the skills in the team selection is a common error, as the teams ought to be also a powerful way of learning and development.
• Commitment to the purpose and to the performance aims. Teams are totally committed to reach a common goal. Members work, collaborate, and interact towards high-level performances. Team workers are also willing to face conflicts and to go over relationships’ issues in order to reach the predetermined aim. The purpose is clear, the strategy is set and mutual accountability lead each person to feel motivated and appreciated.

To sum up, Katzenbach and Smith described the “Real Teams” as: “A real team is usually comprised of a small number of people who have complementary skills and where each individual exhibits the same level of commitment to a common purpose and a shared and agreed working approach for which they are mutually accountable. Real teams also display characteristics that respond positively to adversity.” Looking at Figure 2, “Real Teams” are capable to generate high performance impacts being effective. The curve to High-Performing Team is not as steep as the previous stages. ADD THE FIGURE REAL TEAMS VS WORKING GROUPS

High-performing team

The characteristics presented on the “Real Team” are met. The big difference is related to the fact that the high-performance team members are enthusiastic to help each other, are committed to one another’s personal growth and success. The ambition of reaching the highest levels of performance is even stronger and the complementary skills ensure each individual to be interchangeable and willing to operate in each task (Reference: Project). This is the deepest and most powerful example for “Real” and “Potential” Teams aiming to reach the most qualitative performance-based result in a project.

References

1. ↑ ^{1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7} The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization, Katzenbach, Jon R.; Smith, Douglas K., Harvard Business School Press, 1993
2. ↑ ^{2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8} Project Management Leadership: building creative teams, Rory Burke, Steve Barron, 2nd edition, 2014
3. ↑ ^{3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3} Principles of Management, University of Minnesota, 2015
4. ↑ Groups vs. Teams: Which One Are You Leading?, Cori Armstead, MSN, RN, CEN, Dustin Bierman, DNP, RN, Pam Bradshaw, DNP, MBA, RN, NEA-BC, Thalia Martin, DNP, RN, CPHQ, and Karen Wright, DNP, RN-BC, June 2016
5. ↑ Katzenbach and Smith: Praxis Framework, https://www.praxisframework.org/en/library/katzenbach-and-smith