Groups or teams?
DarioFiorica (Talk | contribs) (→Introduction: groups vs teams) |
DarioFiorica (Talk | contribs) (→Introduction: groups vs teams) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
== Introduction: groups vs teams == | == 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. | 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. | ||
| Line 25: | Line 24: | ||
'''Figure 1 not uploaded yet.''' | '''Figure 1 not uploaded yet.''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | == From group to team: The Team Performance Curve == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Katzenbach and Smith in 1993 developed the “Team performance curve” which illustrates the steps that 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”(Reference 3). 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 (Reference: Project). | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
Revision as of 12:31, 18 February 2023
Contents |
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
Katzenbach and Smith in 1993 developed the “Team performance curve” which illustrates the steps that 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”(Reference 3). 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 (Reference: Project).
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization, Katzenbach, Jon R.; Smith, Douglas K., Harvard Business School Press, 1993
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Project Management Leadership: building creative teams, Rory Burke, Steve Barron, 2nd edition, 2014
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Principles of Management, University of Minnesota, 2015
- ↑ 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
