Team

Of particular importance is the concept of different types of teams.

Categories by subject

A Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) team looks on after the Type 91 Kai MANPAD fires a rocket at a mock airborne target.

Although the concept of a team is relatively simple, social scientists have identified many different types of teams. In general, teams either act as information processors, or take on a more active role in the task and actually perform activities. Common categories and subtypes of teams include:

Interdependent teams

A rugby union scrum

A rugby team provides a clear example of an interdependent team:

• no significant task can be accomplished without the help and cooperation of every member;
• within their team members typically specialize in different tasks (r.r the ball, [[keep goal|goal kicking]] and 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.

Team size and team composition affect team processes and team outcomes. The optimal size (and composition) of teams is debated[24] 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. Other works estimate the optimal size between 5-12 members or a number of members that can consume two pizzas.[24][25] The following extract is taken from Chong (2007):[26]

The interest in teams gained momentum in the 1980s with the publication of Belbin's (1981)[27] work on successful teams. The research into teams and teamwork followed two lines of inquiry. Writers such as Belbin (1981, 1993),[27][28] Woodcock (1989),[29] Margerison and McCann (1990),[30] Davis et al. (1992),[31] Parker (1990),[32] and Spencer and Pruss (1992)[33] focused on team roles and how these affected team performance. These studies suggested that team performance was a function of the number and type of roles team members played. The number of roles for optimal performance varied from 15 (Davis et al., 1992)[31] to four (Parker, 1990).[32] This variation has been attributed to how roles were defined. Lindgren (1997)[34] believed that, in a social psychological sense, ‘roles’ were behaviours one exhibited within the constraints assigned by the outside world to one's occupational position e.g. leader, manager, supervisor, worker etc. Personality traits, on the other hand, were internally driven and relatively stable over time and across situations. These traits affected behavioural patterns in predictable ways (Pervin, 1989)[35] and, in varying degrees, become part of the ‘role’ definition as well.

The other line of inquiry focused on measuring the ‘effectiveness’ of teams. Writers such as Deihl and Stroebe (1987),[36] Gersik (1988),[37] Evenden and Anderson (1992),[38] Furnham et al. (1993),[39] Cohen and Ledford (1994)[40] and Katzenbach (1998)[41] were concerned with high performing teams and the objective measurement of their effectiveness. McFadzean (2002)[42] believed that the appearance of a number of models of team effectiveness was indicative of a variety of variables such as personality, group size, work norms, status relationships, group structure etc. that can impact on team ‘effectiveness’ and its measurement.

David Cooperrider suggests that the larger the group, the better. This is because a larger group is able to address concerns of the whole system. So while a large team may be ineffective at performing a given task, Cooperider says that the relevance of that task should be considered, because determining whether the team is effective first requires identifying what needs to be accomplished.

A team of oxen yoked together

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 divide into subteams according to need.

Many teams go through a life-cycle of stages, identified by Bruce Tuckman as: forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning.

Team cognition has been defined as an "emergent state that refers to the manner in which knowledge important to team functioning is organized, represented, and distributed within team."[43] This emergent state can manifest in two ways. Compositional emergence occurs when individual level cognition is similar in form and function to its manifestation at team-level. Compilational emergence, on the other hand, represents a greater degree of synergy among team members and represents a new-team level construct. As such, higher degrees of compilational emergence are more closely related to team process and performance than is compositional emergence.

Research into team cognition has focused on how teams develop mental models and transactive memory systems. Mental models refer to the degree in which team members have similar cognitive understanding of the situation and performance goals which include shared representations of the task. Transactive memory systems relate to how knowledge is distributed among team members and retrieved in a coordinated fashion, the way that team member rely on knowledge that is possessed by other members and how knowledge sets are differentiated within a team. The emergence of team cognition is thought to impact team effectiveness because it can positively affect a team's behavioural process, motivational states, and performance.

Team cognition consists of two broad types of content. Task related models are related to knowledge of the major duties and resources possessed by the team. Team-related models refer to interactions and interdependence among the team members.

When companies are in trouble, they often restructure into teams. However, putting people into teams does not solve problems; if not done thoughtfully, this may even cause more problems.[23] The formation of teams is most appropriate for tasks that are difficult, complex and important. These types of tasks are often beyond the skills and abilities of any single individual. However, the formation of a team to complete such tasks does not guarantee success. Rather, the proper implementation of teams is positively related to both member satisfaction and increased effectiveness. Organizations who want to receive the benefits afforded by teams need to carefully consider how teams are built and implemented. Often, teams are created without providing members any training to develop the skills necessary to perform well in a team setting. This is critical, because teamwork can be cognitively and interpersonally demanding. Even when a team consists of talented individuals, these individuals must learn to coordinate their actions and develop functional interpersonal interactions.[44] In their review of the relevant scientific literature, Kozlowski and Ilgen demonstrated that such training can greatly benefit team effectiveness.[45] Finally, teams are more likely to be successful when they are fully supported by the organization. Take for example New United Motor Manufacturing Inc (NUMMI). Originally it was a General Motors automotive manufacturing plant that had to close due to numerous issues, causing it to be the worst performing GM plant. NUMMI was the collaborative creation of General Motors and Toyota. These two companies took most of the same work force and created one of the most productive automotive plants, producing high quality cars. They did this by implementing a new team structure, where management and the company was more supportive of the union workforce.[46]

Some people use the word "team" when they mean "employees". A "sales team" is a common example of this loose or perhaps euphemistic usage, though inter-dependencies exist in organisations, and a sales group can be let down by poor performance in other parts of the organisation upon which sales depend, like delivery, after-sales service, etc. However "sales staff" is a more accurate description of the typical arrangement.

Groups develop into teams in four stages:[47]

1. dependency and inclusion
2. counter dependency and fighting
3. trust and structure
4. work

In the first stage, group development is characterized by members' dependency on the designated leader (identical to 'Forming' in Tuckman's model). In the second stage, the group seeks to free itself from its dependence on the leader and groups have conflicts about goals and procedures (identical to 'Storming' in Tuckman's model). In the third stage, the group manages to work through the conflicts (identical to 'Norming' in Tuckman's model). And in the last stage, groups focus on team productivity (identical to 'Performing' in Tuckman's model).

One aspect of teams that can set them apart from other groups is their level of autonomy. Hackman developed a hierarchical model of team autonomy which consists of four levels of team self-management. It is imagined along a continuum, starting with a manager-led team in which team members complete the required tasks but someone outside the team performs the executive functions. Next in the hierarchy are self-managing teams, followed by self-designing teams. Finally, at the top of the hierarchy, come self-governing teams. The model describes four different types of control that fully self-governing teams can possess. These include control over the execution of the task, monitoring and managing work processes, control over the design and performance of a team, and setting the overall direction of the team.[44]

To understand how teams deliver extra performance, we need to distinguish between teams and working groups. A working group's performance is made up of the individual results of all its individual members. A team's performance is made up of both individual results and collective results. Teams produce work products/results though the joint contributions of team members. This is what makes the team's collective performance greater than the sum of all individual members’ best performance. In short, a team is more than the sum of its parts.[48]

The “team” portion of team leadership is based on individuals and how each share the work between one another. First, individuals must see that they are a team, not simply a group. Each member takes on a portion of the group's leadership and responsibility. Each member helps other members to see their strengths and how they complement each other.

Second, the team sets result driven goals. To achieve this, the designated leader guides the team based decision making process. The team clarifies or agrees on attainable goals. Additionally, they agree on steps to obtain them. Furthermore, the team determines if they need to take an immediate action, or if they can simply watch a situation for a period of time.

Third, if the team decides to take an action, it may be something they change internally, such as clarifying their goals, receiving training, collaborating, or building commitment as a team. If not internally, this action can be something they will act on outside of the team, such as networking with others or negotiating for support.

Lastly, the team's leader will contribute by finding ways to improve team work. This may be done through questionnaires given to the team. These can address any problems, or seek avenues the team would like to see improved. A strength of the team is its continuous stride for improvement and openness to interventional assistance.

In Leadership - Theory and Practice 7th Edition by Peter G. Northouse, he states that, “A team is a type of organizational group that is composed of members who are interdependent, who share common goals, and who must coordinate their activities to accomplish these goals,” (Northouse, 363). Overall, the team will lead each other to bring forth their own individual ideas and strengths, which create opportunities for great success.

A common myth is that to function effectively, teams need a strong, powerful, and charismatic leader. In general, leaders who control all the details, manage alle the key relationships in the team, have all the good ideas, and use the team to execute their "vision" are usually overworked and underproductive.[23]

Teams are in need of transformational leaders not more managers, with the important caveat that the world does not function well without managers. Transformational leaders engage in the following behaviors:[49]

• Idealized Influence: The ability to engage other people by your actions. They like the way that you do things, they like the way the you treat people, and they like your approach to problems. Charisma is often associated with idealized influence.
• Inspirational Motivation: The ability to inspire others with your vision. Those who lead with inspirational motivation will enable their followers to achieve things they did not believe were possible.
• Intellectual Stimulation: The ability to stimulate others to be creative and challenge preconceptions they possess. This behavior enables a leader to tap into creativity as a competitive advantage.
• Individualized Consideration: The ability to truly know those that you wish to lead. This behavior enables leaders to realize and draw out the full potential of others.

• Devine, D. J. (2002). A review and integration of classification systems relevant to teams in organizations. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 291–310.
• Forsyth, D. R. (2006). Teams. In Forsyth, D. R., Group Dynamics (5th Ed.) (P. 351-377). Belmont: CA, Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.