CHAPTER 1
OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS AND HISTORICAL LOOK
I. Overview of Part 1
Part 1 will look at the definitions of terms which will
be used throughout this project. In defining these terms, it is useful to look
at them with a historical perspective; this clarifies the definitions.
II. Types of Groups
There are several types of groups which appear in
literature about teamwork. These generally fall under the categories of 1) work
groups, 2) work teams, and 3) self-directed teams. Here the various definitions
for these terms will be included with a historical look at groups and teams.
There is also the "non-group," called a collection
of people. A collection is a number of people that have no sense of belonging
to a group, being considered a collection by the physical location of its
membership (Buchholz 8). Schein refers to these as aggregates of people
(Schein 145). Schein gives the example of an aggregate of people on a street
corner waiting for a bus, or an entire department or division of an
organization, where they generally do not all interact and are not all aware of
each other (Schein 145).
III. Groups and Work Groups
A work group is a group in that is engaged in work
in an organizational setting (Hackman 4). Work groups have been the focus of
many research studies. Schein, who is considered an expert authority in the
field of organizational groups, defines organizational work groups as "any
number of people who (1) interact with each other (2) are psychologically aware
of one another, and (3) perceive themselves to be a group" (Schein 1980: 145).
The term group was broadly defined by Bales in 1950 as "any number of
persons engaged in a single face-to face meeting or series of meetings in which
each member receives some impression of each other member...as an individual
person, even though it be only to recall that the other person was present
"(33). Alderfer defined groups as intact social systems, complete with
boundaries, interdependence among members, and differentiated member roles
(126).
Researchers have created lengthy summaries of literature
about current thinking on groups, focusing on the categorization,
classification, and typologies of groups (Goodman et al). Others have looked at
work group effectiveness from an anthropological perspective, categorizing and
classifying teams and creating typologies and surveys for teams (Schwartzman).
Kenneth Bettenhausen compiled the principal findings of over 250 studies on
small group dynamics published between January 1986 and October 1989.
Bettenhausen looked at four areas: 1) the tensions between individuals and
groups; 2) the group's interaction content; 3) social psychological areas of
groups polarization, social influence, social loafing, group cohesion,
commitment, conflict, and goal setting; and 4) group effectiveness and types of
teams (Bettenhausen 345-381). These researchers have created effective and
voluminous summaries which will not be duplicated here.
Studies of group behaviors were conducted in the 1800s.
During this period groups were called the pathological crowd (Patton, et
al. 5). Studies of group behaviors centered around dyads as the basic social
unit, and the family as the primary group. These studies were philosophically
oriented, studying the origins of people's social behaviors (Patton et al.
5).
The first use of experimental methodologies for the study
of small groups occurred in the 1930s. During this period the experimenters
created small groups and observed the operation of the group, and the invent of
terms like groups dynamics and force filed analysis (Lewin 1951).
This included the Hawthorne studies, which showed that the need to be accepted
and liked by one's fellow workers is possibly more important than economic
incentives offered by management (Roethlisberger & Dickson ).
Studies on group behaviors were conducted in 1947 at the
National Training Laboratories in Bethel, Maine (Ogilivie 88). These training
groups ("T-groups") were observed for self-diagnosing and personal change
behaviors. Groups were also studied in 1949 for the effects of cooperation and
competition (Deutsch 33 ).
IV. Teams or Work Teams
As in the case of work groups, no standard definition has
been accepted for the term team or work team. There have been
hundreds of articles written and books published about teamwork, each with its
own definition for these terms.
Generally recognized as the first study of team behaviors
is Trist and Bamford's work of 1951. This study looked at the ways that work
teams satisfied the social, psychological, and technical needs of the
organization (Trist and Bamford 3-38).
V. Current Definitions of Teams
Literature on teams and teamwork follows a common thread in
the definition of the term team. The author will use the definition to
outline his or her work. For example, the definition of the term team
will include from three to five attributes which the author considers important
for teams, and will then base the rest of his or her work on defining those
attributes. Common attributes center around performance, interpersonal
interaction, effective members, and goals.
Larson and LaFasto define a team as two or more people with
a specific performance objective or recognizable goal and coordinated activity
among members (19). Francis and Young define a team as a "high-performing task
group whose members are actively interdependent and share common performance
objectives"(Improving Work Groups: A Practical Manual for Team Building
9). Sanborn's definition (Teambuilt: Making Teamwork Work)
is "a highly communicative group of people
with different backgrounds, skills, and abilities with a shared sense of mission
and clearly identified goals." Katzenbach and Smith give in
The Discipline of Teams: A Mindbook-Workbook for Delivering Small Group Performance this definition of a
team: "a team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are
committed to a common purpose, set of performance goals, and approach for which
they hold themselves mutually accountable" (Katzenbach and Smith,
The Discipline of Teams: A Mindbook-Workbook for Delivering Small Group Performance: 113). Joy and Joy define a team as "a group of
individuals, bonded together, striving to achieve a common purpose through
mutual cooperation" (2). Maginn defines a team as "a group of people working
together to reach a goal that they all believe in and that would be difficult,
if not impossible, to achieve by people working alone" (5).
VI. Groups as Contrasted to Teams
Some definitions of the term group involve
interpersonal issues and are close to the definition of the term team.
Hersey and Blanchard define a group as "two or more people interacting in which
the existence of all is necessary for the needs of the individual group members
to be satisfied"(320). Similarly, Patton, Giffen, and Patton define a group as
"three to eight people with a common goal and established norms, who are
interdependent and engaged in face-to-face communication (5).
As people begin to work together, they become a group.
That group may evolve into a team over time. As an aid to team leaders and
facilitators, authors have shown the gap that exists between groups and teams.
Table 1 shows how authors do just that, particularly in the popular literature
which has appeared on teamwork in the past five years.
Authors contrast groups and teams six areas: 1)
leadership, 2) accountability, 3) goal or purpose, 4) results, and 5)
behaviors and emotions.
A. Leadership
Hersey and Blanchard define leading as "influencing the behaviors of others"
(2):
1) A working group is said to have a
strong clearly focused leader, while a team has shared leadership roles (Katzenbach
and Smith,
The Wisdom of Teams : Creating the High-Performance Organization: 113).
2) A team has participative
management, while a group has autocratic management (Teambuilt: Making Teamwork Work).
B. Accountability
Team accountability is "clear and meaningful performance demands to which they
hold the organization and, most important, themselves accountable" (Katzenbach
and Smith,
The Wisdom of Teams : Creating the High-Performance Organization: 24). There are three types of
accountability: 1) individual accountablility, where demands are placed on
individuals ; 2) group accountability, where demands are placed on groups or
teams; and 3) mutual accountability, wherre the performance demands are agreed
upon by members of the same team (Katzenbach and Smith,
The Wisdom of Teams : Creating the High-Performance Organization
23; Reilly and Jones 227):
-
Groups have individual (and
sometimes group) accountability, while teams combine individual, group, and
mutual accountabilities.
-
Our culture tends to favor and
reward individual accountablity (Katzenbach
and Smith,
The Wisdom of Teams : Creating the High-Performance Organization:
25)
C. Goal or Purpose A
goal is a statement of results to be achieved (Maddux 36):
-
A group's purpose is the same
as the broader organizational mission, while team members have a common purpose
and goals (Katzenbach and Smith, The Discipline of Teams: 113; Sanborn
Teambuilt: Making Teamwork Work;
Reilly and Jones 227; Shonk 1992, 5-6).
-
Members of working groups take
no responsibility for results other than their own (Katzenbach and Smith,
The Discipline of Teams: 112). Team members recognize that both personal and
team goals are accomplished best with mutual support (Maddux 5).
-
Team members have a sense of
"owning" their goals, creating more dedication to the goals (Maddux 5). Parker
gives the example of runners in a marathon. Though they have a common purpose
and are together, they are not a team (16).
D. Results
A group gives individual work-products while a team gives collective
work-products (Katzenbach and Smith, The Wisdom of Teams: 53):
-
A group has no
significant need for increased performance, while a team has an need for
increased performance (Katzenbach and Smith, The Wisdom of Teams: 113;
Parker 16).
-
The sum of the team is
better than individual parts. This is called synergy (Sanborn
Teambuilt: Making Teamwork Work; Reilly and Jones
227; Katzenbach and Smith, The
Wisdom of Teams : Creating the High-Performance Organization).
E. Behaviors and Emotions
Intergroup, or between group behaviors, are "the dynamics occurring
between two or more groups when they interact", while intragroup behavior is
dynamics within the group (Mainiero and Tromley 265):
-
Working groups thrive in
hierarchical organizations (Katzenbach and Smith,
The Wisdom of Teams : Creating the High-Performance Organization:
89).
-
Competition between members for
individual performance targets is common and sometimes effective (Katzenbach and
Smith,
The Wisdom of Teams : Creating the High-Performance Organization: 89; Sanborn
Teambuilt: Making Teamwork Work). A team has a clearly identified
external opponent (Sanborn
Teambuilt: Making Teamwork Work). Team is self-starter, while group is "kick-started"
(Sanborn
Teambuilt: Making Teamwork Work).
-
Teams enjoy work, while groups
tolerate work (Sanborn
Teambuilt: Making Teamwork Work).
-
A team may feel a higher sense of urgency than a group (Sanborn
Teambuilt: Making Teamwork Work;
Larson and LaFasto 18).
-
A team is interdependent
(Reilly and Jones 227; Maddux 5; Shonk 1992: 5-6).
-
Group members feel that they
are together for administrative purposes only (Maddox 5).
-
Low trust in a group is caused
by the lack of communication and roles (Maddox 5).
