MGT 415 Group Behavior in Organizations Week 1 Introduction

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoin… 1/41

Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

De�ine groups and basic group types.

Differentiate between groups, aggregates, and social categories.

Identify the basic properties of groups.

Discuss the in�luence of group properties on group dynamics and performance.

Analyze the relationship between work groups and teams.

Determine when it is most appropriate to use either a work group or team.

Describe signi�icant factors in typing teams.

Explain the signi�icance of primary task types.

1Understanding Groups and Teams

Fuse/Thinkstock

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoin… 2/41

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoin… 3/41

Introduction

Ellis is one of nine business analysts at a midsized manufacturing company. Over the years, Ellis and his coworkers have learned to work collaboratively to analyze business processes and make suggestions for improvements. Learning to work in a collaborative manner has enabled the division to collectively decide what its goals are and how work should be shared among the employees.

When collaborating across several projects, it is not uncommon for Ellis and his coworkers to rotate between leadership and support roles. For example, on one project that examined current manufacturing processes for a speci�ic product line, Ellis led the team members as they looked for process improvements. On another project, Ellis served as one of the people who collected data, and in this instance he worked under the direction of a coworker. Under this arrangement, the designated project leader is not solely accountable for the division’s results; members of the entire division hold themselves accountable, since they are more than just a department or group—they are a team.

Occasionally, members of the business analysis team are assigned to work with others on special projects. Ellis has recently been assigned to work on such a project with members of several different departments, and he’s noticed some differences between working with his usual team and working in this new con�iguration. While those working on this project get along well and are committed to achieving their goal, they had no say in what their goal was—the organization decided their goal for them, as well as steps to take and the timeline for reaching it. Ellis is not used to having such decisions made for him.

Ellis has noticed other differences as well. In this new con�iguration, he has only one function for this project. On his usual team, however, he usually collaborates or consults on several aspects of a project. With only one function to perform, Ellis is only held accountable for his speci�ic contribution instead of feeling mutually accountable for the entire project. The �inal difference Ellis has noticed is that the project leader was chosen by the organization, rather than those working on the project. Although the leader may be well suited to lead the project, she was designated by someone external instead of emerging as the natural leader through interactions. In contrast, when working on his team, Ellis and his coworkers are able to select the best person to lead the project, and they can change leadership when necessary to meet the project’s demands.

Ellis has come to realize that for this special project, he is part of a work group rather than a team. In work groups, the designated group leader determines the goal, how it will be achieved, and task assignments. Group members are only accountable for their individually assigned activities—the leader assigned by the organization is ultimately responsible for the group’s performance. The business analysis team Ellis usually works with functions differently. Team members collaborate to determine their goal, task assignments, and steps for achieving the desired outcome. The work, accountability, and leadership for the project are shared amongst the team members. Ellis realizes that there are many ways to work together within the organization, and that being part of a work group can expand his �lexibility and value as an employee. He decides to put aside his team-based expectations, and invest his energy into becoming an effective member of the work group.

From birth to death, we hold membership within a wide range of collectivities and groups. This begins with those we are literally born into—family, community, culture—and continues through a lifetime of groups in which membership is attained through our personal choices, qualities, situations, or achievements. These groups simultaneously energize us, support us, and even frustrate us, in part because we cannot escape their in�luence.

Among the many groups we associate with throughout our lifetime, most of us will eventually �ind ourselves members of a particularly challenging, and rewarding, variation—the team. Teams may well be the de�ining characteristic of business in the new millennium. Whereas they were once only a desirable element, teams have become almost universally acknowledged as required in organizations that want to remain competitive. The shift in management focus toward facilitating effective coordination, collaboration, and teamwork places a very tangible value on understanding groups and how they function. Moving beyond material gains, this knowledge enriches our social interactions and our external and internal experience of the world.

Most of us intuitively recognize groups and teams and the value they have in our lives. The groups we choose, and that choose us, impact what we say, how we act, and what we think as we incorporate feedback from family, friends, employers, and others in our self-identities and self-descriptions (Hogg, 2005) and integrate the opinions and perspectives of others into how we perceive and conceptualize reality (Gaertner, Iuzzini, Witt, & Orina, 2006).

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoin… 4/41

We think and speak the language (and jargon) created by our groups: “That’s so cool!” We consciously and subconsciously adjust our moods to the emotional tone of our groups and react to our perception of group moods. We compare our performances—good or bad—with those of others and evaluate our own performances based on perceived group reaction: “I blew that presentation.” We base many of our values and ethics on group expectations and values; our “shoulds,” “oughts,” and “to-dos” are often determined by the groups we associate with.

Recognizing and gravitating toward groups is an instinctual phenomenon that is so wholly natural and unconscious for most of us that we often �ind it hard to explain how we recognize different types of groups and why we value them. Chapter 1 explores the fundamental questions: What are groups? How do their basic dynamics and properties impact us in our workplace and in our lives? What are teams—and why are they held uniquely valuable among the other types of groups?

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoin… 5/41

1.1 What Are Groups?

Consider a construction crew, a carpool club, a theater audience, and the participants in an online chat forum. Some of these are groups and some are not. A group is more than a collection of people who share some characteristic or circumstance. Elements, objects, and even people can be categorized into groupings, or sets based on shared qualities, including physical location or activity. However, in the social sciences the term group refers to cohesive social units in which people share emotional and social connections as well as other characteristics. Although many people casually refer to any collection of people as a group, most of us intuitively recognize the difference between a set of people who share some categorical quality and people who are meaningfully interconnected (Ip, Chiu, & Wan, 2006; Lickel, Hamilton, & Sherman, 2000; Magee & Tiedens, 2006).

Still, even the experts �ind it hard to agree on a clear de�inition for group (Forsyth, 2014). Common ground emerges when we examine the speci�ic qualities that groups exhibit:

Identi�ication as a social unit Interdependence between members Cohesion around some common interest or purpose Meaningful interaction between and among members

Using these as a foundation, we can de�ine a group as an identi�iable social unit in which members of an interdependent collective share some common interest or purpose and engage in meaningful interactions (Brown, 2000; Frey & Konieczka, 2010; Gould, 2004; Hackman & Katz, 2010).

For most of us, family is the �irst group. As we move beyond the immediate social relationships of our family unit, we begin to associate with other small groups, made up of our friends and peers. We also become aware of our af�iliation with larger categories and collectives, such as community, nationality, religious and ethnic background, and social class. This is our initiation into a lifetime of group membership. Af�iliations are unavoidable and necessary in today’s society. The groups we grow up with in�luence our worldview, or our underlying assumptions of what the world is and how it should be. They guide our thought and behavioral patterns, shape our decision making, and help us assimilate and interact within the society in which we are raised.

Pause for moment and make a mental list of the all the groups of which you are currently a part. Are family and friends on that list? How about classmates or coworkers, people in your apartment complex, or the people you have friended online? What about religious, political, or ethnic associations? Are U.S. citizens a group? How about people you interact with on a daily basis but never meet face-to-face? Are the students in your online class a group? Although we have a de�inition to refer to, our habit of categorizing people, places, and things into groupings and the malleable nature of groups can make identifying groups—and types of groups—a surprisingly dif�icult task.

Groups can take on almost any form and function. They are as much shaped by their setting and purpose as by the people within them. Groups can exist and perform in a multiplicity of settings and are similarly �lexible in composition, structure, and leadership. Because of this, social psychologists have had to look far beyond the surface to �ind stable characteristics to use in categorizing these collective entities. It is within the relationships group members forge with each other, and with the group as a whole, that we �ind a basis for the scienti�ic classi�ication of groups and other group-like collectives. Our own examination will focus on those that are most relevant to our study of workplace groups.

Basic Social Groups

Primary groups represent long-standing, meaningful associations among members of a small, tight-knit group of people, such as close friends and family, who frequently interact and in�luence each other and maintain association regardless of physical location. Common purpose within primary groups revolves around maintaining member relationships and well- being. Sociologist Charles Horton Cooley (1909) coined the term primary groups on the basis that these associations are of prime importance in our lives, offering both physical and psychological care and protection and fundamentally shaping our social nature and ideals. Primary groups have a profound impact on all our interactions, because they represent our foundational model for interpersonal relations.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoin… 6/41

DGLimages/iStock/Thinkstock

These bus passengers are an aggregate. They are engaged in the same activity but lack the collective purpose or interdependence that characterizes groups.

Primitive man spent generations clustered into primary groups encompassing small communities and tribes that members rarely traveled away from. As human population and sophistication grew, societies became more dispersed and complex, as did the groups within them. Secondary groups, larger, less intimate, and more deliberately organized than primary groups, became common as people began to interact and work cooperatively with those outside their primary sphere of intimacy. Although members can form strong bonds and commitment within secondary groups, these are generally sustained at lower levels of intensity and permanence than in primary groups. Members join and disengage from secondary groups relatively easily, and they typically associate concurrently in a variety of these groups in different areas of their lives.

Secondary groups are also known as task groups (Lickel et al., 2001) because member interactions typically center on the performance of speci�ic tasks or activities. Common examples of task groups include social clubs, dance troupes, bands, religious congregations, student groups, guilds, boards, committees, crews, work groups, and teams. Although the interpersonal relations between members in secondary groups signi�icantly impact the group experience, common purpose revolves around the performance of tasks and activities rather than social relations and well-being. Although primary groups can sometimes emerge from relationships formed in professional settings, most of the groups we engage with in the workplace are secondary groups.

Next, we take a look at social collections and categories. These are often mislabeled as groups, and the following section examines how we mistake them for groups and why they do not qualify.

Social Collections and Categories

In order to better understand what groups are, we will now take a closer look at the social collections and categories that represent what groups are not and why they tend to confuse our group identi�ication skills. Aggregates represent a collection of people who are in the same place at the same time. They are often engaged in the same general activity but are otherwise unassociated. A collection of people riding a bus together, waiting in line for tickets, or watching a game at a sports center are considered aggregates. Many aggregates are temporary and unique, but some, like regulars at a bus stop, may come together frequently, know each other by sight, and share daily greetings yet otherwise remain strangers. Members of an aggregate do not share the interdependence, common purpose, and relational bonds needed to identify and act as a group, but they can engage in collective behavior.

Of interest across multiple �ields since the 1920s, collective behavior refers to the spontaneously and temporarily coordinated activities or actions of people in�luenced by a common impulse (Park & Burgess, 1921; Miller, 2000). Collective behavior can manifest within aggregates in many ways. This might include sports fans spontaneously participating in a “wave” cheer, mass excitement or panic in the face of a shared event, or taking part in fashion or consumer fads (Miller, 2000). Alternatively, aggregates may engage in noncooperative coaction, performing similar activities or tasks alongside others but not together. Coaction might include when we fuel our cars at a gas station or sit and use the Wi-Fi at a coffee shop.

Social categories are another “collection” often mistaken for groups. Also known as cohorts, social categories are scienti�ically or socially imposed collections of individuals who share at least one characteristic but can otherwise be quite diverse. Typical examples include people who perform a speci�ic type of job, alumni of a particular college, or individuals who share traits such as gender, age, or ethnicity. Social categories

can encompass a select few (for example, female centenarians currently living in France) or a multitude (for example, adult males or natural citizens of China). Many cohort members will never meet each other or even be gathered together in the same place, and though they may voluntarily identify with their cohort, they generally do not think of themselves as group members.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoin… 7/41

Take, for example, people who have served through live combat in the armed forces. These individuals identify with the social category of veterans, but when asked to which groups they belong, they tend to recall the particular units or comrades with whom they served (Henderson, 1985; Wong, Kolditz, Millen, & Potter, 2003). If members of a social category do meet and become meaningfully connected, they can form groups, such as veterans clubs, or friendship circles initiated through alumni connections. However, lacking frequent interaction, interdependence, common purpose, and meaningful social relations, social categories do not represent true groups.

Recognizing these nongroups is important to our growing understanding of what groups are. In Chapter 8, we will take a look at two other signi�icant nongroups: social networks and online communities. We have only scratched the surface by de�ining groups; next we will take a deeper look into the nature of groups.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoin… 8/41

Group dynamics describe how groups work, and how we relate to each other in groups.

Elements of Group Dynamics

1.2 Group Dynamics

All groups share certain dynamic properties. They have a purpose to exist, a composition of members with individual qualities and needs, structure for interrelations, leadership from within and without, and a context in which they are embedded. As groups come together, members develop patterns for behavior and interaction, engaging in developmental and task-oriented processes. Group dynamics encompass the complex forces that act internally and externally on groups, from development to dispersion, emergent behavior and interaction patterns among group members, and the processes they engage in (Knowles & Knowles, 1972). Researchers in this �ield study the nature of groups, their development over time, the mutual in�luence of members on the group and vice versa, and interactions between groups within the larger context of organizations. In this section, we examine the signi�icance and interrelatedness of essential dynamic properties, including group purpose, composition, structure, leadership, and context.

Purpose: Identi�ication and Cohesiveness

People form groups to feel a sense of purpose or achieve goals that are dif�icult or impossible to realize alone. Although group members often have individual interests at play within the group, these will align on some level with the group’s purpose and goals. Whether in the form of concrete tasks or simply a collective desire to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), common interest motivates members to join the group and acts as a cohesive factor keeping it together. Individuals who perceive themselves as collectively engaged toward a common purpose identify as a group. Likewise, through the processes that foster identi�ication and cohesion, group members form attachments that are both social and emotional; these socioemotional attachments motivate recognition and commitment to collective well-being and purpose.

Identi�ication Identi�ication within groups is multidimensional, encompassing the extent to which group membership in�luences our self-perception and the sense of shared social identity or “us-ness” within the

group (Haslam & Reicher, 2012). Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) assumes that social categories and groups in�luence the self-concept and self-esteem of their members, encouraging them to enhance the positive value of their groups and to join groups held in high esteem. This only proves true, however, in the categories and groups that we perceive as meaningful (Wright, Aron, & Tropp, 2002). For example, Tamara may be a left-handed, hazel-eyed, female product engineer, a Green Party adherent, and a member of the company’s LGBT club, but she will perceive meaningful membership within only some of these associations.

When social identi�ication occurs, members identify themselves as part of a collective with shared qualities, attributes, and ways of relating that mark them as distinct from other individuals and groups. Internally, they accept the group as an extension of self and a legitimate in�luence on self-concept and self-esteem (Hogg, 2005). The decision to do so is not always conscious. Identi�ication is both a cognitive and affective process. That is, it involves our thoughts and perceptions on a given subject or circumstance, as well as our emotional experience and reactions to these stimuli.

Although we are more likely to self-associate and identify with groups we perceive as attractive or valuable (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Hogg & Terry, 2000), the way others perceive us affects the way we perceive ourselves. Whether others place us in categories or groups perceived as positive or negative, this in�luences our own perception and acceptance of membership, even if we do not openly acknowledge it (Gaertner et al., 2006). High school cliques offer a classic example

Elements of Group Dynamics From Title: Understanding Group Dynamics

(https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=100753&xtid=49913)

  0:00 / 2:53 1x © I f b All Ri ht R d L th 02 53

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoin… 9/41

of this: Those labeled as geeks, freaks, jocks, skaters, and so on will often, over time, accept and even describe themselves in such terms, regardless of whether they originally desired these associations (Bennett & Sani, 2008).

The meaningfulness of a membership or association is also largely subjective, based on our personal experiences, worldview, values, and context. Tamara, from our earlier example, may personally value her left-handedness, for instance, based on its associations with creativity and her own admiration for the engineering feats of famous left-hander Leonardo da Vinci. Identi�ication can also be activated by changes in circumstances that highlight collective similarities and differences. For example, an executive stepping into an elevator with unassociated lower level employees can activate a sense of identi�ication among the other riders based on the perceived difference in status and power. If the elevator were then stuck between �loors, the emergence of a common problem and fate would activate a shared social identity among all the riders.

Shared social identity goes beyond social identi�ication as members intuitively acknowledge their interdependence within a collective entity with a common purpose and shared fate. When this occurs, groups develop entitativity, or an internal and external perception that the group operates as a collective entity and that actions and in�luences that affect any of its members have consequences for all. An effect of identi�ication, entitativity changes the way members perceive and relate to the group. Entitativity intensi�ies members’ socioemotional attachment to the group, its members’ collective goals and well-being, and the sense of value in their membership and interrelations (Castano, Yzerbyt, & Bourguignon, 2003; Jans, Postmes, & Van der Zee, 2011).

Cohesion Group cohesion is a critical element, de�ined by the total strength of members’ socioemotional identi�ication and attachment to the group, entitativity in thought and action, valuation and commitment to group goals, and the group’s structural integrity (Kozlowski & Bell, 2001; Moody & White, 2003). Cohesion, and its myriad effects on group dynamics, has been avidly studied, both inside and outside the workplace. We will investigate the development of cohesion in workplace groups in Chapter 2, and we explore both positive and negative effects of group cohesion as we journey through the text. For now, it is important to understand that all groups must have some degree of cohesiveness or they fall apart, either splitting into smaller units or disbanding entirely. However, the level of cohesion within a group can vary from high to low.

The strength of a group’s cohesion can be relative to the group type. Primary groups, for example, are inherently higher in cohesion than secondary groups, although there is a sliding scale within this guideline as well. Because team members work in collaboration, teams require a signi�icantly higher level of cohesiveness than other secondary groups. High and low cohesion also depends on the unique member relations and dynamics within any given group. Group composition de�ines the membership within which these relations and dynamics occur, and group structure gives shape to their interactions. We will examine group composition and structure in the next two subsections.

Composition: Diversity and Size

Group composition, or the characteristics and size of a membership, can be viewed as both a consequence of the social and psychological processes occurring as groups develop and as a context that in�luences social and behavioral phenomena, group structure, and processes (Kozlowski & Bell, 2001). Consider the fact that Americans who meet by chance in a foreign country often feel an immediate sense of camaraderie attached to their comparative similarity in birthplace, language, and culture. Though they may be different in every other way and would not form a group in any other setting, the contrast of a foreign culture and landscape against their shared experience and background creates a heightened sense of identi�ication. As a consequence, they tend to socialize, forming small, temporary groups, sometimes even sightseeing or traveling together. Social psychologists call this the “American abroad” phenomenon. Composition becomes a context in�luencing group structure and processes as member similarities and differences come into play during interactions within the group.

Diversity Groups are composed of members with individual qualities, interests, and needs. Groups in which membership is primarily based on similarity are considered homogenous, though in reality no two people possess the same exact qualities. Whether the degree of variation among members runs high or low, all groups have some level of diversity. As

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 10/41

shown in Figure 1.1, member qualities can be separated into two basic categories: individual attributes and demographic characteristics.

Figure 1.1: Two basic categories of member qualities

There are two basic categories of member qualities that affect a group’s diversity: individual attributes and demographic characteristics.

Demographic characteristics such as gender, age, nationality, and ethnic background can affect the way members perceive each other and interact, particularly when these characteristics are associated with stereotyping. Individual attributes affect the ways we contribute, interact, and interrelate in groups. These include qualities such as expertise, worldview, personality, and cognitive and behavioral styles. Although groups unite around some common interest or purpose, each member also has his or her own individual interests and needs, and these can have both overt and subtle effects on member interactions. In Chapter 4 we will examine the positive and negative effects of diversity, its expression within workplace groups, and techniques for managing diversity.

In general, research depicts diversity as a double-edged sword, having potentially positive and negative consequences (see Pieterse, Van Knippenberg, & Van Dierendonck, 2013; Podsiadlowski, Gröschke, Kogler, Springer, & Van der Zee, 2013; Mello & Rentsch, 2015). Members from diverse backgrounds may speak a different cultural or technical language. They may be attuned to and emphasize different aspects of task performance or problem solving. Stereotypes and generalizations about gender, race, ethnicity, religion, and other characteristics can have a negative effect on group interaction, shared identity, and cohesiveness. Although poorly managed diversity has the potential to be divisive, the convergence of many different experiences, skills, and viewpoints is central to the power and �lexibility of groups and teams. Diversity within formal groups is often deliberately engineered and managed to offer the best set of combined experiences, skills, and viewpoints for group performance. Balancing group diversity and size helps members take advantage of the potential bene�its offered by complementary diversity.

Size Groups can theoretically consist of any number larger than two people. However, it is important to consider that group size can either facilitate performance or impede it. Small memberships may progress more rapidly through developmental and task-oriented group processes; however, they also limit the human resources—including potential bene�its from group diversity—that are available for collective efforts. Larger membership can enable an easy division of labor that capitalizes on the unique contributions of members. However, larger groups are also more susceptible to certain dysfunctions.

Problems occur as group membership moves beyond about 10 or 12 people. Large groups tend to break into independent subunits, dissolve into a loosely af�iliated collection of individuals, or experience a phenomenon known as process loss (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Kozlowski & Bell, 2001). Process loss is a reduction in ef�iciency and effectiveness due to nonproductive actions, operations, or dynamics. Examples of process loss include reduced member motivation and effort, dysfunctional processes, faulty coordination, and ineffectual leadership (Steiner, 1972; Forsyth, 2014).

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 11/41

Wavebreak Media Ltd./Thinkstock

In groups, roles are not con�ined to leader and follower; they are much more complex and nuanced.

To minimize the risks associated with too large or too small a membership, speci�ic group size should be determined by the group’s task complexity, ability to effectively coordinate, and the functionality of its structure. We discuss structure, a critical element in collaborative performance, in the next section.

Structure: Roles, Norms, and Interrelations

In the natural world, animals, insects, and plants form ecological communities in which everything that lives or grows is interdependent and affects the well-being of the rest. Plants give off oxygen, provide shelter, and feed herbivorous animals and insects, which are hunted in turn by the carnivores. Over the course of their life cycle, animals and insects help spread various plants, and even in death they nourish the earth and help plants grow. Each plays a speci�ic role within the community, follows intuitive rules or norms for behavior and interactions, and engages in interrelations that impact one another in meaningful ways. The connective pattern imposed by this system re�lects its structure.

Groups work in a similar fashion. Group members engage in interdependent roles and responsibilities, following collectively accepted standards or norms for behavior and interactions. Through socioemotional and task-based interdependence, members develop meaningful interrelations that sustain the group. Group structure refers to the framework of roles, norms, and interrelations that regulates interactions, thereby in�luencing and organizing how a group functions.

In workplace groups, structure exists both internally and externally. Group structure de�ines member roles and directs patterns of interdependence and interaction within the group. Organizational structure provides an external framework for the group as a collective entity that ful�ills a speci�ic role and responsibilities within the organization, acting in interdependent relations with other organizational units. Roles, norms, and member interrelations are the active elements in the ongoing interactions between group members. As such, they will be focused on throughout much of this text. Beginning with roles, let’s look at each of these elements.

Roles A role is a set of expectations attached to a social position; it governs the behavior of the position holder in relation to others and vice versa. De�ining group members in terms of leaders and followers is a misleading—and inadequate— description of group roles. In reality, group members can play many roles. Think of a group, any group, and consider the people within it. What parts do members play in discussion? What tasks and responsibilities do they undertake during group interactions? Is there an initiator, a critic, a harmonizer, an energizer? How about an organizer, a standard setter, a listener? We may think of these as personality traits, but the predictable in�luence they have on group interaction de�ines these as signi�icant roles that can emerge or be designated within a membership.

People play different roles in different groups, and each role is typically associated with speci�ic duties, responsibilities, and prerogatives. For example, as a division manager, Miguel is accorded certain privileges in behavior and respect. He coordinates and directs the project managers within his division, but he must answer to, and in turn be directed by, higher levels of management. At home, he is also a father, a husband, and a son. Each of these roles has its own set of rules and expectations, and associated shifts in status among participants. Miguel does not have the same authority in the role of son as he does in the role of father. Nor are the same expectations attached to these roles and his role of husband or division manager. Roles are meant to smooth interactions by providing stability in expectations, but when our expectations about how to play a role or set of roles are inconsistent or do not match the expectations of those around us, confusion and con�lict can occur.

In the workplace some roles are routinely designated. For instance, project manager, team leader, facilitator, recorder, and

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 12/41

timekeeper are all roles that are frequently assigned to speci�ic group members for the space of a particular project or performance activity. Other roles emerge as group members interact and individuals repeatedly take on speci�ic duties, activities, or methods of interaction. As these patterns of behavior become habitual, role differentiation occurs. The number of roles within the group increases, and the expectations, responsibilities, and prerogatives attached to each role become more speci�ic.

Group roles can be divided into task and relationship role categories.

Task roles revolve around group performance and accomplishment of tasks and goals. Activities include goal setting, coordinating meetings, encouraging task-related feedback, and gathering and recording relevant information. Relationship roles center on the socioemotional maintenance of interpersonal relations within the group. Activities include facilitating knowledge and opinion sharing during group discussions, mediating con�lict, building trust, and managing destructive norms.

Group members who take on leadership responsibilities typically span both role categories, and team members may frequently change or rotate roles. As we progress through the text, we will increasingly see how individual task and relationship roles impact group dynamics. Next, we examine another integral structural element: norms.

Norms Norms are evaluative standards, the implicit and explicit expectations or social rules for behavior and interpersonal interactions. Norms can be preexisting, imposed by a larger group or organization, and emergent throughout the life cycle of a group. Certain sets of norms are present within all our interactions, re�lecting the overarching attitudes, expectations, and behavioral cues we have learned since childhood. This includes “reading” each other for acceptable behavior and habitually giving extra weight to the attitudes and behavior of those who appear to inhabit authority roles. Although norms emerge from our groups, they are also affected by our desire to conform and be accepted by other group members, as well as by how we think we should respond to a given situation, based on our perception of others’ attitudes and behavior.

Norms can be prescriptive or proscriptive, de�ining socially appropriate or inappropriate actions or behaviors, respectively (Sorrels & Kelley, 1984). Additionally, norms can be descriptive, encompassing the attitudes and actions people usually engage in, given speci�ic situations. Norms can also be injunctive, representing attitudes and behaviors that people must engage in or face severe punishment (Morris, 1956). Table 1.1 summarizes these categories of norms and provides examples of each.

Table 1.1: Categories and examples of norms

Category Function Example

Prescriptive De�ine socially appropriate behavior DO use respectful language and volume in a public space.

Proscriptive De�ine socially inappropriate behavior DO NOT perform private bodily functions in a public space.

Descriptive De�ine attitudes and actions people usually engage in within speci�ic situations

DO hold an elevator door for an incoming passenger.

Injunctive De�ine attitudes and behaviors that people must engage in or be severely punished

DO NOT engage in personal abuse or violence in the workplace.

People who behave in ways that con�lict with prescriptive, proscriptive, and descriptive norms may be chided, reminded of more appropriate behaviors, or perceived as different or strange. However, those who violate injunctive norms tend to be actively punished and disliked, assigned distasteful tasks, and pressured to conform or leave the group (Rimal & Real, 2005). Norms constrain our behavior to a certain degree, but they also offer common understanding and shared expectations regarding what is and is not acceptable within the group. In this way norms help create a supportive framework for group interactions.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 13/41

Group norms are collectively accepted standards governing member behavior within the group, given members’ relative position and responsibilities and the connections they share. In workplace groups, these represent a blend of organizationally imposed norms, stemming from organizational rules, procedures, and expectations, and the unique set of norms that emerge from the interactions of a particular group membership. Sometimes we notice the existence of group norms only when they are broken. For example, we notice if someone’s attire breaks unwritten of�ice dress codes or if someone takes too much or too little time for lunch and breaks.

New members of a group, such as new hires, will adjust to written and unwritten rules associated with assigned tasks and roles, and those held as important by the coworkers with whom they are grouped. Established members socially in�luence or pressure newcomers to conform to group norms, which may include clocking in on time, performing work in a timely manner, chatting (or not chatting) by the coffee machine, and following accepted parameters for language, mutual respect, and quality of work.

Norms can be either constructive or destructive. Constructive norms support a group’s task and relationship roles. For instance, norms for open communication of task-related concerns or for soliciting feedback from other members would be considered constructive. Destructive norms can lead to process loss and damaging relationships between members. Norms for unhealthy competitiveness, information holding, or not owning up to mistakes are all examples of destructive norms.

The divide between constructive and destructive norms is not always clear cut. Even seemingly positive interactions can develop into destructive norms if they become distracting or inappropriate. Consider Tanya and Amelia. As the only women in a group of seven, Tanya and Amelia appreciated the easy camaraderie gained by being “one of the boys,” even when that meant laughing at sexist jokes. When the group leader questioned this norm, however, Tanya admitted that the jokes made her uncomfortable, and Amelia stated that she actually found them offensive. The men in the group were surprised—and genuinely apologetic—and the group moved on to develop more constructive norms.

Group norms shape the interactions and interrelations between members, signi�icantly impacting group processes and performance. We will further discuss the in�luence and management of constructive and destructive dynamics and norms in Chapter 7. For now, we move to the third aspect of structure: interrelations.

Interrelations Group members develop meaningful interrelations, or mutual and reciprocal relations, the functional dimensions of which can be described as follows:

Interdependence Communication Group processes

Interdependence can be de�ined as a state of mutual dependence in which others in�luence, and are in�luenced by, our thoughts, feelings, actions, outcomes, and experience. All groups have some level of socioemotional interdependence, or a mutual dependence and in�luence on social relations and standing, emotional state, and well-being. Groups also have some level of task interdependence, or the degree to which members are reliant on one another to effectively perform tasks and achieve goals (Kozlowski & Bell, 2001). Monitoring and managing task interdependence is particularly critical in task groups, in which low and high task interdependence can signi�icantly impact the group performance. Increased task interdependence increases the need for effective communication, coordination, and cooperation (Saavedra, Earley, & Van Dyne, 1993). The roles that group members are assigned or take on primarily re�lect the need to direct and manage both socioemotional and task interdependence within the group.

Communication, or the comprehensive exchange of interpersonal, contextual, and task-related information, is the medium by which group members develop and maintain meaningful interrelations. Communication is a key element in any group setting. Member coordination and cooperation depend on effective communication, and mismanaged communication is a major cause of group con�lict (Salas, Burke, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000). In fact, establishing effective communication is one of the most important steps to resolving con�licts that arise between group members (Olekalns, Putnam, Weingart, & Metcalf, 2008). Communication is also a critical factor in shaping outcomes for the major developmental and task-oriented group processes.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 14/41

Group processes represent speci�ic sets of behaviors and interactions that contribute to the realization of a particular agenda or outcome. There are many processes associated with interpersonal interaction. Communication is a process, as are identi�ication and leadership. Within group dynamics, group processes typically refer to the major developmental and task-orientated processes. Developmental processes involve the changes that occur over time in the fundamental nature of the group. This includes its formation; development of norms, roles, and informal status hierarchies; and movement through the stages of performance and disbanding. Task-oriented processes are attached to speci�ic group tasks or goals and include problem solving, decision making, innovation, and learning. Teamwork is the process by which group members combine knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs); effort; and resources through a coordinated series of actions and interactions to produce an outcome (Forsyth, 2014). We will continue to expand on these topics throughout the text, since developing and managing interrelations is a basic requirement of working together.

For now, it is important to know that the interrelations developed between group members through interdependence, communication, and participation in group processes have a profound impact on members’ subjective experience and their ability to work together as a group. The following subsections brie�ly overview leadership and context, as well as the ways in which these dynamic properties shape the very nature of our groups.

Leadership: Guiding the Group

All groups have some form of leadership, whether they enact distinct leader–follower relationships or engage in collective decision making to direct the group. Leadership can be designated by an organization or emergent within the dynamics of a particular group.

Designated leaders are assigned to ful�ill leadership roles and managerial responsibilities based on organizational standards, hierarchy, and needs. Emergent leaders develop naturally out of interpersonal interactions as members share leadership responsibilities (Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2004; Pearce & Conger, 2003) or as particular individuals begin to ful�ill leadership roles and responsibilities over time (Foti & Hauenstein, 2007).

Additionally, groups can be internally or externally led, or they can be empowered to enact a cooperative leadership in which both internal and external leadership exists. Empowered group members share varying degrees of leadership roles and managerial responsibilities with designated leaders and/or external managers. With or without formal empowerment, the collaborative problem-solving, decision-making, and work efforts inherent to teamwork generate a shared determination and collective guidance that is often referred to as shared leadership. Sharing leadership responsibilities and roles allows team members the authority and �lexibility to deal immediately with problems that arise during performance, but it does not mean that teams do not have leaders or speci�ic responsibility structures. Leadership and empowerment styles will be discussed in depth in Chapter 9.

In workplace groups, leadership is integral to effective collaboration and performance. Leaders guide the interaction and progression of group processes and monitor and manage both individual and collective performance (Fleishman et al., 1991; Kozlowski, Gully, McHugh, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1996; Kozlowski, Gully, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1996). Leaders facilitate the assimilation and socialization of incoming and outgoing members as groups and teams are formed and as membership changes over time (Moreland & Levine, 1989; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). Leaders also direct the process of group development and continuously work toward member coherence (Kozlowski, Gully, McHugh, et al., 1996). They guide the clari�ication of group goals, task strategies, and agendas; manage positive and negative norms; link individual interests with collective purpose; establish compatible role expectations among members; and maintain favorable performance conditions (Kozlowski & Bell, 2001). Leaders bridge the gap between the group and the organization, translating, managing, and mitigating interactions so that, as much as possible, the needs, interests, and goals of each are protected and realized (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003). Next, we examine the effects of group context.

Context: Orienting the Group

Groups come in all shapes, sizes, and forms. Group context, or the developmental and operational setting in which groups are embedded, fundamentally shapes group behavior and purpose. For example, coworkers Adele, Derrick, and Rafael may form or be placed in a group dedicated to a particular organizational task. Their communication patterns, hierarchy, and task division within the group will largely be dictated by organizational roles, rules, and procedure. If the

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 15/41

three coworkers met and came together in a friendship group over consecutive lunch breaks, they would behave very differently, with communication patterns, hierarchy, and roles emerging naturally through repeated interactions. Understanding group context is key to understanding how groups form and function (Stohl & Putnam, 2003).

Groups have a developmental context that can be informal or formal. Informal groups are the natural outcome of consistent interaction between people with mutual interests. Member created and internally driven, the longevity of informal groups is solely determined by members’ continuing interest and ability to participate. In contrast, formal groups are intentionally composed and structured to realize speci�ic tasks, projects, or goals, determined by the needs of an organization. Driven by an externally imposed performance agenda, formal groups terminate when their performance objectives are met or they are no longer deemed organizationally useful. Table 1.2 summarizes the developmental contexts of groups and provides examples for each.

Table 1.2: Developmental context of groups

Category Description Examples

Informal Groups formed naturally through consistent interaction between people with similar interests

Friendship groups Book clubs Recreational groups The set of coworkers we carpool and lunch with

Formal Groups that are intentionally formed, composed, and structured to satisfy speci�ic task, project, or goal needs of an organization

Sports teams Entertainment groups Academic classes Focus groups Committees Work groups, crews, and teams

Groups also have an operational context. Just as the informal and formal context impacts the motivations and methods by which group purpose, composition, structure, and leadership develop, the setting in which groups operate signi�icantly in�luences the way in which they function and how effectively they do so. A sports team, for example, operates in a very different setting than a product development team, and that context impacts group structure as well as how members coordinate and cooperate. Here, our focus is on organizational groups.

Although there is a tendency to think of organizations as hierarchical series of formal groups, in reality, formal and informal groups coexist within the workplace. Both formal and informal groups are embedded within the organizational context, or the comprehensive culture, systems, structure, processes, and resources in place within the organization.

Groups formed without consideration of their organizational context do not function well within it. Teams introduced without thought to the provision of organizational support for teamwork processes and needs will typically either fail or work far below their potential. This is primarily because they do not function cooperatively within the organization (Dumaine, 1994). Team-based organizing (TBO), examined in Chapter 10, centers on the idea that groups and teams are only effective within an organization when they work as part of a systemic whole.

Business Applications: The Impact of Informal Workplace Groups

Although formal groups such as boards, committees, work groups, and teams get all the credit as useful and productive workplace groups, informal groups can also have a profound impact on the performance of individual members and the organization as a whole. Informal groups can help new employees assimilate, foster a more comfortable and productive work environment, and establish and sustain connections between employees across the organization. Bridging boundaries between employees of varying rank and function facilitates knowledge sharing and organizational learning, as well as increases support for employee advancement. On the other hand, loyalty to friendship groups may potentially override decisions needed for a company’s best interests, and special treatment for one’s “of�ice family” can undermine motivation among workers who are not part of the group.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 16/41

Balancing informal and formal commitments and loyalties can be like navigating an obstacle course, but large organizations are increasingly recognizing the bene�it of doing so.

At Google, informal employee social groups have become �irmly embedded in organizational culture. According to interviewer Mark Swift (2011), Google’s Employee Resource Groups are “employee-initiated entities that receive �inancial support from the company and represent social, cultural or minority groups, including the Gayglers (for lesbian and gay employees), the Greyglers (for older employees), . . . [and] VetNet for military veterans” (para. 6).

When Camille James joined Google, she took a profound leap into an unknown culture, moving from Tokyo to California. She had no existing social connections there, and she had never before worked for a large company. Encouraged by Google’s unorthodox organizational culture, James met with fellow “Nooglers” (new hires at Google) and formed a bowling team through which she forged connections with coworkers and laid the groundwork for friendships and social bonds within her new community (Swift, 2011). In 2011 Google had an almost unbelievable growth rate of 100 “Nooglers” per week, transforming its informal employee groups from a cool company perk to a keystone component in employee assimilation and relations within the company.

Critical-Thinking Question

Informal groups exist everywhere. Consider some of the informal groups in your of�ice, work, or school settings. Describe some of the ways in which informal group membership helps support your emotional well-being, con�idence, and ability to perform within the more formal groups associated with these settings.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 17/41

1.3 What Are Teams?

There is often confusion about the relationship between groups and teams. Many people apply the terms interchangeably or use team as a motivational catch phrase for groups with a formal agenda (Parks & Sanna, 1999). This is inaccurate, however. Teams share basic characteristics with all groups, but as a distinct form of task group, teams have speci�ic attributes that are entirely their own. To develop this concept, we will �irst look at the characteristics teams and other groups have in common. Then we will examine the speci�ic attributes that make teams unique and that have inspired the saying “All teams are groups, but not all groups are teams.”

As groups, we know that teams must have:

identi�ication as a social unit, interdependence between members, cohesion around some common interest or purpose, and meaningful interaction between and among members.

Additionally, like all groups, teams have a purpose to exist, a composition of members with individual qualities and needs, structure for interrelations, leadership from within and without, and a context in which they are embedded. They engage in developmental and task-oriented processes and develop patterns for member behavior and interaction. So what do teams add to this mix that sets them apart from other task groups?

In task groups, performance encompasses the coordination and execution of individual and collective efforts toward a speci�ic purpose or goal. Teams engage in collaborative performance, which involves willful contribution of interdependent and joint effort, pooled knowledge and resources, and shared responsibility for outcomes (Kozlowski & Bell, 2001). This is the central tenet of teams and their distinctive function within the task group category. We often refer to the collaborative performance process as teamwork, but teamwork alone does not make a team. Members of any group can engage in situational teamwork, but unless they develop member qualities and interrelations that support a continuous teamwork process, they will not become a team.

Team members are committed to collaborative performance toward a meaningful common purpose. To achieve this, team members collectively determine their agenda and approach, discover or develop complementary skills, and hold themselves mutually accountable for results. Therefore, we can de�ine a team as a small group in which members engaging complementary skills are committed to, and hold themselves mutually accountable for, collaboration toward a meaningful common purpose along a collectively determined agenda and approach.

Teams evolved from traditional work groups, a term used to describe a small group in which skilled members are held individually accountable for speci�ic tasks determined by the purpose, agenda, and approach of a single, clear leader. Work groups once represented the standard model for organizational productivity. Today teams have displaced them as the basic building block of competitive organizations (Martin & Bal, 2006; Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010). To understand why this is so, we must �irst examine the rise of teams within organizational culture.

The Rise of Teams

Teams have existed for thousands of years. Their introduction and use within business organizations, however, is relatively new. Prior to the mid-20th century, teams were rarely seen in action outside of military or sports settings. Work groups were assembled for demanding labor and simple, repetitive tasks requiring many hands, but complex and intellectual tasks were assigned to skilled individuals. Organizational practices were rooted in the principles of scienti�ic management (Taylor, 1911), a philosophy centered on optimization through rigid standardization, time management, and worker supervision. These ideas spawned a near mechanized view of workers as primarily motivated by material rewards. Social interactions and processing time were viewed as nonproductive. Managers focused on supporting workers by offering direct correlation between wages and productive output. They also eliminated “wasteful” socializing and released workers from the complexities of on-the-job decision making and problem solving. Managers thought, and workers did.

In the 1920s Elton Mayo, Fritz Roethlisberger, and associates launched a landmark decade-long series of experiments and observations on the organizational behavior, group productivity, and motivations of workers at AT&T’s Western Electric

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 18/41

Hawthorne Works. These later became known as the Hawthorne studies. Mayo’s work inspired the human relations movement of the 1930s, which emphasized the importance of social relations in the workplace and investing organizational interest in factors such as workers’ motivational in�luences, employee participation, and job satisfaction. Productivity research moved away from the idea of workers as automatons, to examine the underlying dynamics and processes surrounding group performance and the socioemotional causes for high- and low-productivity levels (Sonnenfeld, 1985).

In the 1940s and 1950s, studies of work groups in the British coal mining industry, led by Eric Trist in collaboration with ex-miner Ken Bamforth, introduced the concept of the self-regulatory work group, a kind of proto-team in which workers actively participated in self-management and coordination. Trist (1981) observed that this novel approach to work group organization and function was phenomenal, stating that “cooperation between task groups was everywhere in evidence; personal commitment was obvious, absenteeism low, accidents infrequent, productivity high” (p. 8). Many of the practices later associated with self-regulatory work groups were rooted in the natural teamwork that occurred in the mining pits years before the industry had reorganized around the principles of scienti�ic management.

Companies such as General Foods, Butler Manufacturing, and General Motors built on these concepts in the 1980s, transforming Trist’s self-regulatory work groups into self-managing teams. That transition paid off with demonstrable increases in performance quality, production, and employee satisfaction, and notable decreases in accidents, absenteeism, and employee turnover (Strauss & Hammer, 1987). Car manufacturers Volvo and Saab followed suit, integrating teams into their production plants. Overseas, both Europe and Japan were having their own revelations on the use of teams and management models supporting collaborative work. The ever-increasing globalization of the marketplace ensured these ideas spread, and teams were clearly recognized as the new model for organizational competitiveness.

Unfortunately, the reasons behind team effectiveness, and the practical differences between work groups and teams, were not as readily perceived. Many executives simply appropriated the term team as a motivational resource, failing to properly implement teams because they were unaware of any real difference (Katzenbach & Smith, 2001; Harris & Beyerlein, 2008). Although teams evolved from work groups, and both are categorized as task groups, work groups and teams fundamentally differ along the basic elements of leadership, accountability, and purpose. Next, we compare work groups and teams to further our understanding of what teams are and how differently they function from other task groups.

Comparing Work Groups and Teams

In a side-by-side comparison, the de�initions for work groups and teams reveal notable similarities (see Figure 1.2).

Figure 1.2: Comparison of work group and team de�initions

Work groups and teams share several notable similarities.

As we can see in Figure 1.2, both work groups and teams share the following features:

Small size Skilled members Accountability for action and labor outcomes Labor along a speci�ic agenda and approach

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 19/41

However, they are also characterized by signi�icant differences in leadership, accountability, and purpose. Table 1.3 offers a simple breakdown of these distinctions, which primarily affect the ways in which these properties are carried out and expressed.

Table 1.3: Key properties of work groups and teams

Key properties

Work groups Teams

Leadership Members follow a single, clear leader. Members engage in shared leadership.

Accountability Members are individually accountable to the group leader. Leader is individually accountable for group performance.

Members are mutually accountable for performance within the group and for group performance overall.

Purpose Leader determines group’s purpose, agenda, and approach and delegates appropriate individual tasks and roles.

Members collectively determine team’s goals, agenda, and approach, as well as collective and individual tasks and roles.

Leadership Work groups have a single, clear leader. An easy way to remember the characteristics of work group leadership is to think of them as the 3 Ds: determine, delegate, and dominate. Although group members share information and ideas when asked, the leader is in charge. He or she determines the group’s purpose, agenda, and approach, delegates individual tasks and roles within the group, and dominates group meetings and discussion. Teams work very differently. Unlike work groups, team members engage in shared leadership and decision making. Team members perform tasks and ful�ill roles that are based on a meaningful common purpose and a collectively determined and realized agenda and approach.

Accountability The presence of a single leader in work groups necessitates individual accountability for all group members. Since the work group leader is the sole decision maker, group members are responsible only for their own performance of assigned tasks and roles. Likewise, as the lone orchestrator of the group’s purpose, the leader is held individually accountable for the work group’s ultimate performance.

On the other hand, since teams engage in shared leadership, members accept mutual accountability for both positive and negative outcomes. That is, team members are accountable to each other for their individual performance of tasks and roles within the team. They are also collectively accountable for team performance outcomes and the success or failure of the team as a whole. One of the advantages of the team concept is that team members share responsibility for problems and con�licts that arise. Rather than “passing the buck” to a superior, team members address these issues directly and attempt to resolve them within the team structure. This collective responsibility toward each other and to the team deeply affects how members interact and work toward a desired outcome.

Purpose In work groups, a leader directs the actions of each skilled member, like a chess player moving the different pieces on a board. By contrast, team members are largely self-directing, moving with mutual coordination; they keep track of what everybody else is doing and adjust their actions accordingly. This means team members are far more empowered than members of a work group, in that they have the ability—and the authority—to coordinate themselves (Salas et al., 2000). By collectively determining team goals, agenda, and approach, a team develops a shared mental model of these constructs and the steps that are needed to accomplish them (for example, Hu & Liden, 2011; Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000). This shared vision provides a road map and a set of directions that team members endorse and get behind. Member commitment and cohesiveness get a boost, signi�icantly amplifying team performance and productivity (Kozlowski & Bell, 2001).

Teamwork has many proponents and a well-earned reputation for success. However, teams are not necessarily better than work groups. Functioning work groups are ef�icient and organized. Member roles, tasks, and responsibilities are delineated without debate, and individual accountabilities are clear and nonnegotiable. Used properly, work groups can

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 20/41

be productive powerhouses, yet we tend to automatically exclude them when looking to increase or improve performance. Teams engage in collaborative performance. They pool knowledge, viewpoints, and expertise to maximize critical thinking, creative problem solving, and adaptability to changing conditions. Collective decision making enhances member buy-in to team tasks and goals (Millikin, Hom, & Manz, 2010); however, functioning teams require substantially more member time, effort, and commitment to actualize than do work groups. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses, so how do we choose one over the other?

When to Use Teams

When faced with the decision of whether to use a team, organizations tend to follow established patterns. Newer technology- or design-based �irms tend to opt for teams, while older organizations are more likely to use work groups (though they may mislabel these as teams). Today’s focus on team performance often leaves work groups overlooked and underrated, yet teams are not always the right �it for the job. The performance value of any task group depends on task complexity, operational context, and performance goals. Given that work groups spend less time deliberating during performance, they are almost always more ef�icient than teams, but teams are typically more effective. In deciding whether to use a team or a work group, we must �irst determine what the performance outcome needs most: ef�iciency or effectiveness.

In the business world, ef�iciency refers to greater production or performance output, with less input of resources (i.e., time, money, and employee labor). Work groups are highly ef�icient because they allow group leaders to accomplish more within a given time frame than could be done alone or in a team setting, where collective decision making eats away at production time. Think of a work group as an augmented individual. Since group leaders provide all of the creative and strategic decision making, a work group re�lects the leader’s individual ability in these areas. Work group leaders hold ultimate responsibility for the quantity and quality of the groups’ output. Work groups also offer strength in numbers. As tasks and activities are delegated to group members, their overall productivity outstrips that of any one individual. With smart selection, group leaders can access skills that either compliment or go beyond their own abilities, thereby enhancing both the quantity and quality of their “individual” performance.

In dealing with groups and teams, effectiveness represents the degree to which a performance outcome satis�ies project requirements, the relative quality and timeliness of a solution or output, and the quality of member interaction. In contrast to ef�iciency, effectiveness tends to denote performance �lexibility and overall satisfaction, rather than quantity or speed. Work groups may excel at ef�icient execution, but they typically struggle with adapting. This is where teams excel. Team members are largely self-directing, so they have the ability to quickly assess and adapt strategies to deal with issues that arise over the course of their performance. There are no project stalls while someone contacts the group leader, explains the situation, and waits for the leader to decide on a course of action.

The work group ef�iciency concept typically results in a standard but not superlative level of product or outcome quality and satisfaction. The mutual accountability inherent to effective teamwork tends to heighten member motivation to exceed minimum performance and solution standards. Mutual coordination assures that when a team member makes decisions or initiative changes within the performance process, others will adjust and adapt with them, supporting or even improving on their efforts. So when should we use a team? The Vroom, Yetton, and Jago (Vroom & Yetton, 1973; Vroom & Jago, 1988) decision-making model for leadership and participation offers some very practical suggestions (see Figure 1.3).

Figure 1.3: Guidelines for when to use teams

The Vroom, Yetton, and Jago decision-making model recommends using teams when tasks or solutions are nonroutine or require broad support. Organizations can ask themselves these questions to help determine whether a team is the best �it for their needs.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 21/41

It is important to note that an organization does not need to restrict itself to using only teams or only work groups. The ability to blend ef�iciency and effectiveness can be an unparalleled tool. A growing number of organizations recognize the performance power in both work groups and teams. These organizations seek employees who not only work well within either model, but can successfully work within both formats in concurrent groups, as project needs demand. Architecture and design-based �irms have been using this model for years. An architect often works as part of a team of designers on a building project and holds a concurrent position on another project as, say, a work group leader over other architects, designers, or assistants. Those other architects, designers, and assistants in turn may also be team members, work group leaders, or work group members on another project.

The ability to work well within either a work group or team setting is one of the most valuable and highly sought skills employees can bring to an organization. For managers and project planners, other highly sought skills include the knowledge, experience, and ability to:

judge which group model is best suited to a particular project task or goal, track performance ef�iciency and effectiveness based on the work group or team model, and determine when a switch from work group to team (or vice versa) may best serve the desired performance outcome.

Once the decision to employ a team has been made, the question becomes: What kind of team should we use? We will turn to that question in the next section.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 22/41

1.4 Identifying Team and Task Types

The �lexibility inherent in the team structure complicates attempts to place teams—and the tasks they perform—into prepackaged labels. New applications for teams and variations on the team concept emerge constantly within organizations, yet understanding team types is important. Teams share certain qualities that set them apart from other groups, but teams are not identical. They represent different and often unique combinations of malleable properties, such as composition, structure, and leadership (Harvey, Fisher, McPhail, & Moeller, 2009; Zheng, Khoury, & Grobmeier, 2010; Salas et al., 2000). These differences in turn affect team processes and management needs (Horwitz, 2005). Task expectations, operational setting, and enlisted communication channels in�luence the nature of teams in terms of what they do and how they do it (Stewart & Barrick, 2000; Abbott, Boyd, & Miles, 2006).

Teams are categorized using a combination of their structural parameters and primary task type (Wildman et al., 2012; Sundstrom, McIntyre, Hal�hill, & Richards, 2000; Devine, 2002). Structural parameters de�ine the team’s role, interrelation, and interdependence within the organization. These are used to develop team types that describe the fundamental nature of a team and how it is expected to work. Primary task types represent a basic categorization of the prime objectives teams are expected to achieve or perform. In other words, they describe what a team is expected to do.

We will begin by looking at team types, then turn to task types. While it might seem more natural to address what before how, keep in mind that when compared to other task groups, how teams perform is their primary distinction and the key to their success.

Team Types

As we’ve discussed, a team’s structural parameters—role, interrelation, and interdependence within an organization— will determine how it is expected to function, and therefore its team type. Here, we discuss the most common team types encountered in organizations: work teams, project teams, task force teams, parallel teams, and virtual teams.

Work Teams Work teams are long-term continuous work units responsible for an entire product, process, or service from beginning to end (Wellins, Byham, & Wilson, 1991; Cohen & Bailey, 1997). Work teams represent the basic team unit on which speci�ic variations are built; these variations are widely diverse in function and task type, composition, and context. Membership in work teams is typically full time, well de�ined, and can be either �ixed or rotating. Manufacturing and production teams, people and process management teams, customer service, and information technology (IT) teams are all examples of organizational work teams.

Project Teams Project teams are tasked with achieving a unique, one-time output within a structured time frame, and typically disband after its completion (Keller, 1994; Cohen & Bailey, 1997). Project teams are frequently used for design and development but can be aimed at any time-structured task or goal. The outputs for project teams can range from radical innovations to incremental improvements to existing products, services, or concepts (Cohen & Bailey, 1997).

Membership within project teams is often cross-functional, or drawn from different functional or departmental backgrounds. This helps maximize a project team’s creative and adaptive potential and enhance project solutions with specialized or expert knowledge. A new product development team, for example, may draw members from product design and engineering, marketing, and manufacturing departments and release them back to their regular duties or put them on another project once the team has ful�illed its purpose.

Within relatively broad directives, project teams are given a fair amount of latitude on what they create. Take a project team tasked with developing a new cell phone, for instance. The team may be given design cues based on desired features, but speci�ic interpretation is largely left up to team members. Although they tend to be temporary, some project teams work together on a semipermanent basis, moving from project to project and rotating additional members in and out as needed.

Task Force Teams

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 23/41

Task force teams are small, specialist teams composed of expert members temporarily pulled across organizational and functional boundaries to deal with a single urgent task or problem. Although we often think of the term task force in relation to military-based teams—the task force concept originated in the U.S. Navy to increase operational �lexibility during World War II (Furer, 1959)—modern task forces are used in both civilian and noncivilian settings.

Task forces differ from project teams in the speci�icity and urgency of their assignments and in the speci�ic limitations on their empowerment. Task force assignments include highly detailed task parameters and clearly speci�ied goals that must be achieved within an urgent time frame. Task force teams are highly self-directing in how they work within those rigid boundaries, however. Take, for instance, emergency response crews arriving on the site of a disaster. Members of the response team have speci�ic and urgent task assignments, are expected to perform these using the best possible resources—whether these are provided or must be adapted from whatever is available—and then disband upon completing their task or as their performance window expires. Another task force team common in organizations—the cheetah team—is used to troubleshoot particularly urgent or unexpected problems that arise during design or development processes.

Parallel Teams Parallel teams operate outside of regular organizational structures, engaging in tasks and activities that do not directly produce goods or services but exist parallel to these processes (Matteson, Mumford, & Sintay, 1999). These teams source members from different areas and functions for part-time participation in problem-solving and improvement-oriented tasks deemed dif�icult to address through standard organizational structures (Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Fisher, 2000). Parallel teams differ from other teams in that members continue to perform their regular organizational roles and duties, meeting outside of these for parallel teamwork (Cordery, Soo, Kirkman, Rosen, & Mathieu, 2009). Parallel teams are also known as advice, involvement, and suggestion teams, because while they might operate autonomously to complete their objectives, they can only provide their founding manager or management group with information or advice—not action (Ledford, Lawler, & Mohrman, 1994; Cohen & Bailey, 1997). Examples of parallel teams include quality circles, quality improvement teams, and investigative and advisory boards.

Virtual Teams Virtual teams are composed of members who are separated by organizational boundaries, geography, or time and interact primarily through technology (Devine, 2002; Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004). Virtual teams offer a unique potential for ef�iciency and effectiveness by allowing organizations to bring together members with the desired KSAs and experience, no matter where or in what time zone they actually work. Freed from the social and �inancial cost of relocation, skilled employees and outside experts can be attached to the team as needed—and disengage just as easily when their work is done.

Table 1.4 summarizes and provides examples of each of the basic team types.

Table 1.4: Summary of basic team types

Team type

Description Example

Work team

Long-term continuous work units responsible for an entire product, process, or service from beginning to end

Manufacturing and production teams People and process management teams Customer service, sales, negotiation, and IT teams

Project team

Tasked with a unique, one-time output to be performed within a structured time frame

New product development teams Design teams Marketing teams

Task force

Small, specialist teams composed of expert members temporarily pulled across organizational and functional boundaries to deal with a single urgent task or problem

Cheetah teams Emergency response crews Military task forces

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 24/41

Team type

Description Example

Parallel team

Operate outside of regular organizational structures, engaging in tasks and activities that exist in parallel to business and management processes

Quality circles

Quality improvement teams Investigative and advisory boards Focus groups

Virtual team

Composed of members who are separated by organizational boundaries, geography, and/or time and who interact primarily through technology

Any team that primarily interacts via technology and engages in a virtual setting

It is important to note that the basic team types listed in Table 1.4 are not mutually exclusive. In other words, teams can exist simultaneously in two or more of these categories. We might, for example, put together a virtual project team, bringing together the best people for a new product design regardless of physical location. Next, we turn our attention to primary task types.

Primary Task Types

While team type labels describe the fundamental nature of a team and how it will perform, they do not give us much information about what the team will be working toward. That is where task-type classi�ications come in. Task types describe what a particular team is expected to do. Table 1.5 lists the primary task types and their descriptions and provides examples of associated teams.

Table 1.5: Summary of primary task types

Primary task type

Description Examples of associated teams

Managing others

Interpersonal behaviors related to directing, supervising, or overseeing the work of others in an authoritative role

Management, supervisory, and project management teams

Human service Direct social interactions in which a team or team members provide goods or services to an outside party

Customer service, sales

Negotiation Competitive social interactions between two or more parties, in which team members seek to clarify and achieve common and independent goals by resolving differences, identifying and resolving con�licts, and jointly establishing a compromise or outcome agreeable to all parties

Negotiation, mediation, merger, acquisition, and advocate teams

Advising others Providing expert support or advice in a consultative role lacking the authority to act or make changes directly

Advisory boards, focus groups, quality circles

Problem solving Discovering or generating facts, ideas, options, alternatives, or processes that resolve a problem or issue, address a challenge, or satisfy a speci�ic question or need.

Process and strategic management teams, investigative teams, design and development teams, and ideation and creativity tanks

Decision making Evaluating and choosing between two or more options to determine the best solution or course of action for a given problem or situation.

Decision-making boards, committees, and commissions

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 25/41

Primary task type

Description Examples of associated teams

Psychomotor action

Manual and technical activities or tasks involving calculated movements or sequences requiring physical and mental coordination, including the manipulation of self, objects, and the operation or use of devices and tools

Manufacturing, production, and maintenance crews, orchestral and dance companies, military, sports, and surgical teams

Technical service

Indirect technical support goods or services provided to an outside party

IT and accounting teams, machine-servicing crews, server provider and service crews

Troubleshooting Dealing with speci�ic and urgent problems and issues Operational task forces, cheetah teams, military and police task forces

Understanding the Signi�icance of Team and Task Types

As we have learned, team types based on structural parameters describe teams on a fundamental level (i.e., a project team), while primary task types act as descriptive quali�iers (i.e., a project management team). But why are these labels signi�icant or important? Together, team and task types offer a shared language that can create an immediate and common understanding about the nature of a team, answering questions such as:

What is the life expectancy of the team—is it expected to produce or provide something inde�initely or just once? Are team deliverables a focal product, such as goods, services, or authoritative decision making, or will the team’s performance mainly involve support, advice, or troubleshooting? Where will team members be pulled from, and how will they primarily interact?

A team type can immediately impart some understanding of a team’s fundamental nature—for example, knowing that a team is virtual tells us a lot about its structure and function. In the same way, understanding the nature of a team’s primary task, how it’s expected to function, and where its members will be pulled from, can help direct our decision making when we need to select a team format.

No matter their type or associated tasks, teams are now recognized as the go-to unit for fostering high performance, innovation, maintaining organizational competitiveness, and managing change. The potential gains for team members, managers, and the organization as a whole are tremendous, but the pivotal term is potential. Teams only really pay off when they function effectively.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 26/41

Chapter 1 Summary and Resources

Groups and teams face a growing range and complexity of performance challenges and obstacles that were virtually unheard of in the past. Many are short-term, ad hoc constructs, put together for a speci�ic task or purpose and expected to rapidly form, perform, and adjourn. Some are made up of individuals who have worked in various combinations before; others are pulled together across multiple departments or disciplines and include members who are functionally or culturally diverse or are recruited from outside the organization. The rise of the Internet as a global marketplace and virtual workspace has recontexualized the operational contexts in which groups and teams operate.

Today’s operational contexts regularly include:

multiple stakeholders, high-load information processing, dynamic performance parameters and contingencies, rapid changes in tempo, and blurred boundary lines between core team and auxiliary or transitory members.

Understanding the developmental processes groups and teams undergo—and the common pitfalls they must overcome to successfully work together—is crucial to fostering effective performance within this challenging organizational

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 27/41

environment. In the next chapter, we examine developmental processes, strategies to support and manage them, and guidelines for building an effective team.

Chapter Summary Groups can take on almost any form and function. They can exist and perform in many settings and are similarly �lexible in composition, structure, and leadership. The relationships group members develop with each other and with the group as a whole are consistently identi�iable elements that enable us to identify groups and other group-like collectives. In primary groups, common purpose revolves around maintaining member relationships and well-being. In secondary groups, common purpose revolves around the performance of tasks and activities rather than social relations and well-being, although these do impact the group’s performance. Although primary groups can emerge from relationships formed in professional settings, most of the workplace groups we engage with will be secondary groups. All groups have a purpose to exist, a composition of members with individual qualities and needs, structure for interrelations, leadership from within and without, and a context in which they are embedded. They engage in developmental and task-oriented processes. As groups work toward a common purpose, members develop patterns for behavior and interaction. The way others perceive us affects the way we perceive ourselves. Whether others place us in categories or groups perceived as positive or negative, this in�luences our own perception and acceptance of membership. Shared social identity goes beyond social identi�ication as members intuitively acknowledge their interdependence within a collective entity with a common purpose and shared fate. Group composition can be viewed as both a consequence of the social and psychological processes occurring as groups develop and a context in�luencing social and behavioral phenomena, group structure, and processes. Diversity can be expressed as individual attributes, demographic characteristics, and individual interests and needs. Small memberships limit the human resources available for collective efforts. Larger membership can foster an easy division of labor that capitalizes on the unique contributions of members; however, larger groups are more susceptible to process loss. In an organizational context, group structure exists both internally and externally. Within the group, structure de�ines member roles and directs patterns of interdependence and interaction. Externally, another structure provides a framework for the group as a collective entity that ful�ills a speci�ic role and responsibilities within the organization, acting in interdependent relations with other organizational units. Group roles can be divided into task and relationship roles.

Task role activities include setting goals, coordinating meetings, encouraging task-related feedback, and gathering and recording relevant information. Relationship role activities include facilitating knowledge and opinion sharing during group discussions, mediating con�lict, building trust, and managing destructive norms.

Group norms, which can be constructive or destructive, represent a blend of organizationally imposed norms that stem from organizational rules, procedures, expectations, and the unique set of norms that emerge from the interactions that result from being a member of a particular group. Group members develop meaningful interrelations through socioemotional and task interdependence, communication, and group processes. Communication is a critical factor in shaping outcomes for the major developmental and task-oriented group processes. Within group dynamics, group processes typically refer to the major developmental and task-orientated processes. All groups have some form of leadership, whether they enact distinct leader/follower relationships or engage in collective decision making to direct the group. Leadership can be designated by an organization or emergent within the dynamics of a particular group. Groups are embedded within a developmental and operational context that fundamentally shapes group behavior and purpose. Formal and informal groups coexist within the workplace, and both are embedded within the organizational context. Teams share basic characteristics with all groups, but as a distinct form of secondary groups, teams have speci�ic attributes that are entirely their own.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 28/41

Teams engage in collaborative performance and shared responsibility for outcomes. This is the central tenet of teams and is their distinctive function within the task group category. Work groups and teams fundamentally differ along the basic elements of leadership, accountability, and purpose.

Work groups follow a single clear leader, who determines group purpose, agenda, and approach, delegating individual tasks and roles. This format necessitates individual accountability. Teams engage in shared leadership, collectively determining group purpose, agenda, and approach, as well as individual tasks and roles. This format requires mutual accountability.

Work groups are almost always more ef�icient than teams, but teams are typically more effective. Organizations should use a team when the task or solution is complex, is nonroutine, or requires commitment and buy-in. Teams are categorized using a combination of their structural parameters and primary task type. Team types based on structural parameters describe the fundamental nature of a team and how it is expected to work. The basic team types consist of work team, project team, task force, parallel team, and virtual team. The primary task types consist of managing others, human service, negation, advising others, problem solving, decision making, psychomotor action, technical service, and troubleshooting. Understanding the basic team and task types allows us to use a shared language to generate an immediate and common understanding about the nature of a particular team in terms of what it is expected to do and the way it is expected to work. Working in groups and teams has become standard operation in most of today’s organizations. Understanding the developmental processes groups and teams undergo, and the common pitfalls they must overcome to work together successfully, is crucial if employees are to succeed in the contemporary workplace.

Critical-Thinking Questions 1. Identify the following as groups, aggregates, or social categories and explain the reasoning behind your choices:

Intimate family and friends The tenants in an apartment complex Taken together, all of the people you have friended online Native Americans U.S. citizens The students in an online class

2. Describe: A group you desired membership in. What made that group seem valuable and attractive at the time? A group others placed you within. Was it perceived as a positive or negative group? How did you feel about being placed within it, and did you consciously or unconsciously accept others’ assessment of your membership?

3. Workplace groups behave differently, follow different rules, and use different methods to select members and motivate them than the groups we involve in our private lives. With few exceptions, the groups we �ind in the workplace are secondary groups, yet this category also includes social activity and friendship groups. Using the concepts introduced in this chapter, explain why workplace groups behave so differently than the secondary groups in our private lives.

4. Both work groups and teams can be effective when applied appropriately to a task or problem. Describe a situation in which you were part of a work group or a team that was applied ineffectively for a given situation. Would the alternative group model have been more effective? Why?

Additional Resources Links

Identity Crisis: Are We a TEAM or a WORKING GROUP? https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/smartwork/201001/identity-crisis-are-we-team-or-working- group (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/smartwork/201001/identity-crisis-are-we-team-or-working-group) Differences Between Group Work & Team Work: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/differences-between- group-work-team-work-11004.html (http://smallbusiness.chron.com/differences-between-group-work-team-work- 11004.html) Why Self-Managed Teams Are the Future of Business: http://www.inc.com/chuck-blakeman/why-self- managed-teams-are-the-future-of-business.html (http://www.inc.com/chuck-blakeman/why-self-managed-teams-

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 29/41

are-the-future-of-business.html)

Key Terms and Concepts

aggregate A collection of people who are in the same place at the same time.

coaction A type of collective behavior in which people perform similar activities or tasks alongside others but not together.

collaborative performance The willful contribution of interdependent and joint effort, pooled knowledge and resources, and shared responsibility for outcomes.

collective behavior The spontaneously and temporarily coordinated activities or actions of people in�luenced by a common impulse.

communication The comprehensive exchange of interpersonal, contextual, and task-related information; a key element in any group setting.

cross-functional Regarding group membership, drawn from different functional or departmental backgrounds.

designated leaders Leaders assigned to ful�ill leadership roles and managerial responsibilities based on organizational standards, hierarchy, and needs.

diversity The degree of variation among members.

effectiveness The degree to which a performance outcome satis�ies project requirements, the relative quality and timeliness of a solution or output, and the quality of member interaction.

ef�iciency Greater production or performance output with less input of resources such as time, money, and employee labor.

emergent leaders Leaders who develop naturally out of interpersonal interactions, as members share leadership responsibilities and/or particular individuals begin to ful�ill leadership roles and responsibilities over time.

empowered To be given the authority to share varying degrees of leadership roles and managerial responsibilities with designated team leaders and/or external managers.

entitativity The internal and external perception that a group operates as a collective entity and that actions and in�luences that affect any of the members have consequences for all.

formal groups Groups that are intentionally composed and structured to realize speci�ic tasks, projects, or goals as determined by the needs of an organization. Sports teams, entertainment groups, academic classes, focus groups, committees, work groups, crews, and teams are all formal groups.

group An identi�iable social unit in which members of an interdependent collective share some common interest or purpose and engage in meaningful interactions.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 30/41

group cohesion A critical element de�ined by the total strength of members’ socioemotional identi�ication and attachment to the group, entitativity in thought and action, valuation and commitment to group goals, and the group’s structural integrity.

group composition The characteristics and size of a membership.

group context The developmental and operational setting in which groups are embedded.

group dynamics The complex forces acting internally and externally on groups from development to dispersion; emergent behavior and interaction patterns among group members and the processes they engage in.

group norms Collectively accepted standards governing member behavior within the group, given their relative position and responsibilities, as well as the connections they share.

group processes Speci�ic sets of behaviors and interactions that contribute to the realization of a particular agenda or outcome.

group structure The framework of roles, norms, and interrelations that regulates interactions, in�luencing and organizing the functioning of a group.

human relations movement A 1930s movement that emphasized the importance of social relations in the workplace and investing organizational interest in factors such as workers’ motivational in�luences, employee participation, and job satisfaction. Productivity research moved away from the idea of workers as automatons to examine the underlying dynamics and processes surrounding group performance and the socioemotional causes for high and low productivity levels.

identi�ication A multidimensional process within groups, de�ining the extent to which group membership in�luences our self- perception, and the sense of shared social identity or “us-ness” within the group.

individual accountability Working conditions in which group members are responsible only for their own performance of assigned tasks and roles. This is an integral property of work groups, wherein the group leader is also held individually accountable for the work group’s ultimate performance.

informal groups The natural outcome of consistent interaction between people with mutual interests. Friendship groups, book clubs, running and biking groups, and the set of coworkers we carpool and lunch with are all informal groups.

interdependence A state of mutual dependence in which others in�luence, and are in�luenced by, our thoughts, feelings, actions, outcomes, and experience.

mutual accountability Working conditions in which group members are accountable to each other for their individual performance of tasks and roles and are also collectively accountable for group performance outcomes and the success or failure of the group as a whole. This is an integral property of teams.

norms Evaluative standards; the implicit and explicit expectations or social rules for behavior and interpersonal interactions.

organizational context The comprehensive culture, systems, structure, processes, and resources in place within the organization.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 31/41

primary groups Groups that represent long-standing meaningful associations between a small, tight-knit group of people, such as close friends and family, who frequently interact and in�luence each other and maintain association regardless of physical location.

primary task types A basic categorization of the prime objectives teams are expected to achieve or perform.

process loss Expressed as reduced ef�iciency and effectiveness due to nonproductive actions, operations, or dynamics, including reduced member motivation and effort, dysfunctional processes, faulty coordination, and ineffectual leadership.

role A set of expectations attached to a social position, governing the behavior of the position holder in relation to others and vice versa.

role differentiation A process that occurs as patterns of behavior become habitual, the number of roles within the group increases, and the expectations, responsibilities, and prerogatives attached to each role become more speci�ic.

scienti�ic management A philosophy centered on optimization through rigid standardization, time management, and worker supervision.

secondary groups Groups that are larger, less intimate, and more deliberately organized than primary groups. They tend to be impermanent and are also known as task groups because member interactions typically center on the performance of speci�ic tasks or activities. Social clubs, work groups, boards, committees, and teams are common examples of task groups.

self-regulatory work group An early version of modern work teams, introduced as a viable organizational concept by Eric Trist and Ken Bamforth in the 1940s and 1950s.

social categories Scienti�ically or socially imposed collections of individuals who share at least one characteristic but can otherwise be quite diverse.

social identi�ication A process that occurs when members identify themselves as part of a distinct collective with shared qualities, attributes, and ways of relating and internally accept the group as an extension of self and a legitimate in�luence on self-concept and self-esteem.

social identity theory A theory that assumes that social categories and groups in�luence the self-concept and self-esteem of their members, encouraging them to enhance the positive value of their groups and to join groups held in high esteem.

socioemotional The social and emotional dimensions of an interaction, exchange, or experience.

structural parameters A set of guidelines that de�ine the team’s role, interrelation, and interdependence within the organization.

team A small group in which members engaging complementary skills are committed to, and hold themselves mutually accountable for, collaboration toward a meaningful common purpose along a collectively determined agenda and approach.

teamwork

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 32/41

The process by which group members combine knowledge, skills, and abilities; effort; and resources through a coordinated series of actions and interactions to produce an outcome.

work group A small group in which skilled members are held individually accountable for speci�ic tasks determined by the purpose, agenda, and approach of a single, clear leader.

worldview Our underlying assumptions of what the world is and how it should be.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 33/41

2.1 How Do Groups Form?

We have looked at different types of groups and explored how their members can have varying degrees of relatedness, cohesiveness, and interdependence. We know that informal and formal groups have very different developmental contexts. Despite these differences, all groups have some signi�icant elements in common. Groups are composed of people, and people relate and interact in speci�ic ways. Group development theories seek to identify and describe recurring patterns of structural change and interactions throughout a group’s existence. Although the basic concepts may be loosely applied to any group, most developmental theories are created in reference to task groups and outline the group’s formation and progression through performance, goal attainment, and dissolution. Recall from Chapter 1 that task groups include most of the informal and formal groups found in the workplace, such as social clubs, interest groups, lunch buddies, boards, committees, work groups, and teams.

Task groups feature two synergistic elements that evolve over time (Seers & Woodruff, 1997):

1. The interpersonal dynamics between members as they develop into a cohesive group or team 2. The operational dynamics that describe the group’s progression toward its performance goals

Group development theories are numerous and varied. Some theorists choose to focus on the progression of interpersonal dynamics (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977); others on the operational dynamics (Gersick, 1988); and a growing number are coming to view the process as an integrated whole (Bene�ield & Utley, 2007; Morgan, Salas, & Glickman, 1993). The three theories presented in the following sections were selected because they represent each of these perspectives and because they are relevant to understanding and working in organizational groups and teams. The �irst of these, Tuckman’s sequential stage theory, is the most well known and represents a large body of accepted theories that outline group development as occurring in sequential stages. The second, Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory, offers an alternate view of the developmental process as one that occurs in dramatic leaps at predictable intervals within the performance timeline. Finally, the team evaluation and maturation model integrates Tuckman’s and Gersick’s theories into a new and more comprehensive whole. We will examine each of these theories in turn, beginning with the oldest and most in�luential.

Tuckman’s Sequential Stage Theory

Tuckman’s sequential stage theory assumes that group development follows a sequential process in which group members enact a series of �ive developmental stages, known as forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen 1977). Within these stages, members enter a group, experience a period of con�lict while adjusting to their new setting, establish shared scripts and group norms, proceed to performance and goal achieving, and eventually dissolve the group. Table 2.1 models Tuckman’s �ive stages of development and describes them by their outcome, associated activities, and primary interpersonal dynamic.

Table 2.1: Tuckman’s �ive stages of development

Stage Outcome Activities Interpersonal dynamic

Forming Individuals come together and acknowledge membership in a distinct group.

Task-orienting behaviors: Identi�ication of the group’s objective, structural parameters, primary task type, and method of interaction.

Uncertainty: Members try to understand the “ground rules” of belonging to the group, how to approach group process and performance, and what they need to do to achieve group goals.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 34/41

Stage Outcome Activities Interpersonal dynamic

Storming Members shift from I to we thinking; script clashes, status balancing, and role adjustment occur.

Boundary testing and rede�inition: There is con�lict between members, role emergence, and task designation.

Resistance: Members chafe against new constraints associated with the group context, assigned roles, script differences, and perceived status within the group.

Norming Members acknowledge that the group works toward a coordinated objective or common good. They develop procedural and behavioral norms that support this outcome.

Script uni�ication: Assimilation and emergence of group norms. Task and socioemotional interdependence increase.

Cooperation: Members accept the group and seek acceptance via observation and open exchange of information, feedback, and norms.

Performing Members achieve positive interdependence and focus energies toward goal accomplishment.

Participation in task- oriented processes and activities: Behaviors and activities geared toward productivity and goal attainment.

Positive interdependence: Members engage in cooperative action, group energy is channeled toward task work, and the group becomes a functional instrument for accomplishing its objective.

Adjourning Members physically and emotionally disengage from the group as membership ends.

Physical and emotional closure: Task activities and behaviors are terminated. Members prepare to resume pre-group duties and roles and disengage from their roles and relationships within the group. Members are recognized for their participation and achievement and achieve emotional closure.

Evaluation and re�lection: Members assess their participation and personal development within the group, group process, and performance outcome.

Mapping the Developmental Processes Tuckman’s sequential stage theory focuses on the progression of interpersonal dynamics between group members. The �ive-stage model represents a simpli�ied outline of the developmental processes that occur over the course of a group’s existence. By examining the essential nature of the �irst four process areas, we can identify cohesion as the overarching metaprocess (Snowdon & Kawalek, 2003) that de�ines and guides the activities within the stages of forming, norming, storming, and performing.

When new groups come into existence, group cohesion occurs over a series of developmental processes encompassing member identi�ication and the emergence of group structure. In relation to Tuckman’s stages, cohesion entails:

Social identi�ication. Represented in Tuckman’s theory by the forming stage, individuals come together and acknowledge membership in a distinct group. Shared social identity, status, and role clari�ication. Represented by the storming stage, members shift from I to we thinking. Script clashes, status balancing, and role adjustments also occur. Entitativity and norms. Represented by the norming stage, members acknowledge that the group works toward a coordinated objective or common good and develops procedural and behavioral norms that support this

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 35/41

outcome. Positive interdependence. Represented by the performing stage, members engage in cooperative action that focuses on task work and goal attainment.

When new members join an existing group, they follow a slightly different identi�ication and integration process, and group cohesion begins with socialization. Broadly de�ined, socialization represents the process by which newcomers assimilate the attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge required to successfully participate as a member (Morrison, 1993; Ahuja & Galvin, 2003). During this time new members are extremely malleable and open to guidance; in effect they enter the group and go directly from forming to norming. However, as they emerge from this initial period of observation and assimilation and become more con�ident in their ability to assume membership, they may begin to question their identity and role within the group. Group process is then shaken by a brief devolvement back into storming, followed by a relatively rapid re-evolution to norming and performing. The group as a whole can also experience this if one or more of the members dramatically shift roles (such as becoming team leader or group facilitator) and everyone must resocialize to the new conditions (Moreland & Levine, 2002).

Examining Tuckman’s Fifth Stage Tuckman’s theory suggests that a group will dissipate after accomplishing its primary task or objective; however, many collective goals are only temporarily realized. Or, after achieving its initial goals, a group may face new goals. A professional baseball team’s ultimate goal is to win the World Series, and this goal carries over from season to season, regardless of whether they win or lose in any given year. Winning simply con�irms the team’s existence. Although chronic losses can affect the team’s value and popularity, failure is more likely to cause changes in membership or leadership (such as changes in players or coaches) than total dissolution of the group. Likewise, an executive team’s primary goal is to enhance the productivity and viability of the organization as a whole. Measurable by the company’s quarterly and yearly bottom line, this goal simply “reboots” as the team turns its focus to supporting and enhancing that growth over the next �iscal year.

Groups like these may never adjourn. A sports team may change members, leadership, and even af�iliation without losing its identity as a team. Similarly, top management, executive teams, and advisory boards continue to exist as long as their organization remains intact. Many manufacturing work groups and teams may for all intents and purposes do the same. Members of groups that do not adjourn may instead face a continuing sequence of group socialization and resocialization as new members join and assimilate and established members adjust to changing personalities, roles, expectations, and norms (Moreland & Levine, 1989; 2002).

Reality Check: Socialization—the Tuckman Spiral

All groups have a starting point. Some, especially those in the workplace, never end. Companies continually attract new hires, train them, help them �it in, and encourage them to grow with the organization. Socializing new group members can be dif�icult for both new and existing members. As they work with new hires, existing employees may feel like they are reliving the stages of group development as they adjust to newcomers’ behaviors and beliefs and help them assimilate into the group, workplace environment, and organizational culture.

It can also be a struggle for new members to �ind their place in a group that already has established roles and norms. Newcomers have their own ideas on how things should be done, based on their previous experiences. They may hold attitudes or expectations formed by their experiences in other groups or conversely have no prior group experience and need to come to terms with their new role and identity. Existing members may forget that newcomers need time to assimilate to group norms and procedures and may thus view the socialization process as an unnecessary or annoying setback in their formerly smooth-running operation.

In ongoing groups in which membership �luctuates over time, each new member experiences a miniature spiral of forming, storming, norming, performing, and possibly adjourning. Tuckman’s stages may seem to never stop. This is referred to as the Tuckman spiral. The average time from the start of socialization to full productivity of external new hires can range from 8 to 20 weeks for clerical positions and up to 26 weeks for executives (Williams, 2003).

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 36/41

During this time, organizational group and team members must be prepared to support joining and adjourning members and the group’s evolving developmental needs.

Critical-Thinking Questions

1. Describe a time that you joined an existing group or were present in a group that took in new members. Using your knowledge of Tuckman’s stages and theory, describe some of the socialization dynamics that occurred.

2. Did the group experience any of Tuckman’s stages with the incoming members? If so, which ones? 3. How did existing members treat the new members? In what ways did they address the competing needs

for socialization and productivity? 4. Looking back on that situation with the knowledge you have now, what would you change if you could?

What would you suggest group members in a similar situation do to help their group progress more effectively toward productive performance?

Practical Implications of Tuckman’s Theory Tuckman’s theory tends to view groups as composed of strangers coming together for a singular purpose and dissolving after that objective is accomplished. Tuckman developed his theory based on a comprehensive synthesis of his own and 50 other empirical studies on group development, during a time when study groups tended to be either arti�icially composed or short term, chosen speci�ically so that they could be observed from beginning to end. While an organization that is establishing new groups and teams may do so from scratch, employees more typically join preexisting groups or form new groups in which some or all of the members have worked together before. In these situations, familiarity with other members and preexisting organizational frameworks for group hierarchy, procedure, and roles can help formal groups shortcut through the forming, storming, and norming phases. This does not mean that they skip these phases entirely, however.

When we enter a group, we bring with us our own personal scripts, or procedural and normative templates for behavior and interaction within groups. Based on our past experiences and current expectations, scripts represent our view of how we and others should act in a given situation (Dennis, Gar�ield, & Reinicke, 2003). Members with similar or shared scripts tend to progress easily through the initial developmental processes and move quickly into the performing phase (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985). Within Tuckman’s model, script uni�ication—the development or assimilation of shared scripts—occurs during the norming phase. This is essentially what happens during the initial phase of socialization as well; however, once a new member becomes familiar with the group’s existing scripts, the person may compare them unfavorably to previously held scripts and attempt to insert these into the current group. This results in a renewed cycle of storming and norming. Although the storming process can be eased in formal groups by preset organizational structure and guidelines, members may still chafe at unsatisfying or ill-�itting roles, and status balancing will occur as members establish informal hierarchies based on personal status within the group. While the process areas represented by Tuckman’s sequential stages are all present within the socialization process, they do not follow the rigid patterning envisioned in Tuckman’s theory.

Tuckman’s work thus has its limitations, but it remains a popular and useful developmental theory. Our modeling of the stages provides practical descriptors of the outcomes, activities, and dynamics inherent in the cohesion process and when group membership adjourns. Our exploration of these and related concepts also offer some useful takeaways:

Incoming members bring procedural and normative scripts based on past experiences and current expectations (Dennis et al., 2003). Members with similar or shared scripts tend to progress easily through the initial developmental processes and move quickly into the performing phase (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985). There will always be some degree of storming and norming as members work to generate or assimilate shared scripts. Storming is essentially a competition of personal status and scripts; when status balancing is complete, the group moves toward script uni�ication, and the norming process begins.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 37/41

New members joining established groups could be initially set back if their personal scripts are misaligned with the established shared script. Established members could resent the apparent process and performance loss that results from incorporating new group members. Preexisting organizational frameworks for group hierarchy, procedure, and roles can help formal groups shortcut through the forming, storming, and norming phases by speeding the evolution of shared scripts. Though not all groups dissolve after performance, adjourning remains a vital process, as even permanent groups lose established members and welcome new ones. The process of group socialization and resocialization can be continuous if the group outlasts its original membership.

What does this mean for group members and managers? Developing group cohesion is the core purpose behind the forming, storming, and norming stages, and script uni�ication is their major outcome. Shared scripts become the primary tools by which group members effectively coordinate their performance toward a common purpose or goal. Support for group cohesion and script uni�ication can include the following:

Preexisting organizational frameworks for group hierarchy, procedure, and roles Open acceptance and facilitation of constructive con�lict, knowledge sharing, and member feedback Encouragement of new and established members to view socialization and resocialization as an important part of the performance process and as an opportunity to reinvestigate existing scripts and norms, invigorating the group with new KSAs Acknowledgment of the importance of adjourning activities whether the entire group is dissolving or individual members are moving on

The labels and concepts in Tuckman’s theory are practical and easy to remember, making it perhaps the most popular and widely taught group developmental theory to date. However, not everyone subscribes to the idea of steady progression over time. Focusing on task-oriented development, Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory suggests that group development occurs as a sort of growth spurt, a dramatic evolution tied to a speci�ic time in the group’s performance schedule.

Gersick’s Punctuated Equilibrium Theory

Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory proposes that groups consistently experience two major phases in which working methods, interaction styles, and project direction remain relatively stable. These are separated by a crisis and transition at precisely the midpoint of the group’s of�icial performance deadline (see Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1: Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory

Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory assigns critical value to key interactions at the group’s �irst meeting and midpoint transition.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 38/41

Source: Based on Gray, C.F., & Larson, E.C. (2006). Project management (3rd ed., p. 346). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Phase one takes place during the �irst half of the performance timeline. Rather than experiencing the open-ended script comparison, testing, and uni�ication suggested in the initial stages of most sequential theories, Gersick found that the group’s approach at their �irst meeting sets the script for group interaction and work through the timeline’s midpoint. Phase one work is not characterized by any particular process or even speci�ic productive value; some groups work steadily toward a goal and on tasks determined in the �irst meeting, while others spend the entire �irst phase in an indecisive haze.

Midpoint transition occurs at the timeline’s midpoint. At this point, Gersick observed that groups consistently suffer a brief crisis in which members recognize time constraints and feel the urgency of approaching deadlines. During the midpoint transition, group members evaluate work completion and direction, reconnect with outside authorities or in�luences, reformulate their shared scripts, and often abandon old patterns in favor of radical new perspectives.

Phase two occurs during the second half of the performance timeline. In this phase, groups undergo a period of productivity reminiscent of Tuckman’s performing stage, as they implement the decisions made at the midpoint transition. The radical shifts in perspectives or performance agenda at transition may result in a shuf�ling of roles or a universal change of group interaction. As shown in Figure 2.1, phase two culminates in completing the performance objective.

Critical Analysis of Punctuated Equilibrium Whereas Tuckman’s theory represents group development as a graduated, linear process, Gersick’s theory assigns critical value to key interactions at two concrete points in the group’s timeline: �irst meeting and midpoint transition. Gersick observed that by the end of the group’s �irst meeting, members have naturally formed complete scripts for phase one interactions and group work. Rather than adopting a lengthy process of script exploration, testing, and uni�ication, Gersick’s theory suggests that members quickly throw together a unique temporary script that depends on unpredictable combinations of existing individual and organizational scripts, situational conditions, and member dynamics. For example, Gersick observed that if one member tended to dominate and direct the discussion during the initial meeting, this pattern would continue throughout phase one interactions—although the dominating member was not always the same individual (Gersick, 1988). Unlike the sequential models, there is no proposed predictability for what member interactions might entail during the �irst meeting or the ensuing work phase. Some groups may begin by mapping out the overall work plan, spend the entire initial phase simply clarifying what they are trying to achieve, or jump right into task planning and assignation. Others may experience a period similar to storming in which they address perceived con�licts with project scripts, member roles, or task parameters.

The midpoint transition is characterized by a sudden spike in concern for project deadlines, a use-it-or-lose-it practicality with respect to work completed thus far, and renewed awareness and acceptance of external in�luences, authority �igures,

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 39/41

and aid. At this point, the temporary script the group initially adopted is con�irmed or adapted and made permanent or discarded for a new version. According to Gersick’s model, regardless of performance setting, project type, or speed with which members move from planning to implementation, groups consistently experience a crisis at the midlife transition point and thereafter follow modi�ied tactics or project direction. Subsequent studies have indicated that while groups consistently experience a performance pause and reevaluation at the temporal midpoint, radical revision is not a given. This suggests that the midpoint transition represents an opportunity for change but does not guarantee one (Okhuysen & Eisenhardt, 2002; Okhuysen & Waller, 2002).

Further testing of Gersick’s theory (Dennis et al., 2003; Seers & Woodruff, 1997) suggests that groups follow the punctuated equilibrium model when the rapid development of shared scripts is:

facilitated (for example, in groups in which members have worked together before or that formed using preexisting organizational hierarchies, procedures, and norms); and required (for example, when groups are under a rigid and urgent timeline that forces immediate task orientation and action).

Groups in which members were neither under extreme scheduling and time demands nor aided by preexisting or previously shared scripts follow developmental patterns more akin to Tuckman’s stages (Dennis et al., 2003).

Practical Implications of Gersick’s Theory Gersick’s observations offer signi�icant practical value in understanding key points in a group’s performance. Using the two critical interaction points in Gersick’s timeline as guideposts, group members and leaders can plan for certain types of behavior, interaction dynamics, and performance input.

1. The �irst meeting creates a template for phase one interactions. Group members and leaders should be prepared to set the tone for phase one interactions at the �irst meeting and to work on foundational tasks and issues that will foster a strong midpoint transition. This includes clarifying performance goals, facilitating effective communication and con�lict resolution among members, and settling issues of hierarchy and role differentiation within the group.

2. The midpoint transition represents an opportunity for change. Gersick’s (1988) research suggests that the midpoint transition can be utilized as a speci�ic and predictable point in project performance when group members are most open to external in�luence and intervention. For this reason, she suggests that the midpoint transition presents external leaders with a unique opportunity to in�luence changes in project direction or performance agenda and should be carefully considered, as once passed, the opportunity will not present itself again.

The main weakness in any practical application of the punctuated equilibrium model is the lack of clarity regarding what groups actually do during the two phases. Gersick’s focus on operational dynamics does not encompass the attention to detail typically found in sequential models. Tuckman’s sequential stage theory may not be a one-size-�its-all template, but the model remains popular in both education and management circles mainly because the stages provide a useful platform of practical knowledge about the member activities and dynamics that occur over the course of a group’s existence. Since Gersick and Tuckman each address an area the other leaves relatively untouched, the two theories are not incompatible. In fact, some contemporary schools of thought suggest that Gersick and Tuckman work best when we put them together.

Team Evaluation and Maturation Model

The diverse and subjective nature of group interactions has long been an obstacle for researchers trying to uncover some scienti�ic order and practical guidance for the group development process. Mid- to late-20th-century studies �ixated on the sequential model, while Gersick’s 1988 model addressed the issue from a new perspective without truly contradicting or offering a holistically useful replacement of the older models. More recently, theorists have proposed a new vision in which Tuckman and Gersick’s theories combine to create a symbiotic and practical whole. Morgan, Salas, and Glickman’s (1993) team evaluation and maturation model is a notable example of the current trend in group development theory.

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 40/41

In an effort to develop a more holistic understanding of team development, Morgan, Salas, and Glickman developed a model that integrated Tuckman and Gersick’s research and incorporated minor concepts from others (Davis, Gaddy, & Turney, 1985; McGrath, 1991; Bowers, Morgan, & Salas, 1991). Using this new model, Morgan, Salas, and Glickman undertook a comprehensive investigation into the development of Navy Command Information Center tactical decision- making teams during operational training. The results, published in Analysis of Team Evolution and Maturation, suggest that while both Tuckman and Gersick offer signi�icant frameworks for group developmental processes and dynamics, the path taken throughout group formation and development is more complex and variable than any single sequence of phases or developmental leaps (Morgan et al., 1993). Instead, they offer the team evaluation and maturation (TEAM) model, which postulates two phases, a midpoint transition, and nine sequential stages that can be repeated or recycled to address interaction failures, changes in environmental demands, or complex issues. The model is outlined in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: TEAM model of group development

The TEAM model combines elements of Tuckman’s and Gersick’s group development theories to create a holistic model of team development.

Source: Based on Morgan, B., Salas, E., & Glickman, A. S. (1993). An analysis of team evolution and maturation. Journal of General Psychology, 120(3), 277–291.

As shown in Figure 2.2, the TEAM model directly addresses both interpersonal and operational dynamics by proposing that group energies and interactions work along two distinct but simultaneous activity tracks that converge as performance progresses (Morgan et al., 1993):

1. Teamwork activities, or those that deal with the interpersonal functioning of the team (Davis et al., 1985). These include the interpersonal dynamics of group development and performance and consciously enacted person-to- person activities that support interpersonal communications, socioemotional interdependence, and positive interaction patterns (Morgan et al., 1993).

2. Task work activities, or those that deal with the technical functioning of the team (Davis et al., 1985). These include activities and exercises pertaining to task requirements and interdependence, technical skills, work procedure, in-task communication, and collective performance efforts.

During the �irst meeting and forming stage of group development, Morgan et al. (1993) observed that members were unclear as to what constitutes teamwork and task work, the differences between them, and the comparative importance of each. These tended to differentiate into meaningful concepts and activities over the course of phase one, as members

8/27/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 41/41

learned how and how not to work together, generating shared scripts. The primary outcome of the midpoint transition was a conscious integration of teamwork and task work activities, as team members acknowledged that effective performance is achieved when teamwork and task work converge. These activity tracks diverge after the completion stage, as members detach from task work activities and prepare to exit the group. This process is graphically represented in Figure 2.2.

Morgan, Salas, and Glickman’s (1993) study of the TEAM model suggests that certain developmental qualities remain consistent regardless of team setting, purpose, or operational requirements:

Team members’ perceptions of performance processes and teamwork and task work activities change as the group moves through the initial developmental stages and performance. To achieve optimal performance, teamwork and task work activities must be differentiated; the skills associated with each must be separately enhanced and progressively focused. Then the two activity tracks must converge and integrate. Ultimately, effective performance depends on the convergence of teamwork and task work activities, so that these tracks work collaboratively in support of team development, viability, and performance.

The TEAM model represents a combination and extension of previous theories. As such, its practical implications can be combined with those in Tuckman’s sequential stage theory and Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory.

The �irst meeting represents the initial opportunity to in�luence the group’s development. It is an opportune time to call attention to the signi�icance of each of these activity tracks; establish any preexisting organizational frameworks for group hierarchy, procedure, and roles; and initiate norms and scripts to openly accept and facilitate constructive con�lict, effective communication, knowledge sharing, and feedback. Group members and managers can facilitate effective performance by sequentially guiding members’ ability to (a) differentiate between teamwork and task work activities, (b) enhance and focus their related skills, then (c) work toward convergence and integration of the two activity tracks. The midpoint transition represents the point of convergence for teamwork and task work activities. It also marks a speci�ic and predictable point in project performance when group members are most open to external in�luence and intervention. Fortunately, this second opportunity to in�luence group development occurs just when it may be needed most. Group members and managers should keep abreast of group development, any issues impeding group progress, and the need to converge teamwork and task work activities. This will facilitate relevant and supportive in�luence at the midpoint transition.

The practical implications of developmental theories touch on concepts relevant to building an effective team. Section 2.2 examines the process of team building, outlining the steps for planning a team and the concepts and strategies supporting the team’s development.