Teams and Team Building

Teams and team building are crucial components of modern workplaces, where collaboration often enhances productivity and innovation. A team is a specific type of group characterized by distinct roles, shared goals, and interdependence among its members, leading to a common fate in their success or failure. Unlike general groups, which may lack a cohesive culture and clear accountability, teams emphasize collaboration, trust, and mutual responsibility. The process of team development typically unfolds in stages: forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning, each stage addressing distinct challenges such as conflict resolution and task coordination.

Team building is essential to facilitate this development, transforming a collection of individuals into a cohesive unit capable of achieving synergy—where the collective output surpasses what individuals could achieve alone. Effective team-building strategies often focus on clarifying roles, establishing goals, enhancing communication, and fostering problem-solving skills. Understanding the dynamics of teamwork, including potential pitfalls like groupthink, is vital to optimize team performance and ensure that diverse perspectives are valued and integrated. As organizations continue to explore ways to enhance teamwork, the emphasis on the interpersonal skills required for successful collaboration remains a key area of focus.

Published in: 2021

By: Wienclaw, Ruth A.

Subject Terms

Teams and Team Building

Abstract

Increasingly, teams are the foundation of the 21st century workplace. The philosophy behind this widespread use of teams is that their use can create an environment in which synergy is achieved and the final outcome is greater than that which would have been achieved by individuals alone. Team development comprises several stages. However, this process is not always linear, and teams may experience multiple stages simultaneously or revert to previous stages. Team building efforts conducted by an outside party can help teams acquire the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary for functional teamwork and achieving synergy, and to avoid pitfalls of team situations such as group-think. Team building efforts usually focus on defining the roles of team members, setting team goals, problem solving, and interpersonal processes.

Overview

Groups vs. Teams

At one time or another, most people in the twenty-first-century workplace will find themselves working as part of a team. Teams in an organizational setting can be as simple as two people working together to write a white paper or technical document or as complex as multiple businesses working together to bid a proposal or build the next-generation destroyer for the navy. However, not every group of people who work together can be considered a team. In general, groups in the workplace comprise two or more individuals who are interdependent and who interact over time. So, for example, the sales staff of a retail store might be considered a group. They interact with each other, ask each other for help (e.g., ring up a customer, find an item in stock or inventory), and support each other in accomplishing the tasks necessary for running a successful retail store. Groups work toward a common goal, are accountable to a manager, and may (ideally) accomplish their goals. Leadership of a group is held by a single individual. However, groups do not have a clear, stable culture, so conflict may be frequent.

Teams, on the other hand, are a special type of group. In a team, there is a differentiation of skills where one individual does a specific part of the task and other individuals do other specific parts of the task. Another way teams are differentiated from groups is that the members of a team perform their work in the context of a common fate. For example, although the members of the retail staff may help each other in the context of doing their jobs, they also all tend to do the same job. For the most part, dealing with one salesperson in a retail store should be the same as dealing with another person in the retail store. Further, members of a sales group typically do not share a common fate. For example, if Harvey does not do his job adequately, it will be Harvey—and not the rest of the sales staff—who will be reprimanded or fired.

On the other hand, some sales and marketing staffs are truly teams where there is differentiation of skill among the team members. For example, when trying to sell a learning management system for a computer-based training system, one member of the marketing team may specialize in comparing the business's system with that of the competition, while another team member might specialize in answering technical questions regarding the programmability of the system. If the remuneration of the team members is based in part on commission for making the sale, then the fate of the individual members of the team depends on the fate of the team as a whole (i.e., whether or not they sell the system). Leadership of a team is shared, and members are mutually accountable to each other. Because of these team characteristics, team members are committed to the goal and mission of the team, trust each other, and have a more collaborative culture than groups in general. As a result, teamwork often leads to a situation of synergy (Nahavandi, 2000).

Types of Teams

In general, four types of teams can be found in the workplace:

Manager-led teams,
Self-managing teams,
Self-designing teams, and
Self-governing teams (Hackman, 1987).

In manager-led teams, the design of the organizational context, the design of the team as a performing unit, and the monitoring and managing of the performance processes of the team is all a responsibility of the team manager. In self-managing teams, the design of the organizational context in which the team works as well as the design of the group as a performing unit are both done by management. However, the self-managing team not only executes the task, but also monitors and manages the performance processes used in the performance of the task. In a self-designing team, the organizational context in which the team operates is designed by management. However, all other aspects of the team functioning (i.e., design of the group as a performing unit, monitoring and managing of performance processes, and executing the task) are the responsibility of the team. In self-governing teams, all aspects of the team -- including its design within the context of the organization -- are the responsibility of the team.

Further Insights

Team Development

Although organizations sometimes act as though teams can be created by fiat, team development is in fact a multistage process (Robbins, 1996). As illustrated in Figure 1, before a team is formed, it is a collection of individual entities. They may be part of a group (e.g., a sales staff), or they may not even know each other (e.g., individuals from two or more business who will write a proposal together). Once it is decided that a team will be formed (Stage 1), the team members still have a great deal of uncertainty concerning the nature of the team such as its mission and purpose, the capabilities of the other team members, what processes will best result in synergy, and the leadership of the team. During the forming stage of team development, members of the team try to determine the answers to these and other questions. Members learn to know each other better, determine each other's areas of expertise and experience, and try to determine what types of behavior is acceptable within the group. The forming stage is completed once the members no longer consider themselves to be a random collection of individuals, but as part of a team.

According to this theory, the second stage in team development is storming. This is often a stage of conflict within the team as members struggle with the constraints placed on them as individuals. For example, every semester, a teacher requires her students to do a team research project. Within these broad parameters, they are allowed to divide the tasks of the group in any way they want, are able to establish individual or team leadership, and, in general, perform the tasks of the team in whatever way they determine will best allow them to develop a project that will earn them a good grade. Every semester, at least one of these teams rebels and announces unequivocally that it is unfair to require them to depend on each other for a grade on the project. However, since satisfactory completion of the project is necessary to pass the course, these teams must use their conflict management skills in order to come to some level of mutual understanding about the leadership hierarchy within the group. This situation mimics that of the real-world workplace in which team members must learn to relinquish some of their individuality in favor of the potential that can be gained through teamwork and establish an acceptable leadership hierarchy in order to accomplish its tasks.

During the norming stage, the team develops norms—standards or patterns of behavior that are accepted as normal within the team—so that the team can accomplish its tasks. During this stage of team development, the team members bond with each other within the context of the team and its tasks and become a cohesive team. Another characteristic of this stage of team development is the development and assimilation of a set of common assumptions and expectations about what defines acceptable behavior within the group. For example, a project team in one class might decide that all members are expected to complete and submit their portion of the project on time according to a mutually agreed upon schedule and that each of the members is responsible for writing a specific part of the final report. In the workplace, a team may make similar arrangements for the development of a technical document or proposal.

The fourth stage of team development is performing. By this phase, the members of a functional team will have learned to know each other (forming), worked through the initial conflicts (storming), and determined how the team will operate (norming). It is time for the team to actually do the work for which it was brought together: conduct the research project, write the proposal, build a working model, etc. In some cases, teams are set up on a permanent basis to perform a certain kind of task. For example, an engineering team might be established to develop prototypes of new products. After the completion of one prototype, the team is then assigned to develop the prototype for another product. For such permanent teams, team development ends at this point.

However, a great many teams are established on a temporary basis. Once the project (or the class) is over, members (or students) are unlikely to continue to work together on other projects. Similarly, in the workplace, there are temporary teams such as Red Teams, task forces, and temporary committees. When the work of such teams has been accomplished, they move into the final stage of team development: adjourning. The team no longer needs to focus on accomplishing its task and, instead, focuses on the tasks necessary to wrap up the project and disband the group (e.g., final reports, distribution of products). As the work of the team winds down, the bonds between the members dissolve as the team disbands and members go back to other activities that do not involve the entire team. At this point, the team members once again become unassociated individuals.

Team Building

Although there is always the potential for teams to be dysfunctional and produce a lower-quality outcome than an individual, the concept of synergy resulting from teamwork is an attractive one, and many organizations use teams in order to foster this synergy and produce a superior outcome. Similarly, it is virtually impossible for many single organizations to be successful in meeting the needs of large contracts (e.g., development of a new destroyer), so the establishment of functional teams is essential. The question, then, becomes how to best help a team to work together harmoniously while reducing the likelihood of group-think and increasing the likelihood of synergy.

Team building is the process of turning a group of individuals who work together from a collection of individuals doing related tasks to a cohesive unit where the efforts of the team members act synergistically to yield results that could not have been done by the individuals alone. Typically, team-building efforts focus on defining the roles of team members, setting goals for the team, problem solving, and interpersonal processes (McShane & Von Glinow, 2003). Team building often comprises such activities as physical exercises that force team members to depend on each other in order to achieve a desired goal, communication exercises to teach team members to be better communicators, and small group sessions in which team members get to know each other in a nonthreatening situation.

Knowledge, Skills & Abilities (KSA)

Team-building efforts can take the form of many different types of activities targeted toward helping team members to manage conflict, avoid groupthink, and become synergistic. Although the methods used may differ, in general there are certain interpersonal and self-management knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) that need to be present in a team -- or taught through team building -- that can help achieve these goals. According to Stevens & Campion (1994), from an interpersonal perspective, team members need to have strong conflict management KSAs, collaborative problem-solving KSAs, and communication KSAs. For conflict management, team members need "to be able to recognize and encourage desirable, but discourage undesirable, team conflict." In addition, team members need to be able "to recognize the type and source of conflict confronting the team and to implement an appropriate conflict resolution strategy." Finally, team members need to be able to "employ an integrative (win-win) negotiation strategy rather than the traditional distributive (win-lose) strategy" (Stevens & Campion, 1994, p. 505).

In addition to conflict management KSAs, team members also need the KSAs to collaboratively solve problems in order for the team to be functional. Specifically, team members need to be able to identify situations requiring "participative group problem solving and to utilize the proper degree and type of participation" (p. 505) and recognize the obstacles to collaborative group problem solving and implement appropriate corrective actions.

Further, team members need the KSAs necessary for clear communication. This means that team members need to be able to understand communication networks and to utilize decentralized networks to enhance communication where possible; communicate openly and supportively (i.e., send messages that are behavior- or event-oriented, congruent, validating, conjunctive, and owned); listen nonjudgmentally and appropriately use active listening techniques; maximize consonance between nonverbal and verbal messages; recognize and interpret the nonverbal messages of others; and engage in ritual greetings and small talk, with a recognition of their importance (Stevens & Campion, 1994, p. 505).

High functioning teams need to not only possess the interpersonal KSAs discussed above, but must also have the appropriate KSAs for self-management of the team. Specifically, team members need to be able to set goals and manage performance within the team. KSAs necessary for this aspect of team functionality include the KSAs to help establish specific, challenging, and accepted team goals and to monitor, evaluate, and provide feedback on both overall team performance and individual team member performance. In addition, team members need to possess the KSAs to plan and coordinate the tasks of the team. These include the abilities to "synchronize activities, information, and task interdependencies between team members and to help establish task and role expectations of individual team members, and to ensure proper balancing of workload in the team" (Stevens & Campion, 1994).

Viewpoints

The five-stage model of team development described by Robbins has been popular since the 1960s. However, although it does describe the general progression of team development, it does so at a simplistic level. For example, it is unlikely that all conflict will be permanently resolved at the conclusion of the storming stage. In fact, many experts believe that conflict is necessary to accomplish the synergy desired from teamwork. Otherwise, a situation of groupthink can arise in which group members tend to have the same opinion as each other in order avoid conflict, reduce interpersonal pressure, or maintain an illusion of unity or cohesiveness without thoroughly thinking through the problem. This condition works against the process of good decision making and can result in a poorer product from a group effort rather than the synergy desired from teamwork. Similarly, the five-stage model presents team development as a linear process, proceeding neatly from one stage to another. In actuality, many teams return to previous stages or even exist in multiple stages at the same time (e.g., storming and performing simultaneously).

For most of us, teams are a reality of the twenty-first-century workplace. The goal of teams is typically to develop a physical, written, or conceptual product that is better than that which any one individual could have developed alone. However, the development of a functional team takes work and each team must go through several stages before it becomes optimally functional. External team-building efforts can help teams become more functional, avoid potential pitfalls such as groupthink, and work together synergistically to produce a better product. Research continues into the dynamics and performance of teams and other groups, with companies and other organizations continually looking for ways to improve teamwork and therefore overall efficiency, productivity, and satisfaction. For example, psychological tests may be used to evaluate employees or contractors in an effort to identify the best members for an ideal team.

Terms & Concepts

Conflict: A situation in which one party believes that its interests are negatively affected by another party.

Conflict Management: The process of altering the severity and form of conflict in order to maximize its benefits and minimize its negative consequences. Between parties, conflict can be resolved through collaboration, accommodation, competition, compromise, or avoidance. Conflict management can also refer to interventions performed by an objective outside party in the attempt to de-escalate conflict between parties.

Group: Two or more interdependent individuals who interact over time. Groups work toward a common goal, are accountable to a manager, and may accomplish their goals. Leadership of a group is by a single individual. Groups do not have a clear, stable culture, so conflict is frequent.

Groupthink: The tendency to have the same opinion as the other members of the group as a way to avoid conflict, reduce interpersonal pressure, or maintain an illusion of unity or cohesiveness without thoroughly thinking through the problem. Groupthink interferes with effective decision making.

Norms: Standards or patterns of behavior that are accepted as normal within the culture.

Synergy: The process by which the combined product resulting from the work of a team of individuals is greater than the results of their individual efforts.

Team: A type of group within which there is skill differentiation among team members and the entire team works within the context of a common fate. Unlike groups in general, team members are committed to the goal and mission of the team and have a collaborative culture in which the members trust each other. Leadership of a team is shared, and members are mutually accountable to each other. Teamwork often leads to a situation of synergy.

Team Building: The process of turning a group of individuals who work together from a collection of individuals doing related tasks to a cohesive unit where the efforts of the team members act synergistically to yield results that could be achieved by the individuals alone.

Win-Lose Orientation: The belief in a conflict situation that there is a fixed pool of resources that are to be divided among all parties so that the more one side receives, the less the other side receives.

Win-Win Orientation: The belief that it is possible to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution for all parties in a conflict situation.

Bibliography

Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hillier, J., & Dunn-Jensen, L. M. (2013). Groups meet … teams improve: Building teams that learn. Journal of Management Education, 37(5), 704–733. Retrieved November 27, 2013 from EBSCO online database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=89989968

McShane, S. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2003). Organizational behavior: Emerging realities for the workplace revolution (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Nahavandi, A. (2000). The art and science of leadership (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Pentland, A. (2012). The new science of building great teams. Harvard Business Review, 90(4), 60–70. Retrieved November 27, 2013 from EBSCO online database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=73561030

Radomes, A. A., Jr. (2013). The whole can be worse than the sum of its parts: Counterintuitive consequences of group facilitation. Advances in Management, 6(5), 11–23. Retrieved November 27, 2013 from EBSCO online database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=87502396

Rahman, M., & Kumaraswamy, M. M. (2012). Multicountry perspectives of relational contracting and integrated project teams. Journal of Construction Engineering & Management, 138(4), 469–480. Retrieved November 27, 2013 from EBSCO online database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=74299796

Rentsch, J. R., Delise, L. A., Mello, A. L., & Staniewicz, M. J. (2014). The integrative team knowledge building training strategy in distributed problem-solving teams. Small Group Research, 45(5), 568–591. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=98397418&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Robbins, S. P. (1996). Organizational behavior: Concepts, controversies, and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management, 20(2), 503. Retrieved April 28, 2010 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9512136558&site=ehost-livee

Wilsher, S. (2015). Behavior profiling: implications for recruitment and team building. Strategic Direction, 31(9), 1–5. Retrieved Dec. 4, 2015, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=109959523&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Teams and Team Building

On this Page

Subject Terms

Teams and Team Building

Abstract

Overview

Groups vs. Teams

Further Insights

Team Development

Team Building

Knowledge, Skills & Abilities (KSA)

Viewpoints

Terms & Concepts

Bibliography

Suggested Reading