Difference Between a Team and a Group

Optimal trust and teamwork: from groupthink to teamthink by Ferda Erdem

The success of modern organizations is closely related to their ability to promote and manage effective teamworking. When organizations downsize and de-layer they often rely on their hopefully) empowered employees to replace the organizational synergy previously delivered by the larger organization structure with synergy created by an improved network of interpersonal and inter-group relationships.

This new synergy requires the different teams and groups to work together on new corporate responsibilities often adopted at the same time as the downsizing and de-layering as part of a wider re-focusing) such as continuous learning, increased innovation and mutual problem solving (Kirkman and Shapiro, 1997, p. 731; Edmonson, 1999, p. 355). These responsibilities demand that there is a high level of ``mission synergy'' and consequent cooperation and solidarity)among team members. In the new, smaller organization this co-operation and solidarity must be created by trust between the various team members and organizational groups rather than from formal organizational processes and procedures. The critical function of trust in creating cooperation and solidarity in teams sometimes results in it being considered almost synonymously with cooperative behavior (Hosmer, 1995). However, though it is very important, teamworking does not require ``trust at any cost''. Unconditional trust among team members, for example, in some cases can create a form of ``group-myopia'' that may have a negative effect on performance. This study examines the risk of excessive trusts and the creation of groupthink and presents the results of an empirical research on this subject.

According to Deutch (1960), trust is an individual's confidence in the intentions and capabilities of a relationship partner and the belief that a relationship partner would behave as one hoped and, on the other hand, distrust is to be in doubt about and/or to be in a negative expectation toward the other party

(Lewicki et al., 1998, p. 439). The traditional view of trust says that trust is good and distrust is bad; therefore these constructs are opposites. According to this view, to provide strong cooperation and solidarity requires a climate of unconditional trust. However, a new perspective on trust argues that the trust and distrust constructs are functionally equal. Both trust and distrust can have positive outcomes ± and thus ``utility''. The positive outcomes of a trusting relationship are fairly obvious and trust often enables a degree of protection from undesirable behaviours; the benefits of distrust include the fact that such undesirable behaviours, and possible consequences, are identified (Lewicki et al., 1998, p. 444; Mishra, 1998, p. 281).

In this context, excessive trusting (trust without suspicion) can be dangerous and exacerbate abusive behaviour (Wicks et al., 1999, p. 101) e.g. non-monitoring of opportunistic behaviours, unintentional negligence or mistakes). Thus, distrust can make people prudent and provident. On the other hand, innovation and discovery can start by suspecting the ordinary and the current paradigm; distrust is also a way out of restricted thinking and mental monotony.

Trust within teams is a function of other team members' perceived ability, integrity and benevolence and as of the members' own propensity to trust (Jarvanpaa et al., 1997). Its main function is to provide synergistic relations ± ``teamthink'' (Manz and Neck, 1997). Trust performs this function by activating appropriate social processes. These processes are broad and flexible role definition, intensive social relations, high confidence in others, help-seeking behavior, free exchange of information, giving priority to team objectives and needs, high commitment and solidarity (Jones and George, 1998, p. 540). Thus, trust is seen as a required condition for teamworking.

However, excessive trust can create risk for teams. More importantly, trust can result in the ``groupthink'' phenomenon. In such a situation, team members apply self-censorship of their own thoughts that deviate from the team consensus; the team may apply social pressure to team members who argue against the team's shared beliefs; together they attempt to rationalize decisions within the group values and norms; in all controversial situations, agreement is sought; the illusion that failure does not affect the

team is developed. Alternative thinking and decisions are not adequately discussed or analyzed; thus wrong or ineffective decisions are taken (Manz and Neck, 1997). This situation is seen especially within teams which are autonomous in their decision making and which are subject to relatively low levels of outside intervention (Sundstrom et al., 1990).

Therefore, excessive trust and solidarity should be avoided; the goal is to seek and maintain an optimal level of trust.

Optimal trust implies that the positive aspects of trust and distrust are realized simultaneously and that the negative aspects of both constructs are eliminated or minimized. At an optimal level of trust, while team members trust each other and express their views freely, behave altruisticly, share information and resources and display good intent behavior, they also exhibit signs of distrust in searching for diversity, defending alternative solutions, being less dogmatic, retaining a degree of skepticism, inquiring and criticizing.

Groups vs. Team

When we discuss group dynamics, we define a group as two or more individuals who are interactive and independent, coming together to achieve particular objectives. Specifically, a work group is one that interacts primarily to share information and to make decisions that help each member perform within his or her area of responsibility.

For instance, a retail store chain might hold a monthly corporate meeting to manage the opening of new stores. A few representatives from the retail team are there to discuss the progress on the building of the store. A representative from merchandising attends the meeting as well, so she can determine how the aisles of the store will be laid out, and what merchandise will be placed on the shelves. A representative from the finance department shows up to ensure that leases are being paid and that taxes are being paid. These team members might be referred to as the “new store group,” but the group members are there to share information with one another so they can get their own jobs done, and so a store can be opened.

A work team, on the other hand, generates positive synergy through coordinated efforts. Their individual efforts, when pooled together, are often more than the sum of their individual inputs. Their goal is not just sharing information, it’s a collective performance. They often feature both individual and mutual accountability and the members’ skills are complementary to one another.

Let’s look at the distinguishing features of a team:

• The first distinguishing feature of a team is that the individual members are fully committed to a common goal and approach. Often, they’ve developed this approach themselves. The members should agree that the team’s goal is worthwhile and have a desire to achieve it. This agreement on the goal is imperative—this gives the team its vision and the motivation for the members to perform.
• The second distinguishing feature is mutual accountability. If the team is going to succeed, the members should feel accountable to each other as well as the organization for the process and outcome of their work. It’s not unusual for team members to take on extra work and responsibility because they feel a deep commitment to the team, even if there is an accountable leader of that team.
• The third distinguishing feature is that of trust and collaboration. We talked in the last module about how group members share norms, but teams actually share a culture. That culture is built on compromise, cooperation and collaboration, directed to reaching their common purpose. This doesn’t mean that there isn’t conflict involved. On the contrary, healthy conflict can boost creativity and performance as long as it’s managed well. Their sharing can continue to the point of shared leadership, even though the team may have an appointed leader.
• The fourth distinguishing feature of a team is synergy. Synergy is the process of combining two or more actions that result in an effect that differs from the total of the individual actions. Basically, it means that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The team produces more together than they would individually.

Types of Teams

Organizations use different types of teams in different ways to accomplish their objectives. Some teams have a very simple and specific focus, and others face complex issues with organization-wide ramifications.

Simple Work Teams

Simple work teams have low task complexity and low team fluidity. Their goal is simple problem solving, and often they are a group that supports day-to-day activities, dealing with issues that require input from more than one person or to generate commitment from employees. Usually these are people from a same team or department, so they generally have a similar focus and tend to work together relatively easily.

Administrative Teams

An administrative team has high task complexity but low team membership fluidity, meaning that the problems the team deals with are complex but people stream in and out of the group. The goal of an administrative team is to problem solve and then “sell” their ideas to the rest of the organization. Their focus could be internal, external, or both, and the team members are usually management level.

An example of an administrative team might be a relocation committee that’s dedicated to relocating a plant to a new area. Members of the team might flow in and out, but the complexity of the task is rather high and not at all part of their regular routine. Management level members work for a finite period of time to accomplish the strategic objective of moving the plant—all its machinery, all its people, and so on—to a new address

Cross-Departmental Teams

A cross-departmental team tends to have a low complexity level but a high team membership fluidity, meaning that the work is fairly simple but the teams are committed and fairly unchanging. Their goal is integration in structure and setting ground rules, and their focus is internal and very specific.

A cross-departmental task force is an example of this type of team. Perhaps an organization is installing a new system that will manage all their data, both at the main office and at their plants, in an entirely different way. The task force might come together from different areas of the organization to identify the types of data their departments generate and how that data will be transferred over to the new system, how people will be trained to use the new system and even how change around the system will be managed.

Process Teams

Process teams deal with high complexity tasks and have high team member fluidity, meaning people are assigned to the team and stay. These folks are creative problem solvers and deal with implementation. Their focus is strategic and broad.

Process teams do not have departmental affiliation and function independently to undertake broad, organizational-level process improvements. For instance, the department store Mervyn’s, the now defunct discount department store chain, had a SWAT team that rushes in to solve a store’s critical issues. They were deployed at any time, whenever they’re needed. They even attempt to solve organizational-wide issues like flextime and insurance

Self-Managed Teams

Self-managed teams (SMTs) are a commonly used process team used in organizations. Self-managed teams are process teams of employees who have full managerial control over their own work. Volvo is known for having abandoned their typical assembly line structure for one that included only self-managed teams. The teams were charged with assembling their large part of the car, but they could decide how to do it and who was going to work on what parts. The results included significant improvements in product quality and employee satisfaction.

Overall self-managed teams include these characteristics:

• The power to manage their work
• Members with different expertise and functional experience
• No outside manager
• The power to implement decisions
• Coordination and cooperation with other teams and individuals impacted by their decisions
• Internal leadership, based on facilitation. This means that a rotating leader focuses on freeing the team from obstacles as they do their work.

Self-managed teams require a change in structure on behalf of the organization and a high level of commitment on behalf of all parties to ensure their success. Most self-managed teams that fail do so because of a lack of commitment on the part of the organization.

Virtual Teams

It’s worth noting that there are now also virtual teams, which are teams that use computer technology to tie together physically dispersed members in order to achieve a common goal. It is true that these virtual teams might be an administrative, cross-functional, simple work or even a process team, but they are distinctive in that they allow people to collaborate online.

Because virtual teams have limited social interaction – many times they have not met in person – they tend to be more task-oriented and exchange less social information. But they’re able to do their work even if the members of the team are thousands of miles apart, and allows people to work together who may not otherwise be able to collaborate.

When determining composition, a manager should consider the:

Team Players

Not all individuals want to be a part of a team. Group dynamics often include introverted individuals who can be uncomfortable participating in a team atmosphere and, left to their own devices, would choose to work on their own. Others don’t want their compensation and evaluations tied to a group of people and prefer to work as a single contributor.

Organizations, too, have dedicated years to building hierarchical cultures within their walls that don’t support the idea of teams. Organizations have nurtured individual accomplishments and created competitive work environments, fostering attitudes in their workers that are the antithesis of team players. Finally, not all cultures lend themselves to team environments. Collective cultures, like those in Asia and Israel, often thrive in team environments, but highly individual cultures, like the United States, Canada and Australia, are quite the opposite

Employee Selection

In the employee selection process, managers should interview prospective team members to ensure that they have the skills required for team participation. Do they exhibit the action-oriented, people-oriented or thinking-oriented skills required to take on a team role? Do they come from an organization that prized individual contribution and, if so, does that seem woven into this employee’s fiber?

If it seems the prospective team member does not exhibit the necessary personality traits and skills to be on the team, then perhaps a transfer to another department is the best solution, or, in the case of a new hire, perhaps the role should be offered to another candidate. If the team member shows some signs that they’re interested and open to the idea of working on a team, then perhaps training is the answer.

Training

If employees are particularly steeped in the idea of individual work and accomplishment, then perhaps training is the answer. Training specialists can conduct exercises that show the benefits of team environments, and offer workshops that can help an employee fine-tune some of the skills they need to be a productive team member, like conflict management, problem-solving and communication skills.

Rewards

Rewards are often key in changing the mindset of an employee who has been raised on the importance of individual accomplishment. Rewards systems in organizations need to be altered to encourage cooperative rather than competitive behavior. Organizations who offer bonuses based on team achievement in addition to individual accomplishment can help bridge the gap between the two mindsets.

Promotions, rewards and other forms of recognition can be given to individuals based on how effective they are as team members. Individual contributions to the organization can be balanced with contributions to the team – team member training, helping to resolve conflict and learning new skills might be among those areas that are measured.