Teams are special

types of groups. While team members

interact and influence each other much like
people in groups do, in teams members share a common
vision of their purpose, and are mutually accountable
for achieving common goals. Using the old adage of
a monkey on your back, groups are individuals each
with a monkey on their back, that represents the work
that needs to be completed. In a team, there is one monkey across the back of all
members. The other difference is, teams think of
themselves as teams. Now think about a complex task that you have to
deal with at work. Do you think that a team would do this well better
than an individual? Why? Teams are able to bring a wide range of skills and
knowledge
to their tasks. So they're able to deal with more complex tasks and
multifaceted tasks. Teams make better decisions and they're also more likely
to be innovative. For us as leaders, teams can help develop and
motivate our employees. Teams allow members to develop
social relationships and these social needs are very important for
job satisfaction. They can also help
members learn new skills, and they provide a great
opportunity for role modeling. Being part of larger, more meaningful projects
then is possible as an individual
increases motivation. Some of these benefits mean
that organizations are increasingly using teams as
a way to get things done. Indeed teams are
recommended in many books, business journals, and
even national policies. However, there are downsides. Coordination in teams
can be difficult and this can lead to something
called process losses. Time is devoted to managing the team rather
than a team's task. Team members need time to
resolve disagreements and to develop a clear and
shared understanding of their tasks and roles. Process losses increase
as team size increases. Teams also run the risk
of social loafing. Some individuals are
less inclined to work because their performance
will not be visible. I think nearly everyone
has been witness to this behavior.
So what can you do? Leaders can lessen the risk of social loafing by
limiting team size. In a smaller team, there is less
opportunity to hide. It is also less likely that
social loafing will be a problem when the team's work is interesting to its
members. This implies that
a careful match, not just of skills but also interests is important when
leaders are forming teams. Involving members in developing team goals so that they
feel
a real sense of ownership, will also lessen the
likelihood of loafing. These downsides also
suggests that leaders should be wary of using teams as a solution
to everything. Teams are best to use
for complex tasks requiring a broad range of
perspectives and knowledge. They can also be useful when leaders want a truly
innovative solution. If you think a team is the best way to
achieve your goals, your challenges to minimize the negative possibilities and
increase the chance
of positive outcomes, and we're going to use the team effectiveness model to think
about how
this might be done. A team operates in the
context of its environment. This includes the
way it's rewarded. Teams are much more
likely to invest in their shared goal if there's
a team-based reward system. However, this may also increase the risk
of social loafing, if some members perceive that less effort will not
decrease their reward. Team rewards with
individual accountability might be the way forward if
loafing threatens your team. Let's move to team design. The type of work that teams
are given is important. As I mentioned earlier, teams are particularly
well suited to complex work beyond the skills
or scope of one person, but they also work
better when it's easy to coordinate
between members, which means the time spent
organizing isn't too great. Often, this occurs when the expertise of different
members is known so that different tasks and
component activities can be led by the best
qualified people. A good example of this
is a surgical team. Even though surgery
can be unpredictable, because the
anesthesiologists, surgeon, and operating room nurses
all have specialist roles, they know how to coordinate even in unpredictable
situations. Another characteristic
that is important for teams is interdependence. There are three types of
interdependence to think about. Pooled interdependence just means that teams share
a
common resource. While individuals
might work alone, they might share a budget
or equipment for example. Sequential interdependence
means that the work one person does feeds into
the work of another person. An assembly line is a
great example of this. Reciprocal interdependence is the highest level
of interdependence. This occurs when work moves back and forth
between individuals, like a surgical team. The higher the interdependence, the
greater the need for a
team rather than a group. If you lead a group in which work moves between
individuals, the need for a well
functioning team is high. But leaders need to ensure that in teams where members
rely on each other, all team members are
committed to common goals. So teams of individuals
who're relying on each other by trying to meet different client
needs for example, do not do well. The takeaway from this is
leaders should allocate team rather than individual goals when reciprocal
interdependence is high. Another design feature that leaders have to
grapple with is size. Smaller groups have
less coordination woes, they're less likely to lose member effort through
social loafing, and they're faster
to complete work. Larger teams are often better at completing complex tasks, but
there really is a
maximum size before the team starts running the
risk of process losses. Amazon has a two pizza rule. Teams should be
small enough to be fed by two large pizzas, that's between five
and seven members. NASA use simulation
studies to assess the relationship
between team size and survival on the moon, a very complex task. A maximum of five
people was found to make
the best decisions. But the number of members is nowhere near as important
as who they are. I'm referring to their abilities, but also other individual
characteristics. Think about these. Teams that are diverse in their skills and
knowledge
and are also diverse in terms of team members' cultural
diversity perform much better than teams that have identical skill sets and
are not culturally diverse. It's not just
expertise that counts. Different perspectives
and viewpoints can also lead to
breakthrough solutions. Let's return to the
complex problem that I asked you to
think about earlier. How would you design a team
to tackle this problem? What would be this
team's goal and how would you involve members
in setting this goal? Who would be on this team? What expertise do they bring? Are
they likely to have
different viewpoints that lead to a new way of
looking at the problem? How would you reward the team? What could do to lessen
coordination problems and
prevent members from loafing?