Group or Team
GROUP OR TEAM?
When it comes to deciding if you want to lead a great group or a high performace team you have some choices to make. The choice you make on this one simple concept will dictate many of your next steps. Of course first it is important to understand the distinction betqween a group and a team…….
Where does each work best?
A group works best when it performs functions that are predictable, the work is not complex, few decisions are required outside of the scope of the members’ area of responsibility, accountability is segregated, and where members can autonomously perform their functions.
A team works best when there is a high level of complexity, the work of each individual has a high impact on other members of the team, there are a range of decisions to be made that are outside of the scope of any one area of responsibility, and the work must be coordinated to a high degree.
An example of the difference; How would each build a house?
A perfect example to illustrate the difference between a team or a group would be to consider how each would approach building a house. If the house was being built by a group the construction manager would take the blueprints, break down the different roles (framer, plumber, electrician, etc.), develop a schedule, then assign each of those roles their tasks, budget, and timelines, etc. The manager would then coordinate the efforts and troubleshoot when things didn’t work out or friction developed between the service providers.
If the house was being built by a team the construction manager, architect, framer, plumber, etc would meet together to discuss the most effective way to complete the work and from that discussion the team would develop the schedule and coordination of the roles. A team in this scenario is much more likely to creatively problem solve any issues that develop (issues always develop) and then act efficiently and effectively because each of the members’ would know what their role was, how their role would interact the other roles and the impact of the failure to meet the expectations (it throws off all the other schedules). If there were problems the team could self-correct having already developed an understanding of each other’s needs.
So, what’s the big diffference? It starts with leadership!
One of the fundamental difference between groups and teams is that a group requires a leadership approach that takes on a high level of responsibility for the output of the group and often a corresponding level of control (but not necessarily) while a team requires a leadership style that is more facilitative in nature ensuring all members have a voice and take ownership of the decisions that are made and the outcomes they produce.
Groups can very succesfully complete tasks to a acceptable level if they function well but they do not achieve the level of performance that teams can deliver. Teams are able to achieve high performance due to the higher level of integration, commitment, and motivation that results from teamwork. You could describe the difference in the level of productivity simply as the differnce between doing something with someone or doing it for them.
Groups usually rely on an individual with positional authority (manager, director, etc) to take the lead. The leadership role for groups is frequently one of giving direction and defining work then managing/coordinating that work. Group members are often not directly involved in decision-making other than providing input to the leader. The roles in groups tend to be independent from other group members and their interactions with each other are mostly related to coordinating efforts. Group members are usually rewarded for their work based on performance related to individual accountabilities.
Teams, on the other hand, tend to involve members by giving them a greater say in defining objectives and planning how they will achieve those objectives. Even when the team’s work is defined externally (as in corporately set objectives), they still have a high degree of autonomy in defining how they get the work done. A team’s work has a higher level of interdependence and their interactions are related to collaborative planning, coordinating and implementing work. Teams are often recognized and rewarded for their collaborative efforts and they share accountability. The leadership of the team is more facilitative than directive with team members having full involvement in decision making.
Are you a control freak?
To achieve high performance, teams need effective leadership that fits the style of the team. As a leader you are likely to have certain preferences as it relates to the level of control that you wish to have. Those preferences will, in part, inform your decision about leading a team or group.
To be a leader of teams you must be able to trust in the ability of the members of the team to complete the work and to collaboratively make good decisions. That means letting go of control because there is a good possibility that the team might come up with something completely different than what you had in mind. It may even be better than what you had planned.
Easy to say, harder to do.
If you do not have the right people with the neccesary skills or are at the point where you have that degree of trust (or you are not willing to let go of that much control) then you would probably be much happier leading a group.
The organization as host
Something else to consider when evaluating whether a group or a team is the right approach is to consider the external environment. By external environment I am talking about the culture of the organization that hosts the team. In an organizational culture that is highly political and strictly hierarchal the conditions for effective teaming are poor. When a team is unsuccessful the blame for that failure usually falls on the leader. In an organizational culture that values collaboration when a team succeeds or fails it is seen as a reflection on all members of the team. This creates a much healthier environment for cultivating teamwork.
That is not to say that you cannot create a high performing team in a poor organizational culture it just means you have to be aware of the impact and develop a strategy to mitigate the risks. For example, in a rigid hierarchal system employees are recognized for individual contribution and promoted/rewarded based on that recognition. If you want to create a team in that environment you will have to have a conversation about recognition and rewards to ensure that team members do not feel that their standing in the company is at risk or that their work will go unrecognized.
Decision Time
If you prefer to have a high level of control over outcomes, the work is not very complex, and the roles easily segregated then maybe a group is the way to go. If you are working in a highly complex environment where the roles on the team are interdependant and you like to empower people to make decisions then a team is the way to go.
So? Group or team? Or a bit of both? Yes, that’s right… there is a middle ground. Even the highest performing teams sometimes act like a group (it is a more efficient way to deal with less complex work). There are numerous examples of this approach. For example, when a special-forces group is planning an operation they usually start out functioning as a team as they consider all of the aspects of the operation. The best commanders know that every member has something to contribute. Once the plan is in place they begin to function much more like a group in that decisions are made top-down (as opposed to bottom-up in a team), and individual roles are rigidly adhered to (teams tend to have more flexibility).
Once you have made your decision you will have to plan how to build your team/group. If you would rather organize your people as a group you will have to think about how you want to communicate your expectations to your team. If you would prefer to lead a team then you will have to plan how to gain your team’s engagement in collaboratively developing expectations. In one conversation you are telling them how you want things to be, in the other you are negotiating to achieve a collaborative definition (with you as one of many stakeholders). As you can imagine, those are two very different conversations.
Now it is up to you to decide which approach makes sense for you and then to take the neccesary steps to communicate your ex
When it comes to deciding if you want to lead a great group or a high performace team you have some choices to make. The choice you make on this one simple concept will dictate many of your next steps. Of course first it is important to understand the distinction betqween a group and a team…….
Where does each work best?
A group works best when it performs functions that are predictable, the work is not complex, few decisions are required outside of the scope of the members’ area of responsibility, accountability is segregated, and where members can autonomously perform their functions.
A team works best when there is a high level of complexity, the work of each individual has a high impact on other members of the team, there are a range of decisions to be made that are outside of the scope of any one area of responsibility, and the work must be coordinated to a high degree.
An example of the difference; How would each build a house?
A perfect example to illustrate the difference between a team or a group would be to consider how each would approach building a house. If the house was being built by a group the construction manager would take the blueprints, break down the different roles (framer, plumber, electrician, etc.), develop a schedule, then assign each of those roles their tasks, budget, and timelines, etc. The manager would then coordinate the efforts and troubleshoot when things didn’t work out or friction developed between the service providers.
If the house was being built by a team the construction manager, architect, framer, plumber, etc would meet together to discuss the most effective way to complete the work and from that discussion the team would develop the schedule and coordination of the roles. A team in this scenario is much more likely to creatively problem solve any issues that develop (issues always develop) and then act efficiently and effectively because each of the members’ would know what their role was, how their role would interact the other roles and the impact of the failure to meet the expectations (it throws off all the other schedules). If there were problems the team could self-correct having already developed an understanding of each other’s needs.
So, what’s the big diffference? It starts with leadership!
One of the fundamental difference between groups and teams is that a group requires a leadership approach that takes on a high level of responsibility for the output of the group and often a corresponding level of control (but not necessarily) while a team requires a leadership style that is more facilitative in nature ensuring all members have a voice and take ownership of the decisions that are made and the outcomes they produce.
Groups can very succesfully complete tasks to a acceptable level if they function well but they do not achieve the level of performance that teams can deliver. Teams are able to achieve high performance due to the higher level of integration, commitment, and motivation that results from teamwork. You could describe the difference in the level of productivity simply as the differnce between doing something with someone or doing it for them.
Groups usually rely on an individual with positional authority (manager, director, etc) to take the lead. The leadership role for groups is frequently one of giving direction and defining work then managing/coordinating that work. Group members are often not directly involved in decision-making other than providing input to the leader. The roles in groups tend to be independent from other group members and their interactions with each other are mostly related to coordinating efforts. Group members are usually rewarded for their work based on performance related to individual accountabilities.
Teams, on the other hand, tend to involve members by giving them a greater say in defining objectives and planning how they will achieve those objectives. Even when the team’s work is defined externally (as in corporately set objectives), they still have a high degree of autonomy in defining how they get the work done. A team’s work has a higher level of interdependence and their interactions are related to collaborative planning, coordinating and implementing work. Teams are often recognized and rewarded for their collaborative efforts and they share accountability. The leadership of the team is more facilitative than directive with team members having full involvement in decision making.
Are you a control freak?
To achieve high performance, teams need effective leadership that fits the style of the team. As a leader you are likely to have certain preferences as it relates to the level of control that you wish to have. Those preferences will, in part, inform your decision about leading a team or group.
To be a leader of teams you must be able to trust in the ability of the members of the team to complete the work and to collaboratively make good decisions. That means letting go of control because there is a good possibility that the team might come up with something completely different than what you had in mind. It may even be better than what you had planned.
Easy to say, harder to do.
If you do not have the right people with the neccesary skills or are at the point where you have that degree of trust (or you are not willing to let go of that much control) then you would probably be much happier leading a group.
The organization as host
Something else to consider when evaluating whether a group or a team is the right approach is to consider the external environment. By external environment I am talking about the culture of the organization that hosts the team. In an organizational culture that is highly political and strictly hierarchal the conditions for effective teaming are poor. When a team is unsuccessful the blame for that failure usually falls on the leader. In an organizational culture that values collaboration when a team succeeds or fails it is seen as a reflection on all members of the team. This creates a much healthier environment for cultivating teamwork.
That is not to say that you cannot create a high performing team in a poor organizational culture it just means you have to be aware of the impact and develop a strategy to mitigate the risks. For example, in a rigid hierarchal system employees are recognized for individual contribution and promoted/rewarded based on that recognition. If you want to create a team in that environment you will have to have a conversation about recognition and rewards to ensure that team members do not feel that their standing in the company is at risk or that their work will go unrecognized.
Decision Time
If you prefer to have a high level of control over outcomes, the work is not very complex, and the roles easily segregated then maybe a group is the way to go. If you are working in a highly complex environment where the roles on the team are interdependant and you like to empower people to make decisions then a team is the way to go.
So? Group or team? Or a bit of both? Yes, that’s right… there is a middle ground. Even the highest performing teams sometimes act like a group (it is a more efficient way to deal with less complex work). There are numerous examples of this approach. For example, when a special-forces group is planning an operation they usually start out functioning as a team as they consider all of the aspects of the operation. The best commanders know that every member has something to contribute. Once the plan is in place they begin to function much more like a group in that decisions are made top-down (as opposed to bottom-up in a team), and individual roles are rigidly adhered to (teams tend to have more flexibility).
Once you have made your decision you will have to plan how to build your team/group. If you would rather organize your people as a group you will have to think about how you want to communicate your expectations to your team. If you would prefer to lead a team then you will have to plan how to gain your team’s engagement in collaboratively developing expectations. In one conversation you are telling them how you want things to be, in the other you are negotiating to achieve a collaborative definition (with you as one of many stakeholders). As you can imagine, those are two very different conversations.
Now it is up to you to decide which approach makes sense for you and then to take the neccesary steps to communicate your ex
No comments:
Post a Comment