The difference between teams that perform and other groups that don't is a subject to which most of us pay far too little attention. Part of the problem is that team is a word and concept so familiar to everyone.

Teamwork represents a set of values that encourage listening and responding constructively to views expressed by others, giving others the benefit of the doubt, providing support and recognizing the the interest and achievement of others, These values help teams perform and they also promote individual performance as well as the performance of an entire organization. Teamwork values by themselves are not exclusive to teams, nor are they enough to ensure team performance. Nor is a team just any group working together. Committees, councils and task forces are not necessarily teams. Groups do not become teams simply because that is what someone calls them. The entire work force of any large and complex organization is never a team, even though that platitude often is offered up.

A team's performance includes both individual results and collective work-products. A collective work-product is what two or more members must work on together, such as interviews, surveys or experiments. Whatever it is, a collective work product reflects the joint, real contribution of team members. A team is more than the sum of its parts.

A team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, set of performance goals and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable. When purposes and goals build on one and other and are combined with team commitment, they become a powerful engine of performance.

Not All Groups Are Teams: How To Tell The Difference

Team

Strong, clearly focused leader
Individual accountability
The group's purpose is the same as the broader organizational mission
Individual work-products
Runs efficient meetings
Measures its effectiveness indirectly by its influence on others (e.g., financial performance of business)
Discusses, decides and delegates

Working Group

Shared leadership roles
Individual and mutual accountability
Specific team purpose that the team itself delivers
Collective work-products
Encourages open-ended discussion and active problem-solving meetings
Measures performance directly by assessing collective work-products
Discusses, decides and does real work together

Virtually all effective teams range between 2 and 25 people. The majority of them are less than 10. A large number of people, say 50 or more, can theoretically become a team, but groups of such seize are more likely to break in to sub-teams rather than function as a single unit.

In addition to finding the right size, a team must develop the right mix of skills. As obvious a sit sounds, it is a common failing in potential teams. Skill requirements fall in to three fairly self-evident categories:

Technical or functional expertise. It would make little sense for a group of doctors to litigate an employment discrimination case in a court of law. Yet teams of doctors and lawyers often try medical malpractice or personal injury cases. Similarly, product-development that include only marketers or engineers are less likely to succeed than those with the complimentary skills of both.
 

Problem-solving and decision making skills. Teams must be able to identify the problems and opportunities the face, evaluate the options they have for moving forward and then make necessary trade-offs and decisions about how to proceed.
 

Interpersonal skills. Common understanding and purpose cannot arise without effective communication and constructive conflict, which in turn depends on interpersonal skills. These include risk taking, helpful criticism, objectivity, active listening, given the benefit of the doubt recognizing the interests and achievements of others.

Effective teams develop strong commitment to a common approach, how they will work together to accomplish their purpose. Team members must agree on who will do particular jobs, how schedules will be set and adhered to, what skills need to be developed, how continued membership in the group is to be earned and how the group will make and modify the decision.

No group ever becomes a team until it can hold itself accountable as a team. Think, for example, about the subtle but critical difference between "the boss holds me accountable" and "we hold ourselves accountable". Being in the boat together is how the performance game is played. The sense of mutual accountability produces the rich rewards of mutual achievement in which all members share.

When people work together on a common objective, trust and commitment will follow.

Back to Resources Page