11Understanding Groups and Teams FuseThinkstockLe.docx

1
1Understanding Groups and Teams
Fuse/Thinkstock
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
• Define groups and basic group types.
• Differentiate between groups, aggregates, and social
categories.
• Identify the basic properties of groups.
• Discuss the influence of group properties on group dynamics
and performance.
• Analyze the relationship between work groups and teams.
• Determine when it is most appropriate to use either a work
group or team.
• Describe significant factors in typing teams.
• Explain the significance of primary task types.
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 1 8/19/16 9:36 AM
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for
resale or redistribution.

Introduction
Pretest
1. A group is a collection of people in the same time and place.
T/F
2. The way others perceive us affects the way we perceive
ourselves. T/F
3. Informal groups rarely form within, or have much effect on,
organizations. T/F
4. Work groups are the same as teams. T/F
5. All teams are variations on a single team type. T/F
Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.
Introduction
Ellis is one of nine business analysts at a midsized
manufacturing company. Over the
years, Ellis and his coworkers have learned to work
collaboratively to analyze business
processes and make suggestions for improvements. Learning to
work in a collaborative
manner has enabled the division to collectively decide what its
goals are and how work
should be shared among the employees.
When collaborating across several projects, it is not uncommon
for Ellis and his cowork-
ers to rotate between leadership and support roles. For example,
on one project that
examined current manufacturing processes for a specific
product line, Ellis led the team
members as they looked for process improvements. On another

project, Ellis served as one
of the people who collected data, and in this instance he worked
under the direction of a
coworker. Under this arrangement, the designated project leader
is not solely account-
able for the division’s results; members of the entire division
hold themselves accountable,
since they are more than just a department or group—they are a
team.
Occasionally, members of the business analysis team are
assigned to work with others on
special projects. Ellis has recently been assigned to work on
such a project with members
of several different departments, and he’s noticed some
differences between working
with his usual team and working in this new configuration.
While those working on this
project get along well and are committed to achieving their
goal, they had no say in what
their goal was—the organization decided their goal for them, as
well as steps to take and
the timeline for reaching it. Ellis is not used to having such
decisions made for him.
Ellis has noticed other differences as well. In this new
configuration, he has only one func-
tion for this project. On his usual team, however, he usually
collaborates or consults on
several aspects of a project. With only one function to perform,
Ellis is only held account-
able for his specific contribution instead of feeling mutually
accountable for the entire
project. The final difference Ellis has noticed is that the project
leader was chosen by the
organization, rather than those working on the project. Although

the leader may be well
suited to lead the project, she was designated by someone
external instead of emerging as
the natural leader through interactions. In contrast, when
working on his team, Ellis and
his coworkers are able to select the best person to lead the
project, and they can change
leadership when necessary to meet the project’s demands.
Ellis has come to realize that for this special project, he is part
of a work group rather
than a team. In work groups, the designated group leader
determines the goal, how it
will be achieved, and task assignments. Group members are
only accountable for their
individually assigned activities—the leader assigned by the
organization is ultimately
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 2 8/19/16 9:36 AM
responsible for the group’s performance. The business analysis
team Ellis usually works
with functions differently. Team members collaborate to
determine their goal, task
assignments, and steps for achieving the desired outcome. The
work, accountability, and
leadership for the project are shared amongst the team members.
Ellis realizes that there
are many ways to work together within the organization, and
that being part of a work

group can expand his flexibility and value as an employee. He
decides to put aside his
team-based expectations, and invest his energy into becoming
an effective member of the
work group.
From birth to death, we hold membership within a wide range of
collectivities and
groups. This begins with those we are literally born into—
family, community, culture—
and continues through a lifetime of groups in which membership
is attained through
our personal choices, qualities, situations, or achievements.
These groups simultane-
ously energize us, support us, and even frustrate us, in part
because we cannot escape
their influence.
Among the many groups we associate with throughout our
lifetime, most of us will
eventually find ourselves members of a particularly challenging,
and rewarding, varia-
tion—the team. Teams may well be the defining characteristic
of business in the new
millennium. Whereas they were once only a desirable element,
teams have become
almost universally acknowledged as required in organizations
that want to remain
competitive. The shift in management focus toward facilitating
effective coordination,
collaboration, and teamwork places a very tangible value on
understanding groups and
how they function. Moving beyond material gains, this
knowledge enriches our social
interactions and our external and internal experience of the
world.

Most of us intuitively recognize groups and teams and the value
they have in our lives.
The groups we choose, and that choose us, impact what we say,
how we act, and what
we think as we incorporate feedback from family, friends,
employers, and others in our
self-identities and self-descriptions (Hogg, 2005) and integrate
the opinions and per-
spectives of others into how we perceive and conceptualize
reality (Gaertner, Iuzzini,
Witt, & Orina, 2006).
• We think and speak the language (and jargon) created by our
groups: “That’s so cool!”
• We consciously and subconsciously adjust our moods to the
emotional tone of our
groups and react to our perception of group moods.
• We compare our performances—good or bad—with those of
others and evalu-
ate our own performances based on perceived group reaction: “I
blew that
presentation.”
• We base many of our values and ethics on group expectations
and values; our “shoulds,”
“oughts,” and “to-dos” are often determined by the groups we
associate with.
Recognizing and gravitating toward groups is an instinctual
phenomenon that is so
wholly natural and unconscious for most of us that we often
find it hard to explain how
we recognize different types of groups and why we value them.

Chapter 1 explores the
fundamental questions: What are groups? How do their basic
dynamics and properties
impact us in our workplace and in our lives? What are teams—
and why are they held
uniquely valuable among the other types of groups?
Introduction
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 3 8/19/16 9:36 AM
Section 1.1 What Are Groups?
1.1 What Are Groups?
Consider a construction crew, a carpool club, a theater
audience, and the participants in an
online chat forum. Some of these are groups and some are not.
A group is more than a collec-
tion of people who share some characteristic or circumstance.
Elements, objects, and even
people can be categorized into groupings, or sets based on
shared qualities, including physical
location or activity. However, in the social sciences the term
group refers to cohesive social
units in which people share emotional and social connections as
well as other characteristics.
Although many people casually refer to any collection of people
as a group, most of us intui-
tively recognize the difference between a set of people who
share some categorical quality
and people who are meaningfully interconnected (Ip, Chiu, &

Wan, 2006; Lickel, Hamilton, &
Sherman, 2000; Magee & Tiedens, 2006).
Still, even the experts find it hard to agree on a clear definition
for group (Forsyth, 2014).
Common ground emerges when we examine the specific
qualities that groups exhibit:
• Identification as a social unit
• Interdependence between members
• Cohesion around some common interest or purpose
• Meaningful interaction between and among members
Using these as a foundation, we can define a group as an
identifiable social unit in which mem-
bers of an interdependent collective share some common
interest or purpose and engage in
meaningful interactions (Brown, 2000; Frey & Konieczka, 2010;
Gould, 2004; Hackman &
Katz, 2010).
For most of us, family is the first group. As we move beyond
the immediate social relation-
ships of our family unit, we begin to associate with other small
groups, made up of our friends
and peers. We also become aware of our affiliation with larger
categories and collectives,
such as community, nationality, religious and ethnic
background, and social class. This is our
initiation into a lifetime of group membership. Affiliations are
unavoidable and necessary
in today’s society. The groups we grow up with influence our
worldview, or our underlying
assumptions of what the world is and how it should be. They
guide our thought and behav-
ioral patterns, shape our decision making, and help us assimilate

and interact within the soci-
ety in which we are raised.
Pause for moment and make a mental list of the all the groups
of which you are currently a
part. Are family and friends on that list? How about classmates
or coworkers, people in your
apartment complex, or the people you have friended online?
What about religious, political, or
ethnic associations? Are U.S. citizens a group? How about
people you interact with on a daily
basis but never meet face-to-face? Are the students in your
online class a group? Although we
have a definition to refer to, our habit of categorizing people,
places, and things into groupings
and the malleable nature of groups can make identifying
groups—and types of groups—a
surprisingly difficult task.
Groups can take on almost any form and function. They are as
much shaped by their setting
and purpose as by the people within them. Groups can exist and
perform in a multiplicity
of settings and are similarly flexible in composition, structure,
and leadership. Because of
this, social psychologists have had to look far beyond the
surface to find stable characteristics
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 4 8/19/16 9:36 AM

to use in categorizing these collective entities. It is within the
relationships group members
forge with each other, and with the group as a whole, that we
find a basis for the scientific
classification of groups and other group-like collectives. Our
own examination will focus on
those that are most relevant to our study of workplace groups.
Basic Social Groups
Primary groups represent long-standing, meaningful
associations among members of a
small, tight-knit group of people, such as close friends and
family, who frequently interact
and influence each other and maintain association regardless of
physical location. Common
purpose within primary groups revolves around maintaining
member relationships and
well-being. Sociologist Charles Horton Cooley (1909) coined
the term primary groups on the
basis that these associations are of prime importance in our
lives, offering both physical and
psychological care and protection and fundamentally shaping
our social nature and ideals.
Primary groups have a profound impact on all our interactions,
because they represent our
foundational model for interpersonal relations.
Primitive man spent generations clustered into primary groups
encompassing small com-
munities and tribes that members rarely traveled away from. As
human population and
sophistication grew, societies became more dispersed and
complex, as did the groups within
them. Secondary groups, larger, less intimate, and more
deliberately organized than primary

groups, became common as people began to interact and work
cooperatively with those out-
side their primary sphere of intimacy. Although members can
form strong bonds and commit-
ment within secondary groups, these are generally sustained at
lower levels of intensity and
permanence than in primary groups. Members join and
disengage from secondary groups
relatively easily, and they typically associate concurrently in a
variety of these groups in dif-
ferent areas of their lives.
Secondary groups are also known as task groups (Lickel et al.,
2001) because member inter-
actions typically center on the performance of specific tasks or
activities. Common examples
of task groups include social clubs, dance troupes, bands,
religious congregations, student
groups, guilds, boards, committees, crews, work groups, and
teams. Although the interper-
sonal relations between members in secondary groups
significantly impact the group experi-
ence, common purpose revolves around the performance of tasks
and activities rather than
social relations and well-being. Although primary groups can
sometimes emerge from rela-
tionships formed in professional settings, most of the groups we
engage with in the work-
place are secondary groups.
Next, we take a look at social collections and categories. These
are often mislabeled as groups,
and the following section examines how we mistake them for
groups and why they do not
qualify.

Social Collections and Categories
In order to better understand what groups are, we will now take
a closer look at the social
collections and categories that represent what groups are not
and why they tend to confuse
our group identification skills. Aggregates represent a
collection of people who are in the
same place at the same time. They are often engaged in the
same general activity but are
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 5 8/19/16 9:36 AM
otherwise unassociated. A collection of people riding a bus
together, waiting in line for tickets,
or watching a game at a sports center are considered aggregates.
Many aggregates are tempo-
rary and unique, but some, like regulars at a bus stop, may come
together frequently, know
each other by sight, and share daily greetings yet otherwise
remain strangers. Members of an
aggregate do not share the interdependence, common purpose,
and relational bonds needed
to identify and act as a group, but they can engage in collective
behavior.
Of interest across multiple fields
since the 1920s, collective behav-
ior refers to the spontaneously and
temporarily coordinated activities

or actions of people influenced by a
common impulse (Park & Burgess,
1921; Miller, 2000). Collective behav-
ior can manifest within aggregates
in many ways. This might include
sports fans spontaneously partici-
pating in a “wave” cheer, mass excite-
ment or panic in the face of a shared
event, or taking part in fashion or
consumer fads (Miller, 2000). Alter-
natively, aggregates may engage in
noncooperative coaction, perform-
ing similar activities or tasks along-
side others but not together. Coac-
tion might include when we fuel our
cars at a gas station or sit and use the
Wi-Fi at a coffee shop.
Social categories are another “collection” often mistaken for
groups. Also known as cohorts,
social categories are scientifically or socially imposed
collections of individuals who share at
least one characteristic but can otherwise be quite diverse.
Typical examples include people
who perform a specific type of job, alumni of a particular
college, or individuals who share
traits such as gender, age, or ethnicity. Social categories can
encompass a select few (for
example, female centenarians currently living in France) or a
multitude (for example, adult
males or natural citizens of China). Many cohort members will
never meet each other or even
be gathered together in the same place, and though they may
voluntarily identify with their
cohort, they generally do not think of themselves as group
members.

Take, for example, people who have served through live combat
in the armed forces. These
individuals identify with the social category of veterans, but
when asked to which groups they
belong, they tend to recall the particular units or comrades with
whom they served (Hender-
son, 1985; Wong, Kolditz, Millen, & Potter, 2003). If members
of a social category do meet and
become meaningfully connected, they can form groups, such as
veterans clubs, or friendship
circles initiated through alumni connections. However, lacking
frequent interaction, interde-
pendence, common purpose, and meaningful social relations,
social categories do not repre-
sent true groups.
DGLimages/iStock/Thinkstock
These bus passengers are an aggregate. They are
engaged in the same activity but lack the collective
purpose or interdependence that characterizes
groups.
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 6 8/19/16 9:37 AM
Section 1.2 Group Dynamics
Recognizing these nongroups is important to our growing
understanding of what groups are.
In Chapter 8, we will take a look at two other significant

nongroups: social networks and
online communities. We have only scratched the surface by
defining groups; next we will take
a deeper look into the nature of groups.
1.2 Group Dynamics
All groups share certain dynamic properties. They have a
purpose to exist, a composition of
members with individual qualities and needs, structure for
interrelations, leadership from
within and without, and a context in which they are embedded.
As groups come together,
members develop patterns for behavior and interaction,
engaging in developmental and
task-oriented processes. Group dynamics encompass the
complex forces that act internally
and externally on groups, from development to dispersion,
emergent behavior and interac-
tion patterns among group members, and the processes they
engage in (Knowles & Knowles,
1972). Researchers in this field study the nature of groups, their
development over time, the
mutual influence of members on the group and vice versa, and
interactions between groups
within the larger context of organizations. In this section, we
examine the significance and
interrelatedness of essential dynamic properties, including
group purpose, composition,
structure, leadership, and context.
Purpose: Identification and Cohesiveness
People form groups to feel a sense of purpose or achieve goals
that are difficult or impos-
sible to realize alone. Although group members often have
individual interests at play within
the group, these will align on some level with the group’s

purpose and goals. Whether in the
form of concrete tasks or simply a collective desire to belong
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995),
common interest motivates members to join the group and acts
as a cohesive factor keeping
it together. Individuals who perceive themselves as collectively
engaged toward a common
purpose identify as a group. Likewise, through the processes
that foster identification and
cohesion, group members form attachments that are both social
and emotional; these socio-
emotional attachments motivate recognition and commitment to
collective well-being and
purpose.
Identification
Identification within groups is multidimensional, encompassing
the extent to which group
membership influences our self-perception and the sense of
shared social identity or “us-ness”
within the group (Haslam & Reicher, 2012). Social identity
theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986)
assumes that social categories and groups influence the self-
concept and self-esteem of their
members, encouraging them to enhance the positive value of
their groups and to join groups
held in high esteem. This only proves true, however, in the
categories and groups that we
perceive as meaningful (Wright, Aron, & Tropp, 2002). For
example, Tamara may be a left-
handed, hazel-eyed, female product engineer, a Green Party
adherent, and a member of the
company’s LGBT club, but she will perceive meaningful
membership within only some of
these associations.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 7 8/19/16 9:37 AM
When social identification occurs, members identify themselves
as part of a collective with
shared qualities, attributes, and ways of relating that mark them
as distinct from other indi-
viduals and groups. Internally, they accept the group as an
extension of self and a legitimate
influence on self-concept and self-esteem (Hogg, 2005). The
decision to do so is not always
conscious. Identification is both a cognitive and affective
process. That is, it involves our
thoughts and perceptions on a given subject or circumstance, as
well as our emotional expe-
rience and reactions to these stimuli.
Although we are more likely to self-associate and identify with
groups we perceive as attrac-
tive or valuable (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Hogg & Terry, 2000),
the way others perceive us
affects the way we perceive ourselves. Whether others place us
in categories or groups per-
ceived as positive or negative, this influences our own
perception and acceptance of member-
ship, even if we do not openly acknowledge it (Gaertner et al.,
2006). High school cliques offer
a classic example of this: Those labeled as geeks, freaks, jocks,
skaters, and so on will often,
over time, accept and even describe themselves in such terms,

regardless of whether they
originally desired these associations (Bennett & Sani, 2008).
The meaningfulness of a membership or association is also
largely subjective, based on our
personal experiences, worldview, values, and context. Tamara,
from our earlier example, may
personally value her left-handedness, for instance, based on its
associations with creativity
and her own admiration for the engineering feats of famous left-
hander Leonardo da Vinci.
Identification can also be activated by changes in circumstances
that highlight collective simi-
larities and differences. For example, an executive stepping into
an elevator with unassociated
lower level employees can activate a sense of identification
among the other riders based on
the perceived difference in status and power. If the elevator
were then stuck between floors,
the emergence of a common problem and fate would activate a
shared social identity among
all the riders.
Shared social identity goes beyond social identification as
members intuitively acknowledge
their interdependence within a collective entity with a common
purpose and shared fate.
When this occurs, groups develop entitativity, or an internal and
external perception that
the group operates as a collective entity and that actions and
influences that affect any of its
members have consequences for all. An effect of identification,
entitativity changes the way
members perceive and relate to the group. Entitativity
intensifies members’ socioemotional
attachment to the group, its members’ collective goals and well-

being, and the sense of value
in their membership and interrelations (Castano, Yzerbyt, &
Bourguignon, 2003; Jans, Post-
mes, & Van der Zee, 2011).
Cohesion
Group cohesion is a critical element, defined by the total
strength of members’ socioemo-
tional identification and attachment to the group, entitativity in
thought and action, valuation
and commitment to group goals, and the group’s structural
integrity (Kozlowski & Bell, 2001;
Moody & White, 2003). Cohesion, and its myriad effects on
group dynamics, has been avidly
studied, both inside and outside the workplace. We will
investigate the development of cohe-
sion in workplace groups in Chapter 2, and we explore both
positive and negative effects of
group cohesion as we journey through the text. For now, it is
important to understand that all
groups must have some degree of cohesiveness or they fall
apart, either splitting into smaller
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 8 8/19/16 9:37 AM
units or disbanding entirely. However, the level of cohesion
within a group can vary from high
to low.

The strength of a group’s cohesion can be relative to the group
type. Primary groups, for
example, are inherently higher in cohesion than secondary
groups, although there is a slid-
ing scale within this guideline as well. Because team members
work in collaboration, teams
require a significantly higher level of cohesiveness than other
secondary groups. High and
low cohesion also depends on the unique member relations and
dynamics within any given
group. Group composition defines the membership within which
these relations and dynam-
ics occur, and group structure gives shape to their interactions.
We will examine group com-
position and structure in the next two subsections.
Composition: Diversity and Size
Group composition, or the characteristics and size of a
membership, can be viewed as both
a consequence of the social and psychological processes
occurring as groups develop and as
a context that influences social and behavioral phenomena,
group structure, and processes
(Kozlowski & Bell, 2001). Consider the fact that Americans
who meet by chance in a foreign
country often feel an immediate sense of camaraderie attached
to their comparative similar-
ity in birthplace, language, and culture. Though they may be
different in every other way and
would not form a group in any other setting, the contrast of a
foreign culture and landscape
against their shared experience and background creates a
heightened sense of identifica-
tion. As a consequence, they tend to socialize, forming small,
temporary groups, sometimes
even sightseeing or traveling together. Social psychologists call

this the “American abroad”
phenomenon. Composition becomes a context influencing group
structure and processes as
member similarities and differences come into play during
interactions within the group.
Diversity
Groups are composed of members with individual qualities,
interests, and needs. Groups
in which membership is primarily based on similarity are
considered homogenous, though
in reality no two people possess the same exact qualities.
Whether the degree of variation
among members runs high or low, all groups have some level of
diversity. As shown in
Figure 1.1, member qualities can be separated into two basic
categories: individual attributes
and demographic characteristics.
Demographic characteristics such as gender, age, nationality,
and ethnic background can
affect the way members perceive each other and interact,
particularly when these character-
istics are associated with stereotyping. Individual attributes
affect the ways we contribute,
interact, and interrelate in groups. These include qualities such
as expertise, worldview, per-
sonality, and cognitive and behavioral styles. Although groups
unite around some common
interest or purpose, each member also has his or her own
individual interests and needs, and
these can have both overt and subtle effects on member
interactions. In Chapter 4 we will
examine the positive and negative effects of diversity, its
expression within workplace groups,
and techniques for managing diversity.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 9 8/19/16 9:37 AM
• Gender
• Age
• Culture
• Nationality
• Language
• Social class
• Social position
• Sexual orientation
• Ethnicity
• Religion
• Education Level
• Handicapping conditions
Demographic Characteristics
• Expertise: Knowledge, skills,
and abilities (KSA), and
relevant experience.
• Worldview: Values, attitudes,
and beliefs.
• Personality: Characteristic
patterns of thinking, feeling, and
behaving based on individual
cognitive and behavioral styles.
• Individual interests and needs:
Personal objectives and
motivations apart from those
of the group as a whole.

Individual Attributes
In general, research depicts diversity as a double-edged sword,
having potentially positive
and negative consequences (see Pieterse, Van Knippenberg, &
Van Dierendonck, 2013; Podsi-
adlowski, Gröschke, Kogler, Springer, & Van der Zee, 2013;
Mello & Rentsch, 2015). Members
from diverse backgrounds may speak a different cultural or
technical language. They may
be attuned to and emphasize different aspects of task
performance or problem solving. Ste-
reotypes and generalizations about gender, race, ethnicity,
religion, and other characteristics
can have a negative effect on group interaction, shared identity,
and cohesiveness. Although
poorly managed diversity has the potential to be divisive, the
convergence of many different
experiences, skills, and viewpoints is central to the power and
flexibility of groups and teams.
Diversity within formal groups is often deliberately engineered
and managed to offer the best
set of combined experiences, skills, and viewpoints for group
performance. Balancing group
diversity and size helps members take advantage of the potential
benefits offered by comple-
mentary diversity.
Size
Groups can theoretically consist of any number larger than two
people. However, it is impor-
tant to consider that group size can either facilitate performance
or impede it. Small member-

ships may progress more rapidly through developmental and
task-oriented group processes;
however, they also limit the human resources—including
potential benefits from group diver-
sity—that are available for collective efforts. Larger
membership can enable an easy division
of labor that capitalizes on the unique contributions of
members. However, larger groups are
also more susceptible to certain dysfunctions.
Problems occur as group membership moves beyond about 10 or
12 people. Large groups
tend to break into independent subunits, dissolve into a loosely
affiliated collection of
Figure 1.1: Two basic categories of member qualities
There are two basic categories of member qualities that affect a
group’s diversity: individual
attributes and demographic characteristics.
• Gender
• Age
• Culture
• Nationality
• Language
• Social class
• Social position
• Sexual orientation
• Ethnicity
• Religion
• Education Level
• Handicapping conditions
Demographic Characteristics

• Expertise: Knowledge, skills,
and abilities (KSA), and
relevant experience.
• Worldview: Values, attitudes,
and beliefs.
• Personality: Characteristic
patterns of thinking, feeling, and
behaving based on individual
cognitive and behavioral styles.
• Individual interests and needs:
Personal objectives and
motivations apart from those
of the group as a whole.
Individual Attributes
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 10 8/19/16 9:37 AM
individuals, or experience a phenomenon known as process loss
(Katzenbach & Smith, 1993;
Kozlowski & Bell, 2001). Process loss is a reduction in
efficiency and effectiveness due to
nonproductive actions, operations, or dynamics. Examples of
process loss include reduced
member motivation and effort, dysfunctional processes, faulty
coordination, and ineffectual
leadership (Steiner, 1972; Forsyth, 2014).
To minimize the risks associated with too large or too small a

membership, specific group
size should be determined by the group’s task complexity,
ability to effectively coordinate,
and the functionality of its structure. We discuss structure, a
critical element in collaborative
performance, in the next section.
Structure: Roles, Norms, and Interrelations
In the natural world, animals, insects, and plants form
ecological communities in which
everything that lives or grows is interdependent and affects the
well-being of the rest. Plants
give off oxygen, provide shelter, and feed herbivorous animals
and insects, which are hunted
in turn by the carnivores. Over the course of their life cycle,
animals and insects help spread
various plants, and even in death they nourish the earth and help
plants grow. Each plays a
specific role within the community, follows intuitive rules or
norms for behavior and interac-
tions, and engages in interrelations that impact one another in
meaningful ways. The connec-
tive pattern imposed by this system reflects its structure.
Groups work in a similar fashion. Group members engage in
interdependent roles and
responsibilities, following collectively accepted standards or
norms for behavior and interac-
tions. Through socioemotional and task-based interdependence,
members develop meaning-
ful interrelations that sustain the group. Group structure refers
to the framework of roles,
norms, and interrelations that regulates interactions, thereby
influencing and organizing how
a group functions.

In workplace groups, structure exists both internally and
externally. Group structure defines
member roles and directs patterns of interdependence and
interaction within the group.
Organizational structure provides an external framework for the
group as a collective entity
that fulfills a specific role and responsibilities within the
organization, acting in interdepen-
dent relations with other organizational units. Roles, norms, and
member interrelations are
the active elements in the ongoing interactions between group
members. As such, they will
be focused on throughout much of this text. Beginning with
roles, let’s look at each of these
elements.
Roles
A role is a set of expectations attached to a social position; it
governs the behavior of the posi-
tion holder in relation to others and vice versa. Defining group
members in terms of leaders
and followers is a misleading—and inadequate—description of
group roles. In reality, group
members can play many roles. Think of a group, any group, and
consider the people within it.
What parts do members play in discussion? What tasks and
responsibilities do they under-
take during group interactions? Is there an initiator, a critic, a
harmonizer, an energizer? How
about an organizer, a standard setter, a listener? We may think
of these as personality traits,
but the predictable influence they have on group interaction
defines these as significant roles
that can emerge or be designated within a membership.
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 11 8/19/16 9:37 AM

People play different roles in dif-
ferent groups, and each role is typi-
cally associated with specific duties,
responsibilities, and prerogatives.
For example, as a division manager,
Miguel is accorded certain privileges
in behavior and respect. He coordi-
nates and directs the project manag-
ers within his division, but he must
answer to, and in turn be directed
by, higher levels of management. At
home, he is also a father, a husband,
and a son. Each of these roles has its
own set of rules and expectations,
and associated shifts in status among
participants. Miguel does not have
the same authority in the role of son
as he does in the role of father. Nor
are the same expectations attached
to these roles and his role of husband or division manager.
Roles are meant to smooth inter-
actions by providing stability in expectations, but when our
expectations about how to play
a role or set of roles are inconsistent or do not match the
expectations of those around us,
confusion and conflict can occur.
In the workplace some roles are routinely designated. For

instance, project manager, team
leader, facilitator, recorder, and timekeeper are all roles that are
frequently assigned to spe-
cific group members for the space of a particular project or
performance activity. Other roles
emerge as group members interact and individuals repeatedly
take on specific duties, activi-
ties, or methods of interaction. As these patterns of behavior
become habitual, role differen-
tiation occurs. The number of roles within the group increases,
and the expectations, respon-
sibilities, and prerogatives attached to each role become more
specific.
Group roles can be divided into task and relationship role
categories.
• Task roles revolve around group performance and
accomplishment of tasks and
goals. Activities include goal setting, coordinating meetings,
encouraging task-
related feedback, and gathering and recording relevant
information.
• Relationship roles center on the socioemotional maintenance
of interpersonal rela-
tions within the group. Activities include facilitating knowledge
and opinion sharing
during group discussions, mediating conflict, building trust, and
managing destruc-
tive norms.
Group members who take on leadership responsibilities
typically span both role categories,
and team members may frequently change or rotate roles. As we
progress through the text,

we will increasingly see how individual task and relationship
roles impact group dynamics.
Next, we examine another integral structural element: norms.
Wavebreak Media Ltd./Thinkstock
In groups, roles are not confined to leader and
follower; they are much more complex and nuanced.
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 12 8/19/16 9:37 AM
Norms
Norms are evaluative standards, the implicit and explicit
expectations or social rules for
behavior and interpersonal interactions. Norms can be
preexisting, imposed by a larger group
or organization, and emergent throughout the life cycle of a
group. Certain sets of norms
are present within all our interactions, reflecting the
overarching attitudes, expectations,
and behavioral cues we have learned since childhood. This
includes “reading” each other for
acceptable behavior and habitually giving extra weight to the
attitudes and behavior of those
who appear to inhabit authority roles. Although norms emerge
from our groups, they are also
affected by our desire to conform and be accepted by other
group members, as well as by how
we think we should respond to a given situation, based on our

perception of others’ attitudes
and behavior.
Norms can be prescriptive or proscriptive, defining socially
appropriate or inappropriate
actions or behaviors, respectively (Sorrels & Kelley, 1984).
Additionally, norms can be descrip-
tive, encompassing the attitudes and actions people usually
engage in, given specific situa-
tions. Norms can also be injunctive, representing attitudes and
behaviors that people must
engage in or face severe punishment (Morris, 1956). Table 1.1
summarizes these categories
of norms and provides examples of each.
Table 1.1: Categories and examples of norms
Category Function Example
Prescriptive Define socially appropriate behavior DO use
respectful language and volume in
a public space.
Proscriptive Define socially inappropriate behavior DO NOT
perform private bodily functions
in a public space.
Descriptive Define attitudes and actions people usu-
ally engage in within specific situations
DO hold an elevator door for an incoming
passenger.
Injunctive Define attitudes and behaviors that people
must engage in or be severely punished

DO NOT engage in personal abuse or vio-
lence in the workplace.
People who behave in ways that conflict with prescriptive,
proscriptive, and descriptive norms
may be chided, reminded of more appropriate behaviors, or
perceived as different or strange.
However, those who violate injunctive norms tend to be actively
punished and disliked,
assigned distasteful tasks, and pressured to conform or leave the
group (Rimal & Real, 2005).
Norms constrain our behavior to a certain degree, but they also
offer common understanding
and shared expectations regarding what is and is not acceptable
within the group. In this way
norms help create a supportive framework for group
interactions.
Group norms are collectively accepted standards governing
member behavior within the
group, given members’ relative position and responsibilities and
the connections they share.
In workplace groups, these represent a blend of organizationally
imposed norms, stemming
from organizational rules, procedures, and expectations, and the
unique set of norms that
emerge from the interactions of a particular group membership.
Sometimes we notice the
existence of group norms only when they are broken. For
example, we notice if someone’s
attire breaks unwritten office dress codes or if someone takes
too much or too little time for
lunch and breaks.
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 13 8/19/16 9:37 AM

New members of a group, such as new hires, will adjust to
written and unwritten rules associ-
ated with assigned tasks and roles, and those held as important
by the coworkers with whom
they are grouped. Established members socially influence or
pressure newcomers to conform
to group norms, which may include clocking in on time,
performing work in a timely manner,
chatting (or not chatting) by the coffee machine, and following
accepted parameters for lan-
guage, mutual respect, and quality of work.
Norms can be either constructive or destructive. Constructive
norms support a group’s task
and relationship roles. For instance, norms for open
communication of task-related concerns
or for soliciting feedback from other members would be
considered constructive. Destructive
norms can lead to process loss and damaging relationships
between members. Norms for
unhealthy competitiveness, information holding, or not owning
up to mistakes are all exam-
ples of destructive norms.
The divide between constructive and destructive norms is not
always clear cut. Even seem-
ingly positive interactions can develop into destructive norms if
they become distracting or
inappropriate. Consider Tanya and Amelia. As the only women

in a group of seven, Tanya and
Amelia appreciated the easy camaraderie gained by being “one
of the boys,” even when that
meant laughing at sexist jokes. When the group leader
questioned this norm, however, Tanya
admitted that the jokes made her uncomfortable, and Amelia
stated that she actually found
them offensive. The men in the group were surprised—and
genuinely apologetic—and the
group moved on to develop more constructive norms.
Group norms shape the interactions and interrelations between
members, significantly
impacting group processes and performance. We will further
discuss the influence and man-
agement of constructive and destructive dynamics and norms in
Chapter 7. For now, we move
to the third aspect of structure: interrelations.
Interrelations
Group members develop meaningful interrelations, or mutual
and reciprocal relations, the
functional dimensions of which can be described as follows:
• Interdependence
• Communication
• Group processes
Interdependence can be defined as a state of mutual dependence
in which others influence,
and are influenced by, our thoughts, feelings, actions, outcomes,
and experience. All groups
have some level of socioemotional interdependence, or a mutual
dependence and influence on
social relations and standing, emotional state, and well-being.
Groups also have some level

of task interdependence, or the degree to which members are
reliant on one another to effec-
tively perform tasks and achieve goals (Kozlowski & Bell,
2001). Monitoring and managing
task interdependence is particularly critical in task groups, in
which low and high task inter-
dependence can significantly impact the group performance.
Increased task interdependence
increases the need for effective communication, coordination,
and cooperation (Saavedra,
Earley, & Van Dyne, 1993). The roles that group members are
assigned or take on primarily
reflect the need to direct and manage both socioemotional and
task interdependence within
the group.
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 14 8/19/16 9:37 AM
Communication, or the comprehensive exchange of
interpersonal, contextual, and task-
related information, is the medium by which group members
develop and maintain meaning-
ful interrelations. Communication is a key element in any group
setting. Member coordina-
tion and cooperation depend on effective communication, and
mismanaged communication
is a major cause of group conflict (Salas, Burke, & Cannon-
Bowers, 2000). In fact, establishing
effective communication is one of the most important steps to

resolving conflicts that arise
between group members (Olekalns, Putnam, Weingart, &
Metcalf, 2008). Communication
is also a critical factor in shaping outcomes for the major
developmental and task-oriented
group processes.
Group processes represent specific sets of behaviors and
interactions that contribute to
the realization of a particular agenda or outcome. There are
many processes associated with
interpersonal interaction. Communication is a process, as are
identification and leadership.
Within group dynamics, group processes typically refer to the
major developmental and task-
orientated processes. Developmental processes involve the
changes that occur over time in the
fundamental nature of the group. This includes its formation;
development of norms, roles,
and informal status hierarchies; and movement through the
stages of performance and dis-
banding. Task-oriented processes are attached to specific group
tasks or goals and include
problem solving, decision making, innovation, and learning.
Teamwork is the process by
which group members combine knowledge, skills, and abilities
(KSAs); effort; and resources
through a coordinated series of actions and interactions to
produce an outcome (Forsyth,
2014). We will continue to expand on these topics throughout
the text, since developing and
managing interrelations is a basic requirement of working
together.
For now, it is important to know that the interrelations
developed between group mem-

bers through interdependence, communication, and participation
in group processes have a
profound impact on members’ subjective experience and their
ability to work together as a
group. The following subsections briefly overview leadership
and context, as well as the ways
in which these dynamic properties shape the very nature of our
groups.
Leadership: Guiding the Group
All groups have some form of leadership, whether they enact
distinct leader–follower rela-
tionships or engage in collective decision making to direct the
group. Leadership can be des-
ignated by an organization or emergent within the dynamics of a
particular group.
• Designated leaders are assigned to fulfill leadership roles and
managerial respon-
sibilities based on organizational standards, hierarchy, and
needs.
• Emergent leaders develop naturally out of interpersonal
interactions as members
share leadership responsibilities (Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2004;
Pearce & Conger, 2003)
or as particular individuals begin to fulfill leadership roles and
responsibilities over
time (Foti & Hauenstein, 2007).
Additionally, groups can be internally or externally led, or they
can be empowered to enact a
cooperative leadership in which both internal and external
leadership exists. Empowered
group members share varying degrees of leadership roles and
managerial responsibilities

with designated leaders and/or external managers. With or
without formal empowerment,
the collaborative problem-solving, decision-making, and work
efforts inherent to teamwork
generate a shared determination and collective guidance that is
often referred to as shared
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 15 8/19/16 9:37 AM
leadership. Sharing leadership responsibilities and roles allows
team members the authority
and flexibility to deal immediately with problems that arise
during performance, but it does
not mean that teams do not have leaders or specific
responsibility structures. Leadership and
empowerment styles will be discussed in depth in Chapter 9.
In workplace groups, leadership is integral to effective
collaboration and performance. Lead-
ers guide the interaction and progression of group processes and
monitor and manage both
individual and collective performance (Fleishman et al., 1991;
Kozlowski, Gully, McHugh,
Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1996; Kozlowski, Gully, Salas, &
Cannon-Bowers, 1996). Leaders
facilitate the assimilation and socialization of incoming and
outgoing members as groups and
teams are formed and as membership changes over time
(Moreland & Levine, 1989; Ostroff

& Kozlowski, 1992). Leaders also direct the process of group
development and continu-
ously work toward member coherence (Kozlowski, Gully,
McHugh, et al., 1996). They guide
the clarification of group goals, task strategies, and agendas;
manage positive and negative
norms; link individual interests with collective purpose;
establish compatible role expecta-
tions among members; and maintain favorable performance
conditions (Kozlowski & Bell,
2001). Leaders bridge the gap between the group and the
organization, translating, manag-
ing, and mitigating interactions so that, as much as possible, the
needs, interests, and goals of
each are protected and realized (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003).
Next, we examine the effects of
group context.
Context: Orienting the Group
Groups come in all shapes, sizes, and forms. Group context, or
the developmental and opera-
tional setting in which groups are embedded, fundamentally
shapes group behavior and pur-
pose. For example, coworkers Adele, Derrick, and Rafael may
form or be placed in a group
dedicated to a particular organizational task. Their
communication patterns, hierarchy, and
task division within the group will largely be dictated by
organizational roles, rules, and pro-
cedure. If the three coworkers met and came together in a
friendship group over consecutive
lunch breaks, they would behave very differently, with
communication patterns, hierarchy,
and roles emerging naturally through repeated interactions.
Understanding group context is
key to understanding how groups form and function (Stohl &

Putnam, 2003).
Groups have a developmental context that can be informal or
formal. Informal groups are
the natural outcome of consistent interaction between people
with mutual interests. Mem-
ber created and internally driven, the longevity of informal
groups is solely determined by
members’ continuing interest and ability to participate. In
contrast, formal groups are inten-
tionally composed and structured to realize specific tasks,
projects, or goals, determined by
the needs of an organization. Driven by an externally imposed
performance agenda, formal
groups terminate when their performance objectives are met or
they are no longer deemed
organizationally useful. Table 1.2 summarizes the
developmental contexts of groups and pro-
vides examples for each.
Groups also have an operational context. Just as the informal
and formal context impacts the
motivations and methods by which group purpose, composition,
structure, and leadership
develop, the setting in which groups operate significantly
influences the way in which they
function and how effectively they do so. A sports team, for
example, operates in a very differ-
ent setting than a product development team, and that context
impacts group structure as
well as how members coordinate and cooperate. Here, our focus
is on organizational groups.
Table 1.2: Developmental context of groups
Category Description Examples

Informal Groups formed naturally through con-
sistent interaction between people with
similar interests
• Friendship groups
• Book clubs
• Recreational groups
• The set of coworkers we carpool and
lunch with
Formal Groups that are intentionally formed,
composed, and structured to satisfy
specific task, project, or goal needs of an
organization
• Sports teams
• Entertainment groups
• Academic classes
• Focus groups
• Committees
• Work groups, crews, and teams
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 16 8/19/16 9:37 AM
Although there is a tendency to think of organizations as
hierarchical series of formal groups,
in reality, formal and informal groups coexist within the

workplace. Both formal and informal
groups are embedded within the organizational context, or the
comprehensive culture, sys-
tems, structure, processes, and resources in place within the
organization.
Groups formed without consideration of their organizational
context do not function well
within it. Teams introduced without thought to the provision of
organizational support for
teamwork processes and needs will typically either fail or work
far below their potential. This
is primarily because they do not function cooperatively within
the organization (Dumaine,
1994). Team-based organizing (TBO), examined in Chapter 10,
centers on the idea that groups
and teams are only effective within an organization when they
work as part of a systemic
whole.
leadership. Sharing leadership responsibilities and roles allows
team members the authority
and flexibility to deal immediately with problems that arise
during performance, but it does
not mean that teams do not have leaders or specific
responsibility structures. Leadership and
empowerment styles will be discussed in depth in Chapter 9.
In workplace groups, leadership is integral to effective
collaboration and performance. Lead-
ers guide the interaction and progression of group processes and
monitor and manage both
individual and collective performance (Fleishman et al., 1991;
Kozlowski, Gully, McHugh,
Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1996; Kozlowski, Gully, Salas, &
Cannon-Bowers, 1996). Leaders

facilitate the assimilation and socialization of incoming and
outgoing members as groups and
teams are formed and as membership changes over time
(Moreland & Levine, 1989; Ostroff
& Kozlowski, 1992). Leaders also direct the process of group
development and continu-
ously work toward member coherence (Kozlowski, Gully,
McHugh, et al., 1996). They guide
the clarification of group goals, task strategies, and agendas;
manage positive and negative
norms; link individual interests with collective purpose;
establish compatible role expecta-
tions among members; and maintain favorable performance
conditions (Kozlowski & Bell,
2001). Leaders bridge the gap between the group and the
organization, translating, manag-
ing, and mitigating interactions so that, as much as possible, the
needs, interests, and goals of
each are protected and realized (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003).
Next, we examine the effects of
group context.
Context: Orienting the Group
Groups come in all shapes, sizes, and forms. Group context, or
the developmental and opera-
tional setting in which groups are embedded, fundamentally
shapes group behavior and pur-
pose. For example, coworkers Adele, Derrick, and Rafael may
form or be placed in a group
dedicated to a particular organizational task. Their
communication patterns, hierarchy, and
task division within the group will largely be dictated by
organizational roles, rules, and pro-
cedure. If the three coworkers met and came together in a
friendship group over consecutive
lunch breaks, they would behave very differently, with

communication patterns, hierarchy,
and roles emerging naturally through repeated interactions.
Understanding group context is
key to understanding how groups form and function (Stohl &
Putnam, 2003).
Groups have a developmental context that can be informal or
formal. Informal groups are
the natural outcome of consistent interaction between people
with mutual interests. Mem-
ber created and internally driven, the longevity of informal
groups is solely determined by
members’ continuing interest and ability to participate. In
contrast, formal groups are inten-
tionally composed and structured to realize specific tasks,
projects, or goals, determined by
the needs of an organization. Driven by an externally imposed
performance agenda, formal
groups terminate when their performance objectives are met or
they are no longer deemed
organizationally useful. Table 1.2 summarizes the
developmental contexts of groups and pro-
vides examples for each.
Groups also have an operational context. Just as the informal
and formal context impacts the
motivations and methods by which group purpose, composition,
structure, and leadership
develop, the setting in which groups operate significantly
influences the way in which they
function and how effectively they do so. A sports team, for
example, operates in a very differ-
ent setting than a product development team, and that context
impacts group structure as
well as how members coordinate and cooperate. Here, our focus
is on organizational groups.

Table 1.2: Developmental context of groups
Category Description Examples
Informal Groups formed naturally through con-
sistent interaction between people with
similar interests
• Friendship groups
• Book clubs
• Recreational groups
• The set of coworkers we carpool and
lunch with
Formal Groups that are intentionally formed,
composed, and structured to satisfy
specific task, project, or goal needs of an
organization
• Sports teams
• Entertainment groups
• Academic classes
• Focus groups
• Committees
• Work groups, crews, and teams
Business Applications: The Impact of Informal
Workplace Groups
Although formal groups such as boards, committees, work
groups, and teams get all the credit
as useful and productive workplace groups, informal groups can
also have a profound impact
on the performance of individual members and the organization

as a whole. Informal groups
can help new employees assimilate, foster a more comfortable
and productive work environ-
ment, and establish and sustain connections between employees
across the organization.
Bridging boundaries between employees of varying rank and
function facilitates knowledge
sharing and organizational learning, as well as increases support
for employee advancement.
On the other hand, loyalty to friendship groups may potentially
override decisions needed
for a company’s best interests, and special treatment for one’s
“office family” can undermine
motivation among workers who are not part of the group.
Balancing informal and formal com-
mitments and loyalties can be like navigating an obstacle
course, but large organizations are
increasingly recognizing the benefit of doing so.
(continued)
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 17 8/19/16 9:37 AM
Section 1.3 What Are Teams?
1.3 What Are Teams?
There is often confusion about the relationship between groups
and teams. Many people
apply the terms interchangeably or use team as a motivational
catch phrase for groups with
a formal agenda (Parks & Sanna, 1999). This is inaccurate,

however. Teams share basic char-
acteristics with all groups, but as a distinct form of task group,
teams have specific attributes
that are entirely their own. To develop this concept, we will
first look at the characteristics
teams and other groups have in common. Then we will examine
the specific attributes that
make teams unique and that have inspired the saying “All teams
are groups, but not all groups
are teams.”
As groups, we know that teams must have:
• identification as a social unit,
• interdependence between members,
• cohesion around some common interest or purpose, and
• meaningful interaction between and among members.
Additionally, like all groups, teams have a purpose to exist, a
composition of members with
individual qualities and needs, structure for interrelations,
leadership from within and with-
out, and a context in which they are embedded. They engage in
developmental and task-
oriented processes and develop patterns for member behavior
and interaction. So what do
teams add to this mix that sets them apart from other task
groups?
At Google, informal employee social groups have become
firmly embedded in organizational
culture. According to interviewer Mark Swift (2011), Google’s
Employee Resource Groups are
“employee-initiated entities that receive financial support from
the company and represent
social, cultural or minority groups, including the Gayglers (for

lesbian and gay employees), the
Greyglers (for older employees), . . . [and] VetNet for military
veterans” (para. 6).
When Camille James joined Google, she took a profound leap
into an unknown culture, mov-
ing from Tokyo to California. She had no existing social
connections there, and she had never
before worked for a large company. Encouraged by Google’s
unorthodox organizational cul-
ture, James met with fellow “Nooglers” (new hires at Google)
and formed a bowling team
through which she forged connections with coworkers and laid
the groundwork for friend-
ships and social bonds within her new community (Swift, 2011).
In 2011 Google had an almost
unbelievable growth rate of 100 “Nooglers” per week,
transforming its informal employee
groups from a cool company perk to a keystone component in
employee assimilation and rela-
tions within the company.
Critical-Thinking Question
Informal groups exist everywhere. Consider some of the
informal groups in your office, work,
or school settings. Describe some of the ways in which informal
group membership helps sup-
port your emotional well-being, confidence, and ability to
perform within the more formal
groups associated with these settings.
Business Applications: The Impact of Informal Workplace
Groups
(continued)
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 18 8/19/16 9:37 AM

In task groups, performance encompasses the coordination and
execution of individual and
collective efforts toward a specific purpose or goal. Teams
engage in collaborative perfor-
mance, which involves willful contribution of interdependent
and joint effort, pooled knowl-
edge and resources, and shared responsibility for outcomes
(Kozlowski & Bell, 2001). This is
the central tenet of teams and their distinctive function within
the task group category. We
often refer to the collaborative performance process as
teamwork, but teamwork alone does
not make a team. Members of any group can engage in
situational teamwork, but unless they
develop member qualities and interrelations that support a
continuous teamwork process,
they will not become a team.
Team members are committed to collaborative performance
toward a meaningful common
purpose. To achieve this, team members collectively determine
their agenda and approach,
discover or develop complementary skills, and hold themselves
mutually accountable for
results. Therefore, we can define a team as a small group in
which members engaging comple-
mentary skills are committed to, and hold themselves mutually
accountable for, collaboration

toward a meaningful common purpose along a collectively
determined agenda and approach.
Teams evolved from traditional work groups, a term used to
describe a small group in which
skilled members are held individually accountable for specific
tasks determined by the pur-
pose, agenda, and approach of a single, clear leader. Work
groups once represented the stan-
dard model for organizational productivity. Today teams have
displaced them as the basic
building block of competitive organizations (Martin & Bal,
2006; Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam,
2010). To understand why this is so, we must first examine the
rise of teams within organi-
zational culture.
The Rise of Teams
Teams have existed for thousands of years. Their introduction
and use within business orga-
nizations, however, is relatively new. Prior to the mid-20th
century, teams were rarely seen
in action outside of military or sports settings. Work groups
were assembled for demanding
labor and simple, repetitive tasks requiring many hands, but
complex and intellectual tasks
were assigned to skilled individuals. Organizational practices
were rooted in the principles
of scientific management (Taylor, 1911), a philosophy centered
on optimization through
rigid standardization, time management, and worker
supervision. These ideas spawned a
near mechanized view of workers as primarily motivated by
material rewards. Social inter-
actions and processing time were viewed as nonproductive.
Managers focused on support-

ing workers by offering direct correlation between wages and
productive output. They also
eliminated “wasteful” socializing and released workers from the
complexities of on-the-job
decision making and problem solving. Managers thought, and
workers did.
In the 1920s Elton Mayo, Fritz Roethlisberger, and associates
launched a landmark decade-
long series of experiments and observations on the
organizational behavior, group produc-
tivity, and motivations of workers at AT&T’s Western Electric
Hawthorne Works. These later
became known as the Hawthorne studies. Mayo’s work inspired
the human relations move-
ment of the 1930s, which emphasized the importance of social
relations in the workplace
and investing organizational interest in factors such as workers’
motivational influences,
employee participation, and job satisfaction. Productivity
research moved away from the idea
of workers as automatons, to examine the underlying dynamics
and processes surrounding
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 19 8/19/16 9:37 AM
group performance and the socioemotional causes for high- and
low-productivity levels (Son-
nenfeld, 1985).

In the 1940s and 1950s, studies of work groups in the British
coal mining industry, led by
Eric Trist in collaboration with ex-miner Ken Bamforth,
introduced the concept of the self-
regulatory work group, a kind of proto-team in which workers
actively participated in self-
management and coordination. Trist (1981) observed that this
novel approach to work group
organization and function was phenomenal, stating that
“cooperation between task groups
was everywhere in evidence; personal commitment was obvious,
absenteeism low, accidents
infrequent, productivity high” (p. 8). Many of the practices later
associated with self-
regulatory work groups were rooted in the natural teamwork
that occurred in the mining pits
years before the industry had reorganized around the principles
of scientific management.
Companies such as General Foods, Butler Manufacturing, and
General Motors built on these
concepts in the 1980s, transforming Trist’s self-regulatory work
groups into self-managing
teams. That transition paid off with demonstrable increases in
performance quality, pro-
duction, and employee satisfaction, and notable decreases in
accidents, absenteeism, and
employee turnover (Strauss & Hammer, 1987). Car
manufacturers Volvo and Saab followed
suit, integrating teams into their production plants. Overseas,
both Europe and Japan were hav-
ing their own revelations on the use of teams and management
models supporting collabora-
tive work. The ever-increasing globalization of the marketplace
ensured these ideas spread,

and teams were clearly recognized as the new model for
organizational competitiveness.
Unfortunately, the reasons behind team effectiveness, and the
practical differences between
work groups and teams, were not as readily perceived. Many
executives simply appropriated
the term team as a motivational resource, failing to properly
implement teams because they
were unaware of any real difference (Katzenbach & Smith,
2001; Harris & Beyerlein, 2008).
Although teams evolved from work groups, and both are
categorized as task groups, work
groups and teams fundamentally differ along the basic elements
of leadership, accountability,
and purpose. Next, we compare work groups and teams to
further our understanding of what
teams are and how differently they function from other task
groups.
Comparing Work Groups and Teams
In a side-by-side comparison, the definitions for work groups
and teams reveal notable simi-
larities (see Figure 1.2).
As we can see in Figure 1.2, both work groups and teams share
the following features:
• Small size
• Skilled members
• Accountability for action and labor outcomes
• Labor along a specific agenda and approach
However, they are also characterized by significant differences
in leadership, accountability,
and purpose. Table 1.3 offers a simple breakdown of these

distinctions, which primarily affect
the ways in which these properties are carried out and
expressed.
Figure 1.2: Comparison of work group and team definitions
Work groups and teams share several notable similarities.
A small group in which skilled
members are held individually
accountable for specific tasks
determined by the purpose,
agenda, and approach of a single,
clear leader.
A small group in which members
engaging complementary skills are
committed to, and hold themselves
mutually accountable for,
collaboration toward a meaningful
common purpose along a collectively
Work Groups Teams
Table 1.3: Key properties of work groups and teams
Key properties Work groups Teams
Leadership Members follow a single, clear leader. Members
engage in shared leadership.
Accountability Members are individually accountable to
the group leader. Leader is individually
accountable for group performance.

Members are mutually accountable for
performance within the group and for
group performance overall.
Purpose Leader determines group’s purpose,
agenda, and approach and delegates
appropriate individual tasks and roles.
Members collectively determine team’s
goals, agenda, and approach, as well as
collective and individual tasks and roles.
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 20 8/19/16 9:37 AM
clear leader.
Work Groups Teams

Leadership
Work groups have a single, clear leader. An easy way to
remember the characteristics of work
group leadership is to think of them as the 3 Ds: determine,
delegate, and dominate. Although
group members share information and ideas when asked, the
leader is in charge. He or she
determines the group’s purpose, agenda, and approach,
delegates individual tasks and roles
within the group, and dominates group meetings and discussion.
Teams work very differently.
Unlike work groups, team members engage in shared leadership
and decision making. Team
members perform tasks and fulfill roles that are based on a
meaningful common purpose and
a collectively determined and realized agenda and approach.
Accountability
The presence of a single leader in work groups necessitates
individual accountability for all
group members. Since the work group leader is the sole decision
maker, group members are
responsible only for their own performance of assigned tasks
and roles. Likewise, as the lone
orchestrator of the group’s purpose, the leader is held
individually accountable for the work
group’s ultimate performance.
On the other hand, since teams engage in shared leadership,
members accept mutual account-
ability for both positive and negative outcomes. That is, team
members are accountable to
group performance and the socioemotional causes for high- and

low-productivity levels (Son-
nenfeld, 1985).
In the 1940s and 1950s, studies of work groups in the British
coal mining industry, led by
Eric Trist in collaboration with ex-miner Ken Bamforth,
introduced the concept of the self-
regulatory work group, a kind of proto-team in which workers
actively participated in self-
management and coordination. Trist (1981) observed that this
novel approach to work group
organization and function was phenomenal, stating that
“cooperation between task groups
was everywhere in evidence; personal commitment was obvious,
absenteeism low, accidents
infrequent, productivity high” (p. 8). Many of the practices later
associated with self-
regulatory work groups were rooted in the natural teamwork
that occurred in the mining pits
years before the industry had reorganized around the principles
of scientific management.
Companies such as General Foods, Butler Manufacturing, and
General Motors built on these
concepts in the 1980s, transforming Trist’s self-regulatory work
groups into self-managing
teams. That transition paid off with demonstrable increases in
performance quality, pro-
duction, and employee satisfaction, and notable decreases in
accidents, absenteeism, and
employee turnover (Strauss & Hammer, 1987). Car
manufacturers Volvo and Saab followed
suit, integrating teams into their production plants. Overseas,
both Europe and Japan were hav-
ing their own revelations on the use of teams and management
models supporting collabora-

tive work. The ever-increasing globalization of the marketplace
ensured these ideas spread,
and teams were clearly recognized as the new model for
organizational competitiveness.
Unfortunately, the reasons behind team effectiveness, and the
practical differences between
work groups and teams, were not as readily perceived. Many
executives simply appropriated
the term team as a motivational resource, failing to properly
implement teams because they
were unaware of any real difference (Katzenbach & Smith,
2001; Harris & Beyerlein, 2008).
Although teams evolved from work groups, and both are
categorized as task groups, work
groups and teams fundamentally differ along the basic elements
of leadership, accountability,
and purpose. Next, we compare work groups and teams to
further our understanding of what
teams are and how differently they function from other task
groups.
Comparing Work Groups and Teams
In a side-by-side comparison, the definitions for work groups
and teams reveal notable simi-
larities (see Figure 1.2).
As we can see in Figure 1.2, both work groups and teams share
the following features:
• Small size
• Skilled members
• Accountability for action and labor outcomes
• Labor along a specific agenda and approach
However, they are also characterized by significant differences

in leadership, accountability,
and purpose. Table 1.3 offers a simple breakdown of these
distinctions, which primarily affect
the ways in which these properties are carried out and
expressed.
Figure 1.2: Comparison of work group and team definitions
Work groups and teams share several notable similarities.
clear leader.
Work Groups Teams
Table 1.3: Key properties of work groups and teams
Key properties Work groups Teams
Leadership Members follow a single, clear leader. Members
engage in shared leadership.
Accountability Members are individually accountable to
the group leader. Leader is individually

accountable for group performance.
Members are mutually accountable for
performance within the group and for
group performance overall.
Purpose Leader determines group’s purpose,
agenda, and approach and delegates
appropriate individual tasks and roles.
Members collectively determine team’s
goals, agenda, and approach, as well as
collective and individual tasks and roles.
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 21 8/19/16 9:37 AM
each other for their individual performance of tasks and roles
within the team. They are also
collectively accountable for team performance outcomes and the
success or failure of the team
as a whole. One of the advantages of the team concept is that
team members share respon-
sibility for problems and conflicts that arise. Rather than
“passing the buck” to a superior,
team members address these issues directly and attempt to
resolve them within the team
structure. This collective responsibility toward each other and
to the team deeply affects how
members interact and work toward a desired outcome.

Purpose
In work groups, a leader directs the actions of each skilled
member, like a chess player moving
the different pieces on a board. By contrast, team members are
largely self-directing, moving
with mutual coordination; they keep track of what everybody
else is doing and adjust their
actions accordingly. This means team members are far more
empowered than members of a
work group, in that they have the ability—and the authority—to
coordinate themselves (Salas
et al., 2000). By collectively determining team goals, agenda,
and approach, a team develops
a shared mental model of these constructs and the steps that are
needed to accomplish them
(for example, Hu & Liden, 2011; Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin,
Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000).
This shared vision provides a road map and a set of directions
that team members endorse
and get behind. Member commitment and cohesiveness get a
boost, significantly amplifying
team performance and productivity (Kozlowski & Bell, 2001).
Teamwork has many proponents and a well-earned reputation
for success. However, teams
are not necessarily better than work groups. Functioning work
groups are efficient and orga-
nized. Member roles, tasks, and responsibilities are delineated
without debate, and individual
accountabilities are clear and nonnegotiable. Used properly,
work groups can be productive
powerhouses, yet we tend to automatically exclude them when
looking to increase or improve
performance. Teams engage in collaborative performance. They
pool knowledge, viewpoints,

and expertise to maximize critical thinking, creative problem
solving, and adaptability to
changing conditions. Collective decision making enhances
member buy-in to team tasks and
goals (Millikin, Hom, & Manz, 2010); however, functioning
teams require substantially more
member time, effort, and commitment to actualize than do work
groups. Each has its own
strengths and weaknesses, so how do we choose one over the
other?
When to Use Teams
When faced with the decision of whether to use a team,
organizations tend to follow estab-
lished patterns. Newer technology- or design-based firms tend
to opt for teams, while older
organizations are more likely to use work groups (though they
may mislabel these as teams).
Today’s focus on team performance often leaves work groups
overlooked and underrated,
yet teams are not always the right fit for the job. The
performance value of any task group
depends on task complexity, operational context, and
performance goals. Given that work
groups spend less time deliberating during performance, they
are almost always more effi-
cient than teams, but teams are typically more effective. In
deciding whether to use a team or
a work group, we must first determine what the performance
outcome needs most: efficiency
or effectiveness.
In the business world, efficiency refers to greater production or
performance output, with
less input of resources (i.e., time, money, and employee labor).
Work groups are highly

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 22 8/19/16 9:37 AM
• Is there a lack of clear answers?
• Are the tasks complex?
• Is there too much or too little
information?
• Is there a need for creative ideas?
• Does the problem cross functions?
• Does the solution affect many
people?
• Is there a strong bias toward the
outcome?
• Does success depend on individual
and collective commitment to the
outcome?
For nonroutine tasks
or solutions
For tasks or solutions requiring
broad support
efficient because they allow group leaders to accomplish more
within a given time frame
than could be done alone or in a team setting, where collective
decision making eats away
at production time. Think of a work group as an augmented

individual. Since group leaders
provide all of the creative and strategic decision making, a work
group reflects the leader’s
individual ability in these areas. Work group leaders hold
ultimate responsibility for the quan-
tity and quality of the groups’ output. Work groups also offer
strength in numbers. As tasks
and activities are delegated to group members, their overall
productivity outstrips that of any
one individual. With smart selection, group leaders can access
skills that either compliment
or go beyond their own abilities, thereby enhancing both the
quantity and quality of their
“individual” performance.
In dealing with groups and teams, effectiveness represents the
degree to which a perfor-
mance outcome satisfies project requirements, the relative
quality and timeliness of a solu-
tion or output, and the quality of member interaction. In
contrast to efficiency, effectiveness
tends to denote performance flexibility and overall satisfaction,
rather than quantity or speed.
Work groups may excel at efficient execution, but they typically
struggle with adapting. This
is where teams excel. Team members are largely self-directing,
so they have the ability to
quickly assess and adapt strategies to deal with issues that arise
over the course of their per-
formance. There are no project stalls while someone contacts
the group leader, explains the
situation, and waits for the leader to decide on a course of
action.
The work group efficiency concept typically results in a
standard but not superlative level of

product or outcome quality and satisfaction. The mutual
accountability inherent to effective
teamwork tends to heighten member motivation to exceed
minimum performance and solu-
tion standards. Mutual coordination assures that when a team
member makes decisions or
initiative changes within the performance process, others will
adjust and adapt with them,
supporting or even improving on their efforts. So when should
we use a team? The Vroom,
Yetton, and Jago (Vroom & Yetton, 1973; Vroom & Jago, 1988)
decision-making model for
leadership and participation offers some very practical
suggestions (see Figure 1.3).
Figure 1.3: Guidelines for when to use teams
The Vroom, Yetton, and Jago decision-making model
recommends using teams when tasks or
solutions are nonroutine or require broad support. Organizations
can ask themselves these questions
to help determine whether a team is the best fit for their needs.
• Is there a lack of clear answers?
• Are the tasks complex?
• Is there too much or too little
information?
• Is there a need for creative ideas?
• Does the problem cross functions?
• Does the solution affect many
people?
• Is there a strong bias toward the
outcome?
• Does success depend on individual
and collective commitment to the

outcome?
For nonroutine tasks
or solutions
For tasks or solutions requiring
broad support
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 23 8/19/16 9:37 AM
Section 1.4 Identifying Team and Task Types
It is important to note that an organization does not need to
restrict itself to using only teams
or only work groups. The ability to blend efficiency and
effectiveness can be an unparalleled
tool. A growing number of organizations recognize the
performance power in both work
groups and teams. These organizations seek employees who not
only work well within either
model, but can successfully work within both formats in
concurrent groups, as project needs
demand. Architecture and design-based firms have been using
this model for years. An archi-
tect often works as part of a team of designers on a building
project and holds a concurrent
position on another project as, say, a work group leader over
other architects, designers, or
assistants. Those other architects, designers, and assistants in
turn may also be team mem-
bers, work group leaders, or work group members on another

project.
The ability to work well within either a work group or team
setting is one of the most valuable
and highly sought skills employees can bring to an organization.
For managers and project
planners, other highly sought skills include the knowledge,
experience, and ability to:
• judge which group model is best suited to a particular project
task or goal,
• track performance efficiency and effectiveness based on the
work group or team
model, and
• determine when a switch from work group to team (or vice
versa) may best serve
the desired performance outcome.
Once the decision to employ a team has been made, the question
becomes: What kind of team
should we use? We will turn to that question in the next section.
1.4 Identifying Team and Task Types
The flexibility inherent in the team structure complicates
attempts to place teams—and the
tasks they perform—into prepackaged labels. New applications
for teams and variations on
the team concept emerge constantly within organizations, yet
understanding team types is
important. Teams share certain qualities that set them apart
from other groups, but teams are
not identical. They represent different and often unique
combinations of malleable proper-
ties, such as composition, structure, and leadership (Harvey,

Fisher, McPhail, & Moeller, 2009;
Zheng, Khoury, & Grobmeier, 2010; Salas et al., 2000). These
differences in turn affect team
processes and management needs (Horwitz, 2005). Task
expectations, operational setting,
and enlisted communication channels influence the nature of
teams in terms of what they do
and how they do it (Stewart & Barrick, 2000; Abbott, Boyd, &
Miles, 2006).
Teams are categorized using a combination of their structural
parameters and primary task
type (Wildman et al., 2012; Sundstrom, McIntyre, Halfhill, &
Richards, 2000; Devine, 2002).
Structural parameters define the team’s role, interrelation, and
interdependence within the
organization. These are used to develop team types that describe
the fundamental nature of a
team and how it is expected to work. Primary task types
represent a basic categorization of
the prime objectives teams are expected to achieve or perform.
In other words, they describe
what a team is expected to do.
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 24 8/19/16 9:37 AM
We will begin by looking at team types, then turn to task types.
While it might seem more
natural to address what before how, keep in mind that when

compared to other task groups,
how teams perform is their primary distinction and the key to
their success.
Team Types
As we’ve discussed, a team’s structural parameters—role,
interrelation, and interdependence
within an organization—will determine how it is expected to
function, and therefore its team
type. Here, we discuss the most common team types
encountered in organizations: work
teams, project teams, task force teams, parallel teams, and
virtual teams.
Work Teams
Work teams are long-term continuous work units responsible for
an entire product, process,
or service from beginning to end (Wellins, Byham, & Wilson,
1991; Cohen & Bailey, 1997).
Work teams represent the basic team unit on which specific
variations are built; these varia-
tions are widely diverse in function and task type, composition,
and context. Membership in
work teams is typically full time, well defined, and can be
either fixed or rotating. Manufac-
turing and production teams, people and process management
teams, customer service, and
information technology (IT) teams are all examples of
organizational work teams.
Project Teams
Project teams are tasked with achieving a unique, one-time
output within a structured time
frame, and typically disband after its completion (Keller, 1994;
Cohen & Bailey, 1997). Proj-
ect teams are frequently used for design and development but

can be aimed at any time-
structured task or goal. The outputs for project teams can range
from radical innovations to
incremental improvements to existing products, services, or
concepts (Cohen & Bailey, 1997).
Membership within project teams is often cross-functional, or
drawn from different func-
tional or departmental backgrounds. This helps maximize a
project team’s creative and adap-
tive potential and enhance project solutions with specialized or
expert knowledge. A new
product development team, for example, may draw members
from product design and engi-
neering, marketing, and manufacturing departments and release
them back to their regular
duties or put them on another project once the team has fulfilled
its purpose.
Within relatively broad directives, project teams are given a fair
amount of latitude on what
they create. Take a project team tasked with developing a new
cell phone, for instance. The
team may be given design cues based on desired features, but
specific interpretation is largely
left up to team members. Although they tend to be temporary,
some project teams work
together on a semipermanent basis, moving from project to
project and rotating additional
members in and out as needed.
Task Force Teams
Task force teams are small, specialist teams composed of expert
members temporarily pulled
across organizational and functional boundaries to deal with a
single urgent task or problem.

Although we often think of the term task force in relation to
military-based teams—the task
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 25 8/19/16 9:37 AM
force concept originated in the U.S. Navy to increase
operational flexibility during World
War II (Furer, 1959)—modern task forces are used in both
civilian and noncivilian settings.
Task forces differ from project teams in the specificity and
urgency of their assignments and
in the specific limitations on their empowerment. Task force
assignments include highly
detailed task parameters and clearly specified goals that must be
achieved within an urgent
time frame. Task force teams are highly self-directing in how
they work within those rigid
boundaries, however. Take, for instance, emergency response
crews arriving on the site of
a disaster. Members of the response team have specific and
urgent task assignments, are
expected to perform these using the best possible resources—
whether these are provided or
must be adapted from whatever is available—and then disband
upon completing their task or
as their performance window expires. Another task force team
common in organizations—
the cheetah team—is used to troubleshoot particularly urgent or

unexpected problems that
arise during design or development processes.
Parallel Teams
Parallel teams operate outside of regular organizational
structures, engaging in tasks and
activities that do not directly produce goods or services but
exist parallel to these processes
(Matteson, Mumford, & Sintay, 1999). These teams source
members from different areas
and functions for part-time participation in problem-solving and
improvement-oriented
tasks deemed difficult to address through standard
organizational structures (Cohen & Bai-
ley, 1997; Fisher, 2000). Parallel teams differ from other teams
in that members continue to
perform their regular organizational roles and duties, meeting
outside of these for parallel
teamwork (Cordery, Soo, Kirkman, Rosen, & Mathieu, 2009).
Parallel teams are also known as
advice, involvement, and suggestion teams, because while they
might operate autonomously
to complete their objectives, they can only provide their
founding manager or management
group with information or advice—not action (Ledford, Lawler,
& Mohrman, 1994; Cohen &
Bailey, 1997). Examples of parallel teams include quality
circles, quality improvement teams,
and investigative and advisory boards.
Virtual Teams
Virtual teams are composed of members who are separated by
organizational boundaries,
geography, or time and interact primarily through technology
(Devine, 2002; Maznevski
& Chudoba, 2000; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004). Virtual teams

offer a unique potential for
efficiency and effectiveness by allowing organizations to bring
together members with the
desired KSAs and experience, no matter where or in what time
zone they actually work. Freed
from the social and financial cost of relocation, skilled
employees and outside experts can be
attached to the team as needed—and disengage just as easily
when their work is done.
Table 1.4 summarizes and provides examples of each of the
basic team types.
It is important to note that the basic team types listed in Table
1.4 are not mutually exclusive.
In other words, teams can exist simultaneously in two or more
of these categories. We might,
for example, put together a virtual project team, bringing
together the best people for a new
product design regardless of physical location. Next, we turn
our attention to primary task
types.
Table 1.4: Summary of basic team types
Team type Description Example
Work team Long-term continuous work units
responsible for an entire product, pro-
cess, or service from beginning to end
• Manufacturing and production teams
• People and process management
teams
• Customer service, sales, negotiation,

and IT teams
Project team Tasked with a unique, one-time output
to be performed within a structured
time frame
• New product development teams
• Design teams
• Marketing teams
Task force Small, specialist teams composed of
expert members temporarily pulled
across organizational and functional
boundaries to deal with a single urgent
task or problem
• Cheetah teams
• Emergency response crews
• Military task forces
Parallel team Operate outside of regular organiza-
tional structures, engaging in tasks and
activities that exist in parallel to busi-
ness and management processes
• Quality circles
• Quality improvement teams
• Investigative and advisory boards
• Focus groups
Virtual team Composed of members who are sepa-
rated by organizational boundaries,
geography, and/or time and who inter-
act primarily through technology

• Any team that primarily interacts via
technology and engages in a virtual
setting
cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 26 8/19/16 9:37 AM
Primary Task Types
While team type labels describe the fundamental nature of a
team and how it will perform,
they do not give us much information about what the team will
be working toward. That
is where task-type classifications come in. Task types describe
what a particular team is
expected to do. Table 1.5 lists the primary task types and their
descriptions and provides
examples of associated teams.
Understanding the Significance of Team and Task Types
As we have learned, team types based on structural parameters
describe teams on a funda-
mental level (i.e., a project team), while primary task types act
as descriptive qualifiers (i.e., a
project management team). But why are these labels significant
or important? Together, team
and task types offer a shared language that can create an
immediate and common under-
standing about the nature of a team, answering questions such
as:

• What is the life expectancy of the team—is it expected to
produce or provide some-
thing indefinitely or just once?
• Are team deliverables a focal product, such as goods, services,
or authoritative
decision making, or will the team’s performance mainly involve
support, advice, or
troubleshooting?
• Where will team members be pulled from, and how will they
primarily interact?
force concept originated in the U.S. Navy to increase
operational flexibility during World
War II (Furer, 1959)—modern task forces are used in both
civilian and noncivilian settings.
Task forces differ from project teams in the specificity and
urgency of their assignments and
in the specific limitations on their empowerment. Task force
assignments include highly
detailed task parameters and clearly specified goals that must be
achieved within an urgent
time frame. Task force teams are highly self-directing in how
they work within those rigid
boundaries, however. Take, for instance, emergency response
crews arriving on the site of
a disaster. Members of the response team have specific and
urgent task assignments, are
expected to perform these using the best possible resources—
whether these are provided or
must be adapted from whatever is available—and then disband
upon completing their task or
as their performance window expires. Another task force team
common in organizations—

11Understanding Groups and Teams FuseThinkstockLe.docx

11Understanding Groups and Teams FuseThinkstockLe.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 11Understanding Groups and Teams FuseThinkstockLe.docx

Similar to 11Understanding Groups and Teams FuseThinkstockLe.docx (20)

More from aulasnilda

More from aulasnilda (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

11Understanding Groups and Teams FuseThinkstockLe.docx