8272018 Printhttpscontent.ashford.eduprintCoget.175.docx

8/27/2018 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=nav
point-5,navpoint-6,navpoint-7,navpoint-8,navpoint-9,navpoint-
10,navpoint-11,navpoin… 1/41
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
De�ine groups and basic group types.
Differentiate between groups, aggregates, and social categories.
Identify the basic properties of groups.
Discuss the in�luence 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 signi�icant factors in typing teams.
Explain the signi�icance of primary task types.
1Understanding Groups and Teams
Fuse/Thinkstock

8/27/2018 Print
8/27/2018 Print
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 coworkersto
rotate between leadershipand
support roles. For example, on one project that
examined current manufacturing processes for a
speci�ic 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 accountable for
the division’s results; members of the entire
division hold themselves accountable,
sincethey 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 somedifferences
between working with his usual team and working in
this new con�iguration. 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 stepsto take and the
timeline for reaching it. Ellis is not used to
having such decisions made for him.
Ellis has noticed otherdifferences as well. In this
new con�iguration, he has only one function 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 accountable for his speci�ic contribution
instead of feeling mutually accountable for
the entire project. The �inal
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 coworkersare able
to select the best person to lead the project,
and they can change leadershipwhen 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 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 stepsfor achieving the desired outcome. The
work, accountability,
and leadershipfor 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
�lexibility and value as an employee.
He decides to put asidehis 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 simultaneously energize us,
support us, and even frustrate us, in part because we cannot
escape their in�luence.
Among the many groups we associate with throughout our
lifetime, most of us will eventually �ind ourselves members of
a particularly challenging, and rewarding, variation—the team.
Teams may well be the de�ining 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
perspectives of others into how we perceive and conceptualize
reality (Gaertner, Iuzzini, Witt, & Orina, 2006).

8/27/2018 Print
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 evaluate 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 �ind 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?
8/27/2018 Print

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
collection 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
intuitively 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 �ind it hard to agree on a clear
de�inition for group (Forsyth, 2014). Common ground emerges
when
we examine the speci�ic qualities that groups exhibit:
Identi�ication 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 de�ine a group as an
identi�iable social unit in which members 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 �irst group. As we move beyond

the immediate social relationships 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 af�iliation
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.
Af�iliations are unavoidable and necessary in today’s society.
The groups we grow up with in�luence our worldview, or our
underlying assumptions of what the world is and how it
should be. They guide our thought and behavioral patterns,
shape our decision making, and help us assimilate and
interact within the society 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 de�inition 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
dif�icult 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 �lexible in composition, structure,
and leadership. Because of this, social psychologists have had
to look far beyond the surface to �ind stable characteristics
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 �ind a basis for the
scienti�ic classi�ication 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
in�luence 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.
8/27/2018 Print
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.

Primitive man spent generations clustered into primary groups
encompassing small communities 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 outside their primary
sphere of intimacy. Although members can form strong bonds
and commitment 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 different
areas of their lives.
Secondary groups are also known as task groups (Lickel et al.,
2001) because member interactions typically center on the
performance of speci�ic 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
interpersonal relations between members in secondary groups
signi�icantly impact the group experience, common
purpose revolves around the performance of tasks and activities
rather than social relations and well-being. Although
primary groups can sometimes emerge from relationships
formed in professional settings, most of the groups we engage
with in the workplace 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 arenot and why they tend to confuse our
group identi�ication 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 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
temporary 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 �ields since the 1920s, collective
behavior refers to the spontaneously and temporarily
coordinated activities or actions of people in�luenced by a
common impulse (Park & Burgess, 1921; Miller, 2000).
Collective behavior can manifest within aggregates in many
ways. This might include sports fans spontaneously
participating in a “wave” cheer, mass excitement or panic in the
face of a shared event, or taking part in fashion or consumer
fads (Miller, 2000). Alternatively, aggregates may engage in
noncooperative coaction, performing similar activities or tasks
alongside others but not together. Coaction 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
scienti�ically 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
speci�ic
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.
8/27/2018 Print
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 (Henderson, 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, interdependence, common purpose, and
meaningful social relations, social categories do not represent
true groups.

Recognizing these nongroups is important to our growing
understanding of what groups are. In Chapter 8, we will take a
look at two other signi�icant nongroups: social networks and
online communities. We have only scratched the surface by
de�ining groups; next we will take a deeper look into the nature
of groups.
8/27/2018 Print
Group dynamics describe how groups work, and how we
relate to each other in groups.
Elements of Group Dynamics
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
interaction patterns among group members, and the
processes they engage in (Knowles & Knowles, 1972).
Researchers in this �ield study the nature of groups, their
development over time, the mutual in�luence of members on
the group and vice versa, and interactions between groups

within the larger context of organizations. In this section, we
examine the signi�icance and interrelatedness of essential
dynamic properties, including group purpose, composition,
structure, leadership, and context.
Purpose: Identi�ication and Cohesiveness
People form groups to feel a sense of purpose or
achieve goals that are dif�icult or impossible 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 identi�ication and cohesion, group
members form attachments that are both social and
emotional; these socioemotional attachments
motivate recognition and commitment to collective
well-being and purpose.
Identi�ication
Identi�ication within groups is multidimensional,
encompassing the extent to which group
membership in�luences 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 in�luence 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.
When social identi�ication occurs, members identify
themselves as part of a collective with shared qualities,
attributes,
and ways of relating that mark them as distinct from other
individuals and groups. Internally, they accept the group as an
extension of self and a legitimate in�luence on self-concept and
self-esteem (Hogg, 2005). The decision to do so is not
always conscious. Identi�ication 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
experience and reactions to these stimuli.
Although we are more likely to self-associate and identify with
groups we perceive as attractive 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 perceived as positive or negative, this
in�luences our own perception and acceptance of
membership, even if we do not openly acknowledge it (Gaertner
et al., 2006). High school cliques offer a classic example
Elements of Group Dynamics
From Title: Understanding Group Dynamics
(https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=100753&xti
d=49913)

© I f b All Ri ht R d L th 02 53
https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=100753&xtid
=49913
8/27/2018 Print
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. Identi�ication can also be activated by
changes in circumstances that highlight collective similarities
and differences. For example, an executive stepping into an
elevator with unassociated lower level employees can activate
a sense of identi�ication among the other riders based on the
perceived difference in status and power. If the elevator
were then stuck between �loors, the emergence of a common
problem and fate would activate a shared social identity
among all the riders.
Shared social identity goes beyond social identi�ication 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 in�luences that affect any of its
members have consequences for all. An effect of identi�ication,
entitativity changes the way members perceive and relate
to the group. Entitativity intensi�ies 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,
Postmes, & Van der Zee, 2011).
Cohesion
Group cohesion is a critical element, de�ined by the total
strength of members’ socioemotional identi�ication 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 cohesion 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 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 sliding
scale within this guideline as well. Because team members
work in collaboration, teams require a signi�icantly 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
de�ines the membership within which these relations and
dynamics occur, and group structure gives shape to their
interactions. We will examine group composition 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 in�luences 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 similarity 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 identi�ication. 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 in�luencing 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

8/27/2018 Print
10,navpoint-11,navpoi… 10/41
shown in Figure 1.1, member qualities can be separated into two
basic categories: individual attributes and demographic
characteristics.
Figure 1.1: Two basiccategories of member qualities
There are two basic categories of member qualities that affect a
group’s diversity: 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 characteristics
are associated with stereotyping. Individual attributes
affect the ways we contribute, interact, and interrelate in
groups. These include qualities such as expertise, worldview,
personality, 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.
In general, research depicts diversity as a double-edged sword,
having potentially positive and negative consequences
(see Pieterse, Van Knippenberg, & Van Dierendonck, 2013;
Podsiadlowski, 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. Stereotypes 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 �lexibility 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 bene�its offered by complementary
diversity.
Size
Groups can theoretically consist of any number larger than two
people. However, it is important to consider that group
size can either facilitate performance or impede it. Small
memberships may progress more rapidly through
developmental and task-oriented group processes; however, they
also limit the human resources—including potential
bene�its from group diversity—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 af�iliated collection of
individuals, or experience a phenomenon known as process
loss

(Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Kozlowski & Bell, 2001). Process
loss is a reduction in ef�iciency 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).
8/27/2018 Print
Wavebreak Media Ltd./Thinkstock
In groups, roles are not con�ined to leader and
follower; they are much more complex and
nuanced.
To minimize the risks associated with too large or too small a
membership, speci�ic 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 speci�ic role
within the community, follows intuitive rules or norms for
behavior and interactions, and engages in interrelations that
impact one another in meaningful ways. The connective pattern
imposed by this system re�lects 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
interactions. Through socioemotional and task-based
interdependence, members develop meaningful interrelations
that sustain the group. Group structure refers to the
framework of roles, norms, and interrelations that regulates
interactions, thereby in�luencing and organizing how a group
functions.
In workplace groups, structure exists both internally and
externally. Group structure de�ines 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 ful�ills a speci�ic role
and responsibilities within the organization, acting in
interdependent 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 position holder in relation to
others and vice versa. De�ining 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 undertake 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 in�luence they have on group interaction de�ines
these as signi�icant roles that can emerge or be designated
within a membership.
People play different roles in different groups, and each role is
typically associated with speci�ic duties, responsibilities, and
prerogatives. For example, as a division manager, Miguel is
accorded certain privileges in behavior and respect. He
coordinates and directs the project managers 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 interactions 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
con�lict can occur.
In the workplace some roles are routinely designated. For
instance, project manager, team leader, facilitator, recorder, and
8/27/2018 Print

timekeeper are all roles that are frequently assigned to speci�ic
group members for the space of a particular project or
performance activity. Other roles emerge as group members
interact and individuals repeatedly take on speci�ic duties,
activities, or methods of interaction. As these patterns of
behavior become habitual, roledifferentiation occurs. The
number of roles within the group increases, and the
expectations, responsibilities, and prerogatives attached to each
role
become more speci�ic.
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 relations within the group.
Activities include facilitating knowledge and opinion sharing
during group discussions, mediating con�lict,
building trust, and managing destructive 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.

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, re�lecting 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, de�ining socially
appropriate or inappropriate actions or behaviors, respectively
(Sorrels & Kelley, 1984). Additionally, norms can be
descriptive, encompassing the attitudes and actions people
usually
engage in, given speci�ic situations. 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 De�ine socially appropriate behavior DO use
respectful language and volume in a
public space.

Proscriptive De�ine socially inappropriate behavior DO NOT
perform private bodily functions in
a public space.
Descriptive De�ine attitudes and actions people usually engage
in
within speci�ic situations
DO hold an elevator door for an incoming
passenger.
Injunctive De�ine attitudes and behaviors that people must
engage
in or be severely punished
DO NOT engage in personal abuse or
violence in the workplace.
People who behave in ways that con�lict 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.
8/27/2018 Print

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 of�ice dress codes or if
someone takes too much or too little time for lunch and breaks.
New members of a group, such as new hires, will adjust to
written and unwritten rules associated with assigned tasks and
roles, and those held as important by the coworkers with whom
they are grouped. Established members socially
in�luence 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 language,
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 examples of destructive
norms.
The divide between constructive and destructive norms is not

always clear cut. Even seemingly 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, signi�icantly impacting group processes and
performance. We will further discuss the in�luence and
management 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 de�ined as a state of mutual
dependence in which others in�luence, and are in�luenced by,
our
thoughts, feelings, actions, outcomes, and experience. All
groups have some level of socioemotional interdependence,
or a
mutual dependence and in�luence 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 effectively 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 interdependence can
signi�icantly 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 re�lect the need to direct and manage
both socioemotional and task interdependence within the group.
Communication, or the comprehensive exchange of
interpersonal, contextual, and task-related information, is the
medium by which group members develop and maintain
meaningful interrelations. Communication is a key element in
any group setting. Member coordination and cooperation depend
on effective communication, and mismanaged
communication is a major cause of group con�lict (Salas,
Burke, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000). In fact, establishing effective
communication is one of the most important steps to resolving
con�licts 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.
8/27/2018 Print

Group processes represent speci�ic 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 identi�ication 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 disbanding. Task-
oriented processes are attached to speci�ic 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 members 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 brie�ly 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 relationships or engage in collective
decision making to direct the group. Leadership can be
designated by an organization or emergent within the dynamics
of
a particular group.
Designated leaders are assigned to ful�ill leadership roles
and managerial responsibilities 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 ful�ill
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 leadership. Sharing leadership
responsibilities and roles allows team members the authority
and �lexibility to deal immediately with problems that arise
during performance, but it does not mean that teams do not have
leaders or speci�ic 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. Leaders 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 continuously work toward
member coherence (Kozlowski, Gully, McHugh, et al., 1996).
They guide the clari�ication of group goals, task strategies, and
agendas; manage positive and negative norms; link
individual interests with collective purpose; establish
compatible role expectations among members; and maintain
favorable performance conditions (Kozlowski & Bell, 2001).
Leaders bridge the gap between the group and the
organization, translating, managing, 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 operational setting in which
groups are embedded, fundamentally shapes group behavior and
purpose. 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 procedure. If the
8/27/2018 Print

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.
Member 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 intentionally composed and structured to realize
speci�ic 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 provides examples for each.
Table 1.2: Developmental context of groups
Category Description Examples
Informal Groups formed naturally through consistent
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 speci�ic task, project,
or goal needs of an organization
Sports teams
Entertainment groups
Academic classes
Focus groups
Committees
Work groups, crews, and teams
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 signi�icantly
in�luences the way in which they function and how effectively
they do so. A sports team, for example, operates in a very
different 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.
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, systems, 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.
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 environment, 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 “of�ice family” can undermine motivation
among workers who are not part of the group.
8/27/2018 Print
Balancing informal and formal commitments and loyalties can

be like navigating an obstacle course, but large
organizations are increasingly recognizing the bene�it of doing
so.
At Google, informal employee social groups have become
�irmly embedded in organizational culture. According to
interviewer Mark Swift (2011), Google’s Employee Resource
Groups are “employee-initiated entities that receive
�inancial 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, moving 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 culture,
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 friendships 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 relations within the company.
Critical-Thinking Question
Informal groups exist everywhere. Consider some of the
informal groups in your of�ice, work, or school settings.
Describe some of the ways in which informal group membership
helps support your emotional well-being,
con�idence, and ability to perform within the more formal
groups associated with these settings.

8/27/2018 Print
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 characteristics with all groups, but
as a distinct form of task group, teams have speci�ic
attributes that are entirely their own. To develop this concept,
we will �irst look at the characteristics teams and other
groups have in common. Then we will examine the speci�ic
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:
identi�ication 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 without,
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?
In task groups, performance encompasses the coordination and
execution of individual and collective efforts toward a
speci�ic purpose or goal. Teams engage in collaborative
performance, which involves willful contribution of
interdependent and joint effort, pooled knowledge 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
de�ine a team as 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 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 speci�ic tasks determined by the
purpose, agenda, and approach of a single, clear leader.
Work groups once represented the standard 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 �irst examine the rise of
teams within organizational culture.
The Rise of Teams
Teams have existed for thousands of years. Their introduction
and use within business organizations, 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
scienti�ic
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 interactions and processing time were viewed as
nonproductive. Managers focused on supporting
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 productivity,
and motivations of workers at AT&T’s Western Electric
8/27/2018 Print

Hawthorne Works. These later became known as the Hawthorne
studies. Mayo’s work inspired the human relations
movement of the 1930s, which emphasized the importance of
social relations in the workplace and investing
organizational interest in factors such as workers’ motivational
in�luences, employee participation, and job satisfaction.
Productivity research moved away from the idea of workers as
automatons, to examine the underlying dynamics and
processes surrounding group performance and the
socioemotional causes for high- and low-productivity levels
(Sonnenfeld, 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-
regulatorywork 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 scienti�ic 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, production, 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 having their own revelations on the use of teams and
management models supporting collaborative 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 de�initions for work groups
and teams reveal notable similarities (see Figure 1.2).
Figure 1.2: Comparison of work group and team
de�initions
Work groups and teams share several notable similarities.
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 speci�ic agenda and approach
8/27/2018 Print
However, they are also characterized by signi�icant 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.
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.
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 ful�ill 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 accountability for both positive
and negative outcomes. That is, team members are accountable
to 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 responsibility for
problems and con�licts 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,
signi�icantly 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 ef�icient and
organized. Member roles, tasks, and responsibilities are
delineated without debate, and individual accountabilities are
clear and nonnegotiable. Used properly, work groups can
8/27/2018 Print
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 established patterns. Newer
technology- or design-based �irms 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 �it 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 ef�icient than teams,
but teams are typically more effective. In deciding
whether to use a team or a work group, we must �irst determine
what the performance outcome needs most: ef�iciency or
effectiveness.
In the business world, ef�iciency refers to greater production or
performance output, with less input of resources (i.e.,
time, money, and employee labor). Work groups are highly
ef�icient 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 re�lects the leader’s
individual ability in these areas. Work group leaders hold
ultimate responsibility for the quantity 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 performance outcome satis�ies project
requirements, the relative quality and timeliness of a solution or
output, and the quality of member interaction. In
contrast to ef�iciency, effectiveness tends to denote
performance �lexibility and overall satisfaction, rather than
quantity
or speed. Work groups may excel at ef�icient 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 performance. 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 ef�iciency 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 solution 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 �it for their needs.
8/27/2018 Print

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 ef�iciency 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 �irms have been using this model for years.
An architect 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 members, 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 ef�iciency 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.

8/27/2018 Print
1.4 Identifying Team and Task Types
The �lexibility 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 properties, 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 in�luence 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, Hal�hill, & Richards, 2000; Devine,
2002). Structural parameters de�ine 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.

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 speci�ic
variations are built; these variations are widely diverse in
function and task type, composition, and context. Membership
in work teams is typically full time, well de�ined, and can be
either �ixed or rotating. Manufacturing 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).
Project 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 functional or departmental
backgrounds. This helps maximize a project team’s creative and
adaptive potential and enhance project solutions with
specialized or expert knowledge. A new product development
team, for example, may draw members from product design
and engineering, marketing, and manufacturing departments and
release them back to their regular duties or put them
on another project once the team has ful�illed 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 speci�ic 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
8/27/2018 Print
Task forceteams 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 force concept
originated in the U.S. Navy to increase operational �lexibility
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 speci�icity and
urgency of their assignments and in the speci�ic limitations on
their empowerment. Task force assignments include highly
detailed task parameters and clearly speci�ied 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 speci�ic 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 dif�icult to address through standard
organizational structures (Cohen & Bailey, 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 suggestionteams, 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 ef�iciency 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
�inancial 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.
Table 1.4: Summary of basicteam types
Team
type
Description Example
Work
team

Long-term continuous work units responsible for
an entire product, process, 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
8/27/2018 Print

Team
type
Description Example
Parallel
team
Operate outside of regular organizational
structures, engaging in tasks
and activities that exist in parallel to business and
management processes
Quality circles
Quality improvement teams
Investigative and advisory boards
Focus groups
Virtual
team
Composed of members who are separated by
organizational boundaries, geography, and/or time
and who interact primarily through technology
Any team that primarily interacts via
technology and engages in a virtual setting
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.
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 classi�ications 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.
Table 1.5: Summary of primary task types
Primary task
type
Description Examples of associated
teams
Managing
others
Interpersonal behaviors related to directing, supervising, or
overseeing the work of others in an authoritative role
Management, supervisory,
and project management
teams
Human service Direct social interactions in which a team or
team members
provide goods or services to an outside party

Customer service, sales
Negotiation Competitive social interactions between two or
more parties, in
which team members seek to clarify and achieve common and
independent goals by resolving differences, identifying and
resolving con�licts, and jointly establishing a compromise or
outcome agreeable to all parties
Negotiation, mediation,
merger, acquisition, and
advocate teams
Advising others Providing expert support or advice in a
consultative role lacking
the authority to act or make changes directly
Advisory boards, focus
groups, quality circles
Problem solving Discovering or generating facts, ideas, options,
alternatives, or
processes that resolve a problem or issue, address a challenge,
or
satisfy a speci�ic question or need.
Process and strategic
management teams,
investigative teams, design
and development teams, and
ideation and creativity tanks
Decision making Evaluating and choosing between two or more
options to
determine the best solution or course of action for a given
problem

or situation.
Decision-making boards,
committees, and
commissions
8/27/2018 Print
Primary task
type
Description Examples of associated
teams
Psychomotor
action
Manual and technical activities or tasks involving calculated
movements or sequences requiring physical and mental
coordination, including the manipulation of self, objects, and
the
operation or use of devices and tools
Manufacturing, production,
and maintenance crews,
orchestral and dance
companies, military, sports,
and surgical teams
Technical

service
Indirect technical support goods or services provided to an
outside
party
IT and accounting teams,
machine-servicing crews,
server provider and service
crews
Troubleshooting Dealing with speci�ic and urgent problems
and issues Operational task forces,
cheetah teams, military and
police task forces
Understanding the Signi�icance of Team and Task
Types
As we have learned, team types based on structural parameters
describe teams on a fundamental level (i.e., a project
team), while primary task types act as descriptive quali�iers
(i.e., a project management team). But why are these labels
signi�icant or important? Together, team and task types offer a
shared language that can create an immediate and
common understanding 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 something inde�initely 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?

A team type can immediately impart some understanding of a
team’s fundamental nature—for example, knowing that a
team is virtual tells us a lot about its structure and function. In
the same way, understanding the nature of a team’s
primary task, how it’s expected to function, and where its
members will be pulled from, can help direct our decision
making when we need to select a team format.
No matter their type or associated tasks, teams are now
recognized as the go-to unit for fostering high performance,
innovation, maintaining organizational competitiveness, and
managing change. The potential gains for team members,
managers, and the organization as a whole are tremendous, but
the pivotal term is potential. Teams only really pay off
when they function effectively.
8/27/2018 Print
Chapter 1 Summary and Resources
Groups and teams face a growing range and complexity of
performance challenges and obstacles that were virtually
unheard of in the past. Many are short-term, ad hoc constructs,
put together for a speci�ic task or purpose and expected to
rapidly form, perform, and adjourn. Some are made up of
individuals who have worked in various combinations before;
others are pulled together across multiple departments or
disciplines and include members who are functionally or
culturally diverse or are recruited from outside the organization.

The rise of the Internet as a global marketplace and
virtual workspace has recontexualized the operational contexts
in which groups and teams operate.
Today’s operational contexts regularly include:
multiple stakeholders,
high-load information processing,
dynamic performance parameters and contingencies,
rapid changes in tempo, and
blurred boundary lines between core team and auxiliary or
transitory members.
Understanding the developmental processes groups and teams
undergo—and the common pitfalls they must overcome
to successfully work together—is crucial to fostering effective
performance within this challenging organizational
8/27/2018 Print
environment. In the next chapter, we examine developmental
processes, strategies to support and manage them, and
guidelines for building an effective team.
Chapter Summary
Groups can take on almost any form and function. They can
exist and perform in many settings and are similarly
�lexible in composition, structure, and leadership.
The relationships group members develop with each other and
with the group as a whole are consistently

identi�iable elements that enable us to identify groups and
other group-like collectives.
In primary groups, common purpose revolves around
maintaining member relationships and well-being.
In secondary groups, common purpose revolves around the
performance of tasks and activities rather than social
relations and well-being, although these do impact the group’s
performance.
Although primary groups can emerge from relationships formed
in professional settings, most of the workplace
groups we engage with will be secondary groups.
All groups 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. They engage in
developmental and task-oriented processes. As groups work
toward a common purpose, members develop
patterns for behavior and interaction.
The way others perceive us affects the way we perceive
ourselves. Whether others place us in categories or
groups perceived as positive or negative, this in�luences
our own perception and acceptance of membership.
Shared social identity goes beyond social identi�ication as
members intuitively acknowledge their
interdependence within a collective entity with a common
purpose and shared fate.
Group composition can be viewed as both a consequence of the
social and psychological processes occurring as
groups develop and a context in�luencing social and behavioral
phenomena, group structure, and processes.
Diversity can be expressed as individual attributes,
demographic characteristics, and individual interests and
needs.
Small memberships limit the human resources available for
collective efforts. Larger membership can foster an
easy division of labor that capitalizes on the unique

contributions of members; however, larger groups are more
susceptible to process loss.
In an organizational context, group structure exists both
internally and externally. Within the group, structure
de�ines member roles and directs patterns of interdependence
and interaction. Externally, another structure
provides a framework for the group as a collective entity that
ful�ills a speci�ic role and responsibilities within the
organization, acting in interdependent relations with other
organizational units.
Group roles can be divided into task and relationship roles.
Task role activities include setting goals, coordinating
meetings, encouraging task-related feedback, and
gathering and recording relevant information.
Relationship role activities include facilitating knowledge and
opinion sharing during group discussions,
mediating con�lict, building trust, and managing destructive
norms.
Group norms, which can be constructive or destructive,
represent a blend of organizationally imposed norms that
stem from organizational rules, procedures, expectations, and
the unique set of norms that emerge from the
interactions that result from being a member of a particular
group.
Group members develop meaningful interrelations through
socioemotional and task interdependence,
communication, and group processes.
Communication is a critical factor in shaping outcomes for the
major developmental and task-oriented group
processes.
Within group dynamics, group processes typically refer to the
major developmental and task-orientated processes.
All groups have some form of leadership, whether they enact
distinct leader/follower relationships or engage in

collective decision making to direct the group. Leadership can
be designated by an organization or emergent
within the dynamics of a particular group.
Groups are embedded within a developmental and operational
context that fundamentally shapes group
behavior and purpose.
Formal and informal groups coexist within the workplace, and
both are embedded within the organizational
context.
Teams share basic characteristics with all groups, but as a
distinct form of secondary groups, teams have speci�ic
attributes that are entirely their own.
8/27/2018 Print
Teams engage in collaborative performance and shared
responsibility for outcomes. This is the central tenet of
teams and is their distinctive function within the task group
category.
Work groups and teams fundamentally differ along the basic
elements of leadership, accountability, and purpose.
Work groups follow a single clear leader, who determines group
purpose, agenda, and approach,
delegating individual tasks and roles. This format necessitates
individual accountability.
Teams engage in shared leadership, collectively determining
group purpose, agenda, and approach, as well
as individual tasks and roles. This format requires mutual
accountability.

Work groups are almost always more ef�icient than teams, but
teams are typically more effective. Organizations
should use a team when the task or solution is complex, is
nonroutine, or requires commitment and buy-in.
Teams are categorized using a combination of their structural
parameters and primary task type.
Team types based on structural parameters describe the
fundamental nature of a team and how it is expected to
work. The basic team types consist of work team, project team,
task force, parallel team, and virtual team.
The primary task types consist of managing others, human
service, negation, advising others, problem solving,
decision making, psychomotor action, technical service, and
troubleshooting.
Understanding the basic team and task types allows us to use a
shared language to generate an immediate and
common understanding about the nature of a particular team in
terms of what it is expected to do and the way it
is expected to work.
Working in groups and teams has become standard operation in
most of today’s organizations. Understanding
the developmental processes groups and teams undergo, and the
common pitfalls they must overcome to work
together successfully, is crucial if employees are to succeed in
the contemporary workplace.
Critical-Thinking Questions
1. Identify the following as groups, aggregates, or social
categories and explain the reasoning behind your choices:
Intimate family and friends
The tenants in an apartment complex
Taken together, all of the people you have friended online
Native Americans
U.S. citizens

The students in an online class
2. Describe:
A group you desired membership in. What made that group
seem valuable and attractive at the time?
A group others placed you within. Was it perceived as a
positive or negative group? How did you feel about
being placed within it, and did you consciously or
unconsciously accept others’ assessment of your
membership?
3. Workplace groups behave differently, follow different rules,
and use different methods to select members and
motivate them than the groups we involve in our private lives.
With few exceptions, the groups we �ind in the
workplace are secondary groups, yet this category also includes
social activity and friendship groups. Using the
concepts introduced in this chapter, explain why workplace
groups behave so differently than the secondary
groups in our private lives.
4. Both work groups and teams can be effective when applied
appropriately to a task or problem. Describe a
situation in which you were part of a work group or a team that
was applied ineffectively for a given situation.
Would the alternative group model have been more effective?
Why?
Additional Resources
Links
Identity Crisis: Are We a TEAM or a WORKING GROUP?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/smartwork/201001/iden
tity-crisis-are-we-team-or-working-
group
(https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/smartwork/20100

1/identity-crisis-are-we-team-or-working-group)
Differences Between Group Work & Team Work:
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/differences-between-
group-work-team-work-11004.html
(http://smallbusiness.chron.com/differences-between-
group-work-team-work-
11004.html)
Why Self-Managed Teams Are the Future of Business:
http://www.inc.com/chuck-blakeman/why-self-
managed-teams-are-the-future-of-business.html
(http://www.inc.com/chuck-blakeman/why-self-managed-
teams-
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/smartwork/201001/iden
tity-crisis-are-we-team-or-working-group
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/differences-between-group-
work-team-work-11004.html
http://www.inc.com/chuck-blakeman/why-self-managed-teams-
are-the-future-of-business.html
8/27/2018 Print
are-the-future-of-business.html)
Key Terms and Concepts
aggregate
A collection of people who are in the same place at the same
time.
coaction

8272018 Printhttpscontent.ashford.eduprintCoget.175.docx

8272018 Printhttpscontent.ashford.eduprintCoget.175.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 8272018 Printhttpscontent.ashford.eduprintCoget.175.docx

Similar to 8272018 Printhttpscontent.ashford.eduprintCoget.175.docx (20)

More from sleeperharwell

More from sleeperharwell (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

8272018 Printhttpscontent.ashford.eduprintCoget.175.docx