This mini-lecture makes out the fundamental differences between groups and various kinds of teams; specifies the rationale for team formation and notes what important outcomes are typically expected from performing teams; singles out common recommendations (and recognized pitfalls) on the subject of teams; and isolates two perspectives to enrich understanding of teams and how they might be primed.

1. Perspectives on Work Teams Olivier Serrat
2019

2. Purpose of Mini-Lecture & Learning Outcomes
• Recognize the fundamental differences between groups
and various kinds of teams.
• Grasp the rationale for team formation and appreciate
what important outcomes are typically expected from
performing teams.
• Be familiar with common recommendations (and
recognized pitfalls) on the subject of developing and
sustaining high-performance teams.
• Have learned of two perspectives, viz., the functional
perspective and the conflict, power, and status
perspective, that have enriched our understanding of
teams and how they might be primed.
• Have taken part in a class activity, conceptualized to
promote awareness of two additional perspectives on
theories of small groups.
All the time more,
medium- and large
organizations rely on
teams to formulate
critical strategies and
carry out operational
tasks. Increasingly,
therefore, people are
expected to cross-train
and function as effective
members of team. After
this mini-lecture, you
should:

3. What's in a Word?
Groups of people are integral part of social life: but, the mere mere fact that they have
something in common does not make them a team; they might be brought together by common
interests, yet comprise mutually independent individuals holding separate goals.
"A team [however] is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed
to a common purpose, set of performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves
mutually accountable" (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993, p. 112). Governed by circumstances and
events, the common purpose is to run things, recommend things, or make or do things,
depending on which the challenges to teaming will differ (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993).
From different purposes, it follows that not all teams are the same: various types of teams help
organizations in distinct ways. For one, teams may be virtual or face-to-face; they may also be
ad hoc or ongoing, and if they are permanent may take on new tasks as time goes on.
Depending on purpose, their configuration can vary too: five common types, each with distinct
strengths (but also built-in limitations), include management teams, multi-functional teams, self-
directed teams, special purpose teams, and working teams.

4. The Rationale for Team Formation & The Expectations
Teams are not inevitably the best arrangement for what an organization seeks to bring
about: they should only be used when the challenge is complicated or complex; requires
inter-group cooperation and coordination; imposes tight deadlines; requires widespread
commitment; and has important organizational consequences. In such circumstances, some
recurring primary expectations from teams will be that they:
• Broaden what individuals can do from a wider range of ideas and a greater array of
talents and skills.
• Are more effective and efficient than individuals working singly.
• Impart team members with new skills and learnings from colleagues.
• Provide relief when a team member faces difficulties.
• Amplify ownership of what their members are doing.
• Groom leaders.
• Sustain momentum from shared vision.

5. Developing & Sustaining High-Performance Teams:
Recognized Pitfalls & Common Recommendations (1)
Haas & Mortensen (2016)
• Compelling Direction
• Strong Structure
• Supportive Context
• Shared Mindset
Lencioni (2002)
• Inattention to
Results
• Avoidance of
Accountability
• Lack of
Commitment
• Fear of Conflict
• Absence of Trust

6. Developing & Sustaining High-Performance Teams:
Recognized Pitfalls & Common Recommendations (2)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(n.d.)
• Shared understanding of mission
• Commitment to goals
• Clearly defined roles and
responsibilities
• Agreed-upon ground rules
• An established decision-making
model
• Effective group processes including
commitment to open communication,
mutual accountability, and
appropriate self-evaluation
Society for
Human
Resource
Management
(n.d.)
• Purpose, Goals, and
Roles
• Talent, Skills, and
Work Ethics
• Incentives,
Motivation, and
Efficacy
• Leadership
• Conflict and
Communication
• Power and
Empowerment
• Norms and
Standards

7. Perspectives on Teams
Poole and Hollingshead 2005) define and describe nine interdisciplinary
perspectives on theories of small groups: (1) functional, (2) psychodynamic, (3)
social identity, (4) conflict, power, and status, (5) symbolic–interpretive, (6) feminist,
(7) network, (8) temporal, and (9) evolutionary. [Vitally, Poole and Hollingshead
(2005) compare and contrast findings from research across (1) group composition,
(2) group structure, (3) group projects, (4) interaction, (5) group actions/outcomes,
(6) change over time, and (7) ecology.]
Comparing and contrasting deepens understanding by broadening vista: by
showcasing nine perspectives, Poole and Hollingshead (2005) open up the very
different assumptions that organizational members can make about teamwork,
which probably explains why there is so much talk on the subject but also
comparatively little productive action. Vitally, regarding teamwork, differing
perspectives shine a light on what the concept (and practice) of synergy might then
be taken to mean and what the conditions for achieving that could be.

8. The Functional Perspective on Teams
The functional perspective is "A normative approach to describing and predicting
group performance that focuses on the functions of inputs and/or processes" (Poole &
Hollingshead, 2005, p. 24).
Continuing interest in Taylorism probably explains the predominance of the functional
perspective on small groups in organizations: its core assumptions are that "(1) groups
are goal oriented; (2) group behavior and performance varies in quality and quantity
and can be evaluated; (3) interaction processes have utility and can be regulated;
[and] (4) internal and external factors influence group behavior and performance via
interaction" (Poole & Hollingshead, 2005, p. 22).
Research from the functional perspective encompasses the seven areas of group
decision-making, social combination approach, groupthink, collective information
sharing, group brainstorming, conflict management, and an external view of group
condition. The functional perspective being so widespread, concern across the seven
areas spans (when it does not permeate) the operating environment of most small
groups in most organizations.

9. The Conflict, Power, & Status Perspective on Teams
"The conflict, power, and status perspective examines the underlying causes and effects
of preference, choice, and resource asymmetries among actors in groups" (Poole &
Hollingshead, 2005, p. 141).
There is an inevitability to conflict, say Poole and Hollingshead (2005). The core
assumptions of the conflict, power, and status perspective are that "(1) actors want to
maximize their own outcomes or the outcomes of their groups; (2) interdependence
among actors drives group interactions […]; (3) many group interactions are mixed-
motive […]; (4) actors often have different preferences, choices, and resources; [and]
(5) as a result, conflict, power, and status differences among actors are inevitable"
(Poole & Hollingshead, 2005, pp. 141–143).
Research within and across the three areas of conflict, power, and status is extremely
varied. Research on conflict has to do with resources (both material and social) and
information; research on power investigate redistribution, exchange, and power-
balancing mechanisms (including values, preferences, and emotions); research on status
leans on expectation states theory and status construction theory, among others.

10. Functional & Conflict, Power, & Status Perspectives on
Lencioni (2002)
The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, the title of Lencioni (2002), openly
advertises the author's perspective on teams. Lencioni (2002) is a business
fable about a technology company and proposes five sure ways to fix,
nay, reverse engineer a "broken" team. But, Lencioni (2002) is not based
on research and the practical recommendations it makes lack empirical
support.
Because it is straightforwardly fictitious and exclusively preoccupied with
dysfunction, Lencioni (2002) offers no scope for psychodynamic, social
identity, symbolic–interpretive, feminist, network, temporal, or
evolutionary perspectives on teams: Lencioni (2002) is much the poorer
for that. The conflict, power, and status perspective is given short shrift
too: power and status are not referred to; and conflict is defined
narrowly as productive ideological conflict that should be mined.

11. Functional & Conflict, Power, & Status Perspectives on
Lencioni (2002)
For each of the nine perspectives on theories of small groups, Poole and Hollingshead (2005)
isolate (1) a definition of the perspective, (2) key assumptions, (3) types of groups, (4) key
theories, (5) dominant research methodologies, (6) strengths, and (7) weaknesses. For each
also, Poole and Hollingshead (2005) isolate key findings from research on (1) group
composition, (2) group structure, (3) group projects, (4) interaction, (5) group
actions/outcomes, (6) change over time, and (7) ecology. For the functional perspective and
the conflict, power, and status perspective, the material in the Annex reproduces the key
assumptions, strengths, and weaknesses and the findings from research on group composition,
change over time, and ecology in Poole and Hollingshead (2005). Envisioning Lencioni (2002)
through these lenses (and those of the other seven perspectives) is informative.

12. Group Activity: Fill in the Blanks
The Psychodynamic
Perspective
• Key Assumptions
• …
• …
• Strengths
• …
• …
• Weaknesses
• …
• …
The Feminist Perspective
• Key Assumptions
• …
• …
• Strengths
• …
• …
• Weaknesses
• …
• …

13. Annex: The Functional Perspective on Teams: Key
Assumptions, Strengths, & Weaknesses
Key
Assumptions
• Groups are goal oriented
• Group performance is evaluated
• Interaction processes have utility and can be regulated
• Internal and external factors influence group performance via
interaction
Strengths
• Ability to predict and explain group performance via static inputs and
processes
• Empirical base for the development of interventions to improve group
performance
Weaknesses
• Does not address groups that have a socioemotional purpose
• Difficulty in defining and measuring "effective" performance
• Task-performing groups may have goals other than effective
performance
• Cannot detect or explain nonlinear processes
Source: Extracted from Poole, M., & Hollingshead, A. (Eds). (2005). Theories of small groups:
Interdisciplinary perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

14. Annex: The Functional Perspective on Teams: A Short
Selection of Findings from Research
Group Composition
• Increased group size is negatively related to effective processes (e.g., social loafing and
blocking) and equality of participation, and positively related to range of abilities
• History among group members improves group performance
Change Over Time
• Phases and activities in different phases serve different functions over time
• There is no universal order of group development that predicts success or failure of group
decision making
Ecology
• The physical environment (e.g., crowding, proximity, privacy) influences group interaction
and performance
• The temporal environment determines opportunities, rhythms, and pacing of the team
Source: Extracted from Poole, M., & Hollingshead, A. (Eds). (2005). Theories of small groups:
Interdisciplinary perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

15. Annex: The Conflict, Power, & Status Perspective on Teams:
Key Assumptions, Strengths, & Weaknesses
Key
Assumptions
• Actors want to maximize their own or their group's outcomes
• Interdependence drives group interactions
• Many group interactions are mixed-motive
• Actors often have different preferences, resources, and choices
• As a result, conflict, power, and status differences among actors are
inevitable
Strengths
• Rigorously tested theoretical development of fundamental ideas
• Theoretical development within particular fields is cumulative
Weaknesses
• Lack of theoretical integration across subareas
• Change in power structures over time has been little studied
Source: Extracted from Poole, M., & Hollingshead, A. (Eds). (2005). Theories of small groups:
Interdisciplinary perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

16. Annex: The Conflict, Power, & Status Perspective on Teams:
A Short Selection of Findings from Research
Group Composition
• Larger size is often, although not always, related to poorer coordination ability in conflict
over resources
• Diversity […] has been linked to lower levels of cooperation and to conflict in many types
of group interactions, affecting group process and performance […]
Change Over Time
• Expectation of future interaction tends to increase cooperation
• Longitudinal research indicates that different patterns of conflict are likely to result in
different group outcomes
Ecology
• Environmental uncertainty results in significantly lower rates of cooperation
• Conflict over resources leads to power differences that are palliated by status hierarchies
Source: Extracted from Poole, M., & Hollingshead, A. (Eds). (2005). Theories of small groups:
Interdisciplinary perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

17. Annex: References (1)
Coleman, P. (2018). Conflict intelligence and systemic wisdom: Meta-competencies for
engaging conflict in a complex, dynamic world. Negotiation Journal, 34(1), 7–35.
Haas, M. & Mortensen, M. (2016). The secrets of great teamwork. Harvard Business Review,
94(6), 70–76.
Katzenbach, J., & Smith, D. (1993). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review, 71(2),
111–120.
Katzenbach, J., & Smith, D. (2011). The discipline of teams. In HBR's 10 Must Reads: On
Managing People (pp. 175–194). Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (n.d.) The basics of working on teams. Retrieved from
https://hr.mit.edu/learning-topics/teams/articles/basics.

18. Annex: References (2)
Mikkelsen, E., & Clegg, S. (2018). Unpacking the meaning of conflict in organizational conflict
research. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 11(3), 185–203.
Poole, M., & Hollingshead, A. (Eds). (2005). Theories of small groups: Interdisciplinary
perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Society for Human Resource Management. (n.d.). Developing and sustaining high-performance
work teams. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/
Thomas, K., & Kilmann, R. (1974). Thomas–Kilmann conflict mode instrument. Mountain View, CA:
Xicom, a subsidiary of CPP, Inc.

19. Quick Response Codes
@Academia.edu
@LinkedIn
@ResearchGate
@Scholar
@SlideShare
@Twitter