Jon R. Katzenbach and Douglas K. Smith in their 1993 book “The Wisdom of Teams” provide excellent, very usable distinctions among the kinds of groups currently operating in organisations. Here’s what they suggested were the differences:

1. Working group: No significant incremental performance need or opportunity that would require it to become a team. The members interact primarily to share information, best practices, or perspectives and to make decisions to help each individual perform within his or her area of responsibility. There is no call for either a team approach or a mutual accountability requirement.

2. Pseudo-team: This is a group for which there could be a significant, incremental performance need or opportunity, but it has not focused on collective performance and is not really trying to achieve it. It has no interest in shaping a common purpose or set of performance goals, even though it may call itself a team. Pseudo-teams are the weakest of all groups in terms of performance impact. In pseudo-teams, the sum of the whole is less than the potential of the individual parts.

They almost always contribute less to company performance needs than working groups because their interactions detract from each member’s individual performance without delivering any joint benefits. For a pseudo-team to have the option of becoming a potential team, the group must define goals so it has something concrete to do as a team that is a valuable contribution to the company.

3. Potential team: There is a significant, incremental performance need, and it really is trying to improve its performance impact. Typically it requires more clarity about purpose, goals, or work products and more discipline in hammering out a common working approach. It has not yet established collective accountability.

There are many potential teams in organisations. When a team (as opposed to a working group) approach makes sense, the performance impact can be high. The steepest performance gain comes between a potential team and a real team; but any movement up the slope is worth pursuing.

4. Real team: This is a small number of people with complementary skills who are equally committed to a common purpose, goals, and working approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable. Real teams are a basic unit of performance. The possible performance impact for the real team is significantly higher than the working group.

5. High-performance team: This is a group that meets all the conditions of real teams and has members who are also deeply committed to one another’s personal growth and success. That commitment usually transcends the team. The high performance team significantly outperforms all other like teams, and outperforms all reasonable expectations given its membership. It is a powerful possibility and an excellent model for all real and potential teams.

We’ve discussed Katzenbach’s ideas on many of our courses and managers always go away with a clearer insight into how and why they should be dealing with groups or teams.

Thanks again

Sean

Sean McPheat
Managing Director
MTD Management Course

Click below for a:
FREE email course “Improve Your Management Skills”

Follow us here on Twitter

We’ve spoken several times about how important it is to build a great team. As managers we spend a lot of time focused on building a team and working as a team but we sometimes forget to step back and take a look at how our team members feel about being a part of the team – as part of a team in genearal and, more important, as part of our teams specifically.

So what areas of team building should you really be looking at in order to ensure both the happiness of your team members and the group’s overall success? Here are a few concepts to get you started…

Do your team members have clear goals and expectations? In short, has upper management given you clear directions and have you conveyed those directions clearly to your team? Your team needs to know why it exists, what it’s goals are, and what it’s limitations are (financially, chronologically, etc.) in achieving those goals.

Are your team members committed to the task at hand? Do they really want to be on your team or do they feel forced to participate? Will they be rewarded or recognized for their efforts? If the entire group isn’t committed the odds of you completing a successful project instantly drop.

Has the team created its own mission statement or charter? The team needs to work together to outline exactly what its goals will be given the task at hand. Upper management needs to support the team in its efforts to set those goals. Do they have clear goals set within a reasonable timeframe?

Do your team members understand the concept of collaboration? Are they all working together as a team or is one person (or group of people) making all of the decisions and telling everyone else what to do? Are they working together respectfully? Are they resolving conflicts peacefully? Are they all working towards the same goals?

Are the teams coordinated properly? Is your team working independently or are there several other teams working on tasks that will ultimately come together to form one large project? If they are working together, is upper management coordinating the teams properly so that the process flows smoothly? Will everyone complete their share of the project on time – and will all the pieces fit together properly?

If any one of these aspects is falling short, your team members will begin to feel as though they’re not really a part of a team. The happier they are in their work, and the more they feel like a part of a team, the better they’ll ultimately perform!

Thanks again,
Sean

Sean McPheat
Managing Director
MTD Management Course

Click below for a:
Free email course “Improve your Management Skills”