pixabay.com

What type of team do you work in ?

Kay Galpin
Jul 20, 2017 · 5 min read

And why does it matter?

This week I’ve been reading about team types. Part of my current research is about the impact that different types of team have on emergent team processes such as team safety and trust, team self belief and shared identity. These are evident in things like the unintentional creation of sub-teams, behaviours that team members exhibit or emotional states perceived or experienced by team members such as happiness or optimism. Whilst there are many variables in something as complicated as a team dynamic, and diverse interrelationships between the team context, people and task, some of these aspects can be influenced by thoughtful team design. So whilst we might all think that our teams are unique (and in many ways they are!) there are some enduring team features. Understanding these might provide evidence to improve team effectiveness or to evaluate team interventions.

So, how can we measure or understand team types? Oldham and Hackman discuss their views of the future of job design, and teams form an increasingly greater part. Developing from research about designing roles and tasks to be motivating for individuals, focus has now moved away from jobs to teams. In a more virtual and self managing environment there is an increasing focus on collective purpose, work systems and processes and the social dimensions of team environments. Some of these aspects might also enhance job satisfaction. This, in turn might change or develop the job itself. Or change the behaviours in the team which might play better to individual preferences. And so on in a potentially virtuous circle which could improve performance and well being.

One option is to consider who is accountable, where the team is based and the timeframes over which the team operates.

The benefits of thinking about teams in this way prompts consideration of whether certain circumstances or tasks are more or less suited to certain team types. For example, distributed teams might be a great way of bringing widely dispersed information and expertise to bear on pressing work challenges but less effective if coordinated timing is important. Coacting teams may not bring many benefits of team membership if work is completely independent, perhaps changes to accountability might make the team function more effectively as a face to face team? Whilst leadership teams could be considered as a team type in their own right, the notion of a single accountability isn’t always right for an organisation.

In today’s workplace the idea of a fixed team type is perhaps less applicable, teams change, membership of teams are more fluid and dynamic, operating across boundaries that are both within and outside organisations and individuals may be members of more than one team. Sand dune teams are a fitting description for these kinds of organisational shifting sands. Hollenbeck, Beersma and Schouten suggest that a scaled approach might be more appropriate way of describing teams as follows:

  • the extent of skill differentiation within a team, are team members cross trained in all aspects of the team’s work or are their skills highly specialised and individual? This might range from a cross functional team to a fully cross trained team.
  • the extent of authority differentiation — is the leader informal and emergent or are they an arbiter or adviser or is the team self managing?
  • temporal stability, is this a real team with a past and a history of working together or is this a team pulled together for a one off purpose in a real or experimental environment?

This approach allows for a more fluid description of a team, which can accommodate changes over time. For example, the question of whether a particular team type defines how a team process or state emerges can be reversed to consider how team characteristics change over time as a result of other contextual factors. What might happen to authority differentiation in a team when change happens ? Or when a team is newly established? This could allow more informed interventions in teams to improve effectiveness based on evidence about how team dynamics are changing.

Another feature is the virtual nature of today’s workplaces — a concept which is difficult to pin down. How many of you have e mailed a colleague or had a telephone conference with team members whom you sit next to? Technology mediates our conversations in increasing ways and so is not necessarily a helpful indicator of the degree of virtuality of our working relationships. Another option is to consider spatial distance. The average variation between distances between staff members can allow comparison of teams across an additional dimension.

So to summarise, the benefits of comparing teams across a range of dimensions and being able to monitor developments over time can give an insight into how team characteristics change in a way that goes beyond type. This is perhaps more aligned to the flexible nature of today’s workforce. It can provide some objectivity to searching for evidence of how teams can develop and change over time and might be useful in designing or evaluating team interventions. For more information on how to measure these dimensions please refer to the references at the end of this article. My research is trying to establish what relationship there is between some of these design aspects and the perception of trustworthy behaviours and the decision to trust others in a team. Ill be writing this up over the Summer and will share once its complete.

References

Hollenbeck, Beersma and Schoutne (2012) Beyond team types and taxonomies. A dimensional scaling conceptualisation for team description Academy of Management Review, Vol. 37, №1, 82–106.

Oldham, G.R. and Hackman J.R. (2010) Not what it was and not what it will be: The future of job design research, Journal of Occupational Behaviour 31, pp. 463–479.

O’Leary and Cummings (2007) The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in team. MIS Quarterly Vol. 31 №3, pp. 433–452.

Wildman, Thayer, Rosen, Salas, Mathieu and Rayne (2012) Task types and team level attributes, a synthesis of team classification literature Human Resource Development Review 11(1) 97 –129.

The Human Factor

Find out more about research and thinking on how teams and groups work best. An eclectic mixture of ideas about team culture, emotions, stories, engagement and performance. Join us on our research journey as we explore how both teams and individuals can flourish.

)

    Kay Galpin

    Written by

    A people practitioner and researcher interested in what makes organisational teams work-how people can create something really special when they collaborate!

    The Human Factor

    Find out more about research and thinking on how teams and groups work best. An eclectic mixture of ideas about team culture, emotions, stories, engagement and performance. Join us on our research journey as we explore how both teams and individuals can flourish.

    Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
    Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
    Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade