Team
vs Group? This article highlights differences between team leader and
group leader roles. We include a study of leadership issues in
transition from group to team.
When setting up
either, it is worth considering the role the individuals are to play.
Ask yourself whether organizational goals will be best achieved
by a team or a group.
Where
does responsibility lie?
The first team vs group issue to consider is where the focus of overall responsibility for
performance si located.
One of the key differences between the
team leadership and group leadership
is: "Who is responsible for delivering the total outcome of the
individuals' efforts?
Individual responsibilities
In a
group each member is responsible for only
their own individual contributions. He or she achieves outcomes or
makes their contribution to the organization in (relative) isolation.
Individuals need not have any concern about what other members of the
group achieve.
Group members are likely to develop
an individual relationship with the group leader. Relationships
between group leader and different individuals may vary
considerably in their tone and quality.
One
individual may need to be managed much more forcefully than another,
for example. Other group members may not be aware of this ... and if
they were, it is likely to be of little consequence to them.
Within a
group there is not the
interconnectedness and shared responsibility you see between team members. Each member of
a group can say ‘I did my best, it is not my fault that others did not
pull their weight.'
Collective responsibility
In
a team, such as a sports team, all the players know they are interconnected.
They understand that it is the quality of their collective performance
that determines the final result: success or failure.
In an effective team,
each member knows that they are dependent on
the other members for achieving the final result. Which
means team members have an interest in
helping each other where they can.
In
software design projects - for example - this seems to lead to
more pro-active fault-finding. That is, team members recognize their
collective responsibility for the outcomes they achieve.
As a direct
consequence of this the team leader will tend to relate to the team as
a whole. The team leader role may become more nominal as the team gels and sets its own challenges.
In some instances, this may be too challenging for some managers or team leaders. In
a positive situation, the leadership role and decision-making will
adapt and accommodate. Decisions will be made differently. They will be
based on their impact on the dynamics of the web of relationships
between group members.
If
forceful treatment is meted out to one member of a team, it is likely
to have consequences for the team as a whole. This is especially the
case if such treatment is perceived as unwarranted or unfair.
Positive or negative, the consequences of team leadership decisions may be magnified by the relationships between team members
Team vs Group: Who
owns the results?
Another way of making the distinction
between team leadership and group leadership is by considering who owns
or is responsible for the results.
In a team it is
the team leader and the team members who have a shared responsibility for the
outcomes meeting target. So in a sports team, all the players and the
coach share the responsibility for what happens on
the pitch.
In a group - for example a group of
sales people - it is usual that each member is only
responsible for her own performance. The leader takes
overall responsibility for the aggregated results of each
individual meeting the overall sales department target.
Team vs Group: How
the behaviour of members differs
Members of a team
appreciate that their own (individual) success is determined by the collective performance
of everyone. They have a much greater motivation to help and support those
team members whose performance may fall behind ... for whatever reason.
Perhaps an under-achiever is new and needs a buddy or a mentor
to help them get established. Maybe there are
environmental reasons for poor results. Other members are likely to find ways to help them raise their game.
For
a group member however, his status and reward depend only upon his
individual performance. Generally speaking, if he
gives time or resources to another group member
there is no benefit in it for him.
If this effort takes his attention
away from his own performance he might even suffer
as a result.
Team vs Group: How the behaviour
of leaders differs
How can a
group leader create
team results?
Experience
demonstrates that teams are usually more effective than groups. If the leader
of a group want to improve performance overall, he needs to find a way
of the group taking shared ownership for the
results.
It is likely that a shift from individual
responsibility to shared responsibility
can only
be achieved if the pay and reward system has a significant element that
is dependent on the overall outcome.
The
knowledge, skills and attitudes of the leader may also need to shift significantly
to be effective in this new environment.
For
example, the leader may need to share all of the individuals'
results with the group. The group has a right to know how others
are
performing if their pay depends upon it.
This may be
a challenging experience for a leader who has avoided the potential emotional
stress that can be caused by this level of openness. They may have found it a lot safer
to keep the individual results to themselves in
the past.
Team vs Group: the emergence of self-managing teams
As
groups begin to share responsibility for the overall performance, then
the whole subject of self managing teams becomes a
topic for exploration.
In
our experience with a
high performance work system in a manufacturing setting, it became
clear that individuals were demanding a stronger voice: a group
moved into a more democratic phase ... and began to behave much more
like a team.
Individuals'
rewards depended on the
the performance of the group as a whole. Team members started to
demand a much bigger say in those areas that have been traditionally
the responsibility
of the leader.
For example:
- Recruitment – team members wanted a say in who was allowed to join the
team
- Discipline and Firing – team
members were much less tolerant of members who
broke the rules or where not up to the job
- Training and Development – as new skills were added to the team
capability, members were keen to choose who should
get them
- Promotion – equally
team members wanted their input into who would be promoted
Team vs Group: leadership roles emerge from the specific circumstances
Team leaders need to show their mettle at this time! Potential gains
are great, but insecure managers may squander opportunities:
- appropriate monitoring and checks and balances - yes!
- micro-management and (dare we say it?) control-freakery - no!
Such
changes may lead to qualitative shifts in performance and achievement,
but can seem unpredictable and maverick in their very nature.
This
kind of transition along the team vs group continuum can create a
situation in which team leadership / group leadership decisions become
difficult.
A management response may be to parachute in a
respected technician to manage the group. The idea is that technical
expertise brings respect and therefore confers the right to manage -
not necessarily.
This team
knows it's starting to fly ... and that feels good!
Technical
leadership and other aspects may be split between two people. This can
begin to multiply communication and co-ordination difficulties
Situations
like this are made for leadership development coaching. As coaches,
this looks to us like nothing is wrong, everything is right ... or at
least has great potential.
How
does coaching support managers or leaders who may be confronting a
situation they've never seen before? And who may be feeling
disempowered and vulnerable because of this kind of role-reversal?
