Is it best to work in a team

Team working is a false belief.

What matters most is single public presentation. Discuss.

Teams have been defined as “formal work groups, ”  where a group consists of “two or more persons interacting.” Structuring work through the usage of squads has been seen as advantageous to the administration because it is seen as efficient. Individuals’ failings are considered less debatable in a squad because other members will hold strengths covering these countries.

From the thought of the squad, the construct of the independent workgroup has developed, dwelling of “team of people who are given a high degree of duty for their ain work.”  Such groups are seen to hold the possible to work fruitfully with comparatively small supervising, making efficiencies. Technological developments such as picture conferencing are enabling usage of squads across geographical divides, offering administrations new ways of organizing work.

Beyond functional abilities for undertaking completion, runing in squads may hold psychological benefits for the person. Marcouse et al suggest that teamwork helps employees experience involved with their administration, perchance bring forthing competitory advantage.  This can be related to Maslow’s hierarchy of demands, where, one time basic and security demands can be satisfied, the single focal points on societal, position and self-actualisation demands. The intersubjective nature of the squad addresses societal demands, and may besides carry through position demands. Huczynski and Buchanan note that position within the squad may be given to persons who do non bask high position in the formal construction of the administration: within the squad, their societal place may be enhanced.  Self-actualisation may besides be achieved,  through the sense of satisfaction when a end is achieved by the squad.

While the construct of the squad appears good theoretically, success can be limited if squads are non adequately managed. Team leaders must be sensitive non merely to the persons within the squad, but besides to the group dynamic.  The sensed personality of the leader can impact on the behavior of squad members: White and Lean found that the unity of a leader influenced the ethical behavior of squad members.

Individual personalities have been considered widely in the literature. Agreeableness has been found peculiarly of import in the conceptual phases of a undertaking, perchance because it helps develop productive relationships for ulterior phases.

Hersey et al identify helpful functions and impeding functions.  While the ideal squad would hold a choice of helpful persons with complementary accomplishments, this may non be realistic, and the leader is presented with the challenge of understating the consequence of hindering. If unsuccessful, it is possible that working separately would be more productive than making squads.

Personalities within a group may non ever have the awaited consequence. Peeters et Al found, out of the blue, that different degrees of conscientiousness within a squad were advantageous: the research workers suggest that the more painstaking members keep the less painstaking members on path, and that the issues originating from the variableness concern behaviors at peculiar points in a undertaking procedure instead than overall squad public presentation. While this is a positive result, it however underlines the capriciousness of the group dynamic.

In many state of affairss, a squad may hold different leaders for different undertakings, and Miles and Kivlighan found that the consistence between different leaders’ perceptual experiences of the team’s construction can act upon the manner members perform and interact. If perceptual experiences are consistent, so there is a positive influence. However, if the group is non perceived systematically, the deduction is that they may non work so efficaciously.

The above illustrations would propose that, with careful direction, squads can still be effectual in the workplace. However, they are frequently non advantageous. Marcouse et al note that decision-making may be much slower with group engagement, and squads may bring forth struggle that hinders progress.

Research indicates that in some fortunes, squads can be extremely debatable. Janis made extended surveies of hapless determinations made by senior authorities groups. Where groups are peculiarly cohesive, he notes that a force per unit area to conform to group norms may deter persons from showing concern with determinations: he attributes a figure of historical catastrophes to this. [ 16 ] However, Chapman suggests that anxiousness is a cardinal factor in Janis’s groupthink, and that the determinations frequently concern major political issues. [ 17 ] She argues that the state of affairs in many administrations concerns daily determination doing with fewer force per unit areas and perchance less impetus to do a determination, although admiting that anxiousness may have in some organizational state of affairss. However, the deduction is that the group dynamic may overrule single capablenesss in certain fortunes.

Promoting squads to vie can be peculiarly counterproductive. Billig and Tajfel found that, even where there was minimum footing for people to experience they belonged to one peculiar group ( in-group ) , they would be prejudiced against another group ( out-group ) , to the extent that they would set up the distribution of money to disfavor the out-group even if it gave no advantage to the in-group. [ 18 ] This is peculiarly of import to observe when structuring a gross revenues map into squads: it has been argued that “There is no such thing as friendly competition” [ 19 ] and Billig and Tajfel’s consequences support this.

The tendency for squads may neglect to recognize that some persons much prefer to work on their ain. Where a sense of control is peculiarly of import to the person, going portion of a squad may be perceived as losing that control. In such fortunes, Robbins and Finlay suggest implementing the thought of the “team of one.”  Although the definitions indicate that squads and groups are needfully more than one individual, the “team of one” construct recognises that a capable person may be able to finish undertakings every bit efficaciously as a multi-person squad and may prefer to work in that manner.

It could besides be argued that the single public presentation within the squad should be the focal point for easing successful squads, but this has to be considered in concurrence with the group dynamic: the squad can non be seen merely as a aggregation of persons, as Billig and Tajfel’s work and Janis’s surveies make clear.

While the research indicates that a well-managed squad with complementary accomplishments may be really productive, there is besides considerable grounds that teamwork can be unproductive, produce hapless determinations and, while carry throughing the societal demands of some people, may be a less favoured manner of working for others. It is noteworthy that literature on teamwork appears mostly concerned with maximizing the success of squad working instead than sing options such as a more individual-based construction as perchance more effectual. To disregard teamwork as a false belief on the footing of the grounds above would be utmost: however, the premise that a squad attack will ever be more efficient and productive than other options should be questioned.

Mentions

1. Billig M and Tajfel H ( 1973 ) ‘Social classification and similarity in intergroup behaviour’European Journal of Social PsychologyVol 3 ( 1 ) pp27-52
2. Chapman J ( 2006 ) ‘Anxiety and effectual determination devising: an amplification of the groupthink model’ inManagement DecisionVol 44 ( 10 ) pp1391-1404
3. Hersey P, Blanchard K and Johnson D ( 1996 )Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources7^ThursdayEdition ( New Jersey: Prentice Hall International )
4. Huczynski A and Buchanan D ( 1991 )Organizational Behaviour2^neodymiumEdition ( Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall International )
5. Janis I ( 1971 ) ‘Groupthink Among Policy Makers’ infusion from Eds. Sanford N and Comstock C ( 1971 )Sanctions for Evil( San Francisco: Jossey-Bass ) available at www.middlesexcc.edu/faculty/Robert_Roth/GroupthinkamongPolicyMakers.htm accessed on 5/11/08
6. Marcouse I, Gillespie A, Martin B, Surridge M and Wall N ( 2003 )Business Surveies2^neodymiumEdition ( Oxfordshire: Hodder Arnold )
7. Maslow A ( 1943 ) ‘A Theory of Human Motivation’ inPsychological ReappraisalVol 50 pp370-96
8. Miles J and Kivlighan D ( 2008 ) ‘Team Cognition in Group Interventions: The Relation Between Co leaders Shared Mental Models and Group Climate’Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and PracticeVol 12 ( 3 ) pp191-209
9. Peeters M, Rutte C, Van Tuijl H and Reymen I ( 2008 ) ‘Designing in Teams: Does Personality Matter? ’ inSmall Group ResearchVol 39 pp438-467
10. Robbins H and Finley M ( 2000 )Why Teams Don’t Work( London, New York: Texere )
11. Rockart J and Short J ( 1996 ) ‘The networked organisation and the direction of interdependence’ in Eds. Paton R, Clark G, Jones G, Lewis J and Quintas P ( 1996 )The New Management Reader( London and New York: Routledge and the Open University ) pp255-276
12. White D and Lean E ( 2008 ) ‘The Impact of Perceived Leader Integrity on Subordinates in a Work Team Environment’ inJournal of Business Ethical motivesVol 81 pp765-778