[ad_1]
Teams and groups are not interchangeable. Teams rely on interconnectedness and complementary skills, while groups can rely on volume or a single leader. Building a team can take years, but a group can be formed quickly. Teams do not rely on “groupthink” and individual members are crucial to success.
Many people have used the words team and group interchangeably, but there are actually a number of differences between them in real-world applications. A number of leadership courses designed for the corporate world emphasize the importance of team building, not group building, for example. The strength of a team depends on the commonality of purpose and interconnectedness between individual members, while the strength of a group can come from sheer volume or the willingness to carry out the commands of a single leader.
It is often much easier to form a group than a team. If you had a room full of accountants, for example, they might be grouped by gender, experience, fields of expertise, age, or other common factors. Forming a group based on some commonality isn’t particularly difficult, although the effectiveness of groups can vary. The interpersonal dynamics of a group can range from complete compatibility to complete intolerance, which could make consensus building very difficult for a leader.
A team, on the other hand, can be much more difficult to form. Members may be selected for their complementary skills, not for a single commonality. For example, a business team can consist of an accountant, a salesperson, a business executive, and a secretary. Each member has a purpose and function, so overall success depends on a functional interpersonal dynamic. There usually isn’t much room for conflict when working together like this.
A group’s success is often measured by its final results, not necessarily by the process used to arrive at those results. A group can use equal parts discussion, argument, and peer pressure to guide individual members toward a consensus. A trial jury would be a good example of a group in action, not a team. The foreman plays the leadership role, trying to turn 11 other opinions into a unanimous decision. Since the judging panel members usually don’t know each other personally, there is rarely an effort to build a team dynamic. Decision making for a verdict is the result of group cooperation.
A team, by comparison, does not rely on “groupthink” to arrive at its conclusions. An accident investigation team would be a good example of a real-world team dynamic. Each member is tasked with evaluating one aspect of the incident. The accident scene reconstruction expert does not have to consult with the forensic evidence expert, for example. Members use their individual skills to arrive at a coherent result. There may be a team member working as a facilitator for the process, but not necessarily a specific leader.
Building a group can literally take just minutes, but building a team can take years. Individual members of a group often have the ability to leave when their services or inputs become useless. The absence of one team member can seriously hamper the other members’ abilities to perform effectively, so it’s not uncommon for individual members to form an exceptionally strong alliance with the team as a whole. An elite military unit like the US Navy SEALS or Army Rangers could be considered an example of team building at its best.
[ad_2]