2 discussions – due in 5 hours

(1) Organizational Design

More than ever, groups and teams are responsible for executing tasks in the workplace. Take a position on the following statement: All organizations should use the group structure as the basic building block for designing and organizing jobs.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on

Just from $13/Page

Order Essay

(2)Group Development Process

Consider the Tuckman group stage process schema as discussed in Chapter 2 of your text. Identify specific actions a manager can take at each stage of the process to best help a group reach the performing stage. Support your statement with the textbook (use and cite).

Required Resources

Text

Read the following chapters in

Group behavior in organizations

Chapter 1: Understanding Groups and Teams
Chapter 2: Group Development

Multimedia

Elements of group dynamics [Video file]. Retrieved from Films on Demand.

This video supports the Group Development Process discussion this week.
Accessibility Statement (Links to an external site.)
Privacy Policy (Links to an external site.)

Finding the right resources [Video file]. Retrieved from Films on Demand.

This video supports The Research Project exercise this week.
Accessibility Statement (Links to an external site.)
Privacy Policy

1Understanding Groups and Teams

Fuse/Thinkstock

Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Define groups and basic group types.

• Differentiate between groups, aggregates, and social categories.

• Identify the basic properties of groups.

• Discuss the influence of group properties on group dynamics and performance.

• Analyze the relationship between work groups and teams.

• Determine when it is most appropriate to use either a work group or team.

• Describe significant factors in typing teams.

• Explain the significance of primary task types.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 1 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Introduction

Pretest

1. A group is a collection of people in the same time and place. T/F
2. The way others perceive us affects the way we perceive ourselves. T/F
3. Informal groups rarely form within, or have much effect on, organizations. T/F
4. Work groups are the same as teams. T/F
5. All teams are variations on a single team type. T/F

Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.

Introduction
Ellis is one of nine business analysts at a midsized manufacturing company. Over the

years, Ellis and his coworkers have learned to work collaboratively to analyze business
processes and make suggestions for improvements. Learning to work in a collaborative
manner has enabled the division to collectively decide what its goals are and how work
should be shared among the employees.

When collaborating across several projects, it is not uncommon for Ellis and his cowork-
ers to rotate between leadership and support roles. For example, on one project that
examined current manufacturing processes for a specific product line, Ellis led the team
members as they looked for process improvements. On another project, Ellis served as one
of the people who collected data, and in this instance he worked under the direction of a
coworker. Under this arrangement, the designated project leader is not solely account-
able for the division’s results; members of the entire division hold themselves accountable,
since they are more than just a department or group—they are a team.

Occasionally, members of the business analysis team are assigned to work with others on
special projects. Ellis has recently been assigned to work on such a project with members
of several different departments, and he’s noticed some differences between working
with his usual team and working in this new configuration. While those working on this
project get along well and are committed to achieving their goal, they had no say in what
their goal was—the organization decided their goal for them, as well as steps to take and
the timeline for reaching it. Ellis is not used to having such decisions made for him.

Ellis has noticed other differences as well. In this new configuration, he has only one func-
tion for this project. On his usual team, however, he usually collaborates or consults on
several aspects of a project. With only one function to perform, Ellis is only held account-
able for his specific contribution instead of feeling mutually accountable for the entire
project. The final difference Ellis has noticed is that the project leader was chosen by the
organization, rather than those working on the project. Although the leader may be well
suited to lead the project, she was designated by someone external instead of emerging as
the natural leader through interactions. In contrast, when working on his team, Ellis and
his coworkers are able to select the best person to lead the project, and they can change
leadership when necessary to meet the project’s demands.

Ellis has come to realize that for this special project, he is part of a work group rather
than a team. In work groups, the designated group leader determines the goal, how it
will be achieved, and task assignments. Group members are only accountable for their
individually assigned activities—the leader assigned by the organization is ultimately

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 2 8/19/16 9:36 AM

responsible for the group’s performance. The business analysis team Ellis usually works
with functions differently. Team members collaborate to determine their goal, task
assignments, and steps for achieving the desired outcome. The work, accountability, and
leadership for the project are shared amongst the team members. Ellis realizes that there
are many ways to work together within the organization, and that being part of a work
group can expand his flexibility and value as an employee. He decides to put aside his
team-based expectations, and invest his energy into becoming an effective member of the
work group.

From birth to death, we hold membership within a wide range of collectivities and
groups. This begins with those we are literally born into—family, community, culture—
and continues through a lifetime of groups in which membership is attained through
our personal choices, qualities, situations, or achievements. These groups simultane-
ously energize us, support us, and even frustrate us, in part because we cannot escape
their influence.

Among the many groups we associate with throughout our lifetime, most of us will
eventually find ourselves members of a particularly challenging, and rewarding, varia-
tion—the team. Teams may well be the defining characteristic of business in the new
millennium. Whereas they were once only a desirable element, teams have become
almost universally acknowledged as required in organizations that want to remain
competitive. The shift in management focus toward facilitating effective coordination,
collaboration, and teamwork places a very tangible value on understanding groups and
how they function. Moving beyond material gains, this knowledge enriches our social
interactions and our external and internal experience of the world.

Most of us intuitively recognize groups and teams and the value they have in our lives.
The groups we choose, and that choose us, impact what we say, how we act, and what
we think as we incorporate feedback from family, friends, employers, and others in our
self-identities and self-descriptions (Hogg, 2005) and integrate the opinions and per-
spectives of others into how we perceive and conceptualize reality (Gaertner, Iuzzini,
Witt, & Orina, 2006).

• We think and speak the language (and jargon) created by our groups: “That’s so cool!”
• We consciously and subconsciously adjust our moods to the emotional tone of our

groups and react to our perception of group moods.
• We compare our performances—good or bad—with those of others and evalu-

ate our own performances based on perceived group reaction: “I blew that
presentation.”

• We base many of our values and ethics on group expectations and values; our “shoulds,”
“oughts,” and “to-dos” are often determined by the groups we associate with.

Recognizing and gravitating toward groups is an instinctual phenomenon that is so
wholly natural and unconscious for most of us that we often find it hard to explain how
we recognize different types of groups and why we value them. Chapter 1 explores the
fundamental questions: What are groups? How do their basic dynamics and properties
impact us in our workplace and in our lives? What are teams—and why are they held
uniquely valuable among the other types of groups?

Introduction

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 3 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Section 1.1 What Are Groups?

1.1 What Are Groups?
Consider a construction crew, a carpool club, a theater audience, and the participants in an
online chat forum. Some of these are groups and some are not. A group is more than a collec-
tion of people who share some characteristic or circumstance. Elements, objects, and even
people can be categorized into groupings, or sets based on shared qualities, including physical
location or activity. However, in the social sciences the term group refers to cohesive social
units in which people share emotional and social connections as well as other characteristics.
Although many people casually refer to any collection of people as a group, most of us intui-
tively recognize the difference between a set of people who share some categorical quality
and people who are meaningfully interconnected (Ip, Chiu, & Wan, 2006; Lickel, Hamilton, &
Sherman, 2000; Magee & Tiedens, 2006).

Still, even the experts find it hard to agree on a clear definition for group (Forsyth, 2014).
Common ground emerges when we examine the specific qualities that groups exhibit:

• Identification as a social unit
• Interdependence between members
• Cohesion around some common interest or purpose
• Meaningful interaction between and among members

Using these as a foundation, we can define a group as an identifiable social unit in which mem-
bers of an interdependent collective share some common interest or purpose and engage in
meaningful interactions (Brown, 2000; Frey & Konieczka, 2010; Gould, 2004; Hackman &
Katz, 2010).

For most of us, family is the first group. As we move beyond the immediate social relation-
ships of our family unit, we begin to associate with other small groups, made up of our friends
and peers. We also become aware of our affiliation with larger categories and collectives,
such as community, nationality, religious and ethnic background, and social class. This is our
initiation into a lifetime of group membership. Affiliations are unavoidable and necessary
in today’s society. The groups we grow up with influence our worldview, or our underlying
assumptions of what the world is and how it should be. They guide our thought and behav-
ioral patterns, shape our decision making, and help us assimilate and interact within the soci-
ety in which we are raised.

Pause for moment and make a mental list of the all the groups of which you are currently a
part. Are family and friends on that list? How about classmates or coworkers, people in your
apartment complex, or the people you have friended online? What about religious, political, or
ethnic associations? Are U.S. citizens a group? How about people you interact with on a daily
basis but never meet face-to-face? Are the students in your online class a group? Although we
have a definition to refer to, our habit of categorizing people, places, and things into groupings
and the malleable nature of groups can make identifying groups—and types of groups—a
surprisingly difficult task.

Groups can take on almost any form and function. They are as much shaped by their setting
and purpose as by the people within them. Groups can exist and perform in a multiplicity
of settings and are similarly flexible in composition, structure, and leadership. Because of
this, social psychologists have had to look far beyond the surface to find stable characteristics

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 4 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Section 1.1 What Are Groups?

to use in categorizing these collective entities. It is within the relationships group members
forge with each other, and with the group as a whole, that we find a basis for the scientific
classification of groups and other group-like collectives. Our own examination will focus on
those that are most relevant to our study of workplace groups.

Basic Social Groups
Primary groups represent long-standing, meaningful associations among members of a
small, tight-knit group of people, such as close friends and family, who frequently interact
and influence each other and maintain association regardless of physical location. Common
purpose within primary groups revolves around maintaining member relationships and
well-being. Sociologist Charles Horton Cooley (1909) coined the term primary groups on the
basis that these associations are of prime importance in our lives, offering both physical and
psychological care and protection and fundamentally shaping our social nature and ideals.
Primary groups have a profound impact on all our interactions, because they represent our
foundational model for interpersonal relations.

Primitive man spent generations clustered into primary groups encompassing small com-
munities and tribes that members rarely traveled away from. As human population and
sophistication grew, societies became more dispersed and complex, as did the groups within
them. Secondary groups, larger, less intimate, and more deliberately organized than primary
groups, became common as people began to interact and work cooperatively with those out-
side their primary sphere of intimacy. Although members can form strong bonds and commit-
ment within secondary groups, these are generally sustained at lower levels of intensity and
permanence than in primary groups. Members join and disengage from secondary groups
relatively easily, and they typically associate concurrently in a variety of these groups in dif-
ferent areas of their lives.

Secondary groups are also known as task groups (Lickel et al., 2001) because member inter-
actions typically center on the performance of specific tasks or activities. Common examples
of task groups include social clubs, dance troupes, bands, religious congregations, student
groups, guilds, boards, committees, crews, work groups, and teams. Although the interper-
sonal relations between members in secondary groups significantly impact the group experi-
ence, common purpose revolves around the performance of tasks and activities rather than
social relations and well-being. Although primary groups can sometimes emerge from rela-
tionships formed in professional settings, most of the groups we engage with in the work-
place are secondary groups.

Next, we take a look at social collections and categories. These are often mislabeled as groups,
and the following section examines how we mistake them for groups and why they do not
qualify.

Social Collections and Categories
In order to better understand what groups are, we will now take a closer look at the social
collections and categories that represent what groups are not and why they tend to confuse
our group identification skills. Aggregates represent a collection of people who are in the
same place at the same time. They are often engaged in the same general activity but are

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 5 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Section 1.1 What Are Groups?

otherwise unassociated. A collection of people riding a bus together, waiting in line for tickets,
or watching a game at a sports center are considered aggregates. Many aggregates are tempo-
rary and unique, but some, like regulars at a bus stop, may come together frequently, know
each other by sight, and share daily greetings yet otherwise remain strangers. Members of an
aggregate do not share the interdependence, common purpose, and relational bonds needed
to identify and act as a group, but they can engage in collective behavior.

Of interest across multiple fields
since the 1920s, collective behav-
ior refers to the spontaneously and
temporarily coordinated activities
or actions of people influenced by a
common impulse (Park & Burgess,
1921; Miller, 2000). Collective behav-
ior can manifest within aggregates
in many ways. This might include
sports fans spontaneously partici-
pating in a “wave” cheer, mass excite-
ment or panic in the face of a shared
event, or taking part in fashion or
consumer fads (Miller, 2000). Alter-
natively, aggregates may engage in
noncooperative coaction, perform-
ing similar activities or tasks along-
side others but not together. Coac-
tion might include when we fuel our
cars at a gas station or sit and use the
Wi-Fi at a coffee shop.

Social categories are another “collection” often mistaken for groups. Also known as cohorts,
social categories are scientifically or socially imposed collections of individuals who share at
least one characteristic but can otherwise be quite diverse. Typical examples include people
who perform a specific type of job, alumni of a particular college, or individuals who share
traits such as gender, age, or ethnicity. Social categories can encompass a select few (for
example, female centenarians currently living in France) or a multitude (for example, adult
males or natural citizens of China). Many cohort members will never meet each other or even
be gathered together in the same place, and though they may voluntarily identify with their
cohort, they generally do not think of themselves as group members.

Take, for example, people who have served through live combat in the armed forces. These
individuals identify with the social category of veterans, but when asked to which groups they
belong, they tend to recall the particular units or comrades with whom they served (Hender-
son, 1985; Wong, Kolditz, Millen, & Potter, 2003). If members of a social category do meet and
become meaningfully connected, they can form groups, such as veterans clubs, or friendship
circles initiated through alumni connections. However, lacking frequent interaction, interde-
pendence, common purpose, and meaningful social relations, social categories do not repre-
sent true groups.

DGLimages/iStock/Thinkstock

These bus passengers are an aggregate. They are
engaged in the same activity but lack the collective
purpose or interdependence that characterizes
groups.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 6 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.2 Group Dynamics

Recognizing these nongroups is important to our growing understanding of what groups are.
In Chapter 8, we will take a look at two other significant nongroups: social networks and
online communities. We have only scratched the surface by defining groups; next we will take
a deeper look into the nature of groups.

1.2 Group Dynamics
All groups share certain dynamic properties. They have a purpose to exist, a composition of
members with individual qualities and needs, structure for interrelations, leadership from
within and without, and a context in which they are embedded. As groups come together,
members develop patterns for behavior and interaction, engaging in developmental and
task-oriented processes. Group dynamics encompass the complex forces that act internally
and externally on groups, from development to dispersion, emergent behavior and interac-
tion patterns among group members, and the processes they engage in (Knowles & Knowles,
1972). Researchers in this field study the nature of groups, their development over time, the
mutual influence of members on the group and vice versa, and interactions between groups
within the larger context of organizations. In this section, we examine the significance and
interrelatedness of essential dynamic properties, including group purpose, composition,
structure, leadership, and context.

Purpose: Identification and Cohesiveness
People form groups to feel a sense of purpose or achieve goals that are difficult or impos-
sible to realize alone. Although group members often have individual interests at play within
the group, these will align on some level with the group’s purpose and goals. Whether in the
form of concrete tasks or simply a collective desire to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995),
common interest motivates members to join the group and acts as a cohesive factor keeping
it together. Individuals who perceive themselves as collectively engaged toward a common
purpose identify as a group. Likewise, through the processes that foster identification and
cohesion, group members form attachments that are both social and emotional; these socio-
emotional attachments motivate recognition and commitment to collective well-being and
purpose.

Identification
Identification within groups is multidimensional, encompassing the extent to which group
membership influences our self-perception and the sense of shared social identity or “us-ness”
within the group (Haslam & Reicher, 2012). Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986)
assumes that social categories and groups influence the self-concept and self-esteem of their
members, encouraging them to enhance the positive value of their groups and to join groups
held in high esteem. This only proves true, however, in the categories and groups that we
perceive as meaningful (Wright, Aron, & Tropp, 2002). For example, Tamara may be a left-
handed, hazel-eyed, female product engineer, a Green Party adherent, and a member of the
company’s LGBT club, but she will perceive meaningful membership within only some of
these associations.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 7 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.2 Group Dynamics

When social identification occurs, members identify themselves as part of a collective with
shared qualities, attributes, and ways of relating that mark them as distinct from other indi-
viduals and groups. Internally, they accept the group as an extension of self and a legitimate
influence on self-concept and self-esteem (Hogg, 2005). The decision to do so is not always
conscious. Identification is both a cognitive and affective process. That is, it involves our
thoughts and perceptions on a given subject or circumstance, as well as our emotional expe-
rience and reactions to these stimuli.

Although we are more likely to self-associate and identify with groups we perceive as attrac-
tive or valuable (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Hogg & Terry, 2000), the way others perceive us
affects the way we perceive ourselves. Whether others place us in categories or groups per-
ceived as positive or negative, this influences our own perception and acceptance of member-
ship, even if we do not openly acknowledge it (Gaertner et al., 2006). High school cliques offer
a classic example of this: Those labeled as geeks, freaks, jocks, skaters, and so on will often,
over time, accept and even describe themselves in such terms, regardless of whether they
originally desired these associations (Bennett & Sani, 2008).

The meaningfulness of a membership or association is also largely subjective, based on our
personal experiences, worldview, values, and context. Tamara, from our earlier example, may
personally value her left-handedness, for instance, based on its associations with creativity
and her own admiration for the engineering feats of famous left-hander Leonardo da Vinci.
Identification can also be activated by changes in circumstances that highlight collective simi-
larities and differences. For example, an executive stepping into an elevator with unassociated
lower level employees can activate a sense of identification among the other riders based on
the perceived difference in status and power. If the elevator were then stuck between floors,
the emergence of a common problem and fate would activate a shared social identity among
all the riders.

Shared social identity goes beyond social identification as members intuitively acknowledge
their interdependence within a collective entity with a common purpose and shared fate.
When this occurs, groups develop entitativity, or an internal and external perception that
the group operates as a collective entity and that actions and influences that affect any of its
members have consequences for all. An effect of identification, entitativity changes the way
members perceive and relate to the group. Entitativity intensifies members’ socioemotional
attachment to the group, its members’ collective goals and well-being, and the sense of value
in their membership and interrelations (Castano, Yzerbyt, & Bourguignon, 2003; Jans, Post-
mes, & Van der Zee, 2011).

Cohesion
Group cohesion is a critical element, defined by the total strength of members’ socioemo-
tional identification and attachment to the group, entitativity in thought and action, valuation
and commitment to group goals, and the group’s structural integrity (Kozlowski & Bell, 2001;
Moody & White, 2003). Cohesion, and its myriad effects on group dynamics, has been avidly
studied, both inside and outside the workplace. We will investigate the development of cohe-
sion in workplace groups in Chapter 2, and we explore both positive and negative effects of
group cohesion as we journey through the text. For now, it is important to understand that all
groups must have some degree of cohesiveness or they fall apart, either splitting into smaller

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 8 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.2 Group Dynamics

units or disbanding entirely. However, the level of cohesion within a group can vary from high
to low.

The strength of a group’s cohesion can be relative to the group type. Primary groups, for
example, are inherently higher in cohesion than secondary groups, although there is a slid-
ing scale within this guideline as well. Because team members work in collaboration, teams
require a significantly higher level of cohesiveness than other secondary groups. High and
low cohesion also depends on the unique member relations and dynamics within any given
group. Group composition defines the membership within which these relations and dynam-
ics occur, and group structure gives shape to their interactions. We will examine group com-
position and structure in the next two subsections.

Composition: Diversity and Size
Group composition, or the characteristics and size of a membership, can be viewed as both
a consequence of the social and psychological processes occurring as groups develop and as
a context that influences social and behavioral phenomena, group structure, and processes
(Kozlowski & Bell, 2001). Consider the fact that Americans who meet by chance in a foreign
country often feel an immediate sense of camaraderie attached to their comparative similar-
ity in birthplace, language, and culture. Though they may be different in every other way and
would not form a group in any other setting, the contrast of a foreign culture and landscape
against their shared experience and background creates a heightened sense of identifica-
tion. As a consequence, they tend to socialize, forming small, temporary groups, sometimes
even sightseeing or traveling together. Social psychologists call this the “American abroad”
phenomenon. Composition becomes a context influencing group structure and processes as
member similarities and differences come into play during interactions within the group.

Diversity
Groups are composed of members with individual qualities, interests, and needs. Groups
in which membership is primarily based on similarity are considered homogenous, though
in reality no two people possess the same exact qualities. Whether the degree of variation
among members runs high or low, all groups have some level of diversity. As shown in
Figure 1.1, member qualities can be separated into two basic categories: individual attributes
and demographic characteristics.

Demographic characteristics such as gender, age, nationality, and ethnic background can
affect the way members perceive each other and interact, particularly when these character-
istics are associated with stereotyping. Individual attributes affect the ways we contribute,
interact, and interrelate in groups. These include qualities such as expertise, worldview, per-
sonality, and cognitive and behavioral styles. Although groups unite around some common
interest or purpose, each member also has his or her own individual interests and needs, and
these can have both overt and subtle effects on member interactions. In Chapter 4 we will
examine the positive and negative effects of diversity, its expression within workplace groups,
and techniques for managing diversity.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 9 8/19/16 9:37 AM

• Gender
• Age
• Culture
• Nationality
• Language
• Social class
• Social position
• Sexual orientation
• Ethnicity
• Religion
• Education Level
• Handicapping conditions

Demographic Characteristics

• Expertise: Knowledge, skills,
and abilities (KSA), and
relevant experience.
• Worldview: Values, attitudes,
and beliefs.
• Personality: Characteristic
patterns of thinking, feeling, and
behaving based on individual
cognitive and behavioral styles.
• Individual interests and needs:
Personal objectives and
motivations apart from those
of the group as a whole.

Individual Attributes

Section 1.2 Group Dynamics

In general, research depicts diversity as a double-edged sword, having potentially positive
and negative consequences (see Pieterse, Van Knippenberg, & Van Dierendonck, 2013; Podsi-
adlowski, Gröschke, Kogler, Springer, & Van der Zee, 2013; Mello & Rentsch, 2015). Members
from diverse backgrounds may speak a different cultural or technical language. They may
be attuned to and emphasize different aspects of task performance or problem solving. Ste-
reotypes and generalizations about gender, race, ethnicity, religion, and other characteristics
can have a negative effect on group interaction, shared identity, and cohesiveness. Although
poorly managed diversity has the potential to be divisive, the convergence of many different
experiences, skills, and viewpoints is central to the power and flexibility of groups and teams.
Diversity within formal groups is often deliberately engineered and managed to offer the best
set of combined experiences, skills, and viewpoints for group performance. Balancing group
diversity and size helps members take advantage of the potential benefits offered by comple-
mentary diversity.

Size
Groups can theoretically consist of any number larger than two people. However, it is impor-
tant to consider that group size can either facilitate performance or impede it. Small member-
ships may progress more rapidly through developmental and task-oriented group processes;
however, they also limit the human resources—including potential benefits from group diver-
sity—that are available for collective efforts. Larger membership can enable an easy division
of labor that capitalizes on the unique contributions of members. However, larger groups are
also more susceptible to certain dysfunctions.

Problems occur as group membership moves beyond about 10 or 12 people. Large groups
tend to break into independent subunits, dissolve into a loosely affiliated collection of

Figure 1.1: Two basic categories of member qualities

There are two basic categories of member qualities that affect a group’s diversity: individual
attributes and demographic characteristics.

• Gender
• Age
• Culture
• Nationality
• Language
• Social class
• Social position
• Sexual orientation
• Ethnicity
• Religion
• Education Level
• Handicapping conditions
Demographic Characteristics
• Expertise: Knowledge, skills,
and abilities (KSA), and
relevant experience.
• Worldview: Values, attitudes,
and beliefs.
• Personality: Characteristic
patterns of thinking, feeling, and
behaving based on individual
cognitive and behavioral styles.
• Individual interests and needs:
Personal objectives and
motivations apart from those
of the group as a whole.
Individual Attributes

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 10 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.2 Group Dynamics

individuals, or experience a phenomenon known as process loss (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993;
Kozlowski & Bell, 2001). Process loss is a reduction in efficiency and effectiveness due to
nonproductive actions, operations, or dynamics. Examples of process loss include reduced
member motivation and effort, dysfunctional processes, faulty coordination, and ineffectual
leadership (Steiner, 1972; Forsyth, 2014).

To minimize the risks associated with too large or too small a membership, specific group
size should be determined by the group’s task complexity, ability to effectively coordinate,
and the functionality of its structure. We discuss structure, a critical element in collaborative
performance, in the next section.

Structure: Roles, Norms, and Interrelations
In the natural world, animals, insects, and plants form ecological communities in which
everything that lives or grows is interdependent and affects the well-being of the rest. Plants
give off oxygen, provide shelter, and feed herbivorous animals and insects, which are hunted
in turn by the carnivores. Over the course of their life cycle, animals and insects help spread
various plants, and even in death they nourish the earth and help plants grow. Each plays a
specific role within the community, follows intuitive rules or norms for behavior and interac-
tions, and engages in interrelations that impact one another in meaningful ways. The connec-
tive pattern imposed by this system reflects its structure.

Groups work in a similar fashion. Group members engage in interdependent roles and
responsibilities, following collectively accepted standards or norms for behavior and interac-
tions. Through socioemotional and task-based interdependence, members develop meaning-
ful interrelations that sustain the group. Group structure refers to the framework of roles,
norms, and interrelations that regulates interactions, thereby influencing and organizing how
a group functions.

In workplace groups, structure exists both internally and externally. Group structure defines
member roles and directs patterns of interdependence and interaction within the group.
Organizational structure provides an external framework for the group as a collective entity
that fulfills a specific role and responsibilities within the organization, acting in interdepen-
dent relations with other organizational units. Roles, norms, and member interrelations are
the active elements in the ongoing interactions between group members. As such, they will
be focused on throughout much of this text. Beginning with roles, let’s look at each of these
elements.

Roles
A role is a set of expectations attached to a social position; it governs the behavior of the posi-
tion holder in relation to others and vice versa. Defining group members in terms of leaders
and followers is a misleading—and inadequate—description of group roles. In reality, group
members can play many roles. Think of a group, any group, and consider the people within it.
What parts do members play in discussion? What tasks and responsibilities do they under-
take during group interactions? Is there an initiator, a critic, a harmonizer, an energizer? How
about an organizer, a standard setter, a listener? We may think of these as personality traits,
but the predictable influence they have on group interaction defines these as significant roles
that can emerge or be designated within a membership.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 11 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.2 Group Dynamics

People play different roles in dif-
ferent groups, and each role is typi-
cally associated with specific duties,
responsibilities, and prerogatives.
For example, as a division manager,
Miguel is accorded certain privileges
in behavior and respect. He coordi-
nates and directs the project manag-
ers within his division, but he must
answer to, and in turn be directed
by, higher levels of management. At
home, he is also a father, a husband,
and a son. Each of these roles has its
own set of rules and expectations,
and associated shifts in status among
participants. Miguel does not have
the same authority in the role of son
as he does in the role of father. Nor
are the same expectations attached
to these roles and his role of husband or division manager. Roles are meant to smooth inter-
actions by providing stability in expectations, but when our expectations about how to play
a role or set of roles are inconsistent or do not match the expectations of those around us,
confusion and conflict can occur.

In the workplace some roles are routinely designated. For instance, project manager, team
leader, facilitator, recorder, and timekeeper are all roles that are frequently assigned to spe-
cific group members for the space of a particular project or performance activity. Other roles
emerge as group members interact and individuals repeatedly take on specific duties, activi-
ties, or methods of interaction. As these patterns of behavior become habitual, role differen-
tiation occurs. The number of roles within the group increases, and the expectations, respon-
sibilities, and prerogatives attached to each role become more specific.

Group roles can be divided into task and relationship role categories.

• Task roles revolve around group performance and accomplishment of tasks and
goals. Activities include goal setting, coordinating meetings, encouraging task-
related feedback, and gathering and recording relevant information.

• Relationship roles center on the socioemotional maintenance of interpersonal rela-
tions within the group. Activities include facilitating knowledge and opinion sharing
during group discussions, mediating conflict, building trust, and managing destruc-
tive norms.

Group members who take on leadership responsibilities typically span both role categories,
and team members may frequently change or rotate roles. As we progress through the text,
we will increasingly see how individual task and relationship roles impact group dynamics.
Next, we examine another integral structural element: norms.

Wavebreak Media Ltd./Thinkstock

In groups, roles are not confined to leader and
follower; they are much more complex and nuanced.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 12 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.2 Group Dynamics

Norms
Norms are evaluative standards, the implicit and explicit expectations or social rules for
behavior and interpersonal interactions. Norms can be preexisting, imposed by a larger group
or organization, and emergent throughout the life cycle of a group. Certain sets of norms
are present within all our interactions, reflecting the overarching attitudes, expectations,
and behavioral cues we have learned since childhood. This includes “reading” each other for
acceptable behavior and habitually giving extra weight to the attitudes and behavior of those
who appear to inhabit authority roles. Although norms emerge from our groups, they are also
affected by our desire to conform and be accepted by other group members, as well as by how
we think we should respond to a given situation, based on our perception of others’ attitudes
and behavior.

Norms can be prescriptive or proscriptive, defining socially appropriate or inappropriate
actions or behaviors, respectively (Sorrels & Kelley, 1984). Additionally, norms can be descrip-
tive, encompassing the attitudes and actions people usually engage in, given specific situa-
tions. Norms can also be injunctive, representing attitudes and behaviors that people must
engage in or face severe punishment (Morris, 1956). Table 1.1 summarizes these categories
of norms and provides examples of each.

Table 1.1: Categories and examples of norms

Category Function Example

Prescriptive Define socially appropriate behavior DO use respectful language and volume in
a public space.

Proscriptive Define socially inappropriate behavior DO NOT perform private bodily functions
in a public space.

Descriptive Define attitudes and actions people usu-
ally engage in within specific situations

DO hold an elevator door for an incoming
passenger.

Injunctive Define attitudes and behaviors that people
must engage in or be severely punished

DO NOT engage in personal abuse or vio-
lence in the workplace.

People who behave in ways that conflict with prescriptive, proscriptive, and descriptive norms
may be chided, reminded of more appropriate behaviors, or perceived as different or strange.
However, those who violate injunctive norms tend to be actively punished and disliked,
assigned distasteful tasks, and pressured to conform or leave the group (Rimal & Real, 2005).
Norms constrain our behavior to a certain degree, but they also offer common understanding
and shared expectations regarding what is and is not acceptable within the group. In this way
norms help create a supportive framework for group interactions.

Group norms are collectively accepted standards governing member behavior within the
group, given members’ relative position and responsibilities and the connections they share.
In workplace groups, these represent a blend of organizationally imposed norms, stemming
from organizational rules, procedures, and expectations, and the unique set of norms that
emerge from the interactions of a particular group membership. Sometimes we notice the
existence of group norms only when they are broken. For example, we notice if someone’s
attire breaks unwritten office dress codes or if someone takes too much or too little time for
lunch and breaks.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 13 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.2 Group Dynamics

New members of a group, such as new hires, will adjust to written and unwritten rules associ-
ated with assigned tasks and roles, and those held as important by the coworkers with whom
they are grouped. Established members socially influence or pressure newcomers to conform
to group norms, which may include clocking in on time, performing work in a timely manner,
chatting (or not chatting) by the coffee machine, and following accepted parameters for lan-
guage, mutual respect, and quality of work.

Norms can be either constructive or destructive. Constructive norms support a group’s task
and relationship roles. For instance, norms for open communication of task-related concerns
or for soliciting feedback from other members would be considered constructive. Destructive
norms can lead to process loss and damaging relationships between members. Norms for
unhealthy competitiveness, information holding, or not owning up to mistakes are all exam-
ples of destructive norms.

The divide between constructive and destructive norms is not always clear cut. Even seem-
ingly positive interactions can develop into destructive norms if they become distracting or
inappropriate. Consider Tanya and Amelia. As the only women in a group of seven, Tanya and
Amelia appreciated the easy camaraderie gained by being “one of the boys,” even when that
meant laughing at sexist jokes. When the group leader questioned this norm, however, Tanya
admitted that the jokes made her uncomfortable, and Amelia stated that she actually found
them offensive. The men in the group were surprised—and genuinely apologetic—and the
group moved on to develop more constructive norms.

Group norms shape the interactions and interrelations between members, significantly
impacting group processes and performance. We will further discuss the influence and man-
agement of constructive and destructive dynamics and norms in Chapter 7. For now, we move
to the third aspect of structure: interrelations.

Interrelations
Group members develop meaningful interrelations, or mutual and reciprocal relations, the
functional dimensions of which can be described as follows:

• Interdependence
• Communication
• Group processes

Interdependence can be defined as a state of mutual dependence in which others influence,
and are influenced by, our thoughts, feelings, actions, outcomes, and experience. All groups
have some level of socioemotional interdependence, or a mutual dependence and influence on
social relations and standing, emotional state, and well-being. Groups also have some level
of task interdependence, or the degree to which members are reliant on one another to effec-
tively perform tasks and achieve goals (Kozlowski & Bell, 2001). Monitoring and managing
task interdependence is particularly critical in task groups, in which low and high task inter-
dependence can significantly impact the group performance. Increased task interdependence
increases the need for effective communication, coordination, and cooperation (Saavedra,
Earley, & Van Dyne, 1993). The roles that group members are assigned or take on primarily
reflect the need to direct and manage both socioemotional and task interdependence within
the group.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 14 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.2 Group Dynamics

Communication, or the comprehensive exchange of interpersonal, contextual, and task-
related information, is the medium by which group members develop and maintain meaning-
ful interrelations. Communication is a key element in any group setting. Member coordina-
tion and cooperation depend on effective communication, and mismanaged communication
is a major cause of group conflict (Salas, Burke, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000). In fact, establishing
effective communication is one of the most important steps to resolving conflicts that arise
between group members (Olekalns, Putnam, Weingart, & Metcalf, 2008). Communication
is also a critical factor in shaping outcomes for the major developmental and task-oriented
group processes.

Group processes represent specific sets of behaviors and interactions that contribute to
the realization of a particular agenda or outcome. There are many processes associated with
interpersonal interaction. Communication is a process, as are identification and leadership.
Within group dynamics, group processes typically refer to the major developmental and task-
orientated processes. Developmental processes involve the changes that occur over time in the
fundamental nature of the group. This includes its formation; development of norms, roles,
and informal status hierarchies; and movement through the stages of performance and dis-
banding. Task-oriented processes are attached to specific group tasks or goals and include
problem solving, decision making, innovation, and learning. Teamwork is the process by
which group members combine knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs); effort; and resources
through a coordinated series of actions and interactions to produce an outcome (Forsyth,
2014). We will continue to expand on these topics throughout the text, since developing and
managing interrelations is a basic requirement of working together.

For now, it is important to know that the interrelations developed between group mem-
bers through interdependence, communication, and participation in group processes have a
profound impact on members’ subjective experience and their ability to work together as a
group. The following subsections briefly overview leadership and context, as well as the ways
in which these dynamic properties shape the very nature of our groups.

Leadership: Guiding the Group
All groups have some form of leadership, whether they enact distinct leader–follower rela-
tionships or engage in collective decision making to direct the group. Leadership can be des-
ignated by an organization or emergent within the dynamics of a particular group.

• Designated leaders are assigned to fulfill leadership roles and managerial respon-
sibilities based on organizational standards, hierarchy, and needs.

• Emergent leaders develop naturally out of interpersonal interactions as members
share leadership responsibilities (Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2004; Pearce & Conger, 2003)
or as particular individuals begin to fulfill leadership roles and responsibilities over
time (Foti & Hauenstein, 2007).

Additionally, groups can be internally or externally led, or they can be empowered to enact a
cooperative leadership in which both internal and external leadership exists. Empowered
group members share varying degrees of leadership roles and managerial responsibilities
with designated leaders and/or external managers. With or without formal empowerment,
the collaborative problem-solving, decision-making, and work efforts inherent to teamwork
generate a shared determination and collective guidance that is often referred to as shared

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 15 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.2 Group Dynamics

In workplace groups, leadership is integral to effective collaboration and performance. Lead-
ers guide the interaction and progression of group processes and monitor and manage both
individual and collective performance (Fleishman et al., 1991; Kozlowski, Gully, McHugh,
Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1996; Kozlowski, Gully, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1996). Leaders
facilitate the assimilation and socialization of incoming and outgoing members as groups and
teams are formed and as membership changes over time (Moreland & Levine, 1989; Ostroff
& Kozlowski, 1992). Leaders also direct the process of group development and continu-
ously work toward member coherence (Kozlowski, Gully, McHugh, et al., 1996). They guide
the clarification of group goals, task strategies, and agendas; manage positive and negative
norms; link individual interests with collective purpose; establish compatible role expecta-
tions among members; and maintain favorable performance conditions (Kozlowski & Bell,
2001). Leaders bridge the gap between the group and the organization, translating, manag-
ing, and mitigating interactions so that, as much as possible, the needs, interests, and goals of
each are protected and realized (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003). Next, we examine the effects of
group context.

Context: Orienting the Group
Groups come in all shapes, sizes, and forms. Group context, or the developmental and opera-
tional setting in which groups are embedded, fundamentally shapes group behavior and pur-
pose. For example, coworkers Adele, Derrick, and Rafael may form or be placed in a group
dedicated to a particular organizational task. Their communication patterns, hierarchy, and
task division within the group will largely be dictated by organizational roles, rules, and pro-
cedure. If the three coworkers met and came together in a friendship group over consecutive
lunch breaks, they would behave very differently, with communication patterns, hierarchy,
and roles emerging naturally through repeated interactions. Understanding group context is
key to understanding how groups form and function (Stohl & Putnam, 2003).

Groups have a developmental context that can be informal or formal. Informal groups are
the natural outcome of consistent interaction between people with mutual interests. Mem-
ber created and internally driven, the longevity of informal groups is solely determined by
members’ continuing interest and ability to participate. In contrast, formal groups are inten-
tionally composed and structured to realize specific tasks, projects, or goals, determined by
the needs of an organization. Driven by an externally imposed performance agenda, formal
groups terminate when their performance objectives are met or they are no longer deemed
organizationally useful. Table 1.2 summarizes the developmental contexts of groups and pro-
vides examples for each.

Groups also have an operational context. Just as the informal and formal context impacts the
motivations and methods by which group purpose, composition, structure, and leadership
develop, the setting in which groups operate significantly influences the way in which they
function and how effectively they do so. A sports team, for example, operates in a very differ-
ent setting than a product development team, and that context impacts group structure as
well as how members coordinate and cooperate. Here, our focus is on organizational groups.

Table 1.2: Developmental context of groups

Category Description Examples

Informal Groups formed naturally through con-
sistent interaction between people with
similar interests

• Friendship groups
• Book clubs
• Recreational groups
• The set of coworkers we carpool and

lunch with

Formal Groups that are intentionally formed,
composed, and structured to satisfy
specific task, project, or goal needs of an
organization

• Sports teams
• Entertainment groups
• Academic classes
• Focus groups
• Committees
• Work groups, crews, and teams

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 16 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.2 Group Dynamics

Although there is a tendency to think of organizations as hierarchical series of formal groups,
in reality, formal and informal groups coexist within the workplace. Both formal and informal
groups are embedded within the organizational context, or the comprehensive culture, sys-
tems, structure, processes, and resources in place within the organization.

Groups formed without consideration of their organizational context do not function well
within it. Teams introduced without thought to the provision of organizational support for
teamwork processes and needs will typically either fail or work far below their potential. This
is primarily because they do not function cooperatively within the organization (Dumaine,
1994). Team-based organizing (TBO), examined in Chapter 10, centers on the idea that groups
and teams are only effective within an organization when they work as part of a systemic
whole.

leadership. Sharing leadership responsibilities and roles allows team members the authority
and flexibility to deal immediately with problems that arise during performance, but it does
not mean that teams do not have leaders or specific responsibility structures. Leadership and
empowerment styles will be discussed in depth in Chapter 9.
In workplace groups, leadership is integral to effective collaboration and performance. Lead-
ers guide the interaction and progression of group processes and monitor and manage both
individual and collective performance (Fleishman et al., 1991; Kozlowski, Gully, McHugh,
Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1996; Kozlowski, Gully, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1996). Leaders
facilitate the assimilation and socialization of incoming and outgoing members as groups and
teams are formed and as membership changes over time (Moreland & Levine, 1989; Ostroff
& Kozlowski, 1992). Leaders also direct the process of group development and continu-
ously work toward member coherence (Kozlowski, Gully, McHugh, et al., 1996). They guide
the clarification of group goals, task strategies, and agendas; manage positive and negative
norms; link individual interests with collective purpose; establish compatible role expecta-
tions among members; and maintain favorable performance conditions (Kozlowski & Bell,
2001). Leaders bridge the gap between the group and the organization, translating, manag-
ing, and mitigating interactions so that, as much as possible, the needs, interests, and goals of
each are protected and realized (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003). Next, we examine the effects of
group context.
Context: Orienting the Group
Groups come in all shapes, sizes, and forms. Group context, or the developmental and opera-
tional setting in which groups are embedded, fundamentally shapes group behavior and pur-
pose. For example, coworkers Adele, Derrick, and Rafael may form or be placed in a group
dedicated to a particular organizational task. Their communication patterns, hierarchy, and
task division within the group will largely be dictated by organizational roles, rules, and pro-
cedure. If the three coworkers met and came together in a friendship group over consecutive
lunch breaks, they would behave very differently, with communication patterns, hierarchy,
and roles emerging naturally through repeated interactions. Understanding group context is
key to understanding how groups form and function (Stohl & Putnam, 2003).
Groups have a developmental context that can be informal or formal. Informal groups are
the natural outcome of consistent interaction between people with mutual interests. Mem-
ber created and internally driven, the longevity of informal groups is solely determined by
members’ continuing interest and ability to participate. In contrast, formal groups are inten-
tionally composed and structured to realize specific tasks, projects, or goals, determined by
the needs of an organization. Driven by an externally imposed performance agenda, formal
groups terminate when their performance objectives are met or they are no longer deemed
organizationally useful. Table 1.2 summarizes the developmental contexts of groups and pro-
vides examples for each.
Groups also have an operational context. Just as the informal and formal context impacts the
motivations and methods by which group purpose, composition, structure, and leadership
develop, the setting in which groups operate significantly influences the way in which they
function and how effectively they do so. A sports team, for example, operates in a very differ-
ent setting than a product development team, and that context impacts group structure as
well as how members coordinate and cooperate. Here, our focus is on organizational groups.
Table 1.2: Developmental context of groups
Category Description Examples
Informal Groups formed naturally through con-
sistent interaction between people with
similar interests
• Friendship groups
• Book clubs
• Recreational groups
• The set of coworkers we carpool and
lunch with
Formal Groups that are intentionally formed,
composed, and structured to satisfy
specific task, project, or goal needs of an
organization
• Sports teams
• Entertainment groups
• Academic classes
• Focus groups
• Committees
• Work groups, crews, and teams

Business Applications: The Impact of Informal
Workplace Groups

Although formal groups such as boards, committees, work groups, and teams get all the credit
as useful and productive workplace groups, informal groups can also have a profound impact
on the performance of individual members and the organization as a whole. Informal groups
can help new employees assimilate, foster a more comfortable and productive work environ-
ment, and establish and sustain connections between employees across the organization.
Bridging boundaries between employees of varying rank and function facilitates knowledge
sharing and organizational learning, as well as increases support for employee advancement.
On the other hand, loyalty to friendship groups may potentially override decisions needed
for a company’s best interests, and special treatment for one’s “office family” can undermine
motivation among workers who are not part of the group. Balancing informal and formal com-
mitments and loyalties can be like navigating an obstacle course, but large organizations are
increasingly recognizing the benefit of doing so.

(continued)

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 17 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.3 What Are Teams?

1.3 What Are Teams?
There is often confusion about the relationship between groups and teams. Many people
apply the terms interchangeably or use team as a motivational catch phrase for groups with
a formal agenda (Parks & Sanna, 1999). This is inaccurate, however. Teams share basic char-
acteristics with all groups, but as a distinct form of task group, teams have specific attributes
that are entirely their own. To develop this concept, we will first look at the characteristics
teams and other groups have in common. Then we will examine the specific attributes that
make teams unique and that have inspired the saying “All teams are groups, but not all groups
are teams.”

As groups, we know that teams must have:

• identification as a social unit,
• interdependence between members,
• cohesion around some common interest or purpose, and
• meaningful interaction between and among members.

Additionally, like all groups, teams have a purpose to exist, a composition of members with
individual qualities and needs, structure for interrelations, leadership from within and with-
out, and a context in which they are embedded. They engage in developmental and task-
oriented processes and develop patterns for member behavior and interaction. So what do
teams add to this mix that sets them apart from other task groups?

At Google, informal employee social groups have become firmly embedded in organizational
culture. According to interviewer Mark Swift (2011), Google’s Employee Resource Groups are
“employee-initiated entities that receive financial support from the company and represent
social, cultural or minority groups, including the Gayglers (for lesbian and gay employees), the
Greyglers (for older employees), . . . [and] VetNet for military veterans” (para. 6).

When Camille James joined Google, she took a profound leap into an unknown culture, mov-
ing from Tokyo to California. She had no existing social connections there, and she had never
before worked for a large company. Encouraged by Google’s unorthodox organizational cul-
ture, James met with fellow “Nooglers” (new hires at Google) and formed a bowling team
through which she forged connections with coworkers and laid the groundwork for friend-
ships and social bonds within her new community (Swift, 2011). In 2011 Google had an almost
unbelievable growth rate of 100 “Nooglers” per week, transforming its informal employee
groups from a cool company perk to a keystone component in employee assimilation and rela-
tions within the company.

Critical-Thinking Question
Informal groups exist everywhere. Consider some of the informal groups in your office, work,
or school settings. Describe some of the ways in which informal group membership helps sup-
port your emotional well-being, confidence, and ability to perform within the more formal
groups associated with these settings.

Business Applications: The Impact of Informal Workplace Groups
(continued)

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 18 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.3 What Are Teams?

In task groups, performance encompasses the coordination and execution of individual and
collective efforts toward a specific purpose or goal. Teams engage in collaborative perfor-
mance, which involves willful contribution of interdependent and joint effort, pooled knowl-
edge and resources, and shared responsibility for outcomes (Kozlowski & Bell, 2001). This is
the central tenet of teams and their distinctive function within the task group category. We
often refer to the collaborative performance process as teamwork, but teamwork alone does
not make a team. Members of any group can engage in situational teamwork, but unless they
develop member qualities and interrelations that support a continuous teamwork process,
they will not become a team.

Team members are committed to collaborative performance toward a meaningful common
purpose. To achieve this, team members collectively determine their agenda and approach,
discover or develop complementary skills, and hold themselves mutually accountable for
results. Therefore, we can define a team as a small group in which members engaging comple-
mentary skills are committed to, and hold themselves mutually accountable for, collaboration
toward a meaningful common purpose along a collectively determined agenda and approach.

Teams evolved from traditional work groups, a term used to describe a small group in which
skilled members are held individually accountable for specific tasks determined by the pur-
pose, agenda, and approach of a single, clear leader. Work groups once represented the stan-
dard model for organizational productivity. Today teams have displaced them as the basic
building block of competitive organizations (Martin & Bal, 2006; Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam,
2010). To understand why this is so, we must first examine the rise of teams within organi-
zational culture.

The Rise of Teams
Teams have existed for thousands of years. Their introduction and use within business orga-
nizations, however, is relatively new. Prior to the mid-20th century, teams were rarely seen
in action outside of military or sports settings. Work groups were assembled for demanding
labor and simple, repetitive tasks requiring many hands, but complex and intellectual tasks
were assigned to skilled individuals. Organizational practices were rooted in the principles
of scientific management (Taylor, 1911), a philosophy centered on optimization through
rigid standardization, time management, and worker supervision. These ideas spawned a
near mechanized view of workers as primarily motivated by material rewards. Social inter-
actions and processing time were viewed as nonproductive. Managers focused on support-
ing workers by offering direct correlation between wages and productive output. They also
eliminated “wasteful” socializing and released workers from the complexities of on-the-job
decision making and problem solving. Managers thought, and workers did.

In the 1920s Elton Mayo, Fritz Roethlisberger, and associates launched a landmark decade-
long series of experiments and observations on the organizational behavior, group produc-
tivity, and motivations of workers at AT&T’s Western Electric Hawthorne Works. These later
became known as the Hawthorne studies. Mayo’s work inspired the human relations move-
ment of the 1930s, which emphasized the importance of social relations in the workplace
and investing organizational interest in factors such as workers’ motivational influences,
employee participation, and job satisfaction. Productivity research moved away from the idea
of workers as automatons, to examine the underlying dynamics and processes surrounding

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 19 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.3 What Are Teams?

group performance and the socioemotional causes for high- and low-productivity levels (Son-
nenfeld, 1985).

In the 1940s and 1950s, studies of work groups in the British coal mining industry, led by
Eric Trist in collaboration with ex-miner Ken Bamforth, introduced the concept of the self-
regulatory work group, a kind of proto-team in which workers actively participated in self-
management and coordination. Trist (1981) observed that this novel approach to work group
organization and function was phenomenal, stating that “cooperation between task groups
was everywhere in evidence; personal commitment was obvious, absenteeism low, accidents
infrequent, productivity high” (p. 8). Many of the practices later associated with self-
regulatory work groups were rooted in the natural teamwork that occurred in the mining pits
years before the industry had reorganized around the principles of scientific management.

Companies such as General Foods, Butler Manufacturing, and General Motors built on these
concepts in the 1980s, transforming Trist’s self-regulatory work groups into self-managing
teams. That transition paid off with demonstrable increases in performance quality, pro-
duction, and employee satisfaction, and notable decreases in accidents, absenteeism, and
employee turnover (Strauss & Hammer, 1987). Car manufacturers Volvo and Saab followed
suit, integrating teams into their production plants. Overseas, both Europe and Japan were hav-
ing their own revelations on the use of teams and management models supporting collabora-
tive work. The ever-increasing globalization of the marketplace ensured these ideas spread,
and teams were clearly recognized as the new model for organizational competitiveness.

Unfortunately, the reasons behind team effectiveness, and the practical differences between
work groups and teams, were not as readily perceived. Many executives simply appropriated
the term team as a motivational resource, failing to properly implement teams because they
were unaware of any real difference (Katzenbach & Smith, 2001; Harris & Beyerlein, 2008).
Although teams evolved from work groups, and both are categorized as task groups, work
groups and teams fundamentally differ along the basic elements of leadership, accountability,
and purpose. Next, we compare work groups and teams to further our understanding of what
teams are and how differently they function from other task groups.

Comparing Work Groups and Teams
In a side-by-side comparison, the definitions for work groups and teams reveal notable simi-
larities (see Figure 1.2).

As we can see in Figure 1.2, both work groups and teams share the following features:

• Small size
• Skilled members
• Accountability for action and labor outcomes
• Labor along a specific agenda and approach

However, they are also characterized by significant differences in leadership, accountability,
and purpose. Table 1.3 offers a simple breakdown of these distinctions, which primarily affect
the ways in which these properties are carried out and expressed.

Figure 1.2: Comparison of work group and team definitions

Work groups and teams share several notable similarities.

A small group in which skilled
members are held individually
accountable for specific tasks
determined by the purpose,
agenda, and approach of a single,
clear leader.

A small group in which members
engaging complementary skills are
committed to, and hold themselves
mutually accountable for,
collaboration toward a meaningful
common purpose along a collectively
determined agenda and approach.

Work Groups Teams

Table 1.3: Key properties of work groups and teams

Key properties Work groups Teams

Leadership Members follow a single, clear leader. Members engage in shared leadership.

Accountability Members are individually accountable to
the group leader. Leader is individually
accountable for group performance.

Members are mutually accountable for
performance within the group and for
group performance overall.

Purpose Leader determines group’s purpose,
agenda, and approach and delegates
appropriate individual tasks and roles.

Members collectively determine team’s
goals, agenda, and approach, as well as
collective and individual tasks and roles.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 20 8/19/16 9:37 AM

A small group in which skilled
members are held individually
accountable for specific tasks
determined by the purpose,
agenda, and approach of a single,
clear leader.
A small group in which members
engaging complementary skills are
committed to, and hold themselves
mutually accountable for,
collaboration toward a meaningful
common purpose along a collectively
determined agenda and approach.
Work Groups Teams
Section 1.3 What Are Teams?

Leadership
Work groups have a single, clear leader. An easy way to remember the characteristics of work
group leadership is to think of them as the 3 Ds: determine, delegate, and dominate. Although
group members share information and ideas when asked, the leader is in charge. He or she
determines the group’s purpose, agenda, and approach, delegates individual tasks and roles
within the group, and dominates group meetings and discussion. Teams work very differently.
Unlike work groups, team members engage in shared leadership and decision making. Team
members perform tasks and fulfill roles that are based on a meaningful common purpose and
a collectively determined and realized agenda and approach.

Accountability
The presence of a single leader in work groups necessitates individual accountability for all
group members. Since the work group leader is the sole decision maker, group members are
responsible only for their own performance of assigned tasks and roles. Likewise, as the lone
orchestrator of the group’s purpose, the leader is held individually accountable for the work
group’s ultimate performance.

On the other hand, since teams engage in shared leadership, members accept mutual account-
ability for both positive and negative outcomes. That is, team members are accountable to

group performance and the socioemotional causes for high- and low-productivity levels (Son-
nenfeld, 1985).
In the 1940s and 1950s, studies of work groups in the British coal mining industry, led by
Eric Trist in collaboration with ex-miner Ken Bamforth, introduced the concept of the self-
regulatory work group, a kind of proto-team in which workers actively participated in self-
management and coordination. Trist (1981) observed that this novel approach to work group
organization and function was phenomenal, stating that “cooperation between task groups
was everywhere in evidence; personal commitment was obvious, absenteeism low, accidents
infrequent, productivity high” (p. 8). Many of the practices later associated with self-
regulatory work groups were rooted in the natural teamwork that occurred in the mining pits
years before the industry had reorganized around the principles of scientific management.
Companies such as General Foods, Butler Manufacturing, and General Motors built on these
concepts in the 1980s, transforming Trist’s self-regulatory work groups into self-managing
teams. That transition paid off with demonstrable increases in performance quality, pro-
duction, and employee satisfaction, and notable decreases in accidents, absenteeism, and
employee turnover (Strauss & Hammer, 1987). Car manufacturers Volvo and Saab followed
suit, integrating teams into their production plants. Overseas, both Europe and Japan were hav-
ing their own revelations on the use of teams and management models supporting collabora-
tive work. The ever-increasing globalization of the marketplace ensured these ideas spread,
and teams were clearly recognized as the new model for organizational competitiveness.
Unfortunately, the reasons behind team effectiveness, and the practical differences between
work groups and teams, were not as readily perceived. Many executives simply appropriated
the term team as a motivational resource, failing to properly implement teams because they
were unaware of any real difference (Katzenbach & Smith, 2001; Harris & Beyerlein, 2008).
Although teams evolved from work groups, and both are categorized as task groups, work
groups and teams fundamentally differ along the basic elements of leadership, accountability,
and purpose. Next, we compare work groups and teams to further our understanding of what
teams are and how differently they function from other task groups.
Comparing Work Groups and Teams
In a side-by-side comparison, the definitions for work groups and teams reveal notable simi-
larities (see Figure 1.2).
As we can see in Figure 1.2, both work groups and teams share the following features:
• Small size
• Skilled members
• Accountability for action and labor outcomes
• Labor along a specific agenda and approach
However, they are also characterized by significant differences in leadership, accountability,
and purpose. Table 1.3 offers a simple breakdown of these distinctions, which primarily affect
the ways in which these properties are carried out and expressed.
Figure 1.2: Comparison of work group and team definitions
Work groups and teams share several notable similarities.
A small group in which skilled
members are held individually
accountable for specific tasks
determined by the purpose,
agenda, and approach of a single,
clear leader.
A small group in which members
engaging complementary skills are
committed to, and hold themselves
mutually accountable for,
collaboration toward a meaningful
common purpose along a collectively
determined agenda and approach.
Work Groups Teams
Table 1.3: Key properties of work groups and teams
Key properties Work groups Teams
Leadership Members follow a single, clear leader. Members engage in shared leadership.
Accountability Members are individually accountable to
the group leader. Leader is individually
accountable for group performance.
Members are mutually accountable for
performance within the group and for
group performance overall.
Purpose Leader determines group’s purpose,
agenda, and approach and delegates
appropriate individual tasks and roles.
Members collectively determine team’s
goals, agenda, and approach, as well as
collective and individual tasks and roles.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 21 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.3 What Are Teams?

each other for their individual performance of tasks and roles within the team. They are also
collectively accountable for team performance outcomes and the success or failure of the team
as a whole. One of the advantages of the team concept is that team members share respon-
sibility for problems and conflicts that arise. Rather than “passing the buck” to a superior,
team members address these issues directly and attempt to resolve them within the team
structure. This collective responsibility toward each other and to the team deeply affects how
members interact and work toward a desired outcome.

Purpose
In work groups, a leader directs the actions of each skilled member, like a chess player moving
the different pieces on a board. By contrast, team members are largely self-directing, moving
with mutual coordination; they keep track of what everybody else is doing and adjust their
actions accordingly. This means team members are far more empowered than members of a
work group, in that they have the ability—and the authority—to coordinate themselves (Salas
et al., 2000). By collectively determining team goals, agenda, and approach, a team develops
a shared mental model of these constructs and the steps that are needed to accomplish them
(for example, Hu & Liden, 2011; Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000).
This shared vision provides a road map and a set of directions that team members endorse
and get behind. Member commitment and cohesiveness get a boost, significantly amplifying
team performance and productivity (Kozlowski & Bell, 2001).

Teamwork has many proponents and a well-earned reputation for success. However, teams
are not necessarily better than work groups. Functioning work groups are efficient and orga-
nized. Member roles, tasks, and responsibilities are delineated without debate, and individual
accountabilities are clear and nonnegotiable. Used properly, work groups can be productive
powerhouses, yet we tend to automatically exclude them when looking to increase or improve
performance. Teams engage in collaborative performance. They pool knowledge, viewpoints,
and expertise to maximize critical thinking, creative problem solving, and adaptability to
changing conditions. Collective decision making enhances member buy-in to team tasks and
goals (Millikin, Hom, & Manz, 2010); however, functioning teams require substantially more
member time, effort, and commitment to actualize than do work groups. Each has its own
strengths and weaknesses, so how do we choose one over the other?

When to Use Teams
When faced with the decision of whether to use a team, organizations tend to follow estab-
lished patterns. Newer technology- or design-based firms tend to opt for teams, while older
organizations are more likely to use work groups (though they may mislabel these as teams).
Today’s focus on team performance often leaves work groups overlooked and underrated,
yet teams are not always the right fit for the job. The performance value of any task group
depends on task complexity, operational context, and performance goals. Given that work
groups spend less time deliberating during performance, they are almost always more effi-
cient than teams, but teams are typically more effective. In deciding whether to use a team or
a work group, we must first determine what the performance outcome needs most: efficiency
or effectiveness.

In the business world, efficiency refers to greater production or performance output, with
less input of resources (i.e., time, money, and employee labor). Work groups are highly

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 22 8/19/16 9:37 AM

• Is there a lack of clear answers?
• Are the tasks complex?
• Is there too much or too little
information?
• Is there a need for creative ideas?
• Does the problem cross functions?

• Does the solution affect many
people?
• Is there a strong bias toward the
outcome?
• Does success depend on individual
and collective commitment to the
outcome?

For nonroutine tasks
or solutions

For tasks or solutions requiring
broad support

Section 1.3 What Are Teams?

efficient because they allow group leaders to accomplish more within a given time frame
than could be done alone or in a team setting, where collective decision making eats away
at production time. Think of a work group as an augmented individual. Since group leaders
provide all of the creative and strategic decision making, a work group reflects the leader’s
individual ability in these areas. Work group leaders hold ultimate responsibility for the quan-
tity and quality of the groups’ output. Work groups also offer strength in numbers. As tasks
and activities are delegated to group members, their overall productivity outstrips that of any
one individual. With smart selection, group leaders can access skills that either compliment
or go beyond their own abilities, thereby enhancing both the quantity and quality of their
“individual” performance.

In dealing with groups and teams, effectiveness represents the degree to which a perfor-
mance outcome satisfies project requirements, the relative quality and timeliness of a solu-
tion or output, and the quality of member interaction. In contrast to efficiency, effectiveness
tends to denote performance flexibility and overall satisfaction, rather than quantity or speed.
Work groups may excel at efficient execution, but they typically struggle with adapting. This
is where teams excel. Team members are largely self-directing, so they have the ability to
quickly assess and adapt strategies to deal with issues that arise over the course of their per-
formance. There are no project stalls while someone contacts the group leader, explains the
situation, and waits for the leader to decide on a course of action.

The work group efficiency concept typically results in a standard but not superlative level of
product or outcome quality and satisfaction. The mutual accountability inherent to effective
teamwork tends to heighten member motivation to exceed minimum performance and solu-
tion standards. Mutual coordination assures that when a team member makes decisions or
initiative changes within the performance process, others will adjust and adapt with them,
supporting or even improving on their efforts. So when should we use a team? The Vroom,
Yetton, and Jago (Vroom & Yetton, 1973; Vroom & Jago, 1988) decision-making model for
leadership and participation offers some very practical suggestions (see Figure 1.3).

Figure 1.3: Guidelines for when to use teams

The Vroom, Yetton, and Jago decision-making model recommends using teams when tasks or
solutions are nonroutine or require broad support. Organizations can ask themselves these questions
to help determine whether a team is the best fit for their needs.

• Is there a lack of clear answers?
• Are the tasks complex?
• Is there too much or too little
information?
• Is there a need for creative ideas?
• Does the problem cross functions?
• Does the solution affect many
people?
• Is there a strong bias toward the
outcome?
• Does success depend on individual
and collective commitment to the
outcome?
For nonroutine tasks
or solutions
For tasks or solutions requiring
broad support

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 23 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.4 Identifying Team and Task Types

It is important to note that an organization does not need to restrict itself to using only teams
or only work groups. The ability to blend efficiency and effectiveness can be an unparalleled
tool. A growing number of organizations recognize the performance power in both work
groups and teams. These organizations seek employees who not only work well within either
model, but can successfully work within both formats in concurrent groups, as project needs
demand. Architecture and design-based firms have been using this model for years. An archi-
tect often works as part of a team of designers on a building project and holds a concurrent
position on another project as, say, a work group leader over other architects, designers, or
assistants. Those other architects, designers, and assistants in turn may also be team mem-
bers, work group leaders, or work group members on another project.

The ability to work well within either a work group or team setting is one of the most valuable
and highly sought skills employees can bring to an organization. For managers and project
planners, other highly sought skills include the knowledge, experience, and ability to:

• judge which group model is best suited to a particular project task or goal,
• track performance efficiency and effectiveness based on the work group or team

model, and
• determine when a switch from work group to team (or vice versa) may best serve

the desired performance outcome.

Once the decision to employ a team has been made, the question becomes: What kind of team
should we use? We will turn to that question in the next section.

1.4 Identifying Team and Task Types
The flexibility inherent in the team structure complicates attempts to place teams—and the
tasks they perform—into prepackaged labels. New applications for teams and variations on
the team concept emerge constantly within organizations, yet understanding team types is
important. Teams share certain qualities that set them apart from other groups, but teams are
not identical. They represent different and often unique combinations of malleable proper-
ties, such as composition, structure, and leadership (Harvey, Fisher, McPhail, & Moeller, 2009;
Zheng, Khoury, & Grobmeier, 2010; Salas et al., 2000). These differences in turn affect team
processes and management needs (Horwitz, 2005). Task expectations, operational setting,
and enlisted communication channels influence the nature of teams in terms of what they do
and how they do it (Stewart & Barrick, 2000; Abbott, Boyd, & Miles, 2006).

Teams are categorized using a combination of their structural parameters and primary task
type (Wildman et al., 2012; Sundstrom, McIntyre, Halfhill, & Richards, 2000; Devine, 2002).
Structural parameters define the team’s role, interrelation, and interdependence within the
organization. These are used to develop team types that describe the fundamental nature of a
team and how it is expected to work. Primary task types represent a basic categorization of
the prime objectives teams are expected to achieve or perform. In other words, they describe
what a team is expected to do.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 24 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.4 Identifying Team and Task Types

We will begin by looking at team types, then turn to task types. While it might seem more
natural to address what before how, keep in mind that when compared to other task groups,
how teams perform is their primary distinction and the key to their success.

Team Types
As we’ve discussed, a team’s structural parameters—role, interrelation, and interdependence
within an organization—will determine how it is expected to function, and therefore its team
type. Here, we discuss the most common team types encountered in organizations: work
teams, project teams, task force teams, parallel teams, and virtual teams.

Work Teams
Work teams are long-term continuous work units responsible for an entire product, process,
or service from beginning to end (Wellins, Byham, & Wilson, 1991; Cohen & Bailey, 1997).
Work teams represent the basic team unit on which specific variations are built; these varia-
tions are widely diverse in function and task type, composition, and context. Membership in
work teams is typically full time, well defined, and can be either fixed or rotating. Manufac-
turing and production teams, people and process management teams, customer service, and
information technology (IT) teams are all examples of organizational work teams.

Project Teams
Project teams are tasked with achieving a unique, one-time output within a structured time
frame, and typically disband after its completion (Keller, 1994; Cohen & Bailey, 1997). Proj-
ect teams are frequently used for design and development but can be aimed at any time-
structured task or goal. The outputs for project teams can range from radical innovations to
incremental improvements to existing products, services, or concepts (Cohen & Bailey, 1997).

Membership within project teams is often cross-functional, or drawn from different func-
tional or departmental backgrounds. This helps maximize a project team’s creative and adap-
tive potential and enhance project solutions with specialized or expert knowledge. A new
product development team, for example, may draw members from product design and engi-
neering, marketing, and manufacturing departments and release them back to their regular
duties or put them on another project once the team has fulfilled its purpose.

Within relatively broad directives, project teams are given a fair amount of latitude on what
they create. Take a project team tasked with developing a new cell phone, for instance. The
team may be given design cues based on desired features, but specific interpretation is largely
left up to team members. Although they tend to be temporary, some project teams work
together on a semipermanent basis, moving from project to project and rotating additional
members in and out as needed.

Task Force Teams
Task force teams are small, specialist teams composed of expert members temporarily pulled
across organizational and functional boundaries to deal with a single urgent task or problem.
Although we often think of the term task force in relation to military-based teams—the task

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 25 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.4 Identifying Team and Task Types

force concept originated in the U.S. Navy to increase operational flexibility during World
War II (Furer, 1959)—modern task forces are used in both civilian and noncivilian settings.

Task forces differ from project teams in the specificity and urgency of their assignments and
in the specific limitations on their empowerment. Task force assignments include highly
detailed task parameters and clearly specified goals that must be achieved within an urgent
time frame. Task force teams are highly self-directing in how they work within those rigid
boundaries, however. Take, for instance, emergency response crews arriving on the site of
a disaster. Members of the response team have specific and urgent task assignments, are
expected to perform these using the best possible resources—whether these are provided or
must be adapted from whatever is available—and then disband upon completing their task or
as their performance window expires. Another task force team common in organizations—
the cheetah team—is used to troubleshoot particularly urgent or unexpected problems that
arise during design or development processes.

Parallel Teams
Parallel teams operate outside of regular organizational structures, engaging in tasks and
activities that do not directly produce goods or services but exist parallel to these processes
(Matteson, Mumford, & Sintay, 1999). These teams source members from different areas
and functions for part-time participation in problem-solving and improvement-oriented
tasks deemed difficult to address through standard organizational structures (Cohen & Bai-
ley, 1997; Fisher, 2000). Parallel teams differ from other teams in that members continue to
perform their regular organizational roles and duties, meeting outside of these for parallel
teamwork (Cordery, Soo, Kirkman, Rosen, & Mathieu, 2009). Parallel teams are also known as
advice, involvement, and suggestion teams, because while they might operate autonomously
to complete their objectives, they can only provide their founding manager or management
group with information or advice—not action (Ledford, Lawler, & Mohrman, 1994; Cohen &
Bailey, 1997). Examples of parallel teams include quality circles, quality improvement teams,
and investigative and advisory boards.

Virtual Teams
Virtual teams are composed of members who are separated by organizational boundaries,
geography, or time and interact primarily through technology (Devine, 2002; Maznevski
& Chudoba, 2000; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004). Virtual teams offer a unique potential for
efficiency and effectiveness by allowing organizations to bring together members with the
desired KSAs and experience, no matter where or in what time zone they actually work. Freed
from the social and financial cost of relocation, skilled employees and outside experts can be
attached to the team as needed—and disengage just as easily when their work is done.

Table 1.4 summarizes and provides examples of each of the basic team types.

It is important to note that the basic team types listed in Table 1.4 are not mutually exclusive.
In other words, teams can exist simultaneously in two or more of these categories. We might,
for example, put together a virtual project team, bringing together the best people for a new
product design regardless of physical location. Next, we turn our attention to primary task
types.

Table 1.4: Summary of basic team types

Team type Description Example

Work team Long-term continuous work units
responsible for an entire product, pro-
cess, or service from beginning to end

• Manufacturing and production teams
• People and process management

teams
• Customer service, sales, negotiation,

and IT teams

Project team Tasked with a unique, one-time output
to be performed within a structured
time frame

• New product development teams
• Design teams
• Marketing teams

Task force Small, specialist teams composed of
expert members temporarily pulled
across organizational and functional
boundaries to deal with a single urgent
task or problem

• Cheetah teams
• Emergency response crews
• Military task forces

Parallel team Operate outside of regular organiza-
tional structures, engaging in tasks and
activities that exist in parallel to busi-
ness and management processes

• Quality circles
• Quality improvement teams
• Investigative and advisory boards
• Focus groups

Virtual team Composed of members who are sepa-
rated by organizational boundaries,
geography, and/or time and who inter-
act primarily through technology

• Any team that primarily interacts via
technology and engages in a virtual
setting

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 26 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.4 Identifying Team and Task Types

Primary Task Types
While team type labels describe the fundamental nature of a team and how it will perform,
they do not give us much information about what the team will be working toward. That
is where task-type classifications come in. Task types describe what a particular team is
expected to do. Table 1.5 lists the primary task types and their descriptions and provides
examples of associated teams.

Understanding the Significance of Team and Task Types
As we have learned, team types based on structural parameters describe teams on a funda-
mental level (i.e., a project team), while primary task types act as descriptive qualifiers (i.e., a
project management team). But why are these labels significant or important? Together, team
and task types offer a shared language that can create an immediate and common under-
standing about the nature of a team, answering questions such as:

• What is the life expectancy of the team—is it expected to produce or provide some-
thing indefinitely or just once?

• Are team deliverables a focal product, such as goods, services, or authoritative
decision making, or will the team’s performance mainly involve support, advice, or
troubleshooting?

• Where will team members be pulled from, and how will they primarily interact?

force concept originated in the U.S. Navy to increase operational flexibility during World
War II (Furer, 1959)—modern task forces are used in both civilian and noncivilian settings.
Task forces differ from project teams in the specificity and urgency of their assignments and
in the specific limitations on their empowerment. Task force assignments include highly
detailed task parameters and clearly specified goals that must be achieved within an urgent
time frame. Task force teams are highly self-directing in how they work within those rigid
boundaries, however. Take, for instance, emergency response crews arriving on the site of
a disaster. Members of the response team have specific and urgent task assignments, are
expected to perform these using the best possible resources—whether these are provided or
must be adapted from whatever is available—and then disband upon completing their task or
as their performance window expires. Another task force team common in organizations—
the cheetah team—is used to troubleshoot particularly urgent or unexpected problems that
arise during design or development processes.
Parallel Teams
Parallel teams operate outside of regular organizational structures, engaging in tasks and
activities that do not directly produce goods or services but exist parallel to these processes
(Matteson, Mumford, & Sintay, 1999). These teams source members from different areas
and functions for part-time participation in problem-solving and improvement-oriented
tasks deemed difficult to address through standard organizational structures (Cohen & Bai-
ley, 1997; Fisher, 2000). Parallel teams differ from other teams in that members continue to
perform their regular organizational roles and duties, meeting outside of these for parallel
teamwork (Cordery, Soo, Kirkman, Rosen, & Mathieu, 2009). Parallel teams are also known as
advice, involvement, and suggestion teams, because while they might operate autonomously
to complete their objectives, they can only provide their founding manager or management
group with information or advice—not action (Ledford, Lawler, & Mohrman, 1994; Cohen &
Bailey, 1997). Examples of parallel teams include quality circles, quality improvement teams,
and investigative and advisory boards.
Virtual Teams
Virtual teams are composed of members who are separated by organizational boundaries,
geography, or time and interact primarily through technology (Devine, 2002; Maznevski
& Chudoba, 2000; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004). Virtual teams offer a unique potential for
efficiency and effectiveness by allowing organizations to bring together members with the
desired KSAs and experience, no matter where or in what time zone they actually work. Freed
from the social and financial cost of relocation, skilled employees and outside experts can be
attached to the team as needed—and disengage just as easily when their work is done.
Table 1.4 summarizes and provides examples of each of the basic team types.
It is important to note that the basic team types listed in Table 1.4 are not mutually exclusive.
In other words, teams can exist simultaneously in two or more of these categories. We might,
for example, put together a virtual project team, bringing together the best people for a new
product design regardless of physical location. Next, we turn our attention to primary task
types.
Table 1.4: Summary of basic team types
Team type Description Example
Work team Long-term continuous work units
responsible for an entire product, pro-
cess, or service from beginning to end
• Manufacturing and production teams
• People and process management
teams
• Customer service, sales, negotiation,
and IT teams
Project team Tasked with a unique, one-time output
to be performed within a structured
time frame
• New product development teams
• Design teams
• Marketing teams
Task force Small, specialist teams composed of
expert members temporarily pulled
across organizational and functional
boundaries to deal with a single urgent
task or problem
• Cheetah teams
• Emergency response crews
• Military task forces
Parallel team Operate outside of regular organiza-
tional structures, engaging in tasks and
activities that exist in parallel to busi-
ness and management processes
• Quality circles
• Quality improvement teams
• Investigative and advisory boards
• Focus groups
Virtual team Composed of members who are sepa-
rated by organizational boundaries,
geography, and/or time and who inter-
act primarily through technology
• Any team that primarily interacts via
technology and engages in a virtual
setting

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 27 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.4 Identifying Team and Task Types

A team type can immediately impart some understanding of a team’s fundamental nature—
for example, knowing that a team is virtual tells us a lot about its structure and function. In the
same way, understanding the nature of a team’s primary task, how it’s expected to function,
and where its members will be pulled from, can help direct our decision making when we
need to select a team format.

No matter their type or associated tasks, teams are now recognized as the go-to unit for
fostering high performance, innovation, maintaining organizational competitiveness, and

Table 1.5: Summary of primary task types

Primary task type Description Examples of associated teams

Managing others Interpersonal behaviors related to
directing, supervising, or overseeing
the work of others in an authoritative
role

Management, supervisory, and project
management teams

Human service Direct social interactions in which a
team or team members provide goods
or services to an outside party

Customer service, sales

Negotiation Competitive social interactions
between two or more parties, in
which team members seek to clarify
and achieve common and indepen-
dent goals by resolving differences,
identifying and resolving conflicts,
and jointly establishing a compromise
or outcome agreeable to all parties

Negotiation, mediation, merger, acquisi-
tion, and advocate teams

Advising others Providing expert support or advice in
a consultative role lacking the author-
ity to act or make changes directly

Advisory boards, focus groups, quality
circles

Problem solving Discovering or generating facts, ideas,
options, alternatives, or processes
that resolve a problem or issue,
address a challenge, or satisfy a spe-
cific question or need.

Process and strategic management teams,
investigative teams, design and develop-
ment teams, and ideation and creativity
tanks

Decision making Evaluating and choosing between
two or more options to determine the
best solution or course of action for a
given problem or situation.

Decision-making boards, committees, and
commissions

Psychomotor
action

Manual and technical activities or
tasks involving calculated movements
or sequences requiring physical and
mental coordination, including the
manipulation of self, objects, and the
operation or use of devices and tools

Manufacturing, production, and mainte-
nance crews, orchestral and dance compa-
nies, military, sports, and surgical teams

Technical service Indirect technical support goods or
services provided to an outside party

IT and accounting teams, machine-
servicing crews, server provider and
service crews

Troubleshooting Dealing with specific and urgent
problems and issues

Operational task forces, cheetah teams,
military and police task forces

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 28 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Chapter 1 Summary and Resources

managing change. The potential gains for team members, managers, and the organization as
a whole are tremendous, but the pivotal term is potential. Teams only really pay off when they
function effectively.

Chapter 1 Summary and Resources

Groups and teams face a growing range and complexity of performance challenges and
obstacles that were virtually unheard of in the past. Many are short-term, ad hoc constructs,
put together for a specific task or purpose and expected to rapidly form, perform, and
adjourn. Some are made up of individuals who have worked in various combinations before;
others are pulled together across multiple departments or disciplines and include members
who are functionally or culturally diverse or are recruited from outside the organization.
The rise of the Internet as a global marketplace and virtual workspace has recontexualized
the operational contexts in which groups and teams operate.

Today’s operational contexts regularly include:

• multiple stakeholders,
• high-load information processing,
• dynamic performance parameters and contingencies,
• rapid changes in tempo, and
• blurred boundary lines between core team and auxiliary or transitory members.

Understanding the developmental processes groups and teams undergo—and the common
pitfalls they must overcome to successfully work together—is crucial to fostering effective
performance within this challenging organizational environment. In the next chapter, we
examine developmental processes, strategies to support and manage them, and guidelines
for building an effective team.

Chapter Summary

• Groups can take on almost any form and function. They can exist and perform in
many settings and are similarly flexible in composition, structure, and leadership.

• The relationships group members develop with each other and with the group as a
whole are consistently identifiable elements that enable us to identify groups and
other group-like collectives.

• In primary groups, common purpose revolves around maintaining member relation-
ships and well-being.

• In secondary groups, common purpose revolves around the performance of tasks and
activities rather than social relations and well-being, although these do impact the
group’s performance.

• Although primary groups can emerge from relationships formed in professional set-
tings, most of the workplace groups we engage with will be secondary groups.

• All groups have a purpose to exist, a composition of members with individual quali-
ties and needs, structure for interrelations, leadership from within and without, and
a context in which they are embedded. They engage in developmental and task-
oriented processes. As groups work toward a common purpose, members develop
patterns for behavior and interaction.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 29 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Chapter 1 Summary and Resources

• The way others perceive us affects the way we perceive ourselves. Whether others
place us in categories or groups perceived as positive or negative, this influences our
own perception and acceptance of membership.

• Shared social identity goes beyond social identification as members intuitively
acknowledge their interdependence within a collective entity with a common purpose
and shared fate.

• Group composition can be viewed as both a consequence of the social and psycho-
logical processes occurring as groups develop and a context influencing social and
behavioral phenomena, group structure, and processes.

• Diversity can be expressed as individual attributes, demographic characteristics, and
individual interests and needs.

• Small memberships limit the human resources available for collective efforts. Larger
membership can foster an easy division of labor that capitalizes on the unique con-
tributions of members; however, larger groups are more susceptible to process loss.

• In an organizational context, group structure exists both internally and externally.
Within the group, structure defines member roles and directs patterns of interde-
pendence and interaction. Externally, another structure provides a framework for
the group as a collective entity that fulfills a specific role and responsibilities within
the organization, acting in interdependent relations with other organizational units.

• Group roles can be divided into task and relationship roles.
• Task role activities include setting goals, coordinating meetings, encouraging

task-related feedback, and gathering and recording relevant information.
• Relationship role activities include facilitating knowledge and opinion shar-

ing during group discussions, mediating conflict, building trust, and managing
destructive norms.

• Group norms, which can be constructive or destructive, represent a blend of organi-
zationally imposed norms that stem from organizational rules, procedures, expecta-
tions, and the unique set of norms that emerge from the interactions that result from
being a member of a particular group.

• Group members develop meaningful interrelations through socioemotional and task
interdependence, communication, and group processes.

• Communication is a critical factor in shaping outcomes for the major developmental
and task-oriented group processes.

• Within group dynamics, group processes typically refer to the major developmental
and task-orientated processes.

• All groups have some form of leadership, whether they enact distinct leader/fol-
lower relationships or engage in collective decision making to direct the group.
Leadership can be designated by an organization or emergent within the dynamics of
a particular group.

• Groups are embedded within a developmental and operational context that funda-
mentally shapes group behavior and purpose.

• Formal and informal groups coexist within the workplace, and both are embedded
within the organizational context.

• Teams share basic characteristics with all groups, but as a distinct form of secondary
groups, teams have specific attributes that are entirely their own.

• Teams engage in collaborative performance and shared responsibility for outcomes.
This is the central tenet of teams and is their distinctive function within the task
group category.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 30 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Chapter 1 Summary and Resources

• Work groups and teams fundamentally differ along the basic elements of leadership,
accountability, and purpose.
• Work groups follow a single clear leader, who determines group purpose,

agenda, and approach, delegating individual tasks and roles. This format neces-
sitates individual accountability.

• Teams engage in shared leadership, collectively determining group purpose,
agenda, and approach, as well as individual tasks and roles. This format requires
mutual accountability.

• Work groups are almost always more efficient than teams, but teams are typically
more effective. Organizations should use a team when the task or solution is com-
plex, is nonroutine, or requires commitment and buy-in.

• Teams are categorized using a combination of their structural parameters and pri-
mary task type.

• Team types based on structural parameters describe the fundamental nature of a
team and how it is expected to work. The basic team types consist of work team,
project team, task force, parallel team, and virtual team.

• The primary task types consist of managing others, human service, negation, advis-
ing others, problem solving, decision making, psychomotor action, technical service,
and troubleshooting.

• Understanding the basic team and task types allows us to use a shared language to
generate an immediate and common understanding about the nature of a particular
team in terms of what it is expected to do and the way it is expected to work.

• Working in groups and teams has become standard operation in most of today’s
organizations. Understanding the developmental processes groups and teams
undergo, and the common pitfalls they must overcome to work together successfully,
is crucial if employees are to succeed in the contemporary workplace.

Posttest

1. Intimate friends and family exemplify members of __________.
a. a cohort
b. an aggregate
c. a primary group
d. a secondary group

2. Members of work groups are __________ accountable for their actions within the
group, while members of teams are __________ accountable for their actions.
a. independently; codependently
b. mutually; individually
c. codependently; independently
d. individually; mutually

3. Which of the following statements about socioemotional attachments is FALSE?
a. They motivate commitment within groups.
b. They encompass social and emotional dimensions.
c. They are associated with identification and cohesiveness.
d. They are only present in primary groups.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 31 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Chapter 1 Summary and Resources

4. People waiting in line at a coffee shop are an example of a(n) __________.
a. cohort
b. group
c. aggregate
d. team

5. Group diversity refers to all of the following EXCEPT __________.
a. age
b. personal beliefs
c. past work experience
d. relational bonds

6. Teams are often categorized according to __________.
a. membership diversity and leadership style
b. structural parameters and primary task type
c. cohesiveness and social group category
d. group processes and developmental context

7. Which of the following is NOT true of task force teams?
a. They are small.
b. They address several problems over an extended period of time.
c. Their members are experts in specialized areas.
d. Their members are pulled from across organizational and functional boundaries.

8. Entitativity within groups is a(n) __________.
a. effect of identification
b. demographic characteristic
c. leadership style
d. structural element

9. Collective behavior refers to the __________.
a. dynamics and processes that occur within groups
b. scientific study of aggregates and social categories
c. spontaneous coordination of people under a common impulse
d. willful pooling of effort, resources, responsibility for outcomes

10. Use a team when __________.
a. dealing with a simple problem with a clear solution
b. commitment does not affect the performance solution
c. the task or solution requires buy-in for successful implementation
d. dealing with a task or problem solution that is routine

Critical-Thinking Questions

1. Identify the following as groups, aggregates, or social categories and explain the
reasoning behind your choices:
• Intimate family and friends
• The tenants in an apartment complex

Answers: c, d, d, c, d, b, b, a, c, c.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 32 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Chapter 1 Summary and Resources

• Taken together, all of the people you have friended online
• Native Americans
• U.S. citizens
• The students in an online class

2. Describe:
• A group you desired membership in. What made that group seem valuable and

attractive at the time?
• A group others placed you within. Was it perceived as a positive or negative

group? How did you feel about being placed within it, and did you consciously or
unconsciously accept others’ assessment of your membership?

3. Workplace groups behave differently, follow different rules, and use different meth-
ods to select members and motivate them than the groups we involve in our pri-
vate lives. With few exceptions, the groups we find in the workplace are secondary
groups, yet this category also includes social activity and friendship groups. Using
the concepts introduced in this chapter, explain why workplace groups behave so
differently than the secondary groups in our private lives.

4. Both work groups and teams can be effective when applied appropriately to a task
or problem. Describe a situation in which you were part of a work group or a team
that was applied ineffectively for a given situation. Would the alternative group
model have been more effective? Why?

Additional Resources
Links

• Identity Crisis: Are We a TEAM or a WORKING GROUP?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/smartwork/201001/
identity-crisis-are-we-team-or-working-group

• Differences Between Group Work & Team Work:
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/differences-between-group-work-team-
work-11004.html

• Why Self-Managed Teams Are the Future of Business:
http://www.inc.com/chuck-blakeman/why-self-managed-teams-are-the-future-of-
business.html

Videos

• SHRM Team Videos:
http://www.shrm.org/multimedia/video/vid_archive/pages/091207_sookman
.aspx

Answers and Rejoinders to Chapter Pretest

1. False. A group is more than a collection of people who share some characteristic
or circumstance. A group is an identifiable social unit in which members of
an interdependent collective share some common interest or purpose and
engage in meaningful interactions.

2. True. The categories or groups assigned to us by others—whether perceived as
positive or negative—influence our own perception and acceptance of mem-
bership. High school cliques offer a classic example of this: Those labeled as
geeks, freaks, jocks, skaters, and so on will often, over time, accept and even

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 33 8/19/16 9:37 AM

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/smartwork/201001/identity-crisis-are-we-team-or-working-group

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/differences-between-group-work-team-work-11004.html

http://www.inc.com/chuck-blakeman/why-self-managed-teams-are-the-future-of-business.html

http://www.shrm.org/multimedia/video/vid_archive/pages/091207_sookman.aspx

Chapter 1 Summary and Resources

describe themselves in such terms, regardless of whether they originally
desired these associations.

3. False. Formal and informal groups coexist within the workplace, and each can have
a profound impact on individual members’ performance and the organiza-
tion as a whole.

4. False. Work groups and teams are characterized by significant differences across
the properties of leadership, accountability, and purpose.

5. False. Teams share certain qualities that set them apart from other groups, but
teams are not identical. There are various team types that describe a team’s
fundamental nature and how it is expected to work.

Rejoinders to Posttest

1. Primary groups represent long-standing, meaningful associations between a small,
tight-knit group of people, such as close friends and family.

2. Work group members are individually accountable for their actions within the group
because the leader holds sole responsibility for assigning roles and responsibilities.
Team members are mutually accountable for their actions within the team because
all members engage in shared leadership.

3. Through the processes that foster identification and cohesiveness, group members
form attachments that are both social and emotional. These socioemotional attach-
ments motivate recognition of and commitment to collective well-being and pur-
pose. Although such attachments tend to be stronger in primary groups, they are
characteristics of all groups.

4. An aggregate is a collection of people in the same place at the same time who may or
may not be engaged in similar activity.

5. Diversity refers to the degree of variation among members and can be expressed in
terms of demographic characteristics and individual members’ attributes, interests,
and needs.

6. Teams are often categorized using a combination of their structural parameters and
primary task type. Team types based on structural parameters describe teams on a
fundamental level, while primary task types act as descriptive qualifiers.

7. Task force teams are small, specialized teams composed of expert members tempo-
rarily pulled across organizational and functional boundaries to deal with a single
urgent task or problem.

8. Entitativity is an effect of identification and represents an internal and external per-
ception that the group operates as a collective entity and that actions and influences
that affect any of the members have consequences for all.

9. Collective behavior describes the spontaneously and temporarily coordinated activi-
ties or actions of people influenced by a common impulse.

10. Teams are known for their adaptability, member commitment, and ability to address
complex issues. Use a team when the task or solution is complex, nonroutine, and/
or there is no clear answer. Use a team when buy-in is required for successful
implementation.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 34 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Chapter 1 Summary and Resources

Key Terms and Concepts

aggregate A collection of people who are in
the same place at the same time.

coaction A type of collective behavior in
which people perform similar activities or
tasks alongside others but not together.

collaborative performance The willful
contribution of interdependent and joint
effort, pooled knowledge and resources, and
shared responsibility for outcomes.

collective behavior The spontaneously and
temporarily coordinated activities or actions
of people influenced by a common impulse.

communication The comprehensive
exchange of interpersonal, contextual, and
task-related information; a key element in
any group setting.

cross-functional Regarding group mem-
bership, drawn from different functional or
departmental backgrounds.

designated leaders Leaders assigned
to fulfill leadership roles and managerial
responsibilities based on organizational
standards, hierarchy, and needs.

diversity The degree of variation among
members.

effectiveness The degree to which a per-
formance outcome satisfies project require-
ments, the relative quality and timeliness
of a solution or output, and the quality of
member interaction.

efficiency Greater production or perfor-
mance output with less input of resources
such as time, money, and employee labor.

emergent leaders Leaders who develop
naturally out of interpersonal interactions,
as members share leadership responsibili-
ties and/or particular individuals begin to
fulfill leadership roles and responsibilities
over time.

empowered To be given the authority
to share varying degrees of leadership
roles and managerial responsibilities with
designated team leaders and/or external
managers.

entitativity The internal and external
perception that a group operates as a collec-
tive entity and that actions and influences
that affect any of the members have conse-
quences for all.

formal groups Groups that are intention-
ally composed and structured to realize
specific tasks, projects, or goals as deter-
mined by the needs of an organization.
Sports teams, entertainment groups, aca-
demic classes, focus groups, committees,
work groups, crews, and teams are all formal
groups.

group An identifiable social unit in which
members of an interdependent collective
share some common interest or purpose and
engage in meaningful interactions.

group cohesion A critical element defined
by the total strength of members’ socioemo-
tional identification and attachment to the
group, entitativity in thought and action,
valuation and commitment to group goals,
and the group’s structural integrity.

group composition The characteristics and
size of a membership.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 35 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Chapter 1 Summary and Resources

group context The developmental and
operational setting in which groups are
embedded.

group dynamics The complex forces acting
internally and externally on groups from
development to dispersion; emergent behav-
ior and interaction patterns among group
members and the processes they engage in.

group norms Collectively accepted stan-
dards governing member behavior within
the group, given their relative position and
responsibilities, as well as the connections
they share.

group processes Specific sets of behaviors
and interactions that contribute to the real-
ization of a particular agenda or outcome.

group structure The framework of roles,
norms, and interrelations that regulates
interactions, influencing and organizing the
functioning of a group.

human relations movement A 1930s
movement that emphasized the importance
of social relations in the workplace and
investing organizational interest in factors
such as workers’ motivational influences,
employee participation, and job satisfaction.
Productivity research moved away from the
idea of workers as automatons to examine
the underlying dynamics and processes sur-
rounding group performance and the socio-
emotional causes for high and low produc-
tivity levels.

identification A multidimensional process
within groups, defining the extent to which
group membership influences our self-
perception, and the sense of shared social
identity or “us-ness” within the group.

individual accountability Working condi-
tions in which group members are respon-
sible only for their own performance of
assigned tasks and roles. This is an integral
property of work groups, wherein the group
leader is also held individually accountable
for the work group’s ultimate performance.

informal groups The natural outcome of
consistent interaction between people with
mutual interests. Friendship groups, book
clubs, running and biking groups, and the set
of coworkers we carpool and lunch with are
all informal groups.

interdependence A state of mutual depen-
dence in which others influence, and are
influenced by, our thoughts, feelings, actions,
outcomes, and experience.

mutual accountability Working conditions
in which group members are accountable
to each other for their individual perfor-
mance of tasks and roles and are also col-
lectively accountable for group performance
outcomes and the success or failure of the
group as a whole. This is an integral prop-
erty of teams.

norms Evaluative standards; the implicit
and explicit expectations or social rules for
behavior and interpersonal interactions.

organizational context The compre-
hensive culture, systems, structure, pro-
cesses, and resources in place within the
organization.

primary groups Groups that represent
long-standing meaningful associations
between a small, tight-knit group of people,
such as close friends and family, who fre-
quently interact and influence each other
and maintain association regardless of
physical location.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 36 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Chapter 1 Summary and Resources

primary task types A basic categorization
of the prime objectives teams are expected
to achieve or perform.

process loss Expressed as reduced effi-
ciency and effectiveness due to nonproduc-
tive actions, operations, or dynamics, includ-
ing reduced member motivation and effort,
dysfunctional processes, faulty coordination,
and ineffectual leadership.

role A set of expectations attached to a
social position, governing the behavior of
the position holder in relation to others and
vice versa.

role differentiation A process that occurs
as patterns of behavior become habitual, the
number of roles within the group increases,
and the expectations, responsibilities, and
prerogatives attached to each role become
more specific.

scientific management A philosophy cen-
tered on optimization through rigid stan-
dardization, time management, and worker
supervision.

secondary groups Groups that are larger,
less intimate, and more deliberately orga-
nized than primary groups. They tend to be
impermanent and are also known as task
groups because member interactions typi-
cally center on the performance of specific
tasks or activities. Social clubs, work groups,
boards, committees, and teams are common
examples of task groups.

self-regulatory work group An early ver-
sion of modern work teams, introduced as a
viable organizational concept by Eric Trist
and Ken Bamforth in the 1940s and 1950s.

social categories Scientifically or socially
imposed collections of individuals who share
at least one characteristic but can otherwise
be quite diverse.

social identification A process that occurs
when members identify themselves as part
of a distinct collective with shared qualities,
attributes, and ways of relating and inter-
nally accept the group as an extension of self
and a legitimate influence on self-concept
and self-esteem.

social identity theory A theory that
assumes that social categories and groups
influence the self-concept and self-esteem
of their members, encouraging them to
enhance the positive value of their groups
and to join groups held in high esteem.

socioemotional The social and emotional
dimensions of an interaction, exchange, or
experience.

structural parameters A set of guidelines
that define the team’s role, interrelation, and
interdependence within the organization.

team A small group in which members
engaging complementary skills are com-
mitted to, and hold themselves mutually
accountable for, collaboration toward a
meaningful common purpose along a collec-
tively determined agenda and approach.

teamwork The process by which group
members combine knowledge, skills, and
abilities; effort; and resources through a
coordinated series of actions and interac-
tions to produce an outcome.

work group A small group in which skilled
members are held individually accountable
for specific tasks determined by the pur-
pose, agenda, and approach of a single, clear
leader.

worldview Our underlying assumptions of
what the world is and how it should be.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 37 8/19/16 9:37 AM

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 38 8/19/16 9:37 AM

2Group Development

Jupiterimages/Stockbyte/Thinkstock

Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Discuss and evaluate Tuckman’s sequential stage theory.

• Contrast sequential stage theory with Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory.

• Assess the practical implications of the team evaluation and maturation model.

• Identify critical elements in setting the stage for effective teamwork.

• Correlate commitment, attachment, and trust with shared leadership, meaningful and measurable perfor-
mance goals, and mutual accountability.

• Describe five major sources of objections to group work and teamwork, as well as strategies for overcoming
them.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 39 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Introduction

Pretest

1. Performing is the final stage in a group’s

development. T/F

2. Teams should be as large as possible to maximize skill potential. T/F
3. Teams require support from organizational systems in order to function effectively. T/F
4. Team building is complete once members have been selected and resources have been

acquired. T/F
5. Lack of positive group or team experience can be a major obstacle to team

development. T/F

Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.

Introduction
As senior manager at a large marketing company, Tai has successfully overseen the
development of several small groups into high-functioning teams. She was recently asked
to form a new group that will create a marketing campaign for a struggling product
line. Although past experience tells Tai that this will likely call for a team, she begins the
team-building process by first confirming that a team best suits the project’s complexity.
Once she does so, Tai determines that the structural parameters surrounding the team’s
project, and the essential nature of what it is expected to do, call for a design team in
which members with problem-solving experience and skills are particularly desirable. Tai
meets with potential team leaders, both in-house and out-house, to discuss the resources
they will need. They conclude that understanding and addressing the issues surrounding
the product’s current market struggles will require the team to coordinate and exchange
information with a knowledgeable individual or group within the client organization.
They discuss potential team leader and member combinations that can skillfully accom-
plish this.

The challenge is to keep the team small but represent enough KSA combinations so as to
support an effective solution. Tai likes to keep teams as small as possible because she’s
found that they work more quickly. Furthermore, her company is busy—wasting human
resources is not an option. After a lively discussion on how various members might work
together and complement each other’s KSAs, Tai selects a team leader—Maya—along
with the other members. The discussion also helps clarify the major issues that need to be
addressed to meet the team’s objective and which activities will support this. The process
is helpful for Maya because she needs to explain the project to her new team.

Although Tai will continue to check in on Maya and the team’s progress, she knows her
role in planning the team is, for the most part, over. Maya will take over ongoing resource
planning and management and continue the process of team building. Tai knows that
both Maya and her team members are experienced in this process and have worked
together in many combinations before. In fact, some of the most difficult work of develop-
ing the team is already done—the team has a sturdy foundation of commitment, attach-
ment, and trust thanks to past work experiences, and their socioemotional interdepen-
dencies are already strong. The team members trust Maya’s leadership and know the
teamwork process well—she won’t be alone in developing her team.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 40 8/19/16 9:36 AM

How Do Groups Form?

In Chapter 1 we explored the fundamental qualities of groups and teams, the reasons
we form work groups and teams, and the practical differences between them. In Chap-
ter 2, we examine group development and the concepts that support effective team
building by addressing another set of fundamental questions: How do groups form?
How do they develop over time? How can we build an effective team? And, why do
some people avoid groups and teams?

Group development theorists have struggled to answer these questions ever since
group dynamics emerged as a prominent field of study. We will seek to gain some
understanding of these questions by exploring major theories of group development,
methods for building effective groups and teams, and common obstacles to group
development.

2.1 How Do Groups Form?
We have looked at different types of groups and explored how their members can have varying
degrees of relatedness, cohesiveness, and interdependence. We know that informal and for-
mal groups have very different developmental contexts. Despite these differences, all groups
have some significant elements in common. Groups are composed of people, and people relate
and interact in specific ways. Group development theories seek to identify and describe recur-
ring patterns of structural change and interactions throughout a group’s existence. Although
the basic concepts may be loosely applied to any group, most developmental theories are cre-
ated in reference to task groups and outline the group’s formation and progression through
performance, goal attainment, and dissolution. Recall from Chapter 1 that task groups include
most of the informal and formal groups found in the workplace, such as social clubs, interest
groups, lunch buddies, boards, committees, work groups, and teams.

Task groups feature two synergistic elements that evolve over time (Seers & Woodruff, 1997):

1. The interpersonal dynamics between members as they develop into a cohesive
group or team

2. The operational dynamics that describe the group’s progression toward its perfor-
mance goals

Group development theories are numerous and varied. Some theorists choose to focus on the
progression of interpersonal dynamics (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977); others
on the operational dynamics (Gersick, 1988); and a growing number are coming to view the
process as an integrated whole (Benefield & Utley, 2007; Morgan, Salas, & Glickman, 1993).
The three theories presented in the following sections were selected because they represent
each of these perspectives and because they are relevant to understanding and working in
organizational groups and teams. The first of these, Tuckman’s sequential stage theory, is
the most well known and represents a large body of accepted theories that outline group
development as occurring in sequential stages. The second, Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium
theory, offers an alternate view of the developmental process as one that occurs in dramatic
leaps at predictable intervals within the performance timeline. Finally, the team evaluation
and maturation model integrates Tuckman’s and Gersick’s theories into a new and more com-
prehensive whole. We will examine each of these theories in turn, beginning with the oldest
and most influential.

Section 2.1

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 41 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?

Tuckman’s Sequential Stage Theory
Tuckman’s sequential stage theory assumes that group development follows a sequen-
tial process in which group members enact a series of five developmental stages, known as
forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen
1977). Within these stages, members enter a group, experience a period of conflict while
adjusting to their new setting, establish shared scripts and group norms, proceed to perfor-
mance and goal achieving, and eventually dissolve the group. Table 2.1 models Tuckman’s
five stages of development and describes them by their outcome, associated activities, and
primary interpersonal dynamic.

Mapping the Developmental Processes
Tuckman’s sequential stage theory focuses on the progression of interpersonal dynamics
between group members. The five-stage model represents a simplified outline of the develop-
mental processes that occur over the course of a group’s existence. By examining the essential
nature of the first four process areas, we can identify cohesion as the overarching metapro-
cess (Snowdon & Kawalek, 2003) that defines and guides the activities within the stages of
forming, norming, storming, and performing.

When new groups come into existence, group cohesion occurs over a series of developmen-
tal processes encompassing member identification and the emergence of group structure. In
relation to Tuckman’s stages, cohesion entails:

• Social identification. Represented in Tuckman’s theory by the forming stage, individ-
uals come together and acknowledge membership in a distinct group.

• Shared social identity, status, and role clarification. Represented by the storming
stage, members shift from I to we thinking. Script clashes, status balancing, and role
adjustments also occur.

• Entitativity and norms. Represented by the norming stage, members acknowledge
that the group works toward a coordinated objective or common good and develops
procedural and behavioral norms that support this outcome.

• Positive interdependence. Represented by the performing stage, members engage in
cooperative action that focuses on task work and goal attainment.

When new members join an existing group, they follow a slightly different identification and
integration process, and group cohesion begins with socialization. Broadly defined, social-
ization represents the process by which newcomers assimilate the attitudes, behaviors, and
knowledge required to successfully participate as a member (Morrison, 1993; Ahuja & Gal-
vin, 2003). During this time new members are extremely malleable and open to guidance; in
effect they enter the group and go directly from forming to norming. However, as they emerge
from this initial period of observation and assimilation and become more confident in their
ability to assume membership, they may begin to question their identity and role within the
group. Group process is then shaken by a brief devolvement back into storming, followed by a
relatively rapid re-evolution to norming and performing. The group as a whole can also expe-
rience this if one or more of the members dramatically shift roles (such as becoming team

Table 2.1: Tuckman’s five stages of development

Stage Outcome Activities Interpersonal dynamic

Forming Individuals come
together and acknowl-
edge membership in a
distinct group.

Task-orienting behav-
iors: Identification of
the group’s objective,
structural parameters,
primary task type, and
method of interaction.

Uncertainty: Members
try to understand the
“ground rules” of belong-
ing to the group, how to
approach group process
and performance, and
what they need to do to
achieve group goals.

Storming Members shift from I
to we thinking; script
clashes, status balanc-
ing, and role adjustment
occur.

Boundary testing and
redefinition: There is con-
flict between members,
role emergence, and task
designation.

Resistance: Members
chafe against new
constraints associated
with the group context,
assigned roles, script dif-
ferences, and perceived
status within the group.

Norming Members acknowledge
that the group works
toward a coordinated
objective or common
good. They develop pro-
cedural and behavioral
norms that support this
outcome.

Script unification: Assimi-
lation and emergence of
group norms.

Task and socioemo-
tional interdependence
increase.

Cooperation: Members
accept the group and seek
acceptance via observa-
tion and open exchange
of information, feedback,
and norms.

Performing Members achieve positive
interdependence and
focus energies toward
goal accomplishment.

Participation in task-
oriented processes and
activities: Behaviors and
activities geared toward
productivity and goal
attainment.

Positive interdepen-
dence: Members engage
in cooperative action,
group energy is chan-
neled toward task work,
and the group becomes
a functional instrument
for accomplishing its
objective.

Adjourning Members physically and
emotionally disengage
from the group as mem-
bership ends.

Physical and emotional
closure: Task activi-
ties and behaviors are
terminated. Members
prepare to resume pre-
group duties and roles
and disengage from their
roles and relationships
within the group. Mem-
bers are recognized for
their participation and
achievement and achieve
emotional closure.

Evaluation and reflec-
tion: Members assess
their participation and
personal development
within the group, group
process, and performance
outcome.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 42 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?
Tuckman’s Sequential Stage Theory
Tuckman’s sequential stage theory assumes that group development follows a sequen-
tial process in which group members enact a series of five developmental stages, known as
forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen
1977). Within these stages, members enter a group, experience a period of conflict while
adjusting to their new setting, establish shared scripts and group norms, proceed to perfor-
mance and goal achieving, and eventually dissolve the group. Table 2.1 models Tuckman’s
five stages of development and describes them by their outcome, associated activities, and
primary interpersonal dynamic.
Mapping the Developmental Processes
Tuckman’s sequential stage theory focuses on the progression of interpersonal dynamics
between group members. The five-stage model represents a simplified outline of the develop-
mental processes that occur over the course of a group’s existence. By examining the essential
nature of the first four process areas, we can identify cohesion as the overarching metapro-
cess (Snowdon & Kawalek, 2003) that defines and guides the activities within the stages of
forming, norming, storming, and performing.
When new groups come into existence, group cohesion occurs over a series of developmen-
tal processes encompassing member identification and the emergence of group structure. In
relation to Tuckman’s stages, cohesion entails:
• Social identification. Represented in Tuckman’s theory by the forming stage, individ-
uals come together and acknowledge membership in a distinct group.
• Shared social identity, status, and role clarification. Represented by the storming
stage, members shift from I to we thinking. Script clashes, status balancing, and role
adjustments also occur.
• Entitativity and norms. Represented by the norming stage, members acknowledge
that the group works toward a coordinated objective or common good and develops
procedural and behavioral norms that support this outcome.
• Positive interdependence. Represented by the performing stage, members engage in
cooperative action that focuses on task work and goal attainment.
When new members join an existing group, they follow a slightly different identification and
integration process, and group cohesion begins with socialization. Broadly defined, social-
ization represents the process by which newcomers assimilate the attitudes, behaviors, and
knowledge required to successfully participate as a member (Morrison, 1993; Ahuja & Gal-
vin, 2003). During this time new members are extremely malleable and open to guidance; in
effect they enter the group and go directly from forming to norming. However, as they emerge
from this initial period of observation and assimilation and become more confident in their
ability to assume membership, they may begin to question their identity and role within the
group. Group process is then shaken by a brief devolvement back into storming, followed by a
relatively rapid re-evolution to norming and performing. The group as a whole can also expe-
rience this if one or more of the members dramatically shift roles (such as becoming team
Table 2.1: Tuckman’s five stages of development
Stage Outcome Activities Interpersonal dynamic
Forming Individuals come
together and acknowl-
edge membership in a
distinct group.
Task-orienting behav-
iors: Identification of
the group’s objective,
structural parameters,
primary task type, and
method of interaction.
Uncertainty: Members
try to understand the
“ground rules” of belong-
ing to the group, how to
approach group process
and performance, and
what they need to do to
achieve group goals.
Storming Members shift from I
to we thinking; script
clashes, status balanc-
ing, and role adjustment
occur.
Boundary testing and
redefinition: There is con-
flict between members,
role emergence, and task
designation.
Resistance: Members
chafe against new
constraints associated
with the group context,
assigned roles, script dif-
ferences, and perceived
status within the group.
Norming Members acknowledge
that the group works
toward a coordinated
objective or common
good. They develop pro-
cedural and behavioral
norms that support this
outcome.
Script unification: Assimi-
lation and emergence of
group norms.
Task and socioemo-
tional interdependence
increase.
Cooperation: Members
accept the group and seek
acceptance via observa-
tion and open exchange
of information, feedback,
and norms.
Performing Members achieve positive
interdependence and
focus energies toward
goal accomplishment.
Participation in task-
oriented processes and
activities: Behaviors and
activities geared toward
productivity and goal
attainment.
Positive interdepen-
dence: Members engage
in cooperative action,
group energy is chan-
neled toward task work,
and the group becomes
a functional instrument
for accomplishing its
objective.
Adjourning Members physically and
emotionally disengage
from the group as mem-
bership ends.
Physical and emotional
closure: Task activi-
ties and behaviors are
terminated. Members
prepare to resume pre-
group duties and roles
and disengage from their
roles and relationships
within the group. Mem-
bers are recognized for
their participation and
achievement and achieve
emotional closure.
Evaluation and reflec-
tion: Members assess
their participation and
personal development
within the group, group
process, and performance
outcome.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 43 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?

leader or group facilitator) and everyone must resocialize to the new conditions (Moreland &
Levine, 2002).

Examining Tuckman’s Fifth Stage
Tuckman’s theory suggests that a group will dissipate after accomplishing its primary task or
objective; however, many collective goals are only temporarily realized. Or, after achieving its
initial goals, a group may face new goals. A professional baseball team’s ultimate goal is to win
the World Series, and this goal carries over from season to season, regardless of whether they
win or lose in any given year. Winning simply confirms the team’s existence. Although chronic
losses can affect the team’s value and popularity, failure is more likely to cause changes in
membership or leadership (such as changes in players or coaches) than total dissolution of
the group. Likewise, an executive team’s primary goal is to enhance the productivity and via-
bility of the organization as a whole. Measurable by the company’s quarterly and yearly bot-
tom line, this goal simply “reboots” as the team turns its focus to supporting and enhancing
that growth over the next fiscal year.

Groups like these may never adjourn. A sports team may change members, leadership, and
even affiliation without losing its identity as a team. Similarly, top management, executive
teams, and advisory boards continue to exist as long as their organization remains intact.
Many manufacturing work groups and teams may for all intents and purposes do the same.
Members of groups that do not adjourn may instead face a continuing sequence of group
socialization and resocialization as new members join and assimilate and established mem-
bers adjust to changing personalities, roles, expectations, and norms (Moreland & Levine,
1989; 2002).

Reality Check: Socialization—the Tuckman Spiral
All groups have a starting point. Some, especially those in the workplace, never end. Compa-
nies continually attract new hires, train them, help them fit in, and encourage them to grow
with the organization. Socializing new group members can be difficult for both new and exist-
ing members. As they work with new hires, existing employees may feel like they are reliving
the stages of group development as they adjust to newcomers’ behaviors and beliefs and help
them assimilate into the group, workplace environment, and organizational culture.

It can also be a struggle for new members to find their place in a group that already has estab-
lished roles and norms. Newcomers have their own ideas on how things should be done, based
on their previous experiences. They may hold attitudes or expectations formed by their expe-
riences in other groups or conversely have no prior group experience and need to come to
terms with their new role and identity. Existing members may forget that newcomers need
time to assimilate to group norms and procedures and may thus view the socialization process
as an unnecessary or annoying setback in their formerly smooth-running operation.

In ongoing groups in which membership fluctuates over time, each new member experiences
a miniature spiral of forming, storming, norming, performing, and possibly adjourning. Tuck-
man’s stages may seem to never stop. This is referred to as the Tuckman spiral. The average

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 44 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?

Practical Implications of Tuckman’s Theory
Tuckman’s theory tends to view groups as composed of strangers coming together for a sin-
gular purpose and dissolving after that objective is accomplished. Tuckman developed his
theory based on a comprehensive synthesis of his own and 50 other empirical studies on
group development, during a time when study groups tended to be either artificially com-
posed or short term, chosen specifically so that they could be observed from beginning to
end. While an organization that is establishing new groups and teams may do so from scratch,
employees more typically join preexisting groups or form new groups in which some or all of
the members have worked together before. In these situations, familiarity with other mem-
bers and preexisting organizational frameworks for group hierarchy, procedure, and roles
can help formal groups shortcut through the forming, storming, and norming phases. This
does not mean that they skip these phases entirely, however.

When we enter a group, we bring with us our own personal scripts, or procedural and nor-
mative templates for behavior and interaction within groups. Based on our past experiences
and current expectations, scripts represent our view of how we and others should act in a
given situation (Dennis, Garfield, & Reinicke, 2003). Members with similar or shared scripts
tend to progress easily through the initial developmental processes and move quickly into
the performing phase (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985). Within Tuckman’s model, script
unification—the development or assimilation of shared scripts—occurs during the norm-
ing phase. This is essentially what happens during the initial phase of socialization as well;
however, once a new member becomes familiar with the group’s existing scripts, the person
may compare them unfavorably to previously held scripts and attempt to insert these into the
current group. This results in a renewed cycle of storming and norming. Although the storm-
ing process can be eased in formal groups by preset organizational structure and guidelines,
members may still chafe at unsatisfying or ill-fitting roles, and status balancing will occur as
members establish informal hierarchies based on personal status within the group. While the

time from the start of socialization to full productivity of external new hires can range from 8
to 20 weeks for clerical positions and up to 26 weeks for executives (Williams, 2003). During
this time, organizational group and team members must be prepared to support joining and
adjourning members and the group’s evolving developmental needs.

Critical-Thinking Questions

1. Describe a time that you joined an existing group or were present in a group that took in

new members. Using your knowledge of Tuckman’s stages and theory, describe some of
the socialization dynamics that occurred.

2. Did the group experience any of Tuckman’s stages with the incoming members? If so,
which ones?

3. How did existing members treat the new members? In what ways did they address the
competing needs for socialization and productivity?

4. Looking back on that situation with the knowledge you have now, what would you
change if you could? What would you suggest group members in a similar situation do
to help their group progress more effectively toward productive performance?

Reality Check: Socialization—the Tuckman Spiral (continued)

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 45 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?

process areas represented by Tuckman’s sequential stages are all present within the social-
ization process, they do not follow the rigid patterning envisioned in Tuckman’s theory.

Tuckman’s work thus has its limitations, but it remains a popular and useful developmental
theory. Our modeling of the stages provides practical descriptors of the outcomes, activities,
and dynamics inherent in the cohesion process and when group membership adjourns. Our
exploration of these and related concepts also offer some useful takeaways:

• Incoming members bring procedural and normative scripts based on past experi-
ences and current expectations (Dennis et al., 2003).

• Members with similar or shared scripts tend to progress easily through the initial
developmental processes and move quickly into the performing phase (Bettenhau-
sen & Murnighan, 1985).

• There will always be some degree of storming and norming as members work to
generate or assimilate shared scripts.

• Storming is essentially a competition of personal status and scripts; when status
balancing is complete, the group moves toward script unification, and the norming
process begins.

• New members joining established groups could be initially set back if their personal
scripts are misaligned with the established shared script.

• Established members could resent the apparent process and performance loss that
results from incorporating new group members.

• Preexisting organizational frameworks for group hierarchy, procedure, and roles can
help formal groups shortcut through the forming, storming, and norming phases by
speeding the evolution of shared scripts.

• Though not all groups dissolve after performance, adjourning remains a vital pro-
cess, as even permanent groups lose established members and welcome new ones.

• The process of group socialization and resocialization can be continuous if the group
outlasts its original membership.

What does this mean for group members and managers? Developing group cohesion is the
core purpose behind the forming, storming, and norming stages, and script unification is their
major outcome. Shared scripts become the primary tools by which group members effectively
coordinate their performance toward a common purpose or goal. Support for group cohesion
and script unification can include the following:

• Preexisting organizational frameworks for group hierarchy, procedure, and roles
• Open acceptance and facilitation of constructive conflict, knowledge sharing, and

member feedback
• Encouragement of new and established members to view socialization and resocial-

ization as an important part of the performance process and as an opportunity to
reinvestigate existing scripts and norms, invigorating the group with new KSAs

• Acknowledgment of the importance of adjourning activities whether the entire
group is dissolving or individual members are moving on

The labels and concepts in Tuckman’s theory are practical and easy to remember, making
it perhaps the most popular and widely taught group developmental theory to date. How-
ever, not everyone subscribes to the idea of steady progression over time. Focusing on task-
oriented development, Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory suggests that group devel-
opment occurs as a sort of growth spurt, a dramatic evolution tied to a specific time in the
group’s performance schedule.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 46 8/19/16 9:36 AM

First
Meeting

Objective
Completion

Phase One

Crisis and
Transition

Midpoint Phase Two

Performance Timeline

Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?

Gersick’s Punctuated Equilibrium Theory
Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory proposes that groups consistently experience
two major phases in which working methods, interaction styles, and project direction remain
relatively stable. These are separated by a crisis and transition at precisely the midpoint of
the group’s official performance deadline (see Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1: Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory

Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory assigns critical value to key interactions at the group’s first
meeting and midpoint transition.

Source: Based on Gray, C.F., & Larson, E.C. (2006). Project management (3rd ed., p. 346). New York: McGraw-Hill.

First
Meeting
Objective
Completion
Phase One
Crisis and
Transition
Midpoint Phase Two
Performance Timeline

Phase one takes place during the first half of the performance timeline. Rather than experienc-
ing the open-ended script comparison, testing, and unification suggested in the initial stages
of most sequential theories, Gersick found that the group’s approach at their first meeting
sets the script for group interaction and work through the timeline’s midpoint. Phase one
work is not characterized by any particular process or even specific productive value; some
groups work steadily toward a goal and on tasks determined in the first meeting, while others
spend the entire first phase in an indecisive haze.

Midpoint transition occurs at the timeline’s midpoint. At this point, Gersick observed that
groups consistently suffer a brief crisis in which members recognize time constraints and feel
the urgency of approaching deadlines. During the midpoint transition, group members evalu-
ate work completion and direction, reconnect with outside authorities or influences, reformu-
late their shared scripts, and often abandon old patterns in favor of radical new perspectives.

Phase two occurs during the second half of the performance timeline. In this phase, groups
undergo a period of productivity reminiscent of Tuckman’s performing stage, as they

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 47 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?

implement the decisions made at the midpoint transition. The radical shifts in perspectives
or performance agenda at transition may result in a shuffling of roles or a universal change
of group interaction. As shown in Figure 2.1, phase two culminates in completing the perfor-
mance objective.

Critical Analysis of Punctuated Equilibrium
Whereas Tuckman’s theory represents group development as a graduated, linear process,
Gersick’s theory assigns critical value to key interactions at two concrete points in the group’s
timeline: first meeting and midpoint transition. Gersick observed that by the end of the group’s
first meeting, members have naturally formed complete scripts for phase one interactions
and group work. Rather than adopting a lengthy process of script exploration, testing, and
unification, Gersick’s theory suggests that members quickly throw together a unique tempo-
rary script that depends on unpredictable combinations of existing individual and organiza-
tional scripts, situational conditions, and member dynamics. For example, Gersick observed
that if one member tended to dominate and direct the discussion during the initial meeting,
this pattern would continue throughout phase one interactions—although the dominating
member was not always the same individual (Gersick, 1988). Unlike the sequential models,
there is no proposed predictability for what member interactions might entail during the
first meeting or the ensuing work phase. Some groups may begin by mapping out the overall
work plan, spend the entire initial phase simply clarifying what they are trying to achieve,
or jump right into task planning and assignation. Others may experience a period similar to
storming in which they address perceived conflicts with project scripts, member roles, or task
parameters.

The midpoint transition is characterized by a sudden spike in concern for project deadlines, a
use-it-or-lose-it practicality with respect to work completed thus far, and renewed awareness
and acceptance of external influences, authority figures, and aid. At this point, the temporary
script the group initially adopted is confirmed or adapted and made permanent or discarded
for a new version. According to Gersick’s model, regardless of performance setting, project
type, or speed with which members move from planning to implementation, groups consis-
tently experience a crisis at the midlife transition point and thereafter follow modified tactics
or project direction. Subsequent studies have indicated that while groups consistently experi-
ence a performance pause and reevaluation at the temporal midpoint, radical revision is not
a given. This suggests that the midpoint transition represents an opportunity for change but
does not guarantee one (Okhuysen & Eisenhardt, 2002; Okhuysen & Waller, 2002).

Further testing of Gersick’s theory (Dennis et al., 2003; Seers & Woodruff, 1997) suggests
that groups follow the punctuated equilibrium model when the rapid development of shared
scripts is:

• facilitated (for example, in groups in which members have worked together before
or that formed using preexisting organizational hierarchies, procedures, and
norms); and

• required (for example, when groups are under a rigid and urgent timeline that forces
immediate task orientation and action).

Groups in which members were neither under extreme scheduling and time demands nor
aided by preexisting or previously shared scripts follow developmental patterns more akin to
Tuckman’s stages (Dennis et al., 2003).

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 48 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?

Practical Implications of Gersick’s Theory
Gersick’s observations offer significant practical value in understanding key points in a
group’s performance. Using the two critical interaction points in Gersick’s timeline as guide-
posts, group members and leaders can plan for certain types of behavior, interaction dynam-
ics, and performance input.

1. The first meeting creates a template for phase one interactions. Group members
and leaders should be prepared to set the tone for phase one interactions at the
first meeting and to work on foundational tasks and issues that will foster a strong
midpoint transition. This includes clarifying performance goals, facilitating effec-
tive communication and conflict resolution among members, and settling issues of
hierarchy and role differentiation within the group.

2. The midpoint transition represents an opportunity for change. Gersick’s (1988)
research suggests that the midpoint transition can be utilized as a specific and pre-
dictable point in project performance when group members are most open to exter-
nal influence and intervention. For this reason, she suggests that the midpoint tran-
sition presents external leaders with a unique opportunity to influence changes in
project direction or performance agenda and should be carefully considered, as once
passed, the opportunity will not present itself again.

The main weakness in any practical application of the punctuated equilibrium model is the
lack of clarity regarding what groups actually do during the two phases. Gersick’s focus on
operational dynamics does not encompass the attention to detail typically found in sequential
models. Tuckman’s sequential stage theory may not be a one-size-fits-all template, but the
model remains popular in both education and management circles mainly because the stages
provide a useful platform of practical knowledge about the member activities and dynamics
that occur over the course of a group’s existence. Since Gersick and Tuckman each address
an area the other leaves relatively untouched, the two theories are not incompatible. In fact,
some contemporary schools of thought suggest that Gersick and Tuckman work best when
we put them together.

Team Evaluation and Maturation Model
The diverse and subjective nature of group interactions has long been an obstacle for
researchers trying to uncover some scientific order and practical guidance for the group
development process. Mid- to late-20th-century studies fixated on the sequential model,
while Gersick’s 1988 model addressed the issue from a new perspective without truly con-
tradicting or offering a holistically useful replacement of the older models. More recently,
theorists have proposed a new vision in which Tuckman and Gersick’s theories combine to
create a symbiotic and practical whole. Morgan, Salas, and Glickman’s (1993) team evaluation
and maturation model is a notable example of the current trend in group development theory.

In an effort to develop a more holistic understanding of team development, Morgan, Salas,
and Glickman developed a model that integrated Tuckman and Gersick’s research and incor-
porated minor concepts from others (Davis, Gaddy, & Turney, 1985; McGrath, 1991; Bowers,
Morgan, & Salas, 1991). Using this new model, Morgan, Salas, and Glickman undertook a com-
prehensive investigation into the development of Navy Command Information Center tactical
decision-making teams during operational training. The results, published in Analysis of Team

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 49 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Convergence

Differentiation
Task
Work

Activities

Team
Work

Activities

TEAM Model Developmental Processes and Dynamics

PRE-

FORMING

FIRST MEETING

PHASE ONE

FORMING

STORMING

NORMING

PERFORMING I

MIDPOINT
TRANSITION

PHASE TWO

COMPLETION

DE-FORMING

PERFORMING II

REFORMING

CONFORMING

Causal forces and interactions; the decision
process leading to the commitment to form and
use a team.

Rapid formation of initial scripts
and performance agenda

Status determination, power
balancing, and role acceptance

Developing shared interaction
scripts; moving toward cohesion

Initial work period can be a time of a
project exploration, conflict, or steadfast
task work and implementation

Reevolution and potential
transition at temporal midpoint

Refocusing and recommiting
energies toward effective
performance
Checking completed performance
products or solutions for
confirmation to given parameters

Individual or group exit rituals and preparation to
resume preteam statuses, loyalty commitments, and
roles

Questioning:
What should we do?
How should we do it?

Divergence

Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?

Evolution and Maturation, suggest that while both Tuckman and Gersick offer significant
frameworks for group developmental processes and dynamics, the path taken throughout
group formation and development is more complex and variable than any single sequence of
phases or developmental leaps (Morgan et al., 1993). Instead, they offer the team evaluation
and maturation (TEAM) model, which postulates two phases, a midpoint transition, and
nine sequential stages that can be repeated or recycled to address interaction failures, changes
in environmental demands, or complex issues. The model is outlined in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: TEAM model of group development

The TEAM model combines elements of Tuckman’s and Gersick’s group development theories to
create a holistic model of team development.

Source: Based on Morgan, B., Salas, E., & Glickman, A. S. (1993). An analysis of team evolution and maturation. Journal of General
Psychology, 120(3), 277–291.

Convergence
Differentiation
Task
Work
Activities
Team
Work
Activities
TEAM Model Developmental Processes and Dynamics

PRE-FORMING

FIRST MEETING
PHASE ONE
FORMING
STORMING
NORMING
PERFORMING I
MIDPOINT
TRANSITION
PHASE TWO
COMPLETION
DE-FORMING
PERFORMING II
REFORMING
CONFORMING
Causal forces and interactions; the decision
process leading to the commitment to form and
use a team.
Rapid formation of initial scripts
and performance agenda
Status determination, power
balancing, and role acceptance
Developing shared interaction
scripts; moving toward cohesion
Initial work period can be a time of a
project exploration, conflict, or steadfast
task work and implementation
Reevolution and potential
transition at temporal midpoint
Refocusing and recommiting
energies toward effective
performance
Checking completed performance
products or solutions for
confirmation to given parameters
Individual or group exit rituals and preparation to
resume preteam statuses, loyalty commitments, and
roles
Questioning:
What should we do?
How should we do it?
Divergence

As shown in Figure 2.2, the TEAM model directly addresses both interpersonal and opera-
tional dynamics by proposing that group energies and interactions work along two distinct
but simultaneous activity tracks that converge as performance progresses (Morgan et al.,
1993):

1. Teamwork activities, or those that deal with the interpersonal functioning of the
team (Davis et al., 1985). These include the interpersonal dynamics of group devel-
opment and performance and consciously enacted person-to-person activities that
support interpersonal communications, socioemotional interdependence, and posi-
tive interaction patterns (Morgan et al., 1993).

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 50 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?

2. Task work activities, or those that deal with the technical functioning of the team
(Davis et al., 1985). These include activities and exercises pertaining to task require-
ments and interdependence, technical skills, work procedure, in-task communication,
and collective performance efforts.

During the first meeting and forming stage of group development, Morgan et al. (1993)
observed that members were unclear as to what constitutes teamwork and task work, the
differences between them, and the comparative importance of each. These tended to differ-
entiate into meaningful concepts and activities over the course of phase one, as members
learned how and how not to work together, generating shared scripts. The primary outcome
of the midpoint transition was a conscious integration of teamwork and task work activi-
ties, as team members acknowledged that effective performance is achieved when teamwork
and task work converge. These activity tracks diverge after the completion stage, as members
detach from task work activities and prepare to exit the group. This process is graphically
represented in Figure 2.2.

Morgan, Salas, and Glickman’s (1993) study of the TEAM model suggests that certain devel-
opmental qualities remain consistent regardless of team setting, purpose, or operational
requirements:

• Team members’ perceptions of performance processes and teamwork and task work
activities change as the group moves through the initial developmental stages and
performance.

• To achieve optimal performance, teamwork and task work activities must be differ-
entiated; the skills associated with each must be separately enhanced and progres-
sively focused. Then the two activity tracks must converge and integrate.

• Ultimately, effective performance depends on the convergence of teamwork and task
work activities, so that these tracks work collaboratively in support of team develop-
ment, viability, and performance.

The TEAM model represents a combination and extension of previous theories. As such, its
practical implications can be combined with those in Tuckman’s sequential stage theory and
Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory.

• The first meeting represents the initial opportunity to influence the group’s devel-
opment. It is an opportune time to call attention to the significance of each of these
activity tracks; establish any preexisting organizational frameworks for group
hierarchy, procedure, and roles; and initiate norms and scripts to openly accept and
facilitate constructive conflict, effective communication, knowledge sharing, and
feedback.

• Group members and managers can facilitate effective performance by sequentially
guiding members’ ability to (a) differentiate between teamwork and task work
activities, (b) enhance and focus their related skills, then (c) work toward conver-
gence and integration of the two activity tracks.

• The midpoint transition represents the point of convergence for teamwork and task
work activities. It also marks a specific and predictable point in project performance
when group members are most open to external influence and intervention.

• Fortunately, this second opportunity to influence group development occurs just
when it may be needed most. Group members and managers should keep abreast of

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 51 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 2.2 Team Building

group development, any issues impeding group progress, and the need to converge
teamwork and task work activities. This will facilitate relevant and supportive influ-
ence at the midpoint transition.

The practical implications of developmental theories touch on concepts relevant to building
an effective team. Section 2.2 examines the process of team building, outlining the steps for
planning a team and the concepts and strategies supporting the team’s development.

2.2 Team Building
There are countless pop strategies and motivational tools that advertise themselves as team-
building exercises. These are not what we are addressing here. Team building—the practical
process of putting together an effective team—is enacted in two major phases: planning and
development. In the planning phase, the stage is set for effective teamwork: A team-
worthy objective is identified, a team type is selected, membership is composed, and neces-
sary resources are acquired. Simply rounding up suitable members, aiming them at an objec-
tive, and giving them access to resources does not guarantee they will effectively collaborate
as a team. The development phase focuses on enabling the transition from group to team and
maximizing the team’s potential for effectiveness.

Planning the Team
Planning a team is a multistep process that encompasses four essential activities:

1. Confirming that a team is the best option
2. Clarifying the basic team type and primary task type
3. Identifying and acquiring necessary resources
4. Managing team

composition

The first step in planning an effective team is to confirm that a team is the best option for the
situation. The guidelines for this process are outlined in Chapter 1. While we will not repeat
them here, it is important to note that any team will have difficulty realizing its full potential
if it is set up to work in a situation in which teams are not a good fit.

The second step is to clarify the basic team type and primary task type. This involves examin-
ing the team’s major task or objective and:

1. identifying any structural parameters that dictate the fundamental nature of the
team or how it will work, and

2. narrowing down the primary task type required for the team to realize its purpose.

For instance, a comprehensive study regarding an organization’s potential expansion into a
foreign market (major objective) represents a unique one-time output that is time-sensitive
but not urgent (team type—project team). It also requires delivery of expert advice (task
type—advising others). Therefore, an advisory project team would be well suited to this

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 52 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 2.2 Team Building

purpose. See Chapter 1 for a review of the basic team types, primary task types, and how
they can be combined to describe the fundamental nature of a specific team, how that team is
expected to work, and what it is expected to do.

Steps 3 and 4—identifying and acquiring necessary resources and managing team composi-
tion—require more detailed explanation. The next two sections address these in turn.

Identifying and Acquiring Necessary Resources
Team resources can be described as human, physical, organizational, and psychosocial ele-
ments that satisfy four basic functions (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007):

1. Assist and support goal accomplishment.
2. Address specific performance demands.
3. Encourage cohesion and member well-being.
4. Support the team’s effective functioning.

Human resources meet the team’s compositional needs in terms of the size, diversity, and
skill requirements suggested by its major objective, structural parameters, and primary task
type. Skill and expertise pooling is foundational for a team’s strength, flexibility, and effective-
ness as a unit of performance. Different projects or objectives will require different combi-
nations of skilled personnel, and composing a team in which member experience and KSAs
complement each other is a significant factor in supporting effective team performance. Solv-
ing a complex design problem, for instance, often requires cross-functional membership that
reflects a diverse range of expertise. Designing a vehicle like the Tesla required collabora-
tion between members knowledgeable in the technical engineering of the unusual engine
and battery components, auto body design and aerodynamics, marketing research (regarding
aesthetics, style, and interior options), and so on.

Physical resources meet the team’s obvious material, technological, and operational needs as
it acts within a given context and set of objectives. These can vary by team and task type and
can change over the course of a team’s performance. For instance, a marketing team may ini-
tially need only work space and access to data and basic computer technology. Later on, how-
ever, marketing studies and product testing may require access to customers and resources
with which to perform product trials and interviews. Effective teams continuously reevaluate
their physical resource needs and make adjustments accordingly. Physical resources might
include meeting and work spaces; computer hardware, software, data, and Internet access;
office equipment and design tools; financial resources; raw production materials; and manu-
facturing machinery.

Along with providing physical resources, all organizations develop systems, strategies, and
norms within their infrastructure that support work processes and facilitate management,
coordination, problem solving, and quality control (Mohrman, Cohen, & Mohrman, 1995).
Aligning these organizational resources with team operation and performance is a criti-
cal factor in organizational teams’ short- and long-term effectiveness (Beyerlein, Hall, Harris,

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 53 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 2.2 Team Building

& Beyerlein, 1997; Mohrman & Tenkasi, 1997; Mohrman et al., 1995). These might include
employee training, empowerment, and participation in organizational decision-making pro-
cesses; organizational leadership philosophies; and managerial strategies and norms regard-
ing communication, conflict, diversity, and performance errors or failure. Chapter 10 further
explores the connection between organizational resources and team effectiveness.

Finally, psychosocial resources support team members’ psychological well-being and the
team’s cohesiveness. At the most basic level, our psychological well-being revolves around
three innate drives (Reeve, 2015): autonomy, or self-determination; efficacy, or sense of self-
competence; and relatedness, or the strength of our associations with others. A functioning
team supports each of these fundamental needs, as indicated in Table 2.2.

In the workplace, psychosocial resources include structural components and leadership strat-
egies that can be established during the planning phase, (e.g., establishing comuunication and
responsibility structures, adding a facilitator, or planning shared leadership roles). Valuable
psychosocial resources also include the supportive interrelations between colleagues and
organizational groups that can be initiated during the development phase (e.g., establishing
norms for information and viewpoint sharing, goal-setting activities) and continue to evolve
over time.

As a work model, an effective team balances human and organizational needs, which in turn
generates an organizational effectiveness that both supports and depends on employees’ psy-
chological well-being (Richter, Dawson, & West, 2011). While human and physical resources
are obvious focal points for resource management, effective team performance depends just
as heavily on organizational and psychosocial resources (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Richter
et al., 2011). Teams require support from organizational systems, and they must also develop
and maintain member relations and interdependencies that support teamwork, member
well-being, and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances (Harris & Beyerlein, 2008).

Table 2.2: Supporting psychological well-being through teamwork

Fundamental need Method of support in a team

Autonomy The collaborative nature of teamwork ensures that members
have some degree of influence over their overriding purpose
and agenda, as well as in their decisions and actions. Collabora-
tive goal setting plays an important role in establishing member
participation, autonomy, and buy-in from the beginning of team
performance.

Efficacy Teamwork practices that support entitativity, value skill and
knowledge diversity, and facilitate learning from errors boost
member confidence and esteem while maximizing the potential for
success.

Relatedness Positive interdependencies and interrelations develop between
members, which fosters cohesiveness and supports teamwork.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 54 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 2.2 Team Building

Managing

Team Composition

The team’s major objective, structural parameters, and primary task type help identify the
basic compositional requirements for team size, diversity, and task-specific expertise. The
basic formula for selecting team members is short and sweet: Minimize team size and maxi-
mize skill potential. To perform effectively, team members must have or develop the KSAs
required to accomplish the team’s purpose and goals. Team builders must therefore iden-
tify what expertise is required by a particular performance challenge, as well as the degree
and type of diversity that best supports the desired outcome. A final screening should assess
potential members’ capacity to develop further KSAs, based on their willingness and ability
to learn. Though hard to measure, this potential can be assessed on the basis of past perfor-
mance, personal interviews, recommendations by colleagues and managers, and testing for
personality factors that indicate knowledge sharing, openness to learning, cooperativeness,
and conscientiousness. Once the basic combination of expertise, diversity, and potential for
development has been identified, it must then be squeezed into the smallest team possible
(see Figure 2.3).

Why minimize team size? For several reasons:

• Smart use of human resources: Organizations have a limited number of employees,
and most streamline their employee base to keep operation costs low. Minimizing
team size makes the most of the available human resources without wasting any by
tying them up in superfluous positions.

• Simplicity of coordination: Team members must coordinate internally with each
other and externally with managers, other organizational groups, and satellite
members and other teams (on complex problem-solving or production processes).
The more people involved in a situation, the more complex and comprehensive their
coordination needs become.

• Process effectiveness: Teams must be large enough that members are not overbur-
dened by responsibilities or workloads, and they must possess the diversity to sup-
port the team’s creative scope and adaptability. However, having too many members
limits the team’s ability to effectively function within performance and time con-
straints. Although there is no perfect size, teams typically function best with 5 to 10
members.

Maximizing skill potential within a small team requires action in both phases of team building:

• Planning: Select members on the basis of their relevant KSAs, their potential for
expanding these, and their ability to complement other members.

• Development: Balance the benefits of diversity with its potentially negative issues,
and foster members’ development of useful KSAs.

As with team size, member skill and diversity requirements will depend largely on
expected performance parameters, the type of team being assembled, and what it is expected
to do. It is important to select members whose skills specifically apply to expected perfor-
mance demands and whose combined skill set encompasses what team-building experts call
the right mix. People are often good at many things but have true expertise in only one or

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 55 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Skills

Diversity

Developmental
Potential

Team Composition
Section 2.2 Team Building

Figure 2.3: Best practices for team

composition

Teams should feature members who have
complementary KSAs and the ability to develop
more. This helps pack a wide range of expertise into
a team that is also small and functional.

Skills
Diversity
Developmental
Potential
Team Composition

two areas. The beauty of teamwork is that
no single member is required to have all
the skills necessary to get the job done.
By collaborating, members with comple-
mentary KSAs work together to achieve
more than they could alone. While project
and performance needs vary, team skills
generally fall into four basic categories:
hard, soft, critical thinking, and creative
problem solving. Table 2.3 outlines these
basic categories.

Developing the Team
Our group is gathered and the stage is set
for effective teamwork. But how do we
turn our group into a team? Group per-
formance represents a state of positive
interdependence in which members work
cooperatively toward a mutually benefi-
cial outcome. Positive interdependence
refers to the constructive interrelations
between members that support the
group’s existence and enable cooperative
action. In work groups, positive interde-
pendence is achieved through coordina-
tion of individual motivation, effort, and
accountability. Rather than engaging in

joint effort, work group members act alone, following the direction of the group leader, and
it is only through the group leader that their efforts are connected at all. In teams, positive
interdependence is reflected in the basic elements of collaborative performance: high cohe-
siveness, common purpose, mutual accountability, shared fate, and common reward. These
elements are irrevocably tied together; each supports the existence of the others.

Team members go beyond simple cooperation or coordination of efforts. They engage in a
continuous teamwork process. Even when members handle their tasks alone, they are work-
ing toward a shared fate and common reward. Members are accountable to each other, and
individual success or failure is tied to the team’s performance as whole. The team’s success
becomes each member’s common purpose, and high cohesiveness is simultaneously an out-
come of these other factors—the glue that binds them together—and the means by which
team members support collaborative performance. Let’s take a closer look at team cohesion.

Team Cohesion
Team cohesion can be divided into three dimensions (Mullen & Copper, 1994): task cohesion,
interpersonal cohesion, and team pride. Task cohesion reflects the team’s shared valuation
and commitment to tasks, task work activities, and goals (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Kozlowski

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 56 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 2.2 Team Building

Table 2.3: Basic team skill categories

Skill
category Description Examples

Hard sklls Also referred to as technical skills,
these encompass skills that enhance
one’s ability to perform specific tasks
or functions. In building a specific
team, there will be some hard skills
that all members should have to some
degree.

In all cases, teams will require that all members
have some base-level hard skills and that some
members have specific hard skill expertise. On a
team of architects, for example:

• All members should have a certain level
of proficiency with design and computer
aided-drafting, shared terminology, and both
physical and digital model making.

• Certain members may have particular areas
of expertise, such as LEED certification for
sustainable building design.

Soft skills Also referred to as teamwork skills,
these encompass the knowledge and
use of teamwork values, communication
and other interpersonal skills, and
leadership and management skills.

The most commonly desired soft skills fall into
several categories that deal with:

• Interaction, including communicating
effectively, working cooperatively, and other
interpersonal skills

• Facilitation, including coaching, mentoring,
teaching, and acting as a group facilitator

• Direction, including coordinating and
managing people and processes, leading,
self-directing, and sharing power

• Mediation, including negotiating,
compromising, and resolving conflict.

Critical-
thinking
skills

Encompass those processes that
facilitate logical problem solving and
decision making to help teams:

• Identify critical questions and
problems

• Gather, interpret, and assess
relevant information

• Clarify solution needs and
expectations

• Recognize biases, assumptions, and
logical fallacies

• Test the practical implications
and consequences of potential
solutions against thoughtfully
determined standards and criteria

Also known as critical analysis, critical thinking
includes a wide range of investigative and evalu-
ative skills generally associated with convergent
thinking, including:

• Researching and gathering information
• Analyzing and defining problems
• Identifying and testing assumptions and

fallacies
• Identifying and assessing idea or solution

viability, including pros and cons
• Being able to acknowledge and accept

personal ignorance or fallibility
• Interpreting and correlating informative data
• Comparing and contrasting processes
• Identifying root causes of problems or errors

Creative
problem-
solving
skills

Encompass those processes that
facilitate solutions that require more
than logic, where innovation and inven-
tion are key determinants in effective
performance.

Also known as creative solutioning, creative
problem solving includes a wide range of skills
generally associated with creativity and conver-
gent thinking, including:

• Framing and reframing problems
• Associating normally unrelated concepts
• Using specific group ideation activities,

such as brainstorming, paradigm shift, and
180-degree thinking

• Improvising new procedures or processes
• Thinking outside the box

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 57 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 2.2 Team Building

& Bell, 2003). Interpersonal cohesion refers to the level of attachment and camaraderie
between team members (Evans & Jarvis, 1980; Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon, 2003).
Finally, team pride represents a combination of team potency, efficacy, and morale that syner-
gistically combine to describe the general sense of usefulness and value attached to the group
and to holding membership in it. The elements of team pride represent different dimensions
of trust within the team.

Team potency reflects a collective trust in the team’s power to exist as a relatively stable and
cohesive entity and to perform collaboratively until it succeeds—or fails—as a whole. Where
potency is, in effect, the team’s collective sense of self, efficacy centers on the sense of self-
competence. Team efficacy represents members’ collective belief in their ability to accom-
plish tasks and goals, overcome obstacles, resolve conflicts, and perform effectively (Alper,
Tjosvold, & Law, 2000; Lester, Meglino, & Korsgaard, 2002). Team morale is more than just
an average of individual morale levels within the group. It represents a shared sense of well-
being, satisfaction, and trust that the general quality and tone of group interactions will main-
tain these conditions (Peterson, Park, & Sweeney, 2008).

To support the development of team cohesion, team builders must foster its three founda-
tional elements: commitment, attachment, and trust. Let’s examine these elements and their
integral value within team development.

Commitment, Attachment, and Trust
Chapter 1 described identification as a process that involves both our thoughts and emotions.
In an organizational setting, social identification is imposed on team members when they are
assigned to a team. While this takes care of the intellectual side of things, our emotions are
not so easily ordered into place. We can be told to approach group work with an all for one and
one for all mentality, but developing the commitment, attachment, and trust that inspires us
to truly believe and follow through on this sentiment is a bit more complex.

In the context of teamwork, commitment represents the extent to which team members
acknowledge the significance of the team’s purpose and accept the proposed agenda and
approach for accomplishing it. It also represents how strongly they intend to cooperate
throughout the performance process (Korsgaard, Schweiger, & Sapienza, 1995). Commit-
ment to a common purpose motivates and focuses team performance. It provides a support-
ive framework and rallying point for strategic planning and for setting tasks, agendas, and
goals. It also helps guide member decisions and actions during performance. By collectively
maintaining the standard that every decision and action should support the common pur-
pose, team members can police the balance of individual and collective interests, trusting
each other to make choices and contributions that support the success of the team.

Attachment is an integral component of group cohesiveness. It represents members’ socio-
emotional identification with the team and their feelings about other members. It encom-
passes the extent to which members feel they are part of the team, included in team activities
and processes, and look forward to working with other members. Attachment is a significant
factor in a team’s ability to cooperate and perform effectively over the long term. When mem-
bers feel detached, ignored, or excluded from team activities and processes, they sense their
contributions are not valued, have little impact, or lack meaning (Korsgaard, Brodt, & Sapi-
enza, 2003). We all have a basic desire to be valued as individuals and to feel that our efforts

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 58 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 2.2 Team Building

are meaningful (Kelly Global Workforce Index, 2013; Wrzesniewski, 2003). Although the
premise of teams is that no one individual is a “star,” the flip side of this is that each member is
considered a valuable and meaningful contributor to team outcomes. This helps inspire and
maintain member commitment and trust. Therefore, when attachment is high, team mem-
bers work more cooperatively and diligently toward team goals (Korsgaard et al., 1995).

Trust reflects team members’ intention and ability to be vulnerable to each other and to the
group. It is founded on the expectation without guarantee that all members will act in support
of the team and treat each other considerately and benevolently (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, &
Camerer, 1998; Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998; Williams, 2001; Korsgaard et al.,
2003). In a sense, trust represents a buy-in to the team, from which cooperative attitudes and
behaviors naturally follow. Team members work collaboratively, which means that member
interdependence is high across all dimensions of interaction. Such interdependence requires
trust in other members’ capacity to support the team through their contributions and in their
willingness to work cooperatively and take responsibility for both their own actions and those
of the team as a whole. But where does this trust come from?

Like most good things, trust is developed over time. However, commitment, attachment, and
trust are initiated by specific elements of team interaction:

• Owning team actions
• Unifying team purpose
• Upholding mutual accountability
• Building team efficacy

Let’s examine the interplay between these factors and their role in developing and maintain-
ing commitment, attachment, and trust within the team.

Owning Team Actions
All teams engage in some degree of shared leadership. Owning team actions through partici-
pation in team strategy and decision making is integral to developing attachment, trust, and
commitment to a common purpose (Korsgaard et al., 2003). Team members play an active
role in shaping and directing their team when they work cooperatively across a range of task
work and teamwork processes. Collaborative agenda and goal setting are key activities in
developing a sense of:

• working toward a mutually beneficial common purpose,
• trusting that everyone on the team is aware of and supports team activities and

goals,
• being included and valued in team process, and
• owning team decisions, actions, and purpose.

Setting specific and meaningful performance goals also works to guide and unify team mem-
bers’ motivations and expectations for performance.

Unifying Team Purpose
To activate and sustain commitment, team members must feel their efforts are meaning-
ful and that they are making measurable progress toward a clear and common purpose.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 59 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 2.2 Team Building

Performance goals provide a shared vision to unify member motivations and expectations.
They offer rallying points around which members can develop commitment and enthusiasm,
and they act as tangible milestones that mark team progress and setbacks. Locke and Latham’s
(1990, 2002, 2006) goal-setting studies suggest that the best performance outcomes evolve
from teams that are committed to goals that members perceive as:

• clear and nonconflicting,
• specific and challenging, and
• achievable along a given agenda.

Agreeing on specific performance goals puts everybody on the same page, unifying team pur-
pose so that team members can effectively work together. By helping create such goals, team
members accept ownership over them. They also acknowledge understanding of their role in
accomplishing the team’s purpose and become independently accountable for their own con-
tributions and collectively accountable for the team’s performance as a whole. In Chapter 1
this was identified as mutual accountability.

Upholding Mutual Accountability
The need for mutual accountability is most easily observed in a team sport. In football, a
quarterback throws the ball to a halfback, who runs it down the field under the protection
of blocking fullbacks. Each player depends on the others to carry out their role-related tasks
to the best of their ability. When one falters, the ball comes to stop or is lost to the opposing
team. For any team to succeed, all members must make significant contributions, carry out
their individual and collective responsibilities, and support each other’s ability to do so.

Procedural justice theory asserts that members attach most strongly to groups in which
individual worth and status are validated by fair treatment (Korsgaard et al., 2003). This sug-
gests that in regard to social exchanges within our groups, we primarily fear rejection and
lack of reciprocity (Lind, 2001; Tyler & Blader, 2003). Our desire to be perceived as valuable
and to avoid rejection can strongly motivate us to make positive contributions to the group
via proactive, voluntary teamwork (Tyler & Blader, 2003). However, we need to believe that
teammates will accept and reciprocate our efforts; otherwise, we may not see any compelling
reason to cooperate (Kramer, Brewer, & Hanna, 1996). In practice, mutual accountability rep-
resents being committed to having a fair exchange, contributing and valuing other’s contribu-
tions, and fostering a supportive climate within which team members can engage (Korsgaard
et al., 2003). Fostering a climate of cooperation among team members means encouraging
members to:

• share knowledge and viewpoints, including contrary opinions or concerns;
• engage in collaborative problem solving and conflict resolution;
• offer constructive feedback and discuss mistakes and failures; and
• view failure and mistakes as opportunities to learn and improve.

Building Team Efficacy
A climate of cooperation generates a working environment in which team members are sup-
portive of and supported by each other, and the success of one is felt as success for all. Coop-
eration enhances team members’ sense of individual and team efficacy. Team efficacy levels

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 60 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 2.2 Team Building

influence motivation and performance across the board, significantly impacting individual
members’ output and effort on collective endeavors and whether to persevere or give up
when faced with adversity, opposition, or a failure to garner “quick results” (Bandura, 1997).
The initial framework on which team efficacy rests—self-confidence within the team setting,
respect for each other’s abilities, trust in our ability to work collaboratively—is built when
the team first develops its agenda of tasks and goals and its approach for accomplishing them.
This brings us full circle to participating in team strategy and decision making.

Practical Implications for Team Builders, Managers, and Leaders
Translating the team’s purpose into specific and meaningful performance goals is often the
first team effort in which members engage. Collaborative goal setting provides the basic
foundation for team efficacy and ownership of team purpose, agenda, and activities. It also
provides clear and tangible progress markers the team can rally around. The shared scripts
generated in this process help unify performance motivation and expectations, including
expectations of fairness and mutual accountability. Meanwhile, clarifying the team’s pur-
pose—which stems from collaborative decision making and “making sure everyone’s on the
same page”—fosters the development of a shared mental model that encompasses the team’s
primary purpose and how to achieve it. A mental model is an internally held conceptual
model that allows people to describe, understand, and explain phenomena; recognize compo-
nent relationships; draw inferences; and predict behavior and events (Rouse & Morris, 1986;
Johnson-Laird, 1989. Developing a shared mental model dramatically enhances a team’s abil-
ity to coordinate performance, discuss task-related issues, problem solve, and make decisions
that support its effectiveness.

So how do we facilitate collaborative goal setting? Peter Drucker (1954) first addressed this
question in his now classic book, The Practice of Management. In 1981 George Doran built
on Drucker’s “management by objectives” system to introduce the concept of SMART goals,
which stands for goals that are specific, measurable, assignable, realistic, and time related.
Doran’s SMART goals inspired various interpretations and expansions on the idea, includ-
ing the START model (Johnson & Johnson, 2013, which suggests that goals should be spe-
cific, trackable, achievable, relevant, and transferrable; and Yemm’s (2013) SMARTER model,
which replaces Doran’s assignable with achievable/attainable and adds evaluate and review/
revise. All are useful guides for developing effective performance goals, and the specific terms
are typically adjusted to best fit given performance needs. Here, we discuss Yemm’s SMARTER
goal setting guidelines and how they help create the sense of common purpose that is crucial
to a team.

Specific
Goals should be specific so all members clearly understand them. An effective manager knows
that poorly understood goals are less likely to be achieved. Breaking down the team’s overall
purpose and performance challenge into specific performance goals serves several purposes:

• It provides an immediate framework for the initial norming, role-selection,
information-processing, and problem-solving phases.

• It helps develop meaningful common purpose and cohesion by opening communica-
tion and constructive conflict, as members collectively determine clear and specific
goals and reexamine these as per the team purpose.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 61 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 2.2 Team Building

• It establishes an accessible jumping-off point to develop team goals, strategies, and
agendas that are related to yet distinct from the organizational directives that origi-
nally led to the team’s initiation.

Measurable
Goals that are measurable, or trackable, provide tangible evidence of progress. Quantifying or
measuring goals also helps maintain focus by allowing the group to see what has been accom-
plished and what remains to be done. A clear gauge of progress is critical to avoid ambiguity
over whether the team has achieved its objectives. It also reminds members that they are
both individually and mutually accountable for the team’s performance outcome.

Achievable
Goals should be challenging, but achievable. The group’s level of aspiration constantly adjusts
to prior successes or failures. If a group continually aspires to an unattainably high stan-
dard, they will lose morale and become disillusioned. However, if the goal is not challeng-
ing enough, members will become bored or dissatisfied, engage in side conversations, or put
forth little effort. Group members must be aware of these constraints to ensure they avoid
either extreme.

Interestingly, initially failing to achieve a challenging, specific objective does not necessarily
hurt performance. Collectively overcoming performance obstacles is one of the best ways to
encourage collaborative teamwork and further develop the group as a team. Collective chal-
lenges also tend to level members’ perceptions of each other’s external characteristics (for
example, their gender, ethnicity, pay grade, or extraneous titles), allowing teammates to focus
on each other’s real strengths and weaknesses. Characteristics that do not immediately affect
the activities at hand become less relevant—and therefore less detrimental to team cohesion
and performance.

Relevant
The group must recognize that its goals and the work related to achieving them are relevant
and aligned with the organization’s strategy. Specific performance goals must be directly
related to the team’s performance challenge and its common purpose. Most people lose inter-
est if they do not see a reason for doing something; this directly opposes the need to feel like
one’s efforts are meaningful. Irrelevant goals and busywork will decrease group focus and
commitment and, consequently, its effectiveness and productivity. The most effective teams
periodically check in with their purpose throughout their work. This is an ongoing purposing
activity that helps members gauge and adjust the direction of their performance, the efficacy
of their roles and tasks, and the strategic implications of their actions.

Time Related
Goals should be time related. Setting a specific timeline and limit in which to achieve goals
keeps team members focused on attaining them. It also acts as a checkpoint for progress and
mitigates team members’ tendency to overthink or overprocess a problem or solution.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 62 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 2.3 Apprehension Toward Groups and Teams

Evaluate
Teams should be able to evaluate their progress toward goals. Effective teams do not sim-
ply set an initial agenda and approach and then follow these no matter what. Goals that are
measurable provide a clear gauge of progress toward the team’s purpose. Likewise, periodic
assessments of member contributions and process dynamics, and the degree to which perfor-
mance products or solutions satisfy the team’s purpose, are critical for maintaining growth
and adaptability.

Review/Revise
Teams should review and revise their processes and goals when necessary. Once the team has
evaluated its progress, process, and performance outcomes, it may (or may not) be necessary
to review and revise its overall agenda, expectations, strategies, and proposed goals. Keeping
this process alive throughout the team’s performance increases the quality and effectiveness
of its final outcome.

Team building is not a finite process. Although individual steps—such as selecting a team
type and choosing members—may come up just once, certain areas require ongoing moni-
toring and management. For example, a team’s resource needs can continue to evolve over
the course of its work; likewise, developing the team is a continuous process. The different
phases and steps of team building are not necessarily handled by one person or even by one
group. A manager or management group may engage in the initial planning phase but hand off
the development phase and ongoing resource management to a team leader or empower the
team to manage these duties internally. Regardless of who or how many people are involved,
both the planning and development phases must be executed to build a working team, and
ongoing processes must be continuously managed to make sure the team stays effective. Next,
we’ll look at apprehension toward groups and teams that can affect our ability to effectively
work together and even cause some people to avidly avoid group and team situations.

2.3 Apprehension Toward Groups and Teams
Whether we acknowledge them or not, groups and teams touch nearly every facet of our lives.
We see evidence of successful groups and teams in business, sports, politics, technology, and
science. Yet some people simply do not buy into the idea that groups and teams really work;
in particular, they doubt that teams can be more effective than any other group or individual.
Working as a team means depending on others. We relinquish sole control over our own suc-
cess or failure and take responsibility for these qualities in our teammates. The potential
benefits of group work and teamwork are compelling, but it can be equally daunting to feel
a loss of individual autonomy; trust others; and learn new methods of coordinating informa-
tion, people, tasks, and activities. Intellectually, we may see the value of working together, but
when it comes to actually joining a group or team, several objections are frequently raised:

• “I’m not comfortable in groups, so I end up just being quiet and going along.” Or, “I
guess I’m just a loner—I work better alone.”

• “Nobody in a group knows what they are doing, so I have to take control.” Or, “I end
up doing all the work—I might as well have worked alone.”

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 63 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 2.3 Apprehension Toward Groups and Teams

• “Working in groups and teams is too much work, and the interactions are a waste of
time.” Or, “I am more efficient and effective on my own.”

• “Teams are just a motivational concept; they are no different from any other group.”
Or, “I’ve been in groups and teams—call it what you want, they’re the same thing.”

Statements like these are typically connected to several core conditions that affect our per-
ception of and experience with group work and teamwork. In this section, we explore four
root causes for apprehension and avoidance of groups and teams: (a) member attachment
styles, (b) social value orientation, (c) lack of positive team experience, and (d) underdevel-
oped soft skills. As we address each of these in turn, we will also discuss how they can be
mitigated or overcome.

Member Attachment Styles
As social beings, people have an innate need for a certain degree of relatedness. From birth,
we are instinctually driven to establish and maintain attachments to the people around us
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Building on seminal works by psychiatrist John Bowlby (1973,
1980, 1982), adult attachment theory proposes that individuals have inherently different
attachment styles that are founded on behavioral expectations and scripts generated by early
attachment experiences (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Attachment styles vary along two
significant dimensions (Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Smith, Murphy, & Coats, 1999): attachment
anxiety and attachment avoidance. Individuals can be tracked on a sliding scale in each of
these dimensions, from high to low.

• Anxiety: High attachment anxiety is characterized by a sense of unworthiness as a
group member, excessive worry over acceptance, and fear of rejection. On the flip
side, low attachment anxiety is characterized by the expectation of acceptance and
approval from the group.

• Avoidance: High attachment avoidance is characterized by a tendency to view group
relationships, intimacy, and dependence on others as unnecessary or undesirable.
On the other hand, low attachment avoidance is characterized by the view that
group relationships, intimacy, and interdependence are positive.

Our personal attachment style, or characteristic behavioral, cognitive, and affective orienta-
tion towards social interactions, can be found by correlating our high/low levels of attach-
ment anxiety and avoidance on a double-axis graph (see Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.4: Group member attachment styles

Attachment styles contribute to the extent to which an individual is willing to participate in a group
or team.

Conformist:
Tends to prioritize pleasing other
group members and fitting in over
expressing own thoughts, needs,
and desires.

Socially Anxious:
Feels unable to make valuable or
effective contributions; characterized
by low participation and engagement.

Secure:
Feels capable and worthy of group
membership, and perceives groups as
generally valuable and accepting.

Loner:
Tends to prioritize extreme
independance, reject others, and
engage in aloof or standoffish behavior.

High Attachment Anxiety

Low Attachment Anxiety

High Attachment AvoidanceLow Attachment Avoidance

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 64 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Conformist:
Tends to prioritize pleasing other
group members and fitting in over
expressing own thoughts, needs,
and desires.
Socially Anxious:
Feels unable to make valuable or
effective contributions; characterized
by low participation and engagement.
Secure:
Feels capable and worthy of group
membership, and perceives groups as
generally valuable and accepting.
Loner:
Tends to prioritize extreme
independance, reject others, and
engage in aloof or standoffish behavior.
High Attachment Anxiety
Low Attachment Anxiety
High Attachment AvoidanceLow Attachment Avoidance
Section 2.3 Apprehension Toward Groups and Teams
• “Working in groups and teams is too much work, and the interactions are a waste of
time.” Or, “I am more efficient and effective on my own.”
• “Teams are just a motivational concept; they are no different from any other group.”
Or, “I’ve been in groups and teams—call it what you want, they’re the same thing.”
Statements like these are typically connected to several core conditions that affect our per-
ception of and experience with group work and teamwork. In this section, we explore four
root causes for apprehension and avoidance of groups and teams: (a) member attachment
styles, (b) social value orientation, (c) lack of positive team experience, and (d) underdevel-
oped soft skills. As we address each of these in turn, we will also discuss how they can be
mitigated or overcome.
Member Attachment Styles
As social beings, people have an innate need for a certain degree of relatedness. From birth,
we are instinctually driven to establish and maintain attachments to the people around us
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Building on seminal works by psychiatrist John Bowlby (1973,
1980, 1982), adult attachment theory proposes that individuals have inherently different
attachment styles that are founded on behavioral expectations and scripts generated by early
attachment experiences (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Attachment styles vary along two
significant dimensions (Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Smith, Murphy, & Coats, 1999): attachment
anxiety and attachment avoidance. Individuals can be tracked on a sliding scale in each of
these dimensions, from high to low.
• Anxiety: High attachment anxiety is characterized by a sense of unworthiness as a
group member, excessive worry over acceptance, and fear of rejection. On the flip
side, low attachment anxiety is characterized by the expectation of acceptance and
approval from the group.
• Avoidance: High attachment avoidance is characterized by a tendency to view group
relationships, intimacy, and dependence on others as unnecessary or undesirable.
On the other hand, low attachment avoidance is characterized by the view that
group relationships, intimacy, and interdependence are positive.
Our personal attachment style, or characteristic behavioral, cognitive, and affective orienta-
tion towards social interactions, can be found by correlating our high/low levels of attach-
ment anxiety and avoidance on a double-axis graph (see Figure 2.4).
Figure 2.4: Group member attachment styles
Attachment styles contribute to the extent to which an individual is willing to participate in a group
or team.
Conformist:
Tends to prioritize pleasing other
group members and fitting in over
expressing own thoughts, needs,
and desires.
Socially Anxious:
Feels unable to make valuable or
effective contributions; characterized
by low participation and engagement.
Secure:
Feels capable and worthy of group
membership, and perceives groups as
generally valuable and accepting.
Loner:
Tends to prioritize extreme
independance, reject others, and
engage in aloof or standoffish behavior.
High Attachment Anxiety
Low Attachment Anxiety
High Attachment AvoidanceLow Attachment Avoidance

As shown in Figure 2.4, individuals may be classified into four personal attachment style cat-
egories—conformist, socially anxious, secure, or loner—depending on where they fall along
the two corresponding scales.

• Loners (high attachment avoidance/low attachment anxiety) tend to refuse collabo-
ration and work individually, undermining efforts to include them in group and team
work.

• Socially anxious (high attachment avoidance/high attachment anxiety) members
tend to avoid participation and engagement, assuming that their contributions are
neither valuable nor necessary.

• Conformists (low attachment avoidance/high attachment anxiety) attempt to fit in
and please others by parroting or supporting popular thoughts and opinions within
the group or team.

• Secure (low attachment avoidance/low attachment anxiety) members assume that
their participation and contributions are valuable to the group or team—and they
are right.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 65 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 2.3 Apprehension Toward Groups and Teams

True loners are rare, but if an individual sincerely refuses to work with others, it may be best
to simply leave him or her alone. True loners are typically not an issue, as most are attracted
to jobs or fields in which they can work alone. More often, individuals develop loner tenden-
cies based on previous bad experiences working in pairs, groups, or teams. If these individu-
als have more positive experiences, over time, more positive attachment styles may emerge.

Members with either conformist or socially anxious styles tend to undermine teamwork by
not offering their own thoughts and opinions or by not participating in a truly collaborative
way. In effect, they cut their own KSAs out of the collective pool, becoming nothing more than
another pair of hands. These members need to be motivated to see their own contributions
as uniquely valuable. Ideally, effective group and team members should be secure, as this style
has the optimal potential for developing commitment, attachment, and trust between mem-
bers and for motivating real and valuable contributions to group and team efforts.

Understanding the basic attachment styles can help project managers or team leaders select
their team members, and identify and mitigate potential problems during performance. Being
aware of member attachment styles—either through observation or personality testing—is
critical for adopting strategies to deal with less desirable styles when composing groups or
teams, or when managing those that already exist.

When composing groups or teams, use knowledge of member attachment styles to:

• screen out individuals who exhibit loner tendencies, conformists, or the socially
anxious; and

• support loner, conformist, or socially anxious members with others who are aware
of their tendencies and willing to foster their inclusion within the group or team.

For existing groups and teams, use knowledge of member attachment styles to:

• build awareness of individual attachment styles and how these can affect our per-
ception of and participation in group or team interactions;

• notice when and how members are not fully contributing; and
• encourage undercontributing members to improve by facilitating and rewarding

desired behavioral, cognitive, and affective responses.

Next we examine social value orientation, another area in which the way we think about and
perceive interactions can affect our intentions within (and attraction to) group and team
work.

Social Value Orientation
How people prioritize individual accomplishment and accountability at home or in the work-
place plays a role in how they feel about group and team work. Individuals’ national and fam-
ily culture, worldview, and experience interacting both cooperatively and competitively with
others over time generates their social value orientation toward either an individualistic
or a prosocial mindset (De Dreu, Weingart, & Kwon, 2000). Someone with an individualis-
tic mindset values personal recognition and gain. In a sports team, this is the player who is
always showboating, or passing up opportunities to work cooperatively in favor of personally
making the score. On the other hand, someone with a prosocial mindset values working

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 66 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 2.3 Apprehension Toward Groups and Teams

cooperatively, offering concern and support for others’ well-being, and maximizing positive
outcomes for all (De Dreu et al., 2000). Even Michael Jordan, recognized by the NBA as “the
greatest basketball player of all time” (“Michael Jordan,” 2016, para. 1), noted that when play-
ers are unwilling to prioritize the team’s success over their own, it only makes individual
goals and accolades more difficult to achieve (Favale, 2013).

However, transitioning from I to we in perspective, expectation, and goal setting is not easy
when someone is used to working alone. While the fields of social psychology, organizational
behavior, and business have long recognized the value of work groups and teams, most people
have very little practical experience with collective coordination, group process, and mutual
accountability until well into college or when they start their career. Coordinating group effort
can require detailed organization of time and effort, as well as the ability to understand other
people’s values and needs. When we focus only on our own accomplishment and account-
ability, there is no need for comprehensive script unification. When we are not used to work-
ing with others, it can be difficult to acknowledge value in other viewpoints or ways of doing
things and to be flexible with our own. With little or no positive team experience, it can be
hard to accept the idea that we must take responsibility for others’ actions and accomplish-
ments—or lack thereof. The effort it takes to develop and maintain commitment, attachment,
and trust in teams can be seen as an additional and needless burden that interferes with an
individual’s time, energy, and ability to perform.

How can we address this problem? If members are having trouble transitioning from an indi-
vidualistic to prosocial mentality, managers can help them by doing the following:

• Foster an organizational climate that values cooperation and teamwork.
• Create small-scale opportunities for employees to have positive experiences with

interdependence and teamwork.
• Limit individual rewards to verbal approval of prosocial attitudes and behaviors

during group interactions, and acknowledge a member’s special contributions or
skill in a private moment outside team processes. This will model appreciation for
prosocial attitudes and behaviors and help team members feel individually valued
and appreciated, while not creating a situation where personal praise motivates
destructive competition.

• Establish desirable group rewards and tie individual motivation to these by letting
members know that working effectively as a team raises their value as individual
employees.

Next we look at how past negative experience with groups and teams can influence our under-
standing of how they work, our expectations for productive outcomes, and our desire to join
them.

Lack of Positive Team Experience
We all have a unique patchwork of experiences that drive our emotional and psychological
expectations for future activities and interactions. In fact, an individual’s past experiences
with groups and teams can be one of the most persistent obstacles to team development.
Many negative opinions of and objections to group work and teamwork are supported by

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 67 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 2.3 Apprehension Toward Groups and Teams

previous experiences that were poor, unrewarding, or unproductive, in which the outcome
failed to meet expectations. Teams are particularly vulnerable to judgments based on bad
experiences because inexperienced team members or team builders are often misinformed
about what constitutes a true team, the processes that support or impair team development
and functioning, and the need to continuously monitor and manage these processes.

Becoming a real team is a complex process that cannot be completely defined or controlled
by a simple formula. It depends on generating enough commitment, attachment, and trust
to fuel willing and active participation, collaboration, and belief in the team itself. Socioemo-
tional interdependence can be encouraged by facilitating certain activities and processes, but
it is not guaranteed and cannot be forced. If we have never experienced a team that func-
tions effectively, teams may seem to offer nothing more than unnecessary and unproductive
interactions or meaningless motivational labels. Unaware that these were failed teams, these
experiences can rewrite our concept of and expectations for teams and teamwork. Even posi-
tive group or work group experiences can seem to support this outlook, since the term team
is often misapplied to groups or group activities.

Lack of positive team experience is a major obstacle to team development. If an individual
resists or refuses to join a team, managers can retrain his or her expectations by doing the
following:

• Foster a climate of cooperation. Like teamwork, a climate of cooperation and the val-
ues that contribute to it are not exclusive to teams. Many managers are finding that
a working environment based in the values of teamwork is conducive to employee
satisfaction, motivation, and effectiveness, whether they are working individually, in
groups, or in teams.

• Create opportunities for small, temporary interdependence and teamwork. People
learn from experience. Whether team members lack positive team experience
because they have no experience working in teams or because of previous negative
experience, setting up conditions for creating new and positive experience can be an
effective way to retrain expectations.

Fostering a climate of cooperation and creating opportunities for small, temporary interde-
pendence and teamwork can facilitate employee commitment, attachment, and trust within
the organization, with managers, and between fellow employees. Small cooperative or col-
laborative interactions can also help employees develop soft skills that enhance interpersonal
relations and teamwork. Underdeveloped soft skills, which we discuss next, are another
source of group or team apprehension.

Underdeveloped Soft Skills
Repetition and practice helps us get better at working effectively with others, just as main-
taining a weight-lifting routine can increase muscle tone and mass over time. When we con-
sistently interact and work with others, we flex and build our existing soft skills. Ironically,
soft skills are often far more difficult to learn and strategically apply than their harder coun-
terparts. Discomfort with group interactions and the tendency to either withdraw or domi-
nate can be related to individual personality and attachment styles; however, these reactions
are often caused by a lack of well-developed soft skills in group interactions and a lack of

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 68 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Chapter 2 Summary and Resources

experience with functioning groups and teams. These are both common results of growing up
in an environment that stressed individual rewards and accountability. Given the prevalence
of groups and teams in the workplace, as well as group interactions in our own lives and in the
world at large, group- and team-oriented soft skills are critical to achieving and sustaining a
satisfying and successful life.

Lacking soft skills tends to cause or exacerbate misunderstanding, conflict, and dysfunctional
dynamics between team members. Shyness or discomfort in groups can often be overcome
through conscious practice and positive interactions. Some team members have a tendency to
take control and perceive themselves as solely responsible for keeping the team on track and
accomplishing its work—even if it means working alone. Dominating the team in this fashion
is just as indicative of a lack of team experience and soft skills as is the tendency to submit
and withdraw. Neither behavior contributes to the formation of an actual team. However, one
does not need to perfect one’s soft skills prior to joining a team.

A functioning team is more likely to emerge when its members have experience in teamwork
and possess interpersonal skills. However, few teams are composed of members with all of
the necessary soft (or hard) skills for collaborative performance (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993).
Most team members grow together and learn along the way. Team process and performance
both requires and supports the development of relevant soft skills such as effective communi-
cation, viewpoint sharing, constructive conflict and criticism, active listening, power sharing,
self-management, negotiation, and compromise. As long as some soft skills exist within the
team, these skills and others will continue to develop with each team activity. Managers can
avoid having a team with underdeveloped soft skills by carefully considering both hard and
soft skills when selecting members.

Chapter 2 Summary and Resources

Organizational groups and teams do not just materialize as effective work units—their
development must be carefully planned and coordinated. Cohesion, its related elements,
and their effects on interpersonal and operational dynamics have been a common thread
throughout our discussion of group development and team building, and will continue to
be important throughout this text. As we’ve seen, cohesion depends on many factors within
the team. Members bring certain expectations and qualities into the team setting, and these
profoundly affect their ability to interact and effectively work together. Much depends upon
how members interrelate and integrate their diverse experience, perspectives, and KSAs.
Chapter 3 examines this vital aspect of group and team work, with a focus on interpersonal
skills and communication.

Chapter Summary

• Developing group cohesion and shared scripts is the core purpose of the forming,
storming, and norming stages. Group members and managers should therefore focus
on supporting these processes before initiating the performing stage.

• Support for group cohesion and shared scripts can include the following:
• Preexisting organizational frameworks for group hierarchy, procedure, and roles

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 69 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Chapter 2 Summary and Resources

• Open acceptance and facilitation of constructive conflict, knowledge sharing, and
member feedback

• Acknowledging the importance of adjourning activities whether the entire group
is dissolving or individual members are moving on

• Encouraging new and established members to view socialization and resocial-
ization as an important part of the performance process and as an opportunity
to reinvestigate existing scripts and norms, invigorating the group with new
KSAs

• Using the two critical interaction points in Gersick’s timeline as guideposts, group
members and leaders can plan for certain types of behavior, interaction dynamics,
and performance input.
• The first meeting creates a template for phase one interactions.
• The midpoint transition represents an opportunity for change.

• Practical implications of the TEAM model represent the combined knowledge and
implications of Morgan, Salas, and Glickman’s study and the theories contributing to
their model of group development.

• Team building consists of two parts: planning and developing the team.
• Team skills generally fall into four basic categories: hard, soft, critical thinking, and

creative problem solving.
• Team resources include human, physical, organizational, and psychosocial elements

that satisfy four basic functions:
1. Assist and support goal accomplishment.
2. Address specific performance demands.
3. Encourage cohesion and member well-being.
4. Support the team’s effective functioning.

• Psychological well-being depends on the satisfaction of three innate needs: auton-
omy, efficacy, and relatedness.

• The basic guidelines for selecting team membership suggest minimizing team size
while maximizing skill potential by selecting members with relevant and comple-
mentary skills.

• Maximizing skill potential requires:
• selecting members based on relevant KSAs and members’ potential for expand-

ing these and developing new KSAs, and
• balancing the benefits of diversity with its potentially negative issues and foster-

ing members’ development of useful KSAs.
• Developing a team involves facilitating the development of cohesion by fostering

commitment, attachment, and trust.
• Collective input into the team’s tasks and goals, and the approach for accomplish-

ing them, is integral to developing attachment, trust, and commitment to a common
purpose.

• SMARTER goals are useful for developing effective performance goals and enhancing
team performance.

• Team members are defined by:
• their participation in team activities and processes;
• their input into team strategy, problem solving, and decision making; and
• the value they place on contributing and supporting the contributions of others.

• Major sources of objections to group work and teamwork include: (a) member
attachment styles, (b) social value orientation, (c) lack of positive team experience,
and (d) underdeveloped soft skills.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 70 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Chapter 2 Summary and Resources

Posttest

1. Which of the following are NOT associated with task work activities?
a. discussing work procedure
b. developing technical skills
c. coordinating member activities
d. resolving member conflict

2. Which of the following is NOT one of the four basic functions team resources are
intended to meet?
a. assist and support goal accomplishment
b. define positive interdependencies within the team
c. address specific performance demands
d. encourage cohesion and member well-being

3. Team members who have a socially anxious attachment style tend to avoid participa-
tion and engagement because they __________.
a. place a high priority on pleasing others
b. attempt to fit in through conformity
c. assume their contributions are not valuable
d. feel worthy, capable, and accepted as a team member

4. Which of the following correctly describes the order of stages in Tuckman’s sequen-
tial stage theory?
a. forming, storming, conforming, performing, de-forming
b. forming, storming, norming, re-forming, and performing
c. forming, storming, norming, performing, adjourning
d. forming, re-forming, conforming, performing, and adjourning

5. Groups that never adjourn may face __________.
a. high attachment anxiety and seek acceptance through conformity
b. a continuing sequence of group socialization and resocialization
c. all five stages of the Tuckman sequence
d. greater stability because membership never changes

6. Which of the following is NOT recommended as a method for helping individuals
overcome opposition to group work and teamwork?
a. Establish high-profile individual rewards.
b. Consider potential members’ hard and soft skills before assigning them to a

group or team.
c. Create small-scale opportunities for employees to have positive experiences with

interdependence and teamwork.
d. Create a climate of cooperation that values teamwork.

7. Which of the following is a critical interaction point in Gersick’s punctuated equilib-
rium theory?
a. script unification
b. the midpoint transition
c. storming
d. phase two

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 71 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Chapter 2 Summary and Resources

8. Which of the following does NOT contribute to opposition to group work and
teamwork?
a. negative past experiences with teams
b. high attachment anxiety
c. an individualistic mindset
d. status balancing

9. Hard skills represent __________.
a. skill areas that are particularly difficult to learn or pass on to other team

members
b. teamwork skills, including the knowledge and use of teamwork values, interper-

sonal relations, and communication skills
c. technical skills or skills that enhance one’s ability to perform specific tasks or

functions
d. processes that facilitate solutions requiring more than logic, where innovation

and invention are key

10. A team’s physical resources __________.
a. meet obvious material, technological, and operational needs
b. support members’ psychological well-being and cohesion
c. represent organizational systems, strategies, and norms
d. are irrelevant to geographically dispersed virtual teams

Critical-Thinking Questions

1. Consider some of the groups you have belonged to. Using either Tuckman’s sequen-
tial stage theory, Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory, or the TEAM model,
describe your own experience with the group development process.

2. Both Chapters 1 and 2 correlate teams with collaborative performance. Clearly this
is a definitive point. Using what you learned from Chapter 2, explain the significance
of collaborative performance on team development. Relate this to critical develop-
mental factors such as commitment, attachment, and trust, and explain how it helps
avoid major obstacles to team development.

3. Using the SMARTER goal attributes, explain why the following statement is true:
“Performance goals provide a vision with which to motivate members and act as tan-
gible milestones that mark team progress and setbacks. They also provide rallying
points around which members can develop commitment and enthusiasm.”

Additional Resources
Links

• Five Easy Ways to Kill Your Team’s Motivation:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2016/02/25/
five-easy-ways-to-kill-your-teams-motivation/#5d6a5ee85c15

• Building High-Performance Teams Takes More Than Talent:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chriscancialosi/2015/05/11/
building-high-performance-teams-takes-more-than-talent/#4d708c553c33

Answers: d, b, c, c, b, a, b, d, c, a

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 72 8/19/16 9:37 AM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2016/02/25/five-easy-ways-to-kill-your-teams-motivation/#5d6a5ee85c15

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chriscancialosi/2015/05/11/building-high-performance-teams-takes-more-than-talent/#4d708c553c33

Chapter 2 Summary and Resources

• Three Management Strategies You Can Use Today for Higher Team Performance:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinready/2016/02/02/three-management-strate-
gies-you-can-use-today-for-higher-team-performance/#5101c533570e

• 12 Leadership Behaviors That Build Team Trust:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ekaterinawalter/2015/12/01/12-leadership-behav-
iors-that-build-team-trust/#4914377f5220

• A Dozen Team-Building Tips Inspired by a Great War Film:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngreathouse/2014/03/03/a-dozen-team-build-
ing-tips-inspired-by-a-great-war-film/#76a629bd68ec

• Why Your Team Is Not the Same as Teamwork:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffboss/2016/03/03/
why-your-team-is-not-the-same-as-teamwork/#7dd803692c5c

Videos

• Build a Tower, Build a Team:

Answers and Rejoinders to Chapter Pretest

1. False. No group lasts forever. At some point all groups finish their activities and
disband in a final developmental stage called adjourning.

2. False. The basic guidelines for selecting team membership suggest minimizing
team size while maximizing skill potential by selecting members with rel-
evant and complementary skills.

3. True. Aligning organizational systems with team operation and performance is
critical for organizational teams’ short- and long-term effectiveness.

4. False. Team building consists of two parts: planning and developing the team. Once
all of the components of the planning process—including resource acquisi-
tion and member selection—are complete, the group must still be developed
in order to transition from group to team.

5. True. People learn from experience. Whether team members have no or only nega-
tive experience working in groups and teams, this is a root cause of appre-
hension toward group and team work, and resistance to developing func-
tional levels of commitment, attachment, and trust within prospective teams.

Rejoinders to Posttest

1. Resolving member conflict is part of maintaining positive member relations and con-
structive interaction patterns between members. Dealing with interpersonal issues
and dynamics are teamwork activities.

2. Team resources represent human, physical, organizational, and psychosocial ele-
ments that (a) assist and support goal accomplishment, (b) address specific perfor-
mance demands, (c) encourage cohesion and member well-being, and (d) support
the team’s effective functioning.

3. A socially anxious attachment style is characterized by not feeling worthy enough to
make effective contributions. These team members tend to avoid participation and
engagement because they assume that their contributions are either not valuable or
unnecessary.

4. According to Tuckman’s sequential stage theory, the order of basic developmental
processes that occur over the course of a group’s existence is forming, storming,
norming, performing, and adjourning.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 73 8/19/16 9:37 AM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinready/2016/02/02/three-management-strategies-you-can-use-today-for-higher-team-performance/#5101c533570e

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ekaterinawalter/2015/12/01/12-leadership-behaviors-that-build-team-trust/#4914377f5220

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngreathouse/2014/03/03/a-dozen-team-building-tips-inspired-by-a-great-war-film/#76a629bd68ec

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffboss/2016/03/03/why-your-team-is-not-the-same-as-teamwork/#7dd803692c5c

Chapter 2 Summary and Resources

5. Members of groups that do not adjourn may face a continuing sequence of group
socialization and resocialization as new members come in and assimilate and estab-
lished members adjust to changing personalities, roles, and evolving scripts.

6. Individual rewards foster an individualistic mindset that values personal—rather
than collective—accomplishment, recognition, and gain. An individualistic mindset
is not conducive to group and teamwork, which require that one adopts a more pro-
social attitude toward collective effort and reward.

7. Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium model assigns critical value to key interactions at
two concrete points in the group’s timeline: first meeting and midpoint transition.
Gersick observed that group members naturally formed complete scripts for phase
one interactions and work by the end of the first group meeting and reevaluated and
revised group work and scripts at the temporal midpoint of the group’s timeline.

8. Status balancing occurs toward the end of the storming stage as members overcome
their resistance to group work and establish informal hierarchies.

9. Hard skills represent technical skills, or skills that enhance our ability to perform
specific tasks or functions.

10. Physical resources meet the obvious material, technological, and operational needs
of the team acting within a given context and set of objectives. These include connec-
tivity technology and software used by virtual teams.

Key Terms

adult attachment theory A theory that
proposes that individuals have inherently
different attachment styles founded on
behavioral expectations and scripts gener-
ated by early attachment experiences.

attachment Represents a combination of
members’ socioemotional identification
with the team and their feelings about other
members. This encompasses the extent to
which members feel they are part of the
team, are included in team activities and
processes, and look forward to working with
other members.

climate of cooperation A working environ-
ment in which team members are supportive
of and supported by each other, in which the
success of one is felt as a success for all.

commitment The extent to which team
members acknowledge the significance of
the team’s purpose and accept the proposed
agenda and approach for accomplishing it.
It also represents how strongly they intend
to cooperate throughout the performance
process.

Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium the-
ory A theory that proposes that groups
consistently experience two major phases
of general stability, separated by a crisis and
transition at precisely the midpoint of the
group’s official performance deadline.

human resources Resources that meet the
team’s compositional needs in terms of size,
diversity, and skills required by its major
objective, structural parameters, and pri-
mary task type.

individualistic mindset A social value
orientation in which the pursuit of personal
recognition and gain are core tenets.

interpersonal cohesion Refers to the level
of attachment and camaraderie between
team members.

mental model An internally held concep-
tual model that allows people to describe,
understand, and explain phenomena; recog-
nize component relationships; draw infer-
ences; and predict behavior and events.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 74 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Chapter 2 Summary and Resources

organizational resources The organi-
zational systems, strategies, and norms
that support teamwork processes and
facilitate effective team management and
performance.

performance goals Goals that provide a
vision with which to motivate members and
act as tangible milestones that mark team
progress and setbacks.

personal attachment style Our charac-
teristic behavioral, cognitive, and affective
orientation towards social interactions.

physical resources Resources that meet
the team’s obvious material, technological,
and compositional needs within a given
operational setting and set of objectives.

positive interdependence Refers to the
constructive interrelations between mem-
bers that support the group’s existence and
enable cooperative action.

procedural justice theory A theory that
asserts that members attach most strongly
to groups in which individual worth and sta-
tus are validated by fair treatment, suggest-
ing that in regard to social exchanges within
our groups, we primarily fear rejection and
lack of reciprocity.

prosocial mindset A social value orienta-
tion in which working cooperatively, offering
concern and support for others’ well-being,
and maximizing positive outcomes for all are
core tenets.

psychosocial resources Resources that
support the psychological well-being of team
members and the team’s cohesiveness.

script unification The development or
assimilation of shared scripts.

scripts Procedural and normative tem-
plates for behavior and interaction within
groups.

SMART goals An acronym that stands for
specific, measurable, assignable, realis-
tic, and time related. It was introduced by
George Doran in 1981 to help leaders and
team members develop effective perfor-
mance goals.

social value orientation Developed by a
person’s national and family culture, world-
view, and experience interacting both coop-
eratively and competitively with others over
time. Results in either an individualistic or a
prosocial mindset.

socialization The process in which new-
comers assimilate the attitudes, behaviors,
and knowledge required to successfully par-
ticipate as a group or organization member.

status balancing A process in which mem-
bers establish informal hierarchies based on
personal status within the group.

task cohesion Reflects the team’s shared
commitment and attraction to tasks, task
work activities, and goals.

team efficacy Team members’ collective
belief in their ability to accomplish tasks and
goals, overcome obstacles, resolve conflicts,
and perform effectively.

team evaluation and maturation (TEAM)
model A group development model that
integrates research literature from Tuckman,
Gersick, and other developmental theorists.
It postulates two phases, a midpoint transi-
tion, and nine sequential stages that can be
repeated or recycled to address interaction
failures, changes in environmental demands,
or complex issues.

team morale Represents a shared sense
well-being and satisfaction with the group
and the general quality and tone of its
interactions.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 75 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Chapter 2 Summary and Resources

team potency Reflects a general sense
of the team’s power to exist as a relatively
stable and cohesive entity and to perform
collaboratively until it succeeds—or fails—
as a whole.

team resources Human, physical, orga-
nizational, and psychosocial elements that
satisfy four basic functions: (a) assist and
support goal accomplishment, (b) address
specific performance demands, (c) encour-
age cohesion and member well-being, and
(d) support the team’s effective functioning.

trust Team members’ intention and ability
to be vulnerable to each other and the group,
founded on the expectation without guaran-
tee that all members will act in support of
the team and treat each other considerately
and benevolently.

Tuckman’s sequential stage theory A
group development model that proposes
that group members enact a series of five
developmental stages, which include form-
ing, storming, norming, performing, and
adjourning.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 76 8/19/16 9:37 AM

What Will You Get?

We provide professional writing services to help you score straight A’s by submitting custom written assignments that mirror your guidelines.

Premium Quality

Get result-oriented writing and never worry about grades anymore. We follow the highest quality standards to make sure that you get perfect assignments.

Experienced Writers

Our writers have experience in dealing with papers of every educational level. You can surely rely on the expertise of our qualified professionals.

On-Time Delivery

Your deadline is our threshold for success and we take it very seriously. We make sure you receive your papers before your predefined time.

24/7 Customer Support

Someone from our customer support team is always here to respond to your questions. So, hit us up if you have got any ambiguity or concern.

Complete Confidentiality

Sit back and relax while we help you out with writing your papers. We have an ultimate policy for keeping your personal and order-related details a secret.

Authentic Sources

We assure you that your document will be thoroughly checked for plagiarism and grammatical errors as we use highly authentic and licit sources.

Moneyback Guarantee

Still reluctant about placing an order? Our 100% Moneyback Guarantee backs you up on rare occasions where you aren’t satisfied with the writing.

Order Tracking

You don’t have to wait for an update for hours; you can track the progress of your order any time you want. We share the status after each step.

Order Now Talk to Us

Areas of Expertise

Although you can leverage our expertise for any writing task, we have a knack for creating flawless papers for the following document types.

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Areas of Expertise

Although you can leverage our expertise for any writing task, we have a knack for creating flawless papers for the following document types.

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Trusted Partner of 9650+ Students for Writing

From brainstorming your paper's outline to perfecting its grammar, we perform every step carefully to make your paper worthy of A grade.

Preferred Writer

Hire your preferred writer anytime. Simply specify if you want your preferred expert to write your paper and we’ll make that happen.

Grammar Check Report

Get an elaborate and authentic grammar check report with your work to have the grammar goodness sealed in your document.

One Page Summary

You can purchase this feature if you want our writers to sum up your paper in the form of a concise and well-articulated summary.

Plagiarism Report

You don’t have to worry about plagiarism anymore. Get a plagiarism report to certify the uniqueness of your work.

Free Features $66FREE

Most Qualified Writer $10FREE
Plagiarism Scan Report $10FREE
Unlimited Revisions $08FREE
Paper Formatting $05FREE
Cover Page $05FREE
Referencing & Bibliography $10FREE
Dedicated User Area $08FREE
24/7 Order Tracking $05FREE
Periodic Email Alerts $05FREE

Our Services

Join us for the best experience while seeking writing assistance in your college life. A good grade is all you need to boost up your academic excellence and we are all about it.

On-time Delivery
24/7 Order Tracking
Access to Authentic Sources

Academic Writing

We create perfect papers according to the guidelines.

Professional Editing

We seamlessly edit out errors from your papers.

Thorough Proofreading

We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.

Thorough Proofreading

We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.

Delegate Your Challenging Writing Tasks to Experienced Professionals

Work with ultimate peace of mind because we ensure that your academic work is our responsibility and your grades are a top concern for us!

Check Out Our Sample Work

Dedication. Quality. Commitment. Punctuality

It May Not Be Much, but It’s Honest Work!

Here is what we have achieved so far. These numbers are evidence that we go the extra mile to make your college journey successful.

0+

Happy Clients

0+

Words Written This Week

0+

Ongoing Orders

0%

Customer Satisfaction Rate

Process as Fine as Brewed Coffee

We have the most intuitive and minimalistic process so that you can easily place an order. Just follow a few steps to unlock success.

Call Us +1 (877) 657-8180 Discuss Order Details Now

See How We Helped 9000+ Students Achieve Success

We Analyze Your Problem and Offer Customized Writing

We understand your guidelines first before delivering any writing service. You can discuss your writing needs and we will have them evaluated by our dedicated team.

Clear elicitation of your requirements.
Customized writing as per your needs.

We Mirror Your Guidelines to Deliver Quality Services

We write your papers in a standardized way. We complete your work in such a way that it turns out to be a perfect description of your guidelines.

Proactive analysis of your writing.
Active communication to understand requirements.

We Handle Your Writing Tasks to Ensure Excellent Grades

We promise you excellent grades and academic excellence that you always longed for. Our writers stay in touch with you via email.

Thorough research and analysis for every order.
Deliverance of reliable writing service to improve your grades.

Place an Order Start Chat Now

2 discussions – due in 5 hours

Required Resources

Text

Multimedia

What Will You Get?

Premium Quality

Experienced Writers

On-Time Delivery

24/7 Customer Support

Complete Confidentiality

Authentic Sources

Moneyback Guarantee

Order Tracking

Areas of Expertise

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Areas of Expertise

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Trusted Partner of 9650+ Students for Writing

Preferred Writer

Grammar Check Report

One Page Summary

Plagiarism Report

Free Features $66FREE

Our Services

Academic Writing

Professional Editing

Thorough Proofreading

Thorough Proofreading

Delegate Your Challenging Writing Tasks to Experienced Professionals

Check Out Our Sample Work

It May Not Be Much, but It’s Honest Work!

0+

Happy Clients

0+

Words Written This Week

0+

Ongoing Orders

0%

Customer Satisfaction Rate

Process as Fine as Brewed Coffee

Share Your Requirements

Place Order & Deposit Funds

Release Payment to Your Writer

See How We Helped 9000+ Students Achieve Success

We Analyze Your Problem and Offer Customized Writing

We Mirror Your Guidelines to Deliver Quality Services

We Handle Your Writing Tasks to Ensure Excellent Grades