Team Dynamics
Introduction
A team is a special type of group. According to Forsyth, a team is “an organized, task-focused group" (Forsyth, 2010, p. 352) and groups are “Two or more individuals who are connected by and within social relationships" (Forsyth, 2010, p. 3).
Application of the practical considerations of group dynamics is essential to enabling teams to successfully perform systems engineering. The interplay of the behaviors of humans in groups is varied, changing, and inescapable. Nevertheless, study of these behaviors has yielded valuable insight and knowledge on the dynamics of individuals within groups. The awareness and application of this information is crucial to facilitate teams performing work and accomplishing their goals.
The study of group dynamics was initially within the province of psychology and later within sociology. The importance of group dynamics for successful teams has led other disciplines such as business management to study team dynamics.
History
The origins of the study of group dynamics began with Gustave Le Bon. Le Bon wrote La psychologie des foules, 1895 and its English translation The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, 1896. Sigmund Freud wrote Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego 1922 in and analysis and response to Le Bon work. Kurt Lewin is acknowledged as the "founder of social psychology" who coined the term “group dynamics.” He founded the Research Center for Group Dynamics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1945, relocated in 1948 to the University of Michigan. Wilfred Bion studied group dynamics from a psychoanalytical perspective. He help found the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in 1947. In that same year, both the Research Center for Group Dynamics and the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations founded the journal Human Relations. The study of group dynamics is now worldwide, active, well established as shown by the number of journals related to Organizational Psychology and Group Behavior here http://www.socialpsychology.org/journals.htm and here http://www.socialpsychology.org/io.htm#journals.
Nature of Groups
Groups are endemic to human existence and experience; humans are by nature social animals. Consequentially, an informed understanding of the nature of groups is very useful in enabling teams to perform systems engineering. Research into group behavior reveals that the nature of a group can be described by interaction, goals, interdependence, structure, unity, and stage (Forsyth, 2010, pp. 5-10).
Interaction
Communication, both verbal and non-verbal, among members within a group produces constantly changing and varied interactions. Group dynamics are more than the sum of the interactions between individual members; group interactions create synergistic behaviors and results. Interactions can be placed into two categories (1) socio-emotional interactions and (2) task interactions (Bales 1950, 1999).
Goals
All groups exist for the purpose of achieving one or more goals. The goals provide the basis for the group’s tasks. The tasks accomplished by the group can be categorized into activities and characterized by a Circumplex Model (McGrach, 1984).
Interdependence
Interdependence is “the state of being dependent to some degree on other people, as when one’s outcomes, actions, thoughts, feelings, and experiences are determined in whole or in part by others (Forsyth, 2010, p. 8).” Interdependence can be categorized in five types (1) mutual, reciprocal, (2) unilateral, (3) reciprocal, unequal, (4), serial, and (5) multi-level as shown below. (Forsyth, 2010, p. 8, Fig. 1.3).
Structure
Structure includes the organization and patterned behaviors of a group. Structure can be deliberately devised and/or emergently observed. Most groups have both kinds of structures, which are evinced in the roles and norms of the group. “The roles of leader and follower are fundamental ones in many groups, but other roles — information seeker, information giver, elaborator, procedural technician, encourager, compromiser, harmonizer — may emerge in any group" (Benne & Sheats, 1948) (Forsyth, 2010, p. 9). Norms are the rules that govern the actions of group members. Norms can include both formal and informal rules.
Cohesion
The “interpersonal forces that bind the members together in a single unit with boundaries that mark who is in the group and who is outside of it” constitute a group’s cohesion. (Dion, 2000). Cohesion is an essential quality of group; it can vary from weak to strong. A team cannot perform effectively without strong group cohesion.
Stage
Groups exhibit stages of development. Being comprised of people, it is not surprising that groups collectively demonstrate the dynamics and growth of the individuals that constitute the group members. The most well-known and wide-spread model of the stages of group development was developed by Bruce Tuckman. The initial model identified the sequence of group development as (1) Forming, (2) Storming, (3) Norming, and (4) Performing (Tuckman, 1965). He later added a final stage to the model: (5) Adjourning (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). While Tuckman’s model is sequential others have observed that groups actually may recursively and iteratively progress through the different stages as shown in Figure 3 (Forsyth, 2010, p.20, Modified Figure 1.5).
Practical Considerations
The dynamics associated with creating, nurturing, and leading a team that will successfully achieve the team's goals is important and challenging. Although psychologists and sociologists have conducted and continue to conduct research to understand team dynamics, the profession of business management has additionally sought to develop practical guidance for utilizing and applying this knowledge to foster high-performance teams. Accordingly, business management has focused its contribution to the field of team dynamics by publishing practical guidebooks to analyze the problems and focus on developing solutions to the problems of team dynamics (see additional readings). There are many consultancy firms throughout the world that assist organizations with the application of practical knowledge on team dynamics. Successful systems engineering teams would do well to not ignore, but rather take advantage of this knowledge.
References
Please make sure all references are listed alphabetically and are formatted according to the Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed). See the BKCASE Reference Guidance for additional information.
Citations
Bales, R.F. 1950. Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Bales, R.F. 1999. Social interaction systems: Theory and measurement. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Benne, K.D. & Sheats, P. 1948. Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4 41-49.
Dion, K.L. 2000. Group cohesion: From “field of forces” to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 7-26.
Forsyth, D.R. 2010. Group Dynamics (5th ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
McGrath, J.E. 1984. Groups: Interaction and performance. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tuckman, Bruce W. 1965. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399.
Tuckman, Bruce W., & Jensen, Mary Ann C. 1977. Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2, 419- 427.
Primary References
Forsyth, D.R. 2010. Group Dynamics 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Additional References
Scholtes, P.R., Joiner, B.L., & Streibel, B.J. 2003. The Team Handbook (3rd ed.) Edison, NJ: Oriel Inc.
Larson, C.E. & LaFaso, F.M.J. 1989. Teamwork: what must go right, what can go wrong. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Lencioni, P. 2002. The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lencioni, P. 2005. Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McShane, S.L. & Von Glinow, M.A. 2010. Organizational Behavior: Emerging Knowledge and Practice for the Real World. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.