Do you have a group or a team? It does make a difference!

In mentoring a young friend I was taken back to what I think of as basics....the stages of team formation (forming, storming, norming, performing, and dorming?) and the various team roles a la Belbin and into issues around leadership.

These were things that I was lucky to exposed to while training as a manager/leader with some great financial institutions, but it seems that in the interest of expense management (or should I say avoidance) it seems the younger generations have been short changed. Now I can go a long way to address that gap and am happy to do so. Alternatively there are shelves and shelves of books in WH Smiths or Waterstones or on Amazon that can be purchased and read if one is motivated to do so.

The interesting thing and the reason for this post, is that I was reminded about a missing question that really precedes and of the other stuff I have mentioned. This question was posed to me a few years ago on a half day seminar on managing international groups of individuals involved in projects. It is.......

Are you trying to manage a team or a group? 

The importance of the question is that each is rather different and requires different engagement from you as the leader.This tends to be amplified by distance where communication is poorer ie less face to face and more text or voice only, where it is more difficult to convene groups if only in terms of times in the day, and cultures may be different. I have seen and been involved in a number of instances where a manager tried to manage a team as a group, or a group as a team. The results were not pretty for anyone and tended not to deliver or survive long.

So what is the difference between a team and a group for this discussion? I am sure there are many erudite studies that could be quoted but these two illustrations.

A Group

A Team

In essence a Group of people who, in order to perform their role do NOT need to interact a lot with each other. Yes, the need direction and co-ordination, but will often have little interest in their peers activities and problems and will consider "team" events a wasteful investment of their time. Broadly speaking the best a group can be is the sum of its parts.

A Team in contrast can only perform their individual and collective role by interacting a lot between each other. In fact the leader (in red) is often part of that team. An example is a football team where the players need to understand their roles, communicate and adapt dynamically to circumstances and cover and support each other in ways that may not be entirely predictable at the start. While the manager is not on the pitch during the match his decisions and instructions contribute to the on field play. If the right bonds and behaviours are not engendered then the team will never be greater than the sum of the parts.

If one has a group then the leader needs to be more directive, providing co-ordination (personally or ensuring it happens) and acting as an information hub, receiving and broadcasting. It is likely that the primary interaction will be one-to-one rather than group meetings. When group meetings occur their are likely to be motivational rather than problem solving.

Teams in contrast need the leader to adapt behaviours to their maturity, While at the start they need directional leadership, as they mature they take collective charge. Interaction is largely group oriented and often focussed on problem solving. One-to-ones will occur, but will focus more on coaching and personal development.

I may well return to this later, but I thought it worth capturing and sharing.