Here is the recording from the December 17th telephone seminar on Mutual Coaching.

 

The question, “What is the key difference between a group of people versus a team of people working together, sparked a lot of comments from leadership groups on Linkedin. I Here are some comments from discussion groups on Linkedin. I have posted the answers from members of these groups below.

This is from the Linked 2 Leadership group.

Stephen, I think you've answered your own question. A team works together, a group just exists.

Am I missing something or was this a trick question? ;P

Cheers,

Alex

Alex, your comment triggered me to think about my organization; you’re correct, a group just exists. I work in an environment that is departmentalized. To me, a group is a few people working to accomplish a common goal. If they reach the goal, then great. But, if the goal is not reached, there are fingers pointed. A team on the other hand works together; there is trust, willingness to help and they hold each other accountable. If the goal is not reached, then the team takes the hit, not the weakest link. The thing is that most often the leaders and executives I have met think they have teamwork in their organizations but I have rarely seen it.

Stephen

The difference between the two is like the parts that make up a wheel.With a group of people all the parts are there but not properly configured.. When they are assembled correctly then all the individual spokes are pointing towards the centre which is the focal point for the team effort.The Hub of the wheel is the leader,and dynamic leadership is essential to ensure that all the spokes feel that they are contributing to the total team output.The Leader must have earned the trust and respect of the team members and lead by example to enable the wheel to go round smoothly.

Isn't the difference that makes a difference the fact that a team has a common purpose?

I don't necessarily agree with Gene. Take a look at football teams, they all go on to the field with a common purpose -namely to try to win the game. But some play like a bunch of individuals and others work together as a team to achieve the win. The difference is that as a team player you subjugate your personal ambitions and quest for glory in favour of those of the team, and the team result counts for more than any personal gratification.Real team players are more interested in the Teams results and will allow themselves to be moulded into the total team effort.

As an ex-Scoutmaster I always new which Patrol would win any competition based on their Team Spirit

I like and use the definition used by Katzenbach in his book "wisdom of teams". He defines a group of people who come together to share information and use that information to make decisions in their own area of responsibility. He defines a team as one where they recognise the interdependency, commit to a shared goal and to each other. Finally, they recognise that there is a performance benefit of taking the "leap" to behaving in a very different way and committing to the investment needed to become a team.
When working with senior teams, I actually challenge them whether they need to become a team at all. They may be fine operating as a group!

Ian

Group work versus team work...very interesting discussion.

Unapologetically, I will attempt to frame it from personal experience and history. Groups, I think of LGOPs (Little Groups of Paratroopers), these are airborne forces scattered across the battlefield because the plan has not survived first contact due to misfortune, or enemy action..etc. As they begin to find each other on the ground they form LGOPs. When these groups of paratroopers find each other the most senior leader takes charge and leads them to the objective/s. Once there the leader commands and controls the group in the conduct of its mission. All of this requires a general level of training by all and some pretty strong small unit leaders. That was a rather lengthy explanation of a group coming together for the purpose of performing work.

A team on the other hand has trained together, worked together, and understands the strengths and weaknesses of each other. Furthermore, they maximize each other's strengths and minimize each other's weaknesses. The team is also led by a strong leader who fosters team member growth and can lead the team in the effective accomplishment of goals and objectives. From the military perspective there are many teams and often there are teams of teams.

Therefore, I think the major difference between teams and groups is the relationship the members have toward one another and their ability to leverage personal and professional esprit de corps.

" When a team outgrows individual performance and learns team confidence, excellence becomes a reality." - Joe Paterno

The key difference between a group of people versus a team of people working together is the same difference between a box of gear parts and a fine Swiss watch.

commitment to a common promise and clarity around responsiblity of team members and team leader..

Groups- just exists. A team is focused on a goal or several goals, they work together, they do not care who gets the credit within their group, they celebrates wins and losses together, they have team synergy and they protect each other as well as elevate each other. If you are a leader in an organization you manage and direct "groups" tactically. Teams- you lead and support as they know where they're going, and pull from each other to get there!

I gave this question a lot of thought for a very long time. Eventually, in my mind, it comes down to this: Shared processes.

Being the Marine that I am I can agree with the point made by James and will add a view in line with this.
Speaking both as a Marine and as a sergeant in law enforcement supervising teams/groups I believe their is a noticeable difference in how they interact with each other.
I have been on both, a team and assigned to a group under the title of team. Those in a true team not only work towards the same end goal, they support each other in their own assignment and help pick up the slack if someone falls behind. If one is down and having personal problems as well they all chip in and help out.
There have been "groups" that depart once their own part of the assignment is done without any consideration for their "teammates". A team will step up and even help clean the snow off of their partners cars when they leave at night.
A team will critique their own work and as a team evaluate areas for improvement as a team without taking it personal.
Just some input from a simple Marine.

From an OD & Training perspective, groups can be (formal or informal) and we can consider them a cluster of people or individuals joined at the hip for a common reason, goal or objective (short or long term) Example: In teaching a workshop on Coaching for Success, the 3hr seminar will have a group of people working together to gain a better perspective on the topic. Teams on the other hand are more formalized and are established. It's easier to set achievable metrics because each member of the team has an expertise, a specific job to do. Each team member contributes to the overall team objective. Performance can also be measured because each team member has a specific role to do and historical data supports trends and direction. High performing teams can effectively remove performance barriers because they have better understanding of each other’s strengths and weaknesses. Another aspect to consider is any current team may have been designed by thinking about existing team member’s strengths and weaknesses so when adding a new team member this thought process takes place and may impact the existing team dynamics.

The following comments are from the NeuroLeadership in Project Management group

healthy conflict

Group: An assemblage of persons or objects gathered or located together; an aggregation: a group of dinner guests; a group of buildings near the road. ...
www.thefreedictionary.com/group
Team: Sports & Games A group on the same side, as in a game. 2. A group organized to work together: a team of engineers. 3. a. Two or more draft animals used to ...
www.thefreedictionary.com/team

Fundamentally the difference is that a team has a cooperative focus towards achieving a common objective.

The differences between a group and a team are like black & white. A group is a collection of people who are doing similar work, while a team has a 'shared purpose or mission' in achieving an objective. The team purpose must be shared, since a team will trade ideas, and in a non-ego based way, and look for the best solutions. In short, a group most times must be micro-managed, by the PM while a team can be inspired to achieve creative and uncommon results beyond the requirement. In short, if you need administration form a group, if you need revenue growth and new products

Another key difference in relation to this thread is how groups and teams behave differently under stress. When stress levels are low a group and a team working together will behave in very similar ways and produce similar outputs, it is when stress levels increase that the difference is noticed and accentuated. Under stress a group will devolve into factions and individuals concentrated on self-preservation while a team with a strong purpose and a shared understanding of the values that support it, will bond closer together and be prepared to make greater personal sacrafices in the interest of the overall team win.

all is true!
key word: A TEAM SHARES A GOAL or a set of predefined goals...
exactly like a sports team.
in teams, the leader, manager or coordinator must focus on individuals and their skills to be of ultimate benefit of the TEAM.

Andy, Is there any hard data to support your claims regarding the difference between teams and groups. Isn't a team a group with some special attributes - cohesion around objectives, etc. There are some pretty dysfunctional teams that devolve into the kind of behavior you attribute to groups. Only healthy teams will have the attributes you attribute to all teams.

George I totally agree, "healthy" teams should have a strong purpose and shared understanding of the values that support it, the behaviours that extend from those values and the underlying social and organisational structures that enable those behaviours. I believe that a group becomes a team when they determine these things and live them. To further clarify; a group can have common objectives around task and intellect "the nature of the game" but a team must also have common objectives also around the spirit and emotions "the spirit of the game", only with this balance are they a team and not a group.

Both teams and groups can have a common purpose. A reading group for example all have a common purpose of reading the same book each week, but no great teamwork is required. If during one of their weekly discussions, they decide to take action to achieve something, then teamwork is required. Unfortunately, passion and conviction to achieve something will not always creat a well-functioning team and good teams must be engineered. I really like Patrick Lencioni's definition of how a well-functioning team can work in his 5 Dysfunction of a Team. Trust, Conflict, Commitment, Accountability, Common Goals stacking up in a traingle with Trust at the bottom. Active intervention to establish trust and provoke healthy conflict are the foundations of a good team.

In child psychiatry, researchers and clinicians make the distinction between children only capable of "parallel action" with other children vs. those (healthier) children who can participate in "shared action". The former group can use toys alongside other children, but they never find a way to engage the others. The latter group creates shared experience by defining rules/games/goals/etc, and perhaps create shared purpose.

I'd say the same thing about Group vs. Team.

I like the way this thread is developing with new insights, since it does directly hit on the psychology and nuero aspects of project planning and perhaps communications and reporting process differences between groups and teams. In addition to the anecdotal information provided, I will add an observation that there is a very real conciousness change when you are working within a team; I would describe it as a sparkle of intellectual challenge, and perhaps even some 'proving' on the part of a new member that they belong and contribute to the team's goals and values. The best team managers do this in an efffortless way being inclusive and promoting a positive environment for new ideas. By contrast if the 'group think' is present, it can stifle new thinking by reverting to job descriptions with much more emphasis on "we always do it this way" values that have their place in a process driven corporation, but may indeed disable the most creative problem solving members of the group. The bottom line for the practioner is to know which model is in force for the project situation you are in, and plan accordingly for best results.

From the  Trainer Talk group

Don't know if these two sites are any good. they are concise - which is a feature I like!

http://topten.org/public/AE/AE244.html

http://www.excellerate.co.nz/ttgroupsvsteams.html

These 2 articles provide great insight to answer this question and shows that most leaders think that they have teamwork in their organization when really they don't. Thanks for sharing.

A real team is united through a common goal that every member understands and supports.

Agree with all of these - and Sheridan, the articles are really useful! I remember being in a team build session with the "team" I worked with, and how difficult it was, until we realised we were a working group! That made all the difference to how we continued, and set ourselves up. Painful, but very worth it!

For me that for there to be a team there needs to be a common goal that has a high level of interdependence that means people have to do things together.

Creating Your Dream Team

Over the last fifteen years that i have worked in the training and coaching field I have met many business owners and executives who always had concerns about people performance in their organizations. I see this as good because I don’t think we are ever fully satisfied with ourselves and people when it comes to our business and organizational performance. Being able to openly admit what bothers you to a stranger is not easy, but it is always beneficial to voice your concerns.

One thing i have noticed consistently over the years is that most business owners and executives do not understand what teamwork is. They often mistake people working together as teamwork. In our training workshops we explain the four stages of team development and what it means for people to function at each level. Most employees in organizations I have visited or worked with usually had people functioning at the first level of team development most of the time, which we describe as the dependency level.

To have teams function at a higher more productive level requires team members to learn new skills in collaboration, communication, decision making, problem solving etc. It also requires the business owner to change his/her leadership style to foster team development and less dependency supervision. I mention again the business owner because change has to start at the top or the culture of the firm will not evolve much.

I posted the question, what is the difference between groups of people working together versus a team of people to my leadership groups on Linkedin. Interesting responses have started to come in. Someone posted links to two articles which I think are great, especially the first one.

Here are the links to these articles:

The Top 10 Key Differences Between a Team of Individuals and a Group of Individuals

Team Tactics: The Critical Difference between Groups and Teams

So what does it take to create a dream team starting at the top management level?  It starts by understanding the difference between a group and a team followed by the role of the leader in making this happen in his/her organization.

This month we will be holding a tele-seminar, Creating Your Dream Team where we will describe the Three Brain Synergy approach to creating a dream team and the fundamental knowledge that it takes to make this transformation a reality.

You can join the discussion by signing up for the free call now.

Stephen Goldberg

The audio recording on the Leader as a Facilitator tele-seminar is now available You can listen here

 

 

or download the file here.

Download this episode (right click and save)

I was directed to this article in the New York Times that summarizes a study that was done on the effectiveness of online learning as compared to the traditional classroom approach. Check it out.

Study Finds That Online Education Beats the Classroom

Read an article by Steve Lohr on keeping abreast of innovation in the Continuing Education special section.

 

Stephen Goldberg

Leadership Question of the week of October 05, 2009

How can a leader facilitate the process of getting people to work and collaborate better together even though they may not necessarily like each other?

Answer:

It is often difficult to avoid assigning people who dislike each other to a team that needs to work together in the achievement of a specific objective.

It is evident that people in a team who dislike each other will cause the teams to perform below the level of success of a more compatible team, let alone a dream team. The degree of inferior performance will depend essentially on two factors, namely:

1)      the number of persons disliked in a team

2)      the degree of existing dislike

The challenge for the leader who works with the team is to get the team to overcome disliking each other. This may be more or less difficult to achieve. It may be less difficult when the leader can substitute some persons. It will be more difficult when substitution is not possible for any reason, such as the need to keep a person on the team because he is the only expert available for the particular situation.

Whatever the particular situation, the better qualified the leader is as a facilitator the more effective is he going to be in getting a team to improve individual as well as collective performance.

Many times leaders and managers are faced with people in their teams who do not like each other and get along well. This can be a big impediment to teamwork and improved performance.

This week's leadership and team development question is

How can a leader facilitate the process of getting people to work and collaborate better together even though they may not necessarily like each other?

Please post your answers here in a our forum in the members area that you can join for free.

Last weeks leadership and team development question of the week was

How does a leader get his team to improve performance by utilizing the qualities and strengths of each person?

Answer from Fritz Glaus.

The question implies that a good leader is successful with his team in two ways.

1. Team members are aware of their individual and collective qualities and strengths, i.e. they know not just themselves but also each other, because a high performance team requires a team spirit based on open and genuine exchanges between all members. It  is through the exchange of personal information between members that they are each enabled to fully appreciate and fully utilize their personal qualities and strengths.

2. The team improves performance on an ongoing basis without having to be reminded continually by the leader about the need to perform. This means that the leader has established an atmosphere of trust between him and his team.

A leader who achieves the above demonstrates the participative style of leadership. In other words, he is not bossy or directive but asks for views and opinions of this team members. He does not continuously check up on what and how individual team members are doing but works on the basis of mutual trust. This is particularly effective under difficult economic conditions where maximum efficiency and time saving is required, because the leader gets better and quicker performance from his team and also saves time for effective planning and executive innovation on his part.

All the above combines to make the leader an exceptional one in to-day’s world where most leaders are action types who like to issue directives and who wrongly assume that they don’t have time to invest in the practice of participative leadership.

 

Fritz Glaus

Here is a link to an article on leadership from Forbes.com that was written by a leader who seems to be doing a good job doing what Fritz suggests.

How To Stay Free And Creative As Your Company Grows

Ken Davenport, 09.21.09, 04:00 PM EDT

Five steps for not getting swamped by the business side of business.

Leaders come in different sizes and shapes and their approach to leadership varies from one leader to the other. The style of leadership that is most effective today is one of facilitator or coach, rather than directive, especially for the younger generation entering the workforce.

 This weeks (September 28th) leadership and team development question is:

How does a leader get his team to improve performance by utilizing the qualities and strengths of each person?

Post your comments here or in our member's forum. Log in as a member or register for free.

Our last question of the week was on ''How does active listening differ from just good listening skills?''

Here is the answer from Fritz Glaus along with a video below.

This question requires one to do a little thinking, and it turns out that a lengthy answer is needed. After reflection, one realizes that the difference is rather subtle, in that active listening is a prerequisite for good listening, whereas the opposite cannot be said with the same logic, i.e. it cannot be said that good listening is a prerequisite for active listening.

Most persons do not recognize this difference because superficially they tend to see good listening and active listening as equivalents. The fact is being ignored that active listening is a technique that requires one to go through the following precise steps:

1. Listen carefully and then reflect (repeat) in your own words what the other person said
2. Wait for confirmation from the other person that the message you think you were given is really what he meant to convey
3. Continue the conversation and express your own view 

This means two things. One, in active listening the listener needs to be patient, as his own view is given only as a third step. This is very hard to do for many leaders, as they are usually action types who tend to be directive, who want to convey their message first, and who above all want the other person to listen. Second, whereas in standard ‘’good listening’’ one assumes that one understands perfectly the message expressed by the other person, in active listening one needs to double-check with the other person to make sure that the meaning one thinks was contained in his message is really the same as the one he intended.

 

You can also listen to the audio recording of the tele-seminar from September 24th on the subject of active listening and how it affects leadership and teamwork. During the call we explained how different types of people have different challenges when it comes to listening well.

 

 

Good listening skills are essential for good leadership and to develop teamwork in a department and across services. According to Fritz Glaus everyone can develop good listening skills but the challenge may be different for various types of people and leaders.

Here is the leadership and team development question for the week of September 14, 2009

 ''How does active listening differ from just good listening skills?''

Last week’s leadership and team development question was

How do listening skills affect the quality of leadership?

Here is the answer from Fritz Glaus along with a video of more in-depth answer.

Leaders who possess good listening skills are capable of practicing participative leadership and of developing highly motivated teams which consistently demonstrate outstanding productivity, initiative, and creativity. 

Discussion 

As discussed on another occasion, it is unfortunate that only a small minority of leaders are good listeners. You will recall that the reason for this is that most persons in leadership positions are put there not because they have a participative leadership style but because, first, they are able to make quick decisions and second, they direct their managers and other persons in their organization to carry out their decisions. In other words, they have a directive style of leadership, or an action style, which is a style that unfortunately develops ‘’yes men’’ and ‘’yes women’’ who only give the impression of having initiative and of being decisive themselves, when in reality they are self-protective, always making sure they don’t do anything their boss might dislike. 

Fortunately, there is a growing minority of directive style leaders who have discovered the concept of participative leadership and who realize that by cultivating the habit of listening to others they can develop teams of increasing productivity, initiative, and creativity. These leaders aim to free themselves increasingly from the drudgery of being in charge of all operational details and of having to continually check up on others to make sure they are doing as they are told. 

ThreeBrainSynergy has developed ways to help leaders who want to become better listeners and to practice a more participative leadership style; in short who want to enable themselves to create more effective teamwork in their organization. 

 

ThreeBrainSynergy e-learning provides tools designed for this purpose, showing both how to sensitize others towards the concept of participative leadership and how to coach them as required

FREE TELE-SEMINAR SEPTEMBER 24TH

 This month’s tele-seminar on Active Listening – What it is and how to use it to prevent people problems is Thursday September 24^th at 2:00 PM EST. Register for free now.