Drawing on authoritative sources, we look at how team dynamics are influenced by the similarity and difference of the team members and their roles.
In the realm of organisational dynamics, understanding the interplay between similarity and difference among team members is pivotal. Social scientists have long studied how individuals perceive themselves in relation to others, a concept thoroughly examined in “The New Psychology of Leadership” by Professors Haslam, Reicher, and Platow. This perspective delves into whether, within group settings, individuals are uniting based on shared traits or leveraging their distinct differences. In organisational contexts, especially concerning team dynamics, this distinction is crucial and forms the foundation of tools like the Team Dependency Diagnostic, designed to help teams identify these aspects.
At the Organisational Coaching Hub (OCH), we are deeply committed to fostering inclusion and diversity. However, it’s essential to clarify that while the Team Dependency Diagnostic aligns with these values, its primary focus isn’t solely on diversity and inclusion. Instead, it zeroes in on the roles, skills, and practices within a group that identifies as a team. Research consistently indicates that various forms of diversity can enhance team performance, a principle we wholeheartedly support. Yet, there’s a prevalent tendency to view teams merely as collections of individuals rather than as cohesive entities. This over-generalisation can dilute the true essence of what constitutes a team.
Defining a Team: Beyond the Buzzword
The term “team” is often used so liberally that its meaning becomes ambiguous. Can an entire organisation be considered a single team? Is any group of individuals automatically a team? How do we determine who should be part of a team? Such questions often receive vague answers. When we label everything as a team, the concept loses its significance. It’s imperative to delineate clearly what a team is and what it isn’t. At OCH, we acknowledge that people conceptualise teams differently. Understanding one’s perspective on teams can shed light on why these questions are challenging to answer. We’ve advanced team thinking to bring clarity and innovative solutions to longstanding challenges.
Three Perspectives on Team Dynamics
Individuals typically conceptualise teams in one of three ways:
1. Level 1 Thinking: Hierarchical Teams
In this perspective, teams are defined by reporting structures. Direct reports consider themselves a team because they share the same manager, who refers to them as such. However, merely being labelled a team doesn’t ensure cohesive functioning. Often, such groups operate more as collections of individuals.
These groups may struggle with performance due to communication channels that funnel through the line manager and purposes and identities dictated from above. Indicators of Level 1 thinking include teams named after their manager (e.g., “Sally’s team”), members frequently referencing their reporting lines rather than the team’s purpose, or copying the manager on internal communications without including all team members. Such behaviours suggest a group of line-managed individuals rather than a cohesive team.
2. Level 2 Thinking: Collaborative Teams
Recognising the limitations of Level 1 prompts a shift to Level 2 thinking, which delves into the essence of a team and strategies to foster genuine teamwork. This approach is well-researched and successfully implemented in organisations worldwide.
Level 2 thinking defines a team as a small group collaborating towards a common goal, a concept detailed in “The Wisdom of Teams” by Katzenbach and Smith. This perspective distinguishes teams from mere groups and offers evidence-based methods to transition from a group to a team.
Despite the robust research and methodologies, many teams still underperform. This isn’t due to flawed research or poor implementation but stems from the assumption that all teams require interdependence. Interdependence involves combining diverse roles and skills to achieve objectives unattainable individually. While this is crucial for some teams, many consist of members with similar roles who don’t rely on each other. Level 2 thinking seeks to introduce differences to foster interdependence, but this assumption can limit its effectiveness.
3. Level 3 Thinking: Recognising Team Diversity
Level 3 thinking acknowledges that organisations comprise two distinct team types, both capable of high performance: Inter-Dependent and Extra-Dependent Teams.
- Inter-Dependent Teams: Aligning with Level 2 thinking, these teams thrive on combining different roles and skills to achieve shared objectives. The diversity within the team is the key to their interdependence.
- Extra-Dependent Teams: These teams are characterised by members with similar roles and skills. Examples include teams of doctors, project managers, or salespeople. Such teams exist due to their members’ similarities but often work independently, applying their skills outside the team context. Level 2 thinking might attempt to make these teams interdependent, viewing them as mere groups. However, Extra-Dependent Teams operate differently.
4. In Extra-Dependent Teams, members collaborate to enhance their individual capabilities, which they then apply externally to those who depend on them, such as:
- Doctors collaborating with various healthcare professionals.
- Project managers leading separate project teams.
- Salespeople engaging with distinct clients and product teams.
5. This extra-dependency allows these teams to integrate effectively into other interdependent teams, ensuring their unique strengths add value.
Conclusion
Understanding the balance between similarity and difference within teams is essential for organisational success. By embracing Level 3 thinking, organisations can recognise and value both team types, understanding how they interlock and enable each other to add greater value.
The Role of the Team Dependency Diagnostic
The Team Dependency Diagnostic is a tool designed to help teams identify their composition and team dynamics. By understanding whether a team is interdependent or extra-dependent, organisations can tailor their strategies to enhance performance. This awareness fosters better communication, clearer role definitions, and more effective collaboration.
