In response to the mysteriously named "orgpsych" on teams:
[Host's Note: I let that one slip through... My policy is to require full
name and email address on postings to the list. Org affiliation is
recommended, but not required.]
I return to my ancient Scottish dictionary which says for "team" a
number of animals moving together - ie harnessed. This is a kind of
organisation no doubt. (Interesting that only animals are mentioned
by those canny Scots.) Collins, being more modern, says, a group of
people organised to work together and "teamwork" the cooperative work
done by a team.
OK. So team refers to organisation of living beings. But, to have
any *use* the term needs something more for then everything that is
any kind of human organisation is a team and that clearly isn't what
is intended. "Team" is meant to distinguish something different.
> >"Team" is not a particular organisation but a quality of working
> >together or a phenomenon of relationship in my (operational)
> >definition.
> >"Organisation" includes the structure (or design principles) of the
> >particular team. Clyde's example from Drucker of different "teams"
> >for different sports is an example of different organisation rather
> >than differences in "team", at least as I've defined it above.
> What Michael is describing as "team" is what is more appropriately called
> "teamwork." a team is, in fact, an organization.
The problem here is that I'm not "describing". I'm attempting to
distinguish something useful with operational definitions. So I have
no argument with "orgpsych"'s definitions. They just don't match the
ones that I was suggesting as more useful. (I do have a wee problem
with the use of "in fact". Teams, in my world, don't exist "in
fact". They exist in distinction, in experience, presence - or not
at all.)
> It is impossible to separate the two.
This is a statement which fails to appreciate the power of
distinction. It may be impossible to separate the two in some
external reality but not in language, in mind, in thought. And that
is the important place of distinguishing them. To distinguish does
not mean to separate, except in thought. And even then, "separate"
is too strong a term. They are still related. I can't separate the
front of my hand from the back of my hand - but I can sure
distinguish them.
>A team is an organization built along specific lines to
> achieve a specific purpose.
Yes, but what specific lines, for what purpose and under what
conditions will we call such an organisation a team? Surely not if
it's a company of 100,000 people. Or even a company of 10,000. Or
even 100. (Some pyschologists I know say a team can't be more than 5
or so and be effective.)
OOPS, I think that's what you're about to say
> Teamwork, on the other hand, transcends any organizational structure. It
> can exist in groups of 2 or 3 and it can exist just as well in a group of
> 100. The latter, though, is not in any way a team ... it is simply too
> large to function effectively as a team.
But then your own definition is not any good as an operational one
because I'm left with a problem that I was trying to address and
can't with what you said earlier. What is this thing we're trying to
distinguish by "team"?
> When most organizations start "teambuilding" efforts they have no clue
> whatsoever what a team actually is or how to use such an organization.
> What they are really after is building a level of teamwork. Once this is
> done, teams may be formed on an ad hoc basis. To form a team and plan on
> it existing and functioning for an extended (indefinite) period of time
> means that what has really been formed is a high performing (hopefully)
> work group. But it is not a team.
>
> Teams have definite criteria inherent in the definition of a team.
I tend to agree having come from a sports background and competing on
national championship teams. But what is this definite criteria? Or
maybe you can give us some that don't fit my category of "quality of
working together".
I didn't mean teamwork - although I included it - I meant to include
such definite criteria as:
- a common goal that needs the coordinated efforts of its
members to succeed.
-- Michael McMaster <Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk>