Although there is little consensus yet about the precise differences between groups and teams, there are a growing number of articles that attempt to distinguish the two. In general, groups refer to broader categories of people who are drawn together for some purpose, while teams are increasingly defined as a "special" condition of groups. In this brief review, the differences will be presented as well as a model that integrates the two concepts in a developmental sequence.

In many studies during the 1960s and '70s the terms group and team were used interchangeably. For example, although the stages of group and team development are probably the same, the early research referred to the functions, roles, processes, and stages of such collectives as "group" phenomena. In addition, a meta-analysis of 49 studies of cohesion and performance used the terms interchangeably (Mullen & Copper, 1994).

In contrast, some researchers and practitioners believe that teams are a special condition for groups--entities that have "something extra." They often cite higher cohesion, clear goal directedness, higher shared responsibility, greater esprit, higher interdependence, etc.

To clarify the perceived differences, a study was conducted by Fisher, Hunter & Macrossen (1997) who factor analyzed 149 adjectives that had been categorized by 319 MBA students regarding their representativeness of groups or teams. The results showed a clear factor for groups and one for teams, suggesting that the two are perceived as distinct entities.
 
 

Groups	Teams
"networking and persuasive" in which they had an outward-looking orientation and worked at managaing their environment and its resources. This also implies the group did not have sufficient internal resources and thus must go outside. "negotiation" suggested that the conflict component of the team-building cycle was incomplete	"creative and innovative" in which new and different solutions to problems are developed "well-rounded" in which members feel satisfied with roles, relationships, and performance--suggesting that team-building has been complete. "mutual accountability" for successes and failures

In summary, it appears that the primary distinctions between groups and teams is one of satisfactory completion of the developmental sequence (Tuckman, 1965).

One of the ways to reconcile this distinction is to present the two concepts as part of a developmental model: a group becomes a team.

 

At each stage of development (assuming stage task mastery is successful) a group becomes more of a team. This also implies that the group avoid or overcome certain critical pitfalls of each stage that may impede further progress.

• Forming: lack of clear or unifying goals or unclear resources, constraints or supports
• Storming: unresolved diversity, conflict avoidance or unresolved conflict mechanisms
• Norming: over or under cohesion; groupthink; no processes for examining and modifying norms
• Performing: relying on past performance strategies; lack of feedback or monitoring mechanisms; team "stars" take the glory and undermine team morale.

It is important to note that this is a dynamic process. Just because a group became a team at one time may not mean that team-based performance will continue. External demands, internal resources, and team composition continue to change, thereby requiring the team to periodically renew itself and its mission and processes.

_________________________

Fisher, S. G., Hunter, T. A., Macrossen, W. D. K. (1997). Team or group? Managers' perceptions of the differences. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 12(4).

Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210-227.

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399.

last updated 1-13-00
David X. Swenson Ph.D.