problem solving team self managed team

Filter by Keywords

People Management

How to create high-performing self-managed teams.

Senior Content Marketing Manager

February 5, 2024

While management styles may vary greatly, most successful business leaders agree that an organization’s greatest assets are its people. 🧑🏼‍🤝‍🧑🏽

But if you hire the best, empowering them to bring their best selves to work makes sense. Increasingly, management gurus have turned to self-management to build independent, self-motivated, productive, and highly creative teams. 

As the name suggests, unlike traditional teams, self-managed teams work autonomously without direct supervision, though they may still report to a supervisor or team leader when needed. Organizations rely on self-managed individuals to do their jobs well without micromanagement.

And with the help of tools like ClickUp for Teams , self-managed work teams can flourish as they drive organizational growth. 

In this blog post, we’ll take a deep dive into this management style to see how you can build self-managed teams in your organization. 

Understanding Self-Managed Teams

1. autonomy, 2. collaboration, 3. ownership, 4. accountability, 5. continuous improvement, pros of self-managed teams, cons of self-managed teams, define self-managed teams, look out for signs, identify interested team members, set clear goals and objectives, develop team roles and responsibilities, allocate and track tasks , open channels for communication , establish decision-making mechanisms, provide resources, set result-based timelines, assess the effectiveness of your self-managed team, help your self-managed teams thrive.

Unlike a traditional project or agile team headed by a more conventional manager or supervisor, a self-managed team is typically a small, self-directed unit without a traditional hierarchical or top-down organizational structure.

All team members own their goals, tasks, and responsibilities to drive outcomes.

There’s no hierarchy within a self-managed team. Instead, team members discuss the scope and limits of each others’ responsibilities and are empowered to make decisions within those areas. As a result, each person can manage their workload how they see fit. 

Since every process and output is discussed within the team before they reach a final consensus, self-managed teams are ‘semi-autonomous.’ Power is decentralized, and overall accountability is shared.

Self-governance is a key concept at play here. Every self-managed individual is responsible for both their individual performance and the overall business goal. And though they must operate within the guidelines for a specific project, they are free to work in the way that best suits them. 

This also means that some self-managed teams enjoy unlimited time off. They can take vacation days or abbreviated workdays as long as the project progresses as planned. Expectedly, successful self-managed teams are built on a strong foundation of trust and ownership.

Key Characteristics of Self-Managed Teams

Self-managed teams have emerged as a powerful force, driving innovation, fostering creativity, and enhancing organizational culture through greater employee engagement. To fully understand the essence of self-managed teams, let’s look at the defining characteristics distinguishing them from more traditional management teams.

In a self-managed team, autonomy takes center stage. Team members of these fully autonomous teams can make decisions about their work, prioritize tasks, and solve problems without constant supervision.

This delegation of power enables a sense of ownership, balancing autonomy and responsibility among the entire team, driving them to take initiative and find creative solutions.

Autonomy is also characterized by:

• Informed decision-making power: Equip your team with knowledge and expertise to make informed decisions aligned with team goals
• Effective time management: Give your team autonomy over their schedules, allowing them to optimize productivity and minimize distractions
• Creative problem-solving: Empower team members to brainstorm solutions independently and enable a culture of innovation and effective problem-solving

Self-managed teams excel at collaboration. The team has self-motivation and works together to share ideas, solve problems, and achieve common goals. This collaborative approach of a self-managing team can lead to more creative solutions, strong communication, improved efficiency, and a stronger sense of team spirit.

Effective collaboration results in

• Mutual respect: Encourage the team to value and respect each other’s contributions for better outcomes
• Active listening: Ensure everyone’s ideas are heard and considered through active listening
• Shared decision-making: Collaborate as a team to make decisions using collective expertise and insights

Self-managed teams are driven by a strong sense of ownership, where team members take pride in their work and feel a personal stake in the project’s or team’s success or failure. This ownership increases motivation, better decision-making, and a heightened commitment to delivering high-quality results.

Benefits of ownership include:

• Increased productivity and performance: When team members have full ownership of their work, they are intrinsically motivated to perform well and increase productivity 
• Reduced reliance on managers: Such teams don’t need managers for day-to-day tasks, as they manage themselves. 
• Improved decision-making: Teams that take responsibility for their outcomes actively collect information to make better decisions, and have a problem-solving approach to work

Accountability is a cornerstone of self-managed teams. Team members are collectively responsible for their contributions and the team’s overall project success. This shared accountability drives individuals to perform their best and ensures the entire team stays focused on achieving its goals.

Accountability results in:

• Individual responsibility: Team members hold themselves accountable for their individual performance as well as team outcomes 
• Improved team performance: Team members also hold each other accountable to achieve better results
• Reduced conflict: Shared responsibilities prevent tension from escalating and enable effective conflict resolution

Successful self-managed teams thrive on continuous improvement. Team members are encouraged to learn, grow, and adapt to challenges. This commitment to improvement drives the self-directed team to seek new working methods, refine processes, and deliver exceptional results.

Continuous improvement leads to:

• Increased efficiency: Consistently identifying and eliminating processes, workflows, and products that create inefficiency improves productivity
• Improved customer satisfaction: Continuous improvement of processes and practices helps the organization provide better products and services to customers

Pros and Cons of Self-Managed Teams

Just as every management model has its flipside, self-managed teams have pros and cons too.

Building self-managed teams has several advantages, such as high productivity and motivation, quick decision-making, and cost savings. Let’s break this down.

Improved productivity and skills

Self-managed teams are typically far more productive than traditional ones. Because ownership and accountability factor so heavily in self-managed units, they usually work harder than traditionally structured teams. They may even acquire new skills to ensure they remain worthy of the ‘self-managed’ tag. 

Thus, self-managed individuals tend to develop stronger discipline in their jobs. 

Enhanced motivation and engagement

The team’s performance reflects its efforts, so employees feel more motivated to put their best foot forward. Working toward a shared goal while owning specific tasks also improves morale and motivation. Being in a successful self-managed team makes employees feel more empowered and pushes them to give their best to the project. 

Improved decision-making

Self-managed teams are self-reliant. Their laser focus on the outcome of a project means they tend to make well-informed, collaborative decisions, even on complex matters. 

Increased efficiency

Self-managed teams operate in a lean hierarchy, with no middle management layer between them and leadership. This reduces the possibility of miscommunication, increases autonomous decision-making, and allows for fast and collaborative action. 

Higher cost-effectiveness

With self-managed teams, organizations save the cost of hiring, training, and retaining managers and supervisors. In addition, as such teams tend to be more efficient and productive, they save time and money and help the entire organization generate higher profits. 

It’s not always sunny in the world of self-management. Here are some disadvantages to self-managed teams. 

Conflicts and differences of opinion 

Diversity is a boon for organizations. But when people come from different backgrounds and areas of expertise, they are bound to have different perspectives. In the decentralized world of self-managed teams, differences in opinion can slow down decision-making and potentially create conflicts.

Employees need to be trained to handle these differences tactfully and productively.

Accountability versus autonomy

Complete autonomy, in the wrong hands, can incur a steep cost. So, self-managed teams (and individual members) must be fully accountable for their performance and outcomes.

In such small and focused teams, if even a single team member abuses their autonomy, it impacts the whole team. Projects don’t go as planned, and organizations incur losses. This is a significant risk when it comes to self-managed teams.

Potential for loss of direction

Building self-managed teams requires time and careful thought. Selected employees might not be the right fit for self-management, which could hinder team performance. Also, if the right guidance and proper training are not provided to the self-directed team initially, it could quickly lose direction.

Building a Successful Self-Managed Team: A Step-by-Step Guide

Self-managed teams can unlock the floodgates of productivity and innovation for your company. But it has to be done right. 

Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to build high-performing, resilient, self-managed teams.

First, define what a ‘self-managed team’ means to you. Are you looking for a semi or fully autonomous team? Does it include people with specific skill sets, for instance, problem-solving skills? Do you want to develop autonomous teams for products or services or another specific task? 

Determine what definition of self-directed teams works best for your organization, both functionally and culturally. Then, follow the next steps to create a high-performing, self-managed work team.

The next logical step in implementing self-managed teams is to gauge if your employees show any of the above mentioned characteristics or traits. Recall that an ideal self-managed team consists of people who are self-driven, trustworthy, confident in decision-making, great at time management, and strong communicators. 

Once you’ve evaluated candidates who’d be perfect in self-managed roles, ask them if they’re interested. Not everyone may be. Irrespective of ability, many employees might rather have a manager to guide and direct them. 

It’s important to seek out individuals who are keen to upskill and improve constantly and are confident enough to handle problems independently. The possible team members must also possess the interpersonal skills to work well in a team of similarly independent-minded individuals.

You can use various team-building techniques to ensure your self-managed team members gel well. 

Next, define the goals and objectives you want your self-managed team to achieve. Lay out the expected output and outcomes clearly so the team knows what they’re working toward. Also, explain how you’ll be measuring these outcomes. 

The best practice is to create achievable goals by using ClickUp Goals and assigning them to the relevant people. You can also set up channels to measure productivity .

Now that you’ve laid a clear roadmap of your expectations and mission strategy, plan to evaluate your team’s performance too. ClickUp’s Performance Reviews template will help you do that. 

Conduct self-appraisals and give feedback with the help of this template.

Assign clear roles and responsibilities to the self-managing teams. Make it clear that each member is on a lateral hierarchy scale rather than top-down on a traditional team structure. As a backup, create a mechanism allowing an external leader or others to chip in when an employee fails to complete their work.

Now that the groundwork is done, it’s time to allocate tasks to individual team members and the team as a whole. Efficient task management using tools like ClickUp Tasks can significantly improve team productivity. 

Again, though the project team will work independently once they begin, you can still track their progress using ClickUp’s project management tool . This tool provides an overview of priorities, cross-team work, and project progress.

Create fixed channels for communication, such as stand-up meetings, discussion forums, weekly or monthly video calls, or whatever else works best.

ClickUp Chat offers a breakthrough in reliable and real-time team communication. You can integrate 1,000+ tools and apps on ClickUp to ensure seamless and precise communication.

In a disciplined, self-directed team , no employee is vested with more authority than the other. This departure from a traditional management hierarchy can sometimes hinder the decision-making process. 

To overcome this, you can appoint someone as a ‘facilitator,’ or the team can elect a facilitator. A facilitator serves as a mediator who runs meetings, manages conflict, and ensures overall consensus. 

Provide training and empower your team with the tools they need to succeed. This could be a monetary amount disbursed during the initial setup, software for managing and tracking work , or full access to a repository of tools they can use as required. 

ClickUp Templates are great for self-driven teams to pick and choose what they need to function. You can find templates for project management from SWOT analysis and SIPOC (suppliers, inputs, process, outputs, customers) frameworks. Teams can use these templates to plan, strategize, execute, allocate, and measure their work. 

As modern businesses, we’re all working against the clock. Set clear, realistic deadlines that allow for contingencies while keeping team members on their toes and accomplishing goals. Since you’ve already clearly defined what constitutes success, ensure your self-driven team achieves what they set out to within the required time frame. 

Finally, take a long, hard look at the data once your project ends. Closely analyzing the metrics of a project executed by a self-managed team will help you make the required changes, whether those have to do with the team itself, the nature of the tasks, the resources provided, etc. 

Keep improving with every iteration. 

Setting up a self-managed team can be tricky. It needs careful planning, a strong understanding of the risks and advantages, and, most importantly, selecting the right people.

ClickUp’s convenient integration with 1,000+ tools, easy-to-use templates, automated workflows, and intuitive dashboards simplify planning, strategy, and execution for your self-managed teams. 

Get closer to your productivity and efficiency goals with detailed analytics, privacy controls, and the freedom to link your favorite project tools.

Sign up with ClickUp today !

Questions? Comments? Visit our Help Center for support.

Receive the latest WriteClick Newsletter updates.

Thanks for subscribing to our blog!

Please enter a valid email

• Free training & 24-hour support
• Serious about security & privacy
• 99.99% uptime the last 12 months

How it works

Transform your enterprise with the scalable mindsets, skills, & behavior change that drive performance.

Explore how BetterUp connects to your core business systems.

We pair AI with the latest in human-centered coaching to drive powerful, lasting learning and behavior change.

Build leaders that accelerate team performance and engagement.

Unlock performance potential at scale with AI-powered curated growth journeys.

Build resilience, well-being and agility to drive performance across your entire enterprise.

Transform your business, starting with your sales leaders.

Unlock business impact from the top with executive coaching.

Foster a culture of inclusion and belonging.

Accelerate the performance and potential of your agencies and employees.

See how innovative organizations use BetterUp to build a thriving workforce.

Discover how BetterUp measurably impacts key business outcomes for organizations like yours.

A demo is the first step to transforming your business. Meet with us to develop a plan for attaining your goals.

• What is coaching?

Learn how 1:1 coaching works, who its for, and if it's right for you.

Accelerate your personal and professional growth with the expert guidance of a BetterUp Coach.

Types of Coaching

Navigate career transitions, accelerate your professional growth, and achieve your career goals with expert coaching.

Enhance your communication skills for better personal and professional relationships, with tailored coaching that focuses on your needs.

Find balance, resilience, and well-being in all areas of your life with holistic coaching designed to empower you.

Discover your perfect match : Take our 5-minute assessment and let us pair you with one of our top Coaches tailored just for you.

Research, expert insights, and resources to develop courageous leaders within your organization.

Best practices, research, and tools to fuel individual and business growth.

View on-demand BetterUp events and learn about upcoming live discussions.

The latest insights and ideas for building a high-performing workplace.

• BetterUp Briefing

The online magazine that helps you understand tomorrow's workforce trends, today.

Innovative research featured in peer-reviewed journals, press, and more.

Founded in 2022 to deepen the understanding of the intersection of well-being, purpose, and performance

We're on a mission to help everyone live with clarity, purpose, and passion.

Join us and create impactful change.

Read the buzz about BetterUp.

Meet the leadership that's passionate about empowering your workforce.

For Business

For Individuals

What are self-managed teams (and how can you create them)?

Jump to section

What are the four types of teams?

What are self-managed teams, what are the benefits of self-managed teams, what are the cons of self-managed teams, what are the characteristics of self-managed teams, are you ready to build a self-managed team, how to move toward self-managed teams, help your teams thrive.

We all know teamwork makes the dream work. But does every team need a manager at the helm?

Even though hierarchies and defined leaders have reigned for most of the industrial age, some companies are reconsidering whether that structure still works for their business.

Self-managed teams are becoming more popular at companies of all sizes. But how do they work, and how do you know if they’ll work for your business?

In this article, we’ll explore what self-managed teams are, the characteristics of self-managed teams, and how to start developing them.

Many companies stick to the traditional team management hierarchy because that’s what they know. 

The traditional manager role may be quickly disappearing in response to calls for new ways to look at team management. In fact, 37% of managers think their position will disappear in the next five years.

Here are four alternatives to the traditional management style.

Project teams

Project teams are cross-functional groups with specialists from different departments who work together on specific projects. A project manager often leads these teams.

A project team usually works together for a fixed length of time and disbands once the project is complete. These teams may be measured on outcome but are often measured on execution to a plan (e.g., completing tasks with a defined time and budget).

Self-managed teams

A self-managed work team is a small group of employees who take full responsibility for delivering a service or product through peer collaboration without a manager’s guidance. 

This team often works together long-term to make decisions about a particular process. These teams may be measured either by output or outcome, with outcome being the better choice.

Virtual teams

A virtual team consists of employees from different regions working remotely or in different offices. They primarily communicate through video conferencing, phone calls, messaging, and email. Any of the other team types may also be a virtual team.

Operational teams

Operational, or functional, teams are groups of employees dedicated to a specific ongoing role, like customer support or sales. All the members of an operational team support one overarching goal and process. They tend to measure themselves on output rather than outcome.

Sign up to receive the latest insights, resources, and tools from BetterUp

Thank you for your interest in BetterUp.

While self-managed teams aren’t new, they are seeing a surge in popularity as remote work becomes the new normal. Plus, with managers feeling less supported by the organization and less able to effectively navigate rapid change, more teams may experiment with self-management by choice or necessity.

Self-directed teams take full ownership and responsibility to drive business results for a particular process. Unlike an operational team, most self-managed teams don’t have a hierarchy. Instead, self-designing teams have more autonomy over their processes and roles within the bounds of what team members agree is needed to achieve agreed upon team outcomes.

A self-managed team also has more discretion over decision-making within their process and how the entire team is managed. While this can pose some unique leadership challenges , it also offers leadership opportunities and skill development that may not be accessible for a traditional team.

Younger generations entering the workforce are more interested in developing expertise than in rising through the ranks, which 51% of managers see as an opportunity. Even among other generations, workers are becoming more aware of the need to stay relevant and gain new skills and experiences. Self-managed teams are a great way to expand employees’ experience and allow them to try out and master new capabilities through rotating roles and learning from other teammates. 

Good self-managed teams demonstrate many of the benefits of having a great manager. These teams often develop more effective decision-making practices that combine considering more viewpoints, more natural collaboration and give-and-take, and moving toward action to remove obstacles and stay focused on the shared outcomes.

( Image source )

The close-knit, communal feel of autonomous teams can drive innovation and motivation, too. Each team member feels personally responsible for team performance, inspiring employees to do excellent work and share ideas for improvement more readily. 

Fewer barriers in their work can lead to increased productivity, too. Since as far back as 2001, companies like RCAR Electronics have reported saving $10 million annually after implementing self-managed teams, showcasing the benefits that self-management can offer.

Despite the benefits, self-managed teams are hardly a silver bullet to productivity. Implementing and adapting to any new structure can be difficult, and self-managed teams are no exception. 

Self-managed teams often take a long time to set up and execute effectively. Certain employees may not be the right fit for self-management, and camaraderie, commitment, and competence are needed before seeing the benefits of a successful self-managed team. 

Plus, without the proper training, self-managed teams can flounder and lose motivation.

One major concern around self-managed teams is inequality. Compared to traditional teams, some self-managed teams have seen a 24% estimated pay gap for women. This inequality can lead to stifled innovation when members fear sharing ideas and a team succumbs to groupthink. 

Excessive meetings and a disconnect from overall business goals can also set a self-governing team off on the wrong track. Before developing autonomous teams, it’s crucial to give members the right training and guidance on their role in an organization.

When self-managed teams are implemented right, they’re known for being highly effective, innovative, and driven. 

Here are a few key characteristics that distinctly set great self-managed teams apart from other team structures. 

They’re self-driven

These teams collaborate on one central, common goal every day. They know the target, and they’re driven to support their team and do their part. No one waits for a manager or another team member to tell them what to do.

They trust each other

Self-managed teams are all-for-one and one-for-all. These teams innovate well because they are comfortable with each other and share their ideas freely. They know their team is dedicated to doing the best work possible together.

67% of employees say they would go above and beyond if they felt valued and engaged. These team members embody employee engagement and often excel for the benefit of the team.

Employee-driven decisions are the norm

Leadership is a must for self-managed teams, but no one person takes on the leader role. Instead, everyone contributes to decisions. These teams know their process best, and the organization trusts them to make informed decisions within reason. 

They have high self-awareness

Self-managed team members are always looking for ways to improve their performance and the overall process. These teams know that without their effort, a service or product doesn’t get completed. 

They have strong communication

63% of employees have wanted to quit because poor communication got in the way of their jobs.

Being on a team that values and prioritizes open communication helps self-organizing teams thrive. These teams readily contribute their opinions and unique experiences to drive the team forward.

Not every team is ready to be self-managed. But, if you already have team members going above and beyond their specialties, a self-managed team may be a good option. 

Jumping into self-managed teams can be challenging, and you risk losing your team’s best people if the experiment falls flat. Without the proper training and structure, adapting to a self-managed team is often a more significant undertaking than many organizations realize.

Here are some innovative steps that you can take to ease into self-managed teams.

Gauge interest from possible team members

Identify employees that could be a good fit for a self-managed team and see if they are interested in participating.

Provide guidance and guardrails

Self-management should mean rudderless. These teams do best when they understand the organization’s larger goals and values and cann check-in to stay aligned to them. Leadership can be clear about the boundaries for teams and help them define what outcomes will matter most.

Define team objectives and goals

Clarify why a self-managed team is best for a service or process, then define your new team’s guiding principles and goals.

Develop team roles and decision-making standards

A self-managed team needs base guidelines to thrive. Defining who does what and how decisions are made can set your team on the path to success.

Offer training for employees

Provide training on how self-managed teams work and how the process will adapt to the new team style.

Practice on a project with a volunteer team

Before diving in, set up your employees to walk through a particular process together for practice, slowly adding self-management features. Then, get ongoing feedback on how the team can run more smoothly.

BE THE FIRST TO KNOW

Stay up to date with new resources and insights.

Shifting to self-managed teams isn’t easy. But, with time and commitment, you can create a strong, productive team that offers unique benefits for your company. 

If you’re ready to adopt self-managing teams, we have you covered. At BetterUp, we offer the coaching your employees need to thrive in any type of team. Sign up today to help your employees meet their full potential.

Lead with confidence and authenticity

Develop your leadership and strategic management skills with the help of an expert Coach.

Elizabeth Perry, ACC

Elizabeth Perry is a Coach Community Manager at BetterUp. She uses strategic engagement strategies to cultivate a learning community across a global network of Coaches through in-person and virtual experiences, technology-enabled platforms, and strategic coaching industry partnerships. With over 3 years of coaching experience and a certification in transformative leadership and life coaching from Sofia University, Elizabeth leverages transpersonal psychology expertise to help coaches and clients gain awareness of their behavioral and thought patterns, discover their purpose and passions, and elevate their potential. She is a lifelong student of psychology, personal growth, and human potential as well as an ICF-certified ACC transpersonal life and leadership Coach.

Agile performance management: How to improve an agile team

Leading from a distance: ideas for supporting your remote workforce in times of change, managers have a strong effect on team performance, for better or worse, 5 ways managers can lead through crises, why every successful manager needs leadership coaching, 7 management skills to guide teams through turbulent times, from self-awareness to self-control: a powerful leadership technique, how to develop emotional regulation skills to become a better manager, how managers get upward feedback from their team, similar articles, what is strategic plan management and how does it benefit teams, what does the future of management look like, the success behind virtual teams: the ultimate guide, what is productivity definition and ways to improve, autonomy at work is important: here are 9 ways to encourage it, what are decentralized organizations, roles and responsibilities: why defining them is important, accountability vs. responsibility for leaders: back to the basics, build an agile organization with these 5 tactics, stay connected with betterup, get our newsletter, event invites, plus product insights and research..

3100 E 5th Street, Suite 350 Austin, TX 78702

• Platform Overview
• Integrations
• Powered by AI
• BetterUp Lead™
• BetterUp Manage™
• BetterUp Care®
• Sales Performance
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Case Studies
• Why BetterUp?
• About Coaching
• Find your Coach
• Career Coaching
• Communication Coaching
• Life Coaching
• News and Press
• Leadership Team
• Become a BetterUp Coach
• BetterUp Labs
• Center for Purpose & Performance
• Leadership Training
• Business Coaching
• Contact Support
• Contact Sales
• Privacy Policy
• Acceptable Use Policy
• Trust & Security
• Cookie Preferences

Self-managed teams: what they are and how to implement them

Getting maximum productivity and engagement from teams is at the top of the priority list for most companies. One management technique that has long been a staple in the manufacturing industry - and which has gained popularity elsewhere in recent years - is the concept of self-managed teams .

This article will act as a primer on the idea of self-managed teams, and offer you insights into what actions you should take to maximize employee output using this management style.

What does it mean to have a self-managed team?

Self-managed teams have been around since the 1960s, but have seen a significant increase in popularity over the past decade or so. They are now present in a sizable portion of the Fortune 1000, and are used to drive stronger innovation, productivity, and overall employee satisfaction .

It’s a management technique where a group of employees is brought together and given responsibility and accountability over all or most aspects of producing a product or delivering a service.

The key difference between a typical project team and self-managed teams is that they are self-organized and semi-autonomous . That means that there is no defined hierarchy on the team. Instead, management and technical responsibility are rotated amongst the team members under pre-defined guidelines for collaboration.

In a traditional org structure , a team leader or department manager would assign tasks and deadlines to employees depending on their skills, function and role. This is a top-down management approach.

In self-managed teams, a group of people work together toward a common goal, which is defined by stakeholders outside of the team. A manager or department head will define the overall direction and desired outcome, and will provide the required tools, resources, and training if required.

Once  the project or program has been kicked off, group members are collectively responsible for self-organizing, assigning tasks, and solving problems. The team, as a whole, decides on the project plan, manages daily activities, and shares management responsibilities.

Self-managed teams are given full ownership and responsibility to drive business results for their specific project. The focus is solely on responsibility and outcome, rather than who is in charge and who gets credit.

Instead of being top-down, self-managed teams operate on a flat or lateral playing field where everyone is given an opportunity to take on leadership over tasks that are relevant to their expertise.

Benefits of self-managed teams

Self-managed teams offer a variety of benefits, depending on your industry, project, and team make up.

Some of these benefits include:

• Increased productivity. Employees are given full ownership over their respective areas of expertise and project outcomes. This helps to boost overall commitment and staff engagement , in turn ramping up productivity for both individual employees and the team as a whole.
• Enhanced innovation. When employees are given complete leeway to solve their own problems and manage their own tasks, innovation and creativity quickly follow. That’s because employees are given direction, and then empowered to find their own way to the desired outcome.
• Reduced pressure on managers. Middle and senior level managers handle most of the burden when it comes to organizing teams, managing projects, and completing administrative and organization tasks. This takes away from their ability to think strategically and make “big picture” decisions. By removing these burdens, and empowering their teams, managers are freed to do more impactful work.
• Creating highly motivated teams. By definition, self-directed teams are highly motivated, engaged , and committed to achieving their target outcome. If they weren’t, then it’s unlikely that team would last very long, or be created in the first place. Highly motivated teams fire on all cylinders, offering maximum impact for key projects.
• Greater ability to respond to complexity. Because self-managed teams engage in collective decision-making, and are laser focussed on a specific project or desired outcome, they have a much stronger ability to process and respond to complex problems.
• Lower overhead and maintenance costs. Cost-savings is a major benefit of self-managed teams, as is realized through the centralizing of all technical and management tasks. Rather than applying expensive management resources to a project team, alongside technical resources, these teams are able to complete all tasks using a self-contained capacity.
• Reduced barriers to work. In a hierarchical team structure, there are often politics, red tape, and time consuming processes that need to be considered by each member of your team. This can productivity and stifle innovation. Self-managed teams are able to be much more agile in how they work, and much quicker to adapt to new problems or opportunities.

Of course, decentralizing management and creating fully autonomous teams does come without its challenges and disadvantages. Let’s look at some of those now.

Disadvantages of self-managed teams

As you can probably guess, the primary challenges associated with self-managed teams related to organization, communication, and focus.

In particular, these can include:

• Short term loss of productivity. Implementing and adapting to a completely new team structure can be difficult, disruptive, and potentially costly in the short term. Time to productivity is likely to be hindered while you work out all of the kinks. ‍
• Differences in work styles. Not all employees are the right fit for self-managed teams. Despite possessing the skills to achieve the desired results, some people just don’t have the personality or desire to operate under these parameters. It can be a challenge to find both highly competent and suitable team members to fill out self-managed teams. ‍
• Lag time in achieving results. Employees on a self-managed team need to develop a strong sense of comradery, commitment to the mission, and self-motivation to achieve the best results. This can take time, meaning there will likely be a lag time between team formation and peak performance. ‍
• Toxic group dynamics. Despite the goal of self-managed teams being to decentralize leadership, there’s always the risk that individuals or cliques within the group end up taking on de facto leadership roles, This, combined with clashing personalities, bullying behavior, idea blocking, and groupthink can all contribute to a toxic group dynamic that stifles productivity and engagement. ‍
• Losing focus. Giving teams complete autonomy always runs the risk of them going too far off the rails, and losing sight of the initial goal. This is especially true if management fails to provide proper guidance and training before the team is formed. ‍
• Training requirements. Because task management is decentralized, you will need to provide training for common manager skills like communication, conflict resolution, time management, and administration. This can be resource intensive at the start, but is imperative to creating and sustaining successful self-managed teams.

Now that we’ve talked about the advantages and disadvantages of self-managed teams, let’s dig deeper into what they look like in practice, and how to create them.

Examples of self-managed teams

As mentioned, self-managed teams have been around since the 1960s. But, they’ve seen a rise in popularity in recent years, and are now actively used in companies like Google, Facebook, Spotify, Zappos, GitHub, Electronic Arts, Valve, and Gore-Tex.

Self-managed teams come in a variety of forms, depending on the nature of your company and project.

Three common examples of self-managed team structures include:

• Fully-autonomous self-managed teams. These teams complete ongoing work, with no top-down supervision, on an indefinite basis. The team is full of cross-trained workers who have a variety of technical and management skills related to the project goals. Fully-autonomous teams take full responsibility over their success and outcomes, and must have a strong commitment to and alignment with company goals. ‍
• Limited supervision teams. These teams work under supervision of a floating manager who will occasionally be called upon to make decisions, offer guidance, and break stalemates. Team members handle the bulk of day-to-day decisions related to the project, but have the added safety net of a supervisor to act as a final decision maker if needed. ‍
• Problem-solving or temporary teams. These teams are formed on a temporary basis to tackle specific problems or to complete special projects. They are time-limited with very tightly defined objectives and outcomes. Unlike ongoing self-managed teams, temporary teams have the added pressure of tight deadlines and a more exact description of what success looks like.

It’s entirely possible that your own self-managed teams will fall into one of these three categories, or be a hybrid. That’s perfectly fine. The key is to find what level of involvement you need from management, and how self-sufficient you can get your teams while still hitting your goals. This will take experimentation and refinement over time.

Related reading: learn how to recruit with no managers and a flat hierarchy

How to create self-managed teams

Self-managed teams are best suited to companies where the organizational culture actively supports autonomy, employee empowerment , and collective decision-making .

If this sounds like your organization, then follow these steps to start creating and experimenting with self-managed teams.

• Define what self-managed teams are before you begin. Do you want to create fully-autonomous teams, limited supervision teams, or problem-solving teams? Or, do you want to create some combination of the three? Before you begin, create a clear mandate and structure of your future self-managed teams to ensure you, and the team, know what is required. ‍
• Determine if your employees are ready to self-manage. Some signs to look for include: being self-driven, trusting each other, confident decision-making, strong communication and time management, ownership over results, and independent learning. Look for individuals who actively display these traits - those are the best candidates for self-managed teams. ‍
• Gauge interest from possible team members. Approach your high-performing employees and present the idea of a self-managed team to them. Take their feedback, and note whether or not this is something they want to participate in. If you have enough interest, then you can move on to forming and enabling your first self-managed team. ‍
• Communicate goals and benefits. Before you form your team, leadership and employees must have a clear understanding of why you are going in this direction, what the expectations will be, and how it will benefit the company. Explain reasoning, benefits, and potential impact of switching to self-managed teams. This should include what it means for individual workers, teams, and departments. ‍
• Provide clear direction. Now that you’ve assembled your self-managed team, you need to make sure that everyone is clear on the desired outcomes from the project, and how they tie into larger organizational goals. Present the expected outcomes and desired impact. Set boundaries and guardrails on the project to keep the team on track. Work with the team to help them create guiding principles for task management and communication. ‍
• Establish decision-making processes. If the self-managed team is brand new, then you’ll want to hold a kick off session that outlines each team member's strengths and their expected contributions to the team. You should also, as a group, determine how decisions will be made, and how conflict or stalemates will be overcome. This shouldn’t be about designating leadership, but rather establishing processes and frameworks that can be used when required. ‍
• Allocate resources. Once you’ve assembled your team, given them direction, and established ground rules, the last step is to provide them with a budget and resources to complete their mandate. Because this is a self-managed team, we recommend that you allocate a lump sum budget for the year or quarter (depending on the duration of the project) and let them determine how best to spend their resources. This gives the team leeway and ownership over their own budget, and will allow them to find innovative and efficient ways to use their resources as needed.

Like with any major shift in management, self-managed teams are an iterative process. It’s unlikely that you will nail this process on the first try, so it will be necessary to keep open lines of communication with your employees to determine opportunities for improvement and refinement.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are self managed teams?

A group of employees that is responsible and accountable for all or most aspects of producing a product, delivering a service, completing a project, or solving a problem. They are self-organized, semi-autonomous, and share a combination of technical and managerial tasks.

What are the advantages of self-managed teams?

Advantages of self-managed teams include: increased productivity, enhanced innovation, reduced pressure on managers, highly motivated employees, greater ability to respond to complexity, lower overhead costs, and reduced barriers to work.

What are the disadvantages of self-managed teams?

Disadvantages of self-managed teams include the potential for: short-term loss of productivity, difference in work styles, lag time in achieving results, toxic group dynamics, losing focus, and significant training requirements.

Brendan is an established writer, content marketer and SEO manager with extensive experience writing about HR tech, information visualization, mind mapping, and all things B2B and SaaS. As a former journalist, he's always looking for new topics and industries to write about and explore.

Get the MidWeekRead

Get the exclusive tips, resources and updates to help you hire better!

Hire better, faster, together!

Bring your hiring teams together, boost your sourcing, automate your hiring, and evaluate candidates effectively.

What Is Self-Management?

• Contact Ciprian Banica
• LinkedIn for Ciprian Banica

This article was first published in the AskScrum.com newsletter. Subscribe to AskScrum.com to be the first to receive articles like this.

Self-management is characterised by autonomy and accountability. It effectively empowers teams to navigate complex challenges by cultivating proactive problem-solving and collaborative decision-making.

Self-managed teams take ownership of their work, collectively driving towards shared goals and business objectives. This behaviour fosters a culture of trust, where the team feels valued and is more engaged, leading to better outcomes where value is delivered to the customer.

1. Autonomy and Accountability:

The team assume shared accountability for their work, with each member contributing to the overall success. Autonomy fosters a sense of ownership, while accountability ensures the team remains aligned with the overall business objectives and the product’s vision and goals.

2. Collaborative Decision Making:

Decisions are made collectively, leveraging the diverse perspectives within the team. This approach ensures that decisions consider various viewpoints, leading to more effective solutions. It acknowledges that not all variables can be controlled or predicted. Flexibility and resilience become critical components in dealing with uncertainties and ambiguities.

3. Adaptive Problem Solving:

Teams adaptively tackle challenges, experimenting and learning from failures. This iterative approach ensures continuous improvement and innovation by exercising flexibility and responsiveness. It involves continuously assessing situations, experimenting with solutions, and learning from outcomes, whether successful or not.

4. Empowerment and Trust:

The team is empowered to take the initiative and make decisions relevant to their work. Trust is central to this culture, enabling team members to work independently while ensuring alignment with the team’s goals and product direction. Effective communication is vital in self-managed teams. Regular interactions and transparent information sharing ensure everyone is on the same page.

Self-management represents a significant shift from traditional management styles. It fosters a proactive, collaborative, and adaptive work environment. This approach enhances efficiency and innovation and contributes to a more fulfilling work experience for everyone in the team.

By embracing self-management, teams are better equipped to navigate the complexities of today's dynamic world. This ultimately drives sustainable success by delivering value to customers and organisations.

© 2024 wowefy.com

What did you think about this post?

Share with your network.

• Share this page via email
• Share this page on Facebook
• Share this page on Twitter
• Share this page on LinkedIn

View the discussion thread.

7.3 Using Teams to Enhance Motivation and Performance

• Why are companies using team-based organizational structures?

One of the most apparent trends in business today is the use of teams to accomplish organizational goals. Using a team-based structure can increase individual and group motivation and performance. This section gives a brief overview of group behavior, defines work teams as specific types of groups, and provides suggestions for creating high-performing teams.

Understanding Group Behavior

Teams are a specific type of organizational group. Every organization contains groups, social units of two or more people who share the same goals and cooperate to achieve those goals. Understanding some fundamental concepts related to group behavior and group processes provides a good foundation for understanding concepts about work teams. Groups can be formal or informal in nature. Formal groups are designated and sanctioned by the organization; their behavior is directed toward accomplishing organizational goals. Informal groups are based on social relationships and are not determined or sanctioned by the organization.

Formal organizational groups, like the sales department at Apple , must operate within the larger Apple organizational system. To some degree, elements of the larger Apple system, such as organizational strategy, company policies and procedures, available resources, and the highly motivated employee corporate culture, determine the behavior of smaller groups, such as the sales department, within the company. Other factors that affect the behavior of organizational groups are individual member characteristics (e.g., ability, training, personality), the roles and norms of group members, and the size and cohesiveness of the group. Norms are the implicit behavioral guidelines of the group, or the standards for acceptable and unacceptable behavior. For example, an Apple sales manager may be expected to work at least two Saturdays per month without extra pay. Although this isn’t written anywhere, it is the expected norm.

Group cohesiveness refers to the degree to which group members want to stay in the group and tend to resist outside influences (such as a change in company policies). When group performance norms are high, group cohesiveness will have a positive impact on productivity. Cohesiveness tends to increase when the size of the group is small, individual and group goals are similar, the group has high status in the organization, rewards are group-based rather than individual-based, and the group competes with other groups within the organization. Work group cohesiveness can benefit the organization in several ways, including increased productivity, enhanced worker self-image because of group success, increased company loyalty, reduced employee turnover, and reduced absenteeism. Southwest Airlines is known for its work group cohesiveness. On the other hand, cohesiveness can also lead to restricted output, resistance to change, and conflict with other work groups in the organization.

The opportunity to turn the decision-making process over to a group with diverse skills and abilities is one of the arguments for using work groups (and teams) in organizational settings. For group decision-making to be most effective, however, both managers and group members must understand its strengths and weaknesses (see Table 7.1 ).

Work Groups versus Work Teams

We have already noted that teams are a special type of organizational group, but we also need to differentiate between work groups and work teams. Work groups share resources and coordinate efforts to help members better perform their individual duties and responsibilities. The performance of the group can be evaluated by adding up the contributions of the individual group members. Work teams require not only coordination but also collaboration, the pooling of knowledge, skills, abilities, and resources in a collective effort to attain a common goal. A work team creates synergy, causing the performance of the team as a whole to be greater than the sum of team members’ individual contributions. Simply assigning employees to groups and labeling them a team does not guarantee a positive outcome. Managers and team members must be committed to creating, developing, and maintaining high-performance work teams. Factors that contribute to their success are discussed later in this section.

Types of Teams

The evolution of the team concept in organizations can be seen in three basic types of work teams: problem-solving, self-managed, and cross-functional. Problem-solving teams are typically made up of employees from the same department or area of expertise and from the same level of the organizational hierarchy. They meet on a regular basis to share information and discuss ways to improve processes and procedures in specific functional areas. Problem-solving teams generate ideas and alternatives and may recommend a specific course of action, but they typically do not make final decisions, allocate resources, or implement change.

Many organizations that experienced success using problem-solving teams were willing to expand the team concept to allow team members greater responsibility in making decisions, implementing solutions, and monitoring outcomes. These highly autonomous groups are called self-managed work teams . They manage themselves without any formal supervision, taking responsibility for setting goals, planning and scheduling work activities, selecting team members, and evaluating team performance.

Today, approximately 80 percent of Fortune 1000 companies use some sort of self-managed teams. 9 One example is Zappos ’s shift to self-managed work teams in 2013, where the traditional organizational structure and bosses were eliminated, according to a system called holacracy. 10 Another version of self-managing teams can be found at W. L. Gore , the company that invented Gore-Tex fabric and Glide dental floss. The three employees who invented Elixir guitar strings contributed their spare time to the effort and persuaded a handful of colleagues to help them improve the design. After working three years entirely on their own—without asking for any supervisory or top management permission or being subjected to any kind of oversight—the team finally sought the support of the larger company, which they needed to take the strings to market. Today, W. L. Gore ’s Elixir is the number one selling string brand for acoustic guitar players. 11

An adaptation of the team concept is called a cross-functional team . These teams are made up of employees from about the same hierarchical level but different functional areas of the organization. Many task forces, organizational committees, and project teams are cross-functional. Often the team members work together only until they solve a given problem or complete a specific project. Cross-functional teams allow people with various levels and areas of expertise to pool their resources, develop new ideas, solve problems, and coordinate complex projects. Both problem-solving teams and self-managed teams may also be cross-functional teams.

Customer Satisfaction and Quality

Team approach flies high at ge aviation.

“Teaming” is the term used at GE Aviation manufacturing plants to describe how self-managed groups of employees are working together to make decisions to help them do their work efficiently, maintain quality, and meet critical deadlines in the global aviation supply chain.

This management concept is not new to GE Aviation; its manufacturing plants in Durham, North Carolina, and Bromont, Quebec, Canada, have been using self-managed teams for more than 30 years. This approach to business operations continues to be successful and is now used at most of its 77 manufacturing facilities worldwide.

The goal of teaming is to move decision-making and authority as close to the end-product as possible, which means front-line employees are accountable for meeting performance goals on a daily basis. For example, if there is some sort of delay in the manufacturing process, it is up to the team to figure out how to keep things moving—even if that means skipping breaks or changing their work schedules to overcome obstacles.

At the Bromont plant, workers do not have supervisors who give them direction. Rather, they have coaches who give them specific goals. The typical functions performed by supervisors, such as planning, developing manufacturing processes, and monitoring vacation and overtime, are managed by the teams themselves. In addition, members from each team sit on a joint council with management and HR representatives to make decisions that will affect overall plant operations, such as when to eliminate overtime and who gets promoted or fired.

This hands-on approach helps workers gain confidence and motivation to fix problems directly rather than sending a question up the chain of command and waiting for a directive. In addition, teaming allows the people who do the work on a daily basis to come up with the best ideas to resolve issues and perform various jobs tasks in the most efficient way possible.

For GE Aviation, implementing the teaming approach has been a successful venture, and the company finds the strategy easiest to implement when starting up a new manufacturing facility. The company recently opened several new plants, and the teaming concept has had an interesting effect on the hiring process. A new plant in Welland, Ontario, Canada, opens soon, and the hiring process, which may seem more rigorous than most job hiring experiences, is well under way. With the team concept in mind, job candidates need to demonstrate not only required technical skills but also soft skills—for example, the ability to communicate clearly, accept feedback, and participate in discussions in a respectful manner.

• What challenges do you think HR recruiters face when hiring job candidates who need to have both technical and soft skills?
• How can experienced team members help new employees be successful in the teaming structure? Provide some examples.

Sources: GE Reports Canada, “The Meaning of Teaming: Empowering New Hires at GE’s Welland Brilliant Factory,” https://gereports.ca, July 17, 2017; Sarah Kessler, “GE Has a Version of Self-Management That Is Much Like Zappos’ Holacracy—and It Works,” Quartz, https://qz.com, June 6, 2017; Gareth Phillips, “Look No Managers! Self-Managed Teams,” LinkedIn, https://www.linkedin.com, June 9, 2016; Amy Alexander, “Step by Step: Train Employees to Take Charge,” Investor’s Business Daily, http://www.investors.com, June 18, 2014; Rasheedah Jones, “Teaming at GE Aviation,” Management Innovation eXchange, http://www.managementexchange.com, July 14, 2013.

Building High-Performance Teams

A great team must possess certain characteristics, so selecting the appropriate employees for the team is vital. Employees who are more willing to work together to accomplish a common goal should be selected, rather than employees who are more interested in their own personal achievement. Team members should also possess a variety of skills. Diverse skills strengthen the overall effectiveness of the team, so teams should consciously recruit members to fill gaps in the collective skill set. To be effective, teams must also have clearly defined goals. Vague or unclear goals will not provide the necessary direction or allow employees to measure their performance against expectations.

Next, high-performing teams need to practice good communication. Team members need to communicate messages and give appropriate feedback that seeks to correct any misunderstandings. Feedback should also be detached; that is, team members should be careful to critique ideas rather than criticize the person who suggests them. Nothing can degrade the effectiveness of a team like personal attacks. Lastly, great teams have great leaders. Skilled team leaders divide work so that tasks are not repeated, help members set and track goals, monitor their team’s performance, communicate openly, and remain flexible to adapt to changing goals or management demands.

Concept Check

• What is the difference between a work team and a work group?
• Identify and describe three types of work teams.
• What are some ways to build a high-performance team?

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-business/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Lawrence J. Gitman, Carl McDaniel, Amit Shah, Monique Reece, Linda Koffel, Bethann Talsma, James C. Hyatt
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Business
• Publication date: Sep 19, 2018
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-business/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-business/pages/7-3-using-teams-to-enhance-motivation-and-performance

© Apr 5, 2023 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Find Study Materials for

• Explanations
• Business Studies
• Combined Science
• Computer Science
• Engineering
• English literature
• Environmental Science
• Human Geography
• Macroeconomics
• Microeconomics
• Social Studies
• Browse all subjects
• Textbook Solutions
• Read our Magazine

Create Study Materials

• Flashcards Create and find the best flashcards.
• Notes Create notes faster than ever before.
• Study Sets Everything you need for your studies in one place.
• Study Plans Stop procrastinating with our smart planner features.
• Types of Teams

When was the last time you worked as part of a team? Do you think every team you have been a part of follows a similar form? Indeed, there are various types of teams in today's modern business world. And a proper understanding of how different teams operate can benefit companies and organizations worldwide. Keep reading to learn more about the most common types of teams in an organization with examples and explanation of different types of team culture!

Create learning materials about Types of Teams with our free learning app!

• Instand access to millions of learning materials
• Flashcards, notes, mock-exams and more
• Everything you need to ace your exams
• Business Case Studies
• Business Development
• Business Operations
• Change Management
• Corporate Finance
• Financial Performance
• Human Resources
• Influences On Business
• Intermediate Accounting
• Introduction to Business
• Managerial Economics
• Nature of Business
• Operational Management
• Organizational Behavior
• Affective Events Theory
• Attitude in the Workplace
• Behavioral Science
• Big Five Personality Traits
• Biographical Characteristics
• Bureaucratic Structure
• Causes of Stress at Work
• Challenges and Opportunities for OB
• Challenges of Management
• Choosing the Right Communication Channel
• Classification of Groups
• Conflict Results
• Contingent Selection
• Creative Behavior
• Cultural Values
• Decision Making Biases
• Direction of Communication
• Discrimination in the Workplace
• Diversity Management
• Diversity in the Workplace
• Effective Management
• Effective Negotiation
• Effective Teamwork
• Effects of Work Stress
• Emotional Intelligence
• Emotional Labor
• Emotional Regulation
• Employee Involvement
• Employee Selection Methods
• Evidence Based Management
• Factors Influencing Perception
• Functions of Emotions
• Functions of Organizational Culture
• GLOBE Framework
• Group Cohesiveness
• Group Decision Making
• Group Development Stages
• Group Norms
• Group Roles
• Group Status
• Group vs Team
• History of Motivation Theory
• Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions
• How to Measure Job Satisfaction
• Impact of Power
• Importance of Leadership in Human Resource Management
• Influences on Organizational Culture
• Initial Selection Process
• Innovative Organizational Culture
• Integrating Theories of Motivation
• Interpersonal Skills
• Job Attitude
• Job Dissatisfaction
• Job Satisfaction Causes
• Job Satisfaction Outcomes
• Leadership Trust
• Maintaining Organizational Culture
• Mechanistic vs Organic Structure
• Models of Organizational Behavior
• Modern Motivational Theory
• Myers-Briggs
• Negotiation Process
• Organizational Behavior Management
• Organizational Constraints
• Organizational Culture Problems
• Organizational Decision Making
• Organizational Structure Management
• Organizational Values
• Paradox Theory
• Perception in Decision Making
• Personal Stress Management
• Personality Models
• Personality and Values
• Personality at Work
• Planned Change in an Organization
• Positive Company Culture
• Power Tactics
• Power in Work
• Responsible Leaders
• Self-Evaluation
• Simple Structure
• Situation Strength Theory
• Social Loafing
• Stereotype Threat
• Stress Management in Organization
• Stress in the Workplace
• Substantive Selection
• Team Challenge
• Team Composition
• Team Player
• Team Process
• The Study of Organizational Behavior
• Third Party Negotiation
• Training Effectiveness
• Trait Activation Theory
• Types of Diversity
• Types of Emotions
• Types of Moods
• Types of Power in the Workplace
• Understanding and Developing Organizational Culture
• Unequal Power
• Virtual Organizational Structure
• Work Emotions
• Working as a Team
• Workplace Behavior
• Workplace Spirituality
• Organizational Communication
• Strategic Analysis
• Strategic Direction

Great things in business are never done by one person. They're done by a team of people.

- Steve Jobs 1

Types of Teams in Management

Perhaps you are currently a part of a team. Whether it is a team at your university, a sports team in your local town, or a team working on your company's latest project, exploring different types of teams can help better understand your team's current type and characteristics. First, perhaps let's walk through a brief definition of a team.

• A team consists of individuals collaborating on specific tasks to achieve common goals and objectives.

Everyone knows about the great importance and tremendous benefits of teamwork towards the success of any business, which ranges from better communication and united vision and mission to better cohesion and enhanced trust.

Each individual has unique gifts, and talents and skills. When we bring them to the table and share them for a common purpose, it can give companies a real competitive advantage.

- John J. Murphy 3

Accordingly, not everyone knows how to work as a team. Thus, studying different types of teams, together with their unique characteristics and advantages and disadvantages, can assist individuals in improving their teamwork skills and understanding. So, how many types of teams are there nowadays?

Types of Teams in an Organization

There are various types of teams in an organization.

Yet, the five most popular types of teams in an organization include: problem-solving teams, self-managed teams, cross-functional teams, virtual teams, and the multiteam system (team of teams). 2

Problem-Solving Team

Often, problem-solving teams are assembled temporarily. Usually, team members in problem-solving teams are gathered in case of a crisis or an unplanned matter at work. Thus, such teams try to address the issue and drive the organizations out of the ongoing crisis.

A problem-solving team consists of 5-10 members from the same department. The team will have a number of weekly meetings to resolve specific business problems.

In fact, this type of team can alleviate possible risks associated with certain crises while developing thorough solutions that address multiple business segments.

What are possible crises that concern problem-solving teams?

Problem-solving teams can work to alleviate possible risks in crises such as the global financial crisis in 2008-2009, the ongoing impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic, the currently increasing inflation rates across countries, and so on.

Self-Managed Work Team

Unlike problem-solving teams, of which desirable outcomes focus on recommendations, self-managed work teams are more concerned about implementing and revising solutions.

A self-managed work team consists of a small group of members who are fully responsible for delivering a product or a service through peer collaboration. In this type of team, a manager's guidance is often absent.

Normally, around ten employees will take on supervisory responsibilities while performing interdependent tasks. Together, this type of team unites for long-term purposes.

What are the responsibilities of a self-managed work team?

In this team, members often perform tasks ranging from work scheduling and operational planning to working with customers and assisting operational decision-making processes.

Cross-Functional Team

Nowadays, more and more organizations have embraced the use of cross-functional teams in their operations.

A cross-functional team consists of members on the same hierarchical level but from various departments within an organization.

Despite its growing importance, about 75 percent of global cross-functional teams face dysfunctional challenges. 4 To illustrate, while cross-functional teams gather people from different areas of expertise to coordinate complex projects, such teams are tough to manage due to leadership ambiguity. Further, such diversity in team members also entails a high risk of workplace conflicts.

What are the advantages of cross-functional teams?

Cross-functional teams entail various benefits for companies, among which the following three advantages are most prominent:

• Cross-functional teams accelerate task completion.
• With their skillful and diverse members, cross-functional teams can tackle various projects at hand.
• Cross-functional teams are dynamic and creative in producing innovative ideas.

Virtual Team

Virtual teams have recently arisen as new global group dynamic trends. Also known as geographically dispersed or remote teams, virtual teams imply people working together without being physically present.

A virtual team relies on digital technology to unite virtual members to work towards common goals.

Accordingly, virtual teams' most significant advantage is that they can stay connected and informed anywhere and at any time, regardless of their physical locations.

70 percent of professionals work remotely in some capacity at least once a week, with 53% doing so for half the week.

- Ariel Lopez 5

More interestingly, virtual teams are often more engaged than physical ones. 5 The reason is that working in the same office can decrease team satisfaction when individuals fear or worry about their leaders. Thus, the physical absence of leaders in virtual teams encourages members to connect more.

Multiteam System

If you are wondering about a team that can unite different departments within your organization, not just the individuals, perhaps a multiteam system is ideal for you.

A multiteam system is a team that consists of different teams working together to realize overarching goals.

The multiteam system is quite a new concept for organizations worldwide. While a multiteam system is larger than a team, it is still smaller than an organization. Organizations often need to form multiteam systems to resolve highly complex tasks requiring higher coordination and expertise.

The role of leadership in a multiteam system

When it comes to a multiteam system, leadership is extremely challenging. Researchers have highlighted the importance of functional leadership theory in conceptualizing an appropriate role for team leaders in a multiteam system. Accordingly, this theory centers on the ability of leaders to build and maintain relationships on a broad level. Thus, leaders under this theory take the core responsibility "to do, or get done, whatever is not being adequately handled for group needs." 8

Examples of Teams Types

What do different types of teams look like in real-life contexts? Let's then go through some real-life examples of the different types of teams.

Table 1 - Types of Teams and Examples

Common Types of Formal Teams

Besides common types of teams divided based on their functions and scale, teams in organizations can also be classified into two types of teams: formal and informal. However, within professional business contexts, formal types of teams are of greater importance within professional business contexts.

A formal team is a group of individuals formed by the management team in an organizational structure to accomplish specific tasks and goals. 6

In this explanation, we will introduce to you some popular types of formal teams at work:

Table 2 - Common Types of Formal Teams

Types of Team Culture

When it comes to group dynamics, there are also various types of team cultures that shape the unique characteristics and spirits of teams. Within business contexts, types of team culture are mainly defined by the extent to which leaders and team members value productivity, people, and relationships at work.

In general, there are six different types of team culture, which are most popular in workplaces.

Table 3 - Types of Team Culture

Indeed, people make regular use of team concepts and group dynamics in their daily life. Thus, a proper understanding of different types of teams can make the procedure of team development more approachable and comfortable.

If everyone is moving forward together, then success takes care of itself.

- Henry Ford 7

Types of Teams - Key takeaways

• The five most popular types of teams in an organization include problem-solving teams, self-managed work teams, cross-functional teams, virtual teams, and multiteam systems.
• A formal team is a group of individuals formed by the management team in an organizational structure to accomplish specific tasks and goals.
• There are six popular types of team culture at work: corrosive culture, country club culture, comfortable culture, competitive culture, cut-throat culture, and championship culture.
• Sean Peek. Steve Jobs Biography. 2022. https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/4195-business-profile-steve-jobs.html
• Robbins Stephen and Timothy Judge. Organizational Behaviors. Pearson. 2014.
• Luna Mampaey. 10 benefits of great teamwork. 2022. https://herculeanalliance.com/2022/03/01/10-benefits-of-great-teamwork/.
• Tracy Middleton. The importance of teamwork (as proven by science). 2022. https://www.atlassian.com/blog/teamwork/the-importance-of-teamwork.
• Ariel Lopez. What Is a Virtual Team? Definition & Examples. 2020. https://www.projectmanager.com/blog/what-is-a-virtual-team
• Hitesh Bhasin. What Is A Formal Team And Types Of Formal Teams?. 2019. https://www.marketing91.com/formal-team-types-formal-teams/.
• Fred Wilson.The 113 Best Teamwork Quotes to Inspire Collaboration & Motivation. 2020. https://www.ntaskmanager.com/blog/best-teamwork-quotes/.
• Stephen J. Zaccaroa, Andrea L. Rittmana & Michelle A. Marksb. Team leadership. 2001. https://www.qub.ac.uk/elearning/media/Media,264498,en.pdf

Flashcards in Types of Teams 15

Great things in business are never done by ____   person.  

A   team   consists of a group of individuals collaborating on specific tasks to achieve ____   goals and objectives.

Fill in the Blank:

Each individual has unique gifts, and talents and skills. When we bring them to the table and share them for a common purpose, it can give companies a real ____   advantage.

Competitive.

How many  popular types of teams in an organization are there?

Often, problem-solving teams are assembled _________.

Temporarily.

Self-managed work teams are more concerned about:

The implementation of solutions. 

Learn with 15 Types of Teams flashcards in the free Vaia app

We have 14,000 flashcards about Dynamic Landscapes.

Already have an account? Log in

Frequently Asked Questions about Types of Teams

What are the different types of teams?

The six most popular types of teams in an organization include problem-solving teams, self-managed work teams, cross-functional teams, virtual teams, and multiteam systems. 

What are the different types of work teams?

The different types of work teams are problem-solving teams, self-managed work teams, cross-functional teams, virtual teams, and multiteam systems.

What are teams and types of teams?

A team consists of a group of individuals collaborating on specific tasks to achieve common goals and objectives. The six most popular types of teams in an organization include problem-solving teams, self-managed work teams, cross-functional teams, virtual teams, and multiteam systems. 

What are the six types of work teams?

The six types of work teams are problem-solving teams, self-managed work teams, cross-functional teams, virtual teams, and multiteam systems. 

What are the different types of teams and their characteristics?

The different types of teams are problem-solving teams (solve business crises), self-managed work teams (unite for long-term purposes without formal supervision), cross-functional teams (various departments collaborating), virtual teams (digital), and multiteam systems (different teams working together). 

What is a multiteam environment?

Multiteam environment, also called multiteam system, is a collection of two or more teams that work together to achieve overarching goals.

Test your knowledge with multiple choice flashcards

Great things in business are never done by ____  person. 

A team consists of a group of individuals collaborating on specific tasks to achieve ____  goals and objectives.

How many popular types of teams in an organization are there?

Join the Vaia App and learn efficiently with millions of flashcards and more!

Keep learning, you are doing great.

Discover learning materials with the free Vaia app

Vaia is a globally recognized educational technology company, offering a holistic learning platform designed for students of all ages and educational levels. Our platform provides learning support for a wide range of subjects, including STEM, Social Sciences, and Languages and also helps students to successfully master various tests and exams worldwide, such as GCSE, A Level, SAT, ACT, Abitur, and more. We offer an extensive library of learning materials, including interactive flashcards, comprehensive textbook solutions, and detailed explanations. The cutting-edge technology and tools we provide help students create their own learning materials. StudySmarter’s content is not only expert-verified but also regularly updated to ensure accuracy and relevance.

Vaia Editorial Team

Team Types of Teams Teachers

• 12 minutes reading time
• Checked by Vaia Editorial Team

Study anywhere. Anytime.Across all devices.

Create a free account to save this explanation..

Save explanations to your personalised space and access them anytime, anywhere!

By signing up, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and the Privacy Policy of Vaia.

Sign up to highlight and take notes. It’s 100% free.

Join over 22 million students in learning with our Vaia App

The first learning app that truly has everything you need to ace your exams in one place

• Flashcards & Quizzes
• AI Study Assistant
• Study Planner
• Smart Note-Taking

Privacy Overview

1 Defining Teams and Groups

The content included in this chapter is adapted from two open university chapters: working in groups and teams and groups and teamwork, what is a group.

Our tendency to form groups is a pervasive aspect of organizational life. In addition to formal groups, committees, and teams, there are informal groups, cliques, and factions.

Formal groups are used to organize and distribute work, pool information, devise plans, coordinate activities, increase commitment, negotiate, resolve conflicts and conduct inquests. Group work allows the pooling of people’s individual skills and knowledge, and helps compensate for individual deficiencies. Estimates suggest most managers spend 50 percent of their working day in one sort of group or another, and for top management of large organizations this can rise to 80 percent. Thus, formal groups are clearly an integral part of the functioning of an organization.

No less important are informal groups. These are usually structured more around the social needs of people than around the performance of tasks.   Informal groups usually serve to satisfy needs of affiliation, and act as a forum for exploring self-concept as a means of gaining support, and so on. However, these informal groups may also have an important effect on formal work tasks, for example by exerting subtle pressures on group members to conform to a particular work rate, or as ‘places’ where news, gossip, etc., is exchanged.

What is a team?

Exploration Activity

Write your own definition of a ‘team’ (in 20 words or less). 

Provide an example of a team working toward an achievable goals

You probably described a team as a group of some kind. However, a team is more than just a group. When you think of all the groups that you belong to, you will probably find that very few of them are really teams. Some of them will be family or friendship groups that are formed to meet a wide range of needs such as affection, security, support, esteem, belonging, or identity. Some may be committees whose members represent different interest groups and who meet to discuss their differing perspectives on issues of interest.

In this reading the term ‘work group’ (or ‘group’) is often used interchangeably with the word ‘team,’ although a team may be thought of as a particularly cohesive and purposeful type of work group. We can distinguish work groups or teams from more casual groupings of people by using the following set of criteria (Adair, 1983). A collection of people can be defined as a work group or team if it shows most, if not all, of the following characteristics:

• A definable membership: a collection of three or more people identifiable by name or type;
• A group identity: the members think of themselves as a group;
• A sense of shared purpose: the members share some common task or goals or interests;
• Interdependence: the members need the help of one another to accomplish the purpose for which they joined the group;
• Interaction: the members communicate with one another, influence one another, react to one another;
• Sustainability: the team members periodically review the team’s effectiveness;
• An ability to act together.

Usually, the tasks and goals set by teams cannot be achieved by individuals working alone because of constraints on time and resources, and because few individuals possess all the relevant competences and expertise. Sports teams or orchestras clearly fit these criteria.

List some examples of teams of which you are a member – both inside and outside work – in your learning file.

Now list some groups .

What strikes you as the main differences?

By contrast, many groups are much less explicitly focused on an external task. In some instances, the growth and development of the group itself is its primary purpose; process is more important than outcome. Many groups are reasonably fluid and less formally structured than teams. In the case of work groups, an agreed and defined outcome is often regarded as a sufficient basis for effective cooperation and the development of adequate relationships. Teamwork is usually connected with project work and this is a feature of much work. Teamwork is particularly useful when you have to address risky, uncertain, or unfamiliar problems where there is a lot of choice and discretion surrounding the decision to be made. In the area of voluntary and unpaid work, where pay is not an incentive, teamwork can help to motivate support and commitment because it can offer the opportunities to interact socially and learn from others (Piercy & Kramer, 2017). Furthermore, people are more willing to support and defend work they helped create (Stanton, 1992).

Importantly, groups and teams are not distinct entities. Both can be pertinent in personal development as well as organizational development and managing change. In such circumstances, when is it appropriate to embark on teambuilding rather than relying on ordinary group or solo working?

In general, the greater the task uncertainty the more important teamwork is, especially if it is necessary to represent the differing perspectives of concerned parties.  In such situations, the facts themselves do not always point to an obvious policy or strategy for innovation, support, and development: decisions are partially based on the opinions and the personal visions of those involved.

There are risks associated with working in teams as well. Under some conditions, teams may produce more conventional, rather than more innovative, responses to problems. The reason for this is that team decisions may regress towards the average, with group pressures to conform cancelling out more innovative decision options (Makin, Cooper, & Cox, 1989). It depends on how innovative the team is, in terms of its membership, its norms, and its values.

Teamwork may also be inappropriate when you want a fast decision. Team decision making is usually slower than individual decision making because of the need for communication and consensus about the decision taken. Despite the business successes of Japanese companies, it is now recognized that promoting a collective organizational identity and responsibility for decisions can sometimes slow down operations significantly, in ways that are not always compensated for by better decision making.

Is a team or group really needed?

There may be times when group working – or simply working alone – is more appropriate and more effective. For example, decision-making in groups and teams is usually slower than individual decision-making because of the need for communication and consensus. In addition, groups and teams may produce conventional rather than innovative responses to problems, because decisions may regress towards the average, with the more innovative decision options being rejected (Makin et al., 1989).

In general, the greater the task uncertainty , that is to say the less obvious and more complex the task to be addressed, the more important it will be to work in a group or team rather than individually. This is because there will be a greater need for different skills and perspectives, especially if it is necessary to represent the different perspectives of the different stakeholders involved.

Table 2 lists some occasions when it will be appropriate to work in teams, in groups or alone.

When to work alone, in groups or in teams

Types of teams

Different organizations or organizational settings lead to different types of team. The type of team affects how that team is managed, what the communication needs of the team are and, where appropriate, what aspects of the project the project manager needs to emphasize. A work group or team may be permanent, forming part of the organization’s structure, such as a top management team, or temporary, such as a task force assembled to see through a particular project. Members may work as a group continuously or meet only intermittently. The more direct contact and communication team members have with each other, the more likely they are to function well as a team. Thus, getting a group to function well is a valuable management aim.

The following section defines common types of team. Many teams may not fall clearly into one type, but may combine elements of different types. Many organizations have traditionally been managed through a hierarchical structure. This general structure is illustrated in Figure 1  below.

The number of levels clearly depends upon the size and to some extent on the type of the organization. Typically, the span of control , the number of people each manager or supervisor is directly responsible for, averages about five people, but this can vary widely. As a general rule it is bad practice for any single manager to supervise more than 7-10 people.

While the hierarchy is designed to provide a stable ‘backbone’ to the organization, projects are primarily concerned with change, and so tend to be organized quite differently. Their structure needs to be more fluid than that of conventional management structures. There are four commonly used types of project team: the functional team, the project (single) team, the matrix team and the contract team.

Why is it problematic for a manager to supervise too many people? How does this relate to groups, is there an ideal group size or configuration?

The project (single) team

The hierarchical structure described above divides groups of people along largely functional lines: people working together carry out the same or similar functions. A functional team is a team in which work is carried out within a group organized around a similar function or task. This can be project work. In organizations in which the functional divisions are relatively rigid, project work can be handed from one functional team to another in order to complete the work. For example, work on a new product can pass from marketing, which has the idea, to research and development, which sees whether it is technically feasible, thence to design and finally manufacturing. This is sometimes known as ‘baton passing’ – or, less flatteringly, as ‘throwing it over the wall’!

The project, or single, team consists of a group of people who come together as a distinct organizational unit in order to work on a project or projects. The team is often led by a project manager, though self-managing and self-organizing arrangements are also found. Quite often, a team that has been successful on one project will stay together to work on subsequent projects. This is particularly common where an organization engages repeatedly in projects of a broadly similar nature – for example developing software, or in construction. Perhaps the most important issue in this instance is to develop the collective capability of the team, since this is the currency for continued success. People issues are often crucial in achieving this.

The closeness of the dedicated project team normally reduces communication problems within the team. However, care should be taken to ensure that communications with other stakeholders (senior management, line managers and other members of staff in the departments affected, and so on) are not neglected, as it is easy for ‘us and them’ distinctions to develop.

The matrix team

In a matrix team , staff report to different managers for different aspects of their work. Matrix structures are often, but not exclusively, found in projects. Matrix structures are more common in large and multi-national organizations. In this structure, staff are responsible to the project manager for their work on the project while their functional line manager may be responsible for other aspects of their work such as appraisal, training, and career development, and ‘routine’ tasks. This matrix project structure is represented in Figure 2. Notice how the traditional hierarchy is cross-cut by the ‘automated widget manufacturing configuration.’

In this form of organization, staff from various functional areas (such as design, software development, manufacturing or marketing) are loaned or seconded to work on a particular project. Such staff may work full- or part-time on the project. The project manager thus has a recognizable team and is responsible for controlling and monitoring its work on the project.

However, many of the project staff will still have other duties to perform in their normal functional departments. The functional line managers they report to will retain responsibility for this work and for the professional standards of their work on the project, as well as for their training and career development. It is important to overcome the problems staff might have with the dual reporting lines (the ‘two-boss’ problem). This requires building good interpersonal relationships with the team members and regular, effective communication.

The contract team

The contract team is brought in from outside in order to do the project work. Here, the responsibility to deliver the project rests very firmly with the project manager. The client will find such a team harder to control directly. On the other hand, it is the client who will judge the success of the project, so the project manager has to keep an eye constantly on the physical outcomes of the project. A variant of this is the so-called ‘outsourced supply team’, which simply means that the team is physically situated remotely from the project manager, who then encounters the additional problem of ‘managing at a distance’.

Mixed structures

Teams often have mixed structures:

• Some members may be employed to work full time on the project and be fully responsible to the project manager. Project managers themselves are usually employed full time.
• Others may work part time, and be responsible to the project manager only during their time on the project. For example, internal staff may well work on several projects at the same time. Alternatively, an external consultant working on a given project may also be involved in a wider portfolio of activities.
• Some may be part of a matrix arrangement, whereby their work on the project is overseen by the project manager and they report to their line manager for other matters. Project administrators often function in this way, serving the project for its duration, but having a career path within a wider administrative service.
• Still others may be part of a functional hierarchy, undertaking work on the project under their line manager’s supervision by negotiation with their project manager. For instance, someone who works in an organization’s legal department may provide the project team with access to legal advice when needed.

In relatively small projects the last two arrangements are a very common way of accessing specialist services that will only be needed from time to time.

Modern teams

In addition to the traditional types of teams or groups outlined above, recent years have seen the growth of interest in three other important types of team: ‘self-managed teams’, ‘self-organizing teams’, and ‘dispersed virtual teams.’

A typical self-managed team may be permanent or temporary. It operates in an informal and non-hierarchical manner, and has considerable responsibility for the way it carries out its tasks. It is often found in organizations that are developing total quality management and quality assurance approaches. The Industrial Society Survey observed that: “Better customer service, more motivated staff, and better quality of output are the three top motives for moving to [self-managed teams], managers report.”

In contrast, organizations that deliberately encourage the formation of self-organizing teams   are comparatively rare. Teams of this type can be found in highly flexible, innovative organizations that thrive on creativity and informality. These are modern organizations that recognize the importance of learning and adaptability in ensuring their success and continued survival. However, self-organizing teams exist, unrecognized, in many organizations. For instance, in traditional, bureaucratic organizations, people who need to circumvent the red tape may get together in order to make something happen and, in so doing, spontaneously create a self-organizing team. The team will work together, operating outside the formal structures, until its task is done and then it will disband.

Table 2 shows some typical features of self-managed and self-organizing teams.

Table 2: Comparing Self-managed and Self-Organizing Teams

Many organizations set up self-managed or empowered teams as an important way of improving performance and they are often used as a way of introducing a continuous improvement approach. These teams tend to meet regularly to discuss and put forward ideas for improved methods of working or customer service in their areas. Some manufacturers have used multi-skilled self-managed teams to improve manufacturing processes, to enhance worker participation and improve morale. Self-managed teams give employees an opportunity to take a more active role in their working lives and to develop new skills and abilities. This may result in reduced staff turnover and less absenteeism.

Self-organizing teams are usually formed spontaneously in response to an issue, idea or challenge. This may be the challenge of creating a radically new product, or solving a tough production problem. In Japan, the encouragement of self-organizing teams has been used as a way of stimulating discussion and debate about strategic issues so that radical and innovative new strategies emerge. By using a self-organizing team approach companies were able to tap into the collective wisdom and energy of interested and motivated employees.

Following the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual teams are increasingly common. A virtual team is one whose primary means of communicating is electronic, with only occasional phone and face-to-face communication, if at all. Virtual teams use technologies like, Zoom, Skype, Teams, Basecamp, etc. to coordinate, meet, and share work (Kniffen et al., 2021). Table 3 contains a summary of benefits virtual groups provide to organizations and individuals, as well as the potential challenges and disadvantages virtual groups present.

Table 3. Teams have organizational and individual benefits, as well as possible challenges and disadvantages

Why do (only some) teams succeed?

Clearly, there are no hard-and-fast rules which lead to team effectiveness . The determinants of a successful team are complex and not equivalent to following a set of prescriptions. However, the results of poor teamwork can be expensive, so it is useful to draw on research, experience and case studies to explore some general guidelines. What do I mean by ‘team effectiveness’? – the achievement of goals alone? Where do the achievements of individual members fit in? and How does team member satisfaction contribute to team effectiveness?

Borrowing from Adair’s (1983) leadership model, the left-hand side of Figure 3 shows the main constituents of team effectiveness: the satisfaction of individual membership needs, successful team interaction and the achievement of team tasks. These elements are not discrete, so Figure 3 shows them as overlapping. For example, team member satisfaction will be derived not only from the achievement of tasks but also from the quality of team relationships and the more social aspects of teamworking: people who work almost entirely on their own, such as teleworkers and self-employed business owner-managers, often miss the opportunity to bounce ideas off colleagues in team situations. The experience of solitude in their work can, over time, create a sense of isolation, and impair their performance. The effectiveness of a team should also relate to the next step, to what happens after the achievement of team goals.

The three elements could be reconfigured as an iceberg, most of which is below the water’s surface (the right-hand side of Figure 3). Superficial observation of teams in organizations might suggest that most, if not all, energy is devoted to the explicit task (what is to be achieved, by when, with what budget and what resources). Naturally, this is important. But too often the concealed part of the iceberg (how the team will work together) is neglected. As with real icebergs, shipwrecks can ensue.

For instance, if working in a particular team leaves its members antagonistic towards each other and disenchanted with the organization to the point of looking for new jobs, then it can hardly be regarded as fully effective, even if it achieves its goals. The measure of team effectiveness could be how well the team has prepared its members for the transition to new projects, and whether the members would relish the thought of working with each other again.

In addition to what happens inside a team there are external influences that impact upon team operations. Restated, teams operate in complex systems composed on both internal and external stakeholders, resources, and outcomes. The factors shown in Figure 4 interact with each other in ways that affect the team and its development. We don’t fully understand the  complexity of these interactions and combinations. The best that we can do is discuss each factor in turn and consider some of the interactions between them and how they relate to team effectiveness. For instance, discussions about whether the wider culture of an organization supports and rewards teamworking, whether a team’s internal and/or external customers clearly specify their requirements and whether the expectations of a team match those of its sponsor will all either help or hinder a team’s ongoing vitality.

• Adair, J. (1983) Effective Leadership , Gower.
• Industrial Society (1995) Managing Best Practice: Self Managed Teams . Publication no. 11, May 1995, London, Industrial Society.
• Kniffin, K. M., Narayanan, J., Anseel, F., Antonakis, J., Ashford, S. P., Bakker, A. B., … & Vugt, M. V. (2021). COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action.  American Psychologist ,  76 (1), 63.
• Makin, P., Cooper, C. and Cox, C. (1989) Managing People at Work , The British Psychological Society and Routledge.
• Stanton, A. (1992). Learning from experience of collective teamwork. In Paton R., Cornforth C, and Batsleer, J. (Eds.) Issues in Voluntary and Non-profit Management , pp. 95–103, Addison-Wesley.
• Piercy, C. W., & Kramer, M. W. (2017). Exploring dialectical tensions of leading volunteers in two community choirs.  Communication Studies, 68 , 208-226.

Groups used to organize and distribute work, pool information, devise plans, coordinate activities, increase commitment, negotiate, resolve conflicts and conduct inquests.

Groups not formally sanctioned (by an organization) which serve to satisfy needs of affiliation, and act as a forum for exploring self-concept as a means of gaining support, and so on.

a particularly cohesive and purposeful type of work group

the less obvious and more complex the task to be addressed

the number of people each manager or supervisor is directly responsible for

a group of people who come together as a distinct organizational unit in order to work on a project or projects.

other parties involved or affected by decision a team makes (e.g., customers, co-workers, managers, etc.)

a team in which members report to different managers for different aspects of their work

A team brought in from outside in order to do the project work

A team which operates in an informal and non-hierarchical manner, and has considerable responsibility for the way it carries out its tasks

A team in which members self-select their membership, this type of team is typically marked by an informal work style and little input or direction from senior management. These teams are often formed spontaneously in response to an issue, idea or challenge.

A combination of task achievement, individual success, and positive team interactions across both the task and process dimensions of team work.

A system is a group of interacting or interrelated elements that interact to form a unified whole. A system is surrounded and influenced by its environment. Systems are described by its boundaries, structure and purpose and expressed in its functioning.

Defining Teams and Groups Copyright © 2021 by Cameron W. Piercy, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Difference Between Self-Managed & Cross-Functional Teams

• Small Business
• Managing Employees
• ')" data-event="social share" data-info="Pinterest" aria-label="Share on Pinterest">
• ')" data-event="social share" data-info="Reddit" aria-label="Share on Reddit">
• ')" data-event="social share" data-info="Flipboard" aria-label="Share on Flipboard">

How Does Teamwork Work in an Organization?

Leadership styles in production management, purpose of a process improvement team.

• The Effects of Leadership Styles on the Organization
• Theories of Effective Leadership Behavior

Workplace teams are often classified or divided by objective. Both self-managed and cross-functional teams are commonly found in an organization. Other types of teams include problem-solving teams, virtual teams and functional teams. Each type of team has its differences and similarities, and no matter what type of team is formed, all types of teams share common benefits, such as increased knowledge and skills, synergy and commitment. Self-managed and cross-functional teams have differences evident in the way they work.

Member Selection

One difference between a self-managed and a cross-functional team is the way the team members are selected. A fully self-managed team selects its own members. The members then evaluate each other’s performances. Members of cross-functional teams are selected according to the goal at hand. These team members are at about the same hierarchical level but from different departments of the organization, such as marketing, sales or engineering.

Leadership roles also vary between self-managed and cross-functional teams. Cross-functional teams often require hands-on management techniques, while self-managed teams need little to no management. Self-managed teams operate without managers and are responsible for determining work assignments, organizing breaks and collectively controlling the overall pace of work. A leader in a cross-functional team is more of a coach; she is in charge of keeping a clear vision and focus within the team and making sure the team's efforts are in line with those of the organization.

Levels of conflict also vary between self-managed and cross-functional teams. Cross-functional teams enable stakeholders to have an input in the development process, increasing the conflict level within the team. All the members of a cross-functional team come from different work backgrounds and inherently have different perspectives when issues arise. A self-managed team will also run into issues, much like any other team type. However, the members are more likely to share the same perspectives, minimizing conflict when an issue arises.

Similarities

Self-managed and cross-functional teams also have some similarities. Both teams are designed to give the members responsibility of the direction of any project assigned to them. Cross-functional teams are often empowered to make decisions without the need of approval from management. Self-managed teams are designed to give team members a feeling of “ownership” over a whole job, which empowers them with authority and pride in their work and minimizes interferences and second-guessing by others. Proper training is equally important for both types of teams. All members of a team need to understand their role and position, which can only be successfully accomplished through proper training.

• Berkeley Expert System Technologies: Crossfunctional Teams
• Inc.: Cross-functional Teams

Chris Newton has worked as a professional writer since 2001. He spent two years writing software specifications then spent three years as a technical writer for Microsoft before turning to copywriting for software and e-commerce companies. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in English and creative writing from the University of Colorado.

Related Articles

How to build or develop independent organizational work teams, characteristics of a high-performance team, team development and leadership styles, organizational structures in the workplace, what are the keys to teamwork, the disadvantages of team-based organizational structure, efficiency improvement for team members, how to measure team growth, supervising vs. leading a team, most popular.

• 1 How to Build or Develop Independent Organizational Work Teams
• 2 Characteristics of a High-Performance Team
• 3 Team Development and Leadership Styles
• 4 Organizational Structures in the Workplace

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Complex Problem Solving in Teams: The Impact of Collective Orientation on Team Process Demands

Associated data.

Complex problem solving is challenging and a high-level cognitive process for individuals. When analyzing complex problem solving in teams, an additional, new dimension has to be considered, as teamwork processes increase the requirements already put on individual team members. After introducing an idealized teamwork process model, that complex problem solving teams pass through, and integrating the relevant teamwork skills for interdependently working teams into the model and combining it with the four kinds of team processes (transition, action, interpersonal, and learning processes), the paper demonstrates the importance of fulfilling team process demands for successful complex problem solving within teams. Therefore, results from a controlled team study within complex situations are presented. The study focused on factors that influence action processes, like coordination, such as emergent states like collective orientation, cohesion, and trust and that dynamically enable effective teamwork in complex situations. Before conducting the experiments, participants were divided by median split into two-person teams with either high ( n = 58) or low ( n = 58) collective orientation values. The study was conducted with the microworld C3Fire, simulating dynamic decision making, and acting in complex situations within a teamwork context. The microworld includes interdependent tasks such as extinguishing forest fires or protecting houses. Two firefighting scenarios had been developed, which takes a maximum of 15 min each. All teams worked on these two scenarios. Coordination within the team and the resulting team performance were calculated based on a log-file analysis. The results show that no relationships between trust and action processes and team performance exist. Likewise, no relationships were found for cohesion. Only collective orientation of team members positively influences team performance in complex environments mediated by action processes such as coordination within the team. The results are discussed in relation to previous empirical findings and to learning processes within the team with a focus on feedback strategies.

Introduction

Complex problems in organizational contexts are seldom solved by individuals. Generally, interdependently working teams of experts deal with complex problems (Fiore et al., 2010 ), which are characterized by element interactivity/ interconnectedness, dynamic developments, non-transparency and multiple, and/or conflicting goals (Dörner et al., 1983 ; Brehmer, 1992 ; Funke, 1995 ). Complex problem solving “takes place for reducing the barrier between a given start state and an intended goal state with the help of cognitive activities and behavior. Start state, intended goal state, and barriers prove complexity, change dynamically over time, and can be partially intransparent” (Funke, 2012 , p. 682). Teams dealing with complex problems in interdependent work contexts, for example in disaster, crisis or accident management, are called High Responsibility Teams. They are named High Responsibility Teams (HRTs; Hagemann, 2011 ; Hagemann et al., 2011 ) due to their dynamic and often unpredictable working conditions and demanding work contexts, in which technical faults and slips have severe consequences for human beings and the environment if they are not identified and resolved within the team immediately (Kluge et al., 2009 ). HRTs bear responsibility regarding lives of third parties and their own lives based on their actions and consequences.

The context of interdependently working HRTs, dealing with complex problems, is described as follows (Zsambok, 1997 ): Members of interdependently working teams have to reach ill-defined or competing goals in common in poor structured, non-transparent and dynamically changing situations under the consideration of rules of engagement and based on several cycles of joint action. Some or all goals are critical in terms of time and the consequences of actions result in decision-based outcomes with high importance for the culture (e.g., human life). In HRT contexts, added to the features of the complexity of the problem, is the complexity of relationships, which is called social complexity (Dörner, 1989/2003 ) or crew coordination complexity (Kluge, 2014 ), which results from the interconnectedness between multiple agents through coordination requirements. The dynamic control aspect of the continuous process is coupled with the need to coordinate multiple highly interactive processes imposing high coordination demands (Roth and Woods, 1988 ; Waller et al., 2004 ; Hagemann et al., 2012 ).

Within this article, it is important to us to describe the theoretical background of complex problem solving in teams in depth and to combine different but compatible theoretical approaches, in order to demonstrate their theoretical and practical use in the context of the analysis of complex problem solving in teams. In Industrial and Organizational Psychology, a detailed description of tasks and work contexts that are in the focus of the analysis is essential. The individual or team task is the point of intersection between organization and individual as a “psychologically most relevant part” of the working conditions (Ulich, 1995 ). Thus, the tasks and the teamwork context of teams that deal with complex problems is of high relevance in the present paper. We will comprehensively describe the context of complex problem solving in teams by introducing a model of an idealized teamwork process that complex problem solving teams pass through and extensively integrate the relevant teamwork skills for these interdependently working teams into the idealized teamwork process model.

Furthermore, we will highlight the episodic aspect concerning complex problem solving in teams and combine the agreed on transition, action, interpersonal and learning processes of teamwork with the idealized teamwork process model. Because we are interested in investigating teamwork competencies and action processes of complex problem solving teams, we will analyze the indirect effect of collective orientation on team performance through the teams' coordination behavior. The focusing of the study will be owed to its validity. Even though that we know that more aspects of the theoretical framework might be of interest and could be analyzed, we will focus on a detail within the laboratory experiment for getting reliable and valid results.

Goal, task, and outcome interdependence in teamwork

Concerning interdependence, teamwork research focuses on three designated features, which are in accordance with general process models of human action (Hertel et al., 2004 ). One type is goal interdependence, which refers to the degree to which teams have distinct goals as well as a linkage between individual members and team goals (Campion et al., 1993 ; Wageman, 1995 ). A second type is task interdependence, which refers to the interaction between team members. The team members depend on each other for work accomplishment, and the actions of one member have strong implications for the work process of all members (Shea and Guzzo, 1987 ; Campion et al., 1993 ; Hertel et al., 2004 ). The third type is outcome interdependence, which is defined as the extent to which one team member's outcomes depend on the performance of other members (Wageman, 1995 ). Accordingly, the rewards for each member are based on the total team performance (Hertel et al., 2004 ). This can occur, for instance, if a team receives a reward based on specific performance criteria. Although interdependence is often the reason why teams are formed in the first place, and it is stated as a defining attribute of teams (Salas et al., 2008 ), different levels of task interdependence exist (Van de Ven et al., 1976 ; Arthur et al., 2005 ).

The workflow pattern of teams can be

• Independent or pooled (activities are performed separately),
• Sequential (activities flow from one member to another in a unidirectional manner),
• Reciprocal (activities flow between team members in a back and forth manner) or
• Intensive (team members must simultaneously diagnose, problem-solve, and coordinate as a team to accomplish a task).

Teams that deal with complex problems work within intensive interdependence, which requires greater coordination patterns compared to lower levels of interdependence (Van de Ven et al., 1976 ; Wageman, 1995 ) and necessitates mutual adjustments as well as frequent interaction and information integration within the team (Gibson, 1999 ; Stajkovic et al., 2009 ).

Thus, in addition to the cognitive requirements related to information processing (e.g., encoding, storage and retrieval processes (Hinsz et al., 1997 ), simultaneously representing and anticipating the dynamic elements and predicting future states of the problem, balancing contradictory objectives and decide on the right timing for actions to execute) of individual team members, the interconnectedness between the experts in the team imposes high team process demands on the team members. These team process demands follow from the required interdependent actions of all team members for effectively using all resources, such as equipment, money, time, and expertise, to reach high team performance (Marks et al., 2001 ). Examples for team process demands are the communication for building a shared situation awareness, negotiating conflicting perspectives on how to proceed or coordinating and orchestrating actions of all team members.

A comprehensive model of the idealized teamwork process

The cognitive requirements, that complex problem solving teams face, and the team process demands are consolidated within our model of an idealized teamwork process in Figure ​ Figure1 1 (Hagemann, 2011 ; Kluge et al., 2014 ). Individual and team processes converge sequential and in parallel and influencing factors as well as process demands concerning complex problem solving in teams can be extracted. The core elements of the model are situation awareness, information transfer, individual and shared mental models, coordination and leadership, and decision making.

Relevant teamwork skills (orange color) for interdependently working teams (see Wilson et al., 2010 ) integrated into the model of an idealized teamwork process.

Complex problem solving teams are responsible for finding solutions and reaching specified goals. Based on the overall goals various sub goals will be identified at the beginning of the teamwork process in the course of mission analysis, strategy formulation and planning, all aspects of the transition phase (Marks et al., 2001 ). The transition phase processes occur during periods of time when teams focus predominantly on evaluation and/or planning activities. The identified and communicated goals within the team represent relevant input variables for each team member in order to build up a Situation Awareness (SA). SA contains three steps and is the foundation for an ideal and goal directed collaboration within a team (Endsley, 1999 ; Flin et al., 2008 ). The individual SA is the start and end within the idealized teamwork process model. SA means the assessment of a situation which is important for complex problem solving teams, as they work based on the division of labor as well as interdependently and each team member needs to achieve a correct SA and to share it within the team. Each single team member needs to utilize all technical and interpersonal resources in order to collect and interpret up-to-date goal directed information and to share this information with other team members via “closed-loop communication.”

This information transfer focuses on sending and receiving single SA between team members in order to build up a Shared Situation Awareness (SSA). Overlapping cuts of individual SA are synchronized within the team and a bigger picture of the situation is developed. Creating a SSA means sharing a common perspective of the members concerning current events within their environment, their meaning and their future development. This shared perspective enables problem-solving teams to attain high performance standards through corresponding and goal directed actions (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993 ).

Expectations of each team member based on briefings, individual mental models and interpositional knowledge influence the SA, the information transfer and the consolidation process. Mental models are internal and cognitive representations of relations and processes (e.g., execution of tactics) between various aspects or elements of a situation. They help team members to describe, explain and predict circumstances (Mathieu et al., 2000 ). Mental models possess knowledge elements required by team members in order to assess a current situation in terms of SA. Interpositional knowledge refers to an individual understanding concerning the tasks and duties of all team members, in order to develop an understanding about the impact of own actions on the actions of other team members and vice versa. It supports the team in identifying the information needs and the amount of required help of other members and in avoiding team conflicts (Smith-Jentsch et al., 2001 ). This knowledge is the foundation for anticipating the team members' needs for information and it is important for matching information within the team.

Based on the information matching process within the team, a common understanding of the problem, the goals and the current situation is developed in terms of a Shared Mental Model (SMM), which is important for the subsequent decisions. SMM are commonly shared mental models within a team and refer to the organized knowledge structures of all team members, that are shared with each other and which enable the team to interact goal-oriented (Mathieu et al., 2000 ). SMM help complex problem solving teams during high workload to adapt fast and efficiently to changing situations (Waller et al., 2004 ). They also enhance the teams' performance and communication processes (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993 ; Mathieu et al., 2000 ). Especially under time pressure and in crucial situations when overt verbal communication and explicit coordination is not applicable, SMM are fundamental in order to coordinate implicitly. This information matching process fosters the building of a shared understanding of the current situation and the required actions. In order to do so teamwork skills (see Wilson et al., 2010 ) such as communication, coordination , and cooperation within the team are vitally important. Figure ​ Figure1 1 incorporates the teamwork skills into the model of an idealized teamwork process.

Depending on the shared knowledge and SA within the team, the coordination can be based either on well-known procedures or shared expectations within the team or on explicit communication based on task specific phraseology or closed-loop communication. Cooperation needs mutual performance monitoring within the team, for example, in order to apply task strategies to accurately monitor teammate performance and prevent errors (Salas et al., 2005 ). Cooperation also needs backup behavior of each team member, for example, and continuous actions in reference to the collective events. The anticipation of other team members' needs under high workload maintains the teams' performance and the well-being of each team member (Badke-Schaub, 2008 ). A successful pass through the teamwork process model also depends e.g., on the trust and the cohesion within the team and the collective orientation of each team member.

Collective orientation (CO) is defined “as the propensity to work in a collective manner in team settings” (Driskell et al., 2010 , p. 317). Highly collectively oriented people work with others on a task-activity and team-activity track (Morgan et al., 1993 ) in a goal-oriented manner, seek others' input, contribute to team outcomes, enjoy team membership, and value cooperativeness more than power (Driskell et al., 2010 ). Thus, teams with collectively oriented members perform better than teams with non-collectively oriented members (Driskell and Salas, 1992 ). CO, trust and cohesion as well as other coordination and cooperation skills are so called emergent sates that represent cognitive, affective, and motivational states, and not traits, of teams and team members, and which are influenced, for example, by team experience, so that emergent states can be considered as team inputs but also as team outcomes (Marks et al., 2001 ).

Based on the information matching process the complex problem solving team or the team leader needs to make decisions in order to execute actions. The task prioritization and distribution is an integrated part of this step (Waller et al., 2004 ). Depending on the progress of the dynamic, non-transparent and heavily foreseeable situation tasks have to be re-prioritized during episodes of teamwork. Episodes are “temporal cycles of goal-directed activity” in which teams perform (Marks et al., 2001 , p. 359). Thus, the team acts adaptive and is able to react flexible to situation changes. The team coordinates implicitly when each team member knows what he/she has to do in his/her job, what the others expect from him/her and how he/she interacts with the others. In contrast, when abnormal events occur and they are recognized during SA processes, the team starts coordinating explicitly via communication, for example. Via closed-loop communication and based on interpositional knowledge new strategies are communicated within the team and tasks are re-prioritized.

The result of the decision making and action taking flows back into the individual SA and the as-is state will be compared with the original goals. This model of an idealized teamwork process (Figure ​ (Figure1) 1 ) is a regulator circuit with feedback loops, which enables a team to adapt flexible to changing environments and goals. The foundation of this model is the classic Input-Process-Outcome (IPO) framework (Hackman, 1987 ) with a strong focus on the process part. IPO models view processes as mechanisms linking variables such as member, team, or organizational features with outcomes such as performance quality and quantity or members' reactions. This mediating mechanism, the team process , can be defined as “members' interdependent acts that convert inputs to outcomes through cognitive, verbal, and behavioral activities directed toward organizing taskwork to achieve collective goals” (Marks et al., 2001 , p. 357). That means team members interact interdependently with other members as well as with their environment. These cognitive, verbal, and behavioral activities directed toward taskwork and goal attainment are represented as gathering situation awareness, communication, coordination, cooperation, the consolidation of information, and task prioritization within our model of an idealized teamwork process. Within the context of complex problem solving, teams have to face team process demands in addition to cognitive challenges related to individual information processing. That means teamwork processes and taskwork to solve complex problems co-occur, the processes guide the execution of taskwork.

The dynamic nature of teamwork and temporal influences on complex problem solving teams are considered within adapted versions (Marks et al., 2001 ; Ilgen et al., 2005 ) of the original IPO framework. These adaptations propose that teams experience cycles of joint action, so called episodes, in which teams perform and also receive feedback for further actions. The IPO cycles occur sequentially and simultaneously and are nested in transition and action phases within episodes in which outcomes from initial episodes serve as inputs for the next cycle (see Figure ​ Figure2). 2 ). These repetitive IPO cycles are a vital element of our idealized teamwork process model, as it incorporates feedback loops in such a way, that the outcomes, e.g., changes within the as-is state, are continuously compared with the original goals. Detected discrepancies within the step of updating SA motivate the team members to consider further actions for goal accomplishment.

Teamwork episodes with repetitive IPO cycles (Marks et al., 2001 ).

When applying this episodic framework to complex problem solving teams it becomes obvious that teams handle different types of taskwork at different phases of task accomplishment (Marks et al., 2001 ). That means episodes consist of two phases, so-called action and transition phases , in which teams are engaged in activities related to goal attainment and in other time in reflecting on past performance and planning for further common actions. The addition of the social complexity to the complexity of the problem within collaborative complex problem solving comes to the fore here. During transition phases teams evaluate their performance, compare the as-is state against goals, reflect on their strategies and plan future activities to guide their goal accomplishment. For example, team members discuss alternative courses of action, if their activities for simulated firefighting, such as splitting team members in order to cover more space of the map, are not successful. During action phases, teams focus directly on the taskwork and are engaged in activities such as exchanging information about the development of the dynamic situation or supporting each other. For example, a team member recognizes high workload of another team member and supports him/her in collecting information or in taking over the required communication with other involved parties.

Transition and action phases

The idealized teamwork process model covers these transition and action phases as well as the processes occurring during these two phases of team functioning, which can be clustered into transition, action, and interpersonal processes. That means during complex problem solving the relevant or activated teamwork processes in the transition and action phases change as teams move back and forth between these phases. As this taxonomy of team processes from Marks et al. ( 2001 ) states that a team process is multidimensional and teams use different processes simultaneously, some processes can occur either during transition periods or during action periods or during both periods. Transition processes especially occur during transition phases and enable the team to understand their tasks, guide their attention, specify goals and develop courses of action for task accomplishment. Thus, transition processes include (see Marks et al., 2001 ) mission analysis, formulation and planning (Prince and Salas, 1993 ), e.g., fighting a forest fire, goal specification (Prussia and Kinicki, 1996 ), e.g., saving as much houses and vegetation as possible, and strategy formulation (Prince and Salas, 1993 ; Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995 ), e.g., spreading team members into different geographic directions. Action processes predominantly occur during action phases and support the team in conducting activities directly related to goal accomplishment. Thus, action processes are monitoring progress toward goals (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995 ), e.g., collecting information how many cells in a firefighting simulation are still burning, systems monitoring (Fleishman and Zaccaro, 1992 ), e.g., tracking team resources such as water for firefighting, team monitoring and backup behavior (Stevens and Campion, 1994 ; Salas et al., 2005 ), e.g., helping a team member and completing a task for him/her, and coordination (Fleishman and Zaccaro, 1992 ; Serfaty et al., 1998 ), e.g., orchestrating the interdependent actions of the team members such as exchanging information during firefighting about positions of team members for meeting at the right time at the right place in order to refill the firefighters water tanks. Especially the coordination process is influenced by the amount of task interdependence as coordination becomes more and more important for effective team functioning when interdependence increases (Marks et al., 2001 ). Interpersonal processes occur during transition and action phases equally and lay the foundation for the effectiveness of other processes and govern interpersonal activities (Marks et al., 2001 ). Thus, interpersonal processes include conflict management (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995 ), like the development of team rules, motivation and confidence building (Fleishman and Zaccaro, 1992 ), like encourage team members to perform better, and affect management (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995 ), e.g., regulating member emotions during complex problem solving.

Summing up, process demands such as transition processes that complex problem solving teams pass through, are mission analysis, planning, briefing and goal specification, visualized on the left side of the idealized teamwork process model (see Figure ​ Figure3). 3 ). The results of these IPO cycles lay the foundation for gathering a good SA and initiating activities directed toward taskwork and goal accomplishment and therefore initiating action processes. The effective execution of action processes depends on the communication, coordination, cooperation, matching of information, and task prioritization as well as emergent team cognition variables (SSA and SMM) within the team. The results, like decisions, of these IPO cycles flow back into the next episode and may initiate further transition processes. In addition, interpersonal processes play a crucial role for complex problem solving teams. That means, conflict management, motivating and confidence building, and affect management are permanently important, no matter whether a team runs through transition or action phases and these interpersonal processes frame the whole idealized teamwork process model. Therefore, interpersonal processes are also able to impede successful teamwork at any point as breakdowns in conflict or affect management can lead to coordination breakdowns (Wilson et al., 2010 ) or problems with monitoring or backing up teammates (Marks et al., 2001 ). Thus, complex problem solving teams have to face these multidimensional team process demands in addition to cognitive challenges, e.g., information storage or retrieval (Hinsz et al., 1997 ), related to individual information processing.

The integration of transition, action, interpersonal, and learning processes into the model of an idealized teamwork process.

Team learning opportunities for handling complex problems

In order to support teams in handling complex situations or problems, learning opportunities seem to be very important for successful task accomplishment and for reducing possible negative effects of team process demands. Learning means any kind of relative outlasted changes in potential of human behavior that cannot be traced back to age-related changes (Bower and Hilgard, 1981 ; Bredenkamp, 1998 ). Therefore, Schmutz et al. ( 2016 ) amended the taxonomy of team processes developed by Marks et al. ( 2001 ) and added learning processes as a fourth category of processes, which occur during transition and action phases and contribute to overall team effectiveness. Learning processes (see also Edmondson, 1999 ) include observation, e.g., observing own and other team members' actions such as the teammate's positioning of firewalls in order to protect houses in case of firefighting, feedback, like giving a teammate information about the wind direction for effective positioning of firewalls, and reflection, e.g., talking about procedures for firefighting or refilling water tanks, for example, within the team. Learning from success and failure and identifying future problems is crucial for the effectiveness of complex problem solving teams and therefore possibilities for learning based on repetitive cycles of joint action or episodes and reflection of team members' activities during action and transition phases should be used effectively (Edmondson, 1999 ; Marks et al., 2001 ). The processes of the idealized teamwork model are embedded into these learning processes (see Figure ​ Figure3 3 ).

The fulfillment of transition, action, interpersonal and learning processes contribute significantly to successful team performance in complex problem solving. For clustering these processes, transition and action processes could be seen as operational processes and interpersonal and learning process as support processes. When dealing with complex and dynamic situations teams have to face these team process demands more strongly than in non-complex situations. For example, goal specification and prioritization or strategy formulation, both aspects of transition processes, are strongly influenced by multiple goals, interconnectedness or dynamically and constantly changing conditions. The same is true for action processes, such as monitoring progress toward goals, team monitoring and backup behavior or coordination of interdependent actions. Interpersonal processes, such as conflict and affect management or confidence building enhance the demands put on team members compared to individuals working on complex problems. Interpersonal processes are essential for effective teamwork and need to be cultivated during episodes of team working, because breakdowns in confidence building or affect management can lead to coordination breakdowns or problems with monitoring or backing up teammates (Marks et al., 2001 ). Especially within complex situations aspects such as interdependence, delayed feedback, multiple goals and dynamic changes put high demands on interpersonal processes within teams. Learning processes, supporting interpersonal processes and the result of effective teamwork are e.g., observation of others' as well as own actions and receiving feedback by others or the system and are strongly influenced by situational characteristics such as non-transparency or delayed feedback concerning actions. It is assumed that amongst others team learning happens through repetitive cycles of joint action within the action phases and reflection of team members within the transition phases (Edmondson, 1999 ; Gabelica et al., 2014 ; Schmutz et al., 2016 ). The repetitive cycles help to generate SMM (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993 ; Mathieu et al., 2000 ), SSA (Endsley and Robertson, 2000 ) or transactive memory systems (Hollingshead et al., 2012 ) within the team.

Emergent states in complex team work and the role of collective orientation

IPO models propose that input variables and emergent states are able to influence team processes and therefore outcomes such as team performance positively. Emergent states represent team members' attitudes or motivations and are “properties of the team that are typically dynamic in nature and vary as a function of team context, inputs, processes, and outcomes” (Marks et al., 2001 , p. 357). Both emergent states and interaction processes are relevant for team effectiveness (Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006 ).

Emergent states refer to conditions that underlie and dynamically enable effective teamwork (DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus, 2010 ) and can be differentiated from team process, which refers to interdependent actions of team members that transform inputs into outcomes based on activities directed toward task accomplishment (Marks et al., 2001 ). Emergent states mainly support the execution of behavioral processes (e.g., planning, coordination, backup behavior) during the action phase, meaning during episodes when members are engaged in acts that focus on task work and goal accomplishment. Emergent states like trust, cohesion and CO are “products of team experiences (including team processes) and become new inputs to subsequent processes and outcomes” (Marks et al., 2001 , p. 358). Trust between team members and cohesion within the team are emergent states that develop over time and only while experiencing teamwork in a specific team. CO is an emergent state that a team member brings along with him/her into the teamwork, is assumed to be more persistent than trust and cohesion, and can, but does not have to, be positively and negatively influenced by experiencing teamwork in a specific team for a while or by means of training (Eby and Dobbins, 1997 ; Driskell et al., 2010 ). Thus, viewing emergent states on a continuum, trust and cohesion are assumed more fluctuating than CO, but CO is much more sensitive to change and direct experience than a stable trait such as a personality trait.

CO of team members is one of the teamwork-relevant competencies that facilitates team processes, such as collecting and sharing information between team members, and positively affects the success of teams, as people who are high in CO work with others in a goal-oriented manner, seek others' input and contribute to team outcomes (Driskell et al., 2010 ). CO is an emergent state, as it can be an input variable as well as a teamwork outcome. CO is context-dependent, becomes visible in reactions to situations and people, and can be influenced by experience (e.g., individual learning experiences with various types of teamwork) or knowledge or training (Eby and Dobbins, 1997 ; Bell, 2007 ). CO enhances team performance through activating transition and action processes such as coordination, evaluation and consideration of task inputs from other team members while performing a team task (Driskell and Salas, 1992 ; Salas et al., 2005 ). Collectively oriented people effectively use available resources in due consideration of the team's goals, participate actively and adapt teamwork processes adequately to the situation.

Driskell et al. ( 2010 ) and Hagemann ( 2017 ) provide a sound overview of the evidence of discriminant and convergent validity of CO compared to other teamwork-relevant constructs, such as cohesion, also an emergent state, or cooperative interdependence or preference for solitude. Studies analyzing collectively and non-collectively oriented persons' decision-making in an interdependent task demonstrated that teams with non-collectively oriented members performed poorly in problem solving and that members with CO judged inputs from teammates as more valuable and considered these inputs more frequently (Driskell and Salas, 1992 ). Eby and Dobbins ( 1997 ) also showed that CO results in increased coordination among team members, which may enhance team performance through information sharing, goal setting and strategizing (Salas et al., 2005 ). Driskell et al. ( 2010 ) and Hagemann ( 2017 ) analyzed CO in relation to team performance and showed that the effect of CO on team performance depends on the task type (see McGrath, 1984 ). Significant positive relationships between team members' CO and performance were found in relation to the task types choosing/decision making and negotiating (Driskell et al., 2010 ) respectively choosing/decision making (Hagemann, 2017 ). These kinds of tasks are characterized by much more interdependence than task types such as executing or generating tasks. As research shows that the positive influence of CO on team performance unfolds especially in interdependent teamwork contexts (Driskell et al., 2010 ), which require more team processes such as coordination patterns (Van de Ven et al., 1976 ; Wageman, 1995 ) and necessitate mutual adjustments as well as frequent information integration within the team (Gibson, 1999 ; Stajkovic et al., 2009 ), CO might be vitally important for complex problem solving teams. Thus, CO as an emergent state of single team members might be a valuable resource for enhancing the team's performance when exposed to solving complex problems. Therefore, it will be of interest to analyze the influence of CO on team process demands such as coordination processes and performance within complex problem solving teams. We predict that the positive effect of CO on team performance is an indirect effect through coordination processes within the team, which are vitally important for teams working in intensive interdependent work contexts.

• Hypothesis 1: CO leads to a better coordination behavior, which in turn leads to a higher team performance.

As has been shown in team research that emergent states like trust and cohesion (see also Figure ​ Figure1) 1 ) affect team performance, these two constructs are analyzed in conjunction with CO concerning action processes, such as coordination behavior and team performance. Trust between team members supports information sharing and the willingness to accept feedback, and therefore positively influences teamwork processes (McAllister, 1995 ; Salas et al., 2005 ). Cohesion within a team facilitates motivational factors and group processes like coordination and enhances team performance (Beal et al., 2003 ; Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006 ).

• Hypothesis 2: Trust shows a positive relationship with (a) action processes (team coordination) and with (b) team performance.
• Hypothesis 3: Cohesion shows a positive relationship with (a) action processes (team coordination) and with (b) team performance.

Materials and methods

In order to demonstrate the importance of team process demands for complex problem solving in teams, we used a computer-based microworld in a laboratory study. We analyzed the effectiveness of complex problem solving teams while considering the influence of input variables, like collective orientation of team members and trust and cohesion within the team, on action processes within teams, like coordination.

The microworld for investigating teams process demands

We used the simulation-based team task C 3 Fire (Granlund et al., 2001 ; Granlund and Johansson, 2004 ), which is described as an intensive interdependence team task for complex problem solving (Arthur et al., 2005 ). C 3 Fire is a command, control and communications simulation environment that allows teams' coordination and communication in complex and dynamic environments to be analyzed. C 3 Fire is a microworld, as important characteristics of the real world are transferred to a small and well-controlled simulation system. The task environment in C 3 Fire is complex, dynamic and opaque (see Table ​ Table1) 1 ) and therefore similar to the cognitive tasks people usually encounter in real-life settings, in and outside their work place (Brehmer and Dörner, 1993 ; Funke, 2001 ). Figure ​ Figure4 4 demonstrates how the complexity characteristics mentioned in Table ​ Table1 1 are realized in C 3 Fire. The screenshot represents the simulation manager's point of view, who is able to observe all units and actions and the scenario development. For more information about the units and scenarios, please (see the text below and the Supplementary Material). Complexity requires people to consider a number of facts. Because executed actions in C 3 Fire influence the ongoing process, the sequencing of actions is free and not stringent, such as a fixed (if X then Y) or parallel (if X then Y and Z) sequence (Ormerod et al., 1998 ). This can lead to stressful situations. Taking these characteristics of microworlds into consideration, team processes during complex problem solving can be analyzed within laboratories under controlled conditions. Simulated microworlds such as C 3 Fire allow the gap to be bridged between laboratory studies, which might show deficiencies regarding ecological validity, and field studies, which have been criticized due to their small amount of control (see Brehmer and Dörner, 1993 ).

Overview of complexity characteristics of microworlds in general and in C 3 Fire (cf. Funke, 2001 ).

Examples for the complexity characteristics in Table ​ Table1 1 represented within a simulation scenario in C 3 Fire.

In C 3 Fire, the teams' task is to coordinate their actions to extinguish a forest fire whilst protecting houses and saving lives. The team members' actions are interdependent. The simulation includes, e.g., forest fires, houses, tents, gas tanks, different kinds of vegetation and computer-simulated agents such as firefighting units (Granlund, 2003 ). It is possible, for example, that the direction of wind will change during firefighting and the time until different kinds of vegetation are burned down varies between those. In the present study, two simulation scenarios were developed for two-person teams and consisted of two firefighting units, one mobile water tank unit (responsible for re-filling the firefighting units' water tanks that contain a predefined amount of water) and one fire-break unit (a field defended with a fire-break cannot be ignited; the fire spreads around its ends). The two developed scenarios lasted for 15 min maximum. Each team member was responsible for two units in each scenario; person one for firefighting and water tank unit and person two for firefighting and fire-break unit. The user interface was a map system (40 × 40 square grid) with all relevant geographic information and positions of all symbols representing houses, water tank units and so on. All parts of the map with houses and vegetation were visible for the subjects, but not the fire itself or the other units; instead, the subjects were close to them with their own units (restricted visibility field; 3 × 3 square grid). The simulation was run on computers networked in a client-server configuration. The subjects used a chat system for communication that was logged. For each scenario, C 3 Fire creates a detailed log file containing all events that occurred over the course of the simulation. Examples of the C 3 Fire scenarios are provided in the Figures S1 – 3 and a short introduction into the microworld is given in the video. Detailed information regarding the scenario characteristics are given in Table S1 . From scenario one to two, the complexity and interdependence increased.

Participants

The study was conducted from Mai 2014 until March 2015. Undergraduate and graduate students ( N = 116) studying applied cognitive sciences participated in the study (68.1% female). Their mean age was 21.17 years ( SD = 3.11). Participants were assigned to 58 two-person teams, with team assignments being based on the pre-measured CO values (see procedure). They received 2 hourly credits as a trial subject and giveaways such as pencils and non-alcoholic canned drinks. The study was approved by the university's ethics committee in February 2014.

The study was conducted within a laboratory setting at a university department for business psychology. Prior to the experiment, the participants filled in the CO instrument online and gave written informed consent (see Figure ​ Figure5). 5 ). The median was calculated subsequently ( Md = 3.12; range: 1.69–4.06; scale range: 1–5) relating to the variable CO and two individuals with either high ( n = 58) or low ( n = 58) CO values were randomly matched as teammates. The matching process was random in part, as those two subjects were matched to form a team, whose preferred indicated time for participation in a specific week during data collection were identical. The participants were invited to the experimental study by e-mail 1–2 weeks after filling in the CO instrument. The study began with an introduction to the experimental procedure and the teams' task. The individuals received time to familiarize themselves with the simulation, received 20 min of training and completed two practice trials. After the training, participants answered a questionnaire collecting demographic data. Following this, a simulation scenario started and the participants had a maximum of 15 min to coordinate their actions to extinguish a forest fire whilst protecting houses and saving lives. After that, at measuring time T1, participants answered questionnaires assessing trust and cohesion within the team. Again, the teams worked on the following scenario 2 followed by a last round of questionnaires assessing trust and cohesion at T2.

Overview about the procedure and measures.

Demographic data such as age, sex, and study course were assessed after the training at the beginning of the experiment.

Collective Orientation was measured at an individual level with 16 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree ) developed by the authors (Hagemann, 2017 ) based on the work of Driskell et al. ( 2010 ). The factorial structure concerning the German-language CO scale was proven prior to this study (χ 2 = 162.25, df = 92, p = 0.000, χ 2 /df = 1.76, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.040, CI = 0.030-0.051, SRMR = 0.043) and correlations for testing convergent and discriminant evidence of validity were satisfying. For example, CO correlated r = 0.09 ( p > 0.10) with cohesion, r = 0.34 ( p < 0.01) with cooperative interdependence and r = −0.28 ( p < 0.01) with preference for solitude (Hagemann, 2017 ). An example item is “ I find working on team projects to be very satisfying ”. Coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.81.

Trust in team members' integrity, trust in members' task abilities and trust in members' work-related attitudes (Geister et al., 2006 ) was measured with seven items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree ). An example item is “ I can trust that I will have no additional demands due to lack of motivation of my team member .” Coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.83 (T1) and 0.87 (T2).

Cohesion was measured with a six-item scale from Riordan and Weatherly ( 1999 ) rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree ). An example item is “ In this team, there is a lot of team spirit among the members .” Coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.87 (T1) and 0.87 (T2).

Action process: coordination

Successful coordination requires mechanisms that serve to manage dependencies between the teams' activities and their resources. Coordination effectiveness was assessed based on the time the firefighting units spent without water in the field in relation to the total scenario time. This measure is an indicator of the effectiveness of resource-oriented coordination, as it reflects an efficient performance regarding the water refill process in C 3 Fire, which requires coordinated actions between the two firefighting units and one water tank unit (Lafond et al., 2011 ). The underlying assumption is that a more successful coordination process leads to fewer delays in conducting the refill process. Coordination was calculated by a formula and values ranged between 0 and 1, with lower values indicating better coordination in the team (see Jobidon et al., 2012 ).

Team performance

This measure related to the teams' goals (limiting the number of burned out cells and saving as many houses/buildings as possible) and was quantified as the number of protected houses and the number of protected fields and bushes/trees in relation to the number of houses, fields, and bushes/trees, respectively, which would burn in a worst case scenario. This formula takes into account that teams needing more time for firefighting also have more burning cells and show a less successful performance than teams that are quick in firefighting. To determine the worst case scenario, both 15-min scenarios were run with no firefighting action taken. Thus, the particularities (e.g., how many houses would burn down if no action was taken) of each scenario were considered. Furthermore, the houses, bushes/trees and fields were weighted according to their differing importance, mirroring the teams' goals. Houses should be protected and were most important. Bushes/trees (middle importance) burn faster than fields (lowest importance) and foster the expansion of the fire. Values regarding team performance ranged between 0 and 7.99, with higher values indicating a better overall performance. Team performance was calculated as follows (see Table ​ Table2 2 ):

Explanation of formula for calculating team performance in both scenarios.

Means, standard deviations, internal consistencies, and correlations for all study variables are provided in Table ​ Table3 3 .

Means, standard deviations, internal consistencies, and correlations for all study variables.

Performance range from 0 to 7.99; Time without Water range from 0 to 1 (lower values indicate a more effective handling of water); CO range from 1 to 5 .

Team complex problem solving in scenario 1 correlated significantly negative with time without water in scenario 1, indicating that a high team performance is attended by the coordination behavior (as a team process). The same was true for scenario 2. In addition, time without water as an indicator for team coordination correlated significantly negative with the team members' CO, indicating that team members with high CO values experience less time without water in the microworld than teams with members with low CO values.

In order to analyze the influence of CO on team process demands such as coordination processes and thereby performance within complex problem solving teams we tested whether CO would show an indirect effect on team performance through the teams' coordination processes. To analyze this assumption, indirect effects in simple mediation models were estimated for both scenarios (see Preacher and Hayes, 2004 ). The mean for CO was 3.44 ( SD = 0.32) for teams with high CO values and it was 2.79 ( SD = 0.35) for teams with low CO values. The mean concerning team performance in scenario 1 for teams with high CO values was 6.30 ( SD = 1.64) and with low CO values 5.35 ( SD = 2.30). The mean concerning time without water (coordination behavior) for teams with high CO values was 0.16 ( SD = 0.08) and with low CO values 0.20 ( SD = 0.09). In scenario 2 the mean for team performance was 6.26 ( SD = 2.51) for teams with high CO values and it was 4.36 ( SD = 2.24) for teams with low CO values. The mean concerning time without water for teams with high CO values was 0.18 ( SD = 0.08) and with low CO values 0.25 ( SD = 0.11).

For analyzing indirect effects, CO was the independent variable, time without water the mediator and team performance the dependent variable. The findings indicated that CO has an indirect effect on team performance mediated by time without water for scenario 1 (Table ​ (Table4) 4 ) and scenario 2 (Table ​ (Table5). 5 ). In scenario 1, CO had no direct effect on team performance ( b(YX) ), but CO significantly predicted time without water ( b(MX) ). A significant total effect ( b(YX) ) is not an assumption in the assessment of indirect effects, and therefore the non-significance of this relationship does not violate the analysis (see Preacher and Hayes, 2004 , p. 719). Furthermore, time without water significantly predicted team performance when controlling for CO ( b(YM.X) ), whereas the effect of CO on team performance was not significant when controlling for time without water ( b(YX.M) ). The indirect effect was 0.40 and significant when using normal distribution and estimated with the Sobel test ( z = 1.97, p < 0.05). The bootstrap procedure was applied to estimate the effect size not based on the assumption of normal distribution. As displayed in Table ​ Table4, 4 , the bootstrapped estimate of the indirect effect was 0.41 and the true indirect effect was estimated to lie between 0.0084 and 0.9215 with a 95% confidence interval. As zero is not in the 95% confidence interval, it can be concluded that the indirect effect is indeed significantly different from zero at p < 0.05 (two-tailed).

Indirect Effect for Coordination and Team Performance in Scenario 1.

Y = Team Performance Scenario 1; X = Collective Orientation T0; M = Coordination (time without water in scenario 1); Number of Bootstrap Resamples 5000 .

Indirect Effect for Coordination and Team Performance in Scenario 2.

Y = Team Performance Scenario 2; X = Collective Orientation T0; M = Coordination (time without water in scenario 2); Number of Bootstrap Resamples 5000 .

Regarding scenario 2, CO had a direct effect on team performance ( b(YX) ) and on time without water ( b(MX) ). Again, time without water significantly predicted team performance when controlling for CO ( b(YM.X) ), whereas the effect of CO on team performance was not significant when controlling for time without water ( b(YX.M) ). This time, the indirect effect was 0.60 (Sobel test, z = 2.31, p < 0.05). As displayed in Table ​ Table5, 5 , the bootstrapped estimate of the indirect effect was 0.61 and the true indirect effect was estimated to lie between 0.1876 and 1.1014 with a 95% confidence interval and between 0.0340 and 1.2578 with a 99% confidence interval. Because zero is not in the 99% confidence interval, it can be concluded that the indirect effect is indeed significantly different from zero at p < 0.01 (two-tailed).

The indirect effects for both scenarios are visualized in Figure ​ Figure6. 6 . Summing up, the results support hypothesis 1 and indicate that CO has an indirect effect on team performance mediated by the teams' coordination behavior, an action process. That means, fulfilling team process demands affect the dynamic decision making quality of teams acting in complex situations and input variables such as CO influence the action processes within teams positively.

Indirect effect of collective orientation on team performance via coordination within the teams for scenario 1 and 2, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, numbers in italic represent results from scenario 2, non-italic numbers are from scenario 1.

Trust between team members assessed after scenario 1 (T1) and after scenario 2 (T2) did not show any significant correlation with the coordination behavior or with team complex problem solving in scenarios 1 and 2 (Table ​ (Table3). 3 ). Thus, hypotheses 2a and 2b are not supported. Cohesion at T1 showed no significant relationship with team performance in both scenarios, one significant negative correlation ( r = −0.22, p < 0.05) with the coordination behavior in scenario 1 and no correlation with the coordination behavior in scenario 2. Cohesion at T2 did not show any significant correlation with the coordination behavior or with team performance in both scenarios. Thus, hypotheses 3a and 3b could also not be supported. Furthermore, the results showed no significant relations between CO and trust and cohesion. The correlations between trust and cohesion ranged between r = 0.39 and r = 0.51 ( p < 0.01).

The purpose of our paper was first to give a sound theoretical overview and to combine theoretical approaches about team competencies and team process demands in collaborative complex problem solving and second to demonstrate the importance of selected team competencies and processes on team performance in complex problem solving by means of results from a laboratory study. We introduced the model of an idealized teamwork process that complex problem solving team pass through and integrated the relevant teamwork skills for interdependently working teams into it. Moreover, we highlighted the episodic aspect concerning complex problem solving in teams and combined the well-known transition, action, interpersonal and learning processes of teamwork with the idealized teamwork process model. Finally, we investigated the influence of trust, cohesion, and CO on action processes, such as coordination behavior of complex problem solving teams and on team performance.

Regarding hypothesis 1, studies have indicated that teams whose members have high CO values are more successful in their coordination processes and task accomplishment (Eby and Dobbins, 1997 ; Driskell et al., 2010 ; Hagemann, 2017 ), which may enhance team performance through considering task inputs from other team members, information sharing and strategizing (Salas et al., 2005 ). Thus, we had a close look on CO as an emergent state in the present study, because emergent states support the execution of behavioral processes. In order to analyze this indirect effect of CO on team performance via coordination processes, we used the time, which firefighters spent without water in a scenario, as an indicator for high-quality coordination within the team. A small amount of time without water represents sharing information and resources between team members in a reciprocal manner, which are essential qualities of effective coordination (Ellington and Dierdorff, 2014 ). One of the two team members was in charge of the mobile water tank unit and therefore responsible for filling up the water tanks of his/her own firefighting unit and that of the other team member on time. In order to avoid running out of water for firefighting, the team members had to exchange information about, for example, their firefighting units' current and future positions in the field, their water levels, their strategies for extinguishing one or two fires, and the water tank unit's current and future position in the field. The simple mediation models showed that CO has an indirect effect on team performance mediated by time without water, supporting hypothesis 1. Thus, CO facilitates high-quality coordination within complex problem solving teams and this in turn influences decision-making and team performance positively (cf. Figure ​ Figure1). 1 ). These results support previous findings concerning the relationships between emergent states, such as CO, and the team process, such as action processes like coordination (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995 ; Driskell et al., 2010 ) and between the team process and the team performance (Stevens and Campion, 1994 ; Dierdorff et al., 2011 ).

Hypotheses 2 and 3 analyzed the relationships between trust and cohesion and coordination and team performance. Because no correlations between trust and cohesion and the coordination behavior and team complex problem solving existed, further analyses, like mediation analyses, were unnecessary. In contrast to other studies (McAllister, 1995 ; Beal et al., 2003 ; Salas et al., 2005 ; Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006 ), the present study was not able to detect effects of trust and cohesion on team processes, like action processes, or on team performance. This can be attributed to the restricted sample composition or the rather small sample size. Nevertheless, effect sizes were small to medium, so that they would have become significant with an increased sample sizes. The prerequisite, mentioned by the authors, that interdependence of the teamwork is important for identifying those effects, was given in the present study. Therefore, this aspect could not have been the reason for finding no effects concerning trust and cohesion. Trust and cohesion within the teams developed during working on the simulation scenarios while fighting fires, showed significant correlations with each other, and were unrelated to CO, which showed an effect on the coordination behavior and the team performance indeed. The results seem to implicate, that the influence of CO on action processes and team performance might be much more stronger than those of trust and cohesion. If these results can be replicated should be analyzed in future studies.

As the interdependent complex problem-solving task was a computer-based simulation, the results might have been affected by the participants' attitudes to using a computer. For example, computer affinity seems to be able to minimize potential fear of working with a simulation environment and might therefore, be able to contribute to successful performance in a computer-based team task. Although computers and other electronic devices are pervasive in present-day life, computer aversion has to be considered in future studies within complex problem-solving research when applying computer-based simulation team tasks. As all of the participants were studying applied cognitive science, which is a mix of psychology and computer science, this problem might not have been influenced the present results. However, the specific composition of the sample reduces the external validity of the study and the generalizability of the results. A further limitation is the small sample size, so that moderate to small effects are difficult to detect.

Furthermore, laboratory research of teamwork might have certain limitations. Teamwork as demonstrated in this study fails to account for the fact that teams are not simple, static and isolated entities (McGrath et al., 2000 ). The validity of the results could be reduced insofar as the complex relationships in teams were not represented, the teamwork context was not considered, not all teammates and teams were comparable, and the characteristic as a dynamic system with a team history and future was not given in the present study. This could be a possible explanation why no effects of trust and cohesion were found in the present study. Maybe, the teams need more time working together on the simulation scenarios in order to show that trust and cohesion influence the coordination with the team and the team performance. Furthermore, Bell ( 2007 ) demonstrated in her meta-analysis that the relationship between team members' attitudes and the team's performance was proven more strongly in the field compared to the laboratory. In consideration of this fact, the findings of the present study concerning CO are remarkable and the simulation based microworld C3Fire (Granlund et al., 2001 ; Granlund, 2003 ) seems to be appropriate for analyzing complex problem solving in interdependently working teams.

An asset of the present study is, that the teams' action processes, the coordination performance, was assessed objectively based on logged data and was not a subjective measure, as is often the case in group and team research studies (cf. Van de Ven et al., 1976 ; Antoni and Hertel, 2009 ; Dierdorff et al., 2011 ; Ellington and Dierdorff, 2014 ). As coordination was the mediator in the analysis, this objective measurement supports the validity of the results.

As no transition processes such as mission analysis, formulation, and planning (Prince and Salas, 1993 ), goal specification (Prussia and Kinicki, 1996 ), and strategy formulation (Prince and Salas, 1993 ; Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995 ) as well as action processes such as monitoring progress toward goals (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995 ) and systems monitoring (Fleishman and Zaccaro, 1992 ) were analyzed within the present study, future studies should collect data concerning these processes in order to show their importance on performance within complex problem solving teams. Because these processes are difficult to observe, subjective measurements are needed, for example asking the participants after each scenario how they have prioritized various tasks, if and when they have changed their strategy concerning protecting houses or fighting fires, and on which data within the scenarios they focused for collecting information for goal and systems monitoring. Another possibility could be using eye-tracking methods in order to collect data about collecting information for monitoring progress toward goals, e.g., collecting information how many cells are still burning, and systems monitoring, e.g., tracking team resources like water for firefighting.

CO is an emergent state and emergent states can be influenced by experience or learning, for example (Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006 ). Learning processes (Edmondson, 1999 ), that Schmutz et al. ( 2016 ) added to the taxonomy of team processes developed by Marks et al. ( 2001 ) and which occur during transition and action phases and contribute to team effectiveness include e.g., feedback . Feedback can be useful for team learning when team learning is seen as a form of information processing (Hinsz et al., 1997 ). Because CO supports action processes, such as coordination and it can be influenced by learning, learning opportunities, such as feedback, seem to be important for successful task accomplishment and for supporting teams in handling complex situations or problems. If the team is temporarily and interpersonally unstable, as it is the case for most of the disaster or crisis management teams dealing with complex problems, there might be less opportunities for generating shared mental models by experiencing repetitive cycles of joint action (cf. Figure ​ Figure2) 2 ) and strategies such as cross training (Salas et al., 2007 ) or feedback might become more and more important for successful complex problem solving in teams. Thus, for future research it would be of interest to analyze what kind of feedback is able to influence CO positively and therefore is able to enhance coordination and performance within complex problem-solving teams.

Depending on the type of feedback, different main points will be focused during the feedback (see Gabelica et al., 2012 ). Feedback can be differentiated into performance and process feedback. Process feedback can be further divided into task-related and interpersonal feedback. Besides these aspects, feedback can be given on a team-level or an individual-level. Combinations of the various kinds of feedback are possible and are analyzed in research concerning their influence on e.g., self- and team-regulatory processes and team performance (Prussia and Kinicki, 1996 ; Hinsz et al., 1997 ; Jung and Sosik, 2003 ; Gabelica et al., 2012 ). For future studies it would be relevant to analyze, whether it is possible to positively influence the CO of team members and therefore action processes such as coordination and team performance or not. A focus could be on the learning processes, especially on feedback, and its influence on CO in complex problem solving teams. So far, no studies exist that analyzed the relationship between feedback and a change in CO, even though researchers already discuss the possibility that team-level process feedback shifts attention processes on team actions and team learning (McLeod et al., 1992 ; Hinsz et al., 1997 ). These results would be very helpful for training programs for fire service or police or medical teams working in complex environments and solving problems collaboratively, in order to support their team working and their performance.

In summary, the idealized teamwork process model is in combination with the transition, action, interpersonal and learning processes a good framework for analyzing the impact of teamwork competencies and teamwork processes in detail on team performance in complex environments. Overall, the framework offers further possibilities for investigating the influence of teamwork competencies on diverse processes and teamwork outcomes in complex problem solving teams than demonstrated here. The results of our study provide evidence of how CO influences complex problem solving teams and their performance. Accordingly, future researchers and practitioners would be well advised to find interventions how to influence CO and support interdependently working teams.

Ethics statement

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of Ethical guidelines of the German Association of Psychology, Ethics committee of the University of Duisburg-Essen, Department of Computer Science and Applied Cognitive Science with written informed consent from all subjects. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the Ethics committee of the University of Duisburg-Essen, Department of Computer Science and Applied Cognitive Science.

Author contributions

VH and AK were responsible for the conception of the work and the study design. VH analyzed and interpreted the collected data. VH and AK drafted the manuscript. They approved it for publication and act as guarantors for the overall content.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01730/full#supplementary-material

• Antoni C., Hertel G. (2009). Team processes, their antecedents and consequences: implications for different types of teamwork . Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 18 , 253–266. 10.1080/13594320802095502 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arthur W., Edwards B., Bell S., Villado A., Bennet W. (2005). Team task analysis: identifying tasks and jobs that are team based . Hum. Factors 47 , 654–669. 10.1518/001872005774860087 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Badke-Schaub P. (2008). Teamarbeit und Teamführung: Erfolgsfaktoren und sicheres Handeln. [Teamwork and Team leadership: Factors of success and reliable action] , in Führung und Teamarbeit in kritischen Situationen [Leadership and teamwork in critical situations] eds Buerschaper C., Starke S. (Frankfurt: Verlag für Polizeiwissenschaft; ), 3–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beal D. J., Cohen R. R., Burke M. J., McLendon C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: a meta-analytic clarification of construct relations . J. Appl. Psychol. 88 , 989–1004. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bell S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: a meta-analysis . J. Appl. Psychol. 92 , 595–615. 10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.595 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bower G. H., Hilgard E. R. (1981). Theories of Learning . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bredenkamp J. (1998). Lernen, Erinnern, Vergessen [Learning, Remembering, Forgetting]. München: C.H. Beck. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brehmer B. (1992). Dynamic decision-making: human control of complex systems . Acta Psychol. 81 , 211–241. 10.1016/0001-6918(92)90019-A [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brehmer B., Dörner D. (1993). Experiments with computer-simulated microworlds: escaping both the narrow straits of the laboratory and the deep blue sea of the field study . Comput. Hum. Behav. 9 , 171–184. 10.1016/0747-5632(93)90005-D [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Campion M. A., Medsker G. J., Higgs C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups . Pers. Psychol. 46 , 823–850. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb01571.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cannon-Bowers J. A., Salas E., Converse S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making , in Individual and Group Decision Making , ed Castellan N. J. (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; ), 221–246. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cannon-Bowers J. A., Tannenbaum S. I., Salas E., Volpe C. E. (1995). Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements , in Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations , eds Guzzo R. A., E. Salas and Associates (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; ), 333–380. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeChurch L. A., Mesmer-Magnus J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: a meta-analysis . J. Appl. Psychol. 95 , 32–53. 10.1037/a0017328 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dierdorff E. C., Bell S. T., Belohlav J. A. (2011). The “power of we”: effects of psychological collectivism on team performance over time . J. Appl. Psychol. 96 , 247–262. 10.1037/a0020929 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dörner D. (1989/2003). Die Logik des Misslingens. Strategisches Denken in komplexen Situationen [The logic of failure. Strategic thinking in complex situations] 11th Edn . Reinbeck: rororo. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dörner D., Kreuzig H. W., Reither F., Stäudel T. (1983). Lohhausen. Vom Umgang mit Unbestimmtheit und Komplexität. Bern; Stuttgart; Wien: Verlag Hans Huber. [ Google Scholar ]
• Driskell J. E., Salas E. (1992). Collective behavior and team performance . Hum. Factors 34 , 277–288. 10.1177/001872089203400303 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Driskell J., Salas E., Hughes S. (2010). Collective orientation and team performance: development of an individual differences measure . Hum. Factors 52 , 316–328. 10.1177/0018720809359522 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eby L. T., Dobbins G. H. (1997). Collectivistic orientation in teams: an individual and group-level analysis . J. Organ. Behav. 18 , 275–295. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199705)18:3<275::AID-JOB796>3.0.CO;2-C [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Edmondson A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams . Adm. Sci. Q. 44 , 350–383. 10.2307/2666999 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellington J. K., Dierdorff E. C. (2014). Individual learning in team training: self-regulation and team context effects . Small Group Res. 45 , 37–67. 10.1177/1046496413511670 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Endsley M. R. (1999). Situation Awareness in Aviation Systems , in Handbook of Aviation Human Factors , eds Garland D. J., Wise J. A., Hopkin V. D. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; ), 257–276. [ Google Scholar ]
• Endsley M. R., Robertson M. M. (2000). Training for Situation Awareness in Individuals and Teams , in Situation awareness Analysis and Measurement , eds Endsley M. R., Garland D. J. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; ), 349–365. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiore S. M., Rosen M. A., Smith-Jentsch K. A., Salas E., Letsky M., Warner N. (2010). Toward an understanding of macrocognition in teams: predicting processes in complex collaborative contexts . Hum. Factors 52 , 203–224. 10.1177/0018720810369807 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fleishman E. A., Zaccaro S. J. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of team performance funtions , in Teams: Their Training and Performance , eds Swezey R. W., Salas E. (Norwood, NJ: Ables; ), 31–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Flin R., O'Connor P., Crichton M. (2008). Safety at the Sharp End. Aldershot: Ashgate. [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J. (1995). Experimental research on complex problem solving , in Complex Problem Solving: The European Perspective eds Frensch P. A., Funke J. (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; ), 243–268. [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J. (2001). Daynamic systems as tools for analysing human judgement . Think. Reason. 7 , 69–89. 10.1080/13546780042000046 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Funke J. (2012). Complex Problem Solving , in Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning ed Seel N. M. (Heidelberg: Springer; ), 682–685. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gabelica C., van den Bossche P., de Maeyer S., Segers M., Gijselaers W. (2014). The effect of team feedback and guided reflexivity on team performance change . Learn. Instruct. 34 , 86–96. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.09.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gabelica C., Van den Bossche P., Segers M., Gijselaers W. (2012). Feedback, a powerful lever in teams: a review . Educ. Res. Rev. 7 , 123–144. 10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Geister S., Konradt U., Hertel G. (2006). Effects of process feedback on motivation, satisfaction, and performance in virtual teams . Small Group Res. 37 , 459–489. 10.1177/1046496406292337 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibson C. B. (1999). Do they do what they believe they can? group efficacy and group effectiveness across tasks and cultures . Acad. Manag. J. 42 , 138–152. 10.2307/257089 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Granlund R. (2003). Monitoring experiences from command and control research with the C 3 Fire microworld . Cogn. Technol. Work 5 , 183–190. 10.1007/s10111-003-0129-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Granlund R., Johansson B. (2004). Monitoring distributed collaboration in the C 3 Fire Microworld , in Scaled Worlds: Development, Validation and Applications , eds Schiflett G., Elliot L. R., Salas E., Coovert M. D. (Aldershot: Ashgate; ), 37–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Granlund R., Johansson B., Persson M. (2001). C3Fire a micro-world for collaboration training and investigations in the ROLF environment , in Proceedings of 42nd Conference on Simulation and Modeling: Simulation in Theory and Practice (Porsgrunn: ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Hackman J. R. (1987). The design of work teams , in Handbook of Organizational Behavior ed Lorsch J. W. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; ), 315–342. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hagemann V. (2011). Trainingsentwicklung für High Responsibility Teams [Training development for High Responsibility Teams] . Lengerich: Pabst Verlag. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hagemann V. (2017). Development of a German-language questionnaire to measure collective orientation as an individual attitude . Swiss J. Psychol. 76 , 91–105. 10.1024/1421-0185/a000198 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hagemann V., Kluge A., Ritzmann S. (2011). High responsibility teams - Eine systematische Analyse von Teamarbeitskontexten für einen effektiven Kompetenzerwerb [A systematic analysis of teamwork contexts for effective competence acquisition] . Psychologie des Alltagshandelns 4 , 22–42. Available online at: http://www.allgemeine-psychologie.info/cms/images/stories/allgpsy_journal/Vol%204%20No%201/hagemann_kluge_ritzmann.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Hagemann V., Kluge A., Ritzmann S. (2012). Flexibility under complexity: work contexts, task profiles and team processes of high responsibility teams . Empl. Relat. 34 , 322–338. 10.1108/01425451211217734 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hertel G., Konradt U., Orlikowski B. (2004). Managing distance by interdependence: goal setting, task interdependence, and team-based rewards in virtual teams . Euro. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 13 , 1–28. 10.1080/13594320344000228 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hinsz V., Tindale R., Vollrath D. (1997). The emerging concept of groups as information processors . Psychol. Bull. 121 , 43–64. 10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.43 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hollingshead A. B., Gupta N., Yoon K., Brandon D. (2012). Transactive memory theory and teams: past, present, and future , in Theories of Team Cognition , eds Salas E., Fiore S. M., Letsky M. (New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group; ), 421–455. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ilgen D. R., Hollenbeck J. R., Johnson M., Jundt D. (2005). Teams in organizations: from input-process-output models to IMOI models . Annu. Rev. Psychol. 56 , 517–543. 10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jobidon M.-E., Muller-Gass A., Duncan M., Blais A.-R. (2012). The enhance of mental models and its impact on teamwork . Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 56 , 1703–1707. 10.1177/1071181312561341 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jung D. I., Sosik J. J. (2003). Group potency and collective efficacy . Group Organ. Manage. 28 , 366–391. 10.1177/1059601102250821 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kluge A. (2014). The Acquisition of Knowledge and Skills for Taskwork and Teamwork to Control Complex Technical Systems: A Cognitive and Macroergonomics Perspective . Dordrecht: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kluge A., Hagemann V., Ritzmann S. (2014). Military crew resource management – Das Streben nach der bestmöglichen Teamarbeit [Striving for the best of teamwork] , in Psychologie für Einsatz und Notfall [Psychology for mission and emergency] , eds Kreim G., Bruns S., Völker B. (Bonn: Bernard & Graefe in der Mönch Verlagsgesellschaft mbH; ), 141–152. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kluge A., Sauer J., Schüler K., Burkolter D. (2009). Designing training for process control simulators: a review of empirical findings and current practices, theoretical issues in ergonomics Science 10 , 489–509. 10.1080/14639220902982192 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kozlowski S. W. J., Ilgen D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams . Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 7 , 77–124. 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lafond D., Jobidon M.-E., Aubé C., Tremblay S. (2011). Evidence of structure- specific teamwork requirements and implications for team design . Small Group Res. 42 , 507–535. 10.1177/1046496410397617 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marks M. A., Mathieu J. E., Zaccaro S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes . Acad. Manag. Rev. 26 , 356–376. 10.2307/259182 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mathieu J. E., Heffner T. S., Goodwin G. F., Salas E., Cannon-Bowers J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance . J. Appl. Psychol. 85 , 273–283. 10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McAllister D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations . Acad. Manag. J. 38 , 24–59. 10.2307/256727 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McGrath J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and Performance . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• McGrath J. E., Arrow H., Berdahl J. L. (2000). The study of groups: past, present, and future . Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 4 , 95–105. 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McLeod P. L., Liker J. K., Lobel S. A. (1992). Process feedback in task groups: an application of goal setting . J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 28 , 15–41. 10.1177/0021886392281003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan B. B., Salas E., Glickman A. S. (1993). An analysis of team evolution and maturation . J. Gen. Psychol. 120 , 277–291. 10.1080/00221309.1993.9711148 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ormerod T. C., Richardson J., Shepherd A. (1998). Enhancing the usability of a task analysis method: a notation and environment for requirements specification . Ergonomics 41 , 1642–1663. 10.1080/001401398186117 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Preacher K., Hayes A. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models . Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 36 , 717–731. 10.3758/BF03206553 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prince C., Salas E. (1993). Training and research for teamwork in the military aircrew , in Cockpit Resource Management , eds Wiener E. L., Kanki B. G., Helmreich R. L. (San Diego, CA: Academic Press; ), 337–366. [ Google Scholar ]
• Prussia G. E., Kinicki A. J. (1996). A motivation investigation of group effectiveness using social-cognitive theory . J. Appl. Psychol. 81 , 187–198. 10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.187 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Riordan C. M., Weatherly E. W. (1999). Defining and measuring employees‘identification with their work groups . Educ. Psychol. Meas. 59 , 310–324. 10.1177/00131649921969866 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roth E. M., Woods D. D. (1988). Aiding human performance i: cognitive analysis . Trav. Hum. 51 , 39–64. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salas E., Cooke N. J., Rosen M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: discoveries and developments . Hum. Factors 50 , 540–547. 10.1518/001872008X288457 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salas E., Nichols D. R., Driskell J. E. (2007). Testing three team training strategies in intact teams . Small Group Res. 38 , 471–488. 10.1177/1046496407304332 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salas E., Sims D., Burke S. (2005). Is there a “big five” in teamwork? Small Group Res. 36 , 555–599. 10.1177/1046496405277134 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmutz J., Welp A., Kolbe M. (2016). Teamwork in healtcare organizations , in Management Innovations for Health Care Organizations , eds Örtenblad A., Löfström C. A., Sheaff R. (New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis; ), 359–377. [ Google Scholar ]
• Serfaty D., Entin E. E., Johnston J. H. (1998). Team coordination training , in Making Decisions Under Stress , eds Cannon-Bowers J. A., Salas E. (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; ), 221–246. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shea G. P., Guzzo R. A. (1987). Group effectiveness: what really matters? Sloan Manage. Rev. 28 , 25–31. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith-Jentsch K. A., Baker D. P., Salas E., Cannon-Bowers J. A. (2001). Uncovering differences in team competency requirements: The case of air traffic control teams , in Improving Teamwork in Organizations. Applications of Resource Management Training , eds Salas E., Bowers C. A., Edens E. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; ), 31–54. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stajkovic A. D., Lee D., Nyberg A. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model . J. Appl. Psychol. 94 , 814–828. 10.1037/a0015659 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stevens M. J., Campion M. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: implications for human resource management . J. Manage. 20 , 503–530. 10.1177/014920639402000210 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ulich E. (1995). Gestaltung von Arbeitstätigkeiten [Designing job tasks] , in Lehrbuch Organisationspsychologie [Schoolbook Organizational Psychology] , ed Schuler H. (Bern: Huber; ), 189–208. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van de Ven A. H., Delbecq A. L., Koenig R. (1976). Determinants of coordination modes with organizations . Am. Sociol. Rev. 41 , 322–338. 10.2307/2094477 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wageman R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness . Adm. Sci. Q. 40 , 145–180. 10.2307/2393703 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waller M. J., Gupta N., Giambatista R. C. (2004). Effects of adaptive behaviors and shared mental models on control crew performance . Manage. Sci. 50 , 1534–1544. 10.1287/mnsc.1040.0210 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson K. A., Salas E., Andrews D. H. (2010). Preventing errors in the heat of the battle: formal and informal learning strategies to prevent teamwork breakdowns , in Human Factors Issues in Combat Identification , eds Andrews D. H., Herz R. P., Wolf M. B. (Aldershot: Ashgate; ), 1–28. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zsambok C. E. (1997). Naturalistic decision making: where are we now? , in Naturalistic Decision Making , eds Zsambok C. E., Klein G. (New York, NY: Routledge; ), 3–16. [ Google Scholar ]

Module 8: Groups, Teams, and Teamwork

Types of teams, learning outcomes.

• Describe the advantages of teams.
• Describe the disadvantages of teams.
• Differentiate between task forces and cross-functional teams.
• Differentiate between virtual teams and self-managing teams.

Business organizations have both groups and teams. A group is formed around a common interest or purpose with the goal of sharing information, but there is no collective accountability. Work groups may consist of social clubs or volunteer efforts. A team’s focus is collective performance, with both individual and mutual accountability. For example, all of the people who work in accounting constitute a group, but people from each functional department who meet regularly to standardize financial procedures are a team. Before we look more closely at what constitutes an effective (high-performing) team, we will review the advantages and disadvantages of using teams in the workplace.

Advantages of Teams in the Workplace

Teams bring together people with diverse skills and make something that nobody could do alone.  A well-planned team improves motivation . Communication is higher on teams, and the diverse skill set means teams can discover new approaches.  Because teams have specific shared goals, team members usually enjoy greater autonomy, variety, task identity, task significance, and feedback. Teams often enjoy the social support for difficult tasks, improving morale and motivation.

Another benefit of teams is to improve product and service quality. Each Whole Foods grocery store operates with an average of ten “self-managed” teams, including produce, prepared foods, groceries, etc. Each store also has a team made up of just the team leaders from each team to facilitate communication and sharing. Each team takes responsibility for the quality of the products and service in its area.

Efficiency in product development is another advantage to building teams within the traditional hierarchy. Teams can analyze and identify dependent tasks in a nonlinear process, sometimes realizing startling improvements.

Employees also benefit from participating on teams. They develop relationships to people from other areas of the business and learn more about what is happening across functional department lines ( cross training ). A 2009 study by CG and WHU-Otto Beisheim School of Management of eighty global software development teams showed that members of effective teams are more motivated and report greater job satisfaction, which leads to fewer employees quitting.

Practice Question

Disadvantages of teams.

Not all teams are wildly successful. When companies do not make adequate efforts to create, build, and support strong teams, employees may initially become discouraged and leave the firm. You read in the first section about some of the behavioral problems related to teams, including social loafing . Another phenomenon that can happen in groups is groupthink . We’ll discuss this in more detail in the next section, but it involves the reluctance to speak out against the majority opinion in fear of upsetting other members and disrupting social cohesion. When a few people begin to speak for the whole team, individual members may not feel as responsible for the team’s success.

Teams are also ineffective when they lack leadership, when the decision making is not democratic, and when the team lacks expertise and necessary skills. Eventually, team members don’t feel accountable, and the team fails. Finally, some teams fail because the members are not adequately prepared or supported. Teams can’t perform well if they have no clear purpose, are not given autonomy, and don’t have the resources required.

Some individuals are not compatible with teamwork.  Workers must be selected to fit the team as well as requisite job skills. Conflict will develop between team members, so leaders must be able to step in.  And teams can be time-consuming due to the need for coordination and consensus.

PRactice Question

Companies create different types of teams for different purposes.

A cross-functional team is just what it sounds like—a team that pulls its members from across the different functional areas of an organization. For example, cross-functional teams may be composed of representatives from production, sales, marketing, finance, and legal. The strength of this type of team lies in its members having different functional backgrounds, education, and experience. The diversity of experience aids innovative problem solving and decision making.

Unfortunately, the very factors that give cross-functional teams strength can also lead to weaknesses. Without a strong leader and very specific goals, it may be hard to foster social cohesion in cross-functional teams and to create a system of accountability. A cross-functional team might be brought together to review and make recommendations on potential acquisitions or mergers.

A task force is a group or committee, usually of experts or specialists, formed for analyzing, investigating, or solving a specific problem. Quite often, a task force is formed in reaction to a problem or specific event, and once the job is done, the task force is disbanded. The goal of a task force is to offer solutions, support, and, if possible, create preventive measures for issues. Types of concerns that may generate task forces in the workplace include bullying, health and wellness, employee training, increasing customer sales, or improving employee job satisfaction. A project team is similar to a task force, but a project team is often ongoing and covers a wider range of tasks.

Virtual teams are groups of individuals working together with a common purpose but from different locations. People may be in different time zones or even different organizations. The obvious advantage of a virtual team is the low cost, both in time and money to maintain it. Meeting in virtual time increases flexibility for the members (no need to get dressed before the meeting!) and allows the organization to use the talent of people from around the globe. The idea of virtual teams is relatively new. However, according to the IQVIS management consulting firm, virtual teams have grown 80 percent in business use from 2005 to 2015. Virtual teams are possible thanks to advances in communications and technology, such as e-mail, the World Wide Web (Internet), videoconferencing, and other products.

Working across cultures can be as challenging as working cross-functionally. Working with different cultures means working with very different leadership styles and decision-making processes. In the United States, managers tend to gather data, make a quick decision, and move forward, making corrections as need. Northern Europeans prefer to slowly build consensus, whereas French schoolchildren are trained to debate and confront. Some business consultants will tell you that decisions in Japan are made in small, informal conversations before the formal meeting ever takes place.

In spite of these barriers, many companies have been adapting virtual teams. SAP is the world’s largest inter-enterprise software company with more than thirty thousand employees in sixty countries. It relies on virtual teams to survive. It has five headquarters around the globe, each one with a specific area of expertise shared via virtual meetings. IBM and General Electric are corporations that also depend on virtual team strategies.

Self-Managing Teams

A self-managed team is a group of employees that’s responsible and accountable for all or most aspects of producing a product or delivering a service. It could be thought of as a mini-company within a larger organization. Traditional organizations assign tasks to employees depending on their skills or the functional department (sales, finance, production). A self-managed team carries out the supporting tasks as well, such as planning and scheduling the technical workflow tasks, and human resource tasks such as managing vacations and absences. Team members may take turns leading and assuming technical responsibilities.

Because of the autonomy given to self-managed teams, these teams have greater ownership of the jobs they perform. Some benefits of self-managed teams are: team members share accountability for what they accomplish, which can be a great motivator; individuals have greater commitment to the task because they’re directly responsible for its results; and they take on some of a manager’s work so he can continue on other tasks.

However, self-managed teams are not without problems. Groupthink occurs more frequently with these teams. Members may struggle during the transition from supervisor-led management to self-management, possibly because of lack of interpersonal skills or poor implementation by the company. Not surprisingly, the most effective self-managing teams are found in companies where the corporate culture supports democratic decision making and the employees are generally well-educated.

Practice Questions

• Types of Teams. Authored by : John/Lynn Bruton and Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Team meeting. Authored by : StartupStockPhotos. Located at : https://pixabay.com/en/startup-start-up-people-593343/ . License : CC0: No Rights Reserved

• Virtual Leaders
• High Performing Hybrid Teams
• Dealing with the Tough Stuff
• Lead Boldly
• Great Team Framework
• Coaching Mastery
• Boss of Busy
• People and Culture Strategy
• Learning and Development
• Virtual Training

  | 4 min read

4 types of teams you’ll find in organisations

Chances are you’re reading this because you are part of a team. You could be in a workplace team, a sports team or maybe you’re just getting started in management and want to understand the different types of teams. Whatever reason you’re here, we’re glad you snuck over to this side of the internet.

By definition, a team is a group of individuals who collaborate on related tasks to achieve a common goal . Whether it’s reaching a sales target, reducing safety incidences or reaching a team goal, collaboration and teamwork are essential. Teams generally have a list of set activities to take part in that can define their team in relation to the organisation – think ‘design team’, ‘sales team’ and ‘operations team’.

Learning about how different teams operate is useful for just about everyone. Science shows us that social interaction and teamwork contributed to our evolutio n as well as the size of our human brains. Isn’t that fascinating?

Read on to find out more about the different types of teams you’ll come across throughout your career and your life.

4 Different Types of Teams

#1: functional teams.

Functional teams are permanent and include members of the same department with different responsibilities. A manager is responsible for everything and everyone reports to them. This is the typical top-down management approach that you’ll see in most organisations. Across all organisational teams, it’s important to prioritise workplace culture; the foundations of which are communication and trust.

To take your functional team to the next level, consider running a program in-house to improve communication by giving your team the tools to give feedback without causing offense. Additionally, it may be worthwhile getting clear on each individual teams’ goals, identity and preferred support methods to boost productivity and individual employee engagement.

#2: Cross-Functional Teams

Cross-functional teams are made up of individuals from various departments. These teams tackle specific tasks that require different inputs and expertise. This can happen when various teams need to work on a project together to get the best outcome. This can be a difficult dynamic to navigate if teams have been operating in a ‘silo’ approach up until the point of collaboration. It’s crucial that the different personalities and perspectives are embraced, and that everyone in the cross-functional team are working to their strengths .

#3: Self-Managed Teams

Generally, individuals in self-managed teams are employees of the same organisation who work together. Even though they may have a wide array of objectives, their aim is to reach a common goal. They operate without managers and are relatively autonomous, sharing responsibility and leadership. High-performing teams can often fall into this category.

People working in startups or small businesses may also find themselves in this type of team dynamic. It can be difficult for people who have worked in other types of teams for most of their career to adjust to this way of working, so there will likely be an adjustment period of sorts. It’s crucial that self-managed teams know how to deliver feedback and have tough conversations with tact. Without high levels of communication, trust, autonomy and mutual respect, self-managed teams will find it difficult to thrive.

#4: Virtual Teams

Virtual teams are made up of individuals who work in different physical locations and who use technology and collaboration tools to achieve a common goal.

With more employees looking for work from home opportunities, virtual teams will become much more common in the future of work . You may even have a few remote team members in your organisation right now who need to collaborate within a functional or cross-functional team.

It’s important for virtual team members to be involved from a cultural perspective within your organisation. Having face to face video calls and giving your team members the opportunity to connect on a personal relationship level will help to improve rapport and moral. We’ve already shared a bunch of info on creating a strong remote team culture , so give that a look when you have a moment.

Did you find this article useful? Be sure to share it with a fellow manager directly or better yet, give it a share on LinkedIn.

If you’d like to explore the topic of team dynamics further, we’d recommend taking a look at our article on how to turn your dysfunctional team into an effective team , it’s a real good read.

Pragmatic Thinking

What is locus of control : Psychology concepts for the workplace

The Art of Mentoring

2.6 Self-Managed Teams

Experts agree that tasks assigned to self-managed work teams should be complex and challenging, requiring high interdependence among team members for accomplishment. In general, these tasks should have the qualities of enriched jobs, thus, teams should see the task as significant, they should perform the task from beginning to end, and they should use a variety of skills. The point here is that self-managed teams have to have something useful to self-manage, and it is fairly complex tasks that capitalize on the diverse knowledge and skills of a group. If a theme runs through this discussion of tasks for self-managed teams, it is the breakdown of traditional, conventional, specialized roles in the group. Group members adopt roles that will make the group effective, not ones that are simply related to a narrow specialty.

The Composition of Self-Managed Teams

How should organizations assemble self-managed teams to ensure effectiveness? "Stable, small, and smart" might be a fast answer.

Stability . Self-managed teams require considerable interaction and high cohesiveness among their members. This, in turn, requires understanding and trust. To achieve this, group will cause it to fail to develop a true team identity.

 Size . In keeping with the demands of the task, self- managed teams should be as small as is feasible. The goal here is to keep coordination problems and social loafing to a minimum

Expertise . It goes without saying that group members should have a high level of expertise about the task at hand. Everybody doesn’t know everything but the group as a whole should be very knowledgeable about the task

Diversity . A team should have members who are similar enough to work well together and diverse enough to bring a variety of perspectives and skills to the task at hand.

Questions for Discussion

1-          Where were your strongest (highest score) and weakest (lowest score) reasons for joining this group?

2-          Besides the four reasons identified here, what other reasons did you have for joining this group?

3-          Would your scores be different from those you thought about another group you may have joined? Repeat the questionnaire to find out.

Assessment 2.1

  “Are You a Team Player?”

The following assessment instrument asks you to examine your behavior as a team member in organizational setting. For each pair of items, place a check mark in the space in the column that best identifies how you behave in a working group at school, in student or community groups, or on your job, as shown in Table 2.2.

Interpretation : in each pair of items, the items on the left are more associated with team behaviors than items on the right.

Are there times when you have preformed more effectively as a team member? If so, what events or circumstances made you behave differently in the different situation?

Table 2.2: Behavioral examination

  Assessment 2.2

Decision-Making & Creative Problem Solving  

Work Teams in Organizational Behavior

Concept of work teams .

Teams are getting popular in modern organizations. More and more organizations are restructuring themselves around teams to better utilize employee talents.

Work group and work teams are not the same thing. The following figure shows the comparing Work group and work teams:

A work group is a group that interacts primarily to share information and make decisions to help each member perform. Its performance is summation of what its members perform as individuals.

A   work team is a cooperative group whose individual efforts result in positive synergy through coordinated efforts.

Its performance is greater than the summation of what its members perform as individuals. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Types of Work Teams

The work teams can be of the following types:

• Problem-solving teams
• Self-managed teams
• Cross-functional teams
• Virtual teams

1. Problem-solving teams:

These teams discuss ways of improving quality, efficiency and the work environment. They consist of 8 to 10 members from the same department. The team meets for a few hours each week.

• Quality circle is an example of problem-solving team which is concerned with solving problems related to quality, efficiency and safety at work place.
• Problem-solving teams share ideas and offer suggestions. However, they lack authority to make and implement decisions.

2. Self-managed work teams:

They are autonomous teams who take on many of the responsibilities of their former supervisors. They solve problems, implement solutions and take full responsibility for outcomes. They are empowered.

• Typically, Self-managed teams are group of 10 to 15 employees who perform related or interdependent jobs. They select their own members and evaluate each other’s performance. The following figure shows the Self-managed work teams:

The responsibilities self-managed work teams take on are:

• Planning and scheduling of team work
• Assigning tasks to members
• Collective control over the pace of work through performance evaluation and quality control.
• Making operating decisions
• Taking corrective actions to solve problems
• Training of group members for multi-skilling.

3. Cross-functional teams:

These teams are made up of employees of the same hierarchical level, but from different work areas, who came together to accomplish a specific task. The membership cuts across departments and functions. Members are experts in various specialties.

• Committee and task force are examples of cross-functional teams.
• Cross-functional teams are effective to:
• Coordinate complex projects
• Exchange information
• Develop new ideas and solve problems

However, these teams take time to build trust and team work. Members need to learn to work with diversity and complexity.

• Effectiveness of cross-functional team depends on:
• Establishment of clear and specific goals
• Careful selection and appraisal of members
• Equity in rewarding efforts of members

4. Virtual teams:

These teams use information technology and computers to tie together physically dispersed members in order to achieve a common goal. Members collaborate on-line through communication links such as:

• Wide area networks (WAN)
• Video conferencing
• E-mail, Voice-mail, etc.

Virtual teams lack face-to-face communication. They have limited social interaction. But they overcome time and space constraints. They allow people to work together who are miles apart.

Building Effective Work Teams (Factors in Managing Teams)

Effectiveness is doing the right thing. It is concerned with attaining goals. The components needed for building effective work teams are:

• Work Design
• Composition

1. Work Design:

The following characteristics of work design help build effective teams:

• Autonomy: Responsibility for work and freedom in doing work to the team.
• Skill variety: Opportunity for use of different skills and abilities by the team.
• Task identity: Doing the whole piece of work by the team.
• Task significance: Doing work should be worthwhile to the team.

Team should work together with collective responsibility to complete significant tasks.

2.  Team Composition:

The following variables in team composition help build effective teams:

• Ability: Variety in abilities of team members. The members should have right technical, decision making and interpersonal skills.
• Personality: Team members should have traits, such as extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability and openness to experience.
• Roles: Team members should have diversity to fulfill various roles.
• Size: The size of the team should be neither too small and nor too big. Between 6 to 10 members is a good number.
• Flexibility: The team members should be adaptable to each other’s tasks.
• Member Preference: Team members should have preference for team work.

3. Context:

The following contextual factors help build effective teams:

• Adequate Resources: The members should have access to adequate resources outside the team. Management must support teams.
• Leadership: Team members should agree on who is to do what. Leadership roles are shared.
• Evaluation and Reward: Team members should be individually and collectively accountable for performance. Reward should be based on team performance.

4. Process:

The following process variables help build effective teams:

• Common purpose: It provides direction and guidance. It should be accepted by the team. It is a broad vision.
• Specific Goals: The purpose should be translated into specific goals. They help teams maintain focus on getting results. Goals should be specific, measurable, realistic, challenging and time bound.
• Team Efficacy: Team should believe in success. Members should have collective confidence in themselves. Training should be provided.
• Conflict: Functional conflict should be encouraged to improve team effectiveness.
• Social Loafing: Teams should discourage the tendency of social loafing. There should be accountability at both the individual and team levels.

Group Decision Making

Decisions are taken either by an individual or by a group. When a decision is taken by an individual in the organization, it is known as individual decision. Group decision refers to the decisions which are taken by a group of organizational members.

There are many situations which suddenly come up as ill-structured problems which are unlikely to be solved by a single individual.

In such situation, the manager may assign the problem to a group of experts for recommendations. It is often argued that group can make higher quality decisions than individuals.

Issues in Managing Work Teams

The key issues in managing work teams are:

1. Issue of Total Quality Management (TQM) in Teams:

The issue is how to make the work teams effective for total quality management.

TQM is continuously improving quality through everyone’s commitment and involvement to satisfy customers. Quality is everyone’s responsibility. TQM requires encouragement to employees by management for quality improvements. Work teams are the vehicles for improving quality.

2. Issue of Workforce Diversity in Teams:

The issues are:

• How to manage diversity in work team?
• How to develop cohesiveness in work team?
• How to minimize conflicts?
• How to turn individuals into team players?

Work teams tend to be high in diversity. Such teams take time to develop cohesiveness.

3. Issue of Mature Teams:

The issue is how to reinvigorate mature teams.

The effectiveness of work team can diminish over time. Maturity can retard team creativity. Mature teams suffer from group think. Members assume that they know what everyone is thinking.

4. Issue of Effectiveness of Teams:

The issue is how to increase and maintain team effectiveness in terms of:

• Common goals and norms: For the team
• Work design: Autonomy, skill variety, task identity and task significance.
• Team composition: Team members should be cooperating, coordinating, communicating, comforting and conflict resolving (5Cs).
• Team context: Team leadership and rewards.
• Team process: Norms, cohesion, trust and team development.