1 Multipersonality
2 Interdependance
3 Goal orientation
1 interpersonal interaction: exchange personal and proffesional info regularly
2 membership perception: being a part of a social unit within the organization
3 structured relationships: existing roles, norms and regulations control team behavior
4 Reciprocal influence: employees influence each others opinions and behaviors
5 individual motivation: being a part of a team satisfies their needs
1 Relational level
2 Task- related level / factual level
Members are friendly to each other
There are no personal conflicts
Members enjoy working on a team
Members can respond to each other
Members support each other on personal problems
Clear standards regarding performance
Problem solving techniques are applied
information is shared regularly and systematically
team examines possible alternatives and its feasibility before decision making
Social group
Lone fight club
real team
expert team
No emotional cohesion or professional cooperation within the team
Team performs poorly
Evident in newly formed teams that are still in an early phase of development
Leaders should try to improve both the factual and relational levels in parallel.
Factual (task-related) and relational levels are highly developed
Cooperation and communication flows are clearly regulated
Team members exchange information intensively and support each other in personal matters
Leader should try to maintain the high level, for example by setting appropriate team goals and should keep the team flexible
Focus is primarily on the exchange of personal concerns and less on fulfilling the work task
Team spends a relatively large amount of time and energy to cultivate personal relationships or to deal with personal conflicts; at the expense of the team's performance
Leaders should strengthen team structures by means of fact-oriented leadership instruments
Factual level is strong and the relational level is relatively low
Performance is impaired because team members support and communicate with each other to a very limited extent in personal matters
No cohesion between the members
Leaders should improve the relational level
Hierarchical position ( execution teams, mngmt teams)
Duration: (project teams, permanent)
functional heterogeneity (mono or multifunctional)
institutional heterogeneity (intra organizational or interorganizational)
intercultural heterogeneity (monocultural or international)
intensity of personal interaction (F2F, virtual or bionic teams)
Remote HRTS (human robot teams)
Human Robot Teams (HRTS)
Technology intense teams/ tech supported teams
Virtual teams
Human directed robot team
Robot directed team
Human and Robot direct mixed team (one team robot is boss, another team human is boss)
Autonomous mixed team (humans and robots work together to accomplish complex team tasks)
Company related
Employee related
Opportunities
Improved coordination due to interdependencies in the team
Increased efficiency through improved coordination of specialized skills
Improved decision quality through integration of different perspectives
Better customer service through accumulation of competences in customer contact
Risks
Reduction of decision quality through peer pressure
Increased coordination effort due to interdependencies in the team
Increased risk of conflicts due to different professional or personal views of team members
Increased resistance of the team to change through the development of a “subculture”
Opportunities
Faster familiarization through information exchange with other team members
Self-reflection of own behavioral patterns through feedback from other team members
Beneficial learning of new skills and knowledge
Increase of identification with the company due to the team membership
Increased motivation by satisfying central needs for social contacts and recognition
There are 5 approaches
Confrontation: high level of leader assertiveness but no cooperativeness of team
Collaboration: high level of cooperativeness of team and high level of leader assertiveness
Compromise: middle level of leader assertiveness and middle level of cooperativeness of team
Avoidance: team avoids conflicts at all costs
Accommodation: members try to keep actual status and avoid changes
Forming
Storming
Norming
Performing
Forming: Relational level HIGH, factual level LOW
Storming: Relational level HIGH, factual level LOW
Norming: Relational level LOW, factual level HIGH
Performing: Relational level HIGH, factual level HIGH
Intensity of team leadership AND degree of communication/ collaboration (processes)
Intensity of team leadership AND degree of personal/ task conflict
Moderated team: leader acts as a moderator, coordinating and supporting the team
Autonomous team: leader doesn’t exist, team is responsible for their own task achievement
Integrated managed team : leader has fixed role, he is responsible for decision making, task implementation and fulfilment
Led by management team: several team members who also act as leaders, decide tasks and responsibilities
Led by team speaker: team speaker acts as a mediating role AND team member
Individually led team: members have a bilateral interaction with leader but there is almost no connection between team members