Team Effectiveness - Team vs mob

In his haste to give the blessings many teams on our organizations, lots of groups are called teams that probably should not be. The resulting groups are too big, too lumpy, very relevant, and more than a bit 'confused.

I call these assemblages mobs. There are ways to differentiate real teams or fake teams crowds:

Teams

They recognize their interdependence and understand that both personal and team goals are best achieved with mutual support. The time is not wasted struggling over "turf" or groped personal gain at the expense of others.

They feel a sense of ownership for their work and unity, because they commit themselves to achieving the goals which have helped to establish.

They contribute to the success of the organization by applying their unique talents and knowledge of the team's goals.

Members work in a climate of trust and are encouraged to openly express ideas, opinions, disagreements, and feelings. The questions are welcome.

Members practice open and honest communication. They make an effort to understand their points of view.

They are encouraged to develop skills and apply what they learn in the workplace. They receive support from the team.

Members recognize conflict as a normal aspect of human interaction, but they see these situations as an opportunity for new ideas and creativity. They work to confront and resolve conflict quickly and constructively.

Members participate in decisions about the team, but I understand that their leaders must make a final ruling whenever the team can not decide, or an emergency exit. A positive result, non-compliance is the goal.

Mobs

They think that they are grouped for administrative purposes only. Individuals working in an independent manner, sometimes at cross purposes with the other.

The members tend to focus on themselves because they are not sufficiently involved in planning the objectives of the unit. They approach their job simply as laborers.

They are told what to do and will not be asked what the best approach would be. Suggestions are not encouraged.

They distrust the motives of colleagues because they do not understand the role of other members. Expressions of opinion or disagreement are considered and support divisions.

The members are so cautious about what they say that real understanding is possible. Game can occur and communication traps are set to catch the unwary.

Members can receive a good education, but are limited in its application to the work by the supervisor or other members of the group.

They find themselves in conflict situations without knowing how to solve them. They make no distinction between confrontation and conflict. Their supervisor or "team leader" may put off intervention until serious damage occurs.

The members may or may not participate in decisions affecting the team. Conformity often appears more important than positive results.

So before you go around patting yourself collectively on the back, go back and take a look real hard at what kind of groups of people that you call the teams. How were assembled, for what purpose, what happened like that, when you should stop collaborative, team members are complementary to each other or go barehanded battles called team meetings? These are all questions that will help you diagnose if you have real teams or some sick scene from "Gangs of New York" .......