Team size, composition, and formation
Team size and team composition affect team processes and
team outcomes. The optimal size (and composition) of teams is debated and will
vary depending on the task at hand.
At least one study of problem-solving in groups showed an optimal size of groups at four members. Other works estimate the optimal size between 5-12 members or a number of members that can consume two pizzas.The following extract is taken from Chong (2007).
At least one study of problem-solving in groups showed an optimal size of groups at four members. Other works estimate the optimal size between 5-12 members or a number of members that can consume two pizzas.The following extract is taken from Chong (2007).
The interest in teams gained momentum in the 1980s with the
publication of Belbin’s (1981) work on successful teams. The research into
teams and teamwork followed two lines of inquiry. Writers such as Belbin (1981,
1993),Woodcock (1989),Margerison and McCann (1990), Davis et al. (1992),Parker
(1990), and Spencer and Pruss (1992) focused on team roles and how these
affected team performance.
These studies suggested that team performance was a function of the number and type of roles team members played. The number of roles for optimal performance varied from 15 (Davis et al., 1992) to four (Parker, 1990).This variation has been attributed to how roles were defined. Lindgren (1997)believed that, in a social psychological sense, ‘roles’ were behaviours one exhibited within the constraints assigned by the outside world to one’s occupational position e.g. leader, manager, supervisor, worker etc. Personality traits, on the other hand, were internally driven and relatively stable over time and across situations.
These traits affected behavioural patterns in predictable ways (Pervin, 1989) and, in varying degrees, become part of the ‘role’ definition as well.
These studies suggested that team performance was a function of the number and type of roles team members played. The number of roles for optimal performance varied from 15 (Davis et al., 1992) to four (Parker, 1990).This variation has been attributed to how roles were defined. Lindgren (1997)believed that, in a social psychological sense, ‘roles’ were behaviours one exhibited within the constraints assigned by the outside world to one’s occupational position e.g. leader, manager, supervisor, worker etc. Personality traits, on the other hand, were internally driven and relatively stable over time and across situations.
These traits affected behavioural patterns in predictable ways (Pervin, 1989) and, in varying degrees, become part of the ‘role’ definition as well.
The other line of inquiry focused on measuring the
‘effectiveness’ of teams. Writers such as Deihl and Stroebe (1987),Gersik
(1988), Evenden and Anderson (1992), Furnham et al. (1993), Cohen and Ledford
(1994) and Katzenbach (1998) were concerned with high performing teams and the objective
measurement of their effectiveness.
McFadzean (2002) believed that the appearance of a number of models of team effectiveness was indicative of a variety of variables such as personality, group size, work norms, status relationships, group structure etc. that can impact on team ‘effectiveness’ and its measurement.
McFadzean (2002) believed that the appearance of a number of models of team effectiveness was indicative of a variety of variables such as personality, group size, work norms, status relationships, group structure etc. that can impact on team ‘effectiveness’ and its measurement.
Comments
Post a Comment