Characteristics of Effective & Ineffective Teams
Key characteristics distinguishing effective teams from ineffective ones.
Characteristics of Effective Teams
1. There is a clear unity of purpose.
There was free discussion of the objectives until members could commit themselves to them; the objectives are meaningful to each group member.
2. The group is self-conscious about its own operations.
The group has taken time to explicitly discuss group process -- how the group will function to achieve its objectives. The group has a clear, explicit, and mutually agreed-upon approach: mechanics, norms, expectations, rules, etc. Frequently, it will stop to examined how well it is doing or what may be interfering with its operation. Whatever the problem may be, it gets open discussion and a solution found.
3. The group has set clear and demanding performance goals
for itself and has translated these performance goals into well-defined concrete milestones against which it measures itself. The group defines and achieves a continuous series of "small wins" along the way to larger goals.
4. The atmosphere tends to be informal, comfortable, relaxed.
There are no obvious tensions, a working atmosphere in which people are involved and interested.
5. There is a lot of discussion in which virtually everyone participates,
but it remains pertinent to the purpose of the group. If discussion gets off track, someone will bring it back in short order. The members listen to each other. Every idea is given a hearing. People are not afraid of being foolish by putting forth a creative thought even if it seems extreme.
6. People are free in expressing their feelings as well as their ideas.
7. There is disagreement and this is viewed as good.
Disagreements are not suppressed or overridden by premature group action. The reasons are carefully examined, and the group seeks to resolve them rather than dominate the dissenter. Dissenters are not trying to dominate the group; they have a genuine difference of opinion. If there are basic disagreements that cannot be resolved, the group figures out a way to live with them without letting them block its efforts.
8. Most decisions are made at a point where there is general agreement.
However, those who disagree with the general agreement of the group do not keep their opposition private and let an apparent consensus mask their disagreement. The group does not accept a simple majority as a proper basis for action.
9. Each individual carries his or her own weight,
Meeting or exceeding the expectations of other group members. Each individual is respectful of the mechanics of the group: arriving on time, coming to meetings prepared, completing agreed upon tasks on time, etc. When action is taken, clears assignments are made (who-what-when) and willingly accepted and completed by each group member.
10. Criticism is frequent, frank and relatively comfortable.
The criticism has a constructive flavor -- oriented toward removing an obstacle that faces the group.
11. The leadership of the group shifts from time to time.
The issue is not who controls, but how to get the job done.
Characteristics of Ineffective Teams
1. There is low unity of purpose.
Little or no evidence that the group is widely committed to common objectives or that the objectives are meaningful to each member of the group.
2. The group tends to avoid discussion of its own maintenance.
The group has taken little time to explicitly discuss group process -- how the group will function to achieve its objectives. The group does not have a clear, mutually agreed-upon approach: mechanics, norms, expectations, rules, etc. There is often much discussion after a meeting of what was wrong and why, but this is seldom discussed within the meeting itself.
3. The group has low or ambiguous performance goals for itself.
It has not defined concrete milestones against which it measures itself. The group has not given itself the stimulus of a continuous series of "small wins" along the way to larger goals.
4. The atmosphere is likely to reflect either indifference
(Lots of side conversations, whispering, etc.), boredom, or tension. The group is not genuinely engaged.
5. A few people tend to dominate.
Sometimes their contributions are way off the point, but little is done by anyone in the group to keep the group clearly on track. People do not really listen to each other. Ideas are ignored or overriden. Conversations after group meetings reveal that people failed to express their ideas or feelings.
6. Personal feelings are hidden.
There is fear that these are too explosive if brought out.
7. Disagreements are not generally dealt with effectively by the group.
They may be suppressed by those who fear conflict, or there may be a "Tyranny of the Minority" in which an individual or sub-group is so aggressive that the majority accedes to their wishes in order to preserve the peace.
8. Actions are often taken prematurely before the real issues are either examined or resolved.
There is sometimes grousing after the meeting. A simple majority is considered sufficient, and the minority is expected to go along. The minority remains resentful and uncommitted.
9. There are one or more group members who do not carry their fair share
Failing to meet expectation of other group members. One or more members are disrespectful of the mechanics of the group: arriving late, coming unprepared, not completing agreed upon tasks on time, etc. Action steps are either unclear (who-what-when) or some group members are unwilling to accept and complete action steps at an equal level to other group members.
10. Criticism may be present, but it is tension-producing or hostile.
Some people avoid giving constructive criticism.
11. There is a dominant figure in the group who seeks to gain and retain power in the group.
Sources: The Human Side of Enterprise, by Douglas MacGregor The Wisdom of Teams, by Kaztenbach and Smith
Repost content for academic research purpose.
gotcha!