Real Teams or Pseudo Teams? The Changing Landscape Needs a Better Map

Abstract

Each of the themes highlighted by Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas, and Cohen (2012) offers a valuable theoretical lens for future research on teams, but we think fundamental issues first require attention. To respond to the demands posed by the changing landscape of teams, we need to reappraise what it is we are studying when we focus on teams working in organizations. We need a good map of the changing terrain, which we suggest can be provided by clearer definitions and operationalizations of what we mean both by ''teams'' and by what we call ''pseudo teams.'' We deal with these issues of definition and operationalization of teams and pseudo teams in turn in the following sections. Defining Real TeamsAt the outset, Tannenbaum et al. provide two well-cited definitions of ''team'' from the literature and conclude that most teams in research studies share a few key characteristics in common. However, a number of other equally valid and well-recognized definitions exist (e.g.

24-Karat or fool’s gold? Consequences of real team and co-acting group membership in healthcare organizations

“…The tendency to lump together as real teams all entities described by organizational members as 'teams' may well be misguided both theoretically and empirically (Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas, & Cohen, 2012b;West & Lyubovnikova, 2012). Indeed, researchers may be including within one category, entities that are fundamentally different (cf.…”

“…However, there is a lively and on-going disucssion in the literature on the conceptualization of teams and team membership (e.g., Hackman, 2012;Hollenbeck et al, 2012;Mortensen, 2014;Tannenbaum et al, 2012;Wageman et al, 2012;West & Lyubovnikova, 2012), and thus rather than concluding that the approach taken here is the definitive and optimal way of defining and measuring real team and co-acting group membership, we instead aimed to contribute to this emerging and dynamic discussion using findings from the secondary data available to us. Indeed, treating reflexivity as a definitional criterion, as opposed to an enabling condition may be considered by some as a departure from the existing literature.…”

“…Indeed, there have been calls in the recent literature to tighten up our definitions of team and team membership in order to reinforce conceptual integrity and help move the science forward (Hollenbeck, Beersma, & Schouten, 2012;Mortensen, 2014;Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas, & Cohen, 2012a). As we explore in this paper, real teams are more than simply a collective of individuals (Hackman, 2002(Hackman, , 2012Wageman, 2001;West & Lyubovnikova, 2012). Based on existing definitions of real teams, we build on the work of Hackman (2002; and West (2012), to identify three important characteristics which collectively capture real team membership, allowing for comparisons to be drawn between the effects of real team membership ('24 karat') and coacting group membership ('fool's gold') on a range of individual and organizational outcomes.…”

“…Conversely, co-acting group membership is characterized by the absence of team reflexivity, whereby members report that their team does not reflect on team effectiveness or how it could be improved. Although coacting group members may meet occasionally in order to share information, this exchange will largely be through habit, obligation or a simple desire for interpersonal interaction, rather than because there is an imperative for collective performance (West & Lyubovnikova, 2012). Reflexivity is thus the third key sub-dimension of real team membership.…”

On the Very Model of a Modern Major Manager: The Importance of Academic Administrators in Support of the New Pedagogy

“…One that is informed by organizational psychology and that is to move away from the development of pseudo-teams and more toward the formation of effective or "real" administrative teams (West and Lyubovnikova, 2012). These real-teams could perhaps constitute the common steering core of a department or even an institute.…”