UPI Study › Courses › Foundations of Leadership › Free lessons › Lesson 10.2 Free with a free account
Work Teams in Contemporary Business
Foundations of Leadership · Chapter 10: Teams ModuleSection 10.2 · lesson 66 of 9011 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Foundations of Leadership.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Foundations of Leadership
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: High-Performing Teams →← The Weight of the ArmbandNext lesson: High-Performing Teams →
In this lesson
The varieties of team-based work, and the predictable arc by which teams come together.
- Explain the shift toward team-based work
- Distinguish the principal types of work team
- Apply Tuckman's stages to a real team
- Match team type and formation model to the work
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,521 words). Read along, or search it.
Teams Module
Work Teams in Contemporary Business
A generation ago, most work was structured around individual roles under a manager. Today, organisations run product development, customer service, project execution and research through teams. Increasingly they run senior decision-making that way too. That shift produced a much richer vocabulary for the kinds of teams organisations actually have. Permanent and temporary. Cross-functional and specialist. Co-located and distributed. It also produced a better understanding of how teams form, mature and dissolve. This section gives you a working taxonomy of team types. And a developmental framework for what a team is going through at any given moment.
The Shift
Four Forces That Made Teams the Default
Begin with why the shift happened, because the causes still shape the teams you will join. For most of the twentieth century, organisations were structured around individual roles. The assembly line. The typing pool. The sales territory. The academic department. Each was a collection of individuals whose contributions were aggregated under management. Teams existed where the work demanded them. Operating theatres, news desks, fire services. But they were the exception, not the rule. The shift began in earnest in the nineteen eighties, and accelerated for two decades after. Quality circles and lean manufacturing arrived from Japan. They reframed factory work around small groups holding collective responsibility for improvement. Products became complex enough that different disciplines had to coordinate closely. Globalisation pushed coordination across functions and geographies. And knowledge work made it unrealistic for all the relevant expertise to sit in one person. The consequence for management was substantial. Team leadership stopped being a specialism, and became an expectation of anyone managing knowledge workers.
Team Types
The Four You Will Meet First
Contemporary organisations run several distinct types of team. Each suits different work, and each poses different problems of leadership. The functional team is composed of members from a single discipline reporting to one manager. It is the most traditional form, and remains common in operational settings. The cross-functional team brings together members from different functions. It exists to address a problem that no single function can solve alone. The project team is assembled for a defined time and task. Then it dissolves when the work is complete. The self-managed team holds collective responsibility for its own work. Planning, scheduling and quality, without a designated supervisor in the conventional sense. Notice that these are not descriptions of atmosphere. They are structural differences.
Team Types
And Four More That Complete the Picture
Four further categories complete the picture. The virtual team is geographically distributed, communicating largely through technology. The leadership team is the senior group responsible for direction and strategic decisions. It is often the most consequential team in an organisation. And frequently the one designed with the least deliberation. The problem-solving team is convened for a specific issue, and disbanded once it is resolved. The parallel team sits alongside a member's primary role. Task forces, advisory groups, communities of practice. It draws on members' time without removing them from their main work, which is exactly where it strains. These categories are not mutually exclusive. A cross-functional project team may also be virtual. But they help managers see the choices they are making, sometimes by default. And a team that emerged without explicit design is rarely structured well for its work.
Formation
The Arc Teams Actually Travel
Whatever type of team you have, it goes through a recognisable arc. Bruce Tuckman named four stages, and later a fifth. Forming, storming, norming, performing. The arrows are drawn as a loop for a reason. Real teams do not climb the stages once and stay at the top. They re-enter storming when membership changes. When the stakes rise. Or when the nature of the work shifts. So a leader is rarely managing a stage. They are managing a return to one.
The Stages
One Sentence Each
Take the stages one at a time. In forming, members orient themselves to one another and to the task. They are polite, tentative, and dependent on the leader for direction. Identities are still being established, and relationships are superficial. In storming, the politeness gives way to disagreement. Members assert their views, contest roles, and negotiate the terms on which they will work. In norming, the team establishes its working agreements, implicit and explicit. How decisions get made. How disagreement is handled. How quality is judged. In performing, the team operates with relative ease. The agreements are in place, conflict is managed productively. And attention points outward at the work rather than inward at the team. Adjourning was added later, for teams convened to do finite work.
Diagnosis
Storming Is Not Failure
Storming deserves separate attention, because it is where leaders most often misread the evidence. This is the stage in which inexperienced leaders declare the team a failure. The disagreement feels like breakdown, so they intervene to suppress it. But the team is doing necessary work. The terms of collaboration are being negotiated. Suppress that and you get a team that never actually agreed on anything. The model has been criticised, fairly, for its tidy linearity. Real teams revisit storming, and the neat progression rarely survives contact with a live project. Its diagnostic value has nevertheless survived those criticisms. A leader who recognises friction as storming responds quite differently from one who does not. The model normalises the difficulty of the middle stages, and that alone earns its keep.
Beyond Tuckman
Four Frameworks, Four Different Jobs
Tuckman's model was developed in a particular research context. Small therapy and training groups, in mid-twentieth-century America. Contemporary scholars have built alternatives better attuned to project-based work. Connie Gersick's punctuated equilibrium model, from nineteen eighty-eight, observes something specific. Teams pass through long stable periods, broken by short transformative transitions. Those transitions cluster near the midpoint of a project. Joseph McGrath's Time, Interaction and Performance framework treats teams as doing three things at once. Production, which is the actual work. Member-support, which is looking after one another. And group-well-being, which is maintaining the team itself. Richard Hackman's framework focuses on five conditions that predispose teams to succeed. Crucially, those conditions are set before the team begins. So the contemporary view is not that Tuckman was wrong. It is that you diagnose with Tuckman, and choose what to do with the others.
In Practice
Self-Managed Teams
Two team types deserve closer attention, because of how common they have become. The self-managed team emerged in manufacturing in the nineteen eighties. Volvo's Kalmar plant and Toyota's production lines are the canonical examples. It spread to software development, professional services, and increasingly to creative work. Agile and scrum practices are essentially self-management with light structure. Members rotate facilitative responsibilities and take decisions collectively. They report to the organisation as a unit, rather than through a single chain. The leadership challenge here is distinctive, and often underestimated. Removing the supervisor does not remove the leadership work. Instead of directing, the leader convenes, facilitates, and protects the conditions for collective work. Which is frequently harder than directing, not easier.
In Practice
Cross-Functional Teams
The cross-functional team brings together members from different functional areas. A new-product development team typically holds engineering, marketing, manufacturing and finance. The advantage is obvious. The team can solve problems no single function could. The challenges are equally real, and they are structural rather than personal. Members carry the loyalties and the incentives of their home functions. Communication across functional vocabularies is more difficult than communication within one. And the team leader rarely has formal authority over members who report elsewhere. That last point has a direct consequence for how such a leader must work. Formal authority is largely unavailable to them. So effective cross-functional leadership relies on the relational and moral sources instead. Trust built over time, and integrity that is visible when priorities collide.
Case
The Infusion Pump That Nobody Could Agree On
A medical devices firm shows what that looks like in practice. The firm assembled a cross-functional team to develop a next-generation infusion pump. Design engineers, software engineers, clinical specialists, regulatory specialists, manufacturing engineers and marketers. For the first four months, the team was paralysed by competing priorities. Engineering wanted to push the device's capabilities. Manufacturing wanted them constrained, to keep cost down. Regulatory wanted exhaustive testing. Marketing wanted speed. The team leader, drawn from clinical, had no formal authority over any function. The breakthrough came when the leader stopped trying to mediate between them. Instead, six weeks went into reframing the work around a single shared metric. Patient outcome per unit cost. Something every function could relate to. The team was still cross-functional, and still subject to competing pressures. But it now had a common reference point against which decisions could be made.
Consolidate
Type Is a Design Choice, Not a Label
Which brings us to the practical question. What kind of team should this work have? Routine, well-bounded operational work is usually best handled by a functional team. Complex, novel work that crosses domains needs a cross-functional one. Work requiring continuous adaptation and judgement at the point of execution suits self-management. Work involving participants who cannot be co-located is necessarily virtual. The mismatches are what produce trouble. Running a cross-functional team as if it were functional generates predictable friction. So does trying to run a self-managed team with conventional supervision. No amount of leadership skill fully overcomes a structural mismatch. The same logic applies to formation. Tuckman's stages arrive whether or not you anticipate them. But the leader who anticipates them shortens storming and accelerates norming. And reaches performing faster than the leader who is surprised by each stage in turn.
About Foundations of Leadership at UPI Study
Foundations of Leadership (Business 205) is a self-paced online course of 90 video lessons in 12 chapters, from the roots of leadership theory and the trait, situational and transformational approaches to power, decision-making, communication, teams, conflict, diversity and global leadership. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Business courses Every course with PRO →
Compare: Management and leadership courses · Foundations of Leadership vs Leadership and OB
Why take it here
Why students take Foundations of Leadership with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Foundations of Leadership carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Work Teams in Contemporary Business
What are the main types of work teams?
What are Tuckman's stages of group development?
What is a self-managed team?
What challenges do cross-functional teams face?
About the Foundations of Leadership course
How many college credits is Foundations of Leadership?
How much does Foundations of Leadership cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Foundations of Leadership take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Foundations of Leadership.
90 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →