The 5 differences between group and team

Bringing organizations to their maximum productive potential depends on knowing these concepts.

When working together hand in hand with other people, the dynamics that are established between workers make the difference. Even if we devote the same amount of time, the same material resources and sufficiently trained personnel, the fact of working in one way or another with these ingredients makes more or less productive.

In the following we will see what the differences between group and team are.The differences between group and team are discussed below, since it is this type of involvement and coordination that, for the same amount of money spent, can bring productivity in companies and organizations to its maximum potential, or not.

Main differences between group and team

As far as the world of Work and Organizational Psychology is concerned, the definitions of groups and teams are different. And not only theoretically, but as we shall see, they refer to two types of phenomena that produce very different results.

1. Individualistic vision and collectivist vision

Groups are, fundamentally, groups of people who share a space, a place, and who show a certain degree of tolerance among themselves, which means that they can be somewhat stable.

In the context of companies and organizations, a group is also a functional part of a system of people that produces something, whether for commercial purposes or not. However, performing a useful function does not mean that the group has a shared purpose. Instead, each person has his or her own objective..

In other words, this type of association is governed by individualism: people come to an agreement to reach a goal that they had already set a priori individually.

The team, on the other hand, is driven by collectivism, the notion that there are experiences that can only be lived by joining and connecting with others and that certain goals are fundamentally collective in nature. certain goals are fundamentally collective in nature. For example, the protection of the environment is not a goal that can be reached objectively, nor is a creative task in which several artists must work.

2. Proactive spirit or passivity

Teams adapt in real time to unforeseen events, since all the people who make up the team are one and the same. If a need arises that is different from those that have been defining the work, for example, it is not necessary to convince the others to adapt to this new circumstance; in any case, they are informed and new proposals are jointly sought.

Thus, in teams, every time the way of working is changed and new unforeseen problems arise, these are reported immediately, instead of continuing to work by inertia.

In groups, on the other hand, the mentality leads to an attitude defined by passivity. For this reason, for example, if unforeseen changes occur, it is necessary to re-negotiate with the individuals who negotiate again with the individuals who make up the group, since they canThe group's members can stick to the idea that they do not have to do anything more than what they have been doing before. Any change in the way of working is seen as a separate piece in the rest, which does not necessarily imply that changes in other processes directly related to the previous one have to be considered.

3. Communicative agility or verticality

In groups, communication flows are usually vertical, since they are limited to the hierarchical relationships specified in the organization chart; it is simply not mandatory to establish other routes through which information circulates.

In teams, on the other hand communication also flows very much in an informal mannerEven if these communication routes do not appear in the organization chart. This does not mean that the organization encourages the mixing of personal and professional relationships, but rather that there is greater communicative flexibility.

4. Flexibility and rigidity

In teams, the number one priority is to ensure that the team can adapt to changes and achieve the goals set collectively, and therefore the formal is subordinate to the useful. Although it may seem contradictory, it often works better if the rigid structure of written rules is set aside (with the agreement of all parties involved, of course).

In groups, on the other hand the rigidity of the rules is used not for its usefulness, but as an excuse not to confront to avoid facing new situations or having to work harder during the phase of adaptation to the changing situations that come our way. In other words, rules are assumed as a dogma, something that must be followed to avoid complications, although this, paradoxically, can lead to certain problems caused by the lack of adaptation to change becoming chronic and generating totally avoidable discomfort.

5. Opportunity potential or opportunity blindness

Teams are always much more adept at detecting hidden opportunities, since communication flows and there is no penalty for proposing ideas that "break the mould".

In groups, on the other hand the simple idea of changing the direction of what they have been doing causes rejection, and a very good excuse is needed.A very good excuse is needed for something as simple as proposing new strategies or group interests. This means that, even if an opportunity is sensed, it never goes beyond this stage, and neither the possibility is evaluated nor, of course, new missions are undertaken. On many occasions the person who has come up with the idea does not even communicate it to a co-worker.

Bibliographical references:

• Etkin, J. (2000). Política, Gobierno y gerencia de las organizaciones, Buenos Aires, Editorial Prentice Hall.
• Schlemenson, A. (2002). La estrategia del talento, Bs. As., Editorial Paidós.
• Lévy-Levoyer, C. (2000). La motivación en la empresa - Modelos y estrategias Editorial Gestión 2000.