The 5 differences between group and team

When it comes to working hand in hand with other people, the dynamics that are established between the workers make the difference. Although we dedicate the same time, the same material resources and a staff with a level of training enough, the fact of working in one way or another with these ingredients causes more or less less.

We'll see now what are the differences between group and team, given that it is this type of involvement and coordination that means that, with the same expense, productivity in companies and organizations is taken to its maximum potential, or not.

• Related article: "Work and Organization Psychology: a profession for the future: "

Main differences between group and team

As regards the world of Work and Organizational Psychology, the definitions used about what groups and teams are are different. And they are not only theoretical, but as we will 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 between them, which makes it possible to be something stable.

In the context of companies and organizations, a group is also a functional piece of a system of people that produces something, whether for commercial purposes or not. However, just because a useful function is performed does not mean that the group has a shared goal. Instead, each person has his or her goal..

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

The team, on the other hand, is moved by collectivism, the notion that there are experiences that can only be lived by uniting and connecting with others and that certain goals are fundamentally collective in nature. For example, the protection of the environment is not an objective that can be reached objectively, and in the same way a creative task in which several artists must work, either.

• You may be interested: "The 10 best Master's degrees in Organizational and Human Resources Psychology"

2. Proactive spirit or passivity

The teams adapt in real time to the unforeseen, since all the people who compose them go to one. If a different need arises from those that were defining the job, for example, it is not necessary to convince others to adapt to this new circumstance; in any case, new proposals are reported and jointly sought.

For this reason, in teams, every time the way of working is changed and new unforeseen problems arise, they are reported immediately, instead of continuing to work out of inertia.

In groups, on the other hand, the mentality leads to an attitude defined by passivity. For this reason, for example, if unforeseen changes appear, it is necessary to re-negotiate with the individuals that comprise it, since they can stick to the idea that they do not have to do anything more than what they had been doing previously. Any change that occurs in the working mode is seen as a separate piece in the rest, which does not have why imply that it is necessary to consider changes in other processes directly related to the previous one.

3. Communicative agility or verticality

In groups, communication flows tend to be 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 the information circulates.

In teams, on the other hand, communication also flows a lot informally, although these communication routes do not appear in the organization chart. This does not mean that the organization encourages a mix between personal and professional relationships, but rather that there is greater communication flexibility.

4. Flexibility and rigidity

In teams, the number one priority is to make sure that the team can adapt to changes and reach the goals set collectively, and that is why the formal is subject to the useful. Although it seems contradictory, many times it performs better if you know how to put aside the rigid structure of the rules established in writing (yes, with the agreement of all the parties involved).

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

5. Potential to opportunity or blindness to it

Teams are always much more adept at detecting hidden opportunities, since communication flows and the proposal of ideas that "break the rules" is not penalized.

In groups, on the other hand, the simple idea of ​​turning the direction of what was being done causes rejection, and you need a very good excuse for something as simple as proposing new strategies or group interests. This means that, even if an opportunity is sensed, never go beyond this phase, and neither value that possibility nor, of course, undertake new missions. On many occasions, the person who has come up with the idea does not even communicate it to a co-worker.

Bibliographic references:

• Etkin, J. (2000). Politics, Government and Management of Organizations, Buenos Aires, Editorial Prentice Hall.
• Schlemenson, A. (2002). The Talent Strategy, Bs. As., Editorial Paidós.
• Lévy-Levoyer, C. (2000). Motivation in the company - Models and strategies Editorial Gestión 2000.