Teamwork vs Groupwork

Teamwork is one of the latest trends catching the attention of both the corporate and the academic world. While those final exams which used to account for 90 or 100% of the final grade seem to be sentenced, many universities, probably led by business schools, are increasingly introducing teamwork projects to bring the student’s assessment closer to the real labour market needs. Indeed, recruitment processes do not only assess the technical background of the candidates anymore but also evaluate the so-called “soft skills” such as teamwork, empathy, pressure management and so on.

Teamwork benefits are indisputable: higher quality of the outcome, more creative solutions, more scenarios and risks taken into account, higher commitment as well as higher motivation due to the sense of community.

However, looking back at my background as student and intern, I have come up with the impression that despite all these efforts in enhancing teamwork in schools and workplaces, we still talk much more about teamwork than we put it in practise. One might think of the opposite of teamwork as being individual work but it is not. After some years, I have realised that the opposite of teamwork is group work, understood as an aggregation of individuals. While individual work is appropriate for those situations where work needs to be done quickly, teamwork, as the Arab saying states, is suitable to go further. So… what is group work for? It is actually a combination of both that does not drive anywhere. Let’s examine why.

To start with, let’s clarify the difference between team and group. While a team is a single unit formed by members that reject their own self-interest for the benefit of The Team, a group is an aggregation of individuals who just want to have their part done, without regard to any shared goals and common mission. As each individual only cares about his or her own interest, the main difference teams and groups is the creation of synergies. While teamwork outcome is worth more than the sum of the components, when it is about group work the outcome become poorer than the sum of the components because neither the benefits of individual work nor teamwork take place. Since there are not shared goals but self-driven individuals, each one will try to get rid of as much work as possible instead of delivering one’s best to the (nonexistent) shared project. In addition, maybe without bad faith, some members will lean too much on the brightest group mates, thus creating a bad atmosphere and latent conflicts confronting people instead of ideas.

So… If teamwork is so advantageous and group work so bad, why so many people still work in groups instead of teams? I identify 2 complementary answers.

  1. As teamwork usually requires an extra-effort in terms of coordination, negotiation and empathy, many people just choose the easiest and shortest track: forming groups. Nonetheless, I have to recognise that I am pleasingly surprised to see how local students –at least those few I have worked with- are so good at teamwork, unlike the usual way of working in Europe, more individualistic and getting-things-done based, despite playing against teamwork philosophy.
  2. In the corporate world, group work can be the result –and the responsibility- of a bad management. Let me give an example. When Pep Guardiola, former coach of FC Barcelona, arrived at Barça, the first decision he made was sacking a clique of players who were the most selfish and party-goers of the team. By coincidence, these players were Eto’o, who was considered the best center-forward of the world, Ronaldinho, former Ballon d’Or; and Deco, one of the best midfielders of that moment. By doing so, Guardiola was refusing to have the best players of the world in order to have the best team of the world. While Real Madrid was investing hundreds of millions of euros in signing up top stars, Barça was playing with up to 8 players raised at La Masia, the Barça reserve of young players. Two years later, Barça became the second team ever to win all of its tournaments in one year (6 in total), while Madrid has been crossing the dessert for years.

 

This article was written by a Barcelona-based entrepreneur founder of www.foodizen.com, the first restaurant discovery platform where users can discover user-generated restaurants lists (best brunchs in Barcelona, best ramen, best japanese restaurants, etc.) based on trustworthy recommendations by bloggers, chefs and gastronomic guides.

Conflict is underrated

Conflict is good. And no. I am not talking on behalf of the US. I would like to talk about the desirability of conflict in the bosom of the organizations. Someone could think that they already have enough problems so that creating new ones. However, I would dare to say that these already existing problems are, in fact, a consequence of lack of conflict. I would even add that higher conflict levels could lead us to a more peaceful world, with happier people, more efficient organizations and less wars.

Let’s start by providing a theoretical framework before you, dear visitor, quit reading because of this senseless article. Conflict could be defined as the situation by which two or more people perceive that the goals of one party prevent the other/s from achieving their respective goals. In this sense, according to the lifecycle of conflict, they can be classified in 2 groups or stages: the latent and the manifest conflicts.

The latent type of conflict corresponds to the first phase of the dispute development. The differences between the parties are discovered and grow exponentially, but no one verbalizes them. The second stage starts when the confrontation becomes manifest or, in other words, visible and easily recognizable. Logically, the faster the conflict moves to the second stage, the shorter it takes to find a solution.

So… how long does it take for a conflict to move from being latent to manifest? As a consultant would say, it all depends. There is no way to predict when the conflict will surface but asking to the parties in conflict. But then, in this precise moment, the dispute is no longer latent because the simple and innocent action of asking shapes the dispute and makes it manifest. This is, ladies and gentlemen, the power (and risks) of communication. Surprisingly, hopeless managers probably are the ones who better know this magic power because they manage it impeccably according to their philosophy. They just impose the rule of silence in their departments and avoid further headaches (for some time). Because unavoidably, at some point, whether the tension in the department explodes or the non-discussed decision proves to be wrong, thus being the immediate higher manager who starts the chain of explosions, both horizontally and vertically.

Paradoxically, the solution to the situation previously described is to provoke more conflict. The more visible the conflict is, the better. The more people involved, the better. The more passionate discussion there is, the better. The sooner the conflict surfaces, the better. Conflict is communication. The lack of conflict kills any advantage of teamwork because the team no longer acts as a team. A team with no conflict is a groupthink, a passive group of people who only assent to the leader. Conflict enables people to make peace with their own ideals, criteria and dignity. Conflict is in the nature of teamwork and can not be dissociated. Conflict is the previous stage to building consensus. Conflict enriches the organization.

By the way, if some day some hopeless managers happen to read this article, let’s give them some instructions on how to properly use conflict:

  • Build heterogeneous and talented teams. The conflict will come with its own feet.
  • Identify the conflict as soon as possible.
  • Uncover the conflict. Go to the roots.
  • Mediate if necessary.
  • Keep a constructive attitude.
  • Make sure everyone criticizes ideas, not people.
  • Appeal to empathy.

Caution:

  • Keep out of the reach of children.
  • Keep away from fire.
  • Avoid contact with eyes.

     conflict management

 

This article has been written by a Barcelona-based entrepreneur founder of www.foodizen.com, the first restaurant discovery platform where users can discover restaurants lists (best burrata cheese in Barcelona, best horchata, best mochis, etc.) based on trustworthy recommendations by bloggers, chefs and gastronomic guides.