Bjoerg asks:
>But surely, a bunch of people waiting at a bus stop - whether they are a
>group or a team - would have the same common purpose, at least short
>term: to get on the bus when it comes.
>
>Maybe it's just me - but could you elaborate?
Stephen Wehrenburg has done some of my work for me (thanks, Stephen); I'll
try to complete the answer.
This discussion to which I refer usually continues for 15 minutes or more,
so I necessarily have not included the whole thing. Yes, most people ask,
"What if the people at the bus stop all were going to the same place?
Would that make them a team?" And then these same people usually conclude
that it would not. So then I ask the question again: What's the
difference between a group of people at a bus stop waiting for the same
bus and going to the same place, and a team?
The dialogue continues. Eventually the group gets around to adding
requirements such as: interdependence (mutual reliance for achieving the
common purpose), organization (i.e., they explicitly decide that they are
a team and communicate this to others), leadership (they designate a
leader, or leaders, for the purpose of being more effective as a team),
role clarification (they decide who is responsible for what),
responsibility clarification (exactly what are they collectively and
individually responsible for), etc.
But of all these, the two that seem to be the "minimum" requirements are
commonality of purpose and interdependence.
Does that help?
--"John Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>