The Differences between Groups and Teams. A Comparative Conceptual Analysis and Practical Implications
Nonfiction, Sports
| Author: | Christoph Rosenthal | ISBN: | 9783656977780 |
| Publisher: | GRIN Verlag | Publication: | June 11, 2015 |
| Imprint: | GRIN Verlag | Language: | English |
| Author: | Christoph Rosenthal |
| ISBN: | 9783656977780 |
| Publisher: | GRIN Verlag |
| Publication: | June 11, 2015 |
| Imprint: | GRIN Verlag |
| Language: | English |
Seminar paper from the year 2014 in the subject Sport - Sport Psychology, London School of Economics, language: English, abstract: Groups are inherent to the existence of human beings. The well-known Aristotelian statement about men being social animals by nature encapsulates the importance of groups in that grouping is a fundamentally social phenomenon. Human beings and their animal ancestors have always been grouping in order to fullfil needs of social bonding, reproduction and to survive. Whereas survival is not their primary purpose anymore, different kinds of groups are still present in contemporary societies. One variety of groups that has gained increasing attention in organisational and academic realms is the team. The concepts of group and team have unwarily been used as seemingly interchangeable without a clear conceptual differentiation . In the literature on leadership in teams, for example, it has been argued that leaders in teams ought 'to do, or get done, whatever is not being adequately handled for group needs'. Likewise, in organisational contexts, it has been claimed that 'teams and groups are really just the same thing'. Tackling the absence of a clear conceptual and practical distinction between the two terms, the essay at hand forges a comprehensive synopsis of the key differences between groups and teams in the broader field around social psychology. It argues that differentiating between these concepts is of crucial importance both in organisational and scholarly contexts mainly because teams function on the micro rather than the macro level. After a brief overview of the dissimilar appearances of groups and teams in the literature, the two terms are related conceptually before a comparative analysis through the concept of leadership illuminates further key differences. Subsequently, a discussion of potential implications for organizational and academic contexts precedes the final conclusion.
Seminar paper from the year 2014 in the subject Sport - Sport Psychology, London School of Economics, language: English, abstract: Groups are inherent to the existence of human beings. The well-known Aristotelian statement about men being social animals by nature encapsulates the importance of groups in that grouping is a fundamentally social phenomenon. Human beings and their animal ancestors have always been grouping in order to fullfil needs of social bonding, reproduction and to survive. Whereas survival is not their primary purpose anymore, different kinds of groups are still present in contemporary societies. One variety of groups that has gained increasing attention in organisational and academic realms is the team. The concepts of group and team have unwarily been used as seemingly interchangeable without a clear conceptual differentiation . In the literature on leadership in teams, for example, it has been argued that leaders in teams ought 'to do, or get done, whatever is not being adequately handled for group needs'. Likewise, in organisational contexts, it has been claimed that 'teams and groups are really just the same thing'. Tackling the absence of a clear conceptual and practical distinction between the two terms, the essay at hand forges a comprehensive synopsis of the key differences between groups and teams in the broader field around social psychology. It argues that differentiating between these concepts is of crucial importance both in organisational and scholarly contexts mainly because teams function on the micro rather than the macro level. After a brief overview of the dissimilar appearances of groups and teams in the literature, the two terms are related conceptually before a comparative analysis through the concept of leadership illuminates further key differences. Subsequently, a discussion of potential implications for organizational and academic contexts precedes the final conclusion.
