Abstract

Organizations are complex entities that often defy the static definitions of the past. Adding to this complexity is a noticeable move towards a more horizontal or distributed leadership style and the use of teams. Teams are made of people with differing needs, wants and objectives. This article reviews existing literature on what teams are, how teams are organized and how social network analysis might help in leadership and team development. Implications and areas for continued research are also discussed.

Keywords: Leadership, leadership development, teams, team development, social network analysis, complexity theory, perceptions, compilational emergence.

Subjective Perceptions in Team Dynamics

The corporate world of the twenty-first century is dominated by organizations as it was for most of the twentieth century.  For the purpose of this article an organization is defined as a group of people gathered together for market purposes (E. Huber, personal communication, January 8, 2018). However, the biggest change to the corporate environment in the twenty-first century is the growing presence of “teams” embedded in the organizational structure. Teams add flexibility and adaptability to a rigid organizational structure. However, for a team to operate like a well-oiled machine, it requires more than the organizational super-structure and the team. The grease for this machine is the multiple social networks that unite the individuals and provide the conduit for the flow of cognitive and material resources. Therefore, this article examines teams, team organization, and then turns to the role of social networks in teams.

Teams

Defining what constitutes teams may be harder than it first appears. In English, groups and teams are terms that, for the most part, are used interchangeably. However, there are important differences that necessitate researchers treat the two differently. Groups are people who associate for the purpose of socializing and pleasure, like a dinner group or site-seeing group. Teams, on the other hand, are people who associate for the purpose of accomplishing a specific task. Humphrey and Aime (2014) note the embeddedness and the fluidness of teams in the larger organization. Not only can the members of the team change as the tasks change but, teams are often mobile and can move within and between organizations when necessary.

The Conceptualization of Teams

Researchers conceptualize teams as either compositional or compilational. The historical position has been that teams emerge “compositionally.”

Compositional. “Compositional” emergence is defined as the process by which the team arrives at a group consensus and is like-minded. Thus, compositionally, the team is considered homogenous (Emich & Lu, 2016, p.152). This has to do with how the team as a whole views or understands the team environment. Compositional emergence can be measured through mean scores to further understand team efficacy and psychological safety (Emich & Lu 2016). Because of the consensus, or “sharedness” of certain compositional aspects of teams, these characteristics are defined as “shared unit constructs” or properties (Crawford & Lepine, 2013, p. 33).  Ormiston (2016) holds that a multi-level theory based on “optimal distinctiveness theory” (ODT) can explain the impact of personal experiences on team outcomes (p. 223). ODT capitalizes on the uniqueness of the team members.

Compilational. Emich & Lu (2016) propose that individuals are viewed compilationally.  “Compilational” emergence occurs when team members exhibit divergent thoughts, behaviors, characteristics, and motives (Emich & Lu, 2016, p. 152; Crawford & Lepine, 2013, pp. 32-33).  Because teams are composed of unique individuals, this type of emergence is more common (Emich & Lu, 2016) and may result in team conflict. Since compilational emergence is individual and does not represent a grou