A Framework for Team Building

So what does team building mean for you? This is question we ask our clients and rarely get the same answer twice. "Team building" has become a catch-all phrase used to describe everything from recreational outings like bowling or golf to skill-building adventures like team sailing or ropes courses to facilitated interventions to resolve conflicts or set strategies.

At Adventure Associates, we have a narrower definition of team building: a structured team event which enables and encourages individuals to practice group process skills like communication, problem-solving and decision-making. We also happen to believe that these skill-building sessions are more impactful and palatable when framed within a fun and adventurous setting.

There's nothing wrong with paint-ball, harbor cruises, go-kart racing or scavenger hunts. They just don't fit within our definition of team building because there's no opportunity to practice team skills and processes. We take our fun very seriously.

Building a great team is a complex process and certainly can't be done through one or two off-site events. American culture espouses rugged individualism and self-determination, so most of us are not naturally-inclined to work as a team. A majority of the experience and instruction we do get in teams is through, for example, sports or debate teams. These teams have a hierarchy with a coach in charge, and a group of equal (or near-equal) peers fulfilling objectives set outside of the group.

But in the workplace, teams need to be self-directed and able to coach each other. And very few work teams are comprised of "equals." There can be a wide range of skills, experience and authority on a team. Left to their own devices, teams won't naturally develop into high-performing engines for work. Quite the opposite.

In a co-authored study, Stuart Bunderson, associate professor of organizational behavior at the Olin School of Business at Washington University in St. Louis, group status hierarchies were examined.

They found that group status hierarchies form around perceptions of relative expertise and often have dysfuncitonal side effects. Specifically, he found that group members felt more committed to and were more likely to help those members who were percieved to have a higher level of expertise--and were therefore seen has having a higher status on the team.

As a result of this dynamic, less-expert members don't always benefit from the advice and assistance of their more-expert colleagues. The results of this study suggest that we may have to be more deliberate about getting team members to share their expertise with one another than one might assume.