Week 7 discussion

Post ID: 3405981

Differentiate the usage of the following words: a team, a group, a club, a gang, and a committee.
Read the article by Tannenbaum et al. (2012) from this week's readings.
Tannenbaum et al. (2012) identify 3 change themes that were affecting teams at the time of the writing of the article.

Teams Are Changing- Are Research and Practice Evolving Fast Enough_.pdf

Choose ONE of their themes and find ONE new research article from the COVID era that updates their conclusions on that topic.
Provide a summary of that article, how it relates to current events (i.e., COVID, remote work), and provide the PDF for the class to read.

Select the "Week 6 Discussion" link above. Then, in the Week 6 Discussion forum, select "Reply" to add your response to the discussion questions. You must make a minimum of four substantive contributions on two separate days of the learning week to the discussion topic. Read over the course syllabus and the grading rubric for discussions before posting. For your initial discussion response use the course textbook and one peer-reviewed journals, scholarly source or two peer-reviewed journals, scholarly sources for the information you are paraphrasing and citing is due by Wednesday. Provide three student responses during the week with at least one scholarly source you are paraphrasing and citing each time. Do not post all three responses only on Saturday and Sunday, which doing so does not contribute to effective weekly engagement with your fellow students. All posts need to be completed before 6:00 PM EST on Sunday. Be sure to adhere to American Psychological Association (APA) 7th ed. style. Additionally, you are required to respond to questions asked by your professor.

Uchechukwu Onwuchekwa

Jun 18, 2025 11:08 PM

NEW

Hello Professor and Class,

Differentiate the usage of the following words: a team, a group, a club, a gang, and a committee.

A group refers to two or more individuals who interact and influence one another (Muchinsky & Howes, 2020). Groups may form for various reasons, such as social, professional, or situational, and do not necessarily require a shared goal beyond interpersonal interaction. A team is a specific type of group characterized by interdependence, common goals, and specific roles (Muchinsky & Howes, 2020). Teams are purpose-driven and often found in organizational settings where members must collaborate to achieve complex tasks (Salas et al., 2005).

A club is a voluntary group formed around shared interests or hobbies, often lacking the formal structures of accountability found in teams or committees. Clubs provide social engagement and belonging but are not usually performance-oriented (Hogg & Reid, 2006). An example is a book club that meets regularly for discussions but does not have goal-driven tasks requiring coordination.

A gang, while also a group, typically denotes a deviant or antisocial subculture. Gangs often feature strong in-group identification, hierarchy, and territoriality, with group cohesion maintained through shared norms and often illegal behavior (Decker & Curry, 2002). Unlike clubs or teams, gangs are more often studied in criminology and social psychology rather than organizational behavior.

A committee is a formal group within organizations or institutions, established to deliberate specific issues or policies (Wheelan, 2009). Committees generally have defined authority, structure, and procedural rules. They differ from teams in that their output is typically advisory or decision-based, rather than task- or product-oriented (Forsyth, 2018).

Understanding these distinctions is important for effective group management, role assignment, and organizational development. Mislabeling a group as a team, for instance, might lead to unrealistic performance expectations or confusion over roles and responsibilities (Muchinsky & Howes, 2020).

Tannenbaum et al. (2012) highlight three major trends reshaping teams: dynamic composition, technology and distance, and empowerment and delayering. I will focus on technology and distance, which concerns how advancements in communication tools—and especially the rise of geographically dispersed teams—affect team coordination and cohesion.

COVID-Era Research Update on “Technology and Distance”

Maurer et al. (2022) conducted a mixed-methods study examining four previously collocated teams in a German firm, focusing on their transition to fully remote work during the spring 2020 COVID-19 lockdown. Utilizing quantitative email-network analysis alongside qualitative interviews, the authors found that:

Flat hierarchies and self-managed structures facilitated teams in adapting to spatial dispersion while maintaining communication efficacy.
Remote work increased the prominence of subgroup divisions; however, strong team cohesion, shared identity, and individuals acting as communication brokers mitigated negative effects on performance.
The prior adoption of self-managed organizational structures fostered a culture of trust and responsibility, which aided in remote coordination.

How this aligns with current events:

The study reflects the shift to remote work necessitated by the pandemic and emphasizes that technology, when utilized within supportive frameworks, can maintain team functionality despite physical separation. It highlights that pre-existing team structures are significant: teams with a history of decentralized communication adapt more effectively to remote settings (Maurer et al. (2022). These findings align with broader themes in remote workHow this aligns with current events:

In conclusion, Tannenbaum et al. (2012) predicted the role of technology in transforming team dynamics. Maurer et al. (2022) empirically validate and expand on these ideas within the context of the pandemic, demonstrating that technology, when combined with robust self-management and cohesion, can indeed support the effectiveness of remote teams.

References

Decker, S. H., & Curry, G. D. (2002). Gangs, gang homicides, and gang loyalty: Organized crimes or disorganized

criminals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(4), 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(02)00134-4

Forsyth, D. R. (2018). Group dynamics (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Hogg, M. A., & Reid, S. A. (2006). Social identity, self‐categorization, and the communication of group norms.

Communication Theory, 16(1), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00003.x

Maurer, M., Bach, N., & Oertel, S. (2022). Forced to go virtual: Working‑from‑home arrangements and their effect

on team communication during COVID‑19 lockdown. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 36(3),

238–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/23970022221083698

Muchinsky, P. M., & Howes, S. S. (2020). Psychology applied to work (12th ed.). Hypergraphic Press.

Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “Big Five” in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36(5), 555–599.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496405277134

Wheelan, S. A. (2009). Group size, group development, and group productivity. Small Group Research, 40(2), 247–

262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408328703

Chapman

Jun 18, 2025 10:30 PM
NEW
Good evening, Dr. Whitaker and class,
Differentiation of Terms
Businesses operate at multiple levels: individual, teams, and organizational. Individual employees join together, by choice or assignment, as a bonded group with a common objective to form a team (Howes & Muchinsky, 2022). However, there exist other ways to categorize multiple individuals who come together. For instance, a group occurs when two or more form a unit, a club is an association of people with a common characteristic or objective, a gang can be an unlawful group or those with an informal social bond, but a committee applies to a delegated body with a common task (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). The definitions described for people coming together highlight the various reasons and causes for gathering, and can also be applied to the workplace.
The Three Change Themes
Working together in teams takes on new meaning and challenges in a rapidly changing business world. To that end, three change themes influencing team performance through teamwork emerged from research: dynamic composition, technology and distance, and empowerment and delayering (Tannenbaum et al., 2012). Each theme emerges as previous assumptions about teams and teamwork evolve as organizations increase in diversity of employees, geography, and the skills required for ongoing success. Empowerment and delayering examine leadership and decision-making in teams with decreases in hierarchical management (Tannebaum et al., 2012). In a post-pandemic world, research in empowerment and hybrid work environments continues to change and impact the current workforce.
New Research on Empowerment and Teams
During the pandemic, hybrid teams work emerged as one approach organizations turned to for continued productivity. Oleksa-Marewska & Tokar (2022) found that when examining what leadership strategies support positive well-being and job satisfaction among international hybrid medical workers, adaptability accounted for the greatest variance. Employee well-being directly impacts any teams setting. Leadership that starts with adaptability, then builds involvement through empowerment and team orientation, a shared vision, clear goals, consistency, and effective communication, combined with credibility and self-development, contributes to building an effective hybrid work environment. The principles that support hybrid work also apply to working in any team setting, allowing individuals to bond together with a clear, common objective.
References
Howes, S. S., & Muchinsky, P. M. (2022). Psychology Applied to Work. Northfield: Hypergraphic.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 6 18, 2025, from Merriam-Webster.com dictionary: www.merriam-webster.com
Oleksa-Marewska, K., & Tokar, J. (2022). Facing the post-pandemic challenges: The role of leadership effectiveness in shaping the affective well-being of healthcare providers working in a hybrid work mode. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14388). doi:10.3390/ijerph192114388
Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cohen, D. (2012). Teams are changing: Are research and practices evolving fast enough? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 2-24. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01396.x

Bruno Aun

Jun 18, 2025 8:35 PM

NEW

Hello Dr. Whitaker and Class,

Technology and Distance in Modern Teams

The words team, group, club, gang, and committee are often used interchangeably in casual speech but hold distinct meanings in organizational psychology. A team is a structured, interdependent collective focused on a shared mission, often requiring specific roles and collaboration (Salas et al., 1992). A group may simply denote people gathered for a shared interest without the same degree of coordination. A club typically reflects voluntary affiliation around common interests, often for recreation or social bonding. A gang carries informal or illicit connotations, emphasizing strong loyalty but often lacking formal structure or legitimate goals. A committee, in contrast, is a formal, often bureaucratic unit created to deliberate or decide on specific issues, with defined membership and governance.

In their foundational article Teams Are Changing, Tannenbaum et al. (2012) highlight three transformational themes affecting teams: dynamic composition, technology and distance, and empowerment/delayering. This discussion focuses on the second theme - Technology and Distance - which addresses how teams are increasingly operating virtually, using digital platforms across time zones and cultural divides. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, teams faced challenges maintaining trust, cohesion, and effective communication when not co-located. Technology created new pathways but also introduced complexity, particularly in how teams build relationships and stay aligned across distance.

To explore how this theme evolved during the COVID era, I examined two peer-reviewed studies that extend Tannenbaum et al.’s conclusions. The first, Surviving the Pandemic through Virtual Leadership to Remote Work Teams by Al Samman & Muttar (2022), investigates how virtual leadership helped governmental organizations manage remote teams from 2020 to 2022. The authors surveyed 300 employees in Bahrain and found a strong positive correlation between effective virtual leadership and team performance. Key findings emphasize the importance of timely communication, goal-setting, and structured feedback loops. Leaders who were able to leverage digital tools while maintaining relational engagement significantly improved team morale and effectiveness. These results reinforce Tannenbaum et al.’s early prediction that virtual teamwork requires not just access to technology, but new leadership practices that foster trust and cohesion across virtual boundaries.

The second study, The Impact of Remote Work on Team Collaboration and Communication by Ghar (2024), offers qualitative insights from 20 IT professionals in Kolkata. This thesis found that remote work improved productivity and work–life balance, but also disrupted informal communication and weakened team cohesion. Tools like Zoom and Slack supported structured exchanges but failed to replicate the spontaneity of in-person dialogue. This directly echoes Tannenbaum’s observation that technology alone cannot sustain effective teamwork; human interaction must be intentionally cultivated. Ghar recommends hybrid models and the redesign of digital tools to support richer communication experiences. Importantly, the study integrates frameworks like Media Richness Theory and the Technology Acceptance Model to explain why remote communication often falters; not because of lack of tools, but due to how users perceive and apply them.

Together, these articles show that the pandemic didn’t just accelerate technological adoption - it forced a transformation in how teams relate, collaborate, and are led across space. While Tannenbaum et al. (2012) anticipated these issues, recent research shows that leadership adaptability, intentional communication practices, and hybrid models are now essential for effective team functioning in a post-COVID landscape.

These insights offer concrete applications for today’s organizations. As teams continue to work remotely or in hybrid formats, success will depend less on the tools themselves and more on how leaders and members use them to create connection, clarity, and shared purpose.

References

Al Samman, A., & Muttar, A. K. (2022). Surviving the Pandemic through Virtual Leadership to Remote Work Teams. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICETSIS55481.2022.9888938

Ghar, S. (2024). The Impact of Remote Work on Team Collaboration and Communication.

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10221.40169

Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cohen, D. (2012). Teams Are Changing: Are Research and Practice Evolving Fast Enough? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01396.x