Editing Team (section)

==Team size, composition, and formation==
Team size and team composition affect team processes and team outcomes. The optimal size (and composition) of teams is debated<ref name="UPenn 2006">{{cite web|url=http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/is-your-team-too-big-too-small-whats-the-right-number-2/|title=Is Your Team Too Big? Too Small? What's the Right Number?|date=14 June 2006|website=Knowledge@Wharton|publisher=University of Pennsylvania|access-date=22 November 2014}}</ref> and will vary depending on the task at hand. At least one study of problem-solving in groups showed an optimal size of groups at four members.  Other works estimate the optimal size between 5–12 members or a number of members that can consume two pizzas.<ref name="UPenn 2006" /><ref>Business Insider "The 'Two Pizza Rule' Is Jeff Bezos' Secret To Productive Meetings" [http://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-two-pizza-rule-for-productive-meetings-2013-10]</ref> The following extract is taken from Chong (2007):<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ibam.com/pubs/jbam/articles/vol8/no3/JBAM_8_3_3.pdf|title=Role balance and team development: A study of team role characteristics underlying high and low performing teams|last1=Chong|first1=Eric|date=2007|publisher=Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management, Victoria University of Wellington|access-date=22 November 2014}}</ref>

:The interest in teams gained momentum in the 1980s with the publication of Belbin's (1981)<ref name="Belbin1981">{{cite book|title=Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail|last1=Belbin|first1=R. M.|date=1981|publisher=Butterworth-Heinemann|location=Oxford}}</ref> work on successful teams. The research into teams and teamwork followed two lines of inquiry. Writers such as Belbin (1981, 1993),<ref name="Belbin1981" /><ref>{{cite book|title=Team Roles at Work|last1=Belbin|first1=R. M.|date=1993|publisher=Butterworth-Heinemann|location=Oxford}}</ref> Woodcock (1989),<ref>{{cite book|title=Team Development Manual|last1=Woodcock|first1=M.|date=1989|publisher=Aldershot|location=Gower}}</ref> Margerison and McCann (1990),<ref>{{cite book|title=Team Management|last1=Margerison|first1=C.|last2=McCann|first2=D.|date=1990|publisher=W. H. Allan|location=London}}</ref> Davis et al. (1992),<ref name="Davis et al. 1992">{{cite book|title=Successful Team Building: How to Create Teams that Really Work|last1=Davis|first1=J.|last2=Millburn|first2=P.|last3=Murphy|first3=T.|last4=Woodhouse|first4=M.|date=1992|publisher=Kogan Page|location=London}}</ref> Parker (1990),<ref name="Parker 1990">{{cite book|title=Team Players and Teamwork: The Competitive Business Strategy|url=https://archive.org/details/teamplayersteamw00park|url-access=registration|last1=Parker|first1=G. M.|date=1990|publisher=Jossey-Bass|location=Oxford}}</ref> and Spencer and Pruss (1992)<ref>{{cite book|title=Managing your team|last1=Spencer|first1=J.|last2=Pruss|first2=A.|date=1992|publisher=Piatkus|location=London}}</ref> focused on team roles and how these affected team performance. These studies suggested that team performance was a function of the number and type of roles team members played. The number of roles for optimal performance varied from 15 (Davis et al., 1992)<ref name="Davis et al. 1992" /> to four (Parker, 1990).<ref name="Parker 1990" /> This variation has been attributed to how roles were defined. Lindgren (1997)<ref>{{cite book|title=R Meredith Belbin's Team Roles Viewed from the Perspective of the Big 5: A Content Validation|last1=Lindgren|first1=R.|date=1997|publisher=University of Oslo|location=Oslo}}</ref> believed that, in a social psychological sense, ‘roles’ were behaviours one exhibited within the constraints assigned by the outside world to one's occupational position e.g. leader, manager, supervisor, worker etc. Personality traits, on the other hand, were internally driven and relatively stable over time and across situations. These traits affected behavioural patterns in predictable ways (Pervin, 1989)<ref>{{cite book|title=Personality: Theory and Research|last1=Pervin|first1=L.|date=1989|publisher=Wiley|edition=5th|location=New York}}</ref> and, in varying degrees, become part of the ‘role’ definition as well.
:The other line of inquiry focused on measuring the ‘effectiveness’ of teams. Writers such as Deihl and [[Wolfgang Stroebe|Stroebe]] (1987),<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Deihl|first1=M.|last2=Stroebe|first2=W.|author-link2=Wolfgang Stroebe|date=1987|title=Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: towards the solution of a riddle|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=53|issue=3|pages=497–509|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497}}</ref> Gersik (1988),<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Gersick|first1=C. J. G.|date=1988|title=Time and transition in work teams: toward a new model of group development|journal=Academy of Management Journal|volume=31|issue=1|pages=9–41|jstor=256496}}</ref> Evenden and Anderson (1992),<ref>{{cite book|title=Making the Most of People|last1=Evenden|first1=R.|last2=Anderson|first2=G.|date=1992|publisher=Addison-Wesley|location=Cambridge, MA}}</ref> Furnham et al. (1993),<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Furnham|first1=A.|last2=Steele|first2=H.|last3=Pendleton|first3=D.|date=1993|title=A psychometric assessment of the Belbin team role self-perception inventory|journal=Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology|volume=66|issue=3|pages=245–257|doi=10.1111/j.2044-8325.1993.tb00535.x}}</ref> Cohen and Ledford (1994)<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Cohen|first1=S. G.|last2=Ledford|first2=G. E. Jr.|year=1994|title=The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasi-experiment|journal=Human Relations|volume=47|pages=13–43|doi=10.1177/001872679404700102|s2cid=145643669}}</ref> and Katzenbach (1998)<ref>{{cite book|title=Teams at the Top: Unleashing the Potential of Both Teams and Individual Leaders|last1=Katzenbach|first1=J. R.|date=1998|publisher=Harvard Business School Press|location=Boston, MA}}</ref> were concerned with high performing teams and the objective measurement of their effectiveness. McFadzean (2002)<ref>{{cite journal|last1=McFadzean|first1=E.|date=2002|title=Developing and supporting creative problem-solving teams: Part 1 – a conceptual model|journal=Management Decision|volume=40|issue=5/6|pages=463–476|doi=10.1108/00251740210430443}}</ref> believed that the appearance of a number of models of team effectiveness was indicative of a variety of variables such as personality, group size, work norms, status relationships, group structure etc. that can impact on team ‘effectiveness’ and its measurement.

[[David Cooperrider]] suggests that the larger the group, the better. This is because a larger group is able to address concerns of the whole [[system]]. So while a large team may be ineffective at performing a given task, Cooperider says that the relevance of that task should be considered, because determining whether the team is effective first requires identifying what needs to be accomplished.

[[File:Bullock wagon Promontory Road.jpg|thumb|A team of [[ox]]en yoked together]]
Regarding composition, all teams will have an element of homogeneity and heterogeneity.  The more homogeneous the group, the more cohesive it will be. The more heterogeneous the group, the greater the differences in perspective and increased potential for [[creativity]], but also the greater potential for conflict.

Team members normally have different roles, like team leader and agents. Large teams can divide into subteams according to need.

Many teams go through a life-cycle of stages, identified by [[Bruce Tuckman]] as: [[Forming-storming-norming-performing|forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning]].