Explain the importance of team building, the stages in the development of team cohesion and analyse the impact of good and poor team cohesion on the British Army, with reference to relevant theorists.

Working in groups can sometimes be a difficult task, regardless of the background of each group member. Sometimes, during the process of working in a group, conflicts may arise which can cause a great deal of friction amongst group members. This conflict however, while it may create some animosity amongst members, if dealt with in the correct manner, could also provide beneficial discussion that may ultimately lead to a more successful group project. The key is to find a means of working through these conflicts before they become a hindrance to overall group performance. If members allow a conflict to go unresolved, a result of such poor group interactivity could significantly impair the overall outcome of the project. By setting ground rules for group discussions, and adhering to the rules agreed to by all members, group interaction can be productive and provide successful results both for the group and its members.

One theorist identifies the categories of attributes of successful teams as falling under individual and relationship issues such as: commitment to the team, improvement of safety, narrowing the discussion, neutralisation of defensiveness, explanation of each perspective, changing of one’s behaviour (compromise) and tracking it, well defined purpose and values, team empowerment, relationships and communication, flexibility, optimal productivity, recognition, appreciation and morale.

The reality is that without conflict, there is no need for a group as the project will inevitably be the voice of the most aggressive. Bringing conflict into the group creates a new dynamic of conversation that, if controlled correctly, can truly enhance the overall outcome of group project.

In order to best understand group conflict, we have to know the meaning of it. Group conflict is defined as "a manner in which collective social behaviour causes groups of individuals to contradict each other." Virtually anything that makes a person an individual could be reason enough for conflict.

With a well established plan of action, conflicts can be resolved without creating irreparable damage within the group. In order to establish these ground rules, all participating parties must be present and all rules must be agreed upon. Without agreement on the rules, the group is setting itself up for disagreement in the future.

This period of relative upheaval then moves into the norming stage where conflicts are settled, new standards are developed by members, and co-operation begins. The team begins to show the first signs of cohesiveness and there is a sense of group identity and camaraderie. An outline of each individual’s duties begins to emerge, responsibilities are clarified and committed and it becomes evident that most members begin to settle down and an established structure begins to develop.

Working practices and patterns of action are set in place and members agree rules amongst themselves as to acceptable behaviour, expected requirements and even taboos. As the members progress through this stage they tend to reconcile their competing differences and responsibilities in accordance with the team's goal. As they work out their differences, the effort of the team is increased and significant progress can be made towards reaching this. As members start to conform to a given set of ideas they will experience feelings of acceptance, relief, trust, and respect.

 

Members of the group start to feel that they belong to it, rather than merely being in it. They begin to share ideas and feelings, give and receive feedback, and generally chat about what is going on and what they are doing. During this period, members of the group feel good about being a part of their group and work together to figure out ways of collaborating and developing closer degrees of relationship and cooperation. The group should have already identified its strengths and weaknesses and the team is better able to deal with conflict should it arise.

Depending on each group’s situation, the conflict will be more or less suppressed, but with some groups it may well still be there. For example competing strategies may be advocated thus forcing the team to chose between them and resistance may arise to the constraints that the group imposes on individuality with some members experiencing pressure with the change in dynamics. Without strong leadership such non-conformity may revert the entire team to the storming stage.

Norming paves the way for the most productive stage: performing. The group is now working effectively both in terms of its goals and its internal relationships. This stage involves all the players working together towards their common goal. Each individual accepts their role and, as roles become more flexible and functional, more proficient members will begin to support others accordingly.

The performing stage for the leader should be less difficult because the group should know their common goal and should be working towards that goal well. The leader now simply tends to delegate and oversee the group as teamwork develops and solutions are found. By this stage performance expectations are well established which results in clear progression towards the goal. Team members feel satisfaction, understanding, cooperation, productivity and a close attachment to the team and there is a greater sense of purpose and interdependency as the team begins to perform competently.

As a result of a clear and organised pattern being established, based on mutual respect, team members are sharing ideas and the drawing out of plans and proposals from all members of the team are welcomed and took on board. Open communication is encouraged and expected and information is freely and openly exchanged among all team members. All members therefore contribute in the best possible way towards the team’s progress, action plans are implemented and progress is made. Moreover the team has a shared vision, is generally self-sufficient and works autonomously with little participation from the leader.

Disagreements may still occur but they are now resolved within the team positively as they make necessary changes to structure. The emphasis is now on reaching the team goals, rather than working on the team process. Relationships are settled, and team members are likely to build loyalty towards each other. This team is now able to manage more complex tasks, and cope with greater change. Not all groups can reach this stage, which is characterised by a state of interdependence and flexibility.

Teams do not develop until the people in them work hard to overcome barriers that stand in the way of collective performance and by overcoming such obstacles together, people on teams build trust and confidence in each other's capabilities. They also reinforce each other's intentions to pursue their team purpose above and beyond individual agendas.

Task cohesion refers to the shared commitment among members to achieving a goal that requires the collective efforts of the group. A group with high task cohesion is composed of members who share a common goal and who are motivated to coordinate their efforts as a team to achieve that goal. As the team develops there should be a conscious balance between task-performance and the well being of team-members, as one will falter without maintaining the other.  

It must be noted that individual goals can lead to competitive rather than co-operative behaviours from group members which is often the case in some ranks of the military. Moreover, individuals with both group and individual goals tend to outperform those with only individual goals. Furthermore, when self-interest prevails, the direction of the team is thwarted; members become more critical to faults within the group, hence blame and criticism becomes more apparent.

“A team is only as strong as the individual members. If individuals don’t have the proper skills to be an effective team member then productivity of the team is compromised.”

According to Adair “a team is more than a group with a common aim. Rather, it is a group in which contributions of individuals are seen as complementary.” Adair further suggests that the test of a good effective team is “whether its members can work together as a team, contributing to a sequence of activities.”

However, successful teams should not limit themselves to just reaching a common goal, they should strive to reach higher ground. Reaching higher ground goes beyond mere agreements among team members. It helps in building effective and highly functioning teams. It nurtures individual development inviting respect, recognition and trust and creates a dream and imagination for the team to break away from any dysfunctional practices.

By creating this personal interaction team members will have much more respect for the others in the group and will be less willing to dismiss their opinions. This creates a much more open, stable environment for discussion thus opening a wider opportunity to select the best applicable approach towards a resolution without the fear that one’s opinion will be struck down. A team displays high social cohesion to the extent that its members like each other, prefer to spend their social time together, enjoy each other's company, and feel emotionally close to one another.

‘With a positive attitude toward team efforts, and with increased opportunity and time to practice teamwork skills, members can develop as an effective working team, and consequently have greater impact in facing problems.’

Being part of a team can offer a sense of belonging and gives members a chance to aid others in their development as well as be aided themselves. “For some, a group is a place to belong, where mutual support, inspiration and trust are offered.” As participants develop stronger relationships with each other through repeated or continued team interaction, the links between the participants become stronger. All good team members work for each other therefore there is no concern for individuals to be prolific unless part of an unsuccessful team. This shows that cohesion has a positive effect on performance. Having too many individuals in a team will result in poor cohesion.

‘Although all the attributes and skills needed for an ideal working relationship are important at every stage, some become more crucial as the team develops and members increase their level of involvement.’

At a minimum, it is important for individual team members to realise the benefits of teamwork and to have a commitment towards working together. Without such elements, further team development will be less likely to occur; ‘conflict, a natural part of the development process, will overpower or dominate the situation, preventing the team from ever reaching its full potential.’

Teams whose members genuinely get along with one another are likely to be more cohesive than those where there is personal disliking, ignorance of others or indifference. Team affinity is aided by team bonding. The common bond could be age, gender, status, experience, outside interests, qualifications and education or shared ambitions.

Working together under stress to overcome difficulty and discomfort in order to accomplish a common goal is a good way to build cohesion in a small team.

Successful teams are interdependent and recognise that the joint contributions of team members will yield a better solution than the individual contributions could.

Dyer demonstrated that the quality of teamwork could comprehensively be assessed by considering six dimensions of the collaborative work process: communication, coordination, balance of member contributions, mutual support, effort, and cohesion. He demonstrated that performance resulting from using both feedback and goals far exceeds the performance benefits of using goals alone. Goals direct behaviour, but the addition of performance feedback informs team members as to their progress and deficiencies.

‘Teams bring together complementary skills and experiences that should collectively exceed those of any individual on the team. If each member participates in a problem-solving role, the potential ways a problem can be solved is increased.’

Team cohesion can be assessed critically in various groups but nowhere more-so than in the armed forces. Military units rely heavily on cohesive teams for both the success of their missions and the safety of their soldiers. As with many arms of the military, soldiers in the British Army hold a high degree of cohesion by virtue of common purpose and in accomplishing high risk missions.

Soldiers are part of a team, and the effectiveness of that team depends on each individual playing his or her part to the full. Soldiers are often required to close with the enemy and fight, operating in the face of mortal danger. Success depends above all else on good morale, which is the spirit that enables soldiers to triumph over adversity. Morale linked to, and reinforced by, discipline.

Military discipline does not just happen. It must be taught by leaders who have the trust of people who will live, and sometimes die, under their command.

Morale consists of many factors, including confidence in equipment, good training and sound administration. But ultimately it is the confidence between commanders, subordinates and individual soldiers. Such confidence is a product of leadership and comradeship. High morale cannot be created overnight. It requires the forging of close bonds of professional and personal trust which will withstand the stresses imposed by the demands of operations. It requires commitment and self- sacrifice and to put the interests of the team and the task ahead of one’s own.

Many soldiers testify that what keeps them there amid the fear of death and mutilation is, above all else, their loyalty to their fellow soldiers. This loyalty was first called cohesion by Ardant Du Picq (a 19th century French officer and student of men in battle).

Values and Standards directly contribute to the Army’s ethos and to fighting power. Upholding them is the collective responsibility of all members of the Army. They are the foundations of teamwork, and are interdependent. If any one of them is lacking, the team and the mission are threatened. They are fostered and enhanced by good leadership, training and man-management, throughout the chain of command.

Cohesion literally means stick together. Bonding in combat has been documented for centuries and a measure of cohesion in the Army is whether a soldier will choose to stay with his friends and face discomfort and danger when given the opportunity or temptation to choose comfort and safety. The extreme measure of cohesion is willingness to die with fellow soldiers rather than leave them to die alone, or to choose certain death in order to save their lives.

Normally, such bonding requires a long period of working together to become strong. However, the addition of danger and potential death which can be prevented only by trust and teamwork, along with living together every day for months on end, forges the bond much faster and stronger. This bonding will include some people whom a person might have expected to dislike intensely due to individual personality differences or ethnic or racial prejudices. However, once these soldiers have proved themselves reliable, trustworthy, and competent, they become bonded ‘brothers in arms.’

Of course personal bonding is not enough to produce a good military unit. It is possible to have teams which share very high personal bonding, but which are not dedicated to the unit’s mission. In that situation, their cohesiveness may be directed solely to keeping each other comfortable and safe. Such teams can be difficult and even dangerous to lead. They may try to take as little risk as possible, and leaders who lead them into danger may find themselves alone and unsupported.

Scores of soldiers will have built good relationships during their training. The majority of who will have been together through basic training before building links with their leaders upon the joining or formation of their unit. The forming of these relationships can be identified as ‘horizontal’ and ‘vertical’ bonding. Horizontal bonding being: ‘the personal loyalty between peers in a small team, complimented by vertical bonding: the personal loyalty and trust between the team's enlisted soldiers and their officer and NCO’s.’ Both types of cohesion develop from strong bonds of mutual confidence, trust and discipline that make survival possible under chaotic wartime conditions.

The British Army’s basic training program keeps soldiers aspiring to join a specific unit or regiment together as much as possible throughout the preliminary stages and, if possible, upon completion. A soldier's identity is still strongly focused on the regiment they serve in, which, with the exception of the Parachute regiment, has a regional basis for recruiting. This maximises their bonding and therefore; upon initiation, their team cohesion. However, they also demand much more of their leaders.

Team cohesion is then strengthened by a sense of the regiment’s military history and by a sense of shared identity which reminds soldiers of how they should act. This sense is called ‘esprit de corps’ (team spirit). Cohesion holds units together; team spirit keeps them dedicated to the mission. Particularly in small units, soldiers come to know and appreciate their peers and leaders. The size of a group is very important in terms of group dynamics and ‘should be large enough for stimulation, yet small enough for contribution and acknowledgment of each member.’ They recognise how all  depend on one another. With this recognition comes a feeling of familiarity and a strong sense of responsibility. This mutual trust, based on personal interaction further strengthens cohesion.

 ‘Personal bonding alone is like steel wire mesh: it is extremely hard to break but easy to bend. Unit identity (or patriotism, or other abstract ideals) is like concrete: it keeps its shape but shatters easily under the pressure and pounding of combat. Combining the two is like reinforced concrete: it neither bends nor breaks. It can only be chipped away chip by chip and is extremely hard to demolish even that way.’

As with any team, Army unit cohesion is not free of potential drawbacks. The possible liabilities resulting from an excessive sense of togetherness could result in soldiers becoming slow to accept and incorporate new recruits. When many veterans are lost as battle casualties in too short a time, the unit may either fail catastrophically, or lose the unit esprit and become totally concerned only with self survival.

‘Without essential factors such as unit cohesion, discipline, and high morale, the armed forces would degrade into disorganised cohorts of self-interested and leaderless young people armed with lethal weapons.’

Failed military engagements, in such events could have been prevented or contained had the group members in those events been sufficiently able to collectively overcome the effects of stress to act in the most productive fashion.

Cohesion and esprit de corps are even more intangible. Where teamwork is built on the willingness of individual team members to subsume their own interests in favour of group interests, esprit de corps is built upon the willingness to sacrifice oneself, if needed, for the interests of the group. This is a level of commitment that few organisations outside of the military possess. The common factor in both teamwork and esprit de corps is cohesion. The difference is one of degree rather than type. Cohesion is simply the degree to which individuals forfeit their own interests for those of the group. In teamwork, individuals are willing to work together to achieve a common goal. The level to which they are willing to sacrifice personal interests will determine the degree to which esprit de corps is a factor.

Organisations such as well-led military units in combat are highly cohesive and are usually characterised as having strong esprit de corps. Poorly led units usually suffer poor cohesion and have low esprit. When this happens, units often disintegrate. A non-virtuous cycle of poor morale and even lower cohesion ensue. Consequently, military commanders zealously guard the morale and cohesion of their units, lest they fall apart under the strain of combat.

One way of building and maintaining high levels of morale, cohesion and esprit de corps include adopting and communicating a higher purpose. For a sports team this is achieved by focusing on victory. The key external factor, on the other hand, is competition from other groups. A sports team may fall apart if it never has any meetings, but as soon as a rival team appears, group cohesion will increase radically, because group members have an incentive to stay in the group and to work together to achieve a common goal: defeat of the rival. The same applies to military forces.

After reviewing military and civilian studies of cohesion and performance,  concluded that it is task cohesion, not social cohesion or group pride that drives group performance. He pointed out that when social cohesion is too high, deleterious consequences can result, including excessive socialising, insubordination, and even mutiny.

Starting with the cohesiveness factor, we know that leaders within the armed forces, in every nation and throughout history, work hard to build cohesion within their military organisations. Training camps, for example, use the principle of replacing a recruit's existing value set with a new one that reflects the values of the military unit. It is the cornerstone that military training is based upon.

The stages in the development of team cohesion are not inevitably clear-cut; they are more a representation of tendencies which many groups veer towards. Groups are often forming and changing, and each time that happens, they can move to a different Stage. A group might be norming or performing, but a new member might force them back into storming.

‘The development of a team might be recycled from any of the final stages to an earlier stage if necessitated by a failure to achieve satisfactory performance or if adjustments to environmental demands are required or if problematic team interactions develop.’

In practice, Tuckman’s model helps us to have more awareness of what is going to happen through the group evolving process, and help it to move to the performing stage. However, some researchers maintain that there is no normal sequence of phases, while others argue that’ there is no evidence for any phases in group development.’

Most of the tools that teams would like to implement fall under the category of improving communication and understanding and organisation. Communication is by far one of the most essential parts of a successful team.

The most important part of overcoming communication barriers is the right choice of words. A single wrong word can cause a lot of misunderstanding. Simple, understandable language is the best means of communication. It is important to be straightforward and clearly express one's opinion without felling threatened by the reactions of the listeners. To minimise group conflict; if team members are upset with one another they should ensure that their emotional state of the mind is not be exhibited during interaction.

It is through communication that we convey our feelings, ideas and emotions to others. When we talk of , it is not just the verbal component that matters. The non verbal message, for example the body language or the tone and volume of our voice have equal importance. Body language should be positive and the voice should be clear and audible thus improving overall interaction. If one’s body language is negative, stiff or uneasy and whilst talking about positive things, it will be immediately evident that that person does not mean what they say. Everything that they do can give off a positive or negative vibe about themselves, which could potentially enhance or worsen communication.

Communication can be identified as the lynchpin behind the success or failure of a team and the fullness and accuracy of information teams receive from the leader will have a profound impact on productivity. If information vital to a project is not received, or is received in an inefficient manner to utilise it correctly, a team is not able to function and a quick resolution is required. Good listening skills are also an integral part of good communication because if information are incorrectly interpreted this can lead to wasted resources on incorrect strategies. Therefore the leader needs to be clear and straight to the point without complicating instructions and be sufficiently audible. The points to be communicated need to be compact and concise without ambiguities and repetitions.

Lack of proper communication often leads to misunderstanding and poor perception.  If the message given out by a person is not clear, then it becomes a barrier. This may happen when sentences are not completed or there is a long pause in between two words or there is no consistency in what is being said. In such a scenario, the listener doubts the credibility and authenticity of the said words.

It is therefore imperative that communication is a prominent attribute for all team members and while discussing an issue, team members should concentrate on the conversation and try not to become distracted by anything in the surroundings and The value of communication increases manifold when it comes to  and team building because of the larger number of people involved, each with their individual viewpoints and varied perceptions.

Dr Meredith Belbin believes that team members can contribute something from their personality and experience to a group and that participants in an effective team care about the group's well-being. Furthermore he suggests that the team can skilfully combine individual talents with a positive team spirit to achieve results. His nine dimensions of involvement should be considered a part of our definition for teamwork.

Belbin’s role of the ‘plant’ is identified as a specialist idea maker. These are very creative and driven people. They tend to have a high IQ and take different approaches to team functioning and problems. Plants are more concerned with major issues than with details. However their weaknesses are a tendency to disregard practical details, be anxious when trying to communicate effectively, take radical approaches, be introverted and more often than not; prefer to work alone. People in this role thrive on praise although they are inclined to take criticism badly and at times may ignore any rules that have been set.

The ‘coordinator’ is often identified as the natural leader. This person is confident, accepting yet dominant and is someone who always listens to others but is strong enough to reject their advice if poor. These individuals are guided by objectives and team goals, rather than personal objectives. They are calm, good at listening, delegating work and recognising the value of other team members. They are the people who must make the best use of the team’s resources, recognise the team’s strengths and weaknesses and ensure the best use of members’ potential. They are confident, stable and mature when clarifying decisions and help everyone focus on their task. However they may be a perceived as being manipulative in their delegation of work and may have a tendency to over-delegate.

According to the model, the ‘monitor’, or ‘evaluator’, is a judicious, prudent, intelligent person with a low need to achieve. Monitors contribute particularly at times of crucial decision making because they are capable of evaluating competing proposals. This is due to their high capability of evaluating different proposals and judging accurately. They are seen as observers of the workload and can see available options and room for improvements with great clarity. They are more likely to come to the right decision as they do work slowly and analytically because of a need to think things over and taking pride in rarely being wrong. They are calm and calculate the best way to go about a task before acting.

The monitor evaluator is not sidetracked by emotional arguments and is serious minded. This may lead to an appearance or being boring and dull or even over-critical. As a result of this they are not recognised for inspiring others, can appear detached or unemotional due to their strategic approach and can be reactive rather than proactive.

Implementers are aware of external obligations and are disciplined, conscientious individuals possessing a good self-image. They tend to be tough-minded, practical, trusting and tolerant when respecting established traditions. They are characterised by low anxiety and tend to work for the team in a practical, realistic way. Implementers figure prominently in positions of responsibility in larger organisations. They tend to do the jobs that others do not want to do and do them well: for example, disciplining employees. They are ultimately responsible for turning ideas into practice and, being results-oriented individuals, ensuring that plans are carried out effectively and efficiently.

Despite being well disciplined they may seem conservative in their ideas and with one trait being systematic this may lead them to be inflexible and slow to respond to new possibilities especially if they mean deviating from their own plans.

The ‘completer’ or ‘finisher’ is the perfectionist in the team. They help the team to avoid mistakes by checking that everything is right to the last detail by double checking everything twice and searching aspects that may need improvement. He or she gives great attention to detail, aims to complete and to do so thoroughly through making a steady effort and being consistent in their work. They are concerned with deadlines and tend to push others toward those deadlines in an orderly and conscientious fashion.

Completers possess a good inward sense of accuracy but may frustrate their team mates with their perfectionism as they tend to worry about small, seemingly insignificant details. In the eyes of some team members such worry may seem unnecessary and if they seem anxious in their work it is because they may have difficulty letting go of their strict adherence to the deadline. They are also not recognised for being interested in the glamour of spectacular success.

The ‘resource investigator’ is someone who explores opportunities. They are good negotiators who probe others for information and support and pick up other’s ideas and develop them. They are characterised by sociability and enthusiasm and are good at cooperative work and exploring resources within the group. These are innovative, curious and enthusiastic people and through an extroverted, positive demeanour, they make other team members receptive to their ideas. At the beginning of a project they provide enthusiasm to the team towards the task and constantly pursue new opportunities. They are a maker of possibilities and an excellent team worker. However they can easily lose momentum towards the end of the project and have a tendency to lose interest after initial fascination with an idea. They may also be seen to be overly optimistic and to ignore the small details.

The ‘shaper’ is a task-focused leader who has high energy levels, the motivation to achieve and for whom winning is the name of the game. The shaper is committed to achieving ends and will ‘shape’ others into achieving the aims of the team and the way in which the team effort is applied. These are dynamic individuals who challenge the team by seeing obstacles as opportunities. They are extroverted and try to avoid complacency by finding the best approach to issues. They can, as a result, be argumentative and cause offence to others in pursuit of their goals.

This role is seen more as a leadership role as they are tasked with putting everyone in their places and provoking them into action. They prosper on pressure and challenge and charge through the hard work whilst challenging others to do the same. They will do whatever it takes including disagreeing and arguing in pursuit of goal achievement which is why they may hurt other member’s feelings.  According to Belbin; having two or three shapers in a group, ‘can lead to conflict, aggravation and in-fighting.’

Team workers make helpful interventions to avert potential friction and enable difficult characters within the team to use their skills to positive ends. They tend to keep team spirit up and allow other members to contribute effectively. Their diplomatic skills, together with their sense of humour, makes them natural, perceptive negotiators and great assets to the team. They tend to have skills in listening, coping with awkward people and to be sociable. These individuals support members in their strengths, underpin members in their shortcomings, improve communication between members and generally foster team spirit. They help everyone understand each other without the need for confrontation and prioritise team cohesion

On the other hand, their flexible approach to work can lead them to be indecisive and uncommitted during periods of pressure and they may be reluctant to do things that might hurt others even if it is the most beneficial course of action for the team as a whole.

The ‘specialist’ provides expert knowledge and technical skills and is there to give

a professional suggestion on the task. They are often highly introverted and anxious yet tend to be self-starting, dedicated and committed. These people focus on the skills and abilities they can bring to the team. They are highly committed but generally only have a narrow contribution to make. Being specialists in their field of work they have greater depth of knowledge on the subject then others and therefore demand a high level of concentration from team members.

Their weaknesses are single-mindedness, a lack of interest in other peoples’ subjects and being so overly focused on technicalities that they fail to appreciate the ‘big picture’. This leads to them being perceived as uninterested in anything which lies outside their specialised subject and they may not be able or willing to contribute in other areas.

In a well developed team it should be possible for all the above roles to be used by more than one member, with each individual leading the group and contributing with their strengths as required.

Typically, most teams have some natural weaknesses, areas of conflict or unrepresented roles which can lead to issues for the team leader. These issues usually surround a duplication of similar roles, or the absence of one or more roles. By comparing the nine Belbin roles to those of the existing team, the team leader can understand how the team members will interact and where gaps and weaknesses lie. Belbin concluded that the ideal team would be composed of one of each of these roles and that the proper allocation of roles can help the group to work together effectively.

An ill-defined structure can create tension and frustration over roles and make it more difficult to spot where key skills are lacking. Teams work best when each member knows their prime function and this requires good organisation within the team. An organisational structure that clearly demarcates different functions, roles and responsibilities allows the best use of resources. It should take full account of competencies required for each job, the overall workload and the need for stability and backup. A plan of action, if organised effectively can be a systematic, integrated and planned approach to improving the effectiveness and teams which maintain the most effective organisation and communication will be best placed to realise their potential, and generate significant results.

Bibliograhy

Adair. J, (1987), ‘Effective Team Building’, Pan MacMillan, London.

Belbin. M, (1981), 2nd edn, ‘Management teams: why we succeed to fail’, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.

Belbin. M, (1993), ‘Team Roles at Work’, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Bennis. W, Parikh. J, & Lessem. R, (1994), ‘Beyond Leadership: Balancing economics, ethics, and ecology’, Blackwell Business, Cambridge.

Blanchard. K, Carew. D, & Parisi-Carew. E, (1996), ‘How to get your group to perform like a team’, in Lafasto. F, & Larson. C, (2002), ‘When Teams Work Best’, Sage, California.

Bloisi. W, Cook. C.W, & Hunsaker. P.L, (2003), ‘Management and Organisational Behaviour’, European Edn. McGraw-Hill, Berkshire.

Brehm. S, Fein. S, & Kassin. S, (2005), ‘Social Psychology’, Houghton-Mifflin, New York.

Brown. A, (1992), ‘Groupwork’, Heinemann, London.

Coulshed. V, & Orme. J, (2006), ‘Social Work Practice’, Macmillan, Palgrave.

DeJanasz, S.C, Dowd, K.O, & Schneider, B.Z, (2002), ‘Interpersonal Skills in Organisations’, McGraw-Hill, New York. P.p. 371-393, 241-259.

Dyer, W.G, (1977), ‘Team Building: Issues and Alternatives’, Addison-Wesley, Boston.

Hackman. J.R, (1987), ‘The design of teams’, Englewood-Cliffs, New Jersey.

Hirokawa. R.Y, & Poole, M.S, ‘Communication and group decision-making’, Sage, California. p.175-196.

Katzenbach, J. R, (1998), ‘Teams at the top: Unleashing the potential of both teams and individual leaders’, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

Kreitner. R, & Kinicki. A, (2004), 6th edn, ‘Organisational Behaviour’, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York. p.414-415.

Lafasto. F, & Larson. C, (2002), ‘When Teams Work Best’, Sage, California.

Lawrence. G, (1993), 3rd edn, ‘Descriptions of the sixteen types’, C.P.T inc, New York.

Locke. E.A, & Latham. G.P, (1990), ‘A theory of goal setting and task performance’, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Lumsden. G, & Lumsden. D, (2002), ‘Communications in Groups and Teams’, Wadsworth, Belmont.

McCoun. R, (1993), ‘What is Known about Unit Cohesion and Military Performance’, National Defense Research Institute, Santa Monica.

McShane. V.G, (2002), 16th edn, ‘Organisational Behaviour’, McGraw-Hill, Boston.

General Sir Richard Dannatt, ‘Values & Standards of the British Army’ from:  cited 10/12/2010

Gersick, C.J.G. (1988), ‘Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development’, The Academy of Management Journal from:  cited 15/12/2010

Porter. S, (2003), ‘Managing Conflict in Learning Teams’, University of Phoenix Learning Team Toolkit, cited 6/12/2010 from:

 cited 6/12/2010

 cited 6/12/2010

 cited 6/12/2010

 cited 10/12/2010

 cited 6/12/2010

 cited 6/12/2010

---