We have over 12,000 students, from over 100 countries, within one of the safest campuses in the UK


97% of Lancaster students go into work or further study within six months of graduating

Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Real teams or pseudo teams? The changing landsc...
View graph of relations

« Back

Real teams or pseudo teams? The changing landscape needs a better map

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article


<mark>Journal publication date</mark>2012
<mark>Journal</mark>Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Number of pages4
<mark>Original language</mark>English


At the outset, Tannenbaum et al. provide two well-cited definitions of “team” from the literature and conclude that most teams in research studies share a few key characteristics in common. However, a number of other equally valid and well-recognized definitions exist (e.g., Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Devine, Clayton, Phillips, Dunford, & Melner, 1999; Hackman, 2002; Salas, Stagl, Burke, & Goodwin, 2007; West, 2012) and include subtle yet theoretically meaningful differences (e.g., in relation to boundedness of team membership). The problem of unclear or contested definitions raises crucial questions: What characteristics distinguish an authentic or real organizational team from a loose group of individuals perhaps co-acting in close physical or virtual proximity? Which individuals constitute team members and which individuals are simply other organizational members who interact more or less closely with the team? How can we ensure that there is conceptual precision when accumulating and synthesizing research findings across studies on teams in organizations? Without greater precision about what characterizes a team, we cannot identify the types of collectives that warrant inclusion in our studies.