Team Talk: The Power of Language in Team Dynamics
Anne Donnellon
ISBN 0-87584-619-X
Harvard Business School Press, 1996

(p. 4) "However, there is no solid evidence that teams at the
professional and managerial level have delivered on their promise. 
Instead there is a mounting sense of disillusionment, skepticism, and
even cynicism about team work.  Managers privately express frustration
with the time and costs associated with development of teams and keen
disappointment with the results their teams are delivering.  Team
members voice their considerable doubts about management's commitment to
teams 'as the way to do our work,' in part to justify their own neglect
or counterproductive behavior vis-a-vis the team.  Anecdotal evidence is
beginning to suggest that companies, teams, and individuals are finding
the transition to teams very slow and very painful."

"Clearly, one of the reasons that teams are failing to meet expectations
is that they are being used when they are not needed; that is, teams are
being used inappropriately to do work that individuals can manage more
efficiently."

"The type of task that needs teams of professional and managerial level
employees is one that requires the continuous integration of knowledge,
experience, or perspective that cannot be found in one person but rather
is distributed among several people."

"...we know the critical success factors for creating successful teams:
    clear and engaging direction
    specific goals
    appropriate membership
    agreement on work procedures
    team accountability
    adequate resources
    appropriate information, education, and rewards."

(p.6) "Talk is the sine qua non of team work at the professional level. 
For teams (though not necessarily for individual team members), the work
they do _as a unit_ is conversational.  The conversations may be face to
face, fax to fax, over the phone, or through electronic mail, but
regardless of the channel used, teams do their work through language. 
That is, the work of most professional or managerial teams is to
construct new meanings--in the form of new product developments,
enhanced processes, or the solution to a vexing problem--by sharing and
integrating their knowledge.  Team work is essentially a linguistic
phenomenon."

    Talk plays other powerful roles in team work.
    1. reflects people's thoughts and feelings
    2. creates thoughts and feelings in the listeners (and sometimes in
the speaker)
    3. enhances or inhibits relationships, problem solving, and learning
    
    Consider a member who interrupts others, ask questions but doesn't
wait for answers, and makes jokes at the expense of other team members.
this way of talking displays perception of greater power.

(p. 10) "A team, as I define it, is a group of people who are necessary
to accomplish a task that requires the continuous integration of the
expertise distributed among them."

(p. 12)  "Team work is inherently paradoxical, in that it comprises
apparently contradictory elements, each of which is true.  Team work
requires differentiation among members and integration of members into a
single working unit.  The differences of knowledge, skill, experience,
and perspective among team members are definitional.  Without them, the
team task cannot be accomplished, yet that task also demands that those
different talents or insights be combined or integrated such that the
members act as one. ... The paradox of team work is that a balancing
must occur between differentiation and integration."

"four of the common paradoxes of group life:  the paradox of
individuality, the paradox of identity, the paradox of interdependence,
and the paradox of trust."

"The paradox of individuality...is that the only way for a group to
become a group is for individuals to express their individuality and to
work on developing it as fully as possible, yet the only way for
individuals to become fully individuated is for them to accept and
develop more fully their connections to the group."

(p. 14)  "...This (cultural comparison data) suggests that American team
members facing demanding team work situations will be likelier to
resolve the personal tensions they experience by doing what is best for
them as individuals.  This is the safest, the most familiar, and usually
what the organization rewards.  In so doing, team members emphasize
their differences, making it harder to keep the necessary balance
between differentiation and integration."

"The paradox of identity is that to be an individual, a person must
integrate the variety of groups to which he or she belongs.  In order to
be a group, a collection of individuals must integrate the large array
of individual differences that the members represent."

"The practical reality of organizational life is that over time people
come to identify with their work groups.  Research on groups, work
roles, and professionalization consistently shows that this
identification leads people to adopt the values, attitudes, and work
habits of the group.  Membership in multiple groups causes individuals
to experience internal conflict, stress, and uncertainty."

"The paradox of interdependence is that, while 'a group can function
only if members are able to depend on each other ... [and] ultimately
this mutual dependency ... makes the group a group,' effective team work
also depends upon some measure of independence in each member as well. 
Independence enables and motivates team members to import necessary
information to the team and to exercise independent judgment in the face
of groupthink.  Thus both dependence and independence are necessary to
ensure the viability of the team."

"The paradox of trust is that in teams, 'one needs to trust others ...
where the development of trust depends on trust already existing. 
Before we are willing to trust others, we want to know how they will
respond.'  Team members must trust one another, while at the same time
remaining vigilant."

(p. 19) "The feelings evoked by the paradoxical experiences that
individuals have in team settings have a powerful impact on their
behavior.  Some of the individuals interviewed appeared to be paralyzed
into inertia by the contradictory impulses, making an instinctive choice
only when forced to do so.  Others vacillated between the two extremes
of the various paradoxes.  Most of those interviewed, though, seemed
inclined to resolve these paradoxes by tilting in the direction that
their own individual preferences pushed them.  As discussed above, the
tilting was toward individuality, functional identification,
independence, and distrust.  Each of these inclinations led individuals
on teams to talk and act in ways that differentiated them from other
team members rather than in the ways that would integrate.  The
cumulative effect was that the teams could not achieve the necessary
balance between the two critical functions of team work [differentiation
and integration]"

"Organizational systems and structures can either reinforce those
individual tendencies and compound the problems of teams, or they can
create incentives for individuals to act differently.  Paradoxes in the
organizational systems can heighten the sense of paralysis, amplify the
vacillation, and produce ineffective or destructive team talk,
problematic team dynamics, and disappointing outcomes.  Contradictory
pressures on teams from the organization can also engender
disillusionment with teams and cynicism about management's commitment to
the espoused goals of the organization."

(p. 20)  "...I found that competitive challenges have created a powerful
set of contradictory messages and pressures on employees, painfully
experienced by professionals working on teams.  Trained in specialized
fields of knowledge, conditioned to seek individual recognition and
independence, led to believe that control is paramount and competition
between functions within the organization will yield the best results,
they find it extremely difficult to meet new demands for cooperation,
information sharing, and joint decision making."

(p. 22) "How can organizations use teams as the vehicle for the required
change?  How can they keep from reproducing in teams the dynamics of
functional competition, antagonism, and distrust they seek to replace
with cross-functional collaboration?  How do they break the cycle of
negative mutual influence?"

"...to assimilate teams into the existing categories of organizational
meaning (hierarchical prerogatives, functional division of labor,
individual accountability, and an orientation to control) is to gain
little from a change that, even if minimally implemented, can cause much
disturbance in the system."

(p. 23)  "The solution started with the determination that teams are
required for the achievement of the division's goals.  Guided by a
willingness to acknowledge and explore the novelty and complexity of
team work, the people in this division set in motion a process of
continuous _accommodation_ of the organization to the requirements of
team work.  Their initial accommodations to team work included training
all team members in this new way of working, assembling teams through
recruitment for skills rather than through assignment by position,
giving professionals choice over what team(s) to join, and allowing
teams to establish their own goals.  Over time, many other
accommodations were made: training was expanded to include all managers
and executives, managerial roles were clarified, and the orientation to
control was reduced."

(p. 26) Important Dynamics

1.  Identity crises.  Team members typically come into teams identifying
more strongly with their functional group, yet the team's shared goals
impose a new common identity on them, which may conflict with their
functional identity.

2.  A requirement to manage interdependence.  By virtue of their team
membership, individuals who are trained and socialized to think and act
independently must learn how to act when they are interdependent.

3.  A requirement to manage power differences.  To manage differences
and interdependencies without threatening a precarious team identity,
teams need to manage the power differences among team members.

4.  A potential for social closeness.  Given the shared identity and
diversity of team members, how close are team members socially?

5.  The inevitability of conflict.  Differences of perspective, opinion,
and interests within a team inevitably create conflict; whether it is
constructive or destructive conflict is critical to team effectiveness.

6.  A requirement for negotiation.  To resolve the crises and conflicts
created by diversity and interdependence, teams need to negotiate.

(p. 27)  "...Teams typically do not examine their dynamics or diagnose
and treat their causes.  Instead team members tend to blame one another
for the problems the team experiences..."

Dimensions, forms and examples of team talk

1. Identification (with what group team members identify)
    A. Functional identification
    Inclusive pronouns refer to functional groups "we", "our", "us"
    References to functional groups
    B.  Team identification
    Inclusive pronouns refer to team "we", "our", "us"

2. Interdependence (whether team members feel independent from or
interdependent with one another)
    A. Independence forms
    Explicit reference to independence "We can do this without xxx
        input"
    Assertions of individual intent "I'm going to do yyy"
    Challenges to others
    Failure to respond to questions
    B. Interdependence forms
    Acknowledgment of mutual interests "If we do this, we'll xxxx"
    Expressions of own needs "I need to know your opinion before I go
        on"
    Soliciting of other views and needs "How do you feel about this"
    Proposals of joint actions "Let's review our progress to date"
    Explicit reference to interdependence "We need to decide whether this
        meets our goals."

3. Power differentiation (how much team members use the differences in
their organizational power)
    A.  High
    Dominating the floor
    Interruptions
    Questioning
    Certainty "This is the wrong way to do this."
    Challenges "Why do you think that?"
    Challenges to competence "Do you have an agenda for this meeting?"
    Corrections "That's not right"
    Directness "I want you to do this by tomorrow"
    Leading questions "Did you tell you would have that report done
        today?"
    Orders  "Tell me what happens at that meeting"
    Repetition of questions
    Topic change "Moving along, what about X?"
    Verbal aggression "If you can't do the work, we'll have to find
        someone else"
    Excessive or asymmetrical politeness "Would you be so kind as to
        ..."
    B. Low
    Apologies   "Sorry.  My other meeting ran over time."
    Disassociation of self from request "The team will need you to take
        this to management"
    Disclaimers "I'm no engineer, but..."
    Indirect question "Is there a way that this could be done quickly?"
    Hedges "I'm thinking out loud here, but..."
    Politeness "John, could you please tell us more about that?"
    Stating one's debt to other "I'm indebted to you for your
        participation"

4.  Social distance (whether team members feel close to or distant from
one another socially)
    A.  Social Distance Forms
    Accounts using formal language "Our perspectives are convergent"
    Formal forms of address "Mr. Smith..."
    Excessive politeness "Would you be so kind as to ..."
    Impersonal requests or assertions "Is it possible for you to review
        this quickly?"
    Literal response to question about relationship Q: What does your
        other commitment do to our 4:30 meeting?  A: Shortens it.
    Disagreement, disconfirmation
    failure to acknowledge or respond to others' comments
    B.  Social Closeness forms
    Casual style, use of slang
    Use of nicknames
    Slurring of pronounciation or ellipsis
    Claiming commonalities in group membership "We're all xxxx"
    Claiming common views "I see what you mean"
    Displaying knowledge and concern for other's wants "You're asking
        whether you really need to do the paperwork, right?"
    Empathy "I understand your dilemma"
    Expressions of liking or admiration "I knew you could do it"
    Expressions of reciprocity or cooperation "I owe you"
    Familiar address
    Similar language
    Humor

5.  Conflict management tactics (whether members use the tactics of
force or collaboration to manage their conflicts)
    A. Forcing/Avoiding/Accommodating forms
    Directives "Do it in the format she needs"
    Threats "We'll have to take this up with your boss"
    Acquiescence "Okay, whatever you want, just tell me."
    Use of power differences
    Voting (Majority rule) "How many think we should pursue this?"
    B. Confronting Collaborating forms
    Expression of interest, problem, need "To get you timely feedback, I
        need the specs soon"
    Questions seeking others' needs "What do you need to know from us to
        do it?"
    Synthesis of interests "If you drop that requirement, I can meet the
        others."
    Nonthreatening tone to debates "We could look at these data another
        way"
    Restatement of dissenting views "You are saying you're not persuaded
        that we need this?"
    Analysis of implications or consequences "If we go that route, what
        are the associated costs?"

6.  Negotiation process (whether the team uses a win-lose or a win-win
process)
    A. Win-Lose forms
    Expressions of positions "We have always said we need A before B"
    Lexicon of debt, concession "We'll be selling everyone out"
    Use of power differences to win
    B. Win-Win forms
    Reframing or reinterpreting in light of others' ideas "So, as long
        as we cover the costs, I can speed up the..."
    Exploration of implications "How would it affect you if I..."
    What-if questions "What if we justified the additional costs?"
    Using objective criteria for resolution "What data do we all need to
        persuade us?

(p. 35) Research on groups has repeatedly found that the display of
power differences within groups produces numerous negative effects, from
the suppression of opinions to conformity of behavior.  Given that
groups solve problems better and make decisions more effectively than
individuals _because_ multiple perspectives and sources of knowledge and
skill are brought to bear on the problem, the persistent use of power
differences in teams is likely to affect teams' performance negatively."