Goals, Teamwork, and Work Teams

The workplace today is changing rapidly due to shifts in technology, economics, foreign competition, globalization, and workforce demographics. Organizations increasingly respond to these changes by structuring work around teams that bring together diverse skills, experience, and expertise—rather than relying on traditional structures built around individual contributors (Naquin & Tynan, 2003). In the team-based approach, groups are assembled and given specific tasks or goals to accomplish.

Why Some Teams Succeed and Others Struggle

Despite their popularity, team structures do not always deliver greater productivity—the dynamics of team effectiveness remain an active area of research. Several factors contribute to team failures. Teams can mask members who are not contributing (a phenomenon called social loafing). Poor communication can undermine efficiency, conformity effects can impair decision-making, and interpersonal conflict can derail progress.

The popularity of teams may also be partly explained by the team halo effect: teams tend to receive credit for successes, while individual members are blamed for failures (Naquin & Tynan, 2003). This attribution pattern can make teams appear more effective than they actually are.

Psychological Safety

Research increasingly points to psychological safety as a critical factor in team success. Psychological safety refers to a shared belief that the team environment is safe for interpersonal risk-taking—that members can voice concerns, share ideas, admit mistakes, and ask questions without fear of embarrassment, rejection, or punishment.

A comprehensive 2023 review of psychological safety research identifies four key outcomes: improved task performance, increased learning behaviors, better work experiences, and more effective leadership (Edmondson & Bransby, 2023). Teams with high psychological safety show greater innovation, more knowledge sharing, and better problem-solving. Research consistently finds that inclusive leadership, ethical integrity, and transformational leadership are strongly associated with higher psychological safety, while overly rigid hierarchies tend to suppress employee voice and idea generation.

For team leaders, this research suggests that creating conditions where members feel safe to speak up—even with bad news or unpopular opinions—may be as important as any technical or strategic factor.

Team Diversity

One aspect of team composition that has received substantial research attention is diversity, including gender mix. On one hand, diversity can introduce communication challenges and interpersonal friction; on the other, it can expand the team’s skill set and bring varied perspectives to problem-solving.

Gender Diversity and Team Performance

Hoogendoorn, Oosterbeek, and van Praag (2013) studied project teams in a university business school where gender composition was experimentally manipulated. They found that gender-balanced teams (roughly equal numbers of men and women) outperformed predominantly male teams on measures of sales and profits, though the study could not identify the specific mechanism responsible—whether improved interpersonal dynamics, enhanced learning, or complementary skills.

More recent research reinforces and extends these findings. A 2022 study published in PNAS examining 6.6 million scientific papers found that gender-diverse research teams produce work that is both more novel and more highly cited than single-gender teams. These advantages increased with greater gender balance and appeared nearly universal across team sizes, fields, and leadership configurations (Yang et al., 2022). A 2023 study of video game development teams found that gender diversity alone does not automatically boost creativity—but when combined with genuine inclusion (women integrated into the team’s core network rather than treated as peripheral members), diversity produced meaningful gains (Vedres & Vásárhelyi, 2023).

McKinsey’s 2023 analysis of corporate performance data found that companies with executive teams exceeding 30% women were significantly more likely to financially outperform their peers. Companies in the top quartile for both gender and ethnic diversity were, on average, 9% more likely to achieve above-average profitability.

The pattern across studies suggests that diversity’s benefits are not automatic—they depend on inclusive practices that allow diverse perspectives to actually influence team decisions.

Types of Teams

There are three basic types of teams: problem-resolution teams, creative teams, and tactical teams.

types of teams

• Problem resolution teams are created for the purpose of solving a particular problem or issue; for example, the diagnostic teams at the Centers for Disease Control.
• Creative teams are used to develop innovative possibilities or solutions; for example, design teams for car manufacturers create new vehicle models.
• Tactical teams are used to execute a well-defined plan or objective, such as a police or FBI SWAT team handling a hostage situation (Larson & LaFasto, 1989).

Virtual and Hybrid Teams

A fourth team type—the virtual team—has become central to modern organizational life. Virtual teams bring together geographically dispersed members who collaborate primarily through digital communication technology. 

Virtual teams face distinct challenges. Research finds that remote work can result in more static collaboration networks with fewer spontaneous connections between team members (Yang et al., 2022). Surveys consistently show that remote workers struggle with loneliness (24%), staying motivated (21%), and communication difficulties (17%). Nearly half report difficulty fitting into organizational culture.

Recent research emphasizes that successful virtual teams require more than technology—they depend on deliberate efforts to build connection and trust. Structured team-building activities, regular check-ins, and clear communication norms help maintain cohesion. Leadership in virtual settings requires specific competencies: research suggests that in virtual teams, responsiveness to other team members matters more for perceived leadership than simply dominating discussions (Tsai, 2024). Leaders must also be attentive to work-life boundaries and employee well-being, as the blurring of home and work in remote settings can contribute to burnout.

Organizational Culture

Every organization has a culture—the values, visions, hierarchies, norms, and patterns of interaction that shape how work gets done.

organizational culture

Organizational culture encompasses the values, visions, hierarchies, norms, and interactions among its employees. It is how an organization is run, how it operates, and how it makes decisions—the industry in which the organization participates may have an influence. Different departments within one company can develop their own subculture within the organization’s culture.

Layers of Culture

Ostroff, Kinicki, and Tamkins (2003) identify three layers of organizational culture:

Observable artifacts are the visible symbols of culture: language (jargon, slang, humor), narratives (stories and legends), and practices (rituals and ceremonies) that reflect underlying cultural assumptions.

Espoused values are the concepts and beliefs that management or the organization officially endorses—the stated rules that guide employee behavior and decision-making.

Basic assumptions are the deeper, often unquestioned beliefs that fundamentally shape workplace dynamics. These are typically implicit rather than explicit but powerfully influence behavior.

Diversity and Intergroup Contact

With workplaces spanning the globe—suppliers in Korea, employees in the United States, China, and South Africa—organizations increasingly bring together people from different religious, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds. Many workplaces offer diversity training to help employees understand and bridge cultural differences.

Research supports the value of intergroup contact. Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) conducted a meta-analysis examining whether contact between groups reduced prejudice. They found a moderate but significant positive effect. Importantly, the benefits of contact were enhanced when groups met under conditions of equal status, shared common goals, cooperated with one another, and received institutional support for the contact. Simply working alongside people from different backgrounds—particularly under the right conditions—can reduce prejudice and improve collaboration.

Managing Generational Differences

Today’s workplace spans multiple generations with different formative experiences and expectations. Baby Boomers (born 1946–1964) are largely exiting the workforce, while Generation X (early 1960s–early 1980s) occupies senior leadership positions. Millennials (early 1980s–mid-1990s) are well-established professionals, and Generation Z (1997–2012) represents the newest entrants. In 2024, Gen Z officially surpassed Baby Boomers in workforce representation for the first time and is projected to reach 30% of the workforce by 2030.

Gen Z in the Workplace

Research paints a nuanced picture of Gen Z workers. The Deloitte 2025 Global Survey found that only 6% identify reaching a leadership position as their primary career goal—instead prioritizing learning opportunities, financial security, meaningful work, and well-being. About 40% report feeling stressed or anxious most of the time, with much stemming from work.

Gen Z demonstrates notably short job tenure, averaging just 1.1 years in their first five years of working (compared to 1.8 for Millennials and 2.8 for Gen X). Randstad’s 2025 research suggests this reflects “growth-hunting” rather than disloyalty—seeking development in an environment where entry-level positions have declined 29% since January 2024.

Key Gen Z characteristics include digital fluency (84% prefer apps for HR tasks), values alignment (75% prioritize working for organizations matching their values), mental health awareness (92% of graduates want to discuss wellness at work), flexibility expectations, and diversity focus (83% consider a company’s inclusion record when evaluating employers).

Bridging Generations

Both Millennials and Gen Z challenge traditional assumptions about “paying dues” and prioritizing work above other life domains. Younger generations report lower workplace happiness (35% of Gen Z versus 50% of older generations), suggesting organizations have work to do. At the same time, Gen Z brings rapid technology adoption, fresh perspectives on inclusion, and creative problem-solving. Stanford research suggests Gen Z values—community, global mindset, authenticity—are increasingly shaping workplace culture across all generations.

For managers, the research points toward understanding what motivates individual employees rather than applying one-size-fits-all approaches—appreciating generational patterns while attending to individual differences.