Contrast and Comparison of Two Teams and Their Work

Cite this


The successful work of any organisation and its ability to attain outlined goals depend on multiple factors, external and internal ones. However, the work of specialists or employees is viewed as the fundamental component of all units as they are the main performers and contributors. The aligned work of teams is the key to accomplishing existing tasks, overcoming challenges and can help to create the basis for future development. At the same time, the ineffective collaboration, conflicts, and inability to establish a positive climate might hinder progress and worsen outcomes (Kinicki and Williams, 2019). That is why the formation and functioning of teams are given much attention as the leading issue influencing organisations’ ability to function effectively (Potter and Kavanagh, 2020). The existing theoretical framework offers managers and specialists an opportunity to analyse the work of collectives, outline their strengths and weaknesses, and suggest methods to eliminate barriers preventing them from achieving existing goals. The paper is devoted to evaluating two teams regarding existing concepts, their comparison, and a conclusion about the fundamental aspects of teamwork.

Theoretical Framework

The choice of teams for the analysis rests on personal experience as it provides an opportunity to use data from observations. Following this model, the major characteristics of collectives, their strengths, and drawbacks will be investigated. To perform the task, specific models and concepts will be employed. These include the Tuckman team stages of development, the Lencioni framework, Simon Sinek’s paradigm, Radcliffe’s idea, and various leadership concepts. The existing theoretical framework helps to investigate teams in-depth and conclude about their peculiarities regarding the current research body. It is also possible to cogitate about the future of selected units and ways to resolve existing problems by using the most effective patterns. At the same time, this analysis will contribute to a better evaluation of personal characteristics as a team player and outline future development.

Team 1

The first team for the analysis consists of ten members, eight of them are men, and two are women. The team was given diverse tasks presupposing some creativity, such as creating offerings attractive for clients, advertising, or main directions of ad campaigns that might be interesting for all stakeholders. All employees have experience in the field and have been cooperating for four years already. At the same time, there are no clear patterns for task distribution and delegation. Moreover, the team has a formal leader responsible for results, but in fact, his authority is doubted as all members can offer their ideas and insist on their acceptance. The team manages to cope with the tasks given to it, but it often has detentions or offers results that demand additional work and reconsideration. The atmosphere within a team is positive as all members know each other and seem satisfied with the existing framework and their collaboration.

Analysing the team, it is possible to outline several strengths it possesses. First, it is a positive atmosphere and the absence of tensions between members and a formal leader. The colleagues do not feel pressure or influence of stressing patterns, which allows them to feel more comfortable. Second, the current leadership style with no pressure on workers and the absence of authoritative practices provides specialists with an opportunity to take part in the decision-making process and offer their views on the task and ways to accomplish the goal, which is important for the stable work of the collective and its ability to evolve. Finally, the high level of creativity peculiar to all members can be viewed as another advantage promoting the ability to resolve unusual tasks.

However, the team also has multiple weaknesses that should be mentioned. First, the weak leader results in the poor distribution of tasks, which means that members might argue about their responsibilities and duties. It might also result in conflicts and delays as team members might be unwilling to perform a certain task and want others to do it. Second, the positive atmosphere within a team mainly comes from the idea that creativity does not demand strict control, which might also be a drawback of the selected group and precondition its failure. Furthermore, the collective decision-making with no person responsible for a final solution can complicate the functioning of the unit and contribute to the emergence of multiple barriers slowing down its evolution and making goal achievement impossible. These drawbacks are vital for the analysis as they come from the team’s major characteristics.

Applying the relevant theory for the selected group’s analysis, the following ideas should be outlined. First, regarding the Tuckman team stages of development, this collective is at the norming stage (Egolf and Chester, 2013). All members know the existing norms of behaviour, have established relations, and follow a specific protocol. At the same time, some unwritten rules influence the work of the team and its performance (Egolf and Chester, 2013). However, the team cannot reach the performing stage, as its result are not improved, which can be explained by the lack of organisation and weak leadership along with delegation (Hickman, 2021). Furthermore, the Lencioni idea of a dysfunctional team can apply to the case. It views the lack of commitment and avoidance of accountability as the major barriers to attaining desired results (Lencioni, 2002). From team members’ behaviours, it is clear that they do not want to accept responsibility for their actions, which preconditions the inability to move to the next stage.

Applying the theories of motivation, the team mainly rests on the extrinsic one. It expects rewards from the company for the accomplished goals, while its inner needs are not relevant. From Maslow’s model, it is possible to see that most members do not move to the self-esteem or self-actualisation needs instead of being satisfied with the basic ones (Maslow, 2013). It becomes a serious problem for the future of the collective as the lack of motivation and interest for moving to new levels of excellence might prevent the team from transforming into a more effective unit with the ability to perform more complex tasks and become intrinsically motivated (Sinek, 2014). The weak role of a leader can be considered one of the causes for such behaviour as he fails to perform one of the major functions, which is to motivate workers (Schein and Schein, 2016). It results in the absence of factors that might trigger the positive change within this collective.

Considering these factors, the team face some problems that will affect its rise in the future. First, it does not move to new stages, such as the performing one, which means that it stagnates (Skelton and Pais, 2019). Additionally, from Lencioni’s framework, it will not improve its results because of the fear of accountability and low commitment. Finally, a weak leader also makes the situation more complex (Valentine et al., 2019). Under these conditions, it is possible to predict the decline of this group if no positive changes are introduced. The extrinsic motivation will provide less powerful stimuli, while poor organisation and delegation will foster avoidance patterns. The team might become less effective and fail to perform its central role and provide creative solutions vital for its work. For this reason, some interventions might be needed to alter the situation.

Team 2

The second team chosen for the analysis is different from the previous one. It consists of 21 members, 11 men and ten women represented by people of various cultures. It is a comparatively new team established a half year ago with the primary goal to resolve complex management tasks, such as the decrease in clients’ interest or satisfaction. The diversity of missions presupposes various solutions, including standard or creative ones. The team has a leader responsible for final results, and she also controls most functions, establishes delegation patterns, distributes tasks, and monitors the work of other team members. The overall atmosphere is neutral, with no serious conflicts and the appropriate level of trust between all team members. At the same time, specialists have an opportunity to offer their ideas and brainstorm some complex decisions, by the final word is made by the leader.

The main strength of a selected team is the effective delegation, distribution of tasks, and responsibilities. The leader knows the characteristics of all workers and decides how to assign different tasks to guarantee they will be accomplished in the demanded term. It also presupposes a specific hierarchy regulating relations between team members and the way they cooperate. The atmosphere within the collective is supported by its high achievements and fair reward practice. At the same time, team members might also have meetings after work, which shows their friendly relations. Another strength is the strong leader responsible for the survival of a team and its evolution. Her solutions might direct the future rise of the unit and ensure the conflicts will be resolved in effective ways.

The second team also has some weaknesses that should be mentioned here. First, the atmosphere remains formal, which means that some members might feel uncomfortable or feel stress because of the impossibility to relax. Second, a strong leader with some authoritative patterns might depress the creativity among specialists and limit their opportunities for professional growth as they cannot select tasks or duties interesting for them; instead, they have to follow the leader’s decisions. It increases the importance of the person responsible for the team and makes the price of her mistakes higher (Northouse, 2021). Moreover, there are no clear rules for collaboration during some complex cases, resulting in confusion and the inability to ask for help. Finally, the distributed roles might cause additional stress for some workers because of their desire to try other spheres or occupations.

Analysing the functioning of this team, it is possible to apply several models. First, the Radcliffe energy model is applicable to the case. It presupposes that every team has four major areas:

  • intellectual energy
  • emotional energy
  • spiritual energy
  • delivery energy (Radcliffe, 2012).

The leader appeals to the intellectual and spiritual energy of the team in several ways. First, she emphasises the critical necessity of the correct analysis of the situation, all tasks, and the existing goals (Radcliffe, 2012). It results in improved planning capability and the effective delegation of requests, along with the distribution of responsibilities. Moreover, the use of spiritual energy can be seen in the fact that the leader cares about contributing to the company’s development by work of teams and accomplishing all current goals (Radcliffe, 2012). Combining these two elements, the leader can attain the current purposes and ensure the team uses all resources to work in the ways desired at the moment. For this reason, Radcliffe’s idea about spiritual energy is applicable for analysing the team’s work.

Another relevant concept is the idea of the Commanders Intent. It presupposes a detailed description of a successful operation and the benefits it might generate (Northouse, 2021). Using this method, the leader manages to create additional motivation for all employees, encourage them to use their strong aspects, and reach the current plan objectives (Northouse, 2021). Thus, the delivery phase from Radcliffe’s (2012) model is found in accomplishing smaller tasks by team members and guaranteeing a shift to another phase. At the same time, there is a lack of attention to the emotional energy as workers are focused on their work, with little emotional or fun moments. It means that the overall atmosphere is serious and comes. Applying Lencioni’s idea, the team can be viewed as a cohesive one as all members demonstrate high commitment levels and readiness to accept responsibility (Lencioni, 2002). It also comes from focusing on intrinsic motivation as the leader offers better career and promotion opportunities for successful workers (Maslow, 2013). The employed models describe the work of the team and help to forecast its evolution.

First of all, because of the strong leader and the focus on results, the team will preserve its effectiveness. The existence of a specific climate and working culture also leads to better integration of new specialists as they understand the major demands and are ready to engage in all projects (Rothaermel, 2021). At the same time, the focused atmosphere and the lack of attention to the emotional aspect mean that members might acquire high stress levels and suffer from the growing pressure and impossibility to feel free at the workplace (Jachtchenko, 2021). A strong leader might also limit chances for creativity and active participation in decision-making processes, which in the future might undermine the groups’ ability to resolve complex tasks by a collaborative effort.

Comparison of Teams

The analysis shows that the selected teams are different and possess various characteristics. First, from Lencioni’s (2002) perspective, the first one can be viewed as the ineffective team with limited opportunities to attain existing goals, while the second one is focused on achievement and can demonstrate better effectiveness. Second, the groups’ leaders employ different approaches to manage people. The first one allows others to take part in decision-making and avoids using his power to directly interfere with the team’s work (Mathis, Jackson and Valentine, 2015). The second leader employs some authoritative styles combined with democratic ones as workers have a chance to offer their ideas; however, the final decision is always made by the leader (Ruiz-Jiménez and Fuentes-Fuentes, 2016). Comparing both teams, it is also vital to admit the difference in the emotional component. Team 1 is characterised by the warm and friendly relations between its members, which helps to reduce the level of stress and feel happier (Sinek, 2011). Team 2 employees mainly have workplace relationships, with several exclusions.

Analysing these differences, it is possible to conclude that the second team is a more effective unit with better perspectives for future development and rise. A strong hierarchy, focus on goals, potent leadership, and motivation serve as the basis for achievement and make it an important element of the company’s work (Mastrogiacomo and Osterwalder, 2021). At the same time, the first team has a better emotional component and established relations between all its members; however, the lack of organisation, unwillingness to engage in complex tasks and accept responsibility for them, and weak leadership might serve as the barrier for the further unit’s evolution and precondition its decline in a long-term perspective (Northouse, 2021). For this reason, positive change is demanded to reorganise the team and ensure it can continue its evolution.


The given project and the need to analyse teams helped me to evaluate my knowledge about the subject and outline the plan for future development. First, the teams’ analysis showed that I possess appropriate information of the relevant theories and can apply them to different cases. It helps to investigate the major aspects of groups’ work and conclude about the current stage of their development. Additionally, this task helped to structure the present knowledge and discover some gaps that should be filled to become a better specialist.

Problematic issues are mainly linked to the leadership area as the analysis shows that a leader plays a critical role in developing a group, and its becoming stronger. At the same time, other team members can also participate in the formation of the collective and its evolution (Burkus, 2021). For this reason, I should focus on improving my knowledge and skills in analysing and understanding the current developmental needs of a team and understanding how to fulfil them. It will help to become a better worker and, in a long-term perspective, to create conditions beneficial for the evolution of various collectives.


Altogether, the analysis shows that the functioning of a team is a complex issue depending on multiple factors. First of all, the work of groups should be evaluated and assessed regularly to guarantee they have opportunities for successful development, and there are no factors hindering members’ efforts to attain better results. Moreover, a leader becomes one of the central figures who can shape the work of such units and form the ground for their movement to another developmental stage. Finally, applying different theories and concepts of teams’ functioning, it is possible to outline their strong and weak aspects, analyse their work, predict future alterations, and suggest methods to align the better functioning of collectives.

Reference List

Burkus, D. (2021) Leading from anywhere: the essential guide to managing remote teams. New York: Mariner Books.

Egolf, D. and Chester, S. (2013) Forming storming norming performing: successful communication in groups and teams, 3rd edn. Bloomington: iUniverse.

Hickman, A. (2021) ‘Managers hold the key to team performance’, American Journal of Health Promotion, 35(5), pp. 747–749. Web.

Jachtchenko, W. (2021) The 5 roles of leadership: tools & best practices for personable and effective leaders. Oakland Park: Remote.

Kinicki, A. and Williams, B. (2019) Management: a practical introduction, 9th edn. New York: McGraw Hill Education.

Lencioni, P. (2002) The five dysfunctions of a team: a leadership fable. New York: Jossey-Bass.

Lencioni, P. (2012) The advantage: why organizational health trumps everything else in business. New York: Jossey-Bass.

Maslow, A (2013) A theory of human motivation. New York, Martino Fine Books.

Mastrogiacomo, S. and Osterwalder, A. (2021) High-impact tools for teams: 5 tools to align team members, build trust, and get results fast. New Jersey: Wiley.

Mathis, R., Jackson, J. and Valentine, S. (2015) Human resource management: essential perspectives, 7th edn. Florida: Cengage Learning.

Northouse, P. (2021) Leadership: theory and practice, 9th edn. Thousan Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Potter, J. and Kavanagh, M. (2020) The successful manager: practical approaches for building and leading high-performing teams. New York: Independently Published.

Radcliffe, S. (2012) Leadership: plain and simple, 2nd edn. New York: FT Press.

Rothaermel, F. (2021) ISE strategic management: concepts, 5th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ruiz-Jiménez, J. M. and Fuentes-Fuentes, M. del M. (2016) ‘Management capabilities, innovation, and gender diversity in the top management team: an empirical analysis in technology-based smes’, BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 19(2), pp. 107–121. Web.

Schein, E. and Schein, P. (2016) Organizational culture and leadership, 5th edn. Wiley.

Sinek, S. (2011) Start with why: how great leaders inspire everyone to take action. New York: Penguin.

Sinek, S. (2014) Leaders eat last: why some teams pull together and others don’t. New York: Portfolio.

Skelton, M. and Pais, M. (2019) Team topologies: organizing business and technology teams for fast flow. New York: IT Revolution Press.

Valentine, S. et al. (2019) Human resource management, 16th edn. Florida: Cengage learning.

Cite this paper

Select style


BusinessEssay. (2023, January 30). Contrast and Comparison of Two Teams and Their Work. Retrieved from


BusinessEssay. (2023, January 30). Contrast and Comparison of Two Teams and Their Work.

Work Cited

"Contrast and Comparison of Two Teams and Their Work." BusinessEssay, 30 Jan. 2023,


BusinessEssay. (2023) 'Contrast and Comparison of Two Teams and Their Work'. 30 January.


BusinessEssay. 2023. "Contrast and Comparison of Two Teams and Their Work." January 30, 2023.

1. BusinessEssay. "Contrast and Comparison of Two Teams and Their Work." January 30, 2023.


BusinessEssay. "Contrast and Comparison of Two Teams and Their Work." January 30, 2023.