A Typology of Team Interaction

Team builders, what are we really doing?

(Crossposted at OnTeamBuilding.)

“What Are We Really Doing?” was my original title. I went with “Typology” because of its academic standing (we love a little standing) and it’s a cool word (we definitely want some cool!).

So, what are we doing as team building educators? As a foundation for this OnTeamBuilding context, let’s use one possible typology. A language we can share during our ongoing conversations.

I am an advocate, and part of a crowd, supporting a language proposed in two different articles (and by three amazing people). In Building Team Spirit (2015), by Stephanie Sibille and Paul Cummings and, Team Bonding, Team Building, or Team Development (2018), by Michelle Cummings, the authors pose that we are involved in team interaction programs that fall into three categories:

• Team Bonding

• Team Building

• Team Development

[Note: Team Intervention is another possible interaction program. I plan to include an article in the future about this type of program from someone more qualified to give us the details we need.]

Team Bonding programs...

• are designed around a goal of having a good time and making connections with others in the group.

• typically, do not include reflection, or processing, any part of the experience.

• are not centered around an “end workplace goal” other than getting to know each other a little better.

• can be led by someone who is comfortable talking with and managing groups.

Team Building programs...

• are designed around a particular goal or outcome important to the group.

• are typically designed and led for newly forming or intact groups.

• are designed and/or facilitated by a trained facilitator with skills in experiential facilitated techniques.

• have a component of reflection/processing to enhance learning or team “building” potential.

Team Development programs...

• are designed around long-term goals of the group.

• include multiple interactions and ongoing coaching for team members.

• are facilitated by a Master Facilitator who works closely with key personnel of the organization to develop key outcomes.

• have a component of reflection/processing to enhance outcomes of behavioural and organizational change.

​When we call all of our programs “team building”, Stephanie and Paul stress, “it will marginalize the term” and, I believe, place all team interaction programs into one stereotype that may not support all the amazing opportunities we can provide for teams. (In other words, some “team building” providers are leaving groups with “team breaking” experiences. I will say they lack the skill sets and dispositions to be team builders.)

Growth Opportunity: Just 5 minutes! Think about the team interaction programs you offer – through your business, at your organization, at your school. Where do they fit into the Typology? Do you see ‘grey’ areas? Do you see different combinations of the team interaction programs? Is this typology missing anything? If you used the language of this typology, would it simplify your communication with potential groups? Do you have your own typology?

Resource: AI Prompt: How do we talk to clients about team building programs? (Use good judgment when reviewing AI results. Does the information make sense to you? Is it useful to you? If you are after or need ‘facts’, cross-reference the information with other sources.)