What makes some teams more effective than others? This is a question that has preoccupied management scholars for over 40 years. Team effectiveness is more than accomplishing one's mission or meeting one's goals. There is little value in having a team performing well if members are so dissatisfied that most of them are planning to exit the team as soon as possible. Equally, there is little point having a team that develops a fantastic product if it does not communicate effectively to the marketing team and the sales team about the key features of this product.

According to Hackman (1990) there are three considerations of team effectiveness:

1. The degree to which the team's output meets the standards of quantity, quality and timeliness of the people who receive, review and/or use the output.

2. The degree to which the process of carrying out the work enhances the capability of members to work together interdependently in the future.

3. The degree to which the team experience contributes to the growth and personal well-being of team members. Depending on the team's purpose, the weight placed on each criterion is different. For example, if a team has been put together to achieve a particular task of high importance, then the second and third criteria are not as important. However, if the team's purpose is to learn and gain experience together so they can become a competent unit, then more weight should be placed on criteria two and three.

McGrath (1964), Hackman and Morris (1975) and Gladstein (1984) analysed group interactions in an effort to shed some light on what makes some groups more effective than others. From these efforts, the Input- Process-Output (I-P-O) model was developed. This framework is still the best way to summarise recent research and draw out practical implications. As such, every section of this unit will present the various concepts that come under each component.