Team Group or Network? Why Choosing Poorly Wastes Time and Resources
In working with many extraordinary groups and teams there is nothing quite like the magic that can emerge when people working together are in their flow. My heart beats a little faster whenever such energies are making a difference in the world.
There are the visible rewards and recognition at what could be called the sunlight layer (achieving goals, objectives, a job well done, and great performance), and equally the aliveness and health that can be felt at the twilight layer (just under the surface) where people dynamics, interdependencies, motivations, values and ways of working are at play. I’ve experienced teams and groups perform well in the short term without the twilight health, but the ones that thrive over time and were the sense of in it together can last a lifetime are where both layers are aligned.
A key aspect is to ensure the form of group is fit for it’s purpose. This blog is for those who have a role in making groups work, from members to leaders, from commissioners to changemakers.
From when I first became involved in organisations, even the experience of primary school, I became familiar with teams and groups, with ‘networks’ entering the mix by the late 70s. From the 80s, Oasis was shaping team development, group work processes and how to build and more importantly, sustain, networks. Language changes and meanings can become loose, and thinking of them as slight variations on a theme is costly – a step that leads to poor outcomes, wasted time, misplaced effort, and frustrated people.
Each form serves a different purpose, requires a different kind of development, and—crucially—demands a different kind of leadership and membership. Trying to build a team when what’s really needed is a group or network can create unnecessary complexity, slow down progress, and drain resources.
So, what’s the difference? And how do you ensure you’re investing in the right kind of development?
The Fundamental Differences
A Team: Shared Goals, Mutual Accountability
A team is a cohesive, interdependent unit working toward a common goal. Success relies on collaboration, shared accountability, and trust.
Examples: A leadership team accountable for a business, a sports team on the field, or a project team delivering a complex initiative.
· What makes it work: Clear roles, strong relationships, open communication, and a shared commitment to collective success.
· Development focus: High-trust relationships, deep collaboration, and shared responsibility.
The Watch-out: Investing in intensive team-building when the individuals don’t actually need to function as a tightly bonded unit.
A Group: Aligned Purpose, Independent Efforts
A group consists of individuals who share an interest, function, or purpose but operate independently. They may interact, but their success isn’t dependent on deep collaboration.
Examples: A departmental leadership group, a set of trainers delivering separate programmes, or an advisory board.
· What makes it work: Clear expectations, coordination rather than deep integration, and strong individual contributions.
· Development focus: Clarity of roles, structured communication, and alignment of effort rather than deep relationship-building.
The Watch-out: Forcing deep team-building activities on a group, which can feel artificial or even frustrating when members don’t need that level of connection to succeed.
A Network: Connections, Influence, and Flow of Ideas
A network is a loose structure of relationships where people connect for learning, influence, and exchange rather than collective execution.
Examples: Professional associations, cross-sector leadership networks, and communities of practice.
· What makes it work: Easy access to expertise, voluntary engagement, and lightweight governance rather than heavy structures.
· Development focus: Strengthening connections, fostering knowledge exchange, and creating a culture of reciprocity.
The Watch-out: Trying to impose rigid coordination or hierarchical structures on a network, which kills the organic, fluid nature that makes it effective.
Why Misalignment Wastes Time and Resources
Imagine investing months of effort and budget into team-building workshops—only to realise that you don’t actually need to function as a team. Or structuring a highly independent group as if it needs constant collaboration when clear coordination would suffice.
The consequences?
Frustration: People feel forced into unnecessary exercises or artificial relationships.
Inefficiency: Resources are spent on development that doesn’t match the real need.
Slower progress: Structures become too heavy or too loose for what’s required.
Instead of defaulting to “team” development, start by asking the right questions:
· Do these people need to work interdependently or just coordinate?
· Is mutual accountability essential, or is aligned effort enough?
· Are strong personal relationships necessary, or is ease of access more critical?
Building What’s Actually Needed
· If you need a team → Develop trust, deep collaboration, and mutual accountability.
· If you need a group → Focus on clarity, coordination, and alignment.
· If you need a network → Strengthen connections, communication flow, and knowledge sharing.
By making the distinction upfront, you not only save time and resources—you create stronger, more effective ways of working that truly match the purpose at hand
So why not take a breath and ask yourself - Are you building a team, a group, or a network? And are you sure you’re developing it in the right way?
Nick Ellerby is a coach and Co-Director at Oasis Human Relations, one of a group of thirty plus practitioners working in partnerships across sectors as coaches, hosts, convenors, speaking partners, facilitators, researchers and changemakers.
Book a free discovery session with an Oasis coach by clicking on the button below.