‘Giving’, ‘Taking’ and ‘Lurking’: How Can We Better Manage Teams?

Abstract

Every day, nurses work as team members in wide-ranging settings to achieve diverse outcomes. Some teams are intradisciplinary (e.g., nursing only), others are multidisciplinary (i.e., various professions). Collaboration involves demonstrating mutual respect and trust, acknowledging the diverse but interconnected work of each of the professional groups, and focusing on shared goals (Sangaleti et al. 2017). For teams to function cohesively, clear leadership and team member responsibilities are needed, together with well-defined disciplinary roles and other factors such as effective communication and feedback mechanisms (Wang et al. 2024).

Achieving cohesiveness, however, can be challenging. Such challenges could explain the large body of academic literature discussing the how, when, where and why of teams and teamwork or groups and group dynamics. Topics include the various functions of team members, such as the role of leaders or facilitators, encouragers or motivators, harmonisers or conflict mediators, evaluators or critics and so on. The phenomenon of the social loafer in groups has also been examined. More colloquially, team members are sometimes called ‘givers’, ‘takers’ and ‘lurkers’. This editorial discusses team or group dynamics, focusing on the benefits and challenges of managing the giving, taking and lurking factors at work in some groups. Tips on optimising group cohesion are also provided.

Like all systems, a team is greater than the sum of its parts. It comprises a group of individuals, each with their own personality, knowledge, skills, attitude, behaviour, motivation, needs, context and way of interacting with others. As a team, these individuals ideally work cohesively toward a common goal, bound together by rules and processes, to achieve far more than is possible through the sum of their individual capabilities.

Teamwork is guided by rules, such as policies, procedures or standard operating practices. Team members apply their knowledge and skills, working together for a shared goal. In nursing, research aimed at improving the effectiveness of teamwork is multifaceted. It includes studies on team leadership and management, communication, collaboration, education and skill development and understanding roles and team outcomes. For example, Campbell et al. (2020) suggested that interventions influencing teamwork, communication and delegation are critical to reducing adverse events in nursing teams. Cho et al. (2022) focus on the impact of occupational fatigue and workload on the effectiveness of teams, noting the importance of interventions to support the needs and preferences of the individual nurse as well as team-based interventions. Wang et al. (2024) assess the current state of multi-professional and multidisciplinary team collaboration supporting the early mobilisation of mechanically ventilated patients in Intensive Care Units. Their findings show that multiple factors affected team collaboration, including patient load, attitudes of team members, communication and activity leaders.

Fatigue is another factor influencing team functioning, particularly when workload is an issue. This was demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic, when high demands on health services and teams gave rise to stress, distress and burnout, regardless of the quality of team cohesion. Post-pandemic, many teams continue to experience fatigue, particularly those working in the acute sector or chronically short-staffed areas, such as mental health services. In such settings, team members are expected to regularly step up and do more with less. Other issues experienced by teams arise from complex interpersonal dynamics. For example, Crocker, Canevello, and Brown (2017) describe the effects of the ‘selfishness’ and ‘otherishness’ of individuals comprising groups. More informally, these categories could also be called giving and taking.

Self-interest has traditionally been viewed as a fundamental human motivation, providing one possible explanation for those who take more than they give (Crocker, Canevello, and Brown 2017). Even so, members of collectivist cultures are known for their commitment to the greater good; likewise, in Western societies, countless individuals are committed to and thrive on being kind, generous and compassionate (Grant and Rebele 2017). Take, for example, those motivated by beneficence in the nursing profession.

In occupational settings, notions of giving and taking are likewise complex, with the notions of other-centredness and self-centredness posited by Crocker, Canevello, and Brown (2017) perhaps simplistic. For example, in competitive work environments, employees are actively motivated by individual bonuses, salary increases and promotions. In this context, teamwork may be secondary to individualistic striving. Nevertheless, those driven by self-interest can and do contribute effectively to a team because there are times when the outcomes of that team will contribute to their own personal ends. This is neither good nor bad but a function of that particular occupational setting or the team goal. Moreover, if the outcome of the self-interested actions ultimately benefits others, these actions cannot be perceived as taking.

Likewise, some may argue that nurses who enter the profession to help people are not entirely otherish, as they would unlikely do the work if unpaid. At the same time, the nature of the nurse's work is collaborative rather than competitive or self-interested—as noted by Yildiz and Elibol (2021), nursing teams rely on the collective responsibility of team members to realise successful outcomes. On the one hand, payment for work rendered may be a self-interested motivator; on the other hand, collective responsibility and teamwork, including giving time and energy to communicating with, supporting, mentoring and advocating, is needed to achieve the common goal of helping others.

The consequences of such giving in a team setting are considerable. For example, Grant and Rebele (2017) note that giving, rather than taking, is correlated with higher productivity, efficiency and customer satisfaction. Giving is also associated with higher levels of happiness and psychological well-being and lower staff turnover rates in the workplace. For some givers, however, the time spent helping colleagues can be counter-productive, especially when helping those who seem unable or unwilling to reciprocate. Giving without receiving or giving without boundaries can lead to dissatisfaction, stress, lower well-being and burnout in individuals (Yildiz and Elibol 2021).

Such outcomes suggest the need to find a balance between giving and taking. Grant and Rebele (2017) note the need to help givers within a group to develop boundaries or strategies for sustainable giving. Strategies the giver could employ include advocating for themselves while advocating for others; setting limits on the extent of their giving; and balancing their empathy with perspective-taking, such as weighing up the benefits, challenges and likely outcome of their giving. Another solution to the over-giving dilemma is to float the idea of matching, which involves a proportional exchange of favours (Grant and Rebele 2017).

Social loafing is a term coined by social psychologists to describe the dynamic when a person exerts less effort in a team or group than they would if working individually to achieve a goal (Yildiz and Elibol 2021). Neither giving nor taking, social loafing is sometimes referred to as lurking (Shiue, Chiu, and Chang 2010), leading to lower team productivity. In nursing teams, which we have already described as collectively responsible for achieving high-quality care and patient outcomes, the lurker may consciously or unconsciously delegate responsibility to everyone else. This behaviour results in a few team members—generally the givers—carrying the greater workload. At the same time, the lurker continues to gain benefits that often exceed the contributions they have made. In the long term, givers may become stressed and resentful that the social loafers are not contributing equally and/or the outcomes achieved are not to the standard required. This, in turn, can lead to conflict, refusal by some team members to work with the social loafers and, ultimately, compromise the ability of the team to meet their goals.

While social loafing may be attributed to laziness or opportunism by some team members and become a performance issue for managers, it can also result from a poorly managed or overloaded workforce. For example, nurses are often asked to work overtime shifts. If this occurs for long periods, the nurses will become physically and emotionally depleted, unable to expend high energy levels over both shifts, leaving other team members to work harder to fill the gaps (Yildiz and Elibol 2021). Rather than laziness, these nurses may be lowering their work performance to conserve energy or recover.

Other reasons for social loafing in groups include a lack of motivation, knowledge or understanding of the contribution required; fear of being undervalued, unappreciated or ridiculed for the contribution made; a lack of unity or cohesion in the group, and boredom (Campbell et al. 2020; Yildiz and Elibol 2021). While social loafing has a negative connotation, understanding the context can reveal the various influences at play and help create the conditions to enable more optimal engagement and participation from everyone in the team.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.