2 discussions - due in 5 hours

combs

01CH_Cogent_Behavior_2e.pdf

Home >Education homework help >2 discussions - due in 5 hours

1Understanding Groups and Teams

Fuse/Thinkstock

Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Define groups and basic group types.

• Differentiate between groups, aggregates, and social categories.

• Identify the basic properties of groups.

• Discuss the influence of group properties on group dynamics and performance.

• Analyze the relationship between work groups and teams.

• Determine when it is most appropriate to use either a work group or team.

• Describe significant factors in typing teams.

• Explain the significance of primary task types.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 1 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Introduction

Pretest

1. A group is a collection of people in the same time and place. T/F 2. The way others perceive us affects the way we perceive ourselves. T/F 3. Informal groups rarely form within, or have much effect on, organizations. T/F 4. Work groups are the same as teams. T/F 5. All teams are variations on a single team type. T/F

Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.

Introduction Ellis is one of nine business analysts at a midsized manufacturing company. Over the years, Ellis and his coworkers have learned to work collaboratively to analyze business processes and make suggestions for improvements. Learning to work in a collaborative manner has enabled the division to collectively decide what its goals are and how work should be shared among the employees.

When collaborating across several projects, it is not uncommon for Ellis and his cowork- ers to rotate between leadership and support roles. For example, on one project that examined current manufacturing processes for a specific product line, Ellis led the team members as they looked for process improvements. On another project, Ellis served as one of the people who collected data, and in this instance he worked under the direction of a coworker. Under this arrangement, the designated project leader is not solely account- able for the division’s results; members of the entire division hold themselves accountable, since they are more than just a department or group—they are a team.

Occasionally, members of the business analysis team are assigned to work with others on special projects. Ellis has recently been assigned to work on such a project with members of several different departments, and he’s noticed some differences between working with his usual team and working in this new configuration. While those working on this project get along well and are committed to achieving their goal, they had no say in what their goal was—the organization decided their goal for them, as well as steps to take and the timeline for reaching it. Ellis is not used to having such decisions made for him.

Ellis has noticed other differences as well. In this new configuration, he has only one func- tion for this project. On his usual team, however, he usually collaborates or consults on several aspects of a project. With only one function to perform, Ellis is only held account- able for his specific contribution instead of feeling mutually accountable for the entire project. The final difference Ellis has noticed is that the project leader was chosen by the organization, rather than those working on the project. Although the leader may be well suited to lead the project, she was designated by someone external instead of emerging as the natural leader through interactions. In contrast, when working on his team, Ellis and his coworkers are able to select the best person to lead the project, and they can change leadership when necessary to meet the project’s demands.

Ellis has come to realize that for this special project, he is part of a work group rather than a team. In work groups, the designated group leader determines the goal, how it will be achieved, and task assignments. Group members are only accountable for their individually assigned activities—the leader assigned by the organization is ultimately

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 2 8/19/16 9:36 AM

responsible for the group’s performance. The business analysis team Ellis usually works with functions differently. Team members collaborate to determine their goal, task assignments, and steps for achieving the desired outcome. The work, accountability, and leadership for the project are shared amongst the team members. Ellis realizes that there are many ways to work together within the organization, and that being part of a work group can expand his flexibility and value as an employee. He decides to put aside his team-based expectations, and invest his energy into becoming an effective member of the work group.

From birth to death, we hold membership within a wide range of collectivities and groups. This begins with those we are literally born into—family, community, culture— and continues through a lifetime of groups in which membership is attained through our personal choices, qualities, situations, or achievements. These groups simultane- ously energize us, support us, and even frustrate us, in part because we cannot escape their influence.

Among the many groups we associate with throughout our lifetime, most of us will eventually find ourselves members of a particularly challenging, and rewarding, varia- tion—the team. Teams may well be the defining characteristic of business in the new millennium. Whereas they were once only a desirable element, teams have become almost universally acknowledged as required in organizations that want to remain competitive. The shift in management focus toward facilitating effective coordination, collaboration, and teamwork places a very tangible value on understanding groups and how they function. Moving beyond material gains, this knowledge enriches our social interactions and our external and internal experience of the world.

Most of us intuitively recognize groups and teams and the value they have in our lives. The groups we choose, and that choose us, impact what we say, how we act, and what we think as we incorporate feedback from family, friends, employers, and others in our self-identities and self-descriptions (Hogg, 2005) and integrate the opinions and per- spectives of others into how we perceive and conceptualize reality (Gaertner, Iuzzini, Witt, & Orina, 2006).

• We think and speak the language (and jargon) created by our groups: “That’s so cool!” • We consciously and subconsciously adjust our moods to the emotional tone of our

groups and react to our perception of group moods. • We compare our performances—good or bad—with those of others and evalu-

ate our own performances based on perceived group reaction: “I blew that presentation.”

• We base many of our values and ethics on group expectations and values; our “shoulds,” “oughts,” and “to-dos” are often determined by the groups we associate with.

Recognizing and gravitating toward groups is an instinctual phenomenon that is so wholly natural and unconscious for most of us that we often find it hard to explain how we recognize different types of groups and why we value them. Chapter 1 explores the fundamental questions: What are groups? How do their basic dynamics and properties impact us in our workplace and in our lives? What are teams—and why are they held uniquely valuable among the other types of groups?

Introduction

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 3 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Section 1.1 What Are Groups?

1.1 What Are Groups? Consider a construction crew, a carpool club, a theater audience, and the participants in an online chat forum. Some of these are groups and some are not. A group is more than a collec- tion of people who share some characteristic or circumstance. Elements, objects, and even people can be categorized into groupings, or sets based on shared qualities, including physical location or activity. However, in the social sciences the term group refers to cohesive social units in which people share emotional and social connections as well as other characteristics. Although many people casually refer to any collection of people as a group, most of us intui- tively recognize the difference between a set of people who share some categorical quality and people who are meaningfully interconnected (Ip, Chiu, & Wan, 2006; Lickel, Hamilton, & Sherman, 2000; Magee & Tiedens, 2006).

Still, even the experts find it hard to agree on a clear definition for group (Forsyth, 2014). Common ground emerges when we examine the specific qualities that groups exhibit:

• Identification as a social unit • Interdependence between members • Cohesion around some common interest or purpose • Meaningful interaction between and among members

Using these as a foundation, we can define a group as an identifiable social unit in which mem- bers of an interdependent collective share some common interest or purpose and engage in meaningful interactions (Brown, 2000; Frey & Konieczka, 2010; Gould, 2004; Hackman & Katz, 2010).

For most of us, family is the first group. As we move beyond the immediate social relation- ships of our family unit, we begin to associate with other small groups, made up of our friends and peers. We also become aware of our affiliation with larger categories and collectives, such as community, nationality, religious and ethnic background, and social class. This is our initiation into a lifetime of group membership. Affiliations are unavoidable and necessary in today’s society. The groups we grow up with influence our worldview, or our underlying assumptions of what the world is and how it should be. They guide our thought and behav- ioral patterns, shape our decision making, and help us assimilate and interact within the soci- ety in which we are raised.

Pause for moment and make a mental list of the all the groups of which you are currently a part. Are family and friends on that list? How about classmates or coworkers, people in your apartment complex, or the people you have friended online? What about religious, political, or ethnic associations? Are U.S. citizens a group? How about people you interact with on a daily basis but never meet face-to-face? Are the students in your online class a group? Although we have a definition to refer to, our habit of categorizing people, places, and things into groupings and the malleable nature of groups can make identifying groups—and types of groups—a surprisingly difficult task.

Groups can take on almost any form and function. They are as much shaped by their setting and purpose as by the people within them. Groups can exist and perform in a multiplicity of settings and are similarly flexible in composition, structure, and leadership. Because of this, social psychologists have had to look far beyond the surface to find stable characteristics

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 4 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Section 1.1 What Are Groups?

to use in categorizing these collective entities. It is within the relationships group members forge with each other, and with the group as a whole, that we find a basis for the scientific classification of groups and other group-like collectives. Our own examination will focus on those that are most relevant to our study of workplace groups.

Basic Social Groups Primary groups represent long-standing, meaningful associations among members of a small, tight-knit group of people, such as close friends and family, who frequently interact and influence each other and maintain association regardless of physical location. Common purpose within primary groups revolves around maintaining member relationships and well-being. Sociologist Charles Horton Cooley (1909) coined the term primary groups on the basis that these associations are of prime importance in our lives, offering both physical and psychological care and protection and fundamentally shaping our social nature and ideals. Primary groups have a profound impact on all our interactions, because they represent our foundational model for interpersonal relations.

Primitive man spent generations clustered into primary groups encompassing small com- munities and tribes that members rarely traveled away from. As human population and sophistication grew, societies became more dispersed and complex, as did the groups within them. Secondary groups, larger, less intimate, and more deliberately organized than primary groups, became common as people began to interact and work cooperatively with those out- side their primary sphere of intimacy. Although members can form strong bonds and commit- ment within secondary groups, these are generally sustained at lower levels of intensity and permanence than in primary groups. Members join and disengage from secondary groups relatively easily, and they typically associate concurrently in a variety of these groups in dif- ferent areas of their lives.

Secondary groups are also known as task groups (Lickel et al., 2001) because member inter- actions typically center on the performance of specific tasks or activities. Common examples of task groups include social clubs, dance troupes, bands, religious congregations, student groups, guilds, boards, committees, crews, work groups, and teams. Although the interper- sonal relations between members in secondary groups significantly impact the group experi- ence, common purpose revolves around the performance of tasks and activities rather than social relations and well-being. Although primary groups can sometimes emerge from rela- tionships formed in professional settings, most of the groups we engage with in the work- place are secondary groups.

Next, we take a look at social collections and categories. These are often mislabeled as groups, and the following section examines how we mistake them for groups and why they do not qualify.

Social Collections and Categories In order to better understand what groups are, we will now take a closer look at the social collections and categories that represent what groups are not and why they tend to confuse our group identification skills. Aggregates represent a collection of people who are in the same place at the same time. They are often engaged in the same general activity but are

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 5 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Section 1.1 What Are Groups?

otherwise unassociated. A collection of people riding a bus together, waiting in line for tickets, or watching a game at a sports center are considered aggregates. Many aggregates are tempo- rary and unique, but some, like regulars at a bus stop, may come together frequently, know each other by sight, and share daily greetings yet otherwise remain strangers. Members of an aggregate do not share the interdependence, common purpose, and relational bonds needed to identify and act as a group, but they can engage in collective behavior.

Of interest across multiple fields since the 1920s, collective behav- ior refers to the spontaneously and temporarily coordinated activities or actions of people influenced by a common impulse (Park & Burgess, 1921; Miller, 2000). Collective behav- ior can manifest within aggregates in many ways. This might include sports fans spontaneously partici- pating in a “wave” cheer, mass excite- ment or panic in the face of a shared event, or taking part in fashion or consumer fads (Miller, 2000). Alter- natively, aggregates may engage in noncooperative coaction, perform- ing similar activities or tasks along- side others but not together. Coac- tion might include when we fuel our cars at a gas station or sit and use the Wi-Fi at a coffee shop.

Social categories are another “collection” often mistaken for groups. Also known as cohorts, social categories are scientifically or socially imposed collections of individuals who share at least one characteristic but can otherwise be quite diverse. Typical examples include people who perform a specific type of job, alumni of a particular college, or individuals who share traits such as gender, age, or ethnicity. Social categories can encompass a select few (for example, female centenarians currently living in France) or a multitude (for example, adult males or natural citizens of China). Many cohort members will never meet each other or even be gathered together in the same place, and though they may voluntarily identify with their cohort, they generally do not think of themselves as group members.

Take, for example, people who have served through live combat in the armed forces. These individuals identify with the social category of veterans, but when asked to which groups they belong, they tend to recall the particular units or comrades with whom they served (Hender- son, 1985; Wong, Kolditz, Millen, & Potter, 2003). If members of a social category do meet and become meaningfully connected, they can form groups, such as veterans clubs, or friendship circles initiated through alumni connections. However, lacking frequent interaction, interde- pendence, common purpose, and meaningful social relations, social categories do not repre- sent true groups.

DGLimages/iStock/Thinkstock

These bus passengers are an aggregate. They are engaged in the same activity but lack the collective purpose or interdependence that characterizes groups.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 6 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.2 Group Dynamics

Recognizing these nongroups is important to our growing understanding of what groups are. In Chapter 8, we will take a look at two other significant nongroups: social networks and online communities. We have only scratched the surface by defining groups; next we will take a deeper look into the nature of groups.

1.2 Group Dynamics All groups share certain dynamic properties. They have a purpose to exist, a composition of members with individual qualities and needs, structure for interrelations, leadership from within and without, and a context in which they are embedded. As groups come together, members develop patterns for behavior and interaction, engaging in developmental and task-oriented processes. Group dynamics encompass the complex forces that act internally and externally on groups, from development to dispersion, emergent behavior and interac- tion patterns among group members, and the processes they engage in (Knowles & Knowles, 1972). Researchers in this field study the nature of groups, their development over time, the mutual influence of members on the group and vice versa, and interactions between groups within the larger context of organizations. In this section, we examine the significance and interrelatedness of essential dynamic properties, including group purpose, composition, structure, leadership, and context.

Purpose: Identification and Cohesiveness People form groups to feel a sense of purpose or achieve goals that are difficult or impos- sible to realize alone. Although group members often have individual interests at play within the group, these will align on some level with the group’s purpose and goals. Whether in the form of concrete tasks or simply a collective desire to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), common interest motivates members to join the group and acts as a cohesive factor keeping it together. Individuals who perceive themselves as collectively engaged toward a common purpose identify as a group. Likewise, through the processes that foster identification and cohesion, group members form attachments that are both social and emotional; these socio- emotional attachments motivate recognition and commitment to collective well-being and purpose.

Identification Identification within groups is multidimensional, encompassing the extent to which group membership influences our self-perception and the sense of shared social identity or “us-ness” within the group (Haslam & Reicher, 2012). Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) assumes that social categories and groups influence the self-concept and self-esteem of their members, encouraging them to enhance the positive value of their groups and to join groups held in high esteem. This only proves true, however, in the categories and groups that we perceive as meaningful (Wright, Aron, & Tropp, 2002). For example, Tamara may be a left- handed, hazel-eyed, female product engineer, a Green Party adherent, and a member of the company’s LGBT club, but she will perceive meaningful membership within only some of these associations.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 7 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.2 Group Dynamics

When social identification occurs, members identify themselves as part of a collective with shared qualities, attributes, and ways of relating that mark them as distinct from other indi- viduals and groups. Internally, they accept the group as an extension of self and a legitimate influence on self-concept and self-esteem (Hogg, 2005). The decision to do so is not always conscious. Identification is both a cognitive and affective process. That is, it involves our thoughts and perceptions on a given subject or circumstance, as well as our emotional expe- rience and reactions to these stimuli.

Although we are more likely to self-associate and identify with groups we perceive as attrac- tive or valuable (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Hogg & Terry, 2000), the way others perceive us affects the way we perceive ourselves. Whether others place us in categories or groups per- ceived as positive or negative, this influences our own perception and acceptance of member- ship, even if we do not openly acknowledge it (Gaertner et al., 2006). High school cliques offer a classic example of this: Those labeled as geeks, freaks, jocks, skaters, and so on will often, over time, accept and even describe themselves in such terms, regardless of whether they originally desired these associations (Bennett & Sani, 2008).

The meaningfulness of a membership or association is also largely subjective, based on our personal experiences, worldview, values, and context. Tamara, from our earlier example, may personally value her left-handedness, for instance, based on its associations with creativity and her own admiration for the engineering feats of famous left-hander Leonardo da Vinci. Identification can also be activated by changes in circumstances that highlight collective simi- larities and differences. For example, an executive stepping into an elevator with unassociated lower level employees can activate a sense of identification among the other riders based on the perceived difference in status and power. If the elevator were then stuck between floors, the emergence of a common problem and fate would activate a shared social identity among all the riders.

Shared social identity goes beyond social identification as members intuitively acknowledge their interdependence within a collective entity with a common purpose and shared fate. When this occurs, groups develop entitativity, or an internal and external perception that the group operates as a collective entity and that actions and influences that affect any of its members have consequences for all. An effect of identification, entitativity changes the way members perceive and relate to the group. Entitativity intensifies members’ socioemotional attachment to the group, its members’ collective goals and well-being, and the sense of value in their membership and interrelations (Castano, Yzerbyt, & Bourguignon, 2003; Jans, Post- mes, & Van der Zee, 2011).

Cohesion Group cohesion is a critical element, defined by the total strength of members’ socioemo- tional identification and attachment to the group, entitativity in thought and action, valuation and commitment to group goals, and the group’s structural integrity (Kozlowski & Bell, 2001; Moody & White, 2003). Cohesion, and its myriad effects on group dynamics, has been avidly studied, both inside and outside the workplace. We will investigate the development of cohe- sion in workplace groups in Chapter 2, and we explore both positive and negative effects of group cohesion as we journey through the text. For now, it is important to understand that all groups must have some degree of cohesiveness or they fall apart, either splitting into smaller

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 8 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.2 Group Dynamics

units or disbanding entirely. However, the level of cohesion within a group can vary from high to low.

The strength of a group’s cohesion can be relative to the group type. Primary groups, for example, are inherently higher in cohesion than secondary groups, although there is a slid- ing scale within this guideline as well. Because team members work in collaboration, teams require a significantly higher level of cohesiveness than other secondary groups. High and low cohesion also depends on the unique member relations and dynamics within any given group. Group composition defines the membership within which these relations and dynam- ics occur, and group structure gives shape to their interactions. We will examine group com- position and structure in the next two subsections.

Composition: Diversity and Size Group composition, or the characteristics and size of a membership, can be viewed as both a consequence of the social and psychological processes occurring as groups develop and as a context that influences social and behavioral phenomena, group structure, and processes (Kozlowski & Bell, 2001). Consider the fact that Americans who meet by chance in a foreign country often feel an immediate sense of camaraderie attached to their comparative similar- ity in birthplace, language, and culture. Though they may be different in every other way and would not form a group in any other setting, the contrast of a foreign culture and landscape against their shared experience and background creates a heightened sense of identifica- tion. As a consequence, they tend to socialize, forming small, temporary groups, sometimes even sightseeing or traveling together. Social psychologists call this the “American abroad” phenomenon. Composition becomes a context influencing group structure and processes as member similarities and differences come into play during interactions within the group.

Diversity Groups are composed of members with individual qualities, interests, and needs. Groups in which membership is primarily based on similarity are considered homogenous, though in reality no two people possess the same exact qualities. Whether the degree of variation among members runs high or low, all groups have some level of diversity. As shown in Figure 1.1, member qualities can be separated into two basic categories: individual attributes and demographic characteristics.

Demographic characteristics such as gender, age, nationality, and ethnic background can affect the way members perceive each other and interact, particularly when these character- istics are associated with stereotyping. Individual attributes affect the ways we contribute, interact, and interrelate in groups. These include qualities such as expertise, worldview, per- sonality, and cognitive and behavioral styles. Although groups unite around some common interest or purpose, each member also has his or her own individual interests and needs, and these can have both overt and subtle effects on member interactions. In Chapter 4 we will examine the positive and negative effects of diversity, its expression within workplace groups, and techniques for managing diversity.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 9 8/19/16 9:37 AM

• Gender • Age • Culture • Nationality • Language • Social class • Social position • Sexual orientation • Ethnicity • Religion • Education Level • Handicapping conditions

Demographic Characteristics

• Expertise: Knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA), and relevant experience. • Worldview: Values, attitudes, and beliefs. • Personality: Characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving based on individual cognitive and behavioral styles. • Individual interests and needs: Personal objectives and motivations apart from those of the group as a whole.

Individual Attributes

Section 1.2 Group Dynamics

In general, research depicts diversity as a double-edged sword, having potentially positive and negative consequences (see Pieterse, Van Knippenberg, & Van Dierendonck, 2013; Podsi- adlowski, Gröschke, Kogler, Springer, & Van der Zee, 2013; Mello & Rentsch, 2015). Members from diverse backgrounds may speak a different cultural or technical language. They may be attuned to and emphasize different aspects of task performance or problem solving. Ste- reotypes and generalizations about gender, race, ethnicity, religion, and other characteristics can have a negative effect on group interaction, shared identity, and cohesiveness. Although poorly managed diversity has the potential to be divisive, the convergence of many different experiences, skills, and viewpoints is central to the power and flexibility of groups and teams. Diversity within formal groups is often deliberately engineered and managed to offer the best set of combined experiences, skills, and viewpoints for group performance. Balancing group diversity and size helps members take advantage of the potential benefits offered by comple- mentary diversity.

Size Groups can theoretically consist of any number larger than two people. However, it is impor- tant to consider that group size can either facilitate performance or impede it. Small member- ships may progress more rapidly through developmental and task-oriented group processes; however, they also limit the human resources—including potential benefits from group diver- sity—that are available for collective efforts. Larger membership can enable an easy division of labor that capitalizes on the unique contributions of members. However, larger groups are also more susceptible to certain dysfunctions.

Problems occur as group membership moves beyond about 10 or 12 people. Large groups tend to break into independent subunits, dissolve into a loosely affiliated collection of

Figure 1.1: Two basic categories of member qualities

There are two basic categories of member qualities that affect a group’s diversity: individual attributes and demographic characteristics.

• Gender • Age • Culture • Nationality • Language • Social class • Social position • Sexual orientation • Ethnicity • Religion • Education Level • Handicapping conditions

Demographic Characteristics

Individual Attributes

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 10 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.2 Group Dynamics

individuals, or experience a phenomenon known as process loss (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Kozlowski & Bell, 2001). Process loss is a reduction in efficiency and effectiveness due to nonproductive actions, operations, or dynamics. Examples of process loss include reduced member motivation and effort, dysfunctional processes, faulty coordination, and ineffectual leadership (Steiner, 1972; Forsyth, 2014).

To minimize the risks associated with too large or too small a membership, specific group size should be determined by the group’s task complexity, ability to effectively coordinate, and the functionality of its structure. We discuss structure, a critical element in collaborative performance, in the next section.

Structure: Roles, Norms, and Interrelations In the natural world, animals, insects, and plants form ecological communities in which everything that lives or grows is interdependent and affects the well-being of the rest. Plants give off oxygen, provide shelter, and feed herbivorous animals and insects, which are hunted in turn by the carnivores. Over the course of their life cycle, animals and insects help spread various plants, and even in death they nourish the earth and help plants grow. Each plays a specific role within the community, follows intuitive rules or norms for behavior and interac- tions, and engages in interrelations that impact one another in meaningful ways. The connec- tive pattern imposed by this system reflects its structure.

Groups work in a similar fashion. Group members engage in interdependent roles and responsibilities, following collectively accepted standards or norms for behavior and interac- tions. Through socioemotional and task-based interdependence, members develop meaning- ful interrelations that sustain the group. Group structure refers to the framework of roles, norms, and interrelations that regulates interactions, thereby influencing and organizing how a group functions.

In workplace groups, structure exists both internally and externally. Group structure defines member roles and directs patterns of interdependence and interaction within the group. Organizational structure provides an external framework for the group as a collective entity that fulfills a specific role and responsibilities within the organization, acting in interdepen- dent relations with other organizational units. Roles, norms, and member interrelations are the active elements in the ongoing interactions between group members. As such, they will be focused on throughout much of this text. Beginning with roles, let’s look at each of these elements.

Roles A role is a set of expectations attached to a social position; it governs the behavior of the posi- tion holder in relation to others and vice versa. Defining group members in terms of leaders and followers is a misleading—and inadequate—description of group roles. In reality, group members can play many roles. Think of a group, any group, and consider the people within it. What parts do members play in discussion? What tasks and responsibilities do they under- take during group interactions? Is there an initiator, a critic, a harmonizer, an energizer? How about an organizer, a standard setter, a listener? We may think of these as personality traits, but the predictable influence they have on group interaction defines these as significant roles that can emerge or be designated within a membership.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 11 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.2 Group Dynamics

People play different roles in dif- ferent groups, and each role is typi- cally associated with specific duties, responsibilities, and prerogatives. For example, as a division manager, Miguel is accorded certain privileges in behavior and respect. He coordi- nates and directs the project manag- ers within his division, but he must answer to, and in turn be directed by, higher levels of management. At home, he is also a father, a husband, and a son. Each of these roles has its own set of rules and expectations, and associated shifts in status among participants. Miguel does not have the same authority in the role of son as he does in the role of father. Nor are the same expectations attached to these roles and his role of husband or division manager. Roles are meant to smooth inter- actions by providing stability in expectations, but when our expectations about how to play a role or set of roles are inconsistent or do not match the expectations of those around us, confusion and conflict can occur.

In the workplace some roles are routinely designated. For instance, project manager, team leader, facilitator, recorder, and timekeeper are all roles that are frequently assigned to spe- cific group members for the space of a particular project or performance activity. Other roles emerge as group members interact and individuals repeatedly take on specific duties, activi- ties, or methods of interaction. As these patterns of behavior become habitual, role differen- tiation occurs. The number of roles within the group increases, and the expectations, respon- sibilities, and prerogatives attached to each role become more specific.

Group roles can be divided into task and relationship role categories.

• Task roles revolve around group performance and accomplishment of tasks and goals. Activities include goal setting, coordinating meetings, encouraging task- related feedback, and gathering and recording relevant information.

• Relationship roles center on the socioemotional maintenance of interpersonal rela- tions within the group. Activities include facilitating knowledge and opinion sharing during group discussions, mediating conflict, building trust, and managing destruc- tive norms.

Group members who take on leadership responsibilities typically span both role categories, and team members may frequently change or rotate roles. As we progress through the text, we will increasingly see how individual task and relationship roles impact group dynamics. Next, we examine another integral structural element: norms.

Wavebreak Media Ltd./Thinkstock

In groups, roles are not confined to leader and follower; they are much more complex and nuanced.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 12 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.2 Group Dynamics

Norms Norms are evaluative standards, the implicit and explicit expectations or social rules for behavior and interpersonal interactions. Norms can be preexisting, imposed by a larger group or organization, and emergent throughout the life cycle of a group. Certain sets of norms are present within all our interactions, reflecting the overarching attitudes, expectations, and behavioral cues we have learned since childhood. This includes “reading” each other for acceptable behavior and habitually giving extra weight to the attitudes and behavior of those who appear to inhabit authority roles. Although norms emerge from our groups, they are also affected by our desire to conform and be accepted by other group members, as well as by how we think we should respond to a given situation, based on our perception of others’ attitudes and behavior.

Norms can be prescriptive or proscriptive, defining socially appropriate or inappropriate actions or behaviors, respectively (Sorrels & Kelley, 1984). Additionally, norms can be descrip- tive, encompassing the attitudes and actions people usually engage in, given specific situa- tions. Norms can also be injunctive, representing attitudes and behaviors that people must engage in or face severe punishment (Morris, 1956). Table 1.1 summarizes these categories of norms and provides examples of each.

Table 1.1: Categories and examples of norms

Category Function Example

Prescriptive Define socially appropriate behavior DO use respectful language and volume in a public space.

Proscriptive Define socially inappropriate behavior DO NOT perform private bodily functions in a public space.

Descriptive Define attitudes and actions people usu- ally engage in within specific situations

DO hold an elevator door for an incoming passenger.

Injunctive Define attitudes and behaviors that people must engage in or be severely punished

DO NOT engage in personal abuse or vio- lence in the workplace.

People who behave in ways that conflict with prescriptive, proscriptive, and descriptive norms may be chided, reminded of more appropriate behaviors, or perceived as different or strange. However, those who violate injunctive norms tend to be actively punished and disliked, assigned distasteful tasks, and pressured to conform or leave the group (Rimal & Real, 2005). Norms constrain our behavior to a certain degree, but they also offer common understanding and shared expectations regarding what is and is not acceptable within the group. In this way norms help create a supportive framework for group interactions.

Group norms are collectively accepted standards governing member behavior within the group, given members’ relative position and responsibilities and the connections they share. In workplace groups, these represent a blend of organizationally imposed norms, stemming from organizational rules, procedures, and expectations, and the unique set of norms that emerge from the interactions of a particular group membership. Sometimes we notice the existence of group norms only when they are broken. For example, we notice if someone’s attire breaks unwritten office dress codes or if someone takes too much or too little time for lunch and breaks.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 13 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.2 Group Dynamics

New members of a group, such as new hires, will adjust to written and unwritten rules associ- ated with assigned tasks and roles, and those held as important by the coworkers with whom they are grouped. Established members socially influence or pressure newcomers to conform to group norms, which may include clocking in on time, performing work in a timely manner, chatting (or not chatting) by the coffee machine, and following accepted parameters for lan- guage, mutual respect, and quality of work.

Norms can be either constructive or destructive. Constructive norms support a group’s task and relationship roles. For instance, norms for open communication of task-related concerns or for soliciting feedback from other members would be considered constructive. Destructive norms can lead to process loss and damaging relationships between members. Norms for unhealthy competitiveness, information holding, or not owning up to mistakes are all exam- ples of destructive norms.

The divide between constructive and destructive norms is not always clear cut. Even seem- ingly positive interactions can develop into destructive norms if they become distracting or inappropriate. Consider Tanya and Amelia. As the only women in a group of seven, Tanya and Amelia appreciated the easy camaraderie gained by being “one of the boys,” even when that meant laughing at sexist jokes. When the group leader questioned this norm, however, Tanya admitted that the jokes made her uncomfortable, and Amelia stated that she actually found them offensive. The men in the group were surprised—and genuinely apologetic—and the group moved on to develop more constructive norms.

Group norms shape the interactions and interrelations between members, significantly impacting group processes and performance. We will further discuss the influence and man- agement of constructive and destructive dynamics and norms in Chapter 7. For now, we move to the third aspect of structure: interrelations.

Interrelations Group members develop meaningful interrelations, or mutual and reciprocal relations, the functional dimensions of which can be described as follows:

• Interdependence • Communication • Group processes

Interdependence can be defined as a state of mutual dependence in which others influence, and are influenced by, our thoughts, feelings, actions, outcomes, and experience. All groups have some level of socioemotional interdependence, or a mutual dependence and influence on social relations and standing, emotional state, and well-being. Groups also have some level of task interdependence, or the degree to which members are reliant on one another to effec- tively perform tasks and achieve goals (Kozlowski & Bell, 2001). Monitoring and managing task interdependence is particularly critical in task groups, in which low and high task inter- dependence can significantly impact the group performance. Increased task interdependence increases the need for effective communication, coordination, and cooperation (Saavedra, Earley, & Van Dyne, 1993). The roles that group members are assigned or take on primarily reflect the need to direct and manage both socioemotional and task interdependence within the group.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 14 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.2 Group Dynamics

Communication, or the comprehensive exchange of interpersonal, contextual, and task- related information, is the medium by which group members develop and maintain meaning- ful interrelations. Communication is a key element in any group setting. Member coordina- tion and cooperation depend on effective communication, and mismanaged communication is a major cause of group conflict (Salas, Burke, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000). In fact, establishing effective communication is one of the most important steps to resolving conflicts that arise between group members (Olekalns, Putnam, Weingart, & Metcalf, 2008). Communication is also a critical factor in shaping outcomes for the major developmental and task-oriented group processes.

Group processes represent specific sets of behaviors and interactions that contribute to the realization of a particular agenda or outcome. There are many processes associated with interpersonal interaction. Communication is a process, as are identification and leadership. Within group dynamics, group processes typically refer to the major developmental and task- orientated processes. Developmental processes involve the changes that occur over time in the fundamental nature of the group. This includes its formation; development of norms, roles, and informal status hierarchies; and movement through the stages of performance and dis- banding. Task-oriented processes are attached to specific group tasks or goals and include problem solving, decision making, innovation, and learning. Teamwork is the process by which group members combine knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs); effort; and resources through a coordinated series of actions and interactions to produce an outcome (Forsyth, 2014). We will continue to expand on these topics throughout the text, since developing and managing interrelations is a basic requirement of working together.

For now, it is important to know that the interrelations developed between group mem- bers through interdependence, communication, and participation in group processes have a profound impact on members’ subjective experience and their ability to work together as a group. The following subsections briefly overview leadership and context, as well as the ways in which these dynamic properties shape the very nature of our groups.

Leadership: Guiding the Group All groups have some form of leadership, whether they enact distinct leader–follower rela- tionships or engage in collective decision making to direct the group. Leadership can be des- ignated by an organization or emergent within the dynamics of a particular group.

• Designated leaders are assigned to fulfill leadership roles and managerial respon- sibilities based on organizational standards, hierarchy, and needs.

• Emergent leaders develop naturally out of interpersonal interactions as members share leadership responsibilities (Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2004; Pearce & Conger, 2003) or as particular individuals begin to fulfill leadership roles and responsibilities over time (Foti & Hauenstein, 2007).

Additionally, groups can be internally or externally led, or they can be empowered to enact a cooperative leadership in which both internal and external leadership exists. Empowered group members share varying degrees of leadership roles and managerial responsibilities with designated leaders and/or external managers. With or without formal empowerment, the collaborative problem-solving, decision-making, and work efforts inherent to teamwork generate a shared determination and collective guidance that is often referred to as shared

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 15 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.2 Group Dynamics

leadership. Sharing leadership responsibilities and roles allows team members the authority and flexibility to deal immediately with problems that arise during performance, but it does not mean that teams do not have leaders or specific responsibility structures. Leadership and empowerment styles will be discussed in depth in Chapter 9.

In workplace groups, leadership is integral to effective collaboration and performance. Lead- ers guide the interaction and progression of group processes and monitor and manage both individual and collective performance (Fleishman et al., 1991; Kozlowski, Gully, McHugh, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1996; Kozlowski, Gully, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1996). Leaders facilitate the assimilation and socialization of incoming and outgoing members as groups and teams are formed and as membership changes over time (Moreland & Levine, 1989; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). Leaders also direct the process of group development and continu- ously work toward member coherence (Kozlowski, Gully, McHugh, et al., 1996). They guide the clarification of group goals, task strategies, and agendas; manage positive and negative norms; link individual interests with collective purpose; establish compatible role expecta- tions among members; and maintain favorable performance conditions (Kozlowski & Bell, 2001). Leaders bridge the gap between the group and the organization, translating, manag- ing, and mitigating interactions so that, as much as possible, the needs, interests, and goals of each are protected and realized (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003). Next, we examine the effects of group context.

Context: Orienting the Group Groups come in all shapes, sizes, and forms. Group context, or the developmental and opera- tional setting in which groups are embedded, fundamentally shapes group behavior and pur- pose. For example, coworkers Adele, Derrick, and Rafael may form or be placed in a group dedicated to a particular organizational task. Their communication patterns, hierarchy, and task division within the group will largely be dictated by organizational roles, rules, and pro- cedure. If the three coworkers met and came together in a friendship group over consecutive lunch breaks, they would behave very differently, with communication patterns, hierarchy, and roles emerging naturally through repeated interactions. Understanding group context is key to understanding how groups form and function (Stohl & Putnam, 2003).

Groups have a developmental context that can be informal or formal. Informal groups are the natural outcome of consistent interaction between people with mutual interests. Mem- ber created and internally driven, the longevity of informal groups is solely determined by members’ continuing interest and ability to participate. In contrast, formal groups are inten- tionally composed and structured to realize specific tasks, projects, or goals, determined by the needs of an organization. Driven by an externally imposed performance agenda, formal groups terminate when their performance objectives are met or they are no longer deemed organizationally useful. Table 1.2 summarizes the developmental contexts of groups and pro- vides examples for each.

Groups also have an operational context. Just as the informal and formal context impacts the motivations and methods by which group purpose, composition, structure, and leadership develop, the setting in which groups operate significantly influences the way in which they function and how effectively they do so. A sports team, for example, operates in a very differ- ent setting than a product development team, and that context impacts group structure as well as how members coordinate and cooperate. Here, our focus is on organizational groups.

Table 1.2: Developmental context of groups

Category Description Examples

Informal Groups formed naturally through con- sistent interaction between people with similar interests

• Friendship groups • Book clubs • Recreational groups • The set of coworkers we carpool and

lunch with

Formal Groups that are intentionally formed, composed, and structured to satisfy specific task, project, or goal needs of an organization

• Sports teams • Entertainment groups • Academic classes • Focus groups • Committees • Work groups, crews, and teams

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 16 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.2 Group Dynamics

Although there is a tendency to think of organizations as hierarchical series of formal groups, in reality, formal and informal groups coexist within the workplace. Both formal and informal groups are embedded within the organizational context, or the comprehensive culture, sys- tems, structure, processes, and resources in place within the organization.

Groups formed without consideration of their organizational context do not function well within it. Teams introduced without thought to the provision of organizational support for teamwork processes and needs will typically either fail or work far below their potential. This is primarily because they do not function cooperatively within the organization (Dumaine, 1994). Team-based organizing (TBO), examined in Chapter 10, centers on the idea that groups and teams are only effective within an organization when they work as part of a systemic whole.

Table 1.2: Developmental context of groups

Category Description Examples

Informal Groups formed naturally through con- sistent interaction between people with similar interests

• Friendship groups • Book clubs • Recreational groups • The set of coworkers we carpool and

lunch with

Formal Groups that are intentionally formed, composed, and structured to satisfy specific task, project, or goal needs of an organization

• Sports teams • Entertainment groups • Academic classes • Focus groups • Committees • Work groups, crews, and teams

Business Applications: The Impact of Informal Workplace Groups

Although formal groups such as boards, committees, work groups, and teams get all the credit as useful and productive workplace groups, informal groups can also have a profound impact on the performance of individual members and the organization as a whole. Informal groups can help new employees assimilate, foster a more comfortable and productive work environ- ment, and establish and sustain connections between employees across the organization. Bridging boundaries between employees of varying rank and function facilitates knowledge sharing and organizational learning, as well as increases support for employee advancement. On the other hand, loyalty to friendship groups may potentially override decisions needed for a company’s best interests, and special treatment for one’s “office family” can undermine motivation among workers who are not part of the group. Balancing informal and formal com- mitments and loyalties can be like navigating an obstacle course, but large organizations are increasingly recognizing the benefit of doing so.

(continued)

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 17 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.3 What Are Teams?

1.3 What Are Teams? There is often confusion about the relationship between groups and teams. Many people apply the terms interchangeably or use team as a motivational catch phrase for groups with a formal agenda (Parks & Sanna, 1999). This is inaccurate, however. Teams share basic char- acteristics with all groups, but as a distinct form of task group, teams have specific attributes that are entirely their own. To develop this concept, we will first look at the characteristics teams and other groups have in common. Then we will examine the specific attributes that make teams unique and that have inspired the saying “All teams are groups, but not all groups are teams.”

As groups, we know that teams must have:

• identification as a social unit, • interdependence between members, • cohesion around some common interest or purpose, and • meaningful interaction between and among members.

Additionally, like all groups, teams have a purpose to exist, a composition of members with individual qualities and needs, structure for interrelations, leadership from within and with- out, and a context in which they are embedded. They engage in developmental and task- oriented processes and develop patterns for member behavior and interaction. So what do teams add to this mix that sets them apart from other task groups?

At Google, informal employee social groups have become firmly embedded in organizational culture. According to interviewer Mark Swift (2011), Google’s Employee Resource Groups are “employee-initiated entities that receive financial support from the company and represent social, cultural or minority groups, including the Gayglers (for lesbian and gay employees), the Greyglers (for older employees), . . . [and] VetNet for military veterans” (para. 6).

When Camille James joined Google, she took a profound leap into an unknown culture, mov- ing from Tokyo to California. She had no existing social connections there, and she had never before worked for a large company. Encouraged by Google’s unorthodox organizational cul- ture, James met with fellow “Nooglers” (new hires at Google) and formed a bowling team through which she forged connections with coworkers and laid the groundwork for friend- ships and social bonds within her new community (Swift, 2011). In 2011 Google had an almost unbelievable growth rate of 100 “Nooglers” per week, transforming its informal employee groups from a cool company perk to a keystone component in employee assimilation and rela- tions within the company.

Critical-Thinking Question Informal groups exist everywhere. Consider some of the informal groups in your office, work, or school settings. Describe some of the ways in which informal group membership helps sup- port your emotional well-being, confidence, and ability to perform within the more formal groups associated with these settings.

Business Applications: The Impact of Informal Workplace Groups (continued)

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 18 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.3 What Are Teams?

In task groups, performance encompasses the coordination and execution of individual and collective efforts toward a specific purpose or goal. Teams engage in collaborative perfor- mance, which involves willful contribution of interdependent and joint effort, pooled knowl- edge and resources, and shared responsibility for outcomes (Kozlowski & Bell, 2001). This is the central tenet of teams and their distinctive function within the task group category. We often refer to the collaborative performance process as teamwork, but teamwork alone does not make a team. Members of any group can engage in situational teamwork, but unless they develop member qualities and interrelations that support a continuous teamwork process, they will not become a team.

Team members are committed to collaborative performance toward a meaningful common purpose. To achieve this, team members collectively determine their agenda and approach, discover or develop complementary skills, and hold themselves mutually accountable for results. Therefore, we can define a team as a small group in which members engaging comple- mentary skills are committed to, and hold themselves mutually accountable for, collaboration toward a meaningful common purpose along a collectively determined agenda and approach.

Teams evolved from traditional work groups, a term used to describe a small group in which skilled members are held individually accountable for specific tasks determined by the pur- pose, agenda, and approach of a single, clear leader. Work groups once represented the stan- dard model for organizational productivity. Today teams have displaced them as the basic building block of competitive organizations (Martin & Bal, 2006; Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010). To understand why this is so, we must first examine the rise of teams within organi- zational culture.

The Rise of Teams Teams have existed for thousands of years. Their introduction and use within business orga- nizations, however, is relatively new. Prior to the mid-20th century, teams were rarely seen in action outside of military or sports settings. Work groups were assembled for demanding labor and simple, repetitive tasks requiring many hands, but complex and intellectual tasks were assigned to skilled individuals. Organizational practices were rooted in the principles of scientific management (Taylor, 1911), a philosophy centered on optimization through rigid standardization, time management, and worker supervision. These ideas spawned a near mechanized view of workers as primarily motivated by material rewards. Social inter- actions and processing time were viewed as nonproductive. Managers focused on support- ing workers by offering direct correlation between wages and productive output. They also eliminated “wasteful” socializing and released workers from the complexities of on-the-job decision making and problem solving. Managers thought, and workers did.

In the 1920s Elton Mayo, Fritz Roethlisberger, and associates launched a landmark decade- long series of experiments and observations on the organizational behavior, group produc- tivity, and motivations of workers at AT&T’s Western Electric Hawthorne Works. These later became known as the Hawthorne studies. Mayo’s work inspired the human relations move- ment of the 1930s, which emphasized the importance of social relations in the workplace and investing organizational interest in factors such as workers’ motivational influences, employee participation, and job satisfaction. Productivity research moved away from the idea of workers as automatons, to examine the underlying dynamics and processes surrounding

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 19 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.3 What Are Teams?

group performance and the socioemotional causes for high- and low-productivity levels (Son- nenfeld, 1985).

In the 1940s and 1950s, studies of work groups in the British coal mining industry, led by Eric Trist in collaboration with ex-miner Ken Bamforth, introduced the concept of the self- regulatory work group, a kind of proto-team in which workers actively participated in self- management and coordination. Trist (1981) observed that this novel approach to work group organization and function was phenomenal, stating that “cooperation between task groups was everywhere in evidence; personal commitment was obvious, absenteeism low, accidents infrequent, productivity high” (p. 8). Many of the practices later associated with self- regulatory work groups were rooted in the natural teamwork that occurred in the mining pits years before the industry had reorganized around the principles of scientific management.

Companies such as General Foods, Butler Manufacturing, and General Motors built on these concepts in the 1980s, transforming Trist’s self-regulatory work groups into self-managing teams. That transition paid off with demonstrable increases in performance quality, pro- duction, and employee satisfaction, and notable decreases in accidents, absenteeism, and employee turnover (Strauss & Hammer, 1987). Car manufacturers Volvo and Saab followed suit, integrating teams into their production plants. Overseas, both Europe and Japan were hav- ing their own revelations on the use of teams and management models supporting collabora- tive work. The ever-increasing globalization of the marketplace ensured these ideas spread, and teams were clearly recognized as the new model for organizational competitiveness.

Unfortunately, the reasons behind team effectiveness, and the practical differences between work groups and teams, were not as readily perceived. Many executives simply appropriated the term team as a motivational resource, failing to properly implement teams because they were unaware of any real difference (Katzenbach & Smith, 2001; Harris & Beyerlein, 2008). Although teams evolved from work groups, and both are categorized as task groups, work groups and teams fundamentally differ along the basic elements of leadership, accountability, and purpose. Next, we compare work groups and teams to further our understanding of what teams are and how differently they function from other task groups.

Comparing Work Groups and Teams In a side-by-side comparison, the definitions for work groups and teams reveal notable simi- larities (see Figure 1.2).

As we can see in Figure 1.2, both work groups and teams share the following features:

• Small size • Skilled members • Accountability for action and labor outcomes • Labor along a specific agenda and approach

However, they are also characterized by significant differences in leadership, accountability, and purpose. Table 1.3 offers a simple breakdown of these distinctions, which primarily affect the ways in which these properties are carried out and expressed.

Figure 1.2: Comparison of work group and team definitions

Work groups and teams share several notable similarities.

A small group in which skilled members are held individually accountable for specific tasks determined by the purpose, agenda, and approach of a single, clear leader.

A small group in which members engaging complementary skills are committed to, and hold themselves mutually accountable for, collaboration toward a meaningful common purpose along a collectively determined agenda and approach.

Work Groups Teams

Table 1.3: Key properties of work groups and teams

Key properties Work groups Teams

Leadership Members follow a single, clear leader. Members engage in shared leadership.

Accountability Members are individually accountable to the group leader. Leader is individually accountable for group performance.

Members are mutually accountable for performance within the group and for group performance overall.

Purpose Leader determines group’s purpose, agenda, and approach and delegates appropriate individual tasks and roles.

Members collectively determine team’s goals, agenda, and approach, as well as collective and individual tasks and roles.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 20 8/19/16 9:37 AM

A small group in which skilled members are held individually accountable for specific tasks determined by the purpose, agenda, and approach of a single, clear leader.

Work Groups Teams

Section 1.3 What Are Teams?

Leadership Work groups have a single, clear leader. An easy way to remember the characteristics of work group leadership is to think of them as the 3 Ds: determine, delegate, and dominate. Although group members share information and ideas when asked, the leader is in charge. He or she determines the group’s purpose, agenda, and approach, delegates individual tasks and roles within the group, and dominates group meetings and discussion. Teams work very differently. Unlike work groups, team members engage in shared leadership and decision making. Team members perform tasks and fulfill roles that are based on a meaningful common purpose and a collectively determined and realized agenda and approach.

Accountability The presence of a single leader in work groups necessitates individual accountability for all group members. Since the work group leader is the sole decision maker, group members are responsible only for their own performance of assigned tasks and roles. Likewise, as the lone orchestrator of the group’s purpose, the leader is held individually accountable for the work group’s ultimate performance.

On the other hand, since teams engage in shared leadership, members accept mutual account- ability for both positive and negative outcomes. That is, team members are accountable to

group performance and the socioemotional causes for high- and low-productivity levels (Son- nenfeld, 1985).

Comparing Work Groups and Teams In a side-by-side comparison, the definitions for work groups and teams reveal notable simi- larities (see Figure 1.2).

As we can see in Figure 1.2, both work groups and teams share the following features:

• Small size • Skilled members • Accountability for action and labor outcomes • Labor along a specific agenda and approach

Figure 1.2: Comparison of work group and team definitions

Work groups and teams share several notable similarities.

A small group in which skilled members are held individually accountable for specific tasks determined by the purpose, agenda, and approach of a single, clear leader.

Work Groups Teams

Table 1.3: Key properties of work groups and teams

Key properties Work groups Teams

Leadership Members follow a single, clear leader. Members engage in shared leadership.

Accountability Members are individually accountable to the group leader. Leader is individually accountable for group performance.

Members are mutually accountable for performance within the group and for group performance overall.

Purpose Leader determines group’s purpose, agenda, and approach and delegates appropriate individual tasks and roles.

Members collectively determine team’s goals, agenda, and approach, as well as collective and individual tasks and roles.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 21 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.3 What Are Teams?

each other for their individual performance of tasks and roles within the team. They are also collectively accountable for team performance outcomes and the success or failure of the team as a whole. One of the advantages of the team concept is that team members share respon- sibility for problems and conflicts that arise. Rather than “passing the buck” to a superior, team members address these issues directly and attempt to resolve them within the team structure. This collective responsibility toward each other and to the team deeply affects how members interact and work toward a desired outcome.

Purpose In work groups, a leader directs the actions of each skilled member, like a chess player moving the different pieces on a board. By contrast, team members are largely self-directing, moving with mutual coordination; they keep track of what everybody else is doing and adjust their actions accordingly. This means team members are far more empowered than members of a work group, in that they have the ability—and the authority—to coordinate themselves (Salas et al., 2000). By collectively determining team goals, agenda, and approach, a team develops a shared mental model of these constructs and the steps that are needed to accomplish them (for example, Hu & Liden, 2011; Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000). This shared vision provides a road map and a set of directions that team members endorse and get behind. Member commitment and cohesiveness get a boost, significantly amplifying team performance and productivity (Kozlowski & Bell, 2001).

Teamwork has many proponents and a well-earned reputation for success. However, teams are not necessarily better than work groups. Functioning work groups are efficient and orga- nized. Member roles, tasks, and responsibilities are delineated without debate, and individual accountabilities are clear and nonnegotiable. Used properly, work groups can be productive powerhouses, yet we tend to automatically exclude them when looking to increase or improve performance. Teams engage in collaborative performance. They pool knowledge, viewpoints, and expertise to maximize critical thinking, creative problem solving, and adaptability to changing conditions. Collective decision making enhances member buy-in to team tasks and goals (Millikin, Hom, & Manz, 2010); however, functioning teams require substantially more member time, effort, and commitment to actualize than do work groups. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses, so how do we choose one over the other?

When to Use Teams When faced with the decision of whether to use a team, organizations tend to follow estab- lished patterns. Newer technology- or design-based firms tend to opt for teams, while older organizations are more likely to use work groups (though they may mislabel these as teams). Today’s focus on team performance often leaves work groups overlooked and underrated, yet teams are not always the right fit for the job. The performance value of any task group depends on task complexity, operational context, and performance goals. Given that work groups spend less time deliberating during performance, they are almost always more effi- cient than teams, but teams are typically more effective. In deciding whether to use a team or a work group, we must first determine what the performance outcome needs most: efficiency or effectiveness.

In the business world, efficiency refers to greater production or performance output, with less input of resources (i.e., time, money, and employee labor). Work groups are highly

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 22 8/19/16 9:37 AM

• Is there a lack of clear answers? • Are the tasks complex? • Is there too much or too little information? • Is there a need for creative ideas? • Does the problem cross functions?

• Does the solution affect many people? • Is there a strong bias toward the outcome? • Does success depend on individual and collective commitment to the outcome?

For nonroutine tasks or solutions

For tasks or solutions requiring broad support

Section 1.3 What Are Teams?

efficient because they allow group leaders to accomplish more within a given time frame than could be done alone or in a team setting, where collective decision making eats away at production time. Think of a work group as an augmented individual. Since group leaders provide all of the creative and strategic decision making, a work group reflects the leader’s individual ability in these areas. Work group leaders hold ultimate responsibility for the quan- tity and quality of the groups’ output. Work groups also offer strength in numbers. As tasks and activities are delegated to group members, their overall productivity outstrips that of any one individual. With smart selection, group leaders can access skills that either compliment or go beyond their own abilities, thereby enhancing both the quantity and quality of their “individual” performance.

In dealing with groups and teams, effectiveness represents the degree to which a perfor- mance outcome satisfies project requirements, the relative quality and timeliness of a solu- tion or output, and the quality of member interaction. In contrast to efficiency, effectiveness tends to denote performance flexibility and overall satisfaction, rather than quantity or speed. Work groups may excel at efficient execution, but they typically struggle with adapting. This is where teams excel. Team members are largely self-directing, so they have the ability to quickly assess and adapt strategies to deal with issues that arise over the course of their per- formance. There are no project stalls while someone contacts the group leader, explains the situation, and waits for the leader to decide on a course of action.

The work group efficiency concept typically results in a standard but not superlative level of product or outcome quality and satisfaction. The mutual accountability inherent to effective teamwork tends to heighten member motivation to exceed minimum performance and solu- tion standards. Mutual coordination assures that when a team member makes decisions or initiative changes within the performance process, others will adjust and adapt with them, supporting or even improving on their efforts. So when should we use a team? The Vroom, Yetton, and Jago (Vroom & Yetton, 1973; Vroom & Jago, 1988) decision-making model for leadership and participation offers some very practical suggestions (see Figure 1.3).

Figure 1.3: Guidelines for when to use teams

The Vroom, Yetton, and Jago decision-making model recommends using teams when tasks or solutions are nonroutine or require broad support. Organizations can ask themselves these questions to help determine whether a team is the best fit for their needs.

• Is there a lack of clear answers? • Are the tasks complex? • Is there too much or too little information? • Is there a need for creative ideas? • Does the problem cross functions?

• Does the solution affect many people? • Is there a strong bias toward the outcome? • Does success depend on individual and collective commitment to the outcome?

For nonroutine tasks or solutions

For tasks or solutions requiring broad support

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 23 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.4 Identifying Team and Task Types

It is important to note that an organization does not need to restrict itself to using only teams or only work groups. The ability to blend efficiency and effectiveness can be an unparalleled tool. A growing number of organizations recognize the performance power in both work groups and teams. These organizations seek employees who not only work well within either model, but can successfully work within both formats in concurrent groups, as project needs demand. Architecture and design-based firms have been using this model for years. An archi- tect often works as part of a team of designers on a building project and holds a concurrent position on another project as, say, a work group leader over other architects, designers, or assistants. Those other architects, designers, and assistants in turn may also be team mem- bers, work group leaders, or work group members on another project.

The ability to work well within either a work group or team setting is one of the most valuable and highly sought skills employees can bring to an organization. For managers and project planners, other highly sought skills include the knowledge, experience, and ability to:

• judge which group model is best suited to a particular project task or goal, • track performance efficiency and effectiveness based on the work group or team

model, and • determine when a switch from work group to team (or vice versa) may best serve

the desired performance outcome.

Once the decision to employ a team has been made, the question becomes: What kind of team should we use? We will turn to that question in the next section.

1.4 Identifying Team and Task Types The flexibility inherent in the team structure complicates attempts to place teams—and the tasks they perform—into prepackaged labels. New applications for teams and variations on the team concept emerge constantly within organizations, yet understanding team types is important. Teams share certain qualities that set them apart from other groups, but teams are not identical. They represent different and often unique combinations of malleable proper- ties, such as composition, structure, and leadership (Harvey, Fisher, McPhail, & Moeller, 2009; Zheng, Khoury, & Grobmeier, 2010; Salas et al., 2000). These differences in turn affect team processes and management needs (Horwitz, 2005). Task expectations, operational setting, and enlisted communication channels influence the nature of teams in terms of what they do and how they do it (Stewart & Barrick, 2000; Abbott, Boyd, & Miles, 2006).

Teams are categorized using a combination of their structural parameters and primary task type (Wildman et al., 2012; Sundstrom, McIntyre, Halfhill, & Richards, 2000; Devine, 2002). Structural parameters define the team’s role, interrelation, and interdependence within the organization. These are used to develop team types that describe the fundamental nature of a team and how it is expected to work. Primary task types represent a basic categorization of the prime objectives teams are expected to achieve or perform. In other words, they describe what a team is expected to do.

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 24 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.4 Identifying Team and Task Types

We will begin by looking at team types, then turn to task types. While it might seem more natural to address what before how, keep in mind that when compared to other task groups, how teams perform is their primary distinction and the key to their success.

Team Types As we’ve discussed, a team’s structural parameters—role, interrelation, and interdependence within an organization—will determine how it is expected to function, and therefore its team type. Here, we discuss the most common team types encountered in organizations: work teams, project teams, task force teams, parallel teams, and virtual teams.

Work Teams Work teams are long-term continuous work units responsible for an entire product, process, or service from beginning to end (Wellins, Byham, & Wilson, 1991; Cohen & Bailey, 1997). Work teams represent the basic team unit on which specific variations are built; these varia- tions are widely diverse in function and task type, composition, and context. Membership in work teams is typically full time, well defined, and can be either fixed or rotating. Manufac- turing and production teams, people and process management teams, customer service, and information technology (IT) teams are all examples of organizational work teams.

Project Teams Project teams are tasked with achieving a unique, one-time output within a structured time frame, and typically disband after its completion (Keller, 1994; Cohen & Bailey, 1997). Proj- ect teams are frequently used for design and development but can be aimed at any time- structured task or goal. The outputs for project teams can range from radical innovations to incremental improvements to existing products, services, or concepts (Cohen & Bailey, 1997).

Membership within project teams is often cross-functional, or drawn from different func- tional or departmental backgrounds. This helps maximize a project team’s creative and adap- tive potential and enhance project solutions with specialized or expert knowledge. A new product development team, for example, may draw members from product design and engi- neering, marketing, and manufacturing departments and release them back to their regular duties or put them on another project once the team has fulfilled its purpose.

Within relatively broad directives, project teams are given a fair amount of latitude on what they create. Take a project team tasked with developing a new cell phone, for instance. The team may be given design cues based on desired features, but specific interpretation is largely left up to team members. Although they tend to be temporary, some project teams work together on a semipermanent basis, moving from project to project and rotating additional members in and out as needed.

Task Force Teams Task force teams are small, specialist teams composed of expert members temporarily pulled across organizational and functional boundaries to deal with a single urgent task or problem. Although we often think of the term task force in relation to military-based teams—the task

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 25 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.4 Identifying Team and Task Types

force concept originated in the U.S. Navy to increase operational flexibility during World War II (Furer, 1959)—modern task forces are used in both civilian and noncivilian settings.

Task forces differ from project teams in the specificity and urgency of their assignments and in the specific limitations on their empowerment. Task force assignments include highly detailed task parameters and clearly specified goals that must be achieved within an urgent time frame. Task force teams are highly self-directing in how they work within those rigid boundaries, however. Take, for instance, emergency response crews arriving on the site of a disaster. Members of the response team have specific and urgent task assignments, are expected to perform these using the best possible resources—whether these are provided or must be adapted from whatever is available—and then disband upon completing their task or as their performance window expires. Another task force team common in organizations— the cheetah team—is used to troubleshoot particularly urgent or unexpected problems that arise during design or development processes.

Parallel Teams Parallel teams operate outside of regular organizational structures, engaging in tasks and activities that do not directly produce goods or services but exist parallel to these processes (Matteson, Mumford, & Sintay, 1999). These teams source members from different areas and functions for part-time participation in problem-solving and improvement-oriented tasks deemed difficult to address through standard organizational structures (Cohen & Bai- ley, 1997; Fisher, 2000). Parallel teams differ from other teams in that members continue to perform their regular organizational roles and duties, meeting outside of these for parallel teamwork (Cordery, Soo, Kirkman, Rosen, & Mathieu, 2009). Parallel teams are also known as advice, involvement, and suggestion teams, because while they might operate autonomously to complete their objectives, they can only provide their founding manager or management group with information or advice—not action (Ledford, Lawler, & Mohrman, 1994; Cohen & Bailey, 1997). Examples of parallel teams include quality circles, quality improvement teams, and investigative and advisory boards.

Virtual Teams Virtual teams are composed of members who are separated by organizational boundaries, geography, or time and interact primarily through technology (Devine, 2002; Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004). Virtual teams offer a unique potential for efficiency and effectiveness by allowing organizations to bring together members with the desired KSAs and experience, no matter where or in what time zone they actually work. Freed from the social and financial cost of relocation, skilled employees and outside experts can be attached to the team as needed—and disengage just as easily when their work is done.

Table 1.4 summarizes and provides examples of each of the basic team types.

It is important to note that the basic team types listed in Table 1.4 are not mutually exclusive. In other words, teams can exist simultaneously in two or more of these categories. We might, for example, put together a virtual project team, bringing together the best people for a new product design regardless of physical location. Next, we turn our attention to primary task types.

Table 1.4: Summary of basic team types

Team type Description Example

Work team Long-term continuous work units responsible for an entire product, pro- cess, or service from beginning to end

• Manufacturing and production teams • People and process management

teams • Customer service, sales, negotiation,

and IT teams

Project team Tasked with a unique, one-time output to be performed within a structured time frame

• New product development teams • Design teams • Marketing teams

Task force Small, specialist teams composed of expert members temporarily pulled across organizational and functional boundaries to deal with a single urgent task or problem

• Cheetah teams • Emergency response crews • Military task forces

Parallel team Operate outside of regular organiza- tional structures, engaging in tasks and activities that exist in parallel to busi- ness and management processes

• Quality circles • Quality improvement teams • Investigative and advisory boards • Focus groups

Virtual team Composed of members who are sepa- rated by organizational boundaries, geography, and/or time and who inter- act primarily through technology

• Any team that primarily interacts via technology and engages in a virtual setting

cog81769_01_c01_001-038.indd 26 8/19/16 9:37 AM

Section 1.4 Identifying Team and Task Types

Primary Task Types While team type labels describe the fundamental nature of a team and how it will perform, they do not give us much information about what the team will be working toward. That is where task-type classifications come in. Task types describe what a particular team is expected to do. Table 1.5 lists the primary task types and their descriptions and provides examples of associated teams.

Understanding the Significance of Team and Task Types As we have learned, team types based on structural parameters describe teams on a funda- mental level (i.e., a project team), while primary task types act as descriptive qualifiers (i.e., a project management team). But why are these labels significant or important? Together, team and task types offer a shared language that can create an immediate and common under- standing about the nature of a team, answering questions such as:

• What is the life expectancy of the team—is it expected to produce or provide some- thing indefinitely or just once?

• Are team deliverables a focal product, such as goods, services, or authoritative decision making, or will the team’s performance mainly involve support, advice, or troubleshooting?

• Where will team members be pulled from, and how will they primarily interact?