PPT Team Management

Chapter 4 Designing the Team

Tasks, People, and Processes

In August 2011, three Boston Red Sox pitchers, Josh Becket, Jon Lester, and John Lackey, were uniquely positioned to win 100 games and contend for a third World Series victory in 7 years. To be sure, Beckett, Lester, and Lackey had all the skills and motivation that come with being World Series champions. However, the talent and passion that led them to their previous World Series victory fizzled out and, instead, the three spent their time drinking beer, eating fast-food fried chicken, and playing video games in the clubhouse during games. The dysfunctional, self-destructive patterns of behavior were uncovered in a series of interviews the Boston Globe conducted at all levels of the Red Sox operation. All told, a series of highly preventable incidents conspired to create a perfect September storm. For example, 50 percent of the players did not follow the athletic conditioning program. Many players never signed up for optional batting practice. The players accused management of caring more about making money than winning and were resentful about scheduling. As it turns out, drinking beer, ordering fast-take-out-food, and playing video games in the clubhouse are allowed, but the players did all three during actual games and violated an unwritten norm that players demonstrate solidarity with teammates. The signs were more than painfully obvious and the body fat measurements of Beckett, Lester, and Lackey increased as their pitching skills eroded. They did not reply to messages left on their cell phones and cut off communication with their agents. In the final days, only a small handful of players remained fully committed to winning. In 2011, the team suffered the greatest September collapse in major league baseball history, blowing a 9-game lead for a final playoff spot in the last 27 days of the regular season. The Sox owners seemed to turn a blind eye, despite the fact that strong leadership was needed.1

1 Hohler, B. (2011, October 12). Inside the collapse. Boston Globe. bostonglobe.com.

The story of the fall of the Red Sox indicates that even when all the necessary factors for team success seem to be in place—world-class talent, a track record of passion and drive, and economic resources—teams can still fail miserably. In this chapter, we focus on how to build effective teams and how to evaluate their performance. Managing an effective team involves two sets of responsibilities: (1) managing the internal dynamics of the team itself—that is, specifying the task, selecting the members, and facilitating the team process; and (2) managing the external dynamics of the team—navigating the organizational environment and managing relationships with those on whom the team is interdependent.2 We refer to these dual processes as internal team management and external team management. In Part II, we focus on internal team dynamics. The starting point presumes that the manager has determined that teams are necessary to do the work required. For expositional purposes, we take the point of view of the manager when we discuss building the team. However, all of our messages can be extended to the team members themselves (i.e., as in the case of self-managing and self-designing teams). This chapter walks through the steps involved in building a team and keeping it running smoothly. The goal of this chapter is to create a toolkit for the busy manager to use in developing and maintaining teams. In Part III, we focus on external team dynamics.

2 Ancona, D. G. (1990). Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 334–365.

Building the Team

Contrary to popular wisdom, it is more important to have a well-designed team than a team with a good leader. In an intensive study of customer service teams at Xerox with team sizes ranging from three to twelve persons, well-designed teams were more successful on a number of key organizational effectiveness criteria—assuming collective responsibility, monitoring their own performance, managing their own task strategies, and customer approval—than were poorly designed teams.3 Poorly designed teams, even under good leadership, were significantly less effective. In the case of Xerox, team effectiveness was judged by supervisors as well as customers, thus providing a comprehensive view of team effectiveness. For these reasons, it may be more important to have strong team members than to have a strong leader to achieve success. This is why many leaders prefer to hire people smarter than they are.

3 Wageman, R. (1997a, Summer). Case study: Critical success factors for creating superb self-managing teams at Xerox. Compensation and Benefits Review, 29(5), 31–41.

Once it is determined that a team is desirable for the work and viable within the organization, the manager must then focus intently on three aspects: the work that the team will do, the people who will do the work, and the procedures and processes that the team will follow to achieve their goal.

These three factors—tasks, people, and processes—form the basic, internal system of teamwork. We begin by discussing the task, then we move to the people, and we conclude by discussing the processes and procedures.

The Task: What Work Needs to Be Done?

Teams are goal-directed entities. Some teams make products, some teams provide services, other teams make decisions, and still others provide advice and consultation.

Optimal team design depends on the type of work the team is doing, the structure of the organization, and so on. However, managers often do not think carefully about team design. If left to their own devices, teams rarely make explicit plans or develop performance strategies.4 Those that do, however, usually perform better, especially when the appropriate performance strategy is not obvious.5 For example, when surgical teams follow a checklist, patient-mortality rates are cut almost in half and complications reduce by more than a third.6

4 Hackman, J. R., Brousseau, K. R., & Weiss, J. A. (1976). The interaction of task design and group performance strategies in determining group effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 350–365; Weingart, L. R. (1992). Impact of group goals, task component complexity, effort, and planning on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(5), 682–693.

5 Hackman, Brousseau, & Weiss, “Interaction of task design and group performance,” p. 81.

6 Szalavitz, M. (2009, January 14). Study: A simple surgery checklist saves lives. Time. time.com.

It is useful to distinguish preplanning (before actually performing the task) and online planning (during the task itself).7 Teams permitted to plan between periods of task completion perform better than those that plan only during periods of task completion or do not have opportunities to discuss and develop plans.8 In one investigation, the efficacy of four different “team aids” for articulating and representing knowledge in teams was tested: individual clipboards, team checklists, team clipboards, and a control condition that contained no clipboards or checklists. Teams were challenged with a complex task regarding target identification in a military operation in which a target could be peaceful or hostile, military or civilian, and approached by air, surface, or submarine. Team aids (i.e., team checklists and team clipboards) enhanced team performance more than individual aids (i.e., individual clipboards).9

7 Weingart, “Impact of group goals,” p. 81.

8 Shure, G. H., Rogers, M. S., Larsen, I. M., & Tasson, J. (1962). Group planning and task effectiveness. Sociometry, 25(3), 263–282.

9 Sycara, K., & Lewis, M. (2004). Integrating intelligent agents into human teams. In E. Salas & S. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition: understanding the factors that drive process and performance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Is the Goal Clearly Defined?

Teams often do not have a goal or the goal is clear to some members but not to others. Whether the team is assigned a goal or articulates its own, the goal needs to be clear. Goals should be articulated in the form of a team charter (mission statement). Wageman’s analysis of teams at Xerox revealed two common errors when it came to goal setting: Some teams failed to set any direction at all, and some teams set a direction that focused exclusively on means (the how), but did not specify the ends (the why).10 The first error occurs when teams assume that everyone knows why they are there and the team is launched into action without a thoughtful discussion of the purpose. The second error occurs when there is excessive focus on how a team should function.

10 Wageman, R. (1997a, Summer). Case study: Critical success factors for creating superb self-managing teams at Xerox. Compensation and Benefits Review, 29(5), 31–41.

According to Wageman, team goals should (1) be clear and simple and (2) specify ends but not means.11 In terms of clear and simple, the best team mission statements contain only a few objectives. But, those objectives orient the team and allow members to make thoughtful decisions. For example, in Wageman’s analysis of teams at Xerox, successful teams continually referred to their goals when making tough decisions: “Would this action please the customer and would it do so without excessive cost to Xerox?”12 A large-scale meta-analysis of teams revealed that specific, difficult goals yield considerably higher team performance compared with nonspecific goals.13

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid.

13 Kleingeld, A., van Mierlo, H., Arends, L. (2011). The effect of goal setting on group performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1289–1304.

Wageman also cautions that successful teams specify their ends, but not the means.14 Their mission statement is clear about the team’s purpose, but does not prescribe the steps on how the team should get there.

14 Wageman. (1997a, Summer). “Case study: Critical success factors for creating superb self-managing teams at xerox.” Compensation and Benefits Review, 29(5), p. 31–41.

With respect to goals, some team members have a high-performance orientation , whereas other team members have a high-learning orientation . 15 A performance orientation reflects a desire to gain favorable judgments of performance or avoid negative judgments of competence. A learning orientation reflects the desire to understand something novel or to increase competence in a task. In one investigation, the effectiveness of performance and learning orientations was examined. Halfway through a 3-hour simulation in which teams needed to make a series of decisions, their communication channel began to deteriorate. To perform effectively, teams needed to adapt their roles. Teams with difficult goals and a high-performance orientation were the least able to adapt. Teams with difficult goals and a high-learning orientation were most likely to adapt.

15 LePine, J. (2005). Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: Effects of goal difficulty and team composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1153–1167.

How Much Authority Does the Team Have?

In Chapter 1, we considered four types of teams: manager led, self-managing, self-directing, and self-governing. The more authority team members have to manage their own work, the more likely they are to be motivated and highly involved in their work. However, this comes at a loss of control for the manager. Furthermore, when teams set and carry out their own objectives, they may not be aligned with those of the larger organization. In one investigation of 121 service technician teams, those that were empowered developed team processes that effectively increased quantitative performance and indirectly increased customer satisfaction.16

16 Mathieu, J., Gilson, L., & Ruddy, T. (2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness: An empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 97–108.

What Is the Focus of the Work the Team Will Do?

Teams do one of three types of tasks: tactical, problem solving, and creative. Exhibit 4-1 describes tactical, problem-solving, and creative teams and the disadvantages and advantages of each team.

Tactical teams execute a well-defined plan. Some examples of tactical teams include cardiac surgery teams, many sports teams, and other teams that are tightly organized.17 For tactical teams to be successful, there must be a high degree of task clarity and unambiguous role definition. One type of tactical team is a crew. A crew is a group of expert specialists each of whom has specific role positions, perform brief tasks that are closely synchronized with each other, and repeat those events across different environmental conditions.18 As a case in point, in 2012, a Jet Blue pilot was locked out of cockpit and restrained by his air crew after shouting that a bomb was on board the

17 LaFasto, F. M. J., & Larson, C. E. (2001). When teams work best: 6,000 team members and leaders tell what it takes to succeed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

18 Klimoski, R., & Jones, R. G. (1995). Staffing for effective group decision making. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making (pp. 9–45). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; Sundstrom, E. D., DeMeuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45(2), 120–133.

Exhibit 4-1 Types of Work That Teams Do

Source: Based on Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, F. M. (1989). Teamwork: What must go right/what can go wrong. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Key Objective	Process Focus	Threats
Tactical	· Directive, highly focused tasks · Role clarity · Well-defined operation · Accuracy	· Role ambiguity · Lack of training standards · Communication barriers
Problem solving	· Focus on issues · Separate people from problem · Consider facts, not opinions · Conduct thorough investigation · Suspend judgment	· Failure to stick to facts · Fixate on solutions · Succumb to political pressures · Confirmatory information search
Creative	· Explore possibilities and alternatives	· Production blocking · Uneven participation

plane. The flight crew was well equipped to handle such a crisis and sprang into action based on the crew resource management that required pilots and flight attendants to train together.19 To assess whether a particular team is a “work crew,” complete the survey in Exhibit 4-2.

19 Pilots and the cockpit: What we don’t understand. (2012, March 28). National Public Radio. Talk of the nation; npr.com.

Exhibit 4-2 The Crew Classification Scale

Source: Webber, S. S., & Klimoski. (2004). Crews: A distinct type of work team. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(3), 261–279.

1. In general, when you joined your group, how clear were your roles and responsibilities?

1———————2———————3———————4———————5
extremely unclear	extremely clear

2. To what extent does your group recruit for specific job positions that need to be filled for the group to be successful?

1———————2———————3———————4———————5
no specific job positions	all are specific job positions

3. To what extent does your group need to be in a specific work environment or setting to complete its tasks?

1———————2———————3———————4———————5
we can meet in just about any place	we can only do our work if we have the right work layout and equipment/tech

4. In general, to what extent do the same group members need to be present for the group’s task(s) to be completed successfully? (R)

1———————2———————3———————4———————5
need none of the same team members	need all of the same team members

5. To what extent do all of the group members need to be present for your group to accomplish its task or goals?

1———————2———————3———————4———————5
need only one group member	need all of the group members

6. To what extent is the workflow (i.e., how the work will get done) in your group well established before anyone joins the team?

1———————2———————3———————4———————5
no extent	very large extent

7. To what extent does each group member need to coordinate carefully with others in the group for the group to effectively accomplish its task(s)?

1———————2———————3———————4———————5
no extent	very large extent

8. To what extent would your activities in the group (including the task(s) that you are responsible for) change if you were to move to another group that might be assigned to the same task or mission? (R)

1———————2———————3———————4———————5
does not change	complete change

9. To what extent can your group complete its assigned task(s) if one or more of the people in the group are not there? (R)

1———————2———————3———————4———————5
cannot complete any of the task(s)	can complete all of the task(s)

10. In general how frequently do people come and leave as members of your group? (R)

1———————2———————3———————4———————5
daily	never

11. Approximately how long will your group work together to complete its major task? (R)

1———————2———————3———————4———————5
1 hour to 1 day	more than 1 year

12. Overall, how frequently has your group revisited/revised its roles and responsibilities since it was formed? (R)

1———————2———————3———————4———————5
never	more than five times

Note. (R), 6 reverse coded items

Problem-solving teams are those that attempt to resolve problems, usually on an ongoing basis. To be effective, each member of the team must expect and believe that interactions among members will be truthful and of high integrity. Some examples of problem-solving teams include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Sandia Laboratory’s nuclear weapons team.20

20 LaFasto & Larson, When teams work best.

Creative teams are those in which the key objective is to create something, think out of the box, and question assumptions. The process focus of creative teams is that of exploring possibilities and alternatives. We discuss creative teams in much more depth in Chapter 9. Examples of creative teams include IDEO design teams, Hallmark’s creative advisory group, and the teams responsible for HBO’s original programming.

Teams often contain some blend of all three elements, but there is a dominant focus. Sometimes, teams are mischaracterized—for example, a team that is supposed to be creative uses a problem-solving perspective, or a team that really requires problem solving is organized as a tactical team. This may happen when the goals of the team are not clear. This can also happen when teams are not apprised of the goal.

Roles and Responsibilities

According to the theory of the strategic core of teams, certain team roles are most important for team performance, and the characteristics of the role holders in these “core” roles are more important than others for overall team performance. A field investigation of 778 teams drawn from 29 years of major league baseball (1974–2002) demonstrated that whereas high levels of experience and job-related skill are important predictors of team performance, the link between career experience, job-related skill and ultimate performance is much stronger when the characteristic is possessed by core role holders (as opposed to non–core role holders).21 Team roles were critical in Amazon’s launch of the Kindle Fire mini tablet computer. Working in Lab126 in Silicon Valley design headquarters, more than 800 hardware and software engineers teamed for the creation of a colorized, reader-friendly version of the Kindle, released in 2007.22

21 Humphrey, S., Morgeson, F., & Mannor, M. (2009). Developing a theory of the strategic core of teams: A role composition model of team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 48–61.

22 Stone, B. (2011, September 28). Amazon, the company that ate the world. Businessweek. businessweek.com.

Backing-up behavior is defined as “the discretionary provision of resources and task-related effort to another member of one’s team that is intended to help that team member obtain the goals as defined by his or her role.”23 However, there are some costs of back-up behavior, such as when the team member providing backup neglects their own taskwork, especially when the workload is evenly distributed.24 Moreover, backing-up may lead to free riding, as team members who receive high amounts of backing-up behavior decrease their taskwork in subsequent tasks.

23 Porter, C., Hollenbeck, J., Ilgen, D., Ellis, A., West, B., & Moon, H. (2003). Backing up behaviors in teams: The role of personality and legitimacy of need. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 391–403.

24 Barnes, C., Hollenbeck, J., Wagner, D., DeRue, S., Nahrgang, J., & Schwind, K. (2008). Harmful help: The costs of backing-up behavior in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 529–539.

What Is the Degree of Task Interdependence Among Team Members?

Many types of task interdependence affect the way teams get their work done25 (see Exhibit 4-3). Consider three types of task interdependence:

25 Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

· Pooled interdependence occurs when group members work independently and then combine their work. Consider a department store’s furniture department. It comprises several salespeople, each of whom is compensated based on sales performance. On an interdepartmental level, the sales of each salesperson are totaled and compared across departments, so that cosmetics, furniture, and men’s accessories can all be compared and added together to determine overall store profit. Throughout this process, each salesperson is independent. Another example is a team of sprinters, each running as fast as they can; the team’s output is simply the average time.

· Sequential interdependence is the classic assembly line or division of labor; each member of the team has a particular skill or task to perform. Members are more interdependent, with those further down the line more dependent on others. For example, a relay race in which each runner needs to “hand off” to the other team member.

Exhibit 4-3 Three Types of Interdependence

Source: Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

· Reciprocal interdependence is the highest form of interdependence. Every member is dependent on others at all levels—not just in a simple linear fashion, as in sequential interdependence. Consider a cycling team in which members ride in a rotating pace line and change position every few seconds to maintain a high, steady speed. Similarly, when software developers are writing code, each person must have a high degree of familiarity with the other pieces of the program; otherwise the likelihood of bugs increases significantly.

High levels of task interdependence, which require interactions among group members to obtain crucial resources, consistently enhance performance.26 Highly interdependent members generate solutions faster, complete more tasks, and perform better than teams whose members are not highly dependent upon one another. Top management teams with higher interdependence experienced higher team and firm performance when their team was cohesive and had greater communication; however, teams with low interdependence had higher performance when communication and cohesion were lower.27

26 Fan, E. T., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (1998). When needs outweigh desires: The effects of resource interdependence and reward interdependence on group problem solving. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20(1), 45–56.

27 Barrick, M. R., Bradley, B. H., Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Colbert, A. E. (2007). The moderating role of top management team interdependence: Implications for real teams and working groups. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 544–577.

The degree of interdependence has design implications for teamwork. To the extent that tasks are easily divisible and threats to performance (Chapter 2) have been adequately resolved, pooled interdependence may be very effective for groups. For example, in a customer service call center, members do roughly the same type of work. However, pooled interdependence often cannot work for teams because completing the tasks requires specialization and division of labor. Thus, sequential or reciprocal interdependence is necessary. To a large degree, greater specialization means greater interdependence, because team members must rely on others to complete their portion of the work. The start-up times for reciprocal interdependence may seem daunting, but it may be especially important for highly complex tasks that require high levels of customer satisfaction. Another advantage of reciprocal interdependence is that all team members know the overall objectives of the team and may feel more accountable (thus reducing the motivational problems discussed in Chapter 2). Team values also influence the nature of their interdependence. A longitudinal field study of 39 project teams revealed that teams whose members shared egalitarian values (i.e., desire to create a shared sense of membership) develop highly interdependent task approaches and patterns of interaction. In contrast, groups whose members hold meritocratic values (i.e., individuals are motivated to demonstrate their unique abilities to other group members) develop low-interdependence task approaches.28

28 Wageman, R., & Gordon, F. (2006). As the twig is bent: How group values shape emergent task interdependence in groups. Organization Science, 16(6), 687–700.

Is There a Correct Solution That Can Be Readily Demonstrated and Communicated to Members?

Some tasks have one correct solution; other tasks have several possible solutions. Consider a construction team building a house in which each component (the framework, the windows, the insulation, etc.) has to conform to a blueprint, versus a consulting team outlining a strategy proposal for a company. In the case of the construction team, the blueprint is the criterion by which the team will be judged. This kind of team task is known as a demonstrable task.29

29 Steiner, I. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.

In contrast, no single best answer exists for the consulting team. This kind of team task is known as a nondemonstrable task. In nondemonstrable tasks, it is important for team members to discuss the indices they will use to assess their performance as a team. Otherwise, there could be considerable disagreement after the work is completed—not only among team members but also between the team and the client.

Are Team Members’ Interests Perfectly Aligned (Cooperative), Opposing (Competitive), or Mixed-Motive in Nature?

In many team-based organizations, reward structures are constructed so that some portion of team members’ pay is contingent on the performance of the team as a whole, to promote cooperation and reduce competition among team members.

It is important to determine the extent to which members have an incentive to work with one another or compete with other group members for monetary gain (such as might exist within some sales teams). At Menlo software, all employees work in pairs on projects, and everyone, even interns, votes on who is hired. Additionally, everyone knows each other’s salary, there are no corner offices, and no secrets.30

30 Menlo innovations: Taking teams to the next level. (2012). Inc. inc.com.

How Big Should the Team Be?

Leaders consistently struggle with the question of how many people to put on a team. Obviously, this depends on the nature of the work to be done and the level and overlap of skills among team members. It also depends on the budget. Generally, teams should be fewer than 10 members. It is wise to compose teams using the smallest number of people who can do the task.31 Unfortunately, there is a pervasive tendency for managers to err on the side of making teams too large. According to the team scaling fallacy , as team size increases, people increasingly underestimate the number of labor hours required to complete projects.32 This is because leaders focus on process gains, but fail to consider process losses. Unfortunately, managers seriously underestimate how coordination problems geometrically increase as team members are added.

31 Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

32 Staats, B. R., Milkman, K. L., & Fox, C. R. (2012). The team scaling fallacy: Underestimating the declining efficiency of larger teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(2), 132–142.

Teams that are overgrown have a number of disadvantages.33 Larger teams are less cohesive,34 and members of large teams are less satisfied with team membership, participate less often in team activities, and are less likely to cooperate with one another.35 People are more likely to behave in negative and socially unacceptable ways in larger teams, perhaps because team members feel more anonymous or are less self-aware.36

33 Nieva, V. F., Myers, D., & Glickman, A. S. (1979, July). An exploratory investigation of the skill qualification testing system. U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, TR 390.

34 McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

35 Kerr, N. L. (1989). Illusions of efficacy: The effects of group size on perceived efficacy in social dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25(4), 287–313; Markham, S. E., Dansereau, F., & Alutto, J. A. (1982). Group size and absenteeism rates: A longitudinal analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 25(4), 921–927.

36 Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343–356; Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (1989). Deindividuation and the self-regulation of behavior. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed.), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.

As team size increases, the frivolity of conversation increases and people tend to avoid serious subjects. People in large groups are more self-conscious and concerned about projecting the right image, and so they avoid serious topics. As group size increases, conformity increases in a negatively accelerating fashion, such that each additional person who agrees with the majority has less overall influence.37 Another problem of large teams concerns the equality of participation. For example, in a team of two to three, one person may do more of the talking, but all may participate. As the size of the team grows, more people do less talking relative to others. Sometimes, a few members say and do nothing.

37 Latané, “Psychology of social impact,” p. 89.

In contrast, there are advantages to smaller, even understaffed, teams. Members of understaffed teams work harder, engage in a wider variety of tasks, assume more responsibility for the team’s performance, and feel more involved in the team.38

38 Arnold, D. W., & Greenberg, C. I. (1980). Deviate rejection within differentially manned groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43(4), 419–424; Perkins, D. V. (1982). Individual differences and task structure in the performance of a behavior setting: An experimental evaluation of Barker’s manning theory. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10(6), 617–634; Petty, R. M., & Wicker, A. W. (1974). Degree of manning and degree of success of a group as determinants of members’ subjective experiences and their acceptance of a new group member. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4, 43; Wicker, A. W., Kermeyer, S. L., Hanson, L., & Alexander, D. (1976). Effects of manning levels on subjective experiences, performance, and verbal interaction in groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 17(2), 251–274; Wicker, A. W., & Mehler, A. (1971). Assimilation of new members in a large and a small church. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(2), 151–156.

If smaller teams are more advantageous, why are they relatively rare? The problem is that managers of teams appear to have an overstaffing bias . When team leaders are asked whether their teams could ever become too small or too large, 87 percent believe that understaffing is possible, but only 62 percent believe overstaffing is possible.39

39 Cini, M., Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1993). Group staffing levels and responses to prospective and new members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 723–734.

The question of how to downsize is critical in teams. One study investigated three types of downsizing on task focus: downsizing that eliminates the leader, downsizing that maintains the hierarchy (leader), and downsizing that integrates hierarchy. Only the teams that lost their leader (and hierarchy) increased their effort on task-related behaviors.40

40 DeRue, D. S., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M. D., Ilgen, D. R., & Jundt, D. K. (2008). How different team downsizing approaches influence team-level adaptation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 182–196.

Time Pressure: Good or Bad?

Another contextual factor is time and the organization’s norms of marking time—in particular, deadlines. How much time should a group devote to completing its work? A typical response might be “as long as it takes.” This answer is neither good nor practical. When a work group is given a specific amount of time to do a job, its members adjust their behavior to “fit” whatever time is available. When time is scarce, team members work harder, worry less about the quality of their output, and focus on the task rather than social or emotional issues. However, if more time becomes available, these employees continue to work as though time was still scarce, rather than relaxing. Thus, it is important to properly manage how teams are initially introduced to their tasks.

Consider an investigation in which three groups were evaluated according to their ability to solve puzzles.41 Each group had a different task load (completing 20, 40, or 80 anagrams), time limit (5, 10, or 20 minutes), and group size (1, 2, or 4 persons). Each group had three work periods. The task load remained the same for all periods for any given group, but the time interval increased, decreased, or remained constant. Groups of all sizes, and overall possible time intervals, solved more anagrams per member-minute the higher the assigned task load; groups of any size and for any given task load solved more anagrams per member-minute the shorter the time limit; and for any given load and time limit, productivity was higher the smaller the size of the group. Thus, the more the work load per member-minute, the more work gets done. The point is clear: Teams adapt themselves to the constraints presented to them, such as the amount of time they have to perform a task.

41 McGrath, J. E., Kelly, J. R., & Machatka, D. E. (1984). The social psychology of time: Entrainment of behavior in social and organizational settings. Applied Social Psychology Annual, 5, 21–44.

Not only is team performance susceptible to arbitrary “norming” cues, but team communication and interaction and some aspects of product quality are also affected by these factors.42 For example, short time limits on an initial task induce teams to spend more time on task-oriented behaviors and less time on interpersonal interaction, whereas teams with a longer time period engage in more interpersonal interactions.

42 Kelly, J. R., Futoran, G. C., & McGrath, J. E. (1990). Capacity and capability: Seven studies of entrainment of task performance rates. Small Group Research, 21(3), 283–314; Kelly, J. R., & McGrath, J. E. (1985). Effects of time limits and task types on task performance and interaction of four-person groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(2), 395–407.

Consider two kinds of problems related to this issue: capacity problems and capability problems.43 Capacity problems occur when there is not enough time to do all of the required tasks, although each task is easy. Capability problems occur when the task is difficult, even though there is plenty of time in which to do it. Capacity problems lead to a faster rate of task activity on subsequent trials regardless of the actual time limits set for those later trials; capability problems lead to more extensive processing of information, hence a slower rate of production on subsequent trials regardless of the actual time limits set for those trials.

43 Kelly, Futoran, & McGrath, “Capacity and capability,” p. 91.

Time limits are important from the standpoint of organizational planning and budget considerations. The Attentional Focus Model (AFM) predicts how time pressure affects team performance.44 The AFM model suggests that time pressure narrows group members’ attention to the most salient features of the task. As time pressure increases, the things that appear most central to completing the task become more salient and other factors are not considered. Time pressure can either enhance or reduce performance depending on the requirements for successful task performance. Specifically, when teams are under time pressure, they filter what they judge to be less important information.45

44 Karau, S., & Kelly, J. (1992). The effects of time scarcity and time abundance on group performance quality and interaction process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 542–571.

45 Kelly, J. R., & Loving, T. (2004). Time pressure and group performance: Exploring underlying processes in the Attentional Focus Model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 185–198.

Team members differ in terms of their sense of urgency, pacing style, and time perspective. A study of 71 teams in a business process outsourcing firm revealed that leaders who are able to manage diversity in terms of team members’ temporal styles have better performing teams as compared to leaders who take a weaker role in managing such temporal style differences.46

46 Mohammed, S., & Nadkarni, S. (2011). Temporal diversity and team performance: The moderating role of team temporal leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 489–508.

The People: Who Is Ideally Suited to Do the Work?

Once managers have some idea of the task design issues facing them, they are ready to turn to the people part of team building—how to best select members for their team. Obviously, the freedom to select team members is constrained in many ways: Managers may be limited to selecting members from a particular department, of a particular status, and so on. In other cases, managers may go outside the organization to recruit. At the opposite extreme, some managers do not have a choice about who is on their team; existing departmental structures determine team membership. Many teams are built by accretion and swapping members, not just created from scratch.

The first step is to carefully think about the task in terms of the work to be done and then choose people on the basis of their skills relevant to that work. For example, consider the three basic types of teamwork described earlier: tactical, problem solving, and creative. Obviously, creative types are not as well suited for tactical teams as are highly organized, results-driven people, and vice versa.

The following skills are important to think about when forming any team:

· Technical or functional expertise If the task calls for open-heart surgery, a chemist or a lawyer will not suffice, no matter how great they are at what they do. Team members must demonstrate competence to perform what they need to do for the team to accomplish its goals. In most team tasks, it is necessary to recruit members with diverse skills. In an age of increasing specialization, it is rare for one person to be knowledgeable in all aspects of a complex task.

· Task-management skills It is not enough for team members to simply perform their functional area of expertise. They need to coordinate the efforts of the team, set goals, and enact plans. Task-management skills involve planning the work, monitoring performance, dealing with disappointments and unknowns, and surmounting coordination problems (see Exhibit 4-4; the left-hand side of the exhibit focuses on task-management skills; the right-hand side focuses on interpersonal skills.)

· Interpersonal skills People on teams are not just automatons that simply carry out their tasks according to some predetermined plan. Because members of teams are people first—with their own issues, problems, and agendas—and team members second, the people side of teams exerts a powerful influence on productivity. Interpersonal skills include the ability to give constructive criticism, be objective, give recognition, learn from others, and so on. Consult the right-hand side of Exhibit 4-4 for examples of interpersonal skills in groups.

The type and blend of skills needed on a team depend largely on the task the team does. For example, problem-solving tasks often require more interpersonal skills; tactical teams require more organizational skills. Consider the following sources:

· Self-report What do employees regard to be their key strengths (and weaknesses)?

· Past accomplishments What projects have employees been involved with that called for these skills?

· 360-degree reports What do employees’ peers, supervisors, and subordinates regard to be their key strengths and weaknesses vis-à-vis these tasks? (See the discussion in Chapter 3.)

Exhibit 4-4 Task-Management and Interpersonal Skills

Source: Based on Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 41–49.

Task-Management Skills	Interpersonal Skills
Initiating Information seeking Elaborating Energizing Opinion seeking Coordinating Orienting Challenging Recording Detailing	Suggesting new goals or ideas Clarifying key issues Giving additional information such as examples, rephrasing, and implications, about points made by others Stimulating the team to continue working when progress wanes Clarifying attitudes, values, and feelings Pulling together ideas and suggestions Keeping the team headed toward its stated goals Questioning the quality of the team’s methods, logic, and results Performing a “team memory” function by documenting discussion and outcomes Caring for operational details	Encouraging Harmonizing Compromising Gatekeeping Reflecting Following Standard setting	Fostering team solidarity by reinforcing others Mediating conflicts Shifting one’s own position on an issue to reduce conflict in the team Encouraging all team members to participate Pointing out the positive and negative aspects of the team’s dynamics and calling for change if necessary Accepting the ideas offered by others and serving as an audience for the team Clarifying attitudes, values, and feelings

It is rare for one person to have all the three skills. Thus, a key task of the manager is not to search for “Jacks and Jills of all team skills,” but rather to focus on the task of diversifying the team so as to meet and exceed performance objectives.

Member-Initiated Team Selection

The preceding discussion took the point of view of the leader in assembling a team. What factors motivate a person to join a particular team? Potential group members make decisions to join groups based on group attributes (characteristics of the group itself, including its status, past success, and member composition) as well as relationship attributes (e.g., their personal relationship with group members).47 Member-initiated groups are not necessarily exclusive of others. In one investigation, participants played four rounds of “social poker” (a card game in which self-selected groups compete for money). Some people were not chosen to be on any team; nevertheless, when “isolates” earned nothing, self-organized groups frequently included isolates, even at their own expense.48

47 Barsness, Z., Tenbrunsel, A., Michael, J., & Lawson, L. (2002). Why am I here? The influence of group and relational attributes on member-initiated team selection. In Neale, M. A., Mannix, E., & Sondak, H., Toward phenomenology of groups and group membership (Vol. 4, pp. 141–171). Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier Limited.

48 Arrow, H., & Crosson, S. (2003). Musical chairs: Membership dynamics in self-organized group formation. Small Group Research, 34(5), 523–556.

Diversity

U.S. Air Force Major General Larry Spencer says of diversity, “You wouldn’t line up 11 quarterbacks or 11 linemen on a football field to make a play. You need diversity. People have their own unique backgrounds and skill sets that help them accomplish the mission. We need all those talents and only when we work together do we find success.”49

49 Buzanowski, J. G. (2009, February 5). Generals reflect on importance of diversity. Secretary of the Air Force Office of Public Affairs.af.mil

What are the key advantages of having teams composed of diverse members?

· Improved team performance Under some conditions, diversity can increase performance. For example, a study of 83 teams from eight organizations found that age and educational diversity was positively related to team performance when teams engaged in and enjoyed effortful cognitive activities—known as need for cognition.50 Conversely, diversity in learning and performance orientation decrease team performance; but if teams engage in reflexivity—talking about how they work as a team—the negative effects of diversity can be counteracted.51

50 Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C (2009, June). When and how diversity benefits teams—the importance of team members’ need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 581–598.

51 Pieterse, A. N., van Knippenberg, D., & van Ginkel, W. P. (2011). Diversity in goal orientation, team reflexivity, and team performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114(2), 153–164.

· Expanded talent pool Organizations that do not tolerate or promote diversity have access to a smaller amount of corporate talent—the less diversity, the less likelihood of recruiting and maintaining talented individuals.

· Multiple viewpoints Diverse (or heterogeneous) teams are more likely to generate creative solutions and solve problems more accurately than homogeneous teams—a topic we take up in Chapter 9 (creativity). Heterogeneous groups are more effective than homogeneous groups at solving complex problems (for a review, see Shaw).52 Groups whose charter members are ethnically diverse socialize newcomers more readily than groups with all Anglo-American founders.53 And people attribute more validity to the opinions espoused by heterogeneous, diverse groups than homogenous groups.54

52 Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

53 Arrow, H. (1998). Standing out and fitting in: Composition effects on newcomer socialization. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 1, 59–80.

54 Vala, J., Drozda-Senkowska, E., Oberle, D., Lope, Z., Silva, P.. (2011). Group heterogeneity and social validation of everyday knowledge: The mediating role of perceived group participation. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14(3), 347–362.

When we refer to a minority viewpoint, we are not describing the views held by a demographic minority; rather, we are referring to the presence of a statistical minority. The mere presence of a minority opinion has beneficial effects in terms of prompting others to make sounder judgments and in launching better discussions. Minority opinions can arise from one of two sources—from a member of one’s own team (an in-group member) or a member of another group (an out-group member). Both can be effective; however, a minority opinion offered by an in-group member is often more influential.55 Yet, people in an in-group may be particularly unlikely to offer a different viewpoint because of the strong pressure to conform and a reluctance to express views that effectively threaten the group.56 Indeed, when two people on the same team disagree with one another, there is more uncertainty, greater stress and anxiety, and more concern about social relationships.57 In short, people on the team may want to repair the relationships, rather than discuss the issues. Indeed, disagreement with out-group members is more tolerable than disagreement with in-group members. Perhaps this is why in-group minorities use the phrases “I don’t know” and “I’m not sure” much more often when expressing a different view than do out-group members.58

55 David, B., & Turner, J. C. (1996). Studies in self-categorization and minority conversion: Is being a member of the out-group an advantage? British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 179–199.

56 Phillips, K. W. (2003). The effects of categorically based expectations on minority influence: The importance of congruence. Personality Sociology and Psychology Bulletin, 29, 3–13.

57 Moscovici, S. (1985a). Innovation and minority influence. In S. Moscovici, G. Mugny, & E. Van Avermaet (Eds.), Perspectives on minority influence (pp. 9–52). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; Moscovici, S. (1985b). Social influence and conformity. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 347–412). New York: Random House.

58 Phillips, “The effects of categorically based expectations on minority influence.”

Members in the majority exhibit greater integrative complexity than do those in the minority.59 For example, a study of opinions rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court found that authors of majority opinions tend to concern themselves with specifying all imaginable contingencies under which the law should and should not apply to ensure the longevity of their precedent.60 In contrast, the authors of minority opinions often focus on arguments that could eventually facilitate the precedent’s overruling. This suggests that people who are exposed to members who hold a majority view experience an increase in their own levels of integrative thought; in contrast, people exposed to minority opinions or unanimous groups actually experience a decrease in integrative thinking.61

59 Gruenfeld, D. H. (1995). Status, ideology and integrative complexity on the U.S. Supreme Court: Rethinking the politics of political decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 5–20.

60 Ibid.

61 Gruenfeld, D. H., Thomas-Hunt, M. C., & Kim, P. (1998). Cognitive flexibility, communication strategy, and integrative complexity in groups: Public versus private reactions to majority and minority status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 202–226.

· Decision making Diverse decision-making teams make better decisions than teams that lack diversity. For example, all-male or male-dominated teams make decisions that are overaggressive.62

62 LePine, J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Colquitt, J. A., & Ellis, A. (2002). Gender composition, situational strength, and team decision-making accuracy: A criterion decomposition approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88(1), 445–475.

· Competitive advantage The key reason why diversity is so advantageous is that by sampling from a larger pool of potential team members, teams increase their competitive advantage. Nondiverse teams have a smaller talent pool to recruit from, which limits their performance.

Challenges of Diversity

Diversity is not without its challenges; the following are some key challenges in creating and managing diversity within a team:

Unconscious Homogeneity

Left to their own instincts, most leaders and most teams opt for homogeneity, not diversity. In a large-scale study, spanning 33 project groups over 4 years, work partner choice was biased toward others of the same race.63 When people in actual work groups had an opportunity to select future group members, their choices were biased toward not only those who were from the same racial group as themselves but also toward those who had a reputation for being competent, hardworking, and with whom they had developed strong working relationships.

63 Hinds, P., Carley, K. M., Krackhardt, D., & Wholey, D. (2000). Choosing workgroup members: The balance of similarity, competence, and familiarity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making Processes, 81(2), 226–251.

Surface- Versus Deep-Level Diversity

Consider the distinction between surface-level diversity and deep-level diversity.64 Surface-level diversity is based on social categories (e.g., race, age, and gender); deep-level diversity is based on attitudes, opinions, information, and values. It is often assumed that surface-level characteristics are a proxy for deep-level characteristics.65 Groups whose members differ on the surface as well as in their attitudes and information discuss information more thoroughly and perform better than do groups who do not have surface- as well as deep-level similarity.66 Surface-level diverse groups are perceived to be more positive and accepting of others, engaged in more persistent and confident articulation of divergent perspectives, and are more engaged in the task than are surface-level homogeneous groups.67 Surface-level diversity (whether it is task relevant or not) may be beneficial for groups in stimulating thoughtful discussion and analysis.

64 Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741–763; Phillips, K. W., & Loyd, D. (2006). When surface and deep-level diversity collide: The effects on dissenting group members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 143–160.

65 Chatman, J. A., Polzer, J. T., Barsade, S. G., & Neale, M. A. (1998). Being different yet feeling similar: The influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 749–780; Phillips, “Effects of categorically based expectations,” p. 95; Phillips, K. W., Mannix, E. A., Neale, M. A., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2004). Diverse groups and information sharing: The effects of congruent ties. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(4), 497–510.

66 Phillips, Mannix, Neale, & Gruenfeld, “Diverse groups and information sharing,” p. 96.

67 Phillips & Loyd, “When surface and deep-level diversity collide,” p. 96.

Deep-level diversity refers to differences that are based on education, task information, and cognitive styles, among other things. Teams benefit from multiple sources of deep-related task diversity.68 Educational diversity refers to heterogeneity in terms of education; national diversity refers to differences in culture. Both types of diversity provide teams with information-processing benefits that outweigh the limitations associated with social categorization processes.69 In general, groups with greater educational diversity are more likely to use information. In contrast, national diversity tends to raise issues of social categorization, which hinders information use.70

68 Rink, F. & Ellemers, N. (2010). Benefiting from deep-level diversity: How congruence between knowledge and decision rules improves team decision making and team perceptions. Group Processes Intergroup Relations, 13(3), 345–359.

69 Dahlin, K., Weingart, L., & Hinds, P. (2005). Team diversity and information use. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1107–1123.

70 Ibid.

Perceived Versus Actual Diversity

How diversity affects a team depends on how the team members perceive their diversity. For example, the more a team values diversity, the more likely they are to construe their diversity in terms of individual differences and the less likely they are to construe diversity in terms of group-level differences (e.g., race, gender).71 When team members perceive themselves to be diverse in terms of information, conflict increases.72 However, informational diversity increases information sharing in teams, which eventually increases perceived work style similarity. When the effects of actual dissimilarity are controlled for, perceived deep-level diversity predicts negative job attitudes, decreases helping behavior, increases turnover, and leads to withdrawal.73

71 Homan, A. C., Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A., & Koning, L. (2010). Believing shapes seeing: The impact of diversity beliefs on the construal of group composition. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(4), 477–493.

72 Zellmer-Bruhn, M., Maloney, M., Bhappu, A., & Salvador, R. (2008). When and how do differences matter? An exploration of perceived similarity in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107(1), 41–59.

73 Liao, H., Chuang, A., & Joshi, A. (2008). Perceived deep-level dissimilarity: Personality antecedents and impact on overall job attitude, helping, work withdrawal, and turnover. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106, 106–124.

Faultlines

If group members fall into two distinct, nonoverlapping subgroups, based on demographic characteristics, such as young Hispanic women and old Caucasian men, a strong fault line is present.74 These fault lines may split a group into subgroups and provide an informal structure for intragroup conflict.75 Groups with strong fault lines are more likely to identify not with their group as a whole, but rather, with subgroups inside the team.76 Moreover, people evaluate work groups with strong fault lines to be less effective than groups with weaker fault lines.77 Teams in which reward structures are fault lined with diversity perform worse than do teams in which reward structures cut across differences between group members or focus on a shared, superordinate identity.78 Indeed, teams with gender and educational fault lines perform better when they share superordinate goals, especially when their roles are crosscut (as opposed to aligned).79 The negative relationship between group fault lines and performance can be reversed or minimized when groups in the organization are aligned with respect to their results orientation. However, when organizational groups are misaligned with respect to their results orientation, fault lines hinder performance.80

74 Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325–340.

75 Thatcher, S., Jehn, K., & Zanutto, E. (2003). Cracks in diversity research: The effects of diversity faultlines on conflict and performance. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12, 217–241; Gibson, C. B., & Vermuelen, F. (2003). A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 202–239.

76 Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, K. (2005). Interactions within groups and subgroups: The effects of demographic faultlines. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 645–659.

77 van Oudenhoven-van der Zee, K., Paulus, P., Vos, M., & Parthasarathy, N. (2009). The impact of group composition and attitudes towards diversity on anticipated outcomes of diversity in groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12(2), 257–280.

78 Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S., van Knippenberg, D., Ilgen, D. R., & van Kleef, G. A. (2008). Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intragroup differences, and performance of diverse work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 1204–1222.

79 Rico, R. S.-M., & Miriam, A., Antino, M., & Lau, D. (2012). Bridging team faultlines by combining task role assignment and goal structure strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 407–420.

80 Bezrukova, K., Thatcher, S. M. B., Jehn, K. A., Spell, C. S. (2012). The effects of alignments: Examining group faultlines, organizational cultures, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 77–92.

Fault lines may be dormant or activated, such that dormant fault lines may not automatically lead to conflict. Indeed, groups with activated fault lines are more likely to form coalitions, experience conflict, and have lower satisfaction and lower group performance than groups with dormant faultlines.81

81 Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. (2010). The faultline activation process and the effects of activated faultlines on collation formation, conflict, and group outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(1), 24–42.

How Much Diversity?

The question of how much diversity to have on a team is not always clear. A team that is so diverse that it has little or no overlap in terms of interpersonal style, disciplinary or strategic background, or training will have a difficult time getting anything done. However, managers usually err in the direction of not diversifying enough. Managers should specify those skills they see as necessary to perform the job and then sample from all persons who meet those requirements. The optimal degree of diversity may depend on interpersonal congruence—the degree to which we see ourselves as others see us. A longitudinal study of 83 work groups revealed that diversity improved performance on creative tasks—provided that interpersonal congruence was high.82 Yet, diversity undermined the performance of groups with low interpersonal congruence. The amount of group variability (diversity) affects how they react to atypical group members. When groups are more diverse, atypical members are evaluated more positively than when the group is homogeneous.83 Reactions to diversity also depend upon people’s values, such as being conservative. People with low conservation values are more tolerant of diversity.84

82 Polzer, J. T., Milton, L. P., & Swann, W. B. (2002). Capitalizing on diversity: Interpersonal congruence in small work groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 296–324.

83 Hutchison, P., Jetten, J., & Gutierrez, R. (2011). Deviant but desirable: Group variability and evaluation of atypical group members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1155–1161.

84 Roccas, S., & Amit, A. (2011). Group heterogeneity and tolerance: The moderating role of conservation values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5), 898–907.

Conflict

Diverse teams will often (but not always) experience more conflict than will homogeneous groups, as individuals attempt to reconcile one another’s views or simply decide upon a single course of action. In an investigation of 45 teams from the electronics divisions of three major corporations, functional background diversity drove task conflict, but multiple types of diversity drove emotional conflict.85 Race and tenure diversity are positively associated with emotional conflict, whereas age diversity is negatively associated with emotional conflict. Similarly, in an investigation of 92 work teams in a household goods moving company, three types of team diversity were explored: social category diversity (e.g., gender and race), value diversity, and informational diversity.86 Informational diversity positively influenced group performance; social category diversity positively increased team morale; and value diversity decreased satisfaction, intent to remain, and commitment to the group. In a study of top management teams in bank holding companies, heterogeneity with respect to age and experience outside the industry was positively related to turnover rates.87 If improperly managed, culturally diverse groups may not reach their potential. In a study of culturally diverse work groups over a 15-week period, homogeneous groups reported more process effectiveness than did heterogeneous groups during the early period (the first few weeks).88 The diverse groups (composed of one Caucasian American, one African American, one Hispanic American, and one foreign national) reported more difficulty in agreeing on what was important and in working together, and they frequently had members who tried to be too controlling. The result was lower total task performance for the culturally diverse groups over the first 9 weeks. Diverse groups were good at generating ideas, but homogeneous groups were superior in overall task performance. However, at 9 weeks, the diverse and homogeneous groups performed about the same.

85 Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28.

86 Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, “Why differences make a difference,” p. 96.

87 Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin, K. (1991). Some differences make a difference: individual dissimilarities and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 675–689.

88 Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 590–602.

Solos and Tokens

Individuals experience solo status when they are the only member of their social category (e.g., gender and race) present in a group. Tokens are people in groups who are typically underrepresented or part of a minority, often historically disadvantaged. The smaller the number of other (disadvantaged, minority) group members present, the more negative the experience for the individual. Solos are more visible in a group and are more likely to be isolated and experience role entrapment.89 The increased visibility pressures create performance pressure on the token. Because they are more likely to be stereotyped according to their group membership, they experience isolation and are essentially trapped into whatever role is expected of them. An investigation comparing men’s and women’s job performance ratings revealed that women’s performance evaluations worsened as their proportion in the work group declined, whereas men’s performance evaluations were independent of their relative numbers in the work group.90 In a testing situation, solos performed more poorly during an oral examination.91 Moreover, men, particularly solos and nonsolos, appear to merit positive evaluations simply by being men.92 When women are active in groups, they may overcome the solo stigma.93 Low-status minorities in high-prestige work groups are expected to act as role models and mentor demographically similar others.94 However, role modeling is a threat to these group members because it highlights their low status and other members may perceive them to be coalition builders.95

89 Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 465–490.

90 Sackett, P. R., DuBois, C. I. Z., & Wiggins-Noe, A. (1991). Tokenism in performance evaluation: The effects of work group representation on male-female and white-black differences in performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 263–267.

91 Sekaquaptewa, D., & Thompson, M. (2002). The differential effects of solo status on members of high- and low-status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(5), 694–707.

92 Williams, C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in “female” professions. Social Forces, 39, 253–267.

93 Fuegen, K., & Biernat, M. (2002). Reexamining the effects of solo status for women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(7), 913–925.

94 Brown, R. (1986). Social Psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.

95 Ragins, B. R., & Sundstrom, E. (1989). Gender and power in organizations: A longitudinal perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 51–88; Duguid, M., Loyd, D. L., & Tolbert, P. S.(2012, March–April). Dimensions of status: How categorical, numeric, and work group status interact to affect preference for demographically similar others: A value threat approach. Organization Science, 23(2), 386–401.

There is a popular assumption that women, who are numerical minorities in high-prestige work teams, will advocate for other women as potential work group peers. However, two dynamics suggest that women may abdicate the opportunity to support qualified female candidates: competitive threat and collective threat. According to Duguid’s study, highly qualified female candidates pose a competitive threat to one’s own group status, and less qualified female candidates are seen as adversely reinforcing negative stereotypes about women.96 Another study examined American students’ responses to a university admission policy for African students; people were more likely to be accepting of tokenism in open, as opposed to closed contexts.97

96 Duguid, M. (2011). Female tokens in high-prestige work groups: Catalysts or inhibitors of group diversification? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(1), 104–115.

97 Richard, N. T., & Wright, S. C. (2010). Advantaged group members’ reactions to tokenism. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(5), 559–569.

Creating Diverse Teams

Fortunately, there are several opportunities to capitalize on diversity. Changing workforce demographics mean that work teams can be diversified in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, area of expertise, and organizational affiliation.

However, age and gender diversity may create conflict, because team members with different training and experience are more likely to have different perspectives about their jobs.98 Teams whose members vary more widely in age have greater turnover.99 Age diversity correlates highly with performance only in groups solving complex decision tasks.100 The same study of 4,538 employees working in 222 teams found that groups with a high proportion of female employees performed worse and reported more health disorders than did gender-diverse teams. When people are the minority member of a gendered group, their performance is enhanced in sex-typical (vs. sex-atypical) tasks.101

98 Pfeffer, J. (1983). Organizational demography. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 299–359). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

99 Wagner, G., Pfeffer, J., & O’Reilly, C. (1984). Organizational demography and turnover in top management groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 74–92.

100 Wegge, J., Roth, C., Neubach, B., Schmidt, K., & Kanfer, R. (2008). Age and gender diversity as determinants of performance and health in a public organization: The role of task complexity and group size. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1301–1313.

101 Chatman, J. A., Boisnier, A., Spataro, S., Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. (2008). Being distinctive versus being conspicuous: The effects of numeric status and sex-stereotyped tasks on individual performance in groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107(2), 141–160.

Diversity may raise challenges for the managers, but these are not insurmountable problems. In contrast, the problems associated with a lack of diversity may be insurmountable. A properly managed workplace meets these challenges, and it is worth the effort that it will take to address these problems because a diverse workforce greatly benefits the firm and the team. However, managing diversity is an ongoing process. We outline a four-pronged plan:

Publicly Commit to Valuing Diversity

An important first step is for companies to publicly commit themselves to valuing diversity. When groups are persuaded of the value of diversity (versus the value of similarity) for their team’s performance, diverse groups perform better when they hold prodiversity (vs. prosimilarity) beliefs.102

102 Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. (2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1189–1199.

Solicit Ideas and Best Practices from Employees on How to Diversify

Managers should pay attention to what team members say and implement at least some of these ideas. Part of this plan also includes asking team members to suggest ways to deal with conflict before it erupts. It is less useful to ask members how to deal with conflict after it erupts, because once embroiled in conflict people are less objective and more egocentric in their suggestions. Asking members to identify the causes of conflict will inevitably lead to finger-pointing and blame-finding.

Educate Members on the Advantages of Diversity

Rather than just stating the advantages of diversity, managers should explain the facts. Instead of preaching to the team (e.g., “you should diversify because it is the right thing to do”), managers should explain why diversity is in members’ best interests.

Diversify at All Levels

Organizations cannot simply hire more diverse people and hope they interact. Organizations must commit to and work toward diversity at the team level and the governing level. At NV Energy, an intense 2-day event called “Camp Supplier Diversity” brought employees and suppliers together which increased spending with diverse suppliers (by 69 percent). At City National Bank, internal groups composed of Hispanic, Asian, female, and gay employees share knowledge during monthly telephone conferences, which is communicated to a diversity advisory board made up of bank clients and nonbank clients.103

103 Business owners and executives weigh in with ideas for creating a diverse workplace (2012, June 25). Vegas Inc. vegasinc.com.

However, left to their own devices, top management teams tend toward “homosocial reproduction” (i.e., selecting people in their own image) rather than diversity. In a longitudinal analysis of a major Dutch newspaper publisher of 25 years, poor performance and high diversification caused teams to select “likes,” and this tendency was even stronger when competition increased.104 When pressure increases, top management teams tend to “hire likes and fire unlikes.”

104 Boone, C., Olffen, W., Van Witteloostuijn, A., & Brabander, B. (2004). The genesis of top management team diversity: Selective turnover among top management teams in Dutch newspaper publishing, 1970–1994. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 633–656.

Processes: How to Work Together?

In this section, we focus on team norms and team processes.

Team Structure

Team structure refers to how clearly the group’s processes are articulated by team leaders and the organization and the extent to which they are closely adhered to by team members. Groups that are high in structure have specialized roles and routines; groups that are low in structure do not have set roles and routines. Groups with low structure are often allowed to allocate work and organize themselves in any way that they please. They are often not assigned roles and not given specific routines to do a given task. They are simply asked to deliver. In contrast, highly structured teams are asked to assume specialized roles and take on distinct jobs. They are often told how to engage in the processes in order to deliver. Switching jobs or roles is usually not permitted. An analysis of 80 small production groups revealed those with low structure suffered more than highly structured groups when turnover occurred.105

105 Rao, R. D., & Argote, L. (2006). Organizational learning and forgetting: The effects of turnover and structure. European Management Review, 3, 77–85.

Team Norms

“[People] cannot help producing rules, customs, values, and other sorts of norms whenever they come together in any situation that lasts for any considerable time.”106 Norms are shared expectations that guide behavior in groups. Just as role negotiation and status competition occur early on in the development of groups, so do norms, or the ideas and expectations that guide appropriate behavior for members. Norms differ from formal rules in that they are not written down. Norms are critical for team and organizational performance. Because norms are expectations about appropriate behavior, they embody information about what people should do under various conditions. This makes it easier for people to respond appropriately under new or stressful conditions and helps ensure that everyone is working toward the same goal. Thus, norms reduce threats to productivity, and, in particular, they reduce coordination problems. Precious time is not lost while members wonder what to do. For example, at Nordstrom, it is well known by employees as well as shoppers that customer service is the number one priority. For decades, the handbook was a single 5×9 card containing 75 words, all emphasizing customer service, “We’re glad to have you with our Company. Our number one goal is to provide outstanding customer service. Set both your personal and professional goals high. We have great confidence in your ability to achieve them.”107

106 Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms (p. 3). New York: Harper & Bros.

107 Spector, R., & McCarthy, P. D. (2012). The Nordstrom way to customer service excellence: The handbook for becoming the “Nordstrom” of your industry (2nd ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Development and Enforcement

People in new groups rely on their definition of the situation to retrieve an appropriate script.108 A script is a prescriptive sequence of behaviors that dictates appropriate behavior in a given situation. For example, there is a script for behavior at restaurants (e.g., speak with hostess about how many are in your party, review menu, order, and pay the bill at table). Many norms develop within the first few minutes of a team’s first meeting—such as whether it is appropriate to come a few minutes late, seating arrangements, and so on.109 Within the first moments of group interaction, norms are established.110 As soon as the group members act collectively, they have established a new behavior, which serves as a precedent.111 All group members now have a shared script for “how we do this in a group.” The issue for the group when they face their next task or decision is not “what shall we do?” but “shall we proceed as before?”112 This precedent shapes members’ shared beliefs about appropriate behavior.

108 Bettenhausen, K., & Murnighan, J. K. (1985). The emergence of norms in competitive decision-making groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 350–372.

109 Bettenhausen & Murnighan, “Emergence of norms,” p. 102; Gersick, C. J. C. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9–41; Schein, E. H. (1988). Process consultation: Its role in organization development (Vol. 1). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

110 Gersick, “Time and transition in work teams.”

111 Arrow, H., & Burns, K. (2004). Self-organizing culture: How norms emerge in small groups. In M. Schaller & C. S. Crandall (Eds.), The psychological foundations of culture. Mahwah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

112 Ibid.

When norms are left strictly to natural processes and interaction patterns among members, the individuals who are most disruptive and least self-conscious may set unfavorable norms. This is because people who are the most outspoken and the least self-conscious do the most talking. One of the best ways to counteract undesirable norms is to introduce productive norms and structure early on (see Appendix 1 on meeting management); structure is the opposite of free-form interaction, where anything goes. For example, when Phil Libin took the helm as CEO of Evernote, he consciously developed norms about communication: no office phones, no lengthy e-mails, and walking the 10 or 20 feet to a colleague’s desk to talk instead of e-mailing.113 Other norms may focus on improving group cohesion (e.g., team members regularly arriving with specialty coffee and breakfast items to share with others, technical engineers bringing their dogs to work at companies in Silicon Valley, office birthday parties, and taco parties).

113 Bryant, A. (2012, April 7). The phones are out, but the robot is in. New York Times. nytimes.com

Although some level of agreement is necessary for an expectation to become a norm, this does not mean that norms may not be in conflict. For example, in one hospital, nurses might think that the amount of work administrators expect the nurses to do is about right, whereas in another nurses might think administrators expect the nurses to do too much paperwork.114 It may be that the norm within one department of a company is to allow its employees to take time during the workday to handle personal matters as long as the time is made up later, but this may not be considered acceptable behavior in another department within the same company.

114 Argote, L. (1989). Agreement about norms and work-unit effectiveness: Evidence from the field. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10(2), 131–140.

Norm Violation

Like rules, norms may often be violated. What are the consequences of norm violation in a team? Contrary to naive intuition, the first response of a team to a norm violator is not exclusion, but rather to persuade that person to change. When regularity is interrupted, or violated, the “injured” parties frequently attempt to regain regularity by appealing to the norm (e.g., “Why didn’t you circulate the report—we always do that!”). When a team member repeatedly violates a norm, there are serious repercussions, even if the behavior in question is useful for the organization. Consider, for example, the studies conducted at the Hawthorne Works plant in the 1940s. Strong norms developed among work group members concerning the rate of acceptable productivity. That is, members in a particular work group developed a pace at which to work; it was just enough to produce the desired output requested by the supervisor but not enough to overly tax the group’s members. Consequently, when members of the work group failed to produce at the level displayed by their peers, they were sharply reprimanded. Furthermore, when members of the group overproduced (worked harder than other members of the group), they were harshly punished. In the Hawthorne Works plant, researchers observed a behavior called “binging,” in which the “rate buster” (i.e., the overproducer) was given a sharp blow to the arm so as to reprimand the employee and decrease the level of output.

Certainly, not all cases of norm violation in organizational work groups are met with physical aggression. The first response of a team to a norm violation is usually to attempt to correct the misbehavior with some reminding. Teams will often persist in this kind of corrective activity for a long period before they move to more drastic measures. Indeed, other forms of punishment and aggression are perhaps even more detrimental to individual and organizational well-being, such as ostracism, in which people are excluded from certain social or professional activities.115 Ostracism can have negative repercussions for the company as well if the isolated individual is not given sufficient information to effectively do the job.

115 Williams, K. D. (1997). Social ostracism. In R. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 133–170). New York: Plenum Publishers.

Changing Norms

Once established, norms are not easily changed. Norms are often maintained over several “generations,” during which old members gradually leave the team and new members join.116 Teams’ efforts to transmit their norms are particularly strong when newcomers are involved.117 Teams are highly motivated to provide newcomers with the knowledge, ability, and motivation they will need to play the role of a full member. Consequently, newcomers are usually receptive to these influence attempts because they feel a strong need to learn what is expected of them.118

116 Jacobs, R. C., & Campbell, D. T. (1961). The perpetuation of an arbitrary tradition through several generations of a laboratory microculture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 649–658; Weick, K. E., & Gilfillan, D. P. (1971). Fate of arbitrary traditions in a laboratory microculture. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 179–191.

117 Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1991). Culture and socialization in work groups. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 585–634). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1989). Newcomers and oldtimers in small groups. In P. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology or group influence (2nd ed., pp. 143–186). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

118 Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226–251; Van Maanen, J. (1977). Experiencing organization: Notes on the meaning of careers and socialization. In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Organizational careers: Some new perspectives (pp. 15–45). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Team Coaching

Team coaching is “direct interaction with a team intended to help members make coordinated and task-appropriate use of their collective resources in accomplishing the team’s work.”119 According to Hackman and Wageman’s theory of team coaching, coaching involves three distinct features:120

119 Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 269–287.

120 Ibid.

· The functions that coaching serves for a team

· The specific times in the task performance process when a coaching intervention is most likely to have the intended effects

· The conditions under which team-focused coaching is likely to facilitate performance

Examples of coaching include a press meeting before a new product is announced, giving the team feedback on their performance, or asking the team thoughtful questions about their recommendations for a new strategy. By contrast, personally coordinating the work of a team or negotiating resources is, on the surface, quite useful for the team, but is not coaching.121 According to Hackman, “coaching is about building teamwork, not about doing the team’s work.”122 As important as coaching is for team success, leaders focus their behavior less on team coaching than on other aspects of the team leadership portfolio.123

121 Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

122 Ibid.

123 Wageman, R., Hackman, J. R., & Lehman, E. V. (2005). The team diagnostic survey: Development of an instrument. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(4), 373–398.

Types of Coaching

Coaching can be educational, motivational, or strategic (see Exhibit 4-5).124 Coaching that focuses on ability, knowledge, and skill is educational in nature. For example, a coach might either provide or suggest that a person get training on particular skills, such as marketing or emotional intelligence. Coaching that focuses on how to enhance involvement is motivational in nature. For example, a coach might suggest that team members enhance their commitment to the team by outlining their goals and target dates for completing those goals. Finally, coaching that focuses on how to best integrate members’ strengths and abilities is consultative in nature. For example, a coach might suggest that the team members practice performing a particular task with one another.

124 Hackman & Wageman, “Theory of team coaching,” p. 304; Hackman, Leading teams.

According to Hackman and Wageman, the three coaching functions, education, motivation, and consultation, address a team’s task performance processes, not members’ interpersonal relationships. Thus, coaching functions are those interventions that inhibit threats to performance and enhance synergetic gains for each of these three performance processes. For team coaching to be effective, four conditions have to be present.125

125 Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 269–287.

Exhibit 4-5 Structural, Contextual, and Coaching Contributions to Team Performance Processes

Source: Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2004). When and how team leaders matter. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 37–74.

Contribution from
Performance Process	Direction	Structure	Context	Coaching
Effort (motivation)	Challenging	Task design	Reward system	Minimize social loafing
				Build team commitment
Performance strategy (coordination)	Clear	Team norms	Information system	Minimize habitual behavior
				Invent uniquely appropriate strategies
Knowledge and Skill (ability)	Consequential	Team composition	Educational system	Minimize poor weighting
				Build pool of talent

First, the team performance processes that are essential for success (i.e., expertise, engagement, and execution) must be relatively unconstrained by task or organizational requirements.

Second, the team must be well designed and the organizational context supportive. Well-designed teams respond better to good coaching and are undermined less by ineffective coaching than poorly designed teams.126

126 Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices versus hands-on coaching. Organization Science, 12(5), 559–577.

Third, coaching behaviors should focus on salient task performance processes, rather than interpersonal relationships or processes not under a team’s control. For example, in one investigation, leaders trained in two specific forms of process facilitation, strategy development and coordinating, were better able to lead their teams through a specific battle simulation operation.127

127 DeChurch, L. A., & Marks, M. A. (2006). Leadership in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 311–329.

Finally, coaching interventions should be introduced when the team is ready and able to incorporate them. For motivational interventions, the beginning of the task cycle is ideal. For consultative-strategy interventions, the midpoint is ideal, and for educational interventions, the end of the task cycle is ideal. Leaders who use active coaching are evaluated less positively in terms of team member satisfaction with leadership, yet their teams are more effective, particularly under change and disruption.128