Case #2

1

2

GROUP DYNAMICS FOR TEAMS

6th Edition

3

For my parents, who still have no idea what I

studied in graduate school. I hope this helps to

finally explain things.

And to my wife, Bethany, and children Emelyn and

William for the endless interruptions. You

redirected me toward what matters most.

—David

4

Sara Miller McCune founded SAGE Publishing in 1965 to support the dissemination of usable knowledge and educate a global community. SAGE publishes more than 1000 journals and over 800 new books each year, spanning a wide range of subject areas. Our growing selection of library products includes archives, data, case studies and video. SAGE remains majority owned by our founder and after her lifetime will become owned by a charitable trust that secures the company’s continued independence.

Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Melbourne

5

6

GROUP DYNAMICS FOR TEAMS

6th Edition

Daniel Levi

California Polytechnic State University, San

Luis Obispo

David A. Askay

California Polytechnic State University, San

Luis Obispo

Los Angeles

London

New Delhi

7

Singapore

Washington DC

Melbourne

8

Copyright © 2021 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

All rights reserved. Except as permitted by U.S. copyright law, no part of this work may be reproduced or distributed in

any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the

publisher.

All third party trademarks referenced or depicted herein are included solely for the purpose of illustration and are the property of their respective owners. Reference to these trademarks in no way indicates any relationship with, or

endorsement by, the trademark owner.

For Information:

SAGE Publications, Inc.

2455 Teller Road

Thousand Oaks, California 91320

E-mail: [email protected]

SAGE Publications Ltd.

1 Oliver’s Yard

55 City Road

London, EC1Y 1SP

United Kingdom

SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.

B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area

9

Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044

India

SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.

18 Cross Street #10-10/11/12

China Square Central

Singapore 048423

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Levi, Daniel (Psychologist), author. | Askay, David Andrew, author.

Title: Group dynamics for teams / Daniel Levi, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, David A. Askay,

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.

Description: 6th edition. | Thousand Oaks, California : SAGE, [2021] | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2020017283 | ISBN 9781544309699 (paperback) | ISBN 9781544309675 (epub) | ISBN 9781544309682 (epub) | ISBN

9781544309705 (ebook)

Subjects: LCSH: Teams in the workplace.

Classification: LCC HD66 .L468 2021 | DDC 658.4/022—dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020017283

Printed in the United States of America

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Acquisitions Editor: Lara Parra

Production Editor: Veronica Stapleton Hooper

Copy Editor: Jared Leighton

Typesetter: Hurix Digital

10

Proofreader: Gretchen Treadwell

Indexer: Integra

Cover Designer: Candice Harman

Marketing Manager: Katherine Hepburn

11

12

BRIEF CONTENTS

New to This Edition Acknowledgments About the Authors Introduction Part I Characteristics of Teams

Chapter 1 Understanding Teams Chapter 2 Defining Team Success

Part II Processes of Teamwork Chapter 3 Team Beginnings Chapter 4 Understanding the Basic Team Processes Chapter 5 Cooperation and Competition Chapter 6 Communication

Part III Issues Teams Face Chapter 7 Managing Conflict Chapter 8 Social Influence and Power Chapter 9 Decision Making Chapter 10 Leadership and Followership Chapter 11 Problem Solving Chapter 12 Creativity, Innovation, and Design Thinking Chapter 13 Diversity and Inclusion

Part IV Organizational Context of Teams Chapter 14 Team, Organizational, and International Culture Chapter 15 Virtuality and Teamwork Chapter 16 Evaluating and Rewarding Team Performance Chapter 17 Team Development Interventions

Appendix: Guide to Student Team Projects References Index

13

14

DETAILED CONTENTS

New to This Edition Acknowledgments About the Authors Introduction Part I Characteristics of Teams

Chapter 1 Understanding Teams Learning Objectives 1.1 Why Groups and Teams Matter 1.2 Defining Groups 1.3 Defining Teams 1.4 Why Organizations Use Teams

Organizational Characteristics Job Characteristics

1.5 Purposes and Types of Teams How Organizations Use Teams Classifying Teams

1.6 History of Teams and Group Dynamics Foundations of Teamwork Foundations of Group Dynamics

Summary Team Leadership Challenge 1 Survey: Attitudes Toward Teamwork Activity: Working in Teams

Chapter 2 Defining Team Success Learning Objectives 2.1 Nature of Team Success

Completing the Task Developing Social Relations Benefiting the Individual

2.2 Conditions for Team Success Team Composition Characteristics of the Task Teamwork Processes Organizational Context

2.3 Characteristics of Successful Teams

15

Team Structures Collective Intelligence Teaming Mindset

2.4 Positive-Psychology View of Team Success 2.5 Using Teams in the Workplace

Benefits of Teamwork Problems of Teamwork When the Use of Teams Becomes a Fad

Summary Team Leadership Challenge 2 Activity: Understanding Team Success

Part II Processes of Teamwork Chapter 3 Team Beginnings

Learning Objectives 3.1 Stages of Group Development

Group Development Perspective Project Development Perspective Cyclical Perspective Implications of Team Development Stages

3.2 Group Socialization Team Turnover

3.3 Team Goals Value and Characteristics of Goals Goals Gone Wild Hidden Agendas

3.4 Team Norms How Norms Are Formed Impact of Team Norms

3.5 Application: Jump-Starting Project Teams Building Social Relations Clarifying Roles and Responsibilities Team Charter Developing Virtual Teams

Summary Team Leadership Challenge 3 Activity: Observing Team Development Activity: Developing a Team Charter

16

Chapter 4 Understanding the Basic Team Processes Learning Objectives 4.1 Motivation

Social Loafing Increasing Team Motivation

4.2 Group Cohesion How Cohesion Affects the Team’s Performance Building Group Cohesion

4.3 Team Roles Role Stress Types of Team Meeting Roles

4.4 Task and Social Behaviors Value of Social Behaviors

4.5 Team Adaptation and Learning Team Mental Models Transactive Memory Systems Reflexivity and Team Debriefing Using Feedback Group Process Observations

4.6 Basic Team Processes in Virtual Teams Summary Team Leadership Challenge 4 Activity: Tracking Teamwork Behaviors

Chapter 5 Cooperation and Competition Learning Objectives 5.1 Teamwork as a Mixed-Motive Situation 5.2 Why Are People in Teams Competitive?

Culture Personality Organizational Rewards

5.3 Problems With Competition Competition Erodes Trust Competition Reduces Learning Intergroup Competition When Is Competition Appropriate?

5.4 Benefits of and Problems With Cooperation Benefits of Cooperation

17

Problems With Cooperation Competitive Versus Cooperative Rewards

5.5 Application: Encouraging Cooperation Common Goals Rebuilding Trust and Communication Encouraging Altruistic Norms Negotiating Cooperation

Summary Team Leadership Challenge 5 Survey: Cooperative, Competitive, or Individualistic Orientation Activity: Understanding Competitive Versus Cooperative Goals

Chapter 6 Communication Learning Objectives 6.1 The Communication Process

Verbal Communication Nonverbal Communication Communication Within Teams

6.2 Flow of a Team’s Communication Dysfunctional Information Processing Within the Team Gender and Communication Repairing Trust Psychological Safety Communication Climates

6.3 Emotional Intelligence 6.4 Facilitating Team Meetings 6.5 Communication Skills for Team Meetings Summary Team Leadership Challenge 6 Survey: Team Emotional Intelligence Activity: Observing Communication Patterns in a Team

Part III Issues Teams Face Chapter 7 Managing Conflict

Learning Objectives

18

7.1 Conflict Is Normal 7.2 Sources of Conflict 7.3 Types of Conflict

Task Conflict Process Conflict Relational Conflict

7.4 Conflict Management Two Dimensions of Conflict Comparing Different Conflict Management Styles Aligning Conflict Type With Conflict Management Styles Fostering Collaboration Through Open-Minded Discussions Negotiated Agreements Conflict in Virtual Teams

7.5 Preventing and Preparing for Team Conflict Preventing Conflict Preparing for Conflicts

Summary Team Leadership Challenge 7 Survey: Conflict Management Styles Activity: Observing Conflict Management Styles

Chapter 8 Social Influence and Power Learning Objectives 8.1 Understanding Social Influence and Power

Conformity Conversion Obedience

8.2 Types Of Power Bases of Power Influence Tactics Influence Tactics in Virtual Teams

8.3 Power Dynamics Status and the Corrupting Effect of Power Unequal Power in a Team Managing Unequal Power in a Team

19

8.4 Empowerment Degrees of Empowerment Programs Barriers to Empowerment Programs

8.5 Application: Acting Assertively Power Styles Use of Power Styles Encouraging Assertiveness

Summary Team Leadership Challenge 8 Activity: Using Power Styles—Passive, Aggressive, and Assertive

Chapter 9 Decision Making Learning Objectives 9.1 Decision Making in Teams 9.2 Deciding How to Decide: Evaluating Decision- Making Approaches 9.3 Individual Decision Making

Leader Decides Designated Expert Consultative Decision Making Problems With Individual Decision Making

9.4 Group Decision Making Aggregation Without Interaction Aggregation With Limited Group Interaction Fully Interacting Teams Problems With Group Decision Making

9.5 Crowd and Algorithmic Decision Making Wisdom of the Crowd Prediction Markets Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

Summary Team Leadership Challenge 9 Activity: Making Consensus Decisions Activity: Group Versus Individual Decision Making

Chapter 10 Leadership and Followership Learning Objectives 10.1 Defining Leadership

20

10.2 Leadership Emergence Leader Traits, Abilities, and Behaviors Follower Perceptions

10.3 Models of Effective Leadership Trait Approach Behavioral Approach Contingency Approach Relational Approach Charismatic Approach

10.4 Team Leadership Functional Approach Shared Leadership

10.5 Followership Summary Team Leadership Challenge 10 Activity: Observing the Leader’s Behavior

Chapter 11 Problem Solving Learning Objectives 11.1 Understanding Problems 11.2 Descriptive Approach: How Teams Typically Solve Problems 11.3 Rational Problem Solving: How Teams Should Solve Problems

Problem Recognition Problem Definition Problem Analysis Establishing Solution Criteria Generating Alternatives and Selecting a Solution Implementation Evaluation

11.4 Application: Constructing a Shared Mental Model Through Process Mapping Summary Team Leadership Challenge 11 Activity: Using Problem-Solving Techniques

21

Chapter 12 Creativity, Innovation, and Design Thinking

Learning Objectives 12.1 Creativity and Innovation 12.2 Four Phases of the Idea Journey

Idea Generation Idea Elaboration Idea Championing Idea Implementation

12.3 What Is Design Thinking? Embrace Innovation: Design Thinking in Action

12.4 The Design Thinking Process Empathize Define Ideate Prototype Test

12.5 Promoting Team Creativity and Innovation Team Diversity Information Integration Conflict Team Climate for Innovation Organizational Context

12.6 Virtual Creativity Summary Team Leadership Challenge 12 Activity: Comparing Different Creativity Techniques

Chapter 13 Diversity and Inclusion Learning Objectives 13.1 The Importance of Diversity 13.2 Difference and Diversity

Types of Difference Types of Diversity Diversity Over Time

13.3 How Diversity Operates Personality Traits

22

Social Processes Cognitive Processes

13.4 Effects of Diversity on Team Performance Categorization–Elaboration Model

13.5 Application: Supporting Diversity and Inclusion

Managing Goals and Identities Diversity Training Fostering Inclusion Leadership

Summary Team Leadership Challenge 13 Survey: Work Group Inclusion Activity: Understanding Gender and Status Differences in a Team

Part IV Organizational Context of Teams Chapter 14 Team, Organizational, and International Culture

Learning Objectives 14.1 What Is Culture? 14.2 Team Culture 14.3 Defining Organizational Culture 14.4 Organizational Culture and Teamwork 14.5 Dimensions of International Culture

Individualism Versus Collectivism Power Distance Uncertainty Avoidance Comparing the United States and Japan

14.6 International Differences in Teamwork 14.7 Multinational Teams

Characteristics of Multinational Teams Creating Effective Multinational Teams

14.8 Cultural Intelligence Summary Team Leadership Challenge 14 Survey: Individualism–Collectivism

23

Activity: Evaluating a Team’s Culture and Cultural Context Activity: Comparing Teams in the United States and Japan

Chapter 15 Virtuality and Teamwork Learning Objectives 15.1 Virtuality and Virtual Teams 15.2 Communication Technologies

Characteristics of Communication Technologies Types of Communication Technologies

15.3 Geographic Dispersion Spatial Dispersion Temporal Dispersion Configurational Dispersion

15.4 Managing Virtuality on Teams Determine Team Size and Locations Develop Virtual Teams Develop Knowledge of Communication Technologies Use Skillful Virtual Communication Consider the Intercultural Context Develop and Sustain Trust Adapt Leadership to Virtuality

Summary Team Leadership Challenge 15 Activity: Developing Norms for Virtual Teams Activity: Experiencing Teamwork in a Simulated Virtual Team

Chapter 16 Evaluating and Rewarding Team Performance Learning Objectives 16.1 Performance Management 16.2 Evaluating Performance

Measure Individual and Team Performance Measure Processes and Outcomes Develop Measures With Internal and External Input

24

Gather Ongoing Performance Information From Multiple Sources Use Performance Reviews to Foster Learning and Development

16.3 Rewarding Performance Rewarding Individual Team Member Performance Rewarding Team Performance Rewarding Organizational Performance Combining Reward Programs Relationship of Rewards to Types of Teams Linking Rewards to Types of Team

Summary Team Leadership Challenge 16 Survey: Individual Versus Team Rewards Activity: Evaluating and Rewarding a Project Team Activity: Team Halo Effect

Chapter 17 Team Development Interventions Learning Objectives 17.1 What Are Team Development Interventions? 17.2 Team Building

Does Your Team Need Team Building? 17.3 Types of Team-Building Programs

Goal Setting Role Clarification Interpersonal Relations Cohesion Building Problem Solving

17.4 Team Training Establishing the Need for Team Training Fostering an Effective Team-Training Climate Designing an Effective Team-Training Program Evaluating the Training Program Sustaining Trained Teamwork Behaviors

17.5 Types of Training Team Resource Management Training Cross-Training and Interpositional Training Action Learning

25

Summary Team Leadership Challenge 17 Activity: Team Building Activity: Appreciative Inquiry of Teamwork

Appendix: Guide to Student Team Projects A.1 Starting the Team

Team Warm-Ups Developing a Team Contract Leadership and Meeting Roles Managing Team Technology

A.2 Planning and Developing the Project Challenging the Assignment Generating Project Ideas Brainwriting Method Project Planning Roles and Assignments Reevaluating the Project and Approach

A.3 Monitoring the Project and Maintaining Teamwork Team Meetings: Sharing Information, Making Decisions, and Tracking Assignments Group Process Evaluations Managing Problem Behaviors Milestone: Midpoint Evaluation

A.4 Performing Team Writing Overall Strategy Division of Work

A.5 Wrapping Up and Completing the Project Milestone: Precompletion Planning Team Evaluations Celebrating Success and Learning From the Experience

References Index

26

27

NEW TO THIS EDITION

This edition marks numerous revisions to this text, both major and minor. While the essence of the book remains the same, each chapter has been revised, pruned, expanded, or restructured in some way. New engaging examples illustrate concepts central to team functioning. These changes are not merely cosmetic—the number of references in this edition more than doubled, growing from 528 to 1,113. Of these references, 280 represent studies and examples published since 2014. This was done with the dual purpose of supporting assertions with the latest scientific knowledge and serving as a reference for students wanting to learn more.

Additionally, several chapters have been completely rewritten and updated. A summary of major chapter revisions is provided here:

Chapter 1: New discussion of why understanding groups and teams is important for students, organizations, and society. In-depth differentiation between groups and teams. Expanded summary of contemporary group dynamic research that includes robotic teammates, artificial intelligence, and wearable sensors.

Chapter 2: Incorporation of Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro’s (2001) temporal model of teamwork processes. New discussion of mindsets drawing upon Amy Edmondson’s work on teaming.

Chapter 3: The negative effects of too many and too challenging goals are discussed. Wells Fargo’s unauthorized creation of 2 million bank accounts serves as a poignant example. Expanded discussion of how norms form and impact group functioning clarify these concepts. Illustrations of how norms shape group behaviors,

28

including the development of gendered communication norms in oil rig workers and the underhanded free shot technique shunned by basketball players.

Chapter 4: Expanded and updated discussion of cohesion, team adaptability, team learning, shared mental models, transactive memory systems, and reflexivity that references recent scholarship. A new activity to visually track and reflect on teamwork behaviors is described.

Chapter 5: Revised and expanded discussion of social- values orientation, benefits of competition, cooperative learning experiences, and skills associated with cooperation.

Chapter 6: New concepts include using boundary objects to reduce miscommunication in teams, empirically based guidelines for giving an apology to repair trust, and updated recommendations for virtual and face-to-face team meetings.

Chapter 7: Restructured the chapter to emphasize task, process, and relational conflict in teams. Additional content describes how to strategically align conflict management style with the kind of conflicts that the team is experiencing. New discussion reveals how to reduce team conflict through cognitive reappraisals.

Chapter 8: Expanded discussion of responses to social influence, including defiance, resistance, compliance, and acceptance. New content describes different social- influence tactics in virtual contexts. Team empowerment is discussed in greater detail and is clarified through the extended example of a captain’s unconventional command of a nuclear submarine.

Chapter 9: Completely revised and expanded the discussion of decision making. New topics include the influence of

29

culture on preference for different techniques, poor decisions through decision fatigue, and heuristics. Examples are provided of various decision-making strategies, such as aggregating individual responses without interaction to discover the location of a sunken submarine. Emerging decision-making methods are introduced, including the wisdom of crowds, prediction markets, and machine learning. Four methods for integrating artificial intelligence into decision making are discussed.

Chapter 10: Completely revised and restructured chapter to describe trait, behavioral, contingency, relational, charismatic, functional, and shared leadership. Followership is also emphasized to illustrate the mutually reinforcing relationship between leaders and followers. Expanded discussion distinguishes between leader emergence and leader effectiveness. Leader–member exchange (LMX) theory discussed with more depth, with special attention given to how unequal relationships between team members can produce inequalities. A table describing dimensions of high-quality versus low-quality communication exchanges grounds understanding of this important theory.

Chapter 11: Completely revised and restructured this chapter on problem solving. New discussions distinguish between well-structured and ill-structured problems. Greatly expanded section on rational problem solving discusses problem recognition, problem definition, problem analysis, establishing solution criteria, generating alternatives, selecting a solution, and implementing and evaluating the solution. For each step of this sequence, specific evidence-based guidance is offered.

30

Chapter 12: Completely revised and restructured this chapter to focus on creativity, innovation, and design thinking. New discussion of moving an idea from generation to implementation emphasizes the changing skills and mindsets required of team members as they move through this process in an organizational context. Introduction to the design thinking process, a popular approach to collaboration and creativity, is given. Several illustrative examples, including Embrace’s development of a low-cost infant incubator, the founding of Zappos, and GE redesigning the MRI experience for children, illustrate these mindsets and processes. Specific creativity techniques, tools, and mindsets are described, such as mind mapping, validating assumptions, and building experiential prototypes.

Chapter 13: Revised the discussion of diversity and added a new focus on difference and inclusion. Situates the importance of managing diversity and inclusion within contemporary workplace and societal contexts. New content focuses on individual traits (authoritarianism and social-dominance orientation) that contribute to intergroup dynamics. Features a new discussion of how different kinds of stereotypes manifest in different kinds of behaviors and attitudes. The categorization– elaboration model is introduced to emphasize the importance of information elaboration in order to maximize the benefits of diversity. Inclusivity is highlighted; it’s essential to supporting diversity in teams. A new survey and the end of the chapter measure the level of work group inclusion felt by each member.

Chapter 14: A new introduction describes the concept of culture in greater detail and offers an example to illustrate how it impacts behavior. The section on team culture has been expanded to describe how teams can create and reinforce values, using Amazon’s continued

31

use of the inexpensive “door desk” as an example. It also describes when a strong team culture is a disadvantage using the example of the challenges faced by an experienced team of engineers mandated with designing an inexpensive printer. Misalignments between team and organizational culture are discussed, and this includes an example showing how a team culture prevented the use of organizationally sanctioned parental leave. The section on intercultural dimensions of culture has been expanded and now recommends care in broadly applying cultural dimensions to individuals based on work by Brewer and Venaik (2014). A new section introduces Earley and Ang’s (2003) concept of cultural intelligence to explain how metacognition, motivation, and behaviors are critical for success in multicultural teams.

Chapter 15: This chapter has been restructured around the two dimensions of virtuality: communication technologies and geographic dispersion. New research on several kinds of virtual-teamwork technologies is presented, including text-based messaging, conferencing, social media, and 3D virtual environments. Guidance for writing effective e- mail messages is a new addition, as is an updated table summarizing various communication technologies. A new section organized around O’Leary and Cummings’s (2007) conception of geographic dispersion discusses the differential impact of spatial, temporal, and configurational dispersion on team functioning. The end of the chapter now focuses on techniques for managing virtual teams, including intercultural communication competences, trust development techniques, developing virtual teams, and leadership.

Chapter 16: Revised this chapter to focus on team performance management systems. Guidance is provided in developing measurements for individual and team performance, along with a new discussion of practical

32

skills for designing, measuring, and implementing team performance evaluation systems based on Aguinis, Joo, and Gottfredson (2011). Practical guidance on giving performance feedback to individuals and teams in a productive manner is provided.

Chapter 17: Reframed the chapter to situate team building and team training within the contemporary concept of team development interventions. New discussion emphasizes the development of the attitudes, behaviors, and cognitions (the ABCs) of teamwork. Revised discussion of team building includes a new activity called “I like, I wish” to develop interpersonal relationships. Expanded discussion of team training includes best practices drawn from recent research: conducting a needs analysis, fostering a team-training environment, designing an effective program, evaluating the program, and sustaining training impact.

33

34

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people helped shape this book. Daniel appreciates the many opportunities that Andrew Young, Margaret Lawn, and Don Devito created for him to work with teams in the United States and abroad. Most of his research and consulting on work teams was performed with Charles Slem, his partner at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo. As a teacher of group dynamics, he learned by coteaching with Fred Stultz and Robert Christenson. In addition, he had the opportunity to work with engineering teams at Cal Poly as part of a NASA-supported program to improve engineering education. Daniel’s wife, Sara, deserves special credit for her thoughtful reviews and supportive presence throughout this process of writing this book.

David thanks Aubrie Adams and Megan Lambertz-Berndt, both colleagues in the Communication Studies Department at Cal Poly, for providing thoughtful feedback on chapters related to virtuality and diversity. He is grateful to Daniel for providing the opportunity to join him as an author on this text. David’s wife, Bethany, was unending in her support, advice, and patience while he revised this edition.

We both appreciate the communication studies, psychology, business, and engineering students in our group dynamics and teamwork classes, who have helped teach us what is important about how teams operate. We thank the many students who also provided feedback on drafts of this edition. The support of various editors at SAGE Publications has been invaluable. We have also benefited from the many anonymous academic reviews of the book and proposed revisions.

SAGE acknowledges the input of the following reviewers.

John Bennett, Queens University of Charlotte

35

Lois Bosch, Augsburg University

Quinn W. Cunningham, Rider University

Stephen Linenburger, Bellevue University

Christie Sweeney, EdD, Plymouth State University

Chrysalis Wright, University of Central Florida

36

37

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Daniel Levi is a professor in the Psychology and Child Development Department at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, California. He holds an MA and a PhD in environmental psychology from the University of Arizona. He teaches classes in teamwork and in environmental and organizational psychology. His teamwork class was designed primarily for engineering and business students at Cal Poly. He has conducted research and worked as a consultant with factory and engineering teams for companies such as Nortel Networks, TRW, Hewlett-Packard, and Philips Electronics. In addition, he has worked on international team research projects in Europe and Asia.

Dr. Levi’s research and consulting with factory teams primarily focused on the use of teams to support technological change and the adoption of just-in-time and quality programs. This work examined a variety of team issues, including job redesign, training, compensation, supervision, and change management approaches. His work with professional teams primarily was accomplished with engineering design teams. These projects examined the use of concurrent engineering, self-management, and the globalization of teams. The topics of this work included the impact of information technology on teams, facilitation and training needs for professional teams, and the impacts of organizational culture and leadership.

Early work on the book was sponsored by an engineering education grant from NASA. This project focused on the development of teamwork skills in engineering students working on multidisciplinary projects. This project led to the development of cases and activities for learning teamwork skills and research on teamwork training and evaluating and rewarding student teams. Recent research on student teams

38

examines gender and cross-cultural issues, social support within teams, and bullying and hijacking in student teams.

David A. Askay is an associate professor in the Communications Studies Department and faculty fellow in the Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo. He earned an interdisciplinary PhD in organizational science from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (2013) and teaches in the areas of group communication, organizational communication, and design thinking. His recent research investigates group decision making using artificial intelligence, socialization of online gig workers, and group identity in hidden organizations.

39

40

INTRODUCTION

There are two sources of information about teamwork. First, there is a large body of research in psychology and the social sciences called group dynamics that examines how people work in small groups. This research was collected over the past century and has developed into a broad base of knowledge about the operation of groups. Second, the use of teams in the workplace has expanded rapidly during the past three decades. Management researchers and applied social scientists have studied this development to provide advice to organizations about how to make teams operate more effectively. However, these two areas of research and knowledge often operate along separate paths.

The purpose of this book is to unite these two important perspectives on how people work together. It organizes research and theories of group dynamics in order to apply this information to the ways in which teams operate in organizations. The concepts of group dynamics are presented so they are useful for people who work in teams and also to enlarge their understandings of how teams operate. It is hoped that this integration helps readers better understand the internal dynamics of teams so they can become more effective team leaders and members.

The larger goal of this book is to make teams more successful. Teams are important in our society, and learning teamwork skills is important for individual career success. This book presents many concepts related to how teams operate. In addition, the chapters contain application sections with techniques, advice for leading virtual teams, case studies (called Team Leadership Challenges), surveys, and activities designed to develop teamwork skills. The appendix contains tools and advice to help students in project teams. Teamwork is not just something one reads about and then understands; teamwork develops through guided

41

experience and feedback. This book provides a framework for teaching about teams and improving how teams function.

42

OVERVIEW

The 17 chapters in this book cover a wide range of topics related to group dynamics and teamwork. These chapters are organized into four parts: characteristics of teams, processes of teamwork, issues teams face, and organizational context of teams. An appendix provides advice and tools to support student project teams.

43

Part I: Characteristics of Teams

Chapters 1 and 2 provide an introduction to group dynamics and teamwork. Chapter 1 explains the differences between groups and teams. This chapter also examines the purpose of teams in organizations and why they are increasing in use. It concludes with a brief history of both the use of teams and the study of group dynamics.

Chapter 2 explores the characteristics of successful teams. It explains the basic components necessary to create effective teams and examines the conditions and characteristics of successful work teams. It presents both traditional perspectives toward team success and a positive- psychology perspective. In many ways, this chapter establishes a goal for team members, whereas the rest of the book explains how to reach that goal.

44

Part II: Processes of Teamwork

Chapters 3 through 6 present the underlying processes of teamwork. Chapter 3 examines the processes and stages that relate to forming teams. Team members must be socialized or incorporated into teams. Teams must establish goals and norms (operating rules) to begin work. These are the first steps in team development.

Chapter 4 presents some of the main processes and concepts from group dynamics that explain how teams operate. Working together as a team affects the motivation of participants, both positively and negatively. Team members form social relationships with one another that help define their identities as teams. Teams divide tasks into different roles to coordinate the work. The behaviors and actions of team members can be viewed as either task oriented or social, both of which are necessary for teams to function smoothly. Teams are dynamic entities that adapt to changes and learn how to work together more effectively.

One of the underlying concepts that defines teamwork is cooperation. Teams are a collection of people who work cooperatively together to accomplish goals. However, teams often are disrupted by competition. Chapter 5 explains how cooperation and competition affect the dynamics of teams.

Team members interact by communicating with one another. Chapter 6 examines the communication that occurs within teams. It describes the communication process, how teams develop supportive communication climates, and the effects of emotional intelligence on communication. The chapter also presents practical advice on how to facilitate team meetings and develop skills that help improve team communication.

45

Part III: Issues Teams Face

The third part of the book contains seven chapters that focus on a variety of issues that teams face in learning to operate effectively. Chapter 7 examines conflict and conflict resolution in teams. Although conflict often is viewed as a negative event, certain types of conflict are both healthy and necessary for teams to succeed. The chapter explains the dynamics of conflict within teams and discusses various approaches to managing conflict in teams.

Chapter 8 describes how power and social influence operate in teams. Different types of power and influence tactics are available to teams and their members; the use of power has wide-ranging applications and effects on teams. In one important sense, the essence of teams at work is a shift in power. Teams exist because their organizations are willing to shift power and control to teams.

The central purpose of many types of teams is to make decisions. Chapter 9 examines group decision-making processes. It illustrates operative conditions when teams are better than individuals at making decisions and the problems that groups encounter in trying to make effective decisions.

Chapter 10 presents various approaches to understanding leadership, with an emphasis on leadership models that are useful for understanding team leadership. The chapter examines self-managing teams in detail to illustrate this important alternative to traditional leadership approaches.

The different methods that teams use to solve problems are examined in Chapter 11. The chapter compares how teams solve problems with how teams should solve problems. The chapter presents a variety of problem-solving techniques and processes to help improve how teams analyze and solve problems.

46

Creativity, innovation, and design thinking are discussed in Chapter 12. The chapter examines the evolution in skills and mindsets required of team members as they move from creativity to innovation in organizational contexts. Next, the process of design thinking—a collaborative approach to creativity and innovation—is thoroughly described with ample examples and techniques. The conclusion describes different factors that discourage creativity in teams and presents some techniques that foster team creativity.

Chapter 13 examines how diversity is a resource that offers multiple perspectives to teams. However, individual, social, and cognitive processes can promote stereotypes and in-group favoritism that interferes with these benefits. Managing group processes to facilitate information elaboration is necessary to fully benefit from diversity. Supporting diversity in teams also requires fostering an inclusive work group climate.

47

Part IV: Organizational Context of Teams

The final section of the book presents a set of issues that relate to the use of teams in organizations. Chapter 14 examines the relationship between teams and culture. Culture defines the underlying values and practices of a team or organization. Teams develop cultures that regulate how they operate. Work teams are more likely to be successful if their organization’s culture supports them. International culture has many impacts on teamwork. Transnational teams need to develop a hybrid culture that mediates the cultural differences among its members. Cultural intelligence is a set of characteristics that facilitates cultural adaptation and team success.

Although teams often are thought of as people interacting directly with one another, Chapter 15 examines the impacts of teams that interact through technology. Virtual teams comprise members who may be dispersed around the world and use a variety of technologies to communicate and coordinate their efforts. However, most teams rely on communication technologies. The selection and use of these technologies change some of the dynamics of the teams’ operations.

Chapter 16 examines approaches to evaluating and rewarding teams. One of the keys to developing effective teams is creating a mechanism to provide quality feedback to teams so they can improve their own performance. Performance evaluation systems help provide feedback, while reward programs motivate team members to act on this information.

Team development interventions, which offer various approaches for improving how teams operate, are the focus of Chapter 17, the final chapter. Organizations use team- building techniques to help teams get started, overcome obstacles, and improve performance. Teamwork training helps

48

develop people skills so that everyone can work together more effectively.

49

Appendix: Guide to Student Team Projects

One of the reasons students want to learn about group dynamics is to improve the effectiveness of their teams at work and school. As a teacher of group dynamics and teamwork, I require students to work on a large project throughout the course. Working on their team project provides the students with an opportunity to try out the ideas they are learning in the course.

The Guide to Student Team Projects contains some of the tools and advice that students need to successfully complete a team project. The appendix covers topics, such as how to start a team, plan a team project, monitor the progress of the team and project, write as a team, and end the team. This is practical advice on techniques and activities to help improve the team’s performance.

The student project teams in my classes range from five to seven members who are randomly appointed to the team. They are given a large and poorly structured assignment, requiring them to clarify and negotiate the specifics. The teams must conduct periodic group process evaluations so that they regularly discuss and try to improve the teamwork process. Although I grade the quality of the team’s final product, the students grade the performance of the individual team members. (This is a very important step, and we spend class time discussing how to do this.)

Although this is a guide for student projects, the tools in the appendix are useful for many types of project teams.

50

LEARNING APPROACHES

Learning how to work in teams is not a matter of simply reading about group dynamics. Fundamentally, teamwork is a set of skills that must be developed through practice and feedback. In addition to presenting information about how teams operate, this book contains four other types of material that are helpful for developing teamwork skills: application sections, case studies, surveys, and activities.

Many chapters in the book incorporate application sections. The purpose of these sections is to provide practical advice on applying the concepts in the chapters. These sections focus on presenting techniques rather than theories and concepts. These techniques can be applied to the existing teams or can be used with a team in a class to practice the skills. Virtuality is now in the fabric of many teams. Most chapters contain a discussion of virtuality and provide practical advice for dealing with the group dynamics problems created by working in a virtual team setting.

All chapters end with case studies and teamwork activities. The case studies, called Team Leadership Challenges, present a difficult team problem and contain discussion questions for providing advice to the team’s leader. The cases use a variety of student and work teams. By using the concepts in the chapter, the cases can be analyzed and options for the team leaders developed.

Eight of the chapters contain brief psychological surveys that examine a personal orientation toward a teamwork issue presented in the chapter. Survey topics range from attitudes toward teamwork, to cooperativeness, to preferred conflict styles, to opinions about team rewards. Discussion questions after the surveys help students and other team members understand the impact of individual differences on teamwork.

51

The teamwork activities examine a topic in the chapter and then include a set of discussion questions designed to apply what has been learned to actual teams. Some of the activities are structured discussions or small-group exercises. However, most of the activities are structured observations of how teams operate. One of the most important ways to improve both one’s teamwork skills and the operation of teams is to learn how to be a good observer of group processes. These observation activities are constructed to develop these skills.

There are several options that can be used for the observation activities. If the observers belong to functioning teams, then they can observe their own teams. For example, a teamwork class might have students working on project teams. Use the observation activities to study and provide feedback to the project teams, or create groups in class settings and give group assignments. There are many books on small-group activities to use to create assignments for the groups. Small-group discussions of the Team Leadership Challenges provide an alternative activity to observe how groups interact. A class can use several groups with an observer assigned to each group or a single group that performs while being surrounded by many group process observers. Finally, ask students to find a team that they can observe as part of an ongoing class project.

Each of the activities includes an objective, an activity, analysis, and discussion sections. The structure of the activities makes them suitable for homework assignments or for entries in group dynamics journals. The basic structure of the written assignments includes answering the following questions: What did you observe? How did you analyze this information? How would you apply this knowledge?

By working through the applications, cases, surveys, and activities presented here, team members gain practical skills

52

and knowledge that can be directly applied to improve the operations of their teams and the ultimate success of teamwork.

53

54

PART I CHARACTERISTICS OF TEAMS

Shutterstock/Oshchepkov Dmitry

55

56

CHAPTER 1 UNDERSTANDING TEAMS

A team is a special type of group in which people work interdependently to accomplish a goal. Organizations use many different types of teams to serve a variety of purposes. The use of teams to perform work has a long history, but during the past few decades, organizational teamwork has changed: It has expanded rapidly because of changes in the nature of work and the structure of organizations. The scientific study of group dynamics provides useful insights into how teams operate and how they can be improved.

57

Learning Objectives

1. Understand the importance of groups and teams. 2. Distinguish between groups and teams. 3. Describe how teams are used in organizations. 4. Explain the differences between work groups,

teams, and self-managing teams. 5. Understand why the use of teams by organizations

is increasing. 6. Understand how the study of group dynamics has

changed over time.

58

1.1 WHY GROUPS AND TEAMS MATTER

Groups are central to our lives, our work, and our society. Interaction with groups—familial, social, educational, occupational, and political—profoundly shapes our sense of who we are, what we do, and what we believe. The achievements of groups can be inspiring, such as firefighter crews battling wildfires to engineers developing the next technological breakthrough. Indeed, most great accomplishments of human progress resulted from groups of humans working together. Our participation in groups can be a powerful source of identity, belonging, meaning, and achievement.

Teamwork can represent the best of us, but it can also embody the worst. As inspiring as displays of effective teamwork may be, we often struggle to replicate similar success in our own experiences. Unfulfilling prior group interactions and projects lead people to approach group work with apprehension, frustration, and even hate (Sorensen, 1981). People also understand teamwork very differently (Rentsch, Heffner, & Duffy, 1994). This makes it ineffective to bring people together, call them a team, and hope that it all works out. Yet, despite all the group projects that educators, managers, and organizations assign, relatively little time is spent on learning about the group dynamics that effectively create and sustain teams.

Reliance on teamwork is only increasing in the workplace. Responding to society’s increasingly complex challenges requires integrating disparate skills and knowledge. Teamwork is among the most heavily valued skills by employers across industries (NACE, 2019). However, the importance of understanding group dynamics extends well beyond this. It provides insights into navigating the social structures and

59

organizations present in our everyday lives (Fine, 2012). It makes us more aware of the invisible forces that influence our behaviors and the behaviors of those around us. It also empowers us to play a more active role in shaping these forces. Through understanding group dynamics, we learn more about ourselves, our workplaces, and our interactions with others.

60

1.2 DEFINING GROUPS

A group is more than just a collection of people. There is a difference between the people who are in a park, the work group that is assembling a product, and the team playing football. The definition of a group can be just as varied, with scholars categorizing groups based on their size, their features, and the contexts in which they operate. A group is defined as two or more individuals who mutually influence each other while interacting to achieve a common goal. When broken down into its parts, this definition helps us to understand some essential characteristics of groups.

A group consists of two or more individuals. The minimum number of members to be considered a group is surprisingly unresolved. Some argue that dyads (two people) are more ephemeral, evoke different and stronger emotions, and are simpler than groups (Moreland, 2010). Others assert that group processes, like ostracism and social loafing, still emerge in dyads (Williams, 2010). While the minimum number of members is debated, groups do not have an upper limit. Groups include people in a stadium doing “the wave,” a flash mob performing a dance, or thousands of people collaborating on a Wikipedia page.

Group members mutually influence each other. As individuals interact, they shape the feelings, attitudes, behaviors, and cognitions of each other (Bell, Brown, Colaneri, & Outland, 2018). It is through their actions (and inactions) that group members can foster (or hinder) social relationships, rally (or demoralize) the group, share (or withhold) their perspectives, and reinforce (or change) the norms that govern group behaviors. Group interactions are always happening, and they are continually producing some influence on the operation of the group. Some interactions may help the group

61

adapt to changing circumstances, make better decisions, and manage conflict. Others can constrain action, produce poor decisions, and fan strife among members. Often, both happen in groups at the same time.

Finally, group members are interacting to achieve a common goal. Groups need to have a reason to exist. Groups like families, friends, and social organizations generally have a goal of enabling interpersonal relationships or providing affection and belonging. Work groups operating in the context of organizations are directed to achieve organizational goals, such as assembling a product or making strategic decisions. As group members interact, two psychological processes tend to occur: social identification and social representation (Hayes, 1997). Social identification refers to the recognition that a group exists separately from others. It is the creation of a belief in “us versus them.” Identification is both a cognitive process (classifying the world into categories) and an emotional process (viewing one’s group as better than other groups). Social representation is the shared values, ideas, and beliefs that people have about the world. Over time, belonging to a group changes the ways its members view the world. The group develops a shared worldview through member interactions.

While this definition may conjure a straightforward and static view of groups, the reality is more nuanced. In fact, groups are always changing. They evolve in response to earlier successes and failures. Social relationships develop as members express differing options and preferences. Individual motivation and commitment waxes and wanes as outside pressures interfere with group goals. Groups emerge from the ongoing interpersonal interactions that occur between members—their group dynamics (Donnellon, 1996). At each step of the way, group dynamics continually create, shape, and redefine how members interact and relate to each other. The steps taken determine the group’s success.

62

1.3 DEFINING TEAMS

Despite the prevalence of teams in organizations, the scholarly distinction between groups and teams can be fuzzy and inconsistent. Some simply consider teams to be groups that work in organizations (Parks & Sanna, 1999). However, scholars often classify a team as a particular type of group that requires higher levels of coordination and collaboration. Teams are structured groups of people working on defined common goals that require coordinated interactions to accomplish their tasks (Forsyth, 2018). By integrating complementary skills and knowledge, teams can tackle more complex problems, tasks, or goals. This definition emphasizes a key feature of a team: that members work interdependently on a common project for which they all are accountable. However, other qualifiers can distinguish groups from teams.

Katzenbach and Smith (2001, 2015) distinguish between groups and teams based on their performance results. They assert that the performance of work groups is based on individual contributions. Imagine a group report in which each member writes a different section, and someone simply combines them. Here, members are not actively collaborating with each other. By contrast, team performance is based on both individual contributions and collective work products that manifest from joint contributions. Teamwork is seen in a group report written collaboratively, whereby members build upon the ideas of others. Effective teams have members who are committed to their common purpose, have specific performance goals connected to this purpose, have the right mix of complementary skills, have agreement on how the work will get done, and hold each other accountable for performance.

Another approach to understanding teams focuses on their teamwork behaviors: how teams go about doing their tasks

63

(Fisher, 2014; Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). Teamwork consists of the interactions that occur between individuals. Several behaviors are associated with teamwork, such as decision making, situational analysis, information sharing, and self-evaluation. However, decades of research have identified only a handful of teamwork behaviors that appear to be universally relevant across teams or tasks. Of these, the most prevalent are coordination, communication, and adaptability (Salas, Reyes, & McDaniel, 2018).

Teams can be defined in terms of their interdependence, shared accountability, performance results, and behaviors. Additionally, we can see that group is a more inclusive term than team. Groups range in size from two to thousands, whereas teams have a narrower range of sizes. A dating couple may be considered a group but not a team. Political parties and social organizations are groups but not teams. Members of an organizational work group might share information and have overlapping goals, but they are not significantly interdependent in achieving them. A team is not simply people who belong to the same group or who are jointly functioning in the same place, such as students listening to a lecture. A team typically operates within an organizational context and is composed of 3 to 12 people with interdependent goals, complementary skill sets, and differentiated roles. Research on groups typically is conducted in laboratory settings, whereas research on teams typically is done in field studies that focus on the use of teams in the workplace (Kerr & Tindale, 2004).

Because there is no firm dividing line between a group and a team, the use of these terms in this book is somewhat arbitrary. When referring to research on group dynamics, especially laboratory research, the term group is used. When talking about applications in work environments where people are interdependent, the term team is used. For the in-between cases, group and team are used interchangeably.

64

1.4 WHY ORGANIZATIONS USE TEAMS

As ubiquitous as teamwork appears in contemporary organizational life, this is a relatively recent development. Since the 1900s, scientific management has been the dominant approach to organizing people to perform tasks, which uses managerial control to produce certainty and predictability (Taylor, 1923). It remains in use today across many industries to efficiently make standardized products and services in large quantities.

In scientific management, managers or technical experts analyze a task and divide it into interconnected small activity units that are then performed by individuals. The system is designed such that each activity is linked to another activity, and individuals work separately to complete the entire task. Imagine workers on an assembly line. The role of the manager is to conform worker behaviors to the needs of the system, as deviation produces quality defects and inefficiencies. This requires that managers monitor, control, and reward or punish each worker’s individual performance. In other words, managers think and control while workers execute.

This traditional approach works very well under certain conditions, such as call centers, assembly plants, and fast- food restaurants. It requires that the task remains consistent for some time because it is difficult and costly to change the system. It requires that the process not be too complex or easily disrupted because the workers doing routine activities are unaware of what happens in other parts of the system. It focuses on productivity and often ignores concerns about quality and customer service because these factors require a greater commitment to the job. It assumes that there are workers who are willing to perform routine

65

activities under controlled situations. Under these conditions, scientific management is often the best approach, and the time and expense of developing teams are not needed.

The world, however, has changed since Taylor outlined the principles of scientific management, bringing with it new challenges for organizations. Modern organizations are shifting to teamwork because of changes in the characteristics of organizations and work.

66

Organizational Characteristics

New technologies are disrupting industries, connecting people in new ways, and transforming production, management, and governance (Schwab, 2016). Expanding markets and global competition demand that businesses rapidly innovate to meet shifting consumer needs. Addressing complex challenges like space exploration, cybersecurity, and climate change requires integrating knowledge that is spread across many diverse specialists. Organizations that survive are those that learn and adapt. Take, for example, the now-bankrupt video rental company Blockbuster. Once the market leader, they once laughed off a proposed partnership with Netflix in 2000 (Sandoval, 2010). Less than 10 years later, Blockbuster’s relevance evaporated during the rise of streaming video rentals. While Blockbuster was highly efficient in distributing rentals of physical media, this became an obsolete need in the marketplace. Traditional management approaches and mindsets excel at creating a product efficiently—but not necessarily the right product. As organizations adapt to changing and uncertain environments, managers no longer hold all the answers for directing what workers should be doing; they may not even know what tasks need to get done or how to do them.

Faced with increasing complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity, organizations embrace teamwork as a structure that facilitates learning, adaptation, and creativity. Teams are essential when the goal is to innovate or improve the way a product is made or a service is provided; when the job is complex; when customer service and quality are important; or when rapid change is necessary. These are the conditions that create the need for teams (Helper, Kleiner, & Wang, 2010). These conditions also encourage organizations to shift to simpler organizational hierarchies, a transition driven by the desire to save costs and increase flexibility by reducing

67

layers of management. To a certain extent, teams have replaced managers, and teams now often carry out many traditional management functions. After all, if team members are the knowledge specialists and there are limited routine tasks to oversee, then what is the purpose of a manager? Emerging from this perspective is a shift from managing people to follow the status quo to leading people through transformation.

Finally, teams provide other benefits to organizations (Delarue, Van Hootegem, Procter, & Burridge, 2008). Organizations using a teamwork approach are associated with greater operational outcomes (e.g., productivity, innovation, quality, and flexibility) and financial outcomes (e.g., profitability and reducing costs). Additionally, employees on teams can experience greater job satisfaction, commitment, trust, and reduced turnover and absenteeism. Teams provide a way to integrate and coordinate the various parts of an organization and do this in a more timely and cost-effective manner than traditional organizational hierarchies. Teams execute tasks better, learn faster, and change more easily than traditional work structures, which are all characteristics required by contemporary organizations.

68

Job Characteristics

Technological change, offshoring, and automation have been replacing routine work for decades, particularly in developed countries (Reijnders & de Vries, 2018). Nonroutine jobs involve more complexity, interdependence, uncertainty, variety, and change than routine jobs. Jobs of this type are difficult to manage in traditional work systems but are well suited for teamwork (Mohrman, Cohen, & Morhman, 1995).

Nonroutine jobs requiring teamwork are growing in many contemporary work settings like health care, marketing, sales, research, engineering, and design. Imagine designing a new product for the marketplace. Design, manufacturing, marketing, and sales of the product require expertise from a variety of disciplines and support from many parts of an organization. For example, few individuals possess all the necessary knowledge and expertise to bring a product to completion, but a team approach can integrate diverse knowledge. In addition, using team members from several departments enhances support within the organization for the new product. The team members help coordinate the project throughout the organization.

The complexity of a problem or task often requires multiple forms of expertise. No one person may have all the skills or knowledge to complete a task or solve a problem, but a team may have sufficient expertise to deal with the task or problem. Complexity also implies that problems may be confusing or difficult to understand and solve. Here, the value of teamwork lies not only with multiple forms of expertise but also with multiple perspectives. People learn from each other during group interactions, which helps them to gain new perspectives in analyzing problems and developing solutions. Diversity is a resource that benefits teams.

69

1.5 PURPOSES AND TYPES OF TEAMS

Organizations use teams in a variety of ways. Because of this variety, there are many ways to classify teams, and these classifications help explain the psychological and organizational differences among different types of teams. One important distinction is the relationship of the team to the organization. Teams vary depending on how much power and authority they are given by their umbrella organizations.

70

How Organizations Use Teams

Teams serve a variety of functions for organizations. The day-to-day operations of organizations can be shifted to work teams that build products or provide services (e.g., factory production teams or airline crews). Design teams investigate ill-structured problems to innovate new solutions. Advisory teams gather information, provide recommendations, and deal with special problems. For instance, a team might be created to suggest improvements in work processes. Teams can help manage coordination problems by linking disparate parts of organizations. Budget or planning committees might be composed of members from several departments, for example. Finally, teams can help organizations adapt by planning for the future or managing transitions.

Sundstrom, McIntyre, Halfhill, and Richards (2000) identify six types of work teams based on the functions they perform:

1. Production teams, such as factory teams, manufacture or assemble products on a repetitive basis.

2. Service teams, such as maintenance crews and food services, conduct repeated transactions with customers.

3. Management teams, composed of managers, work together, plan, develop policy, or coordinate the activities of an organization.

4. Project teams, such as research and engineering teams, bring experts together to perform a specific task and then disband.

5. Action or performing teams, such as sports teams, musicians, military units, and surgical teams, engage in brief performances that are repeated under new conditions and that require specialized skills and extensive training or preparation.

6. Parallel teams are temporary ones that operate outside normal work, such as employee involvement groups and

71

advisory committees that provide suggestions or recommendations for changing an organization.

72

Classifying Teams

Teams are classified by ways other than the types of activities they perform (Devine, Clayton, Philips, Dunford, & Melner, 1999). They can be classified by their degree of virtuality—the extent to which the team is geographically dispersed and uses technology (Gilson, Maynard, Jones Young, Vartiainen, & Hakonen, 2015). Ad hoc or temporary teams are studied in such contexts as software development (Prikladnicki, Perin, Marczak, & Dutra, 2017), health care (Kim, Song, & Valentine, 2018), and online multiplayer games (Kou & Gui, 2014). Swift-starting action teams (Wildman, Fiore, & Burke, 2011; Wildman et al., 2012) have highly trained members who have no prior work experience with one another yet must perform demanding, complex, time-pressured projects from the moment they start working together (e.g., cybersecurity response, military combat units, disaster response teams).

One of the most important distinctions among types of teams is empowerment, or how much power and authority is allocated to the team by the organization (Spreitzer, 1995). This shifting of power affects leadership, decision making, and how the work activities of team members are linked. Moreover, team members that perceive a high sense of control over their work experience greater job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Seibert, Wang, & Courtright, 2011).

There are three options for organizing people in the workplace: a work group, a team, or a self-managing team (McGrath, 1984). The differences among these options are presented in Table 1.1. Work groups are part of the organization’s hierarchical system. Supervisors or managers who control the decision-making process lead these work groups. Group members typically work on independent tasks

73

that are linked by the supervisor’s direction or by the work system.

Teams have some limited power and authority so they can operate somewhat independent of the organization’s hierarchy. Their leaders are selected by management and given some managerial power. Team leaders can use a variety of techniques for making decisions, such as using the team to provide advice about decisions, having the team vote, or using consensus to make decisions. Team members’ work activities are interdependent and coordinated by the leaders.

Self-managing teams are given significantly more power and authority than traditional work groups and are more independent of an organization’s hierarchy. Team members typically select their leaders; as a result, the leaders have limited power and must facilitate—rather than control—their teams’ operations. The leaders must rely on democratic or consensus decision making because they have no authority to make teams accept decisions. The work of team members is highly interdependent, and all team members work together to coordinate activities.

Table 1.1 Organization of People Into Work Groups

  Work Group Team Self-Managing

Team

Power Part of organization’s hierarchy, management controlled

Linked to organization’s hierarchy, some shift of power to team

Linked to organization’s hierarchy, increased power and independence

74

  Work Group Team Self-Managing

Team

Leadership Manager or supervisor controlled

Leader, with limited managerial power, selected by organization

Leader, the team facilitator, selected by the team

Decision making

Authoritarian or consultative

Consultative, democratic, or consensus

Democratic or consensus

Activities or tasks

Independent Interdependent, coordinated by leader

Interdependent, coordinated by team members

Source: Adapted from McGrath, J. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

75

1.6 HISTORY OF TEAMS AND GROUP DYNAMICS

The use of teams in organizations has changed significantly over the past century. During that period, the scientific study of group dynamics has evolved into an interdisciplinary research field.

76

Foundations of Teamwork

The industrial revolution shifted most work organizations to a hierarchical approach that used scientific management to design jobs (Taylor, 1923). Manufacturing jobs were simplified, and professionals and managers were brought in to ensure that the production system operated efficiently. Scientific management was a system that worked well but one that also created problems: It alienated workers, who then became increasingly difficult to motivate. It became more difficult to set up as technical systems increased in complexity. It was inflexible and difficult to change. Finally, it was difficult to successfully incorporate new goals aside from efficiency (such as quality).

The scientific management model of organizations began to be questioned during the 1920s and 1930s because of social problems in the workplace. The Hawthorne studies—research projects designed to examine how environmental factors, such as lighting and work breaks, affected work performance— inadvertently revealed that social factors had a meaningful impact on performance (Mayo, 1933). In some cases, because people were being studied, they tried to perform better (what social scientists now call the Hawthorne effect). In other cases, group norms limited or controlled performance. For example, studies of the “bank wiring room” showed that informal group norms had a major impact on the performance of work groups (Sundstrom et al., 2000). The “group in front” frequently engaged in conversation and play but had high levels of performance, while the “group in back” engaged in play but had low levels of performance. The work groups enforced group production norms: Members who worked too fast were hit on the arm by coworkers, a practice known as binging. In addition to the substantial impact on productivity of these informal work group norms, work groups

77

were able to effectively enforce norms, resulting in positive or negative benefits to the organization.

During the 1960s and 1970s, organizational psychologists and industrial engineers refined the use of teams at work. Sociotechnical systems (STS) theory provided a way to analyze what people do at work and to determine the best way of organizing them (Appelbaum & Batt, 1994). According to STS, teams should be used when jobs are technically uncertain rather than routine, when jobs are interdependent and require coordination to perform, and when the environment is turbulent and requires flexibility. Many jobs today meet these criteria. The most famous applied example of STS was at the Volvo car facilities in Sweden. The assembly line approach to work was redesigned to be performed by semiautonomous groups. Although there were several successful demonstrations of the value of using teams at work, this teamwork approach did not become popular.

The contemporary emphasis on teamwork has its origins in another change that occurred during the 1970s. The rise of Japan as a manufacturing power resulted in the distribution of high-quality, inexpensive products into the global marketplace. When business experts visited Japan to see how Japanese goals had been achieved, they found that teamwork in the form of quality circles seemed to be the answer. Quality circles are voluntary teams of production workers and supervisors who meet to analyze problems and develop solutions to quality problems in the manufacturing process. Throughout the 1980s, companies in the United States and Europe experimented with quality circle teams (and later total quality management teams). The jobs performed by workers were still primarily individual, but workers were organized in teams as a way to improve quality and other aspects of production.

78

The focus on quality in manufacturing launched the teamwork movement, but other factors have sustained it. The increased use of information technology, the downsizing of layers of management, business process reengineering, and globalization have all contributed to the use of teams. Teamwork in U.S. companies expanded rapidly during the 1990s and included more professional and managerial teams. Research shows that 85% of companies with 100 or more employees use some type of work teams (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). In addition, some businesses are restructuring and using teams as a central element in the integration of various parts of their organizations (Mohrman et al., 1995).

Because of the changing nature of teams, three issues are increasingly important: dynamic composition, technology and distance, and empowerment and delayering (Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas, & Cohen, 2012). Teams now operate in a more dynamic and complex environment. Rather than stable teams that work together for long periods of time, contemporary teams are often more transitory with changing membership. Teamwork can be done by people working together in one place or distributed around the globe. In either case, teams are relying on technology to support their communications and work. As organizations rely more on the use of teams, power is shifting from traditional organizational hierarchies to teams. Teams are replacing many traditional management functions.

Contemporary technological, societal, and economic changes are creating monumental shifts in our work practices, organizational structures, and teams. It is an exciting time to study teamwork and group dynamics. First, globalization has profoundly impacted work environments (Earley & Gibson, 2002). Research investigating the impact of different types of cultures and diversity on teamwork is essential as the global workforce becomes more multinational (Kirkman, Shapiro, Lu, & McGurrin, 2016). This also underscores a

79

critical limitation of our scientific knowledge of teams: most psychological research has been generated from people in western industrialized societies. This means that many “universal” assumptions and models about teams are based on studies of just 12% of the global population (Arnett, 2008). Many well-established conclusions about team effectiveness do not hold true when studied in different cultures (Feitosa, Grossman, & Salazar, 2018).

Second, technology offers new ways of studying team interactions, providing feedback to members, and augmenting teamwork. Humans are now collaborating alongside machine teammates—robots, artificial intelligence, and augmented reality. This spurs a need to better understand the implications of emerging technologies on group dynamics (Seeber et al., 2018). Crowd-based labor platforms enable larger, more diverse, more distributed, and more ephemeral groups to work together (Retelny et al., 2014). Wearable sensors are capable of tracking and measuring team members’ interactions, including movements, proximity, posture, body movements, speaking time, and verbal activity (Chaffin et al., 2017). These sensors offer a promising way to investigate group interactions and to act as a real-time behavioral feedback tool. Finally, algorithms can monitor, evaluate, and fit team members to their most effective team structures (Zhou, Valentine, & Bernstein, 2018).

80

Foundations of Group Dynamics

An unfortunate gap exists between our understanding of work teams and the study of group dynamics. The scientific study of groups began at the turn of the 20th century with the work of Norman Triplett (1898). Triplett’s research showed the effects of working alone versus working in a group. For example, he observed that bicycle racers who pedaled around a racetrack in groups were faster than those who pedaled around alone. This effect is called social facilitation because the presence of other people facilitates (or increases) performance.

Early studies in psychology had a similar perspective in that they were designed to show how groups affected individual performance or attitudes. Although this was group research, the focus was on individuals. Psychologists did not treat groups as an entity appropriate for scientific study. This perspective changed during the 1940s, however, because of the work of Kurt Lewin and his followers (Lewin, 1951). Lewin created the term group dynamics to show his interest in the group as a unit of study. For the first time, psychologists took the study of groups seriously rather than simply looking at the effects of groups on individuals. Lewin’s innovations in research methods, applications, and focus still define much of the study of group dynamics today.

Lewin developed a new approach to research in psychology. He began with the belief that “there is nothing so practical as a good theory” (Lewin, 1951, p. 169). His innovation was in refining how theories in psychology should be used. He developed an approach called action research, where scientists develop theories about how groups operate and then use their theories in practical applications to improve the operations of groups. The process of applying a theory and

81

evaluating its effects is then used to refine the theory and improve the operations of groups.

One of Lewin’s primary concerns was social change. He believed it is easier to change a group than it is to change an individual. If the behavior of individuals is changed and the individuals return to their everyday life, the influence of the people around them tends to reverse the behavior change. If the behavior of a group of people is changed, the group continues to reinforce or stabilize the behavioral change in its members. Lewin developed models of organizational change and group dynamics techniques that are still used today.

Mainstream social psychologists returned to their focus on theory-oriented laboratory studies during the 1950s and 1960s. Their research primarily examined topics such as conformity and helping behavior, which focused on the effects that groups have on individuals rather than on group dynamics. Research on group dynamics shifted to sociologists like Robert Bales, who used the study of small groups to understand social systems. Their research used laboratory groups and led to the development of various systems for categorizing the group process, such as interaction process analysis (Bales, 1950).

During this period, organizational and humanistic psychologists studied a special type of laboratory group called t-groups (also called encounter groups). These small, unstructured groups were encouraged to engage in open and personal discussions, often over a series of days. Participation in these groups was supposed to increase self- awareness, interpersonal communication skills, and group process skills. Their popularity decreased as concerns with ethics and transfer of training issues raised questions about their value. (See Chapter 17 for a further discussion of these issues.)

82

By the 1990s, research on teamwork moved from social- psychology studies of small groups in laboratories to other disciplines (Stewart, 2010). Researchers from sociology, anthropology, political science, communication, business, and education now study aspects of group dynamics. Although psychological research remains dominated by laboratory studies on how groups operate, many other disciplines emphasize applied research and study teams in real-world settings. Theory on group dynamics is changing and becoming more sophisticated (Hackman, 2012). Rather than simple models that look at cause–effect relationships, new models focus on the dynamic conditions that help teams manage their processes (Barley & Weickum, 2017; Driskell, Salas, & Driskell, 2018). Instead of looking at group behavior as the sum of individual variables, there is a focus on the emergent properties of teams.

The search to find the best approach to manage teams has been replaced by the recognition of what is termed equifinality— that there are many ways for a team to operate successfully. Even teams with similar resources, structure, leadership, and goals can vary on their performance (Barley & Weickum, 2017). With no singular way forward, teams need to discover and forge their own path to success. Teamwork training and group interventions from third parties are effective ways this can be achieved (Lacerenza, Marlow, Tannenbaum, & Salas, 2018). Additionally, fostering team reflexivity—when members collectively reflect upon and modify the group goals, approaches, interactions, and processes—can likewise increase team performance, satisfaction, commitment, and innovation (Chen, Bamberger, Song, & Vashdi, 2018; Konradt, Otte, Schippers, & Steenfatt, 2016; Schippers, Den Hartog, & Koopman, 2007; West, 2000). In learning about theories of group dynamics, you can gain a conceptual framework and vocabulary to aid in this process of reflexivity.

83

SUMMARY

Groups are more than just collections of people. Groups have goals, interdependent relationships, interactions, structured relations, and mutual influence. Individuals are aware of their membership in groups and participate in order to satisfy personal needs. Although the distinction between groups and teams is not completely clear, the term teamwork typically is used to describe groups that are a part of sports or work organizations. Team members work interdependently to accomplish goals and have the power to control at least part of their operations.

Organizations are shifting away from individual work performed in hierarchical work structures and toward team- based operations. The changing goals in organizations that must deal with the evolving work environment are driving this shift. Jobs are becoming increasingly complex and interdependent, and organizations are finding that they must be more flexible. All these changes encourage the use of teamwork.

Organizations use teams in several ways. Teams provide advice, make things or provide services, create projects, and perform specialized activities. Teams also vary according to the power they have, their types of leadership and decision- making processes, and the tasks they perform. These factors define the differences among traditional work groups, traditional teams, and self-managing teams.

Working in small groups was common before the industrial revolution, but scientific management simplified jobs and created hierarchical work systems. The Hawthorne studies of the 1930s demonstrated the importance of understanding the aspects of work related to social relations. Following World War II, researchers began to experiment with work teams.

84

During the 1960s, STS presented a way to analyze work and identify the need for teams. However, it was the rise of Japanese manufacturing teams during the 1980s that led to the increased use of teamwork in the United States. Paralleling this growth in the use of teams, the social sciences developed the field of group dynamics, which focuses on understanding how groups operate. Today, group dynamics is a scientific field that provides information useful in improving the operations of teams.

85

Team Leadership Challenge 1

You are the manager of hundreds of workers in a car assembly plant. The plant has been traditionally organized, with the manager running the assembling line and supervising each employee individually. Each worker is proficient in carrying out a single task on the assembly line. Recently, however, workers began to be absent, gamble, and purposefully make mistakes— leaving necessary bolts loosened or placing broken glass to rattle around in doors—due to dissatisfaction with their working conditions.

You have heard a lot about the advantages of shifting to teamwork, which is supposed to improve worker morale and the quality of products. However, you have also heard that it can be challenging to create and manage teams. You are comfortable and capable as a traditional manager but think maybe you should try something new, such as teamwork.

What are the pros and cons of reorganizing the assembly line into a team? What would this look like? How much authority or control should you maintain over the team?

This was a similar circumstance facing General Motors (GM) at their Fremont factory in the 1980s. GM eventually formed a joint venture with Toyota, called NUMMI, intending to learn about their lean and team- based approach to manufacturing. Morale and quality improved, shifting the Fremont plant from among the worst-performing car factories in the United States to one of the best-performing factories. However, the success of this approach failed to spread to other

86

factories at GM. The plant closed in 2010 and reopened as the Tesla Factory. This American Life offers an engaging podcast detailing this story called NUMMI 2015 (www.thisamericanlife.org/561/nummi-2015)

87

Survey: Attitudes Toward Teamwork

Purpose: Understand your attitudes about the use of teams at work. Do you believe that teams are an effective way to work? Do you enjoy the social aspects of teamwork? The answers to these questions may help you decide how you want to participate in teams.

Directions: Think about the last time you worked on a team project. Use the following scale to show how much you agree with the list of statements about teamwork:

Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   St rongly Agree

1   2   3   4   5

_____1. Using a team was an effective way to do the project.

_____2. My team was good at resolving internal conflicts and disagreements.

_____3. The project the team performed was challenging and important.

_____4. I made new friends while working on the team.

_____5. My team developed innovative ways of solving team problems.

_____6. I really liked getting to know the other members of the team.

88

_____7. Management provided adequate feedback to the team about its performance.

_____8. Personal conflicts rarely disrupted the team’s functioning.

_____9. My team had clear direction and goals.

_____10. Team members treated each other with respect.

_____11. My team was good at implementing the plans it developed.

_____12. The members of my team worked well together.

_____13. The assignment my team worked on was well suited for teamwork.

_____14. There was rarely unpleasantness among members of the team.

_____15. I learned a lot from working on this team.

_____16. Participating in the team helped develop my social skills.

_____17. My team was good at regulating its own behavior.

_____18. I felt supported by my teammates.

_____19. My team had good leadership.

_____20. The longer we worked together, the better we got along with each other.

89

Scoring: Add the scores for the odd-numbered questions to obtain the score for how you view the task aspects of teamwork. Add the scores for the even-numbered questions to obtain the score for how you view the social aspects of teamwork.

Discussion: What does this survey tell you about your attitudes toward the task and social aspects of teamwork? How should you deal with team members who have a negative attitude toward teamwork? What is the relationship between social and task aspects of teamwork?

Source: Adapted from Levi, D., & Slem, C. (1995). Team work in research and development organizations: The characteristics of successful teams. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 16, 29–42.

90

Activity: Working in Teams

Objective: Reflect upon your previous team experiences to identify the characteristics of effective and ineffective teamwork.

Activity: Think about your most recent positive team experience, where work was completed and members finished feeling closer to each other. Note the specific behaviors, interactions, and planning that produced this outcome. Next, repeat this exercise for your most recent negative team experience. Note the specific behaviors, interactions, and planning that produced this outcome. Meet with other class members, and create a list of the things that produce positive and negative team experiences.

Analysis: Once your group creates lists of the positive and negative things about team experiences, review the items and classify them as task or social aspects of teamwork. Task issues concern the team’s competition of tasks, while social issues are the social and emotional aspects of working in teams. How does this task or social analysis relate to what you like and dislike about teams? You may also want to compare this analysis with the results of the Attitudes Toward Teamwork survey.

Discussion: There are benefits and problems with working in teams. What can be done to make teams more effective and more enjoyable? What team characteristics are important for you to have a positive experience?

91

92

CHAPTER 2 DEFINING TEAM SUCCESS

A successful team completes its task, maintains good social relations, and promotes its members’ personal and professional development. All three of these factors are important for defining team success. To perform effectively, a team requires the right types of people, a task that is suitable for teamwork, good internal group processes, and a supportive organizational context. Team members need both an appropriate set of task skills and the interpersonal skills to work as a team. Although teams can perform a wide variety of tasks, appropriate team tasks require that the work of all members is integrated into the final products. The group process should maintain good social relations while, at the same time, organizing members to perform the task. Finally, the organizational context needs to support the team by promoting cooperation, providing resources, and rewarding success.

Successful teams have clear goals, good leadership, organizational support, appropriate task characteristics, and mutual accountability with rewards. However, the characteristics that predict team success vary depending on the type of team studied. Teams are increasingly used in the workplace. Teamwork provides many benefits to organizations and their employees, but it is a challenge for organizations to use teams successfully.

93

Learning Objectives

1. Understand three criteria for defining team success. 2. Explain how team composition, team tasks, team processes, and organizational

context influence team success. 3. Describe effective teamwork processes. 4. Describe the characteristics of successful teams. 5. Examine how positive psychology contributes to team success. 6. Understand the implications of teams becoming a fad.

94

2.1 NATURE OF TEAM SUCCESS

One of the prerequisites to studying and understanding teamwork is defining the nature of team success. Scholars use surveys, interviews, and observations to study the functioning of teams. Often, this research investigates team structures (e.g., Hackman, 1987), behaviors (e.g., Marks et al., 2001), and emergent states (e.g., Kozlowski & Chao, 2018; Waller, Okhuysen, & Saghafian, 2016) and tries to relate them to external measures of team success.

Measuring the success of teamwork can be difficult. The characteristics that team members and leaders believe are important for success might not be the same characteristics that managers believe are important (Levi & Slem, 1995). Team members focus on the internal operations of the team; they look at the contributions that each member brings to the team and how well members work together. Managers focus on the team’s impact on the organization; they are concerned with results, not with how the team operates. There is a danger in using too simplistic a view of success because it may focus on the wrong factors when trying to evaluate and improve a team.

According to Hackman (1987), there are three primary definitions of team success, relating to task performance, social relations, and the individual. First, a successful team meets or exceeds performance expectations. Second, team members develop social relationships that help them work together and maintain the team. Finally, participation in teamwork is personally rewarding for the individual because of the social support, the learning of new skills, or the rewards given by the organization for participation.

This definition of team success can be seen in action teams, such as firefighter crews. Obviously, completing the task of putting out the fire is a crucial criterion of success. However, it is also important that the crew members maintain a good working relationship with each other—it can diminish the cohesion of the team if individuals, for example, take unnecessary risks, distract others, or are afraid to voice concerns. It is likewise important that crew members do not get injured in the process. Extinguishing the fire is important but so is preserving the ability and desire of the team to continue fighting fires with each other in the future.

95

Completing the Task

From a management perspective, the definition of team success predominantly relates to its effectiveness at meeting or exceeding expectations on a task. For example, software engineering projects are often evaluated on target cost and time, while placing less emphasis on customer satisfaction or happiness (Agarwal & Rathod, 2006). A successful team should also perform the task better when compared to other ways of organizing people to perform the same task. Although this definition may seem simple, measuring the performance of teams can be difficult. For certain complex tasks, there may be no alternatives to teamwork, making it impossible to compare team and individual outcomes. For professional tasks requiring creativity or value judgments, there may be no clear ways to determine which solutions are best (Orsburn, Moran, Musselwhite, & Zenger, 1990). One approach to such measurement problems is to determine whether the products or outputs of the team are acceptable to the owners, customers, and team members. However, these three perspectives may not agree with each other (Spreitzer, Cohen, & Ledford, 1999).

Completing a task as a team is a measure of success, but project success is not a demonstration of team success. Could the task have been completed without a team? What was the benefit of using a team for performing the task? For a particular task, there is sometimes little advantage to using a team. In fact, there are disadvantages. Process losses result from time dedicated to developing and coordinating the team, rather than focusing on completing the task. This can lead to the perception of “wasted” time (Hill, 1982; Steiner, 1972). Rather, the advantages of using a team emerge when they are wisely implemented and interdependent collaboration is necessary (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006).

If a project runs smoothly, people working individually under supervision often can perform the necessary task. If a project encounters difficulty, however, the value of a team is demonstrated by the ability of team members to integrate multiple perspectives to solve problems and motivate one another during the difficult period. Although a team takes time to develop, as people learn to work together, they are better able to handle future projects. Many benefits of creating a team occur over the long run rather than during the first project the team performs.

96

Developing Social Relations

Measuring task performance does not wholly capture the definition of team success. A successful team performs its task in such a way that it sustains or enhances the social relationships between members. Members should want to continue working together as a team in the future. Several interpersonal processes (e.g., conflict management, motivation, confidence) contribute to maintaining social relationships (Marks et al., 2001).

Cohesion is among the oldest and most studied variables in group dynamics (Greer, 2012). It broadly encompasses the degree to which members are attracted to the group and the work that it does. More cohesive teams exhibit higher levels of performance, effectiveness, cooperation, job satisfaction, social support, interdependence, and communication (Carless & De Paola, 2000; Gully, Devine, & Whitney, 1995). Cohesion comes from the emotional ties that team members develop during interactions with each other, such as goal setting, managing conflict, and giving feedback. Team members fail to develop good social relations when they do not communicate well, have interpersonal problems that interfere with task performance, and are unable to reward and motivate one another. Poor social relations limit the ability of a team to operate effectively.

A good example of the problem created when there is too much focus on task performance and too little on social relations is in the computer development team described by Kidder (1981). This team successfully developed a new computer system. However, in the stress of competition and time pressure, the team members burned themselves out. At the end of the project, everyone was happy about the success, but the team members no longer wanted to work together. Was the team a success? Yes, it completed its task, but it failed to develop social relations that encouraged successful teamwork in the future. However, the capabilities of the team were lost at the end of the project due to exclusively focusing on the task. The organization benefited by getting a new computer system, but it did not improve its ability to use teams to successfully design computer systems in the future. This type of project burnout is all too common in many companies.

97

Benefiting the Individual

The third aspect of team success concerns the individual benefiting from their participation. People join groups for different reasons, and these reasons impact the cohesiveness and productivity of the group (Wax, DeChurch, & Contractor, 2017). People might enjoy working in teams because it offers a source of social belonging, emotional support, and identity (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Hogg, Hohman, & Rivera, 2008). Teamwork may improve an individual’s social or interpersonal skills (Katzenbach & Smith, 2015). Other members could be attracted to the people, goals, or activities of the group (Hogg & Turner, 1985). Some people join groups to meet an unrelated individual goal, such as professional networking, résumé building, or status attainment.

Dysfunctional group dynamics can stem from tensions between individual and group goals. Team members who perceive an alignment between individual and group goals exhibit higher levels of performance and cooperation (Crown & Rosse, 1995). Framing the goals of individual members in a way that aligns with team goals can be an effective strategy for enhancing team performance (Fairhurst, 2010). For example, if a member is strongly motivated by feelings of belonging, a team leader might emphasize the bonding and team building that will occur in a team. Also, the social and learning benefits from teamwork primarily come from successful teams. Working in dysfunctional teams may only teach members to avoid teamwork in the future.

In addition to personal benefits, participating in a team should help an employee’s career in the organization. Successful contributions to a team should be reflected in the employee’s performance evaluations (DeMatteo, Eby, & Sundstrom, 1998). Unfortunately, this often is not the case. Many organizations still focus on managing and rewarding individuals rather than teams. This can impede the success of teams, as feedback directed toward individuals refocuses attention toward individual performance to the detriment of team performance (DeShon, Kozlowski, Schmidt, Milner, & Wiechmann, 2004). Even when most of an employee’s time is spent collaborating in a team, the typical performance evaluation system focuses on what an individual produces, rather than on the success of the team. Being a good team player or a social facilitator may go unrecognized, while people who distinguish themselves and stand out are rewarded. Individuals may also avoid joining a team if its goal has limited visibility or prestige within an organization, or if it does not produce easily measurable results that lead to recognition and promotion. This conflict between individual and team performance is a major unresolved problem for teamwork in many organizations. (Approaches for dealing with this conflict are discussed in Chapter 16.)

98

2.2 CONDITIONS FOR TEAM SUCCESS

The success of a team depends on four conditions. First, the team must have the right people to perform the task. Second, the task must be suitable for teamwork. Third, the team must combine its resources effectively to complete the task. Fourth, the organization must provide a supportive context for the team.

99

Team Composition

Team composition research examines how team member attributes tend to influence team success (Bell et al., 2018; Salas, Rosen, Burke, & Goodwin, 2009). This knowledge can inform who to put on a team, anticipate incompatibilities between members, or determine what training is needed. For example, Mathieu, Tannenbaum, Donsbach, and Alliger (2014) developed algorithms that predict the impact on performance of different combinations of team members over time. These algorithms are being used to select team members in space exploration (e.g., Mission to Mars) and other business contexts. Although team composition is important, team leaders rarely have the information, time, or ability to select an optimal team.

Team success is influenced by both surface- and deep-level attributes of team members (Bell et al., 2018). Surface-level attributes refer to visible demographic traits—such as age, sex, race, organizational tenure, and functional role—that shape how members interact with each other. For example, team members may draw upon stereotypes based on these attributes to make assumptions about other members, such as their competence, status, or reputation. As these assumptions play out in the interactions between members, it can impede team success by decreasing trust and information sharing. For example, a nurse may not bring up important information about how a patient is responding to a treatment because they defer to a physician’s judgment, someone who is typically regarded as an expert on treatments (Mayo & Woolley, 2016). Alternatively, members who perceive themselves as dissimilar from the team can lead to decreased cooperation and performance (Shemla, Meyer, Greer, & Jehn, 2016).

Deep-level attributes include underlying personality traits, knowledge, skills, opinions, and values that become apparent as members interact over time. These attributes tend to have a greater impact on team performance than surface-level attributes (Bell, Villado, Lukasik, Belau, & Briggs, 2011). Of course, team success depends heavily on having team members with knowledge, skills, and abilities that match the task requirements. All teams—but particularly virtual teams—benefit from members with strong communication skills, high emotional intelligence, and resilience (Ferrazzi, 2014). Diversity of knowledge, opinions, and background usually benefits teams. For example, teams whose members have differences of opinion can be more creative than like-minded teams. Management teams whose members have different functional or professional backgrounds are more innovative than are homogeneous teams (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). However, diversity alone is not always a benefit to teams. The advantages of diversity emerge when members critically integrate their knowledge and are committed to their team’s goals. (See Chapter 13 for a discussion of diversity and inclusion in teams.)

There are several ways in which individual attributes can impact the team (Mathieu et al., 2014). Attributes of powerful members can exert an inordinate influence on the team. For example, a leader’s positive mood can spread throughout the team and enhance cooperation (Sy, Côté, & Saavedra, 2005). Sometimes, the attribute of the weakest or strongest member is most important. Having a single very negative team member can lead to dysfunctional group processes, hurt team morale and cohesion, and create conflict within the team (Kelly & Barsade, 2001). Alternatively, sometimes it is the aggregation (e.g., team average) of an attribute that best predicts team outcomes.

The composition of personality traits on a team is associated with team performance (Bell et al., 2018; McCrae & Costa, 1987; Morgeson, Reider, & Campion, 2005). Conscientious individuals are task and goal focused, exert more effort, and are more likely to regulate teamwork and engage in cooperative team behavior (Courtright, McCormick, Mistry, & Wang, 2017). Agreeable individuals are trusting, warm, and cooperative. Teams with members high on this trait have less conflict and increased trust, communication, and cohesion (Bradley, Baur, Banford, & Postlethwaite, 2013; Ferguson & Peterson, 2015). Student teams high on both average conscientiousness and agreeableness tend to compensate for social loafing and

100

maintain levels of performance (Schippers, 2014). Extraverted team members are more social, gregarious, assertive, and talkative. Barry and Stewart (1997) found that extraverted members facilitate positive social relationships and contribute to team performance. Emotional stability relates to an individual’s ability to handle stress, maintain a positive perspective, and be resilient. Teams high in emotional stability tend to have higher performance and cohesion (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998). Finally, openness to experience relates to approaching tasks with freedom, flexibility, and creativity. While there is a positive relationship between openness to experience and team creativity, one study found that the highest team creativity emerged from teams that had at least one individual low in openness to experience (Schilpzand, Herold, & Shalley, 2011).

There is no guarantee that having many highly talented team members will lead to a high- performing team (Swaab, Schaerer, Anicich, Ronay, & Galinsky, 2014). For example, in studies of basketball and other sports teams, having many high performers can lead to conflict and coordination problems that reduce performance compared to teams with fewer high performers. Particularly in interdependent sports, such as soccer and basketball, performance can decrease when there are too many high-performing athletes. By contrast, in more independent sports, like baseball, performance increases with more high-performing athletes. This is why team member selection should consider both task-related and teamwork-related skills.

Effective teams have members with the interpersonal, problem-solving, and teamwork skills to work together (Morgeson et al., 2005). Interpersonal skills are communication techniques, such as interviewing, active listening, providing feedback, and negotiating. Problem-solving skills improve the effectiveness of teams by providing approaches to analyzing problems and making decisions. Teamwork skills promote understanding and management of group processes. However, team member selection is often based on needed task skills, rather than on teamwork skills. An alternative is to use team development interventions like team building, training, and after-action reviews to improve a team’s ability to work effectively together. (See Chapter 17 for a discussion of team development interventions.)

Finally, research on team composition can be inconsistent. For example, research conducted internally at Google was unable to find evidence that team composition based on personality, skills, or backgrounds predicted higher performance (Duhigg, 2016). Rather, it was the management of group norms—particularly psychological safety—that best predicted team success.

101

Characteristics of the Task

Teams are used to perform a variety of types of tasks, and tasks vary in how well suited they are for teamwork. A good team task motivates team members and requires coordinated activity. Teams require both appropriate tasks and organizational support for those tasks. Team tasks can be routine or nonroutine, although teamwork is particularly well suited for nonroutine tasks that involve complexity, uncertainty, and change (Mohrman et al., 1995).

McGrath (1984) developed a system to describe the different types of tasks that teams perform, based on four team goals—generate, choose, negotiate, and execute. Generation includes tasks that focus on the creative generation of new ideas and tasks that develop plans for behavioral action. Choosing deals with intellective tasks, such as problem-solving tasks when there are correct answers and decision-making tasks when there are no correct answers. Negotiation includes tasks aimed at resolving conflicting viewpoints and mixed- motive tasks aimed at resolving conflicts of interest. Execution refers to competitive tasks that help resolve conflicts of power and performance tasks designed to make things or provide services.

McGrath’s system explains the different types of tasks a team actually performs. A team may perform only one or two types of tasks. An example is a factory team that primarily performs a physical task and might do some problem-solving. Other types of teams may perform many different types of tasks: An example is a project team that both designs and produces a product. Understanding the range of tasks performed by a team is essential for selecting and training team members.

Steiner (1972) created a system that explains the different ways that team members’ efforts can be combined. The team’s work can be added together, limited by the last member, averaged, selected, or combined in any way the team desires. Additive tasks combine team member contributions together, such as when a team paints a house. The productivity of a team will exceed that of the individual team member. Conjunctive tasks are not completed until all team members have completed their parts, such as in assembly line work. Although the worst-performing member limits team performance, the team can compensate by providing support to the poor performer. A compensatory task averages the input of team members to create a single solution, while in a disjunctive task, the team must generate a single solution that represents the team’s product. The decisions of juries and problem solving by technical teams are examples of disjunctive tasks. A team usually performs better than individuals in these types of tasks but not necessarily better than the best individual in the team.

Steiner’s system shows that a team performs a variety of tasks that can be combined in different ways and is useful to explain the benefits of and problems with different ways of combining tasks. For some types of tasks, organizing work into teams can create synergies that improve performance over that of individuals. However, using teams may also reduce performance because of coordination and motivation problems. (These performance losses are discussed in more detail in Chapters 4 and 9.)

A team’s task should be aligned with the team’s goals and be motivating to the team members (Hackman, 2002). The task should be an identifiable and meaningful piece of work that allows team members to understand their contributions. Team members need to have the authority and responsibility to exercise judgment about their work practices. The team needs regular and trustworthy feedback about its performance so it can learn how to improve its operation. Finally, task completion should require the interdependent and coordinated efforts of the team members. The benefits of teamwork are realized only when teams are working on tasks that are suited for teamwork and organizations are willing to support them.

102

Teamwork Processes

Having the right people and the right type of task does not guarantee success for a team. Team members must be able to combine efforts successfully. Teams may not reach their potential if their internal processes interfere with their success. For example, decisions may be disrupted by personal bias, distorted by the desire to maintain good relationships, or impaired by the desire to make decisions quickly. Effective teams organize themselves to perform tasks, monitor their progress, and develop social relations to support their operations.

In a synthesis of the research, Marks and colleagues (2001) identified 10 behaviors of highly effective teams. They present teamwork as a series of performance episodes whereby the team oscillates between transition and action phases, while constantly attending to interpersonal processes (see Figure 2.1). In other words, teams begin by discussing goals and planning a strategy (transition processes), and then individuals complete their tasks (action processes). After finishing individual tasks, the team meets again to reevaluate goals and plans and repeats the process. Throughout these processes, team members also attend to interpersonal issues that crop up.

Description

Figure 2.1 Team Processes During a Performance Episode

Source: Adapted from Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356 –376.

Each episode begins with a transition phase. Here, team members set aside time (e.g., meetings, after-action reviews, retreats) to collectively evaluate past activities and/or plan future activities to progress toward the team goal. Three team processes occur during this phase:

Mission analysis. Developing a shared understanding of the team’s purpose by clarifying tasks, considering the environmental conditions that constrain its work, and identifying

103

the resources available to the team.

Goal specification. Collectively identifying and prioritizing the goals required for the team mission, establishing quality expectations, and setting timelines for completion.

Strategy formation and planning. Deciding how members will execute their tasks, communicate with each other, and specify alternative courses of action depending on task outcomes.

Effective teams then enter an action phase, during which members individually conduct the activities that contribute to achieving their collective goal. Four team processes occur at this stage:

Monitoring progress toward goals. Providing feedback about task progress and checking on the progress of others. The team determines if they need to adjust their plans (e.g., seek help or work overtime).

Systems monitoring. Attending to the resources (e.g., skills, time, technology, or information.) needed by the team to succeed and adapting to environmental changes that can influence the team’s success.

Team monitoring and backup responses. Assisting teammates by providing feedback, helping with a behavior or technique, or taking over a task.

Coordination activities. Organizing team members to work in synchronous interdependence with each other.

Occurring throughout the transition and action phases are interpersonal processes. Teams with high levels of group cohesion and good social relations are often the most effective teams. Three processes help to manage the social relationships between members:

Conflict management. Proactively preventing conflict and reactively working through interpersonal disagreements among team members.

Motivating/confidence building. Encouraging members to establish and maintain high standards of performance, feelings of competence, and morale.

Affect management. Regulating teammate emotions like cohesion, frustration, and excitement.

This model of team processes captures the ongoing cycle between planning and action phases that effective teams engage in. While it may present teamwork as straightforward, in practice, this is not always the case. Teams can rush important decisions or may not invest the time to build a shared understanding of their task. Members do not monitor their work or openly communicate their progress with each other. Working in a team can lead to reduced effort by individual members rather than encouraging performance. (This problem, called social loafing, is discussed in Chapter 4.) Yet teams benefit from investing time into managing their processes. For example, military teams who briefly discuss strategy before an engagement exhibited better performance and coordination (Dalenberg, Vogelaar, & Beersma, 2009). Likewise, teams that jointly create a team charter detailing how they will interact with each other experience higher performance (Mathieu & Rapp, 2009).

104

Finally, it takes leadership to provide direction for the team and to facilitate its internal processes. There is no set of rules that a good leader can mechanically follow. Depending on the tasks and team maturity, groups require different types of leadership. Unlike traditional managers, the role of a team leader is not to control the team’s behavior. Rather, leaders create conditions that allow the team to manage its processes in a changing environment (Hackman, 2012).

105

Organizational Context

The organizational context—its leadership, structure, support, reward systems, culture, technology, and climate—has a significant effect on whether teams operate successfully (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). While teams can improve the operations of organizations, they are also enabled and constrained by their organizational environments. They need the right conditions to succeed. The organizational culture of a hospital, for example, can establish norms of interaction that promote or hinder teamwork in such a way that directly impacts patient health and safety (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006).

Teams are more likely to be successful in supportive organizations. Supportive organizations encourage collaboration by communicating the importance of teamwork (Salas, 2015). For example, many health care organizations define their workplace culture as needing and relying on teamwork (Rosen et al., 2018). They also provide incentives for working in teams (Thayer, Petruzzelli, & McClurg, 2018). Kniffin and Hanks (2018) found that professionals in STEM fields would be less likely to join a team if they perceived an insufficient incentive. In some organizations, like universities and research hospitals, policies regarding promotion and tenure may not support team-based research (Leahey, 2016).

Several organizational structures help teams function more effectively (Hackman, 1990b). Teams perform better when they have clear goals and well-defined tasks. They should also have control over their actions, rather than being required to follow strict directives. They need adequate resources, including compensation, time and space, and training support (Rosenfield, Newell, Zwolski, & Benishek, 2018). Reliable information from the organization is required for teams to make decisions, coordinate their efforts with other parts of the organization, and plan for future changes. Finally, technical and group process assistance should be available to the teams. Teams need technical help to solve their problems and facilitation or coaching to deal with interpersonal difficulties. To improve on the ways that members operate, a team needs feedback on its performance and an incentive to change. Without this, team members cannot focus on the goals the organization has established for the team.

106

2.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL TEAMS

What makes successful teams? Many researchers have tried to answer this question. Despite decades of research, there are relatively few universal characteristics of all successful teams. It appears success in teams is a moving target: What teams need to be successful shifts as changes in team composition, tasks, processes, and environment inevitably occur. Still, scholars have identified structures, abilities, and mindsets that are associated with high-performing teams.

107

Team Structures

Researchers from psychology, organizational behavior, management, and group communication have investigated and identified structures of effective teams (e.g., Hackman, 1987; Katzenbach & Smith, 2001; LaFasto & Larson, 2001; Levi & Slem, 1995). Integrating this research indicates that effective teams have the following characteristics:

1. Clear, well-defined goals to provide direction and motivation and to allow for performance evaluation

2. Tasks must be suitable for teamwork and require a coordinated effort 3. A sense of shared fate or mutual accountability, and their efforts must be evaluated and

rewarded in a fair manner 4. Leaders who keep teams focused on goals and facilitate but do not control the team’s

activities 5. An organizational culture that supports teamwork and that supplies teams with the

necessary power and resources for task performance

108

Collective Intelligence

The concept of collective intelligence also guides successful teamwork. Woolley, Chabris, Pentland, Hashmi, and Malone (2010) conducted a study of teams performing a variety of tasks. They identified a collective intelligence factor that predicted successful team performance on a variety of tasks. Collective intelligence was not correlated with the intelligence of the team members but rather with two other factors: social sensitivity and equality of communication. The most important factor predicting team success was social sensitivity, which corresponds to the average level of emotional intelligence of the team members. (Emotional intelligence is discussed in Chapter 6.) Equality of communication occurs when members take turns communicating and when no one dominates the team’s communication.

109

Teaming Mindset

Edmondson (2012) examines the mindsets of successful teams. She recognizes that many contemporary teams—such those found in hospitals, military installations, airline crews, and power plants—lack the stable structures and membership that make designing static teams possible. Such teams often create new knowledge and solve ill-structured problems, for which well-designed tasks and processes are not known. Navigating this uncertainty requires that team members quickly share information, make decisions, and fail—often alongside team members with whom they have never worked. Successfully navigating teamwork in these contexts requires that team members develop and practice affective and cognitive skills, a mindset she calls teaming.

There are four core practices of teaming: speaking up, collaboration, experimentation, and reflection. Teams embracing these practices can quickly learn and adapt to changing circumstances. Achieving this requires attending to four affective and cognitive states in the team. First, members must actively manage the cognitive frames that enable and constrain potential for thought, action, and participation. Second, they must continually cultivate a psychologically safe environment that facilitates open communication, asking questions, seeking feedback, and constructive disagreement. Third, teams need to become comfortable talking about and learning from their mistakes and failures. Finally, members must overcome physical boundaries, status boundaries, and knowledge boundaries that impede collaboration in diverse teams.

Although it is useful to try to determine the characteristics of successful teams, investigations of this type are limited. The importance of specific characteristics differs based on the type of team. Cohen and Bailey (1997) conducted a meta-analysis of work teams. Their review of 54 studies shows that the factors necessary for success are different for production, professional, and managerial teams. For example, for self-managing production teams, the amount of organizational support is very important, but the quality of leadership is relatively unimportant. On the other hand, professional project teams often are dependent on high-quality leadership because of the nonroutine nature of their tasks.

There has been a substantial increase in research on teamwork conducted in applied settings (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008). However, this research has not led to a set of rules about how teams should operate. Even teams that share similar structures, resources, and goals have inconsistent levels of performance (Barley & Weickum, 2017). There is no one best model of effective teamwork. Different types of teams face different challenges, so they need to adopt alternative strategies to be effective. In fact, it may be more important for team members to share similar models of how to work together than for the model of teamwork used to be especially accurate (Smith-Jentsch, Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum, & Salas, 2008).

110

2.4 POSITIVE-PSYCHOLOGY VIEW OF TEAM SUCCESS

Positive psychology is a recent movement within psychology that studies people’s strengths and how to promote positive functioning (Mills, Fleck, & Kozikowski, 2013). Many positive- psychology factors are examined in the study of teamwork. Because of its focus on personal development, positive psychology provides an alternative perspective on the meaning of team success and the factors that contribute to it.

Most models of team success focus on task performance and then include social relations and individual development as support factors. A positive-psychology perspective toward team success starts with team member well-being. When team members are fully engaged in the task and they have developed positive and supportive relationships with other team members, then the team is poised for successful performance (Richardson & West, 2010). The positive- psychology approach to teamwork attempts to develop teams that help its members satisfy their social and emotional needs while working together to meet the team’s challenges and goals.

An overview of the inputs, processes, and outcomes of teamwork from a positive-psychology perspective is presented in Figure 2.2. This input-process-output model assumes that a set of team inputs leads to the development of team processes, and these team processes create the conditions for successful performance. From a positive-psychology perspective, a team’s outcomes include team performance and emotional, cognitive, and social benefits for individual team members (Richardson & West, 2010). Successful teamwork also provides other benefits to the organization, including better relationships among teams and increased altruism (cooperation and helping behavior) with other parts of the organization. Finally, successful teams are learning teams that seek creative and innovative ways to improve how they operate.

Description

Figure 2.2 Positive-Psychology Model of Team Success

Source: Adapted from Richardson, J., & West, M. (2010). Dream teams: A positive psychology of team working. In P. Linley, S. Harrington, & N. Garcea (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology and work (pp. 235–249). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Several important inputs create the foundation for positive team performance (Richardson & West, 2010). Teams need to have an inspiring task that motivates team member participation.

111

The task should encourage interdependent work, require members to employ their skills, be perceived as a meaningful activity, allow the team a high degree of autonomy, and provide timely feedback about performance. Teams should contain diverse members and create a safe environment that supports participation by all team members. Team members need clear work roles and the ability for roles and responsibilities to evolve as the team progresses. The team needs to develop supportive personal relationships among its members through regular interactions, management of conflicts, and encouragement of mutual assistance. Supportive leadership helps to create an inspiring vision for the team and uses monitoring, coaching, and feedback to guide team performance. Team members should develop a healthy attachment to the team by encouraging the development of trust and social relations among members.

These team inputs lead to a set of positive team processes that support enriching teamwork interactions (Richardson & West, 2010). Team members have a sense of group potency, where they collectively believe that they have the skills and abilities to succeed. Team members are optimistic about their abilities to cope with adversity and meet their objectives in the future. Team learning becomes an ongoing activity, which is supported by reflexivity—with members taking time to reflect on their performance and strategies and to learn from their experiences. Team members have a high level of trust to support clear communication and to coordinate activities. This is nurtured through members providing each other with social support, assistance with performance, and emotional support to counter stress.

The positive-psychology approach to teamwork leads to better team performance by focusing on the emotional and cognitive benefits to team members. It provides an alternative perspective on the meaning of team success and how to promote more effective teamwork. Many positive- psychology factors are examined in the study of teamwork, such as the impact of supportive personal relations, reflexivity and learning, team efficacy, empowerment, supportive leadership, and appreciative inquiry (Mills et al., 2013).

112

2.5 USING TEAMS IN THE WORKPLACE

Work teams are an important way of improving organizational effectiveness (Delarue et al., 2008). Given this, it is no surprise to see a shift toward team-based approaches in health care (Rosen et al., 2018), research (Salas et al., 2018), science, technology, engineering, and math teams (Kniffin & Hanks, 2018), as well as innovation (Thayer et al., 2018). Implementing teamwork is also one of the most effective interventions for improving organizational performance (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). In addition to increasing the financial success of companies, teamwork programs improve personnel issues, such as reducing turnover and absenteeism.

Although there are many benefits to using teams at work, developing work teams is not always easy. Organizations encounter many problems shifting from traditional work systems to teamwork. Because of the popularity of teams, they are sometimes used in situations where traditional approaches are more appropriate for accomplishing the task. This can make it difficult to evaluate the success of teamwork in organizations.

113

Benefits of Teamwork

Teams are an effective way to improve performance and job satisfaction. Large-scale studies on the use of production work teams show their effectiveness (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). Teams improve both the efficiency and quality of organizational performance. Using teams provides the flexibility needed to operate in today’s rapidly changing business world. However, teams may develop performance problems that limit their effectiveness, and the initial transition to teamwork may be a complicated process for organizations.

In addition to increasing organizational effectiveness, the implementation of work teams often leads to improvements in job satisfaction and quality of work life (Sundstrom et al., 2000). Teams have these beneficial characteristics because they provide social support to employees, provide autonomy, encourage cooperation, and make jobs more exciting and challenging. Among nurses, for example, teamwork is associated with higher perceptions of adequate staffing and greater job satisfaction (Kalisch, Lee, & Rochman, 2010). Teams also have the potential to be more innovative, which is critical for the advancement of science, technology, engineering, and math (Thayer et al., 2018).

114

Problems of Teamwork

Although there are benefits to both organizations and employees, some problems are created by the use of teams and the transition to teamwork. Research on teamwork in work settings provides mixed results. Teamwork programs like quality circles (i.e., temporary teams that provide suggestions about how to improve quality) provide only limited power to teams and have been shown to be ineffective. Studies of factory work teams have widely variable results (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). One of the problems is that teamwork programs are implemented with little consideration for their applicability. Rather than attempting to make existing programs work better, new programs are introduced. Shifting to self-managing work teams can result in significant long-term performance improvements. However, the transition to self-managing teams can be difficult in organizations with traditional management control systems.

Effective work teams have norms that support high-quality performance and a level of group cohesiveness that provides social support for members. Nevertheless, work teams may have problems with norms and cohesiveness. Teams with poor performance norms are less effective and may be highly resistant to change. Low levels of group cohesion can limit team members’ ability to work together, whereas high levels of group cohesion may lower members’ performance orientation and impair decision making (Nemeth & Staw, 1989). Teams can also amplify errors, biases, and framings made by individuals, leading to lower performance (Hinsz, Tindale, & Nagao, 2008; Sleesman, Hollenbeck, Spitzmuller, & Schouten, 2018).

Implementing work teams often creates problems. Conflicts exist between team development and the traditional management systems in many organizations (Hackman, 1990a). Teams suffer from implementation problems because of resistance to change. Teamwork requires a supportive organizational context to foster team growth and development.

115

When the Use of Teams Becomes a Fad

Many managers and employees overrate the effectiveness of teamwork and overprescribe their use (Allen & Hecht, 2004). Although research on the effectiveness of work teams is mixed, these mixed findings are not congruent with the overly positive view of teamwork held by many managers. The implementation of work teams has been one of the most common organizational changes in the past 20 years. Team use and the benefits of teamwork have become a business fad, and organizations now suffer from the subsequent problems of overuse (Charan & Useem, 2002).

One result of the overly positive view of teamwork is that use of teams has expanded beyond the point where they are valuable (Allen & Hecht, 2004). They are used to solve every organizational problem, regardless of whether teams are an appropriate way to organize the work. This means that many teams operate in organizational contexts that are inappropriate for teamwork. Strong beliefs about the effectiveness of teams also lead to their implementation without the necessary organizational changes needed to support teamwork (Charan & Useem, 2002). Managers implement teams, looking for benefits without considering the costs of training teams and other ensuing organizational structures (Paulus, 2002).

What is needed is a better understanding of where and when teams should be deployed and what actions are required to deploy them effectively. Teams are not the solution to every organizational problem, and they are not automatically successful. They need a purpose, an outcome that requires joint efforts, complementary skills, and mutual responsibility (Katzenbach & Smith, 2001). Organizations get in trouble when the goal of a team is promoting teamwork rather than an identified performance outcome.

116

SUMMARY

The definition of team success relates to team tasks, social relations, and impact on team members. Successful teams complete their tasks and do so in a collective way that is better than when only individuals perform the tasks. Teams must develop good social relations to support task activities and maintain the existence of the team. Participating in teams should be a benefit to team members, both in terms of learning new skills and in advancing individual careers.

The success of a team depends on the composition of the team, the characteristics of the task, the group process, and the organizational context. There are three important aspects of team composition. (1) A team must have members with the right set of knowledge, skills, and abilities to complete its task. (2) For some types of teams, members must represent the relevant parts of an organization to ensure a sense of participation in the decision and support for its implementation. (3) Finally, team members must have the interpersonal skills to work together as a team.

Teams perform a variety of routine and nonroutine tasks that require different sets of skills. The tasks that teams perform may be analyzed by examining how a member’s input relates to the products. For a task in which the team’s work is simply added together, the team often performs no better than the same number of individuals working alone. When the poorest performing member limits completion of a task, the team performs better because it can compensate for individual problems. For a task that requires the team to make a quality decision, the team often performs better than individuals working alone. Team tasks should be motivating and require a coordinated effort to perform.

Teamwork processes connect the members of a team to its task. Successful teams oscillate between transition and action phases. This involves collectively planning tasks and individually executing tasks while carefully monitoring progress. Meanwhile, teams must also maintain positive interpersonal interactions. Leaders facilitate these teamwork processes and create opportunities for the team to manage itself.

The organization provides a context for the team. The organization’s culture supports the team by creating an environment that encourages collaboration and allows the team to control its internal operations. The organization’s systems support the team by providing direction, resources, information, and assistance. One of the most important aspects of the organizational context is the willingness of the organization to provide feedback on a team’s performance and to reward successful performance.

Researchers from a variety of perspectives have identified several characteristics of successful teams. Teams have clear goals, appropriate leadership, organizational support, suitable tasks, and mutual accountability. Teams with higher emotional intelligence exhibit greater levels of collective intelligence and performance. Successful teams engage in behaviors that advance the task and social needs of the team. Mindsets that foster speaking up, collaboration, experimentation, and reflection can help teams completing nonroutine tasks. Although these are characteristics of successful teams, their importance changes depending on the type of work group.

Positive psychology provides an alternative perspective toward team success by focusing on the individual. When team members are fully engaged in their tasks and feel supported by other team members, then the team’s performance is likely to be successful.

The use of work teams is increasing because of the many benefits they provide to organizations. Teams help make the organization more productive and flexible while improving employees’ job satisfaction. However, teams are not the solution to every organizational

117

problem. Organizations need to provide a supportive context for teams to be effective. Because of the popularity of work teams, they are sometimes overused. This makes it difficult to evaluate the success of teams at work.

118

Team Leadership Challenge 2

You are the team leader of a quality improvement team for your school district. For the past several months, the eight high school teachers on the team have analyzed problems and developed recommendations for improving the operation of the school system. You are proud of the team. They responded well to teamwork training and learned how to operate effectively as a team. In addition, social relations among the teachers on the team have been very good and several strong friendships have developed.

You presented the recommendations developed by the team to the superintendent of the school district. After waiting for several weeks, the superintendent thanked you for your efforts, but told you that none of the team’s recommendations would be implemented at this time because of budget constraints. You feel rejected by the superintendent and discouraged. It is time for your last team meeting. You need to prepare what you are going to tell the team.

How should you (the team leader) handle the last meeting with the team?

In what ways was the team successful and unsuccessful?

How can the organization better use improvement teams in the future?

119

Activity: Understanding Team Success

Objective: Why are some teams successful while others are unsuccessful? Use your experience with teams to answer this question.

Activity: Think about a time when you were on a successful team. Using Activity Worksheet 2.1, write a description of the team at that time. (What was it like being on the team? What was the team like? What behaviors did the team engage in?) Think about a time when you were on an unsuccessful team. Write a description of the team at that time.

120

Activity Worksheet 2.1: Successful and Unsuccessful Teams

Successful Team:

Unsuccessful Team:

Analysis: Compare the two descriptions of successful and unsuccessful teams. What team processes (transition, action, and interpersonal processes) may explain the differences between these two teams? Compare your answers with those of other group members. Are the characteristics similar? Develop a group answer to the following question: What are the characteristics of successful teams?

1. _______________________________________ 2. _______________________________________ 3. _______________________________________ 4. _______________________________________

Discussion: Using your list of the characteristics of successful teams, what advice would you give a team leader about how to establish and run a team?

121

Descriptions of Images and Figures Back to Figure

Data shown by the illustration are listed as follows:

Team Performance Episode

Transition processes

Mission analysis

Goal specification

Strategy formation and planning

Action Processes

Monitor progress towards goals

Systems monitoring

Team monitoring

Coordination activities

Interpersonal Processes

Conflict management

Motivation/confidence building

Affect management

Transition processes and Action Processes are in different columns of the table and are connected via a double-headed arrow.

Interpersonal Processes are at the bottom of the table and appear to provide a base to both the processes.

Back to Figure

Data shown by illustration are listed as follows:

INPUTS

Inspiring team tasks

122

Autonomy and empowerment

Team diversity

Clear and flexible roles

Positive social relations

Supportive leadership

Team attachment

PROCESSES

Group potency

Optimism

Learning/reflexivity

Trust

Social support

OUTCOMES

Team member well-being

Social engagement and support

Team performance

Team learning and innovation

In the image, INPUTS point to PROCESSES, which in turn point to OUTCOMES, via rightward arrows.

123

124

PART II PROCESSES OF TEAMWORK

Shutterstock/Oshchepkov Dmitry

125

126

CHAPTER 3 TEAM BEGINNINGS

Teams develop through a series of stages that reflect changes in their internal group processes and the demands of their tasks. This perspective of team stages produces one of the most valuable insights about teams: They often are not productive at the beginning of projects.

To become more effective, teams should address several issues early in their development. First, the team should socialize new members into the team. This socialization process assimilates new members while accommodating their individual needs. Second, the purpose or objective of the team should be defined through the creation of team goals. Developing team goals is an important process that helps avoid problems, provides direction, and increases motivation. Third, the team should develop rules or team norms for its operation. These norms define appropriate behavior for team members.

There are techniques to help teams form social relations, clarify tasks, develop team norms, and create a team charter. If these techniques are used at the beginning of a team project, teams are more likely to be effective.

127

Learning Objectives

1. Distinguish between stage, project, and cyclical approaches to group development.

2. Explain the implications of group development on team functioning.

3. Understand how socialization, new members, and turnover affect teams.

4. Describe the main characteristics of effective team goals.

5. Explain how hidden agendas impact the team. 6. Describe the positive and negative effects of

group norms. 7. Determine how to improve the beginning stages of a

team project. 8. Develop an effective team charter.

128

3.1 STAGES OF GROUP DEVELOPMENT

Research on project teams shows that start-up activities take longer than anticipated. For many professional design projects, most of the design work occurs during the last half of the allotted time (Gersick, 1988). The main reason for this slow start is that it takes time to clarify the definition of the project, develop social relations, and create effective operating rules. An understanding of group development can help speed up this process and reduce the frustration caused by what members often perceive as a sluggish start.

Several approaches exist to explain the changes that teams experience during their operation: Stage theories of group development focus on how internal group processes change over time. Project development theories attempt to describe how teams change based on the tasks that they perform. Finally, cyclical theories explain group process changes as cycles rather than as stages.

129

Group Development Perspective

There are many stage theories of group development, but most of the theories contain similar elements. The theories try to explain why it takes time for a group to develop before it becomes productive and why the group goes through periods of conflict during its development. Table 3.1 presents the best- known group development stage theory, developed by Tuckman and Jensen (1977). This theory focuses on the development of internal relations among the team members.

A group begins with the forming stage, where little work occurs. Rather, members often feel uncomfortable and constrained because they are unfamiliar with each other. Consequently, time is spent getting to know one another and learn how to operate as a group. Members tend to be polite and tentative with one another and compliant toward the leader. Group members are uncertain about how to act, and they spend time planning how to perform their tasks. This stage ends when the group members become comfortable interacting with one another.

The storming stage that follows often is characterized by conflicts among group members and confusion about group roles and project requirements. Disagreements over procedures can lead to expressions of dissatisfaction and hostility. Group members begin to realize that the project is more complicated than anticipated, and they may become anxious and defensive. Conflict about their roles and the task expands. Although this conflict might be unpleasant, it is important that it occurs because it promotes the sharing of different perspectives. Resolving this conflict clarifies the group’s goals and promotes increased group cohesion.

The group begins to organize itself to work on the task during the norming stage. Here, the group becomes more

130

cohesive, conflict resolves, and team confidence improves. The group has established some ground rules (or norms) to help members work together, and social relations have developed enough to create a group identity. Increased levels of trust and support characterize group interactions. Although differences still exist and continue to arise, they are handled through constructive discussion and negotiation.

Table 3.1 Stages of Group Development

Stage Activity

Forming Orientation: members getting to know one another

Storming Conflict: disagreement about roles and procedures

Norming Structure: establishment of rules and social relationships

Performing Work: focus on completing the task

Adjourning Dissolution: completion of task and end of the group

Source: Adapted from Tuckman, B., & Jensen, M. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2, 419– 427.

During the performing stage, the group has matured and knows how to operate, so it focuses on its task. If the group has developed norms and successfully built social relations, it

131

can easily handle the stress of approaching deadlines. Studies of groups show that most performance occurs during this stage, near the end of the group project (Hare, 1982). However, not all groups get to this stage, and they may get bogged down in conflict at earlier stages. It can take, on average, six months for groups to advance to this stage of high performance (Wheelan, 2009).

The final stage is the adjourning stage. Some groups have planned endings, while other groups may continue indefinitely. When teams end, they should spend time evaluating their performance and using this feedback to prepare for the future (Wheelan, 2005). However, team endings often are not learning experiences for the team; members may be more interested in celebrating their success or finding excuses for their failures than they are in learning from the team experience (Hackman & Wageman, 2005).

132

Project Development Perspective

An alternative view of team stages is based on the characteristics of projects rather than on the development of group processes. These theories are based on research on work teams, whereas group development theories often are based on research on therapy or learning groups. For example, McIntyre and Salas (1995) present a model of team development based on the skills that team members develop while completing a project. In their model, a team works on role clarification during the early stages, moves on to coordinated skills development, and finally focuses on increasing the variety and flexibility of its skills as a team. This model uses the changing relationship between the team and the project as the driver of change throughout the stages.

Ancona and Caldwell (1990) present a model of group development for new product teams. Their three stages of development reflect the changing nature of the tasks and how these changes affect internal processes and external relations. During the creation stage, a team’s activities are a mixture of internal and external processes. The team is developing new ideas and creative solutions while organizing the team. External relations include gathering information and building links with relevant organizational units. During the development stage, the team’s focus is primarily internal. The organization has approved the idea, and the team is focused on the technical details of the project. The final stage is diffusion, where external relations become the primary focus of the team. The project is nearly complete, and coordinating its transfer to manufacturing and marketing is the focus of the team’s activities.

133

Cyclical Perspective

Although stage theories of group development are popular, not all teams follow the patterns found in these theories. Some teams skip stages, others get stuck in certain stages, and still others seem to travel through the stages by unique routes. The boundaries between the stages are often less clear-cut than the theories suggest.

Rather than emphasizing a sequence of stages, some team theorists believe that groups go through cycles throughout the life of the team. This was the case for the model of teamwork processes presented in Chapter 2. Here, Marks and colleagues (2001) describe a recurring phase model of teamwork showing how teams perform in cycles of activity. Teams operate in action cycles (when they are performing their tasks), interpersonal cycles (when they are managing social relations), and transition cycles (when they are evaluating their performance and planning for the future). These cycles can occur in various patterns as needed or at designated times. For example, military teams have formal debriefings (transition cycles) that occur after major activities. Similarly, Barley and Weickum (2017) articulated a similar cyclical model of collaborative teamwork, in which teamwork cycles between episodes of collaborative interactions and individual work activities.

From her research on project teams, Gersick (1988) developed a theory of punctuated equilibrium. Each team had its own pattern of development, but all the teams experienced periods of low activity, followed by bursts of energy and change. In addition, each team had a midpoint crisis when its members realized that half their time was gone, but the project was still in its early stages of completion. This led to a period of panic, followed by increased activity as the team focused on completing the task.

134

Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium model argues that teams primarily change when they are confronted with external challenges that require them to reevaluate their current practices (Humphrey & Aime, 2014). One implication of this model is that making the team focus on task strategy is beneficial during the midpoint crisis, rather than at the beginning of the team’s development. When teams encounter disruptive events or challenges, they are more willing to reevaluate their routine practices and make changes.

135

Implications of Team Development Stages

Understanding the stages that teams typically go through can help team members better recognize what is happening to the team and how to manage it. Stage theories explain why most of the team’s work gets done at the end of the project and why it is essential to build social relations and team norms at the beginning of the project. However, it is important to remember that stage theories of team development do not always apply. A team’s life is often a roller coaster of successes and failures. Activities may increase or decrease at different points in time, but they may not entirely stop and go away (Humphrey & Aime, 2014). Some teams get stuck at one of the stages or even break up—they never get to the performing stage because they have not worked through their earlier problems (Wheelan, 2005).

Can competent teams skip these development stages and just start performing? Sometimes, a team’s early successes can cause them to ignore the task of developing team processes. Highly self-confident project teams may simply focus on the task without adequately debating how they should perform their work (Goncalo, Polman, & Maslach, 2010). Early process conflict not only helps a team develop better work processes and strategies, but it teaches the team how to manage conflicts (Tekleab, Quigley, & Tesluk, 2009). This is why early process conflict is a predictor of later success for project teams. When these teams encounter problems in the later stages of a project, they have the skills to manage the conflict and develop alternative solutions.

Several lessons are important here. First, emotional highs and lows are a normal part of team development. Second, developing the team is important. Time must be spent developing social relations and socializing new members, establishing goals and norms, and defining the project.

136

Third, the team may go through periods of lower task performance as it tries to resolve conflicts over relationship and task issues. This is a normal part of team development as well.

137

3.2 GROUP SOCIALIZATION

A person becomes a member of a group through a process referred to as group socialization. Traditional approaches to group socialization explain how new members are recruited and integrated into relatively permanent groups or teams. Contemporary approaches examine how work teams deal with constantly changing team membership.

In the classical approach to group socialization (Moreland & Levine, 1982, 2002), an individual goes through a series of role transitions—from prospective to full member—during the socialization process. Role transitions occur during consecutive phases: investigation, socialization, maintenance, and resocialization. Throughout this process, the individual is evaluating the team and deciding on their level of commitment. Evaluation is the judgment whether the benefits of participation in a team outweigh the costs. Commitment is the desire to maintain a relationship with the team. These processes are mutual—the individual evaluates the team and decides on a level of commitment, while the team also evaluates the individual and decides how committed they are to the member.

First is the investigation stage, which begins before a prospective member joins a group. Here, the team assesses how the individual can contribute to group goals, while the individual determines whether the group can satisfy personal needs (Moreland & Levine, 2002). When both parties are satisfied, the prospective member becomes a newcomer and joins the group. This begins the socialization phase.

The newcomer often experiences stress during socialization. They are uncertain about group norms and their roles and responsibilities. Consequently, they learn what is expected of them through both formal and informal activities like

138

observation, onboarding, training, and mentoring (Allen, Eby, Chao, & Bauer, 2017; Chao, 2007). Anxiety also leads newcomers to be passive, dependent, and conforming, which can increase their acceptance by established team members (Moreland & Levine, 1982). Newcomers can be a threat to an established team because they bring in a fresh and objective perspective that unsettles existing members. They can also represent a threat to the established power or social hierarchy on the team. The passive approach adopted by many newcomers reduces the potential threat of criticism from the team and thereby encourages acceptance of the new member.

Once a member is fully accepted by the team, the maintenance stage begins. Even though the individual is a full member of the team, there is an ongoing process of negotiating their role and position in the team and the team’s goals and practices. Both the team and the individual attempt to change each other to make the relationship more rewarding (Moreland & Levine, 1989).

Although many members stay in this maintenance stage until they leave the team, members may diverge from the team and reduce their commitment because of conflicts between their personal goals and the team’s goals. For example, a member may not wish to take on additional responsibilities or roles that the team requires of them. When this divergence occurs, a phase of resocialization begins. The individual may resolve their differences through assimilation and accommodation with the group. When differences cannot be resolved, it usually concludes with the member transitioning out of the group.

Keeping teams together for longer periods of time can help to improve performance. Team members with a history of working together are associated with increased performance in software, consulting, military defense, sports, aviation, and surgery (Huckman & Staats, 2013). As members gain a greater understanding of the knowledge and abilities of individual

139

team members, they are more effective at coordinating their actions. They also learn who knows what on the team, enabling them to better coordinate actions and integrate knowledge across members. There are interpersonal benefits to familiarity as well. Members already know how to communicate with each other, and they are better able to respond to stress and change. Teams with greater familiarity are better able to gain the benefits of diversity.

140

Team Turnover

In many organizations, teams have a dynamic composition where new members join, and others leave throughout the life of the team (Wilkin, de Jong, & Rubino, 2018). It is now increasingly common to find temporary teams that must quickly adjust to new members (Wildman et al., 2011), such as emergency surgery teams, airline crews, or disaster relief teams. Moreover, between 65% and 95% of knowledge workers are members of multiple teams at any given time (O’Leary, Mortensen, & Woolley, 2011). This leads to frequent role- switching and multitasking, which can reduce team productivity and familiarity. These various teams can be central or peripheral to the team member’s role in the organization. Peripheral team members, who only allocate a small percentage of their time to the team, are less likely to be committed to the team and less aware of how the team operates (Maynard, Mathieu, Rapp, & Gilson, 2012).

Turnover of members can have positive and negative effects on a team (Levine & Choi, 2004). The introduction of newcomers requires the team to spend time and energy socializing them. New members may reduce the team’s performance because they do not fully understand how the team operates (Bell et al., 2011). However, newcomers may improve the team’s operations by providing a fresh perspective (De Dreu & West, 2001). Ideas generated in stable teams tend to converge. Stability also inhibits the emergence of new work processes. Newcomers, however, may encourage the team to rethink how it operates (Tannenbaum et al., 2012).

Although turnover may negatively impact team performance, there are approaches teams can use to manage this issue (Higgins, Weiner, & Young, 2012). For some action and professional teams, the stability of team roles—but not individuals in those roles—is what is important for team

141

performance. This focus on roles rather than on team members has implications for team socialization. Socialization of new team members focuses on their roles in the team instead of on a particular individual’s fit or social relations in the team. This approach toward team roles is used in performance teams, such as orchestras, the military, and athletic teams. Although the team membership changes, the team roles remain intact.

142

3.3 TEAM GOALS

Team goals clarify the level of performance expected for task completion, often in terms of the quality, quantity, and speed of work (Aube & Rousseau, 2005; Weldon & Weingart, 1993). A clear understanding of a team’s objectives through well-articulated goals is one of the most common characteristics of successful teams (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). A team with shared goals is more likely to complete its tasks on time and experience less conflict. Determining goals and establishing timelines can also help teams avoid the planning fallacy, which is the tendency to underestimate the time and energy needed to complete a project (Buehler, Griffin, & Ross, 1994).

Goals are only one way a team can define its purpose. There are other ways. Teams often create mission statements that, in general terms, define their purposes and values. A mission statement articulates a team’s values but does not say how the team’s purposes will be fulfilled. A team’s goals must be consistent with the mission statement, but goals should be objective, defining the accomplishments that need to be completed for success. A team also can create subgoals or objectives that serve as signposts along the way to completion of their goals.

143

Value and Characteristics of Goals

Merely having goals is not enough to increase performance. Goals must be specific to provide members with direction and expectations (Locke & Latham, 2002). Members also need to understand their individual tasks, roles, and responsibilities as they relate to team goal achievement. Being committed to team goals is important (Aube & Rousseau, 2005), which can be difficult when individual goals and group goals are misaligned. Progress toward the goals should be measurable (Zander, 1994). If progress toward the goals is not measurable, the team cannot adequately monitor or receive feedback on its performance. Without measurability, one might as well tell the team to “go out and do your best”—a nice motivational expression that does not lead to improved performance (Locke & Latham, 1990).

Goals should also be moderately difficult. That is, they should be motivating but not impossible to achieve (Locke & Latham, 1990). Teams perform better when they can participate in setting challenging performance goals (Kerr & Tindale, 2004). Participation helps gain acceptance and support for the team’s goals. The goal-setting process helps the team better understand the task. Participation also encourages collective efficacy, or the belief that the team can meet its goals. Team goals work best when the task is interesting and challenging and requires that team members work together to succeed. Success in reaching goals can instill a sense of accomplishment in the team (Zander, 1994).

Goals serve a variety of functions for a team. Table 3.2 lists several of these functions. Goals help direct and motivate the team and its members, but they also serve functions outside the team. They help establish relationships with other parts of the organization and criteria for evaluation from the surrounding organization.

144

It is important to note that a team is not always free to set its own goals. Instead, team goals are often defined by their organization. There are times when a team is faced with a situation where the goals are unclear or team members have differing views of the goals. For a project team, sometimes understanding the problem the team is trying to solve (i.e., defining the goals of the project) is more difficult and time-consuming than developing a solution.

Goal setting is not a one-time activity for a team. One of the values of using teams is their ability to adapt to changing situations and to learn how to improve their performance. When the situation changes, a team needs to reevaluate its goals and objectives. Reflexivity occurs when a team overtly reflects on its goals, strategies, and processes in order to adapt them to current or changing conditions (Schippers, Edmondson, & West, 2014). Monitoring and reevaluating the team’s objectives, strategies, and processes can improve a team’s long-term performance.

Table 3.2 Functions of Team Goals

1. Serve as a standard that can be used to evaluate performance

2. Motivate team members by encouraging their involvement in the task

3. Guide the team toward certain activities and encourage integration of team members’ tasks

4. Provide a criterion for evaluating whether certain actions and decisions are appropriate

145

5. Serve as a way to inform outside groups about the team and establish relationships with them

6. Determine when team members should be rewarded or punished for their performance

Source: Adapted from Zander, A. (1994). Making groups effective. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

146

Goals Gone Wild

Setting goals is not without potentially harmful side effects. Ordóñez, Schweitzer, Galinsky, and Bazerman (2009) warn about “goals gone wild.” When goal setting is overprescribed, teams can create too many, too specific, and too challenging goals. Ultimately, this can undermine motivation and performance. Goals that are too specific can focus attention away from emergent needs or other dimensions of performance that are not specified (Kerr, 1975). As people tend to focus on a single goal at a time, an abundance of goals can lead to some being ignored. Overly specific goals can also inhibit learning alternative methods for completing a task (Locke & Latham, 2002).

Pursuing challenging goals can be destructive and produce unethical behavior in teams (Ordóñez et al., 2009). It encourages risk-taking behaviors that can damage the team and its mission. For example, two leaders of a team climbing Mt. Everest in 1996 pushed through risky weather conditions to attempt summiting the mountain—a decision that led to their death and the death of six clients (Kayes, 2005). Overly challenging goals can also motivate unethical behaviors, like misrepresenting performance and cheating (Schweitzer, Ordóñez, & Douma, 2004). Wells Fargo was fined $185 million for the unauthorized creation of 2 million bank accounts, brought on from the high performance expectations of sales employees (Veetikazhi & Krishnan, 2019). Finally, when a team repeatedly misses its goals, members become embarrassed, begin to blame one another and outside factors for problems, and may refuse to commit to goals in the future (Zander, 1977). This can erode the group’s confidence that it can ultimately achieve its mission.

147

Hidden Agendas

It is problematic when individual goals and group goals are incongruent. Having individual goals can interfere with group performance and cooperation (Van Mierlo & Kleingeld, 2010). Hidden agendas are the unspoken individual goals that conflict with overall team goals (Johnson & Johnson, 1997).

The most basic type of hidden agenda relates to the motivational aspect of goals. Although the team may decide to commit itself 100% to doing a high-quality job on a project, some team members may not perceive the team’s activities as important. They might decide to slack off and spend more time and effort on other activities. Their individual goal is to help the team succeed with the least amount of effort on their part.

Another type of hidden agenda relates to the directional aspect of goals. Some team members may not agree with the goals of the team, or they may have individual goals that are incompatible with the team goals. For example, in an organization budget committee, team members must deal with the potentially conflicting goals of doing what is best for the organization versus doing what is best for the departments they represent.

Within a team, hidden agendas can create conflict that is difficult to resolve. For example, a low-motivated team member will create excuses rather than tell the team they are unwilling to work hard on the project. A team member with conflicting loyalties will hide this conflict, leading other team members to distrust what the team member says. The overall effect of hidden agendas is to damage trust within the team, which reduces communication and makes conflicts more difficult to resolve.

148

Directly confronting people about hidden agendas often does not work, because it simply forces defensiveness and denial. Rather than directly confronting a team member about a hidden agenda, the team can strengthen its processes to reduce the impacts of hidden agendas. The team can reevaluate its goals, so they are acceptable to all team members. Team members’ roles can be renegotiated so that expectations are clear. Teams can build trust through better documenting and monitoring of work commitments. Team leaders can help create a safe and open communication climate so that conflicts are more easily addressed.

149

3.4 TEAM NORMS

Team norms define appropriate and inappropriate behavior in a team. They can, for example, establish who speaks, how people communicate, which opinions are acceptable to express, whether meetings start on time, and how tasks are completed. Even though people follow norms, they may be unable to articulate them or even be aware of them. Norms provide a sense of what is “normal.” As such, members typically obey norms even when there is no external pressure to comply. Rather, group members accept them and use them to guide their own behavior.

Norms can be explicit or implicit. Explicit norms can be expressed relatively clearly and tend to be more formalized. Examples of explicit norms are the rules detailed in a team charter, the litany of classroom expectations detailed in a course syllabus, and the code of conduct that employees sign upon joining an organization. By contrast, implicit norms are indirect and less easily stated. These are typically unspoken rules that emerge from observing “how things are done around here” and witnessing what happens when someone transgresses the norm. In the United States, for example, a fast-food restaurant does not need to state “do not cut in line” (an explicit norm) to prevent (most) customers from simply walking up to the counter—people are implicitly aware of appropriate behavior based on cultural knowledge.

Explicit and implicit norms may even be in opposition to each other. A leader may encourage employees to provide dissenting opinions (an explicit norm), but this does not mean that team members feel comfortable providing them. If the team perceives (accurately or inaccurately) that the leader responds negatively to dissent, it can produce an implicit norm of “do not disagree with the leader.” Such a dynamic

150

can produce conflicting expectations, undermine leadership, and hinder the development of psychological safety.

There are four main functions of team norms (Feldman, 1984). First, team norms express the team’s central values, which help give members a sense of who they are as a team. Second, norms help coordinate the activities of team members by establishing common ground and making behavior more predictable. Third, norms help define appropriate behavior for team members, allowing members to avoid embarrassing or difficult situations, thereby encouraging active participation in the team. Fourth, norms help the team survive by creating a distinctive identity; this identity helps team members understand how they are different from others and provides criteria for evaluating deviant behavior within the team.

Several factors affect the power of team norms to control the behavior of team members (Shaw, 1981). The clearer and more specific a norm is delineated, the more members will conform to it. If most team members accept and conform to the norms, others are more likely to conform. The more cohesive a team becomes, the more members will conform to norms. While some norms may be considered pivotal to the team’s success, others play a more supportive or peripheral role. Teams are more tolerant of deviance from peripheral norms than from norms that are pivotal to their operations (Schein, 1980). For example, experts who are valuable contributors to the team may be allowed to violate peripheral norms concerning dress codes or rules of social etiquette.

151

How Norms Are Formed

Norms begin forming the moment people start interacting, and they continue to develop unconsciously and gradually over time. They are created through members observing the actions and inactions of team members as they respond to each other. People monitor social cues—vocal tone, gestures, words, and so forth—to determine if they are failing to conform to a social norm (Pickett & Gardner, 2005). When members perceive that they are violating a norm, they often seek to correct their behavior. While social monitoring is useful for enforcing and conforming to norms, it is problematic when norms are misinterpreted. Communication—particularly nonverbal communication—is ambiguous, leaving room to misinterpret meanings behind social cues (Lapinski & Rimal, 2005). When norms are left implicit, appropriate behavior may be ambiguous and uncertain.

Team norms come from a variety of sources. Many norms come from experiences outside the present team, such as those informed by prior team memberships. Other norms are based on outside standards, such as those outlined by the organizational context or formed from societal expectations. For example, Ely and Meyerson (2010) investigated the safety practices of men working in dangerous conditions, like firefighting, construction, and coal mining. In these workplaces, men tend to display conventional masculine norms —acting “manly” through portraying themselves as physically tough, infallible, and emotionally detached—to the dysfunctional degree of taking unnecessary risks, making poor-quality decisions, marginalizing female coworkers, and violating human rights. A compelling counterpoint is provided from workers on an oil production platform, in which the safety and productivity of teams increased through training and policies that cultivated norms about acknowledging limitations, publicly admitting mistakes, and openly

152

attending to the emotions of themselves and others. As “macho” behavior became considered unsafe and unacceptable, there was an 84% decline in the company’s accident rate and an increase in the productivity, efficiency, and reliability of oil production.

Norms are also strongly influenced by what happens early in the team’s existence, and they are most likely to develop in situations where members are unsure of correct or acceptable behaviors. For example, when a team is having problems with members showing up late for meetings, it is likely because no one addressed this behavior early on. The lack of response normalizes this tardy behavior and makes it acceptable. Countering this dynamic requires developing explicit norms for attendance.

Many teams simply ignore the notion of team norms. They assume that everyone knows how to behave in a team and that there is no need to take the time to articulate norms. It is not until a team starts to have problems that it becomes apparent that different members are operating under different or less effective norms. Teams benefit from discussing and establishing explicit team norms, which prevents the development of inappropriate behaviors (e.g., submitting one’s part of the project late) and makes everyone aware of the behaviors that are expected and consequences for not meeting these expectations.

Table 3.3 presents some issues to consider when establishing team norms for team meetings. When new teams are created, it is useful for the team leader to discuss and obtain agreement about norms. This can be done as part of the process of creating the team’s charter. (See Appendix for an example.)

153

Impact of Team Norms

Norms develop, whether or not team members attend to them. Team norms can therefore have both positive and negative impacts. Because they influence the team’s interactions, norms can allow open communication, promote adaptability, maintain respect among members, and distribute power to weaker members of the team.

Table 3.3 Norm Issues for Team Meetings

Decisions

How should decisions be made? Must

everyone agree for consensus? Should

anyone have veto power?

Attendance What are legitimate reasons for missing meetings? How should the team encourage regular attendance?

Assignments When assignments are made, what should be done when team members do not complete them or complete them poorly?

Participation What should be done to encourage everyone to participate?

Meeting times When should meetings occur? How often should the team meet? What should be the length of a team meeting?

154

Decisions

How should decisions be made? Must

everyone agree for consensus? Should

anyone have veto power?

Agendas and minutes

Who should be responsible for these activities? What other meeting roles should be set up?

Promptness What should be done to encourage promptness?

Conversational courtesies

How should the team encourage members to listen attentively and respectfully to others? Should the team have rules to limit interruptions or prevent personal criticisms?

Enforcement How should the team enforce its rules?

Source: Adapted from Scholtes, P. (1988). The team handbook: How to use teams to improve quality. Madison, WI: Joiner Associates.

Norms can also have the opposite effect, silencing team members, making it difficult to consider new ideas, and reinforcing bullying and intimidation. Conformity to norms can also undermine team performance. In basketball, for example, the optimal way to shoot a free throw is using an underhanded technique, unaffectionately called “granny- style” (Venkadesan & Mahadevan, 2017). Players adopting this technique, like famed center Wilt Chamberlain, score more points for their team. However, they are often ridiculed by teammates and fans alike for violating the norm of how to

155

“appropriately” shoot a free throw. In response to this, players often abandon the underhanded technique in favor of the less effective but “normal” free-throw technique (Gladwell, 2016).

Managing norms can have a profound effect on the performance of teams. A two-year study of teams across Google that analyzed over 250 team attributes found that establishing effective group norms was the best predictor of team performance (Duhigg, 2016; Schneider, 2017). Based on research by Edmondson (1999), Google researchers found that norms fostering psychological safety—such as equal turn- taking during discussions, disclosing personal information, and having emotional conversations—were among the best predictors of team performance.

156

3.5 APPLICATION: JUMP-STARTING PROJECT

TEAMS

Initial team performance can be low because it takes time for teams to develop their internal social processes and approaches to completing the task (Katzenbach & Smith, 2015). However, techniques can help speed up the development of newly formed teams. Improving teamwork requires effort at the beginning of the project, but it is time well spent as teams that start off well often perform better over time (Hackman, 1990a). Discussions and exercises that set goals, develop social relations, clarify roles, and solve problems can improve team processes (Klein et al., 2009). Additionally, creating a team charter that articulates goals, roles, and norms is a significant predictor of long-term team success (Mathieu & Rapp, 2009).

157

Building Social Relations

One of the problems with teams is the tendency to focus almost exclusively on tasks. It is equally important to recognize the value of developing a team’s social relations. Most stage theories of group development state that social relations precede the team’s performance stage. Developing social relations among team members aids in socializing new team members, establishing trust, and helping members manage team conflict. Trust improves team performance and coordination by enabling members to accept uncertainty and be more vulnerable with each other (De Jong, Dirks, & Gillespie, 2016). This aids in having more open conversations, addressing issues, suspending judgments, and resolving conflicts and misunderstandings. Typically, all teams will experience conflict, so it is important to focus on developing social relations early in the team’s existence.

One useful approach to fostering interpersonal closeness is for team members to engage in self-disclosure, often through team warm-ups (e.g., icebreakers) conducted at the start of team meetings (Scholtes, 1988). Warm-ups are social activities designed to help team members get to know one another and improve communication during the team project. They can be as simple as spending 5 minutes sharing jokes or chatting about what team members did over the weekend. Common team warm-up exercises that may be useful during the early stages of a team’s life are included in the Appendix.

Some scholars recommend adopting icebreakers with caution, as they may be executed poorly or lack scientific evidence (e.g., Lacerenza et al., 2018). For example, disclosure of personal information can promote interpersonal closeness between people (Aron, Melinat, Aron, Vallone, & Bator, 1997) and members of work groups (Polzer, Milton, & Swarm, 2002). However, this is not always the case for demographically

158

diverse groups (Dumas, Rothbard, & Phillips, 2008). Disclosure may highlight perceived status differences associated with particular demographic categories (Phillips, Rothbard, & Dumas, 2009) and reduce team cohesion (Phillips, Northcraft, & Neale, 2006). For example, a teammate with a same-sex partner may not disclose this to team members during an initial icebreaking activity. Instead, dissimilar members can feel pressure to restrict self-disclosure until they understand how to strategically present themselves to the team (Flynn, Chatman, & Spataro, 2001).

159

Clarifying Roles and Responsibilities

Many teams jump into action with too little time dedicated to understanding the project mission (Pokras, 1995). This can inhibit everyone on the team from having a shared understanding of the assignment. Many professional teams find the project definition stage to be the most difficult and important stage. Team members may feel socially uncomfortable at the beginning, so they want to quickly focus on performing the task. Task assignments are often ill structured, and this ambiguity causes discomfort. Making quick decisions to clear up a problem is emotionally satisfying. Such actions may help address the emotional aspects of a problem, but they often result in a team heading off in the wrong direction, leading to conflict and delays later in the project. Teams can use several techniques to improve their ability to define a problem and understand its underlying causes. These are discussed in Chapter 11.

Once the team agrees on the definition of the project, it should spend time developing and clarifying roles. Through establishing clear roles and responsibilities for individual members, teammates better understand their tasks and the tasks of other teammates (Salas, Rozell, Mullen, & Driskell, 1999). This can promote role flexibility through determining the situations when individuals need to assume other member’s roles (Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993). Developing performance strategies that outline performance objectives and tactics direct the team’s actions and create a shared mental model of how the team should operate. In all, task- related team planning at the beginning of a team’s existence promotes team effectiveness (Mathieu & Rapp, 2009).

160

Team Charter

A proper team launch includes developing common team goals and objectives, clarifying roles, creating appropriate team norms, and defining performance expectations. Developing a team charter is an effective way to achieve this. A team charter is a plan for how the team will manage its teamwork activities (Mathieu & Rapp, 2009).

A team charter helps clarify role expectations and work norms that support collaborative work. Because charters outline members’ roles and work processes, they help team members to focus more easily on the task. The charter explicitly states the agreements the team has reached on how to operate. The act of developing a charter helps the team identify and resolve conflicts and misunderstandings. It is a valuable technique for getting started in the right direction. A more complete description of the components and uses of team charters and a sample outline of a team charter are presented in the Appendix.

Teams may half-heartedly create and implement a team charter. Such a lackadaisical approach can be counterproductive when it fosters an implicit norm of “explicit rules do not matter and are not enforced in this team.” In the end, a team charter is simply ink on paper (or words on a screen)—it has no inherent ability to direct behaviors or enforce consequences. The onus remains on members to follow, implement, and refine the team charter.

161

Developing Virtual Teams

It is now rather common for teams to operate virtually at least some of the time (Gibson, Huang, Kirkman, & Shapiro, 2014). Even geographically colocated teams conduct some of their interactions via online communication technologies like videoconferencing, teleconferencing, text-based interactions, or collaborative documents. Because teams often rely on information and communications technology, it is important to develop norms about the use of technology (Duarte & Snyder, 2006). Working virtually also presents challenges for group development and socialization.

Teams need to decide how technologies should be used for task and social communication. For example, technology norms may address the expected speed of response to messages, when the entire team is included in a message, who is allowed to edit shared documents, and what is the appropriate size of e-mail and text messages. Technology norms are important to consider for virtual teams with intercultural memberships. These teams can benefit from discussing the appropriateness of giving feedback over e-mail, the degree of formality to use, and the appropriateness of emotional display (Moser & Axtell, 2013).

Working virtually also presents challenges for group development and socialization. Scholars show that it can be difficult for virtual team members to develop shared norms, form relationships (Jarvenpaa, Knoll, & Leidner, 1998), and exchange or seek information (Andres, 2012). This places importance on articulating explicit norms (Krumm, Terwiel, & Hertel, 2013) and early use of videoconferencing technologies to foster interpersonal interactions and trust (Malhotra, Majchrzak, & Rosen, 2007). Although, members from some cultures may not feel comfortable speaking up on a teleconference call unless first asked, while members from other cultures may be frustrated at those who do not speak up

162

on their own (Anawati & Craig, 2006). Even better is to begin a virtual team project with a face-to-face meeting to enable informal interactions that can help build trust, establish a team identity, and solidify team norms and culture.

163

SUMMARY

Teams develop through a series of stages, from formation to adjournment. These stages relate to the time needed to develop a team’s internal processes and the changing demands of its tasks. The developmental perspective shows the different types of challenges teams face during their existence. Rather than a smooth progression, teams go through periods of low activity followed by bursts of achievement and from periods of smooth relations to conflict. Understanding these stage theories helps explain why teams do most of their productive work during the later stages of projects.

The group socialization process describes the changing relationship between a team and its members. The team and its members evaluate one another to determine reciprocal levels of commitment. Socialization proceeds through a series of stages, from investigation to maintenance. Many types of teams have dynamic team membership, which makes socialization an ongoing activity for teams. This increase in team member turnover has positive and negative impacts on team performance.

Goals define a team’s purpose and values. They are an important factor in the team’s success. Goals often are divided into objectives that are linked to performance criteria. Effective team goals are measurable in order to provide feedback on performance and moderately difficult in order to motivate performance. One common goal problem for a group is hidden agendas. Hidden agendas occur when individual team members have unspoken goals that conflict with the team goals. These can create conflict and distrust in the team and must be managed carefully.

Team norms define appropriate behavior for team members. They help the team operate more smoothly and create a distinctive

164

group identity. Norms often evolve gradually. A team should formally establish its operating norms, however. The impact of team norms can be both positive and negative. Norms help a team operate better internally, but teams can develop norms that do not encourage high performance.

One of the values of viewing the ways teams evolve is that it illustrates the problems teams have at the beginning of projects. Teams must address the problems of undeveloped social relations, ill-defined projects, and ambiguous goals and norms before they can focus on performing their tasks. The operation of teams can be improved by focusing on these problems at the beginning of the team.

165

Team Leadership Challenge 3

It is the first meeting of a new product development team. The team’s goal is to create the next generation of kitchen appliances for the company. The team is composed of members from engineering, product design, marketing, manufacturing, and finance. This project will be the main work activity for team members for the next 8 to 10 months.

As the team leader, you need to get the team started quickly on the project. Management has given you an overall goal for the project, but you have had limited time to plan how to manage it. Because of the limited time for completing the project, you are concerned about getting the team off to a good start.

What are the three most important issues for you (the team leader) to

focus on at the beginning of the team project?

What should happen at the first meeting?

166

Activity: Observing Team Development

Objective: Teams often progress through stages of development, from forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. During these stages, they develop norms, set goals, and develop interpersonal relationships. Teams can observe and evaluate these stages in this condensed activity.

Activity: Observe a team (or record videos of teams for analyzing themselves) completing the Marshmallow Challenge presented by Tom Wujec (2010) during his TED Talk. During this challenge, teams compete to build the tallest freestanding structure in 18 minutes using only 20 pieces of uncooked spaghetti, 1 yard of string, and 1 yard of tape. A marshmallow must be placed at the top of the structure. The team with the tallest structure as measured from the base to the top of the marshmallow is the winner.

Analysis: Observers should be attentive to how the team advances through the stages of team development (forming, norming, storming, performing, and adjourning). Make notes using the prompts on Activity Worksheet 3.1.

Discussion: How did the team advance through stages of group development? What helped or hindered development? What did the team not do that you think they should have done?

167

Activity Worksheet 3.1: Observing Team

Development

Table 3.4

Forming: How did members get to know one another? Was anyone left out? How? Describe the patterns of communication.

Storming: What disagreements emerged about roles, goals, and procedures? How were they resolved? Describe the patterns of communication.

Norming: What implicit and explicit norms surfaced? Where did they come from? Did a leader emerge? Describe the patterns of communication.

Performing: How are decisions made and tasks assigned? Did the team set clear goals and roles? Did members have a clear idea of what they were supposed to do?

Adjourning: How did group interactions change as the timer was running out? What is the mood at the end of the project?

168

Activity: Developing a Team Charter

Objective: Team charters help establish the goals, roles, norms, and performance expectations of a team. Developing a charter is a valuable first step in establishing guidelines for the operation of a team.

Activity: Form groups of four to six students who will plan and conduct an event. The event could be a charity fundraiser, concert, or party. This is the start-up meeting for the event team. Using Activity Worksheet 3.2, develop a team charter for the event team.

Analysis: Are the goals clear and specific enough to provide direction for the team? Do the roles adequately define each team member’s responsibilities? How will the team enforce its norms? Do members feel confident they know what is expected of them?

Discussion: What is the value of developing a team charter? Was it difficult to define the goals, roles, norms, and expectations for the team? How can the team get members to commit to the charter?

169

Activity Worksheet 3.2: Developing a

Team Charter

Table 3.5

Team Goals: What are the goals for the team? What does each team member hope to achieve from working on this team?

Roles: What are the primary roles and responsibilities of each team member?

Norms: What are the operating rules for the team? (Consider establishing norms for decision making, attendance, assignments, participation, and courtesy.)

Performance Expectations: What criteria will be used to evaluate the team and each member’s performance?

Consequences: What are the consequences for members that violate norms or performance expectations? Who will enforce these consequences, and how will they be delivered?

170

171

CHAPTER 4 UNDERSTANDING THE BASIC TEAM PROCESSES

Motivation, group cohesion, role assignments, task and social behaviors, and team learning are the basic building blocks of successful team performance. Team members working in a team may be motivated to work harder, but sometimes individual effort decreases when individuals work in a team. This phenomenon is called social loafing. Developing challenging tasks that require interdependent actions, improving the reward system, fostering team efficacy, and increasing commitment to the team can help reduce social loafing and motivate the team.

Beyond motivating a team, successful performance depends on other factors. Group cohesion is the bond that ties the members together. Cohesive teams generally perform better, but cohesion also can cause performance problems. Like the roles in a play, people perform roles in a team. Poorly defined roles can lead to stress and inefficiency, while clear roles help teams operate with less stress and more efficiently. Although task behaviors typically dominate in work teams, social behaviors are necessary to build relationships among team members. Teams sometimes suffer from a lack of activities aimed at building relationships among members. Teams need to adapt to changing situations and learn how to improve their performance. Learning requires setting aside time to reflect on how the team is doing.

172

Learning Objectives

1. Understand the causes and solutions to social loafing in a team. 2. Explain how to motivate a team. 3. Describe the positive and negative effects of cohesion. 4. Explain the causes of role ambiguity and role stress. 5. Describe the formal roles commonly played by team members. 6. Explain how task and social behaviors affect team performance. 7. Explain the importance of team learning and reflection.

173

4.1 MOTIVATION

The potential of teamwork lies in team synergy—that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. That is, the collective work of the group is greater than the work that its individuals could accomplish separately. While a team can achieve synergy through integrating the diverse perspectives of members and through the motivating impact of team spirit, it does not always work out that way. In some circumstances, working together causes a decrease in motivation that may be due to social loafing. Understanding this problem can inform ways of increasing team motivation.

174

Social Loafing

One of the biggest motivation problems for teams is social loafing, which occurs when individual contributions are less identifiable in group tasks. This results in the reduction of individual effort when people work in groups compared to working alone (Latané, Williams, & Harkins, 1979). One of the best ways to understand social loafing is to look at a situation where it rarely occurs, such as a championship basketball game. Only the team’s score counts in determining the winner, but every individual’s participation is observable and measurable. The task is motivating by itself and becomes more motivating through the social aspects of performance. The task requires an integrated and coordinated performance. One player cannot win the game alone, so each player is dependent on the coordinated efforts of the team to win. Winning is important, and success is highly rewarded. Social loafing diminishes when team tasks share these characteristics.

Social loafing is related to several other group phenomena. People can become free riders who perform little in a team because they do not believe their individual efforts are important, and they know they will receive their share of the team’s reward regardless of their efforts (Sweeney, 1973). Both social loafing and free riding contribute to the sucker effect, in which otherwise good performers slack off in teams because they do not want others to take advantage of them (Kerr, 1983). Demotivation can be contagious in teams, resulting in all team members reducing their contributions to the task.

A variety of factors contribute to social loafing (Karau & Williams, 1993). If the tasks the team is performing are just a collection of individual tasks, why does the team need to perform in a coordinated way? This reduces motivation because of the lack of a perceived need to work as a team. Individual performance can be hidden in the team’s collective effort, leading members to reduce their effort because they are no longer concerned about what others think of their performance. Finally, team members might be unaware of how much effort others are putting into the task. As a result, they do not know whether they are doing their fair share. Unfortunately, people tend to overestimate the extent of their contributions to the team.

Research on work teams shows that these sports principles apply to work. When work teams are given challenging tasks, when they are rewarded for team success yet have identifiable individual performance indicators, and when there is commitment to the team, social loafing does not occur (Hackman, 1986).

175

Increasing Team Motivation

Increasing a team’s motivation depends on multiple factors: the task it performs, how performance will be evaluated and rewarded, the team’s belief in its ability to succeed, and the team members’ sense of commitment or belonging.

Task

A team is more motivated when the task it performs is interesting, involving, and challenging. Probably the best description of how to create this type of task comes from the job characteristic model (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). A satisfying job creates three critical psychological states: experienced meaningfulness, responsibility for outcomes, and knowledge of results. A task is meaningful when it provides the opportunity to use a variety of skills, to complete an entire piece of work from beginning to end, and to affect others with its completion. Responsibility for outcomes is experienced when a team is given the autonomy to design, schedule, and carry out the task as desired. Knowledge of results comes from feedback on the effectiveness of one’s performance.

However, a good team task is more than just a good individual task. A good team task requires task interdependence; team members must work together to successfully complete the task. Task interdependence is an additional factor that can be added to the job characteristic model (Van Der Vegt, Emans, & Van De Vliert, 1998). It is a shift from individual responsibility to team responsibility for outcomes. To be successful, team members must feel responsible for both their own work and the work of the other team members. It is only when team members experience both types of responsibility that they work in a cooperative way.

Task interdependence can come from the distribution of skills among team members and the work processes of the team. It is one reason why action teams (e.g., sports teams) and cross-functional teams (e.g., design teams where members have different skills) often are more successful than student project teams. In a sports team, the players need one another to succeed. In a cross-functional team, working together is the only way to complete a project. However, in a student team, the students typically have similar skills and knowledge, so they do not need one another to complete the task.

Interdependence helps motivate team members in several ways. When team members depend on one another to complete a task, power is shared among the members (Franz, 1998). The more team members need one another to complete a task, the more power each team member has in the team. Task interdependence affects how conflict, cohesiveness, work norms, and autonomy relate to team effectiveness (Langfred, 2000). When teams are highly interdependent, these variables have a more powerful effect on how well teams perform. Interdependence also encourages members to believe that their contributions to the team are indispensable, unique, and valuable, thereby making them more willing to put effort into the team’s task (Kerr, 1983; Kerr & Bruun, 1983).

Indispensability

Motivation is also enhanced through indispensability effects (Weber & Hertel, 2007), which occur when the significance of a team member’s contribution to the overall team outcome is emphasized. An indispensability approach activates both individual motives (e.g., avoiding being responsible for group failure) and collective motives (e.g., maximize group outcomes) to foster cooperation and mutual responsibility. It can even promote positive mood and self-

176

esteem. These effects are triggered by communication that stresses the importance of a member’s contribution and assigning a unique subtask to individual members. However, members can also experience significant pressure and stress because of their indispensability to the team (Baumeister, 1984). Appropriate social and resource support should be available to indispensable members to prevent poor health and performance outcomes.

Evaluations and Rewards

Interdependence relates to both the task and the outcome of the team’s work. The task may require a coordinated effort, but team members may believe their evaluations and rewards are primarily based on individual performance rather than on the success of the team’s effort. Research shows that a belief in outcome interdependence is crucial because it helps motivate members to work together (Van Der Vegt et al., 1998).

To be successful, team members must feel responsible for both their own work and the work of other team members. Team goals and team reward systems encourage this dual sense of responsibility. For example, managerial teams often do not perform well because managers are more concerned about what happens in their respective departments than in the organization as a whole. One of the values of companywide profit-sharing programs is to make organizational success an important goal. When it is achieved, each member of the management team is rewarded. This encourages managers to think about what is good for the organization rather than only about what is good for their departments.

A balance of individual- and team-based rewards is necessary to encourage both a commitment to the team and an incentive for individual performance (Thompson, 2004). Finding the right balance can be difficult for an organization. In addition, the performance evaluation system must fairly identify both team success and an individual’s contribution to that success. When individual contributions to the team are identifiable and linked to the reward system, motivation is increased (Harkins & Jackson, 1985). (The topic of evaluating and rewarding teams is discussed in more detail in Chapter 16.)

Team Efficacy and Potency

Teams evaluate their ability to succeed by examining their personal resources and their ability to work together (Hirschfeld & Bernerth, 2008). Team efficacy is the perception that the team can perform well at a particular task (e.g., “We are going to rock at interviewing these customers!”). As projects progress and tasks change, team efficacy may ebb and flow. In contrast, team potency is the perception that the team is generally capable of successfully performing across various tasks (e.g., “Whatever comes our way, I am sure that we can all handle it.”). Increasing a sense of team efficacy helps increase motivation. Teams with higher collective efficacy have higher levels of motivation to perform, show greater resilience when encountering difficulties and setbacks, and experience improved performance (Bandura, 2000). Both team efficacy and team potency relate to team performance, especially when there are high levels of task interdependence (Mathieu et al., 2008).

Team efficacy has a reciprocal relationship with team performance. In other words, successful performance increases team efficacy and vice versa (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005). Several factors influence team efficacy. Teams that have been successful in the past have higher levels of team efficacy. Leaders who believe their team is competent foster higher collective efficacy. Teams with higher collective efficacy are more likely to set higher performance goals, which encourage greater performance (Goncalo et al., 2010).

177

Teams with a stronger group identity, whose members more highly value their membership in the team, also have greater team efficacy (Lee, Farh, & Chen, 2011).

Commitment and Cohesion

When people value membership in the team, they are more motivated to perform. The increased sense of commitment and attraction to a team is called group cohesion. Cohesive teams are less likely to experience social loafing (Karau & Williams, 1993, 1997). Group cohesiveness includes a commitment to the task that the team is performing. In a highly cohesive team, members enjoy the task that the team is performing, enjoy working together on the task, have personal involvement in the task, and take pride in the team’s performance. Highly cohesive teams have more commitment to their tasks and perform better (Wech, Mossholder, Steel, & Bennett, 1998). Because group cohesion has important effects besides increased motivation, a more complete discussion of it is presented next.

178

4.2 GROUP COHESION

Group cohesion refers to the bonds that develop over time that hold a team together. Cohesion is a multidimensional concept that represents the sum of forces that act upon members to remain in the group (Festinger, 1950; Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1963). These forces can stem from interpersonal relationships, commitment to the task, and the emotions and attitudes present in the group (Salas, Grossman, Hughes, & Coultas, 2015).

The most commonly studied of these forces include interpersonal attraction, group pride, and task commitment (Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon, 2003). Interpersonal attraction encompasses a preference for members of the group based on similarity and positive social relationships (Seashore, 1954). This is exemplified in teams that get along well, develop friendships with each other, and may want to spend time together outside of work. Group pride is the extent to which members value their membership and strongly define themselves as being a member of the group (Hogg, 1992). Cohesive members will often use we and us as opposed to I or me when talking about the group (Donnellon, 1996). Finally, task commitment refers to members bonding over a shared desire to achieve group tasks or goals.

The sense of identification within cohesive teams has important implications. Some implications, like better management of stress and conflict, are favorable. Other implications, like conformity, can be detrimental to the success of a team.

179

How Cohesion Affects the Team’s Performance

Group cohesion can provide many benefits to organizations, individuals, and teams. People who are part of cohesive teams are more satisfied with their jobs (Hackman, 1992), engage in more organizational citizenship behaviors (Kidwell, Mossholder, & Bennett, 1997), and have a higher commitment to the organization (Wech et al., 1998). Support from group cohesion can protect against the negative impacts of stress and burnout (Li, Early, Mahrer, Klaristenfeld, & Gold, 2014). Cohesion also contributes to member satisfaction with the team and increases the desire of group members to work together in the future (Tekleab et al., 2009). The interpersonal effects of group cohesion are generally positive, but the effects on a team’s performance are mixed.

Group cohesion has a generally positive impact on team performance, particularly for smaller teams (Beal et al., 2003). This relationship is reciprocal: Cohesion improves performance, and performance improves cohesion (Mathieu, Kukenberger, D’innocenzo, & Reilly, 2015). Cohesion improves performance through increased coordination and members having a shared understanding of the team’s task. Indeed, cohesion based on task commitment has a more substantial impact on performance than does cohesion based on interpersonal attraction or group pride. Performance also improves cohesion when a group achieves success in its task. However, when a team is not successful, disappointment and blame reduce group cohesion (Naquin & Tynan, 2003). The effects of cohesion are more impactful when the team’s task requires high levels of interaction, coordination, and interdependence (Beal et al., 2003).

Members of a cohesive team are more likely to accept the team’s goals, decisions, and norms. The increased interpersonal bonds among team members amplify the pressure to conform to team norms. As was seen in the discussion of team norms, norms can either support or hamper team productivity (Sundstrom et al., 2000). Effective work teams have norms that support high-quality performance and a level of group cohesiveness that provides social support to its members. However, cohesive teams that lack effective performance norms may be ineffective and highly resistant to change (Nemeth & Staw, 1989). Moreover, high levels of cohesiveness can impair a team’s decision-making ability. Sometimes, team members will “agree” to a decision not because they genuinely agree with it but because they do not want to upset the team’s relationships or oppose the norm (Janis, 1972).

An important aspect of group cohesion relates to conflict management and problem solving. A team with poor social relations will avoid dealing with problems until they disrupt the team’s ability to perform the task or threaten its existence as a team. A team with good social relations is better equipped to handle problems when they arise. The team can do this because its more open communication allows team members to manage conflicts constructively. This is one reason it is important to develop group cohesion and good social relations early in the team’s existence. Forming good social relations early means a team has a better capacity to solve problems and manage conflicts throughout the team’s work.

180

Building Group Cohesion

Research has identified several factors that encourage cohesion in work teams. Fostering acceptance of group goals, promoting teamwork, establishing high performance expectations, and acting as a mentor can enhance task and social cohesion (Callow, Smith, Hardy, Arthur, & Hardy, 2009). Similarly, Lacerenza and colleagues (2018) recommend implementing transformational leadership training to promote behaviors like mentoring, risk taking, charisma, and initiating structure to increase team cohesion. Well-defined team structures, roles, and relationships that emerge from these behaviors can promote cohesion by establishing routines and minimizing conflict (Moody & White, 2003).

Cohesion can also increase from positive interactions with team members. Having emotional exchanges, fostering equal interactions among team members, and reducing status differences promotes group cohesion (Lawler & Yoon, 1996). Team members in a cohesive group tend to have similar attitudes and personal goals. Spending time together increases their opportunity to develop common interests and ideas. Social media (McFarland & Ployhart, 2015) and online multiplayer games (Bozanta, Kutlu, Nowlan, & Shirmohammadi, 2016) offer emerging ways for teams—particularly virtual teams—to develop cohesion through online interactions.

There are a variety of team building activities that can increase group cohesion, like wilderness experience programs. These approaches are discussed in Chapter 17. Nevertheless, one of the strongest predictors of group cohesion is team success. Creating opportunities for successful performance and rewarding these successes improves a team’s sense of efficacy, increases a sense of pride in the team, and builds cohesion among team members.

181

4.3 TEAM ROLES

Roles are one of the basic building blocks of successful team performance (Driskell, Driskell, Burke, & Salas, 2017). A role is an enduring set of behaviors typical of a person in specific social contexts. Roles within a team are similar to roles in a play: They describe what an individual is supposed to do and how their part relates to what others in the team are doing. Moreover, members have different roles—a baseball team composed entirely of catchers would be ineffective. Instead, it is when members have specific roles and when members understand their interdependencies with each other that baseball teams perform effectively as a cohesive unit. Likewise, work groups perform better when each member has a specific role to fulfill and they understand how it fits into the roles that others are playing.

Three kinds of roles emerge in teams (Mudrack & Farrell, 1995). Task-related roles act to advance the group toward achieving its goals (e.g., coordinating, providing information, and seeking opinions). Social-related roles attend to the emotional needs of members and strengthen group-centered attitudes (e.g., encouraging, praising, and mediating conflict). Finally, disruptive roles are dysfunctional behaviors that undermine group performance by an individual dominating or distracting the group (e.g., expressing unrelated personal interests or opinions, seeking recognition, and interrupting others).

The selection of roles may occur in a variety of ways. The organization, team, or individual may assign roles. For example, management in the organization may assign the team leader, the team may elect its leader, or the team may have no official leader. Even without deliberately assigning formal roles, team members assume informal roles that emerge over time as the team interacts. Two complementary types of leaders often emerge—one focused on task activities and the other focused on the socioemotional concerns of members (Bales & Slater, 1955). The type of role also affects the selection process. The team often selects members to perform skill-based tasks, whereas social and disruptive roles often emerge by self-selection. Disruptive roles may emerge when individual needs are not being met by the team (e.g., need for influence, affection, or inclusion).

182

Role Stress

Roles contribute to stress through role ambiguity and role conflict (Jackson & Schuler, 1985). Because team roles often emerge without formal definitions, the responsibilities of the roles often are ambiguous. A person fulfilling a role may not understand what other group members expect of them, thus creating uncertainty in the role performer and hostility from the other team members when the role is not performed as desired. Clarifying team member roles and expectations can alleviate some role stress.

Team members also occupy several roles at a time, which may involve conflicting demands. Two types of role conflict are a source of stress. Interrole conflict occurs when a person has several incompatible roles. For example, during the COVID-19 outbreak, many people working from home struggled with fulfilling the roles of being a good employee and caring for their young children. Likewise, people experience role conflict while attempting to fulfill the demands of their membership in multiple, simultaneous teams or other spheres of their life (e.g., work/life).

Intrarole conflict occurs within a single role. For example, someone newly promoted to a manager position often experiences conflict between being a manager and being a friend to former peers. Friends may expect leniency from the new manager, while administration expects more strict supervision. Alternatively, when participating in a task force composed of team members from different areas of the organization, members may experience a conflict between making choices to benefit the task team’s goals or choices that benefit their own organizational areas.

Role stress contributes to several negative outcomes (Örtqvist & Wincent, 2006). It results in emotional exhaustion, feeling drained by contact with colleagues, and reduced involvement and participation with teammates. It also decreases commitment to the organization, job satisfaction, job performance, and feelings of competence. Unsurprisingly, role stress is associated with increased turnover intention and feelings of anxiety after the typical workday.

For a project team, role problems often appear to worsen near the end of the project. As team members rush to complete their assignments, they become more aware of the different (and unmet) expectations that members have about who performs what role. These different role expectations lead to conflicts when the team is already stressed about the project deadline.

To address role problems, a team should make role expectations explicit (e.g., short-term, measurable tasks), provide constructive feedback to members, and emphasize the importance of members fulfilling their roles. The tasks that the group is performing may also be prioritized so that team members can decide what to do when there are conflicts among tasks.

183

Types of Team Meeting Roles

Team meetings provide an example of how roles are useful for a team. Meetings operate more efficiently when major task roles are explicitly defined, and team members are assigned to fulfill them (Kayser, 1990). One of the main meeting roles is that of leader or facilitator. The leader is responsible for structuring the team’s interactions to ensure that the team completes its goals. The leader manages the structure of the meeting but not its content. The primary activities of the leader are to (a) develop the agenda to help structure team meetings; (b) ensure that information is shared, understood, and processed by the team in a supportive and participative environment; and (c) remove internal problems that hinder the team’s operations.

The recorder takes notes on the meeting, capturing key decisions, actions, who is responsible for actions, and deadlines for actions. The notes focus on the main points rather than capturing the entire discussion. Proper documentation serves to remind members what was said at the meeting, confirms that statements were captured correctly, and establishes that postmeeting tasks are completed as recorded in the meeting by responsible individuals. Notes also provide a way for absent members to feel connected to the meeting and for secondary nonattendees (e.g., stakeholders affected by the issues being discussed) to feel included (Rogelberg, 2019).

Another role is team timekeeper. When the agenda is presented at the beginning of the meeting, teams may identify the time allotted for each item. The timekeeper reminds the team when it has used the time allotted for an agenda item. The team may continue on that topic, recognizing that to do so will extend the meeting longer than planned.

These team meeting roles should be recognized and filled at the outset of a team’s existence. However, team members need not be permanently assigned to these roles. It is often better to rotate people through roles, giving everyone a chance to try them out before the team assigns permanent roles (Kayes, 2006; Kayser, 1990). There are several benefits to this rotation. Every team member has the chance to practice roles. It is a good learning experience, enabling members to fulfill other roles later if there are team absences. In addition, the team has a chance to see how everyone performs. After team members have tried out roles for several meetings, the team is better able to select who should fill them on a more permanent basis.

184

4.4 TASK AND SOCIAL BEHAVIORS

Teams perform two basic types of behaviors: task behaviors and social behaviors. Task behaviors focus on the team’s goals and tasks, while social behaviors focus on the social and emotional needs of the team members and help maintain social relations among them. To function effectively, teams need both task and social behaviors.

Task and social behaviors are used to support the members of the team and are essential factors in team success (Hüffmeier & Hertel, 2011). Task-related support includes both information sharing and behavioral assistance. Giving ideas and advice and explaining how to perform a task are examples of information sharing, while helping another team member with work tasks and providing supportive backup behaviors are types of behavioral assistance. Social support includes social recognition, such as expressing acceptance and encouraging a sense of belonging to the group, and encouragement, such as rewarding others and listening to their personal issues.

Figure 4.1 shows how task support and social support relate to team performance. Task support increases the collective efficacy of the team and improves coordination among team members. Social support increases group cohesion and helps motivate team members. Both of these factors interact to improve team performance.

The optimum balance between task and social behaviors depends on the characteristics of the task and the team (Belbin, 1981). For example, technical teams with limited time may focus on task-oriented behaviors to the exclusion of group process issues. Under these conditions, teams may fall back on traditional management methods rather than using teamwork to get the job done (Janz, Colquitt, & Noe, 1997). In general, effective work teams spend about 80% of their time working on the task (Wheelan, 2005).

The right mix of task and social behaviors also depends on the maturity level of the team. When teams are in the forming stage, they must engage in more social-oriented behaviors to develop the social relations of the group. Teams in the performing stage will be dominated by task-oriented behaviors. When a work team develops good social relations early in a project, the team is better able to handle the time pressure at the end because it has developed the working relationships it needs to complete the project.

Description

Figure 4.1 Task and Social Support in Teams

Source: Adapted from Huffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2011). Many cheers make light the work: How social support triggers process gains in teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(3), 185–204.

185

Value of Social Behaviors

Often, a team tends to focus on the task and ignore the social or relationship aspects of teamwork. Many team members do not value social behaviors. It is important to recognize that a team needs a balance. Social behaviors are important for building trust, encouraging the team to operate smoothly, providing social support, and rewarding participation. Negative social relationships among team members can hurt team cohesion and team performance (de Jong, Curs¸eu, & Leenders, 2014). When a team runs into problems, it often blames individual team members and does not recognize that poorly developed social relations in the team may have caused these problems.

Although team members and managers often state that task skills are more important than social skills, they do not select new team members on that criterion. Teams more often select likable people with limited skills than competent people who are challenging to work with (Casciaro & Lobo, 2005). Social relations are vital in work teams. Members who like their teammates will try to get the best possible performance out of those individuals. On the other hand, it can be so challenging or unpleasant to get information and assistance from difficult people that members avoid asking them to participate.

There is no formula for the right balance of task and social behaviors. Some teams operate well when most of their behaviors are task oriented. A team is out of balance when emotions or personality conflicts become disruptive to team operations. Such behaviors indicate a breakdown in social relations.

Observation studies on task teams show that one deficit in team communication is lack of praise, support, and positive feedback (Levi & Cadiz, 1998). All team members are responsible for this lack of positive communication. Members are quick to criticize another member’s idea if they do not like it, but they are reluctant to praise a team member for a good idea or even for good performance. Increasing positive support by team members greatly helps improve social relations within the team and increases its effectiveness.

186

4.5 TEAM ADAPTATION AND LEARNING

Adaptability is among the few teamwork behaviors that appear to be universally relevant across teams and tasks (Salas et al., 2018). Highly effective teams not only perform tasks but also adjust their actions to meet changing situational requirements. Organizations face change from economic and political instability, societal shifts, and technological advances. Teams also experience change from things like members leaving or joining, decreased motivation, and unexpected events. These triggers prompt the team to modify tasks or team processes in response to new situational demands (Travis Maynard, Kennedy, & Sommer, 2015). The diverse repertoire of knowledge, skills, and experiences available in teams enable them to better adapt to change (Burke, Stagl, Salas, Pierce, & Kendall, 2006).

Not all teams adapt equally as well—members must have a learning mindset to effectively adapt (Edmondson, 2012). Team learning is “an ongoing process of reflection and action, characterized by asking questions, seeking feedback, experimenting, reflecting on results, and discussing errors or unexpected outcomes of actions” (Edmondson, 1999, p. 354). Openly discussing mistakes, alternative perspectives, confusions, and unexpected events allows teams to generate knowledge and improve their collective understanding of the situation.

However, people are not often accustomed to talking about failure—particularly individual failure (Edmondson, 2011). Fear of appearing incompetent instead encourages members to deflect or silently compensate for failure, which prevents the team from learning. Overcoming this requires developing psychological safety in the team, so that members do not fear exposing themselves to the group. Psychological safety is a team climate that makes it safe to take interpersonal risks. (Psychological safety is discussed in Chapter 6.)

As team members interact with each other, two kinds of memory systems develop that have important implications for the performance of the team: team mental models and transactive memory systems.

187

Team Mental Models

A team mental model is a shared understanding across team members about the team’s tasks and the operation of the team (Hirschfeld, Jordan, Feild, Giles, & Armenakis, 2006). Have you ever had a team member who had a vastly different idea of what task they were supposed to complete before a meeting? Or perhaps you turned in an assignment to an instructor that somehow deviated significantly from their expectations? These are examples of poorly shared mental models.

As they interact, each team member develops mental models about the task and social characteristics of the team: what problem the team is trying to solve, what norms are present, what their role is, when assignments are due, and how to interpret a quiet member’s nonparticipation. Without effective communication, however, each team member likely generates different understandings of the team’s task and social characteristics. This produces misunderstandings and frustrations that can impede coordination and social relationships. By contrast, teams that effectively communicate—such as establishing goals, assigning specific roles, and clarifying expectations—can generate a shared mental model. This amounts to team members “being on the same page” with each other regarding the team’s task and how to interact with each other.

There are two primary considerations about team mental models: the accuracy of the model and the degree of agreement among team members about the model (Hirschfeld et al., 2006). Just because a mental model is shared does not mean that it is accurate. Through dysfunctional information processing, social influence, and power dynamics, teams may converge on a mental model that does not accurately reflect reality. For example, a team might incorrectly converge upon an understanding of a problem that they are trying to solve, which produces an inadequate solution. However, when teammates hold both accurate and similar mental models, they are better able to coordinate their activities, solve problems the team encounters, and perform effectively. Since there are many ways for teams to successfully operate, there may be many possible accurate team mental models (Smith-Jentsch et al., 2008). Research shows that both the accuracy and degree of agreement about the team’s mental model are essential for team success (Mathieu et al., 2008).

188

Transactive Memory Systems

A team’s transactive memory system is an awareness of the distributed expertise possessed by its members. Teams with a developed transactive memory system are aware of who knows what and who is best at it (Bachrach et al., 2019). This means that team members understand who possesses specialized knowledge, how credible that knowledge is, and how to coordinate its use by the team (Lewis, 2004). Early communication about team roles and responsibilities is important to the development of transactive memory (Pearsall, Ellis, & Bell, 2010). When individuals are aware of the specialized knowledge and skills of teammates, they can more effectively assign tasks to and seek advice from the most qualified members. This improves team coordination, problem solving, and decision making (Moreland, Argote, & Krishnan, 1996). It also helps the team deal with problems, especially on complex and nonroutine tasks where the coordination of team members’ skills and knowledge is needed (Zhang, Hempel, Han, & Tjosvold, 2007). Team learning occurs when team members reflect on how they have dealt with the challenges they faced and adapted by implementing alternative approaches to how they operate (Wiedow & Konradt, 2011).

Leaders can encourage team learning by fostering cooperative goals and creating a climate that supports open discussion about the team’s processes and tasks. This promotes the development of transactive memory and shared mental models, both of which improve team performance. Transactive memory predicts the efficiency and effectiveness of team processes, while a shared mental model predicts the team’s success (Mesmer-Magnus, Niler, Plummer, Larson, & DeChurch, 2017). Teams need to set aside time to reflect on their actions and learn from feedback about their performance. Teams also learn by using group process observations to better understand how they operate.

Team mental models differ from transactive memory in several ways (Mohammed, Ferzandi, & Hamilton, 2010). Team mental models focus on the shared memory of the team; team members know other members’ roles or they have a common explanation of how the team operates. In contrast, transactive memory is an awareness of the specialized task knowledge that each team member possesses. The knowledge is distributed among the team members rather than shared by the team as a whole. For example, in an airplane flight crew, their team mental model includes an understanding of the different roles of the crew members and how those roles need to be coordinated to fly the plane and handle emergencies. The crew’s transactive memory is an understanding of the skills and knowledge of the team members. Who on the crew can speak French? Who is most knowledgeable about first aid?

189

Reflexivity and Team Debriefing

Reflexivity is the process of taking time to reflect upon and openly discuss the team’s goals, strategies, and processes in order to improve them (West, 2012). Systematic reflection about a team’s performance is a powerful tool for learning from experience (Ellis, Carette, Anseel, & Lievens, 2014). Systematic reflection has three functions: develop explanations for why the behaviors occurred, verify team members’ perspectives about what occurred, and receive feedback about the success or failure of actions. Reflection is valuable for both successful and failed experiences. It is important for teams to understand their problems and erroneous actions, but it is also important to understand what works by examining the team’s correct actions.

Debriefings and other types of formal team performance reflections started out as a military training approach, but their use has spread to other types of action teams, from airline crews to surgical teams (Allen, Reiter-Palmon, Crowe, & Scott, 2018). They are used to discuss what happened and how it can be done better, to analyze how member behavior contributed to performance, and to consciously integrate lessons learned from an experience or event. Effective debriefings are associated with numerous benefits to individuals, teams and organizations (Allen et al., 2018). Individuals reduce cognitive bias, reduce role ambiguity, increase job satisfaction, and increase engagement in their work. Teams can improve performance through developing psychological safety, refining teamwork behaviors, building cohesion, and reducing critical events. A meta-analysis shows that debriefings increase team performance by 25% above control groups (Tannenbaum & Cerasoli, 2013). Finally, organizations can decrease the likelihood of dangerous incidents and improve organizational effectiveness through effective debriefings.

Team reflexivity can also be useful for temporary teams without consistent membership (Vashdi, Bamberger, & Erez, 2013). After-action reviews are common in some types of action teams, like surgical teams, who change membership after completion of their mission. Even though their membership changes, surgical teams benefit from team debriefings and other types of reflexivity experiences. The focus of the learning activities is not about the team members but the roles performed by the team. The impacts of these learning experiences manifest in shorter surgeries, more team members helping, and fewer surgical errors.

190

Using Feedback

Team learning requires teams to use feedback effectively. Sometimes, cohesive teams only discuss positive feedback in order to preserve group harmony. Team leaders may only give negative feedback because they believe that it is best to focus on improvement. One of the major complaints team members have about their leaders is their focus on giving negative feedback (West, 2012). However, emerging research casts some doubt as to the effectiveness of negative feedback. Green, Gino, and Staats (2017) analyzed four years of peer feedback and social-network data from an agribusiness company. They found that receiving negative feedback led employees to “shop for confirmation”—changing their roles to be around people who give them more positive evaluations. Still, the best type of feedback about a team’s performance includes both positive and negative information (Smith-Jentsch et al., 2008).

The key to obtaining and using feedback is to create a safe environment where people are willing to raise questions and issues without fear of retaliation (Edmondson, Bohmer, & Pisano, 2001). Team members who feel safe are more willing to provide feedback and reflect on their performance in order to learn how to improve the team’s operation. For example, surgical teams with a higher level of team safety had more inclusive team leaders; they helped minimize status differences among team members and encouraged discussions about how to improve. These teams learned more from each other, were more engaged in their work, and had superior performance than the teams with less psychological safety.

191

Group Process Observations

Group process observation and analysis may be used to improve a team’s interactions. The group process observer provides valuable support by observing and commenting on how the team is operating. Many team-building programs use outside group process observers to evaluate team interactions and advise the team on improving its performance. Although this is a valuable function, it is better if the members of the team conduct these observations themselves (Dyer, Dyer, & Dyer, 2007). Developing group process observation skills among members allows the team to work on its problems when they occur rather than waiting for an outside consultant.

When a team analyzes its group process, several common problems emerge (Hayes, 1997). In most cases, the team uses only a limited range of available behaviors. For example, team members might frequently give opinions but only rarely provide support for the ideas of others. Team members also can become stuck in behavioral patterns rather than responding to the needs of the team. For example, one member may become the team’s critic and rarely provide information to foster decision making. The team’s performance improves when people are more flexible, using behaviors more suited to team needs than to their personal behavioral styles. The use of group process observations may help group members see what is lacking in their interactions and may encourage team members to adjust their personal styles to enable the team to operate more effectively.

Many of the activities in this book are structured approaches to group process observation. By having a team member observe the team’s use of task and social behaviors or conflict resolution styles, the team can obtain feedback about how it is functioning. This feedback can be used to analyze the team’s operation and develop more effective ways of interacting within the team.

192

4.6 BASIC TEAM PROCESSES IN VIRTUAL TEAMS

Managing the basic team processes of motivation, cohesion, roles, task and social behaviors, and team learning are critically important to the success of virtual teams (Ferrazzi, 2014). It is, however, also more challenging because virtual teams often have fewer meetings and lack face-to-face interactions. This makes it difficult to coordinate actions, monitor progress, and provide feedback. It also provides fewer opportunities for team discussions, which is where team learning occurs, cohesion develops, and roles are clarified. For example, virtual teams often experience social loafing (Alnuaimi, Robert, & Maruping, 2010). Members frequently assume that social loafing is occurring without actually perceiving it (Monzani, Ripoll, Peiró, & Van Dick, 2014).

The solution to many of these challenges is for frequent communication, both as a team and one on one. Ferrazzi (2014) offers several recommendations, such as taking time during conference calls for informal talk and encouraging members to share a video of their workspace to help create a mental image of teammates. Even using music to transition between agenda items during a meeting can foster fun and opportunities to develop cohesion. It is also important to establish and maintain a clear understanding of goals, roles, and rules. For example, establishing collective goals early can increase team cohesion and performance (Brahm & Kunze, 2012).

193

SUMMARY

Motivation is a problem for many teams. Working in a team can encourage social loafing, which is the reduction in individual effort that occurs when the individual is performing in a group. Free riders and the sucker effect are related motivational problems. These motivation problems may be caused by tasks that do not require coordinated efforts, inability to identify individual contributions to the team’s work, and the false belief that individual members are doing their fair share.

Improving group motivation requires countering the negative effects of social loafing. The team’s task should be involving and challenging and should require coordinated effort to complete. The team evaluation and reward system must recognize and reward both individual and team performance. The team’s goals should create the belief that motivated effort leads to success. Finally, strengthening commitment to the team by increasing cohesion helps increase group motivation.

Group cohesion is the interpersonal bond that forms within a team. It can emerge from feelings of belonging, social identification, interpersonal attraction, or commitment to the team’s task. In most cases, a cohesive team performs better than a noncohesive team because of improved coordination and mutual support. However, high levels of group cohesion may sometimes encourage conformity and impair decision making. One of the main ways to develop group cohesion is to improve communication within the team.

Roles are sets of behaviors that people perform in teams. They may be deliberately created and filled, or they may operate on a more informal basis. Ill-defined roles (i.e., role ambiguity) and conflicts among roles may create stress for team members. Formal team roles (e.g., leader, recorder, or timekeeper) help a team operate more efficiently.

Team members perform task behaviors and social behaviors. Task behaviors help the team perform its task, whereas social behaviors maintain the team’s interpersonal relationships. Work teams often ignore the importance of social behaviors, leading to a reduction in interpersonal support and an increase in stress. Team interactions may be improved by better balancing the types of behaviors performed.

Teams can adapt and change how they operate to deal with changes in their environment. Team learning occurs when teams reflect on these changes and develop new action models. These models include a shared understanding of how to perform as a team and an awareness of the knowledge and skills within the team. Both positive and negative feedback can promote team learning. Also, team members must learn how to act as process observers to improve the team’s interactions.

194

Team Leadership Challenge 4

You are the student team leader in a senior-level engineering lab course. The team has seven members and is halfway through a semester-long project that is not going very well. Although some students are highly motivated, a few slackers are creating a discouraging atmosphere for the rest of the team. At the last team meeting, a project discussion turned into a heated and personal argument. Since then, relations among several students have been strained.

One aspect of the argument among the students was about who is responsible for various tasks. Multiple team members are addressing some tasks, while other tasks are being neglected entirely. As the team leader, you are uncertain who is responsible for these missing assignments. You need to intervene to get the team back on track.

What problem should the team leader focus on first?

How should the leader try to improve the performance of the team?

Is the primary cause of the team’s problems social or task issues?

Explain why.

195

Activity: Tracking Teamwork Behaviors

Objective: Track and visualize your motivation and cohesion levels while considering teamwork behaviors. Motivation is the degree to which you are committed to the group and its goals. Cohesion is the degree to which you feel bonded to the group. Teamwork comprises task (e.g., goal-oriented) and social (e.g., interpersonal) characteristics.

Activity: At the end of each day or week, individually reflect on what happened in your group. Using Activity Worksheet 4.1, draw a line that represents how motivated and cohesive you felt during the past week. The top of the timeline represents feeling completely committed and connected to the group, while the bottom represents dislike and disconnection. Annotate the line with the teamwork behaviors that explain how it changes. For example, your line may have increased after successfully managing conflict with a group member and feeling more connected to the group. Or your line may decrease after two members failed to show up to a critical meeting, making you feel less motivated.

Analysis: Periodically meet with members of your team, who also complete this activity individually. Each share your timeline and explain the teamwork behaviors that caused changes in your motivation and cohesion. Note when timelines do not overlap with other members—how do members experience the team differently?

Discussion: What teamwork behaviors are working well for the group? Where can the group improve to increase motivation and commitment? How might this be achieved?

196

Activity Worksheet 4.1

Description

197

Descriptions of Images and Figures Back to Figure

Data shown by the flowchart are listed as follows:

Task Support: lnformation Sharing and Behavioral Assistance

Collective Efficacy and Coordination

Social Support: Social Recognition and Encouragement

Group Cohesion and Motivation

The second level bullet points, Collective Efficacy and Coordination and Group Cohesion and Motivation, are connected to each other via a double-headed arrow, and each of them points at Improved Team Performance, which is the last step in the flowchart.

Back to image

Data shown by the charts are listed as follows:

The top chart is titled “Example Worksheet.” Its horizontal axis is consecutively scaled from Week 1 to Week 8 and the vertical axis, which is perpendicular to the horizontal axis, is labeled “Motivation and Cohesion.” Data shown by the chart are listed according to the decreasing amount of motivation and cohesion over a week as follows:

Completely committed and connected to the group

Week 1: Initial meeting was fun!

Week 2: Member did not show up to meeting

Week 7: Stressed about preparing for the presentation

Dislike and disconnection

Week 3: Struggling with how to do the task

Week 5: Confronted team members and established clear ground rules

Week 4: Poor grade on the assignment and team blames me

Week 3: I ended up doing the entire team assignment

198

The bottom chart is titled “Tracking Teamwork Behaviors.” Its vertical axis is labeled “Motivation and Cohesion.” This chart is empty.

199

200

CHAPTER 5 COOPERATION AND COMPETITION

Cooperation is necessary for teams to operate smoothly and effectively, and a cooperative atmosphere offers many benefits for team members. However, many team members find themselves in mixed-motive situations that include both cooperation and competition. Team members may be competitive for cultural, personal, and organizational reasons. Cooperation can be encouraged through strategies focused on team goals, communication, and interpersonal actions. However, if teams become too cooperative, then conformity and poor decision making can result. Competition can create adverse effects for the team, even when the team is successful.

201

Learning Objectives

1. Describe the impact of a mixed-motive situation. 2. Explain why people act competitively in teams. 3. Distinguish between cooperators, competitors, and individualists. 4. Describe the impact of intragroup and intergroup competition. 5. Explain the benefits and problems of cooperation. 6. Understand how teams respond to competitive versus cooperative rewards. 7. Determine how a team can deal with the negative effects of competition.

202

5.1 TEAMWORK AS A MIXED-MOTIVE SITUATION

The essence of teamwork is the cooperative interactions of team members. Yet cooperation is often limited by an individual perceiving incompatible personal goals (“I want to go to a music festival this weekend”) and team goals (“We need to have a meeting this weekend”). These kinds of mixed-motive situations produce competition between team members when they focus on individual rather than common goals (Deutsch, 1973). Competition makes team members work against one another when their individual goals become more important than the team goal.

Being a team member should encourage people to act cooperatively, but team members often find themselves in a mixed-motive situation. Consider the following examples:

You are the member of a budget committee that must allocate funds to various departments within the organization. As a committee member, you want to do what is best for the organization, but you also want to make sure your department gets more than its fair share of funds.

As a student working on a group project, you want to do a good job so you can get a good grade. However, you have other classes and demands on your time. What you really want is to put in the least amount of effort and still get a good grade.

As a basketball player, only the team’s score determines the winner. You should be focused on coordinating your plays with the other team members. However, there is a scout in the audience, and being the game’s high scorer will get you the attention you need.

Team members commonly find themselves in these kinds of mixed-motive situations. These examples are neither entirely cooperative nor competitive situations; they are both simultaneously. They create social dilemmas for the participants. Each member wants to maximize their rewards and minimize their costs. Selfish behavior may be the best strategy for each individual in the short term, but acting cooperatively often benefits everyone in the long term (Van Lange, Joireman, Parks, & Van Dijk, 2013).

Unfortunately, many people decide to be competitive in a mixed-motive situation. Once they start acting competitively (putting in reduced efforts for the team), others respond in the same way. The result is poor team performance. This is one of the reasons why students complain that the worst problem with group projects is that not everyone does their fair share (Wall & Nolan, 1987).

Cooperation in a mixed-motive situation is encouraged by several factors (Van Lange et al., 2013). People consider how much they trust that other members will cooperate (Balliet & Van Lange, 2013), the sanctions for not contributing fairly (Balliet, Li, Macfarlan, & Van Vugt, 2011), and how much they believe that their contributions to the team are valuable and important (Kerr & Bruun, 1983). Individuals with a prosocial value orientation tend to maximize joint outcomes and equality in groups (De Cremer & Van Lange, 2001). Finally, smaller teams tend to be more cooperative than larger teams (Kerr & Bruun, 1983).

203

5.2 WHY ARE PEOPLE IN TEAMS COMPETITIVE?

Maintaining cooperation on a team is challenging and often requires constant effort to avoid slipping into a competition (Johnson & Johnson, 2005). Team members may misperceive the situation and turn a cooperative situation into a competitive one, or they may choose to act competitively even when it is in their best interests to act cooperatively. Why do people misperceive a cooperative situation and turn it into a competitive one? The explanations for this phenomenon have to do with culture, personality, and organizational rewards.

204

Culture

One way to view cultural differences is along an individualist–collectivist dimension (Hofstede, 1980). Individualists—while not being necessarily opposed to cooperation—are more often competitive with their coworkers compared to collectivists. They tend to prioritize personal goals, seek status and power, value self-direction and independence, and desire personal achievement. This contributes to competitive behavior between group members (intragroup competition), such as dominating group discussion and making decisions that favor individual interests (Earley, 1999).

This contrasts with a collectivist orientation. Collectivists prioritize others, engage in prosocial behaviors, maintain social harmony, and conform to group expectations. Group—not individual—success is more highly valued. Many collectivist cultures have developed a strong inside–outside perspective toward working in teams (Chen & Li, 2005). That is to say, they act cooperatively with their team members but act competitively with those outside of their team (intergroup competition).

Comparing the United States (a more individualistic society) and Japan (a more collectivistic society) offers an example of these differences. David (one of the authors of this book) used to teach English in a Japanese high school. One student had spent several years in the United States on account of her parents’ work. This student was fluent in English. However, she would purposefully make mistakes and exaggerate an accent in class. When questioned about this behavior, the student explained that she did not want to stand out and make her classmates look bad by comparison. She was also concerned about receiving criticism or retaliation from classmates, noting the Japanese proverb: “The nail that

sticks out gets hammered down.” By contrast, demonstrating fluency in another language is more likely to be a source of pride and accomplishment in the United States.

A majority of societies in the world, around 70%, have a collectivist orientation (Triandis, 1995). Most people in the world are primed to work in groups with the expectation and desire to cooperate. Teams comprising more collectivistic members exhibit higher levels of cooperation and performance (DeMatteo et al., 1998). Moreover, collectivists tend to value social-maintenance behaviors of teamwork, while individualists value task contributions (Gomez, Kirkman, & Shapiro, 2000). Still, culture is malleable: Individualistic practices and values have risen around the world by 12% since 1960, driven predominantly by socioeconomic development (Santos, Varnum, & Grossmann, 2017).

205

Personality

Some people are more competitive than others and act more competitively regardless of the situation. They misperceive or refine situations as opportunities to act competitively. This can be explained by differences in personality (Van Lange, 1999; Van Lange et al., 2013). Specifically, social values orientation theory asserts that two sets of values determine our willingness to compete or cooperate with others: prosocial (i.e., maximize others’ outcomes) and proself (i.e., maximize personal outcomes). These two values produce three personality types that explain why some people are competitive. These personality types affect how people interpret the situations they are in and how they define success. Figure 5.1 shows how these personality types relate to individual concerns.

Cooperators are both proself and prosocial, concerned with both their own outcomes and those of others. They focus on the team and attempt to make sure the team is successful. They also value that rewards are distributed equitably among team members.

Competitors are proself, but they define success not in terms of their individual goals or the team’s goals but rather relative to others’ performances. They view a situation as an opportunity to win or lose. To a competitor, success means performing better than others— they seek to minimize the outcomes of others. Whether they succeed or the team succeeds is less important than whether they excel more than the other members of the team.

Individualists are proself, but they define success relative to their own personal goals. Unlike competitors, they do not evaluate their performance relative to others. They may or may not care about the success of the team. The team’s success is important only if they have adopted the team’s goals for themselves.

A cooperative personality type is correlated with many of the standard personality traits used in psychology (Morgeson et al., 2005). Conscientious people are focused on successful performance, so they are more willing to cooperate with others in teams. Extroverts enjoy cooperation because they like working with others. Agreeable people are more cooperative because they want to avoid the conflicts that competition creates. Finally, people with higher levels of emotional stability tend to be more cooperative and helpful to others. Research indicates that 46% of people are cooperators, 38% are individualists, and 12% are competitors (Au & Kwong, 2004).

206

Organizational Rewards

Teamwork can conflict with a company’s human resources practices. Although managers want employees to work as a team, organizational practices often do not encourage or reward teamwork. Scientific research offers a poignant example. While transformative scientific discoveries tend to occur through cooperation with other scholars, competition for limited jobs, tenure, and funding can reduce resource sharing, creativity, and research integrity among researchers (Fang & Casadevall, 2015). Similarly, performance evaluations in many organizations focus on individual performance, and evaluation is relative to the performance of the other employees. Employees receive a mixed message: Do what the manager says is important (engage in teamwork) or do what you will be rewarded for (stand out as superior to your coworkers).

Description

Figure 5.1 Personality Type and Competition

Culture, personality, and organizational rewards may all encourage competition when it is not appropriate. However, cultural values and personality traits are difficult to change. This makes augmenting rewards a useful factor to encourage teamwork and discourage individual competition. (Evaluation and reward approaches are discussed in Chapter 16.)

Incentives and punishments can promote cooperative behavior in teams (Balliet, Mulder, & Van Lange, 2011). However, shifting a team to cooperative rewards may not change team members’ behaviors if they have already established competitive relationships (Beersma et al., 2009). The cutthroat competition effect explains that it is harder for teams to change from a competitive to a cooperative relationship when the rewards change than it is to move in the opposite direction. The problem is that once competitive roles have been firmly established, team members do not trust each other to change their behaviors. Changing this requires that team members renegotiate their roles and improve coordination in order to build trust, reduce conflicts, and encourage cooperative behaviors.

207

5.3 PROBLEMS WITH COMPETITION

What is wrong with competition? Why should competition not help motivate a team? A successful team has members who work together to reach a common goal. However, when team members compete against one another, individual goals conflict with team goals. Tensions exist between doing what is best for the individual to succeed (by being better than the others) and doing what is best for the team. Moreover, competition can create problems regardless of the team’s success, as social relations degrade from suspicion, lack of collaborative effort, critical comments, and power struggles (Deutsch, 2006). Understanding the dynamics of competition can help explain when and where competition is appropriate.

208

Competition Erodes Trust

Goal confusion emerges when individuals are unsure if team members are committed to the same goal. This fosters distrust in one another because members are uncertain of each other’s motives. Consider a competitive basketball player who, rather than passing the ball to a teammate with a clear shot, tends to take more risky shots themselves in the pursuit of being a “star.” Over time, this behavior can degrade social relations and make teammates reluctant to pass the ball to this player.

Erosion of trust and goal confusion also occur at the organizational level, such as when managers decide on budget allocations. Should a department manager try to do what is best for their department or what is best for the organization as a whole? If the departments are competing for limited resources, should the managers request what their departments need, or should they assume that all the other departments are trying to get ahead and aggressively bargain to get as much as they can? Is there any reason to trust the budget estimates from other departments? These questions can lead to budget battles where false numbers are used to justify competitive positions.

Distrust in the motives of teammates is prevalent during complex and ambiguous situations, such as emergency responses. Decision making in these risky contexts requires trusting that all members are working toward a collective goal and will support each other (Das & Teng, 2004). However, goal confusion and distrust can impede timely decision making and increase misunderstandings (Wilson, Salas, Priest, & Andrews, 2007). These dynamics extend to interagency contexts, in which teams from multiple agencies (e.g., paramedics, fire, and police) respond to an event (Power, 2018). Competing goals can produce conflict between teams of first responders. For example, the goal of paramedics to save lives can be prevented by police services declaring a zone too risky for operations.

209

Competition Reduces Learning

Teams and team members make mistakes. Learning from these experiences and adapting team behaviors, goals, and strategies are essential components of effective teamwork (Edmondson, 2011). However, competition hinders the opportunity for learning, as teams and individuals often defend and continue misguided actions in order to avoid blame or protect their reputation. Competition promotes blaming (Tjosvold, Yu, & Hui, 2004) and withholding of information (He, Baruch, & Lin, 2014) among teammates. Under a competitive climate, a mistake is considered a failure and something to be hidden from teammates.

210

Intergroup Competition

While intragroup competition involves internal competition among members of a single group, intergroup competition exists between members of different groups. Sherif’s (1966) studies of boys at summer camp is the foundational example of intergroup competition. In this study, the boys were arbitrarily divided into two groups and then competed against each other in a variety of activities. Both beneficial and harmful effects resulted from this competition. While it enhanced the cohesion of members within each group, it also fostered prejudice— negative beliefs about the abilities of the other group and the personalities of its members —and conflict between the groups.

How competition leads to conflict and hostility is pronounced in the intergroup situation. Groups are more likely to act competitively with each other than are individuals (Wildschut, Pinter, Vevea, Insko, & Schopler, 2003). One explanation for this observation comes from social identity theory (Hornsey, 2008), which reports that a person’s sense of self-worth is connected to the groups to which they belong. Consequently, one views their own group as superior. This translates into an in-group bias, where group members view their own group in overly positive terms and out-groups in overly negative terms. When the superiority of the group is challenged, members rally to support it and attack the out-group. The conflict escalates quickly because group behavior is more anonymous, with fewer interpersonal connections between members and the out-group.

When a team enters intergroup competition, the teams may experience an increase in cohesion and group spirit. Team members become more task focused and tolerate more autocratic leadership. As the competition continues, more loyalty and conformity are demanded by team members. In the short run, these changes may increase productivity and efficiency. In the long run, however, problems arise for the team, regardless of its success. A team in a competition focuses on its task to the exclusion of internal social and emotional issues. Over time, ignoring these social issues can lead to the breakdown of the team. Demanding loyalty and conformity from team members may hurt the team’s ability to adapt to change. Creativity and innovation may be stifled by competition.

Negative effects of competition can occur in both winners and losers. When teams compete, the winners attribute their success to their own superiority (Forsyth & Kelley, 1996). This causes the winners to ignore their problems, which go unsolved. The losing teams often enter a period of blaming and scapegoating (Worchel, Andreoli, & Folger, 1977). Team members first blame their losses on the situation, then on one another. Eventually, if the teams survive the internal emotional turmoil, they can move to the next step to recognize and solve their problems.

Intergroup dynamics can emerge between social groups of a single team. For example, Chen and Li (2005) conducted a cross-national experiment that investigated the degree to which collectivist Hong Kong and individualistic Australian participants would cooperate during mixed-motive business decisions. They found that collectivistic members were less likely to trust and cooperate with the out-group members. Collectivistic participants would, however, cooperate more with members of their own in-group during mixed-motive business decisions.

Other research examines the contexts in which men and women act more cooperatively (Simpson & Van Vugt, 2009). A meta-analysis spanning 50 years of research yielded compelling insights (Balliet, Li, et al., 2011). First, they did not find that men and women differed in levels of cooperativeness. However, they did identify situations in which cooperation was moderated by sex. While women were more cooperative in mixed-sex groups, all-male interactions were more cooperative than all-female interactions. The results also suggested that women are more cooperative than men in larger groups.

211

When Is Competition Appropriate?

Competition may be positive within an organization when jobs are independent rather than interdependent. For example, an organization may sponsor competitions among its sales staff and reward the best performers. This works when salespeople do not depend on one another to make sales. However, most jobs within an organization are interdependent. This is especially true when the organization uses teams. Internal competition among teams within an organization can lead to sabotaged work, unjustified criticism, and withholding of information and resources (Tjosvold, 1995). So when can competition be constructive?

Unchecked competition can foster distrust, conflict, and hostility in teams. Competitive group climates create stress for all members, which generally only benefits team members who are highly competitive to begin with (Fletcher, Major, & Davis, 2008). However, competition can, under certain circumstances, improve team performance without hindering the group climate (Johnson, 2003; Tjosvold, Johnson, Johnson, & Sun, 2003).

First, team members should prioritize skill development and enjoyment rather than winning. Focusing on self-improvement establishes teammates as helpers who can assist members in learning new things (He et al., 2014). By contrast, an emphasis on winning at any cost encourages manipulation, aggression, exploitation, cheating, and denigration of others. This can encourage team members to view each other as adversaries.

Second, competition can be productive when participants have an equal chance of winning. There is a reason why your high school football team does not regularly compete against the Steelers, Patriots, and Packers—no one is likely to walk away from that contest feeling satisfied. Rather, competitors tend to exert little effort when winning is either improbable or guaranteed. Similarly, employees that feel chronically disadvantaged at work seek to leave their job (Tjosvold et al., 2003).

Third, ensuring fairness through enforcing rules and criteria for winning is also necessary for constructive competition (Tjosvold et al., 2003). The absence of clear rules promotes cheating, feelings of injustice, and dissatisfaction in the group.

212

5.4 BENEFITS OF AND PROBLEMS WITH COOPERATION

Competition is good for the winners. However, winning a competition also necessitates that most people lose. In other words, for most people in a competitive situation, it is not a good thing. This can make competition demotivating for team members. Cooperation has the opposite effect, as members are motivated by interdependent goals—they collectively sink or swim together in achieving their goals (Deutsch, 2006). This approach offers many benefits to both the team and its members. However, in some situations, too much cooperation can disrupt a team’s performance and decision-making abilities.

213

Benefits of Cooperation

A cooperative approach toward teamwork offers many benefits to team members. This includes greater satisfaction with group members, higher identification with team values and ideas, friendliness, and a willingness to help and learn from one another (Deutsch, 2006). Cooperative teams communicate more supportively (Johnson, 2003), which improves effective coordination, organization, and execution of group tasks; increases satisfaction with working together; and boosts overall team performance (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). They are better able to discuss errors and learn from mistakes (Tjosvold et al., 2004).

A meta-analysis of several hundred studies reveals three broad categories of cooperation outcomes (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). First, cooperation enhances effort to achieve. People perform better in cooperative situations than in competitive and individualistic situations. They take on more challenging tasks; use more reasoning, metacognitive thought, and critical thinking; learn more; and have more positive attitudes toward tasks. Moreover, cooperative teams tend to spend significantly more time working on tasks.

Second, cooperation leads to higher quality relationships and social support. Members of cooperative teams like each other more, which promotes more frequent and open communication. In turn, members are more empathetic, confident, and cohesive. This heightens commitment to common goals, reduces absenteeism, improves persistence, and facilitates active listening with each other. These benefits also aid in fostering an inclusive environment for diverse members of the team.

Third, cooperation directly benefits the health of team members. Cooperativeness is associated with emotional maturity, social competencies, self-confidence, self-esteem, self- worth, and self-acceptance. By contrast, competitive and individualist situations tend to promote self-rejection (Johnson & Johnson, 2005). Social support can also promote the psychological health and coping abilities of team members.

Cooperation has been extensively studied in the context of college classrooms (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 2007). Results show that students in cooperative learning experiences have greater academic success, higher-quality relationships with other students and with faculty, improved psychological adjustment to college, and more positive attitudes toward college (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998). The success of cooperative learning has made it a dominant approach to college education, particularly in engineering programs (Froyd, Wankat, & Smith, 2012).

Many of the benefits of cooperation for teams are due to the way that conflicts are managed (De Dreu, 2007). To make better decisions, teams need to be motivated to process information and manage differences of opinion in a constructive manner. Cooperation, trust, and safety are preconditions for allowing constructive controversy to occur. When teams handle conflicts constructively, they learn more from each other and perform more effectively. Teams that work cooperatively have less tension, fewer conflicts, and fewer verbal confrontations (Tjosvold, Wong, & Chen, 2014). They also enjoy a stronger sense of team spirit and greater group cohesion.

214

Problems With Cooperation

Cooperation has its own problems. A team can be too cooperative. It can become so focused on maintaining its internal social relations that it loses sight of the team’s goals. Problems with cooperation affect both performance and decision making.

Cooperation Is Fragile

Cooperation is not simply an initial agreement by teammates that then persists thereafter. Instead, cooperation is a process—a fragile one at that. It is nurtured through the ongoing choices and actions made by individuals on the team. A single “bad apple” that acts competitively or individually can undermine the motivation of team members to act cooperatively (Felps, Mitchell, & Byington, 2006). A central problem with cooperation is the ease with which it is curtailed by competitive or individual actions. It takes sustained effort by team members to maintain a cooperative approach.

Cooperation Fuels Conformity

Highly cooperative teams tend to become highly cohesive. Through cohesion, team members become socially and emotionally invested in one another. While this improves communication and coordination, it can also create problems when the team becomes too oriented toward itself and its performance. Highly cohesive teams demand conformity from their members and discourage behavior that is not accepted by the group. This can be effective when norms promote open communication and disagreement. However, dysfunctional norms can result in poor team performance. For example, Rovio, Eskola, Kozub, Duda, and Lintunen (2009) found that highly cohesive sports teams established unrealistically positive evaluations of team performance. Conformity can make the team resistant to outside influence and resistant to changing the way it operates (Nemeth & Staw, 1989). Such overconfidence can impede team adaptation and learning.

Cooperation Promotes Unhealthy Agreement

Another negative impact of cooperation involves a team’s ability to make decisions. Decision making should focus on making the best decision, given the constraints of the situation. Cooperation aids decision making by establishing trust, which encourages open communication. However, when a cooperative team is cohesive, then the fact that members like one another can disrupt the decision-making process.

The Abilene paradox describes a problem with group decision making caused by members trying to be friendly and cooperative (Harvey, 1988). This occurs when group members adopt a position because they believe it is what other members want. The members fail to challenge one another because they want to avoid conflict, or they want to achieve consensus. In the end, they support a proposal no one really wants because of their inability to manage agreement. For example, a project team may continue working on a design strategy that no one thinks will work. However, everyone believes that the other team members support this approach, so no one raises objections during team meetings.

The Abilene paradox is an example of unhealthy agreement within a team. In the Abilene paradox, the team’s desire to reach agreement on an issue becomes more important than its motivation to find a good solution (Dyer et al., 2007). Team members look for the first

215

acceptable solution or just go along with the leader’s solution to avoid disagreements and conflict. This search for quick solutions and avoidance of conflict can lead to poor decisions that cause problems and time delays later in the project. The team is suffering from unhealthy agreement.

The following are some symptoms of unhealthy agreement:

Team members feel angry about the decisions the team is making.

Team members agree in private that the team is making bad decisions.

The team is breaking up into subgroups that blame others for the team’s problems.

People fail to speak up in meetings or fail to communicate their real opinions.

216

Competitive Versus Cooperative Rewards

There are benefits and problems with both competitive and cooperative reward systems (Beersma et al., 2003). Competitive rewards are effective in motivating individual performance, while cooperative rewards promote trust, cohesiveness, and mutual support, which, in turn, promote team performance. When a task requires coordinated effort, cooperative rewards are more effective than competitive rewards. However, this simplistic view of cooperative and competitive rewards ignores several important factors that influence work.

What is the primary performance goal? Accuracy and speed of performance are separate, unrelated criteria. Most complex tasks in organizations require both speed and accuracy, but the relative importance of these two factors may vary. A manufacturing team may be encouraged to produce as fast as possible, but this is likely to negatively affect the quality of their performance. Emergency medical teams often must work quickly. At the same time, they must be concerned with the accuracy of their performance. Competitive rewards are strong motivators, especially for encouraging speed (Beersma et al., 2003). Cooperative rewards encourage discussion, collaboration, and information sharing, which may improve accuracy but will slow the speed of performance.

One of the arguments against using cooperative rewards is that they may encourage social loafing by the team’s poor performers (Beersma et al., 2003). High performers are often internally motivated and knowledgeable about how to perform the task, while poor performers have either motivation or skill problems. One of the purposes of organizing people into teams is to enable team members to share their workload and help one another (Ilgen et al., 2005). When a member performs poorly because of skill or ability problems, team members will provide assistance and share their knowledge, especially when there are cooperative rewards. When a low-performing member is engaging in social loafing or has motivation problems, competitive rewards may increase their motivation. Even with cooperative rewards, team members may not assist someone whose performance is low because of a lack of motivation.

Sometimes, it is the combination of cooperation and competition that works best (Tauer & Harackiewicz, 2004). In a basketball shooting experiment, there was no difference between a cooperative and competitive approach on motivation or performance when performing individually. However, when people worked together to compete against another team, they had higher levels of motivation, satisfaction, and performance. Cooperation encourages participants to be more enthusiastic about working together, while competition focuses participants on the task and challenge. The combination of cooperation and competition rewards accomplishes both objectives. Indeed, “coopetition” is increasingly being investigated at the individual, team, and organizational levels (Devece, Ribeiro-Soriano, & Palacios-Marqués, 2019).

217

5.5 APPLICATION: ENCOURAGING COOPERATION

What does it take to encourage cooperation in a team? Cooperation is a process that is influenced by several factors and actions made by teammates. Johnson and Johnson (2005) identified five essential elements of cooperation:

1. Interdependence—Team members are committed to a common goal, particularly one that necessitates all members working together to achieve.

2. Individual accountability—The performance of each member is monitored and compared to a standard for performance. Feedback is provided, and all group members hold each other accountable for contributing to the team’s success.

3. Interaction patterns—Members encourage each other, provide help, constructively challenge conclusions, and act in trusting ways.

4. Social skills—Interpersonal and small-group skills are used to manage the team’s climate to encourage open communication, trust, shared goals, and constructive conflict resolution.

5. Group processing—Teams periodically reflect on helpful and unhelpful member actions and on how these actions can continue or change in the future.

The central issue in cooperation is the beliefs that team members hold about team goals and the motives of other members (Tjosvold, 1995). Cooperation stems from mutual goals that encourage trust. Competitive actions create suspicion and doubt about other team members and their goals. Strategies for dealing with these effects should focus on developing common goals and rebuilding trust and communication (Figure 5.2). In addition, when teams are in a competitive relationship, team members can develop a strategy for negotiating cooperation in the future.

218

Common Goals

Groups need some reason to work together in order to break down competitive situations. One approach to forming bonds is through the use of superordinate goals (Sherif, 1966). A superordinate goal is a common goal that all the groups or sub-groups accept as important. This unifies members as they view themselves as part of the same group or team. By working together on this common goal, prejudice and conflicts between the groups decrease.

Description

Figure 5.2 Dealing With the Negative Effects of Competition

Pursuing a common goal can be easier said than done (Gollwitzer, 1999; Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006). Research on leadership suggests that appealing to a sense of community can be an effective way to establish shared goals. However, this is less effective for younger generations of workers (e.g., millennials), who are motivated more by personal achievement and meaningful work (Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman, & Lance, 2010; Wesner & Miller, 2008). Instead, reframing individual goals so that they align with team goals can be an effective strategy for younger generations. For example, one can frame achievement of the team goal as a means to build a case for an individual’s promotion or as an opportunity to have a meaningful impact on the world. Leaders need to be aware of the individual motivations of team members and be skilled in communicating how team goals help to achieve these desires.

219

Rebuilding Trust and Communication

Cooperation is encouraged by trust; competition leads to a breakdown in trust. Trust is a multidimensional construct encompassing values, attitudes, moods, emotions, and cognitions (Jones & George, 1998; Smith, Carroll, & Ashford, 1995). In general, trust is the belief that one will not be taken advantage of by another, given the opportunity to do so. Trust is reciprocal—it can be encouraged in others when a team member opens themselves up to being vulnerable (Serva, Fuller, & Mayer, 2005). Several factors contribute to the rebuilding of trust in teams.

Gender plays a role in repairing trust after a violation. A study measuring changes in trust after a transgression found several gender-based results (Haselhuhn, Kennedy, Kray, Van Zant, & Schweitzer, 2015). Women were more likely to lose trustworthiness than men after repeated violations. However, women were also more likely to repair trust after a violation. Moreover, women were more likely than men to trust one another after a transgression. These findings were attributed to the tendency for women to be more concerned about maintaining relationships than men.

Virtual teams have increased opportunities for misunderstandings, uncertainty, and conflict (Cramton, 2001). Overcoming these barriers requires trust. Yet there are fewer opportunities for premeeting conversations or hallway talk to develop social bonds, so a fragile “swift trust” often develops among members of global virtual teams (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999). While the development of trust has long been considered a challenge for virtual teams, a meta-analysis reveals an important nuance (Breuer, Hüffmeier, & Hertel, 2016). Yes, higher levels of trust are associated with improved performance and cooperation in virtual teams. However, the virtual context also allowed for the automatic documentation of team interactions (e.g., e-mails, groupware systems, collaborative documents). Such documentation, independent of trust, also enhances team performance because it provides opportunities for peer monitoring and transparency. This suggests that documentation of interactions may be an alternative to building trust in virtual teams.

Cooperation encourages constructive controversy, whereas competition reduces communication and encourages avoidance (Tjosvold, 1995). Constructive controversy allows for open feedback, the raising of questions, and increased communication. Cooperation improves decision making because it increases task-related conflict. Members are able to express a conflict openly without creating social problems within the team. By contrast, conflict is avoided in competitive situations because it is too destructive to social relations. Table 5.1 presents a set of communication rules to foster constructive controversy within a team.

Table 5.1 Rules for Constructive Controversy

1. Establish openness norms.

Encourage all team members to express their opinions and feelings.

Do not dismiss ideas because they appear at first too impractical or undeveloped.

2. Assign opposing views.

Assign a person or subgroup the role of critically evaluating the team’s current preferences.

3. Follow the golden rule of controversy.

Discuss issues with others the way you want issues discussed with you. If you want others to listen to you, you should listen to them.

220

4. Get outside information.

Search for information from a diverse set of outside sources to help the team make a decision.

5. Show personal regard.

Criticize ideas, if you want, but do not attack a person’s motivation or personality.

6. Combine ideas. Avoid either/or thinking, and try to combine ideas to create alternative solutions.

Source: Adapted from Tjosvold, D. (1995). Cooperation theory, constructive controversy, and effectiveness: Learning from crisis. In R. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 79–112). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

221

Encouraging Altruistic Norms

Cooperation can develop within a team through positive social interactions. Once established, it becomes a norm for the team. Team altruism is defined as team members’ voluntary actions that benefit others (Li, Kirkman, & Porter, 2014). These helping behaviors benefit the team but are not required by the team or leader. Two different motives can drive team altruism. Altruism can be somewhat self-serving, which is when its motives are impression management or social approval. Team altruism is also driven by prosocial motives, such as concern and empathy for others or moral principles (e.g., doing the right thing).

A developmental perspective shows how altruism develops and spreads within a team through social interactions. Team members may initiate altruism due to individual motives, such as social approval or concern for others, but then these acts of altruism encourage team coordination and model the value of cooperative behaviors. These positive consequences encourage team altruism to become a norm for the team, which encourages all members to act altruistically toward each other. Thus, the motivation for altruism shifts from personal motives (concern for others) to following the team’s norms.

222

Negotiating Cooperation

Research on the negative effects of competition has identified various strategies that can encourage cooperation with an opponent. There is an entire research field that uses simulation gaming, such as the prisoner’s dilemma, to explore the various options. This research has found optimal strategies for encouraging cooperation (Axelrod, 1984).

The problem for people in a competitive situation is making the transition to cooperation. Once competition starts within a team, it tends to continue. If a member tries to threaten the competitors, they become defensive and increasingly hostile. If a member tries to always cooperate with the competitors, then exploitation typically follows. An effective strategy must resolve this dilemma.

One effective strategy has two rules. First, when the opportunity arises, a team member signals their desire to form a cooperative relationship by acting cooperatively. The team member should always start by acting cooperatively and creating opportunities to start over again during transition points in the team’s existence. Second, the team member should respond in kind to his or her competitors’ moves (i.e., the tit-for-tat rule). If the competitor acts cooperatively, then the member should respond cooperatively. However, if the competitor acts competitively, the member should respond competitively. This is necessary because an individual who always acts cooperatively is usually exploited. There is, however, a significant limitation to the tit-for-tat approach—there is no room to correct for a mistake or misunderstanding (Selten & Hammerstein, 1984). This can produce a long chain of misplaced retaliation.

An approach that overcomes this limitation is win-stay, lose-shift (Nowak & Sigmund, 1993). This strategy consists of repeating the previous act when it resulted in cooperation (win- stay) but shifting when it does not (lose-shift). For example, if a teammate cooperated after you acted competitively, continue being competitive. If they then act competitively, act cooperatively. While tit-for-tat is efficient for initiating cooperation, once established, win-stay, lose-shift is better at maintaining it.

Incidentally, the win-stay, lose-shift strategy explains the behavior of people playing rock-paper-scissors (Wang, Xu, & Zhou, 2014), providing an advantage to those that master this strategy. A player who wins a round is most likely to repeat the same move again (win- stay). However, when a player loses two or more bouts, they are more likely to switch to the choice that just beat them (lose-shift). A player anticipating this behavior can better predict the course of the competition.

223

SUMMARY

Cooperation is the essence of teamwork. However, team members often find themselves in mixed-motive situations that are a combination of cooperation and competition. This is caused by the conflict between individual goals and the team’s goals.

People in teams become competitive for three reasons. First, culture may encourage competition over cooperation. Second, personality traits influence one’s tendency to be competitive over cooperative or individualist. Third, the organization may reward competition among team members. Although all these encourage competition, the organization’s reward system is the most useful explanation of the source of competition.

Competition hurts a team by creating goal confusion. Competitive team members focus on individual rather than team goals to guide their behavior. This leads to distrust, which eventually disrupts communication within the team. Competition with other teams also can create problems, leading to hostility and conflict. Although competition with outside organizations may be appropriate, internal competition can be destructive to the team and organization.

Cooperation provides benefits for both individuals and the team. Individuals are motivated and supported in cooperative situations. Cooperation encourages communication and interpersonal support in the team. However, cooperation can cause problems. A cooperative team has high levels of conformity that can reduce performance and creativity and lead to unhealthy agreement, where team members make bad decisions in order to preserve group harmony. Cooperative rewards are more effective in promoting quality work and encouraging the team to help poor performers.

Several team tactics can be used to deal with the negative effects of competition and to build a cooperative environment. A commitment to common goals helps unite team members. Trust-building activities can be used to help rebuild any breakdown in a team’s communication. Finally, certain negotiation tactics can effectively respond to inappropriate competitive behavior in the team.

224

Team Leadership Challenge 5

Last year, the manufacturing plant where you work reorganized into self-directed work teams. You are the team leader for one of several teams in the assembly area. The transition to teamwork was difficult, but recently things have been working fairly well. Several months ago, upper management announced a new team incentive program that rewards each team for exceeding production targets. This incentive program had mixed effects on team performance and created some problems at the plant.

Your team is now highly motivated to maximize production, but this has created conflicts with other teams. You find yourself competing with the other manufacturing teams for access to the company’s technical support staff. The team has been ignoring machine maintenance issues in order to spend more time producing. There have been several arguments with other teams in the plant who supply parts for your assembly area, and communication with these other teams has deteriorated. You think that the cause of these problems may be the new reward program, but upper management is very supportive of the rewards program.

How should you (the team leader) help the team deal with their internal problems?

What can be done to improve relations with the other teams at the plant?

How can you explain your team’s problems to upper management?

225

Survey: Cooperative, Competitive, or Individualistic

Orientation

Purpose: To make you aware of your orientation toward others in the team. People vary in their orientation toward other members of the team because of personality differences and different past experiences working on teams. You can develop a cooperative or competitive relationship with other team members or have a more individualistic focus within the team.

Directions: Use the following scale to rate how well these statements describe you:

1 = Not at all   2 = Somewhat   3 = Moderately   4 = Greatly

_____1. I like it when everyone on the team works together so we all succeed.

_____2. It is important to me to be the best performer on the team.

_____3. I don’t care how well others do, as long as I succeed at the task I am working on.

_____4. I enjoy working on team projects where people share ideas and resources with each other.

_____5. Even on a team project, I am motivated to do better than others.

_____6. I want to get a good grade in this class regardless of the grades that other students receive.

_____7. I learn a lot by working with other people on a team.

_____8. I often compare myself with other team members to see who is best.

_____9. Even on a team project, I like to spend most of my time working by myself.

_____ 10. I like work situations where people help each other to do a good job.

_____ 11. Most team members evaluate their performance by comparing it to others.

_____ 12. I don’t like it when I have to work with others on a project.

_____ 13. I am more productive when I can work with other people.

_____ 14. People perform best when they are encouraged to outperform others.

_____ 15. I would rather work alone than have to coordinate with others.

226

Scoring:

Add questions 1, 4, 7, 10, and 13 to obtain your cooperative orientation score.

Add questions 2, 5, 8, 11, and 14 to obtain your competitive orientation score.

Add questions 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 to obtain your individualistic orientation score.

Discussion: How did you compare with other members of your team? If you are highly cooperative or highly competitive, what can you do to make yourself a better team player? What is the impact to the team of having highly cooperative or highly competitive members? How should the team deal with members who are very competitive in their orientation?

Source: Adapted from Johnson, D., & Johnson, F. (1997). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

227

Activity: Understanding Competitive Versus Cooperative

Goals

Objective: Teamwork should be a cooperative activity. Whether team members act cooperatively or competitively depends on how they are evaluated and rewarded. This activity lets groups experience working under competitive and cooperative conditions.

Activity: The class is divided into groups and instructed to make two construction projects. The first project (tower) has a competitive goal, while the second project (arch) has an individualist or cooperative goal. Activity Worksheet 5.1 contains instructions for this activity. It may be useful to assign observers to note how the groups perform these two activities.

Analysis: How did the groups behave differently during these two activities? What were some examples of cooperative and competitive behaviors that occurred in or between the groups? How did group members feel about participating in the two projects?

Discussion: How do competitive and cooperative goals affect behavior within and between groups? What is the impact of quantity (and/or production) versus quality goals on teamwork?

228

Activity Worksheet 5.1: Competitive Versus Cooperative

Goals

229

Construction Projects

1. Divide the class into groups of four or more members. 2. Give each group a box of supplies, including colored paper, one or more

magazines, cardboard, tape, scissors, markers, and paper clips.

230

Project 1—Construct the Tallest Tower

Groups have 15 minutes to construct the tallest free-standing tower possible.

The group with the tallest tower wins an award (such as candy).

231

Project 2—Construct a Beautiful Arch

Groups have 15 minutes to construct an attractive free-standing arch.

Groups are allowed to share ideas and materials with one another.

Judges will give awards (such as candy) to all beautiful free-standing arches.

232

Descriptions of Images and Figures Back to Figure

Data shown by the image are tabulated as follows:

Personality Type Individual Concern

Competitors Outperforming others

Cooperators Group’s success

Individualists Personal success

In the image, each personality type is connected to a corresponding individual concern via a rightward arrow with the exception of Individualists, which is connected to Personal success as well as Group’s success.

Back to Figure

Details shown in the flowchart are listed as follows:

Competition

Goal confusion

Common goals

Breakdown in communication

Rebuilding trust and communication

In the image, the second level bullet points are labeled “Negative Impact” and third level bullet points are labeled “Solution.”

233

234

CHAPTER 6 COMMUNICATION

Central to any team’s actions is communication. People respond both to the content of a message and how a message is communicated. Communication climate, psychological safety, social processes, and trust influence the flow of a team’s communication, which impacts both the team’s productivity and cohesiveness. Additionally, the emotional intelligence of the team and individuals in the team help make the team’s communication more sensitive and effective. Improving communication requires building trust within the team, facilitating team meetings, and developing good communication skills.

235

Learning Objectives

1. Describe the communication process. 2. Explain the importance of verbal and nonverbal communication. 3. Understand the causes of dysfunctional information processing. 4. Understand how communication and gender are interconnected. 5. Explain how to build and repair trust within a team. 6. Distinguish between communication that promotes supportive and defensive

climates. 7. Understand how psychological safety and emotional intelligence affect a team’s

communication. 8. Plan and facilitate a productive team meeting using communication skills.

236

6.1 THE COMMUNICATION PROCESS

Communication involves a sender’s attempt to produce a message that conveys an internal state (e.g., an idea, belief, or feeling) and the recipient’s attempt to interpret this message (Burleson, 2010). A message comprises two dimensions (Watzlawick, Bavelas, & Jackson, 1967). The content dimension focuses on what is said verbally. The relational dimension focuses on how it is said through nonverbal cues like vocal tone, facial expressions, and gestures. Information encoded in the relational dimension of the message (e.g., attitudes, emotions, power) can augment the interpretation of the content of a message. Communication is successful when all parties have a common understanding of the sender’s internal state, and when the speaker’s social goals are achieved. Burleson (2010) identifies three kinds of social goals served by communication:

1. Instrumental functions—providing information, persuading others, and providing support 2. Relationship management functions—resolving conflict, establishing authority, and

maintaining privacy 3. Interactional management functions—directing a conversation, changing topics, and

managing affect and impressions

Many group processes already discussed in this text—norms, motivation, cohesion, roles, learning, cooperation—emerge from communication. It is not a surprise then that communication skills are consistently among the most desired by employers. Yet while communication may seem straightforward, people sometimes lack conscious awareness of their communication goals or the strategies they employ to pursue them (Motley, 1990).

Communication in teams can be viewed as a transaction (Barnlund, 1970). This perspective emphasizes that communication is more than simply the transmission of a message from a sender to a recipient. Rather, the transactional model of communication recognizes that people are both simultaneously senders and recipients of messages—both verbal and nonverbal feedback provided by a recipient continuously influences the message that a sender sends. Consider a team member beginning a meeting with an enthusiastic update about the team’s progress, only to receive blank stares from others on the team. Such nonverbal communication might be interpreted as disinterest, leading to a loss of enthusiasm and change in the direction of the discussion by the speaker. A second component of the transactional model is that all parties involved in communication influence and are influenced by each other. For example, we often change our communication style depending on the recipient of our communication—your communication around your coworkers is likely different from your communication when your manager is present.

Taken together, the simultaneous sending and receiving of messages and the mutual influence of team members illustrate how team communication is a dynamic process that is constantly changing. Consider what occurs when an instructor suddenly appears to check in on a group discussion during class; the students’ discussion might shift from the previous night’s events to quickly blurting out praise and intrigue about the concepts from the lesson. However, members are not the only dynamic affecting communication in teams; levels of trust, power, status, and motivation also change over time and have consequences for the cohesiveness and productivity of a team. These dynamics emphasize that not only what you communicate but how you communicate is influenced by and influences the functioning of a team. It is crucial, then, to be aware of how your communication positively or negatively impacts the team, while also attending and adapting to how others are influencing the team.

237

Verbal Communication

When communicating verbally, we use language in an attempt to share meaning with others. This might include determining the purpose of your team project, sharing information, or deciding on a solution. While this may appear rather straightforward, the nature of language often makes sharing meaning difficult. This is because the meanings of words are often highly subjective. Language is based on words (like dog), which are themselves symbols that refer to something else (a four-legged carnivorous mammal that is often a pet).

While the meaning of some words is concrete, many others—particularly those involved in conflict, problem solving, and innovation—are ambiguous. Overlooking this communication element can lead to frustration, failed projects, and wasted time. Consider a team wanting to expand healthy food options on a university campus. There are various contested understandings of what healthy food means—such as low calorie, not processed, locally sourced, organic, non-GMO, vegan, raw, meat-free, and so forth. It is likely that each member of a team will have a different understanding of what is and what is not healthy food. The team must collectively define precisely what they mean in order to effectively research and implement their goal of expanding healthy food options on campus. In other words, effective teams use communication to construct a shared understanding. This, in turn, facilitates the development of shared mental models about the team’s task, goals, and operations.

However, team members often assume that everyone understands the same meaning for a word. This is called bypassing, and it can be a source of much misunderstanding and conflict when engaging in activities, such as assigning tasks and processing information. Consider the coordination of a team assignment. The leader may instruct the team members to e-mail their sections of the report by Thursday in order to assemble them for class on Friday. While the leader may have been expecting the sections by noon, some team members may wait until 11:59 p.m. This delay could prevent the leader from effectively combining the sections and lead to decreased team productivity, as well as increased conflict between members. Similarly, speakers often have poor perspective-taking and overestimate a receiver’s familiarity with the information being discussed (Keysar & Henly, 2002). This lack of perspective-taking is one reason why technical professionals, such as engineers, have difficulty sharing specialized knowledge in a team—they assume that the receivers have sufficient background information to make sense of brief messages. This represents a poorly shared team mental model.

To avoid verbal miscommunications, team members need to disambiguate their words with clear definitions and clarify the meanings of others. One useful approach for this is creating a boundary object (Star, 1990). A boundary object is a visual or experiential representation of an idea, which can come in such forms as a document, sketch, drawing, prototype, improv skit, or collage. The idea is to create a common object or experience so that others can examine, question, critique, refine, and build upon it. For example, students often request from professors an example of previous student work. This permits them to really “see” what the professor expects and confirm their understanding of an assignment. A team charter is a boundary object that clarifies team member expectations and norms. Similarly, team members can develop boundary objects to help visually or experientially represent their ideas, observations, problems, solutions, or concepts. Through reconciling the team’s varying understandings of the boundary object, they can foster a truly shared understanding.

238

Nonverbal Communication

In addition to using verbal language to share meaning with others, nonverbal cues, such as body language, vocal tones, gestures, touch, eye contact, facial expressions, and use of time and space, can also communicate emotional or attitudinal meanings to others. Moreover, nonverbal messages can replace, emphasize, or even contradict our verbal communication. For example, members can assert dominance over the team through their posture and vocal tones or express contempt through arriving late to a meeting and sarcastically apologizing. Some displays may likewise be strategically feigned or exaggerated in order to influence others (Van Kleef, Van Doorn, Heerdink, & Koning, 2011).

Just like verbal communication, nonverbal communication is also ambiguous and easily misunderstood (e.g., is a member not participating because they are tired, disinterested in the project, or angry at another member?). Additionally, nonverbal communication is also continuous—we are always communicating something nonverbally, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Effective team members need to develop awareness as to how their nonverbal communication might be influencing the team and also develop sensitivity to the nonverbal messages of others on the team. Indeed, those skilled in decoding nonverbal communication benefit from increased relational success (Carton, Kessler, & Pape, 1999). As will be discussed later, sensitivity to the nonverbal messages of others and attentiveness to your own nonverbal messages are essential components of team emotional intelligence.

239

Communication Within Teams

The simultaneous sending and receiving of verbal and nonverbal communication and the mutual influence of all members have widespread implications for the development and functioning of a team. Poor communication can lead to dysfunctional processing of information and unnecessary conflict among team members. However, by developing the knowledge and skills of effective and appropriate communication (Spitzberg, 1983), teams can foster shared mental models, transactive memory systems, trust, appropriate team norms, and creativity. More importantly, it is through continued effective and appropriate communication that these benefits are realized. Trust, for example, once attained, does not last forever. Rather, it is continuously affirmed and reaffirmed through the ongoing interactions between team members. Communication is a transactional process through which team members are continually defining and redefining their relationships with each other.

Interventions to promote self-awareness about team communication dynamics—such as storytelling, framing discussions as giving feedback about group processes, modeling constructive feedback, and reflecting on communicative actions—can promote a positive group climate (Hedman-Phillips & Barge, 2017). Attention to the flow of team communication empowers you to make informed communicative choices that maximize productivity and foster cohesiveness among members.

240

6.2 FLOW OF A TEAM’S COMMUNICATION

Communication plays a vital role in the functioning of a team. Members need to be aware of how to communicate in a manner that is both effective and appropriate for reaching team goals and maintaining relationships. Ineffective communication contributes to the dysfunctional processing of information, leading to poor decisions. Misunderstandings also emerge from differences in communication styles. Similarly, inappropriate communication damages the cohesiveness between team members and impedes the development of trust. Choices in how you communicate can establish and maintain a safe communication climate that encourages team members to express their knowledge, opinions, and feelings in difficult situations. Interpersonal processes influence the willingness of team members to share information in team discussions. Trust provides the foundation for open and honest communications in the team.

241

Dysfunctional Information Processing Within the Team

The use of teams creates the potential to make better decisions because members can pool information from diverse backgrounds and experiences. This benefit of using teams occurs only if members share and integrate their unique information. However, teams frequently engage in dysfunctional information sharing and processing that leads to poor decision making.

Teams often experience the common knowledge effect (Gigone & Hastie, 1997). This occurs when team members spend most of their time discussing the information already shared by all members, rather than combining the unique knowledge and perspectives of members. Focusing on common rather than unique information also explains why teams often overlook technical information. This type of information is likely to be known to only a few team members, so the team rarely discusses it. Consequently, the information held by most team members before a discussion has more influence on a decision than information received during a meeting, regardless of whether this information is accurate.

Biases in information processing prevent teams from making good decisions because important information that one member holds is ignored by the team (Stasser, 1992). For example, confirmation bias is the tendency for people to seek information that confirms their already held beliefs and attitudes, while ignoring information that contradicts their currently held beliefs and attitudes (Nickerson, 1998). In other words, team members often find what they expect to see when processing information.

For example, one study found that the auditory perception of a patient’s breathing (a critical symptom that distinguishes between two life-threatening conditions) by teams of physicians was influenced by the diagnoses they had anticipated (Tschan et al., 2009). These physicians reported hearing a breathing pattern that was consistent with the presumed diagnoses, even though this breathing pattern was not objectively present. Patients were misdiagnosed because physicians ignored information that disconfirmed their beliefs. Likewise, design teams may not seek out information that disconfirms the assumptions held by the team about the nature of the problem or solution. However, teams that actively process disconfirming information can produce more creative designs or, at the very least, avoid implementing poor solutions. To combat confirmation bias, members should actively find and passionately present disconfirming evidence and information to the team. It can be helpful to formally assign a member the role of devil’s advocate to challenge the team’s assumptions.

Information can be also be processed poorly by a team if they discuss topics in terms of false dichotomies. A false dichotomy is the tendency to view options as two opposing extreme possibilities (e.g., either/or) when other possibilities exist (Rothwell, 2015). In other words, perceiving the world in absolute terms (e.g., you are either with me or against me) is often false, since much of reality (and creative solutions) exists in the gray area between these extremes. However, despite this sounding rather obvious, it is difficult to easily communicate about these gray areas because our language lacks appropriate words. While we can immediately think and speak in terms of opposites (e.g., short/tall, loud/quiet, etc.), the words to describe the midpoint between these concepts are often vague and nonspecific to the word pairing (between short and tall is average, between loud and quiet is also average, etc.). This illustrates how language can predispose us to think in extremes.

False dichotomies can influence the nature of solutions that teams design. Consider the example of a group of students who wished to address the skateboarding ban on campus by advocating for the ban to be repealed—a clear allow/ban dichotomy in devising a solution. Given the university administration’s concern for the safety of both pedestrians and

242

skateboarders, the entire proposal was rejected, and the group was unsuccessful in achieving their goal. However, a more fruitful solution might have been to advocate for a middle- ground position between banning and allowing, such as for permissible times and locations for skateboarding to be allowed on campus (which incidentally is how bicycling on campus is regulated). Such an integrative solution allows for the needs of both parties to be met. Combating the false dichotomies that emerge in group discussions requires questioning absolute statements made by members and using provisional language (e.g., sometimes, often, etc.) when discussing information. This provides the communicative space in a discussion to explore alternate solutions.

243

Gender and Communication

Decades of research examining the differences between men and women has found that they are mostly similar (Hyde, 2005, 2014; Zell, Krizan, & Teeter, 2015). However, researchers have observed slight differences between men and women in their communication. For example, contradictory to prevailing stereotypes, men tend to be more talkative than women in workplace and public contexts (Leaper & Ayres, 2007). Still, these same researchers also found that men tended to speak more assertively, while women tended to show more support and agreement in conversations. Why might these differences exist?

Scholarship suggests that men and women learn to produce and interpret messages differently based on gender role expectations (Tannen, 1990). The masculine communication style emphasizes status. This means that men attend more to aspects of a message that relate to independence, competition, exerting control, and reporting knowledge. According to Tannen, men use communication to establish and elevate their status in a group. Consequently, men tend to speak more, focus on task-oriented information, interrupt, offer advice, and make jokes more often than women.

In contrast, the feminine communication style focuses on emotional connection. This includes talk that embodies interdependence, cooperation, and empowerment in an effort to facilitate agreement, interest in others, and participation. Tannen asserts that women, then, tend to share feelings, invite others to speak, and listen in order to foster bonds between members. Conversely, women may punish others by creating emotional distance and pushing them away.

By understanding these styles of communication, members can better adapt their communication to the group and minimize misunderstandings. For example, the masculine tendency to focus on task-oriented communication may lead a member to consider the sharing of feelings to be a waste of meeting time and discourage a feminine speaker from sharing their emotions with other members. In this scenario, the feminine speaker’s desire to foster connection among members is being marginalized, contributing to a less fulfilling and supportive environment. Likewise, a feminine speaker may share their emotions about a difficult day with the desire of gaining comfort and sympathy from teammates; however, a masculine member may instead offer suggestions on how to fix the cause of their problems. Here, these two communication styles are misaligned, and a member is not meeting the communication needs of another member. Such misunderstandings may decrease the trust and cohesiveness of team members. Rather than privileging either feminine or masculine communication styles as superior, team members should seek to respect the need for both to coexist. Indeed, instrumental and relational aspects of teams need to be appropriately managed and understood.

Critically, masculine and feminine communication styles are not to be conflated with gender or sex. Rather, both communication styles can be contextually adopted by men and women. While offering a framework for considering gender and communication, this model is limited. It has been critiqued for its binary conceptualization of gender, for perpetuating gender stereotypes, and for oversimplifying the complex relationship between gender and communication (Edwards & Hamilton, 2004; Prentice & Carranza, 2002).

244

Repairing Trust

Trust is the willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of another (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007). In teams, this encompasses both interpersonal trust between team members and collective trust in the team (Costa, Fulmer, & Anderson, 2018). For team members to trust, they must believe the team is competent to complete its task (team efficacy) and the team environment is safe for all members (Ilgen et al., 2005). Trust within a team encourages communication and cooperation and makes conflicts easier to resolve.

Trust is developed over time as team members cooperate, share information, and monitor each other (Lau & Liden, 2008). At the beginning of a social encounter, people take a chance on trusting the other person, while monitoring how the other responds. The experience of future trust is determined by what happens in the relationship. Trust is built and maintained over time through social interactions—through the sharing of feelings and thoughts. Yet trust develops differently across cultures. For instance, a basis for trust in Western cultures is through having a shared category membership with group members (e.g., both went to the same college), while in Eastern cultures, trust is impacted by sharing interpersonal ties with group members (Yuki, Maddux, Brewer, & Takemura, 2005).

Although building trust is a slow process, trust is quickly and easily destroyed, often by a single incident that undermines the perceived competence, benevolence, or integrity of a team member (Mayer et al., 1995). The lack of trust by only a few members of the team can break down the positive relationship between trust and team performance. Team leaders need to build trust among team members and be aware of specific relationships within the team where trust is low. When there are problems with a lack of trust between particular members, procedures for them to monitor each other’s performance and ensure obligations are met can help the team rebuild trust in specific relationships.

When trust is violated, an apology is an effective response. Research has identified the following components to an effective apology (Lewicki, Polin, & Lount, 2016):

1. Express sincere regret: “I’m sorry for not having completed my portion of the task.” 2. Explain the reasons why the violation occurred: “I overestimated how much time I had to

work on this task.” 3. Acknowledge responsibility for your part in causing the violation: “I was wrong for not

bringing up my lack of progress before the deadline.” 4. Declare repentance and intention not to repeat the violation: “I learned my lesson, and

I will not let the team down again.” 5. Offer a way to repair trust: “I will take the lead on the next task and take

responsibility for getting it finished early.” 6. Request forgiveness: “Please forgive me for slowing down the team and for the stress I

have caused you.”

While apologies that include more of these components are viewed as more effective, the most critical components are explaining the violation, acknowledging responsibility, and offering a repair.

Longer-term strategies for repairing trust can also be useful (Lewicki & Brinsfield, 2017). Teams can adopt policies, procedures, contracts, and monitoring that limit the possibility of subsequent violations (Sitkin & Roth, 1993). However, policies that limit interpersonal interaction (e.g., agree to stay away from each other) may hinder the repair of trust (Malhotra & Murnighan, 2002). A violator of trust may also retroactively reframe the violation by providing information that alters the victim’s perception of the incident (Dewulf et al., 2009).

245

Psychological Safety

Trust is closely associated with psychological safety in teams. Psychological safety is the perception that members are free to take interpersonal risks and to express their thoughts and feelings without fear of consequences (Edmondson & Lei, 2014). It is a climate of interpersonal trust and mutual respect where team members can offer ideas, provide feedback, raise issues, admit mistakes, and ask for help without fear of retribution. This is particularly important to teams where the sharing of diverse information and integration of perspectives is a central activity. Indeed, research consistently shows that psychological safety is associated with higher ability to learn from mistakes (Hirak, Peng, Carmeli, & Schaubroeck, 2012), success in diverse teams (Caruso & Woolley, 2008), creativity (Baer & Frese, 2003), and team performance (Frazier, Fainshmidt, Klinger, Pezeshkan, & Vracheva, 2017). Virtual teams also benefit from psychological safety, as this mitigates the negative effects of geographical dispersion, electronic dependence, and national culture on innovation and performance (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006).

The value of psychological safety can be seen in the operation of cross-functional teams that are composed of members from a variety of technical backgrounds (Edmondson & Nembhard, 2009). The diversity of viewpoints in these teams is crucial for their success, but this only happens if team members are willing to share their knowledge and learn from each other. These teams encounter communication problems, such as socially induced silence, unproductive communication, and differences in professional language. Members of some cultures may also withhold questions, feedback, or disagreement due to cultural norms dictating politeness or face-saving behaviors.

To overcome the problems created by diversity, teams need to develop an environment of psychological safety to mitigate the interpersonal risks of interacting. Team leaders play an essential role in establishing psychological safety by inviting input and feedback, while demonstrating their own openness to receiving critical information. They can also encourage members to speak up by facilitating communications and minimizing status differences. Assigning the role of devil’s advocate can help to legitimize disagreement in teams. Leaders also demonstrate that failure is an opportunity for learning rather than threatening punishment for communicating about problems. While psychological safety is generally viewed as a cognitive phenomenon, it manifests through communication (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006). This indicates that all team members can foster psychological safety by promoting a supportive communication climate.

246

Communication Climates

Closely related to psychological safety is the communication climate of groups. Gibb (1961) identified six patterns of group communication that increase or decrease the degree of defensiveness exhibited by members. How one communicates can influence whether team members focus on the content (what they said) or structure (how they said it) of the message. A defensive climate occurs in response to perceived threats to one’s self-esteem. It shifts mental attention away from the message content and team tasks to instead defending oneself and distorting information. In the short term, this decreases team productivity and erodes cohesiveness. In the long term, a defensive climate can lead to burnout and turnover (Becker, Halbesleben, & O’Hair, 2005). By contrast, a supportive climate emphasizes the content of a message and yields increased cooperation and trust, which is essential for the development of psychological safety. Team members establish and maintain a supportive communication climate through choices of how they structure their communication. Gibb offers the following patterns of communication that can contribute to a defensive versus supportive climate.

Evaluation Versus Description

Messages with evaluations contain judgments, accusations, “you” statements, contempt, fault finding, and criticism (e.g., “You haven’t contributed enough to this

presentation”), which are often met with efforts to absolve oneself from blame (e.g., “But

I came to every meeting! Besides, you never gave me clear directions”). By contrast, descriptions that involve framing comments in a manner minimize unease and consider the perceptions and feelings of the sender (e.g., “I’m concerned that our presentation won’t

go well and have some requests that I’d like you to consider”). Strategies to adopt more descriptive language include using “I” statements rather than “you” statements and providing genuine praise before negative feedback (Hornsey, Robson, Smith, Esposo, & Sutton, 2008).

Control Versus Problem Orientation

A defensive climate can emerge from communication aimed at controlling other people by telling them what to do. Indeed, research on psychological reactance reveals that efforts to control one’s behavior are often met with resistance or even the opposite behavior (Brehm & Brehm, 1981). This can be illustrated by imagining the typical response of a child being told to clean their room. Similarly, members in teams often respond negatively to demands placed on them by others. For example, demanding that a team member skip a planned social event in order to finish an assignment might lead to resistance. However, a more effective pattern of communication is to focus instead on the problem and invite ideas for solving the problem (e.g., “What can we do in order to finish this project by tonight?”). This allows for a productive conversation aimed at how to solve the problem, rather than placing demands on specific team members.

Strategy Versus Spontaneity

People are sensitive to strategies employed to manipulate or deceive them, such as members excusing themselves from a meeting by calling in “sick” or leaving a meeting early because they suddenly have an “appointment.” While certainly there are times when such reasons may reflect reality, they contribute to a defensive climate when perceived to be strategic ways

247

of evading uncomfortable questions, withholding information, or not participating. Instead, employing spontaneous communication that is honest, assertive, and contains true self- disclosure can promote an atmosphere of trust in a team (e.g., “I did not sleep well last

night and can’t meaningfully contribute to this meeting. Can I make it up somehow?”).

Neutrality Versus Empathy

When people communicate, they want to feel heard and to have their perspective considered. In team discussions, however, members may respond with indifference or make little effort to acknowledge others. An example of neutrality is responding to a member’s concern about the ethics of a group decision with a dismissive, “No, it’s fine. Don’t worry. Let’s move

on.” Other times, a member’s e-mail or text message to the team might be completely ignored—even professors can feel devalued by students that fall asleep in class or are distracted by technology. Such behaviors are frustrating and disrespectful, which can contribute to a defensive climate. A supportive climate can be fostered by communicating with empathy—taking another’s perspectives and feelings into account. This is achieved through positive nonverbal behaviors (e.g., listening, putting away a phone during conversations) or verbal behaviors (e.g., “Let’s devote the next 5 minutes to discussing

your concern about the ethics of our decision”).

Superiority Versus Equality

Teams often are composed of members possessing differences in power, intelligence, knowledge, skill, wealth, and so on. Despite these differences, messages that are communicated in a superior, belittling manner (e.g., “You’re taking too long; I’ll just

show you the right way to do this,” or “No, I’m the one who has done this before. I know

best”) evoke defensiveness that can stifle trust and even promote hostility. This defensiveness can impede the psychological safety of the team by limiting the ability or desire of members to provide meaningful feedback or ask for help that they may need. Instead, adopting communication that embodies a tone of equality (e.g., “I can show you

what worked for me, if you’d like,” or “I’d like to hear all of your thoughts on this

matter”) and even self-deprecating humor (Greengross & Miller, 2008) encourages harmony and productivity in a team.

Certainty Versus Provisionalism

Few things in life are absolutely certain. On standardized exams, answers containing absolute statements (e.g., always, never, or impossible) are often the incorrect choices and are a source of frustration for students failing to recall this test-taking strategy. Similarly, team members who communicate with absolute certainty can come across as narrow- minded and unwilling to acknowledge other points of view. Communicating with certainty may shut down discussion (e.g., “That idea will never work!”) and decrease motivation (e.g., “We’ll never finish this presentation by tomorrow!”) in the team. Instead, qualifying messages through provisional language by using words like possibly, might, and sometimes can contribute to more supportive climates where issues can be openly discussed and explored (e.g., “That idea might work, but I have a few concerns”).

These six patterns of communication offer guidance in fostering a supportive communication climate. A communication climate develops in cycles (Lumsden & Lumsden, 1997). When team members communicate with supportive statements, others tend to reciprocate with supportive statements, which encourages trust and openness and increases their willingness to

248

communicate again. This cycle further increases trust and maintains a supportive climate. However, defensive communication begets defensive communication from others and can quickly spiral into criticism, conflict, and decreased trust. This underscores the importance of quickly recognizing and breaking dysfunctional cycles of defensive communication when they emerge in teams. Adopting supportive patterns of communication can help to establish and maintain psychological safety and promote trust in the team. Still, these should not be expected to work in all situations. There are times when defensive strategies are needed, such as using control when dismissing an underperforming member from a team.

249

6.3 EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

Feelings and emotions pervade the fabric of teams. Emotional intelligence (EI) is the ability to solve emotional problems (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). EI is an important aspect of communication in team discussions and is associated with enhanced levels of team performance (Rezvani, Barrett, & Khosravi, 2019) and improved conflict resolution (Jordan & Troth, 2004). It is also consistently associated with leadership emergence in teams (Côté, Lopes, Salovey, & Miners, 2010). EI includes the following four components:

1. Self-awareness—the ability to identify, understand, and discuss one’s emotions 2. Empathy—the ability to perceive, recognize, and experience others’ emotions 3. Emotional regulation—the ability to regulate one’s emotions and control the expression

of emotions 4. Relationship management—the ability to respond to others’ emotions with respect and

concern for the relationship (See Figure 6.1.)

Although EI can be viewed as a skill of individual team members, EI can also be viewed as a part of the team’s communication climate. Team EI is about building norms that support the awareness and regulation of emotions within the team (Druskat & Wolff, 2001). Our relationships with team members are not the product of any single interaction but, rather, are constantly being defined and redefined during ongoing communication exchanges (Sias, 2008). The ability to recognize and regulate one’s emotions and the emotions of others during these ongoing interactions can enhance the relationships of team members. Regulating ones’ expression of emotion is important because emotions are contagious in small groups (Ilies, Wagner, & Morgeson, 2007; Sias, 2008), often occurring without members even being aware of it (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1993). In particular, team leaders have the most influence over team emotions (Visser, van Knippenberg, Van Kleef, & Wisse, 2013).

Description

Figure 6.1 Components of Team Emotional Intelligence

Source: Adapted from Greenberg, J. (2011). Behavior in organizations (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Prentice Hall.

The development of emotional awareness of a team is influenced greatly by norms. Indeed, collectively endorsed team norms can shape the emotions felt and displayed in teams (Barsade & O’Neill, 2014). Consequently, team norms can also develop that suppress emotions (Menges & Kilduff, 2015), require the expression of specific emotions (Van Maanen & Kunda, 1989), or encourage open expression of a range of emotions (Martin, Knopoff, & Beckman, 1998). One way to foster team EI is through developing emotional awareness norms, such as taking time to get to know each other in order to increase interpersonal understanding and to ensure equal participation so that all perspectives can be considered. Emotional regulation norms include setting ground rules for conversational courtesy, providing emotional support to help team

250

members, creating outlets to express emotions, and developing a positive communication environment. These behavioral norms help build trust among team members, create a strong team identity, and develop a sense of team efficacy.

Emotionally intelligent teams are aware of the emotional reactions of team members and develop norms that encourage both confrontation and caring. For example, when a team is trying to make a decision and one member disagrees, it is easy for the team to vote and move on to the next issue. However, an emotionally intelligent team would pause and try to better understand why a team member objects to the decision. They would engage in perspective- taking to help understand the issue from alternative views. This shows that the team appreciates and has respect for this perspective, and it may lead to a consensus decision that is acceptable to all team members.

Team EI has many positive impacts on team processes and performance. Emotionally intelligent teams are better able to work through emotional problems, which motivates team members and increases group cohesion (Ayoko, Callan, & Härtel, 2008). They have higher levels of team trust, which is vital for developing a collaborative environment and promoting creativity (Barczak, Lassk, & Mulki, 2010). EI teams are more effective when working in demanding and stressful situations because they have better coordination and fewer conflicts and use more collaborative conflict resolution approaches (Farh, Seo, & Tesluk, 2012).

One of the most significant results of team EI is the way conflicts are managed. In interdisciplinary teams like medical teams, teams with low levels of EI have poorer social skills and more disruptive behaviors and use more coercive power tactics (McCallin & Bamford, 2007). Conflicts in these teams threaten the psychological safety of members. Teams with higher levels of EI have fewer conflicts, and the conflicts are less intense (Ayoko et al., 2008). These teams are more likely to use a collaborative approach to resolve conflict, while teams with lower levels of EI are more likely to use avoidance as a conflict resolution strategy (Jordan & Troth, 2004).

Teams can improve their EI in several ways. Emotionally intelligent team leaders can model appropriate behavior and facilitate sensitive team communications (Koman & Wolff, 2008). Teams can develop behavioral norms to guide how they manage emotions. Team settings are an excellent way to teach people how to act with emotional intelligence (Ferris, 2009). Experiential group activities, such as role-plays, can be used to learn how to perceive emotions, manage one’s emotional responses, and act effectively in emotionally challenging social situations (Pool & Qualter, 2012). Team-based learning approaches also help build social bonds within the team by creating a psychologically safe context for applying the newly learned emotional abilities (Clarke, 2010).

To discover your own level of EI and discuss how emotionally intelligent norms impact team communication, take the team EI survey at the end of this chapter.

251

6.4 FACILITATING TEAM MEETINGS

Team meetings are often viewed negatively as a waste of time (Rogelberg, Shanock, & Scott, 2012)—many of the meetings you have attended in the past likely were a waste of time if they were poorly structured, started late, lacked purpose, went off-topic, were dominated by a few individuals, and/or ended late (Rogelberg, Allen, Shanock, Scott, & Shuffler, 2010). Luckily, bad meetings are not inevitable. By introducing a structure that helps control and facilitate communication, meetings can make more efficient use of everyone’s time.

The nature of meetings does not change based on whether they are conducted face to face or virtually using technologies—the advice is generally the same. The exception to this rule concerns the unique challenges of remote, audio-only meetings (Rogelberg, 2019). Audio-only meetings lack visual cues, which increases opportunities for people to interrupt and misinterpret each other. They also facilitate social loafing as participants can easily multitask on other assignments as their disengagement can go unnoticed. While a skilled facilitator can make audio-only meetings productive, it is advisable to avoid them.

Meetings are where teams build relationships, share information, make decisions, solve problems, and make sense of their purpose. While a well-structured meeting can actually save time and improve the effectiveness of a team, many people choose not to invest the time in preparing a useful agenda or managing the participation of members. Instead, poorly led meetings are often dominated by a few members—in a typical four-person group, two people do more than 70% of the talking; in a six-person group, three people do more than 85% of the talking (Shaw, 1981). Equal participation is an important predictor of success in a variety of team tasks (Woolley et al., 2010), while unequal participation contributes to dissatisfaction and frustration. Moreover, effective meetings can improve attitudes toward meetings and the team as a whole.

In general, meetings start with a review of the agenda and warm-up activities designed to get people talking socially. The body of the meeting focuses on managing the communication process and making the team’s decisions. The meeting ends with a summary of decisions and assignments and an evaluation of how well the team is operating. (See Figure 6.2.) Research provides guidelines for organizing and conducting effective meetings (Rogelberg, 2019):

Description

Figure 6.2 Facilitating a Team Meeting

Source: Adapted from Kayser, T. (1990). Mining group gold. El Segundo, CA: Sherif.

252

1. Only have a meeting when there is no other alternative. Consider the tasks that need to be accomplished and determine if a meeting is truly necessary. A meeting is needed when interaction is required between participants. Use alternative communication channels if the task is a simple announcement or update (e.g., voting via e-mail or sending a memo with an update).

2. Keep meeting participants lean. Based on the aims of the meeting, only include people who need to be there. Effectiveness diminishes after about seven participants for decision-making or problem-solving tasks. Some tasks, like idea generation, can be successful with 18 people.

3. Construct an agenda several days before the meeting. Meetings function more effectively when participants have the agenda in advance (Rogelberg, Scott, & Kello, 2007), and meeting participants enjoy meetings more when they have a clear objective (Allen et al., 2012). Soliciting agenda topics from members can also enhance their commitment, engagement, and identification with the team. If a proposed topic does not make it into the agenda, address the issue with the team member or move it to a future meeting.

4. Distribute the agenda before the meeting. Several days before the meeting, send members an agenda that includes the location, time, duration, and purpose of the meeting. Most importantly, include a concise list of discussion topics, time estimates for topics, and reading materials so that members can come prepared.

5. Keep the meeting on time. People often dislike meetings because they go off-topic and run late. Assign a team member to be a timekeeper whose job is to keep the meeting on schedule and end on time. However, do not rush discussions of important topics: Meeting facilitators may need to adjust the agenda or create a future meeting based on the flow of the meeting.

6. Manage disruptive behaviors. Disruptive team members may dominate the discussion, be overly talkative, or be rude to other team members. All team members share responsibility for handling difficult members; it is not just the job of the leader to maintain the flow of the meeting. The leader should acknowledge and verbally reward acceptable behaviors. If problem behaviors persist, the leader should talk privately with repeat offenders. If none of these approaches work, assistance from outside the team (e.g., a manager responsible for supervising the offender) may be required.

7. Summarize important discussions and decisions. The leader must keep team members focused on the agenda topics. To keep the group process flowing, the leader should stop after the discussion of each major agenda item and summarize the team’s conclusions. This allows for a check on whether all team members agree with what has happened at the meeting.

8. Evaluate the group process at the end of each meeting. The team should evaluate the effectiveness of meetings to identify how the meeting operated, whether there are areas for improvement, and if the meeting objectives were achieved. It is beneficial to gather perceptions from all meeting attendees about the meeting quality because leaders tend to have more positive perceptions of the meeting than those who are not in a position of power (Cohen, Rogelberg, Allen, & Luong, 2011). These group process evaluations provide feedback to the team about its performance and help deal with problems before they get emotionally out of hand. (See the Appendix for a discussion of the use of group process evaluations.)

9. Distribute minutes of the meeting. Lack of follow-through on what is discussed is another predictor of dissatisfaction with team meetings (Rogelberg et al., 2010). Indeed, it can be frustrating when a member assigned with completing a task comes to the meeting and announces that they forgot they were supposed to do that. This can be alleviated by assigning someone to create a summary of what was discussed, what decisions were made, what needs to be deliberated, and what actions are expected of members before the next meeting. This not only keeps team members accountable for their assigned tasks but also updates members who may have been absent from the meeting.

253

6.5 COMMUNICATION SKILLS FOR TEAM MEETINGS

Many communication skills are useful for team members. This section reviews four skills.

1. Ask questions. Asking questions can clarify ambiguous understandings. In general, open- ended questions encourage discussion, whereas closed-ended questions (e.g., yes/no questions) tend to limit discussion. It is better to ask the team to discuss the pros and cons of an idea than to ask team members whether they agree or disagree with it. After someone has answered a question, it is often useful to ask follow-up questions to clarify the issues. When questions are addressed to the leader, they should be redirected back to the team, if possible, to promote discussion.

When the leader asks an individual member of the team a direct question, it can be a threatening experience that reduces discussion. Leaders should try to ask questions of the entire team whenever possible. After asking a question, the leader should remember to give team members sufficient time to respond. The leader should reward participation by acknowledging responses. If no one responds, the leader should try rewording the question or going around the room and having everyone comment on it. A lack of response may mean that the question has a bias or is putting some team members on the defensive.

2. Listen actively. One of the best ways to improve understanding is to stop talking and listen. Active listening is an approach to communication that focuses on the other person (Brunner, 2008). In this approach, listeners paraphrase what they heard and ask the sender if this is correct. The paraphrasing should convey the listener’s understanding of the communication rather than a simple parroting of the message. This sends a message that the listener cares about understanding the message and allows the sender to clarify the communication if needed. Although this is a useful technique, it can become tiresome if used all the time.

Good listeners communicate their desire to understand the message and improve their understanding rather than being a conversation narcissist. When listening to a team member, you can respond with either a support response or a shift response (Brunner, 2008; Vangelisti, Knapp, & Daly, 1990). A shift response can erode a supportive climate through refocusing attention from the speaker to oneself by changing the topic of discussion, therefore disregarding the concerns of the speaker. By contrast, a support response demonstrates your awareness by keeping the team’s attention on the speaker and their topic. For example, the leader of your team mentions that they are frustrated with the meetings frequently starting late. A shift response is, “Well, I am frustrated that

we never have food here. We should do something about that.” A support response is, “That is frustrating. What do you think we should do about it?”

3. Give constructive feedback. Everyone needs feedback to improve performance. However, receiving feedback (especially negative feedback) may be an uncomfortable experience. Improving one’s ability to give constructive feedback is a vital teamwork skill (London, 2014).

The first step in learning to give constructive feedback is recognizing the need for it. Both positive and negative feedback are important. Before giving feedback, examine the context in order to better understand why the behaviors occurred. If a situation is emotional, it is best to wait until things calm down before giving constructive feedback. A team member or leader giving feedback should describe the situation accurately, try not to be judgmental, and speak for himself or herself. When receiving feedback, one should listen carefully, ask questions to better understand, acknowledge reception of the feedback, and take time to sort it out.

254

If a member is giving solely negative feedback, they are not being constructive. Expressing solely negative feedback on the performance or ideas of other team members makes the receivers defensive and discourages communication. It is better to reward desired ideas and behaviors rather than punish undesirable ideas and behaviors. When giving negative feedback to a team member, corrective alternatives should be offered. Also, negative feedback should be given privately to avoid embarrassing the recipient.

Several techniques can improve a team’s ability to accept feedback about its performance:

Focus on the future. Focusing on the past makes people defensive. Focus the information on how to improve future performance.

Focus on specific behaviors. Providing general information does not help the team identify the changes needed in its behavior.

Focus on learning and problem solving. The information provided should help the team improve, not just focus on its deficiencies.

4. Manage feelings. When emotions become disruptive to the operation of the team, they must be managed effectively (Kelly & Barsade, 2001). People cannot be prevented from becoming emotional. When emotional issues are related to the team’s task, the issues should be addressed in the team meeting. Emotional conflicts related to personal issues may need to be handled in private. All team members should learn how to handle emotional interactions in the team. The following is an approach to managing feelings during team meetings.

Stay neutral. People have a right to their feelings. The team should encourage and acknowledge the expression of feelings.

Understand feelings rather than evaluate them. All team members should be sensitive to verbal and nonverbal messages. When dealing with emotional issues, it is best to ask questions and seek information to better understand the feelings.

Process feelings in the group. When the team’s operation is disrupted by emotions, the team should stop and be silent briefly to cool down. Once that has happened, the task-related issues should be discussed as a group.

This approach to managing emotions is useful when emotional issues are related to tasks. Team norms that encourage open communication of emotions increase the performance benefits of task-related conflict (Jehn, 1995). However, norms that encourage open communication about relationship-oriented conflict have a negative impact on teams. When emotions are about personal or relationship issues, it is not a benefit to process them with the team.

255

SUMMARY

Communication is one of the central activities of a team—it is an ongoing process in which members are continuously influencing and are influenced by other team members. By understanding how your verbal and nonverbal communication impacts the team, you can employ communication choices that are more effective and appropriate.

The meaning of words and nonverbal gestures are often ambiguous and subjective, particularly in teams with diverse members. This requires that members clarify definitions and confirm interpretations to avoid misunderstandings. The team’s ability to effectively process information depends on members who actively question their assumptions, seek disconfirming information, and do not speak in false dichotomies. Mutual respect for masculine and feminine communication styles provides insights as to the needs of team members and fosters a more fulfilling environment. Trust is needed for members to fully participate in teams, which necessitates developing psychological safety and supportive communication climates. This strongly impacts the willingness of members to pool knowledge in order to make better decisions.

Recognizing and managing emotions is an important aspect of a team’s communications. Emotional intelligence is both an individual skill and a set of team norms that encourage effective ways to handle emotions in teams. Emotionally intelligent teams have more supportive communications and higher levels of trust, and team members collaboratively handle conflict.

Team meetings operate more effectively if a facilitator structures the communication before, during, and after the meeting. Providing an agenda in advance allows both that members are adequately prepared and that they are held accountable for coming to the meeting prepared. During meetings, the facilitator should maintain an open and collaborative climate, manage disruptive behaviors, manage differences, summarize important decisions, and evaluate the group process. After meetings, provide the team with minutes summarizing the decisions, and remind members of the actions expected before the next meeting.

Several important communication skills are useful for team members to learn and perform. Asking open-ended, nonthreatening questions fosters better team interactions. Active listening helps clarify the communicator’s meaning and acknowledges the importance of the message. Giving constructive feedback is a technique that helps team members learn to improve their performance. Emotions can disrupt teams; learning how to process emotions in a group is an important skill.

256

Team Leadership Challenge 6

You are the leader of a customer service improvement team that meets weekly at the end of the workday. Early in the team’s life, the team had some communication skills training. You closely follow the analysis and decision-making structures from the company’s Customer Service Improvement Manual. Over time, as the team has become more comfortable with analyzing quality problems and creating solutions, you have been using less structure in facilitating the team meetings.

However, you begin to notice problems with the meetings. Not everyone is participating, and the discussions are becoming dominated by several of the older male team members. You notice that their critical personal remarks have silenced some of the women team members. An argument that took place several meetings ago has caused other team members to stop participating during the meetings. Also, discussions tend to drift off-topic and seem like repeats of previous conversations.

What should the team leader do to get the team’s communications back on track?

What is the best way to handle problem team members during the meetings?

Does the team need more skills training, more communication structure, or outside facilitation? Justify your answer.

257

Survey: Team Emotional Intelligence

Purpose: To make you aware of your level of emotional intelligence. The survey shows how an emotional intelligence perspective affects communication in a team. You may know what the most emotionally intelligent response is to a situation yet recognize that you do not always act in this manner.

Directions: Imagine you are a team member facing the following difficult situations. Select the response that best indicates what you think someone should do and what you would most likely do in that situation.

1. You are a relatively new member of the project team. The team leader has given you an important assignment. This is your chance to show the team leader your value to the team—but only if you are successful. If you fail at this task, it could damage your career. a. Put off working on the assignment for a while, because thinking about it

makes you anxious. b. Try to relax, think about some alternative approaches to the assignment, and

then talk with some other team members about which alternative is best to try.

c. Work on the assignment for several weeks before telling the other team members about it.

d. Explain to the other team members how worried you are, and ask them to support your ideas.

People should do: __________ I would do: __________

2. You are a member of a manufacturing team and a friend of yours on the team has borrowed one of your tools. Although you asked her to return the tool to you, she has not done it so far. a. Ignore it. Maintaining a friendship is more important than getting the tool

back. b. Act coolly toward her until she returns the tool. c. Explain to your friend that you need the tool and ask her politely to return

it. d. Think about ending the friendship because friends don’t act this way.

People should do: __________ I would do: __________

3. During the last few team meetings, you notice that one of the team members seems nervous when talking with you. a. Decide that the team member isn’t interested in working with you, so you

focus your communications toward other team members. b. Try to interact with the team member in more informal situations so that you

can get to know him better. c. Communicate more formally with this team member since they are not being

friendly. d. Be very careful around the team member because you suspect that you have done

something to offend him.

People should do: __________ I would do: __________

4. A team member who works near you has the annoying habit of singing to himself while working on a computer. This is really starting to bother you.

258

a. Tell the team leader that it is their responsibility to fix the situation by getting the person to stop or moving him to another work area.

b. Make jokes about this habit to the team member and hope that he gets the hint.

c. Explain to the team member that this habit annoys you, and ask that he stop doing it.

d. Ignore the problem because you don’t want to disrupt team relations.

People should do: __________ I would do: __________

5. While making lunch in the break room, you accidentally knock over a cup of coffee that falls on the floor. a. Get angry at yourself because you are a clumsy person. b. Clean up the mess and laugh about how accidents always seem to happen to you. c. Become embarrassed, and leave the break room before anyone sees you. d. Glare at the other people in the break room so they won’t say anything.

People should do: __________ I would do: __________

6. You have been working on an important part of the team project for the last several months. When you present your work at a team meeting, the team leader criticizes your work. a. Ignore the criticism, and convince yourself that the team leader was just

having a bad day. b. Focus on trying to improve your work based on the criticisms you received. c. Feel so emotionally upset that you go home for the day. d. Think about how unfair the criticisms are and how the team does not

appreciate your hard work.

People should do: __________ I would do: __________

7. There is a heated disagreement at the team meeting about how to handle a problem. Another team member forcefully attacks your position. a. Hold firm to your position, and make new arguments to support it. b. Get angry with the critical team member, and attack their position. c. Try to develop alternative solutions to the problem in a calm fashion. d. Shift the discussion at the meeting to a new topic.

People should do: __________ I would do: __________

8. At a social gathering of the team, a male team member criticizes a female team member who is not present. You like and respect the female team member. a. To get along with the group, agree and add a few other negative comments

about the female team member. b. Don’t say anything during the event, but later, in private, tell the male

team member how you really feel about his comments. c. Tell the male team member that his criticisms are inappropriate, and then

shift to another topic of conversation. d. Don’t say anything, but then later, feel bad about not intervening in the

conversation.

People should do: __________ I would do: __________

259

Scoring:

Scoring is based on demonstrating empathy and showing respect. The most emotionally intelligent responses are the following: 1 = b, 2 = c, 3 = b, 4 = c, 5 = b, 6 = b, 7 = c, 8 = c.

260

Discussion:

1. How well did you do on the survey? How does your score compare to others? 2. Is there a difference between your “should” and “would” answers? How do you

explain the difference? Is this a problem? 3. Focus on Question 8. Why is the best answer c instead of b? When and how should

you stand up for others?

Source: Adapted from Greenberg, J. (2011). Behavior in organizations (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Prentice Hall.

261

Activity: Observing Communication Patterns in a Team

Objective: Communication within a team often develops into patterns. Team members can either speak to the entire team or speak to individual team members. Some team members talk a lot, while others remain relatively silent. Observing communication patterns reveals whether the team is working collaboratively, developing subgroups, or being dominated by certain individuals.

Activity: During a team meeting or group discussion of the Team Leader’s Challenge, note when a team member speaks and to whom. The member can either speak to another individual or to the team as a whole. Using Activity Worksheet 6.1, record the team’s communication pattern by drawing arrows connecting the various communicators. Use slash marks on the arrows to note additional communications.

Analysis: Was most of the team’s communication to the team as a whole? Did you notice any patterns of communication? Were certain team members more likely to dominate the team’s discussion? Can you determine who the team leader is by observing this communication pattern? How equal were the team’s communications?

Discussion: What should the team leader do to facilitate more equal participation in team discussions?

262

Activity Worksheet 6.1: Competitive Versus Cooperative

Goals

263

Descriptions of Images and Figures Back to Figure

Details shown in the image are tabulated as follows:

Focus

Self Other

Awareness Self-awareness Empathy

Behavior Emotional regulation Relationship management

Back to Figure

Details of the flowchart, which flows from left to right, are listed as follows:

START-UP

Review agenda: purpose and desired outcomes

Warm-up activity

FACILITATE MEETING

Maintain open climate

Manage disruptive behaviors

Manage differences

Make decisions

WRAP-UP

Summarize important decisions

Check results against desired outcomes

Group process evaluation

264

265

PART III ISSUES TEAMS FACE

Shutterstock/Oshchepkov Dmitry

266

267

CHAPTER 7 MANAGING CONFLICT

Conflicts of various types are a natural part of the team process. Although we often view conflict as negative, there are benefits to conflict if it is managed appropriately. People handle conflict in their teams in a variety of ways, depending on the importance of their desire to maintain good social relations and to develop high-quality solutions. Teams can use a variety of approaches to manage conflicts. Developing a healthy solution to a conflict requires open communication, respect for the other side, and a creative search for mutually satisfying alternatives.

268

Learning Objectives

1. Understand that conflict is normal in teams and can be beneficial.

2. Distinguish between task, relational, and process conflict, and understand their different impacts on team functioning.

3. Understand the different approaches to managing conflict.

4. Determine the best approach for managing task, relational, and process conflict.

5. Explain how to foster an open-minded discussion that leads to an integrative solution.

6. Understand how teams can prevent and prepare for conflicts.

269

7.1 CONFLICT IS NORMAL

Conflict is the process by which people or teams perceive that others have taken some action that has a negative effect on their interest. This includes disagreements about ideas, team roles, or timelines. Unfortunately, people have misconceptions about conflict that interfere with how they deal with it. These misconceptions include the following:

Conflict is bad and should be avoided.

Misunderstandings by team members cause conflict.

All conflicts can be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.

In reality, conflict is a normal part of life. Moreover, it is inevitable—as people become closer and more interdependent, conflict becomes more frequent and more intense (Deutsch, 2006). You probably have more disagreements with your immediate family, friends, and roommates than you do with your distant relatives. Teams, which are defined by interdependence among members, are going to have conflict.

In many instances, it is healthy for teams to have moderate levels of disagreement about their tasks or objects. These differences create conflicts, but these conflicts have a positive effect on team problem solving and decision making because opposing views are heard; challenges and problems are identified; and new, more creative solutions are developed (Tjosvold et al., 2014). If a team has no conflict, it might be a sign of a problem. A team without conflict might be suffering from unhealthy agreement, have a domineering leader

270

who suppresses all conflict and debate, or routinely perform its task without trying to improve.

Teams, however, often do not handle their conflicts very well. Members may simply avoid dealing with conflict. Or they have a highly intense emotional response, which has a tremendous impact on whether conflict will be productive or not (Weingart, Behfar, Bendersky, Todorova, & Jehn, 2015). Conflicts that escalate to highly emotional interactions beget further strife, interfere with communication and coordination, and divert attention from tasks and goals. Such conflicts can destroy team cohesion and create winners and losers, becoming a source of further conflict in the future.

Learning how to manage conflict successfully is an important developmental process for a team. This depends on accurately analyzing the situation so that effective strategies can be adopted. To achieve this, this chapter begins with the sources and types of conflict experienced by teams. Then, strategies for responding to conflict are discussed, followed by guidance for managing and preventing team conflict.

271

7.2 SOURCES OF CONFLICT

Conflict arises from many sources, including confusion about people’s positions, personality differences, differences of opinion, hidden agendas, poor norms, competitive reward systems, and poorly managed meetings. The difficulty lies in determining whether the source of conflict is healthy or unhealthy for the team.

Healthy conflicts are caused by a variety of factors. Differences in values and objectives of team members, differing beliefs about the motives and actions of others, and different expectations about the results of decisions can all lead to conflicts about what the team should do. This can improve team performance.

Unhealthy conflicts may spring from organizational, social, and individual sources. Organizational causes of conflict include competition over scarce resources, ambiguity over responsibilities, status differences among team members, and competitive reward systems. For example, teams comprising high-power members (e.g., top management teams) are likely to disagree with procedures and distribution of work (Greer, Caruso, & Jehn, 2011).

Conflict may be due to social factors within the team. A team with a leader who has poor facilitation skills can have poorly run meetings with much conflict. Poor team norms often show up in poorly managed meetings. When meetings are unproductive, conflict may arise because team members are dissatisfied with the team process. Spending time evaluating and developing appropriate norms helps deal with this type of conflict.

Conflict arises out of individual differences. Of course, the integration of these differences is the foundation for the

272

potential of teams to outperform individuals. Conflict is more prevalent in diverse teams (Thatcher & Patel, 2011). Teams comprising members from different professional (e.g., job-based or educational background) and demographic (e.g., age, gender, or racial) backgrounds tend to experience more conflict (Ayub & Jehn, 2014; Jehn, Chadwick, & Thatcher, 1997; Jehn, Greer, Levine, & Szulanski, 2008; Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999; Mohammed & Angell, 2004; Mooney, Holahan, & Amason, 2007; Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999; Vodosek, 2007).

One reason that demographic diversity may be associated with conflict concerns intergroup dynamics. Intergroup dynamics (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) are grounded in theories of social identity (Tajfel, 1982) and self-categorization (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). People have a tendency to develop conceptions of “us” and “them” based on various social categories (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity, or college major), organizational departments (e.g., sales, administration, or accounting), and/or cross-functional team roles (e.g., researchers, designers, engineers, artists, or writers). We view members of our own category (us) as “in- group” members and those who are not in our category (them) as “out-group” members, which contributes to intergroup bias (Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002).

A consequence of intergroup bias is in-group favoritism, whereby people automatically and without awareness assign more trust, cooperation, resources, positive evaluations, and empathy to in-group members compared to out-group members. By contrast, out-group derogation can result in discrimination, poor evaluations, and negative attitudes toward out-group members. In teams, these tendencies can marginalize some members while privileging others, causing intergroup conflict over incompatible goals, competition for resources, cultural differences, and power discrepancies.

273

7.3 TYPES OF CONFLICT

The sources of conflict give rise to three distinct kinds of conflict: task conflict, process conflict, and relational conflict (Jehn, 1995, 1997). Each of these has different impacts on the team and the implications for their management. In general, task conflict is healthy when it occurs without process or relational conflict (O’Neill, McLarnon, Hoffart, Woodley, & Allen, 2018). By contrast, process and relational conflict is generally unhealthy and tends to decrease team performance.

274

Task Conflict

Task conflict arises from disagreements about ideas, opinions, and perspectives (i.e., what the team should do). This might include a new product development team disagreeing about what customer problem needs to be addressed, a health care team debating the correct diagnoses of a patient, or student teams arguing about what time works best for group meetings.

Whether task conflict is healthy or unhealthy depends on specific circumstances (Bradley, Anderson, Baur, & Klotz, 2015). A moderate amount of task conflict improves team performance and innovation, while too little or too much can undermine it (De Dreu, 2006). Well-managed task conflict aids teams that perform nonroutine tasks (O’Neill, Allen, & Hastings, 2013), which are characterized by uncertain, open- ended, and ill-structured problem solving. Task conflict triggers deliberation that leads to better and more creative decisions (Choi & Sy, 2010; Matsuo, 2006). By contrast, task conflict concerning routine tasks (e.g., filing an expense report) for which there are stable procedures is unproductive because there is little room for finding a resolution.

Finally, to be productive, task conflict must not co-occur with or evolve into relational conflict (de Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012). When team members have a high degree of trust in each other, task-related conflict is less likely to lead to relational conflict (Peterson & Behfar, 2003).

275

Process Conflict

While task conflict pertains to what a team should do, process conflicts concern how the team should do it. Specifically, process conflicts are disagreements about how duties and resources are assigned or how workload is executed (Behfar, Mannix, Peterson, & Trochim, 2011). This includes disagreements about time management, task quality, how decisions are made, and who has power in a team. For example, a team member may be insulted by being assigned an undesirable task that they feel is beneath them, or they might feel that the proposed timeline conflicts with their individual goals. Unresolved process conflicts occurring early in a team’s development predict higher levels of all three forms of conflict later in the team’s development (Greer, Jehn, & Mannix, 2008).

Process conflict is the most detrimental kind of conflict (de Wit et al., 2012; Greer & Dannals, 2017). This is because such disagreements are often based on underlying values regarding justice, personal worth, respect, and fairness and thus are highly personal and emotional (Greer & Jehn, 2007). Process conflicts can evoke long-lasting negative emotions, like anger, that promote irrational decisions and behaviors (Brief & Weiss, 2002). They are often expressed passive- aggressively through power struggles, withholding information, blaming, and tardiness (Wall & Callister, 1995). Managing process conflicts early is important for reducing the emergence of task and relational conflict later in the team’s development (van den Berg, Curseu, & Meeus, 2014). However, discussing process conflict can lead to relational conflict if team members do not regulate their emotions well.

276

Relational Conflict

Relational conflict arises from interpersonal incompatibilities, which can stem from things like perceived personality differences, political preferences, or inappropriate criticism. Receiving negative performance feedback early in the team’s development can also spur blaming that promotes relational conflicts (Peterson & Behfar, 2003). Poorly communicated task conflict can easily transition into relational conflict (Jehn, Rispens, Jonsen, & Greer, 2013). It is difficult to say, “I don’t like your

ideas,” and not have it heard as, “I think you are

stupid.” Relational conflicts produce animosity, annoyance, and tension that damages team cohesion, distracts members from progressing on the task, and impedes team performance (Chen & Ayoko, 2012; Greer, 2012).

Since people do not easily change their personality, behaviors, or values, there are few useful strategies for managing relational conflict in teams. Attempts to manage it can actually worsen team performance by refocusing attention away from taskwork (De Dreu & Van Vianen, 2001). Preventing relational conflict may be more effective than actively managing it. For example, teams may proactively discourage the emergence of relational conflict by intentionally developing trust, respect, and cohesion (Jehn & Mannix, 2001).

277

7.4 CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

The way a team manages the conflict process determines whether the conflict is constructive or destructive to the team (DeChurch, Mesmer-Magnus, & Doty, 2013). Productive conflicts are about issues, ideas, and tasks. The team typically tries to resolve productive conflicts cooperatively and takes a learning approach to the conflict. Unproductive conflicts are about emotions and personalities. The team typically tries to resolve these conflicts with one side trying to dominate the other.

The conflict management style a team uses can be either cooperative or competitive (Somech, Desivilya, & Lidogoster, 2009). The cooperative style focuses on developing collaborative solutions that are good for the individual and the team, while the competitive style focuses on what is good for the individual. The cooperative style encourages communication and the exploration of alternative approaches to solving problems, while a competitive style discourages communication.

278

Two Dimensions of Conflict

The approach that people take to manage conflict depends on their personalities, their social relations, and the particular situation. The types of conflict management approaches can be analyzed using the following two dimensions: assertiveness (concern about one’s own outcomes) and cooperativeness (concern about the outcomes of others) (Rahim, 1983; Thomas, 1992). In other words, people in a conflict can be assertive and try to get the most for themselves, or they can be cooperative and concerned with how everyone fares. These two dimensions create five approaches to conflict management:

1. Avoidance (low assertiveness and low cooperativeness). This approach tries to ignore the issues or denies that there is a problem. By not confronting the conflict, team members hope it will go away by itself.

2. Accommodation (low assertiveness and high cooperativeness). Some team members express initial disagreement but quickly suppress it in order to maintain social relationships. They are cooperative, but it costs the team the value of their opinions and ideas.

3. Competing (high assertiveness and low cooperativeness). Aggressively imposing one’s goal upon the group or individual is a way to deal with conflict. However, a focus on winning often prevents effectively managing the conflict.

4. Compromise (moderate assertiveness and moderate cooperativeness). One way to balance the goals of each participant and the relations among the teams is for everyone to “give in” a little. While this is a workable solution, it is not a mutually satisfying one.

5. Collaboration (high assertiveness and high cooperativeness). When both sides of a conflict have deep-rooted concerns, the team needs to search for

279

solutions that satisfy everyone. This requires both cooperativeness and respect for others’ positions.

280

Comparing Different Conflict Management

Styles

Although all these approaches can be used to manage conflict, each approach has its advantages, drawbacks, and consequences. Moreover, individuals and teams tend to develop a preferred conflict management style that they routinely enact—they might be more comfortable with one approach compared to another (Kuhn & Poole, 2000). Successfully managing conflict requires not simply adopting an approach out of familiarity or fear but because an analysis of the situation reveals it to be the appropriate response.

Team members commonly employ an avoidance/accommodation approach to conflict management, in which they suppress personal needs in favor of the needs of others. By not addressing concerns, negative feelings tend to build up. Eventually, these feelings can explode in an emotional and often ineffective confrontation. This negative experience reinforces the belief that conflict should be avoided. Since the underlying issues are never addressed, teams find themselves returning the same unresolved issues again later. Still, there are times when avoidance and accommodation are appropriate for teams. Since relational conflicts can seldom be resolved to both parties’ satisfaction, avoidance can be a useful strategy (De Dreu & Van Vianen, 2001). Alternatively, lower status members may strategically accommodate to a high-power member to avoid potential retaliation.

Competing is used to force one’s opinion, idea, or perspective on the team. This can include imposing rules on the team. It can also manifest by yelling, mocking, and threatening, particularly when the other responds in kind. Participants can get stuck in a cycle of escalation as they attempt to outdo each other. De-escalation is then

281

challenging because backing down is considered losing, as the desire to “win” or to “be right” overrides the desire to find a mutually acceptable resolution. Still, confrontation can be appropriate in some cases. During emergencies, people are more likely to accept a confrontational style because they value a quick resolution. Alternatively, a disruptive team member may need to be forcibly dismissed from the team after other interventions have failed.

Compromise works somewhat better because everyone wins a little and loses a little. A compromise promotes equity or fairness but usually does not result in optimal decisions because members are making concessions. The benefit of this approach is that it is usually quicker than collaboration. However, if used consistently to resolve conflict, it can breed discontentment; how rewarding can a team be if members never quite get what they want? Teams must avoid compromising too quickly.

When possible, teams should use a collaborative approach. In collaboration, team members search for an alternative solution that allows everyone to win. Conflict emerges from the perception that there are incompatible goals between parties. Yet this perception is often inaccurate. Thompson and Hrebec (1996) found that 50% of people in a conflict failed to realize when they had interests completely compatible with each other, and 20% failed to reach agreement even when their interests were compatible. One reason for this failure is that they did not exchange information about their interests and overlooked areas of common interest (Thompson & Hastie, 1990).

When engaged in a deliberate open-minded discussion that critically and respectfully considers all views, people can identify third, fourth, and fifth alternatives that satisfy all parties’ interests. For example, two members may have a need to be in control and fight over leadership of the team

282

(process conflict). Perhaps the project can be creatively divided into two subprojects, each led by one of them. Alternatively, if the team cannot agree on one of two ideas to move forward with (task conflict), conflict might be resolved by quickly testing each idea with a prototype and selecting the idea with the most promising feedback (prototyping is discussed in Chapter 12).

283

Aligning Conflict Type With Conflict

Management Styles

How can these conflict management styles be applied strategically? Behfar, Peterson, Mannix, and Trochim (2008) conducted a longitudinal, mixed-method study to investigate how the tactics used by teams to address relational, process, and task conflict impacted both team performance and team satisfaction. The results provide rich context into differences between high- and low-performing groups.

Teams with high performance and high satisfaction were unique in that they proactively managed process conflict (e.g., scheduling, time management, or work quality). They held discussions to forecast scheduling and commitment conflicts, then assigning unambiguous expectations, roles, and responsibilities to prevent potential problems from arising. Task conflict was resolved through nonemotional debate and open communication, which produced earnest consensus around integrative solutions. If consensus was not reached, a compromise was used only after a full discussion of the pros and cons. These teams reported little to no relational conflict and avoided it when it occurred.

Teams with high levels of performance but low satisfaction adopted tactics based on reactionary rules, voting, and compromise. While relational conflict was often avoided or ignored, teams would acknowledge this conflict when it negatively impacted the team. In response, they created rules or procedures to mitigate their impact (e.g., take a 30- minute break to cool down when emotions run too high). Similarly, process conflict was managed through creating rules aimed at curbing individual behavior (e.g., monetary penalty for poor performance) or addressing the problem (e.g., allowing a third-party team member to arbitrate a conflict). Task conflicts were managed primarily through

284

compromise and dissatisfying majority voting. While these rule-based teams performed well, it came at the cost of member satisfaction with the team.

Teams having low performance but high satisfaction primarily adopted avoiding and accommodating tactics. As this passive strategy might suggest, these teams reported little to no relational and process conflict. Task conflict was managed through superficial debates and premature consensus—these teams attempted to integrate all the members’ ideas, rather than critically selecting the best ones. These teams avoided difficult conversations to maintain harmony at the cost of task performance.

Finally, teams with low levels of both performance and satisfaction had unclear roles and responsibilities. They experienced extreme relational conflict. While open communication was used to discuss relational conflict, it was not useful for managing it. Process conflict was largely ignored, and teams reported little understanding of the root causes of process issues. As a result, they would haphazardly “try different things” to resolve it with no success. Task conflict was addressed through apathetically accepting a compromise or giving in to a domineering team member.

The results of this study provide guidance for managing conflict in teams. Teams should invest early in preventing process conflict by creating team charters, disambiguating roles and responsibilities, and agreeing on scheduling. Rules-based management of conflict may improve performance but at the cost of satisfaction with the team. Meanwhile, directly addressing relational conflict, ignoring process conflict, and prematurely compromising on tasks appears to be the recipe for a disastrous team experience.

These findings also reaffirm that collaborative solutions to task conflict are ideal. They are, however, time-consuming and potentially uncomfortable at times. If the team has the

285

necessary resources and time, the benefits of collaboration generally outweigh the costs, encouraging creativity, leading to greater commitment to decisions, and improving relationships among team members (Tjosvold et al., 2014). To engage in collaboration most successfully, team members need to engage in open-minded discussions to find an integrative agreement.

286

Fostering Collaboration Through Open-Minded

Discussions

There are many approaches to engaging in open-minded discussions, including integrative negotiation (Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993) and constructive controversy (Johnson, Johnson, & Tjosvold, 2014). Regardless of the specific approach, constructively managing conflicts requires team members to openly express their views, listen and understand the positions of other team members, and then try to integrate the opposing opinions into an agreement. It is crucial to develop cooperative work relationships so that disagreements are not misinterpreted as personal attacks. When teams maintain trust and psychological safety, they can resolve differences without creating relational conflict (Tekleab et al., 2009).

In part, this requires a shift away from a dysfunctional mindset about conflict. Many people associate conflict with negativity—that it is painful, threatening, and best avoided. We can instead adopt a more positive mindset about conflict—that conflict is an opportunity to improve relationships and resolve problems. Indeed, conflict can be a precursor to positive change in teams, organizations, and society.

Open-minded discussions necessitate that team members believe that they are in a cooperative relationship where team members are committed to helping each other satisfy their goals. This occurs when team members view issues as problems to be solved (rather than a challenge to be won), can freely express their interests, avoid win–lose strategies, and are able to argue their positions until they are convinced otherwise (Walton & McKersie, 1965). By contrast, operating under high time pressure tends to produce a suboptimal quick compromise (Harinck & De Dreu, 2004).

287

Developing integrative agreements requires initially focusing discussion away from positions (i.e., what you want) and toward interests (i.e., why you want it). Imagine being on a committee whose goal is to reduce violence in local high schools. As the committee begins to search for solutions, a conflict arises over whether the schools should use electronic surveillance technology (a position on the issue). Committee members divide over this position, and all future ideas are evaluated on the basis of support for or opposition to this position. Over time, the debate becomes increasingly hostile, and new ideas are rejected according to whoever expressed them rather than being evaluated for their quality.

The solution to this conflict is to find an integrative agreement that addresses the committee’s goal to improve safety in the school but does not depend on either position. The participants need to step back from their emotional involvement and understand their interest: reducing violence without decreasing privacy in the schools. Alternative positions that may address this interest include training students in conflict management, using students to monitor compliance with safety rules, and providing teachers with training to help them deal with aggressive incidents.

The search for an integrative solution can be difficult. It is often useful for a team to use an outside mediator when issues have become too emotional or team members refuse to interact. Mediators operate by gaining trust among participants, managing hostilities, developing solutions to conflicts, and gaining commitment to the solutions from participants (Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992). They also help control the communications between people on both sides of the conflict to ensure courtesy and respectful communication. They create controlled opportunities for each side to express their views and listen to and acknowledge the other side’s perspective. This helps reduce the impact of miscommunication and confusion about the other side’s position. Mediators

288

search for small areas of agreement in order to build trust and demonstrate that there is common ground.

289

Negotiated Agreements

What does open-minded discussion look like? Negotiation or bargaining is a process where the two conflicting sides engage in an exchange of offers and counteroffers in an effort to find a mutually acceptable agreement (Brett & Thompson, 2016). Adapted from Fisher, Ury, and Patton (1991), the following is the structure for negotiation of a conflict:

1. Separate the people from the problem.

Negotiations must deal with both the issues and the relationship, but these two factors should be separated.

Diagnose the cause of the conflict. What goals are in conflict? Identify what each side in a conflict wants; make sure each side clearly understands the issues.

Encourage both sides to recognize and understand their emotions. Ask them to view the conflict from the perspective of the other side and practice active listening.

2. Focus on the shared interests of all parties.

Focus on the issues, not on positions.

Identify how each side can get what it wants. Determine the issues that are incompatible between the two sides. Recognize that both sides have legitimate multiple interests.

290

Have each side identify and rank its goals in the conflict. This often shows that the important goals of each side are different, thereby helping each side see how to trade off unimportant goals to get what it really wants.

3. Develop many options that can be used to solve the problem.

Creatively try to generate alternatives that provide mutual gains for both sides. Separate the generation of ideas from the selection of alternatives.

Look for areas of shared interest. Invent multiple solutions as well as solutions to parts of the problem.

Practice viewing the problem from alternative perspectives.

4. Evaluate the options using objective criteria.

Develop objective criteria to use as a basis for decisions. Define what fair standards and fair procedures to use to resolve the conflict. Agree on these principles before agreeing on a solution.

Talk through the issues in order to eliminate unimportant issues. Discuss important differences, searching for the common points on each side.

Focus on solutions to which both sides can agree. Do not give in to pressure.

291

5. Try again.

Creative solutions are difficult to develop. Practice brings about success.

Teams do not always resolve their conflicts, but they do try to manage conflicts while working through their various tasks.

Establish monitoring criteria to ensure that agreements are kept.

Discuss the ways in which the team can deal with similar issues in the future. How can the team improve its ability to manage conflicts?

Source: Adapted from Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

292

Conflict in Virtual Teams

Virtual teams, or teams that interact primarily through communications technology, may have more conflicts (Wakefield, Leidner, & Garrison, 2008) and more problems resolving conflicts (Zornoza, Ripoll, & Peiro, 2002). Conflicts are more likely to occur in virtual teams because of the limitations of verbal and nonverbal communication that produce misunderstandings, time lags, and reduced social presence (Hinds & Bailey, 2003). This is especially true for emotional issues because people are not very good at communicating emotions in writing, and the increased anonymity of communication technology may encourage more uninhibited emotional communication. Once conflicts start in virtual teams, they tend to escalate (sometimes called “e- mail wars”) because the miscommunication builds with each message.

Conflicts in virtual teams can be harder to resolve. Virtual teams often have less developed social relations and group cohesion, which makes resolving social issues more difficult. For example, when bargaining through e-mail, allowing participants to engage in a “get acquainted” telephone call before the bargaining session increases the chances of reaching an agreement (Thompson & Nadler, 2002). Also, there is less pressure toward agreement in virtual teams, so team members are less willing to accommodate the views of other team members. The ability to send messages to all team members and others increases the number of participants in the conflict.

When conflicts escalate in virtual teams, the first step in managing the conflict is to stop sending electronic messages advocating your position or expressing your emotions. These messages are often misinterpreted, so they do not help to resolve the conflict. In many cases, the team leader needs to

293

intervene and facilitate the resolution of virtual conflicts to prevent them from continuing. Since the core of the problem is often miscommunication, a face-to-face meeting is often necessary to resolve the misunderstandings.

294

7.5 PREVENTING AND PREPARING FOR TEAM

CONFLICT

While conflict management styles offer a response to conflict, teams can also be proactive in managing conflict. Conflict can be prevented by selecting team members based on personality and dispositions. They can also be preempted by creating an environment that allows for dealing with conflicts without creating emotional and relationship problems. Training and knowledge in conflict management strategies can also promote healthy task conflict.

295

Preventing Conflict

Team members can be selected based on their predisposition for constructively managing conflict. For example, teams with members who are high in openness to experience and have stable emotional dispositions are more likely to engage in productive task conflict (Bradley et al., 2013). Recognizing that conflict is often highly emotional (Chen & Ayoko, 2012), recent conflict management research is informed by emotional regulation theory (Griffith, Connelly, & Thiel, 2014). Rather than being destined to undermine team processes and performance, these scholars assert that relational conflict can be harnessed as a growth point for a team. This depends on how team members respond to relational conflict.

People often respond to negative emotional events with expressive suppression—masking emotional responses through controlling facial expressions or outwardly displaying an incongruent emotion to others (Gross & John, 2003). In other words, we avoid expressing conflict and fear that efforts to talk it out may backfire. A more effective strategy for managing relational conflict is cognitive reappraisal. This perspective-taking strategy focuses on reinterpreting an emotional event, considering its greater context, and identifying its underlying causes (Gross, 1998). For example, a reappraiser might respond to a teammate’s harsh critique by contemplating how an impending deadline may have influenced their response. Reappraisers tend to more openly talk about emotions and demonstrate greater objectivity when faced with a negative experience or interpersonal interaction (Gross & John, 2003). Groups also benefit from reappraisers, reporting closer relationships with each other.

When experiencing relational conflict, teams with higher levels of cognitive reappraisal can recover over time to be as—or more—effective than teams that did not experience any

296

relational conflict (Thiel, Harvey, Courtright, & Bradley, 2019). The results of this longitudinal study depart significantly from studies suggesting that relational conflict is a one-way street to poor team performance. However, the drawback to cognitive reappraisal is that it is an individual response and not a process. While training in cognitive reappraisals is possible, it can be lengthy (Denny & Ochsner, 2014). It may be more advantageous for teams to select members based on a predisposition for cognitive reappraisal than to train members.

297

Preparing for Conflicts

Teams often try to ignore or avoid conflicts rather than addressing them. This strategy can establish and reinforce avoidance as the dominant way that the team manages conflict. It also allows the conflict to grow, and sometimes task conflicts become relational conflicts because they have not been resolved. The negative emotions from these unresolved conflicts disrupt trust, hurt communications, and make the conflicts harder to resolve.

Teams should take a more proactive approach to conflict management by preparing for conflicts. Preparing for conflicts means developing approaches to identify conflicts early and creating an environment that supports constructive controversy so that disagreements can be expressed.

Because people try to avoid conflict, problems within a team often go unspoken and unaddressed. Teams need to create a communication climate where members feel safe to raise issues and voice disagreement (see supportive communication climate in Chapter 6). Leaders need to facilitate team meetings in a manner that encourages participation from all members. In addition, teams should regularly conduct group process evaluations to help identify problems and periodically set aside time for task and social reflexivity sessions to identify unresolved issues and team process problems (West, 2012).

Constructive controversy involves progressing through four stages of discussion (Tjosvold, 2008):

1. Develop and express. Despite usually having incomplete and inadequate information about a problem, we tend to be rather confident in our conclusions. By organizing and communicating your perspective, ideas, and information,

298

both you and your team can gain a deeper understanding of your interests.

2. Question and understand. As we learn more about others’ perspectives, we tend to question the correctness of our own. Engage others with curiosity to learn more about their perspectives. Thoroughly consider the perspectives of others. Listen critically, ask probing questions, and check that your understanding is correct.

3. Integrate and create. As we hear, articulate, and defend various rationales, we are exposed to new information. Learning about others’ interests (why they want what they want) opens space to integrate perspectives and improve upon or generate new solutions—propose many solutions that combine all the interests held by team members. Follow good ideas, regardless of who presented them.

4. Agree and implement. Reach an integrative solution that is mutually acceptable for everyone. Clarify ambiguity about the solution and have a clear understanding of how to implement it. If mutual acceptance is not reached, then repeat the entire process.

Team members can help prevent unhealthy conflict by practicing communication skills. Both negotiation and constructive controversy rely on skills, like argumentation, listening, and reasoning. Argumentation consists of convincingly gathering, organizing, and presenting information and using inductive and deductive reasoning to draw tentative conclusions. It also includes appropriately challenging the rationale of opposing positions. Careful listening can prompt probing questions that enhance understanding of opposing perspectives. Avoiding common fallacies of reasoning (e.g., false dichotomies) helps to generate new ideas that address underlying issues.

These conflict management skills can be practiced and developed. Indeed, training programs are useful for

299

preventing destructive conflict in teams. For example, O’Neill and colleagues (2017) devised a training program focused on building knowledge of constructive controversy and types of team conflicts using structured role-plays, simulated conflict, and reflection. Teams particularly benefited from reflecting upon experiences involving task, process, and relational conflict, noting how they were handled and how well constructive controversy was used. This training improved team performance by fostering productive task conflict and minimizing relational and process conflict.

Teams benefit more from conflict when members have a high degree of trust and psychological safety (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003) and when it occurs during the beginning (Farh, Lee, & Farh, 2010) or middle (Schulz-Hardt, Jochims, & Frey, 2002) of its development. The goal is to make it safe early for team members to address conflicts without creating unwanted emotional problems within the team. This requires that team members trust each other to constructively deal with conflict without damaging their relationships within the team. Psychological safety encourages teams to address conflicts collaboratively rather than to avoid them (Bradley, Postlethwaite, Klotz, Hamdani, & Brown, 2012). It allows dealing with task conflicts to have a positive impact on team performance without creating relational conflicts that hurt performance.

Teams can engage in other preemptive conflict management strategies to help avoid conflicts (Marks et al., 2001). Preemptive conflict management strategies include the development of cooperation and trust-building among members, team charters that identify how to handle difficult situations, and the development of norms for managing communications within a team. These actions help the team effectively address conflicts and reduce the destructive impact of conflicts when they occur.

300

SUMMARY

Conflict is a normal part of a team’s existence. It is a sign of healthy team interactions. However, teams often do not handle conflict well. Sometimes, they make bad decisions in order to avoid conflict rather than learning how to manage it effectively.

Conflict may be analyzed in terms of its sources and types. Conflicts that are healthy for a team come from disagreements on how to address task issues; conflicts that are unhealthy originate from organizational, social, or personal sources. These produce task, process, and relational conflict. The type of conflict informs the way it should be managed. When conflicts are about misunderstandings and task issues, they can be managed using negotiation to develop acceptable agreements. When conflicts arise from social or personal sources, they often require team building to develop social skills and improve social relations.

Conflict brings both benefits and problems to a team. Conflict helps the team perform its task by fostering debate over issues and stimulating creativity. Conflict hurts the team when it creates strong negative emotions, damages group cohesion, and disrupts the team’s ability to operate.

Approaches to resolving conflicts vary, depending on how assertive participants are about getting their way and how cooperative they want to be. Although team members use different conflict management approaches depending on the situation, collaboration typically is the most effective approach. Collaboration attempts to identify an alternative solution that satisfies both parties. Although they may be more difficult and time-consuming to achieve, collaborative solutions encourage acceptance and support for the results.

301

Improvement of a team’s ability to manage conflict can be achieved in several ways. Creating a psychologically safe environment helps teams collaboratively deal with conflicts rather than trying to avoid them. Mediators can be used to help manage communications during a conflict and develop trust among the participants. Integrative solutions to conflicts can be developed through the use of structured negotiation practices that focus on the interests of all parties involved.

302

Team Leadership Challenge 7

The high school in your town has been having problems. Recently, the number of gangs at school has increased. Acts of vandalism and juvenile delinquency are also increasing. Although there have not been any major outbreaks of violence, stories in the media of violence in other communities have raised concerns among parents. The school board created a committee of teachers, administrators, students, and concerned parents to develop proposals for dealing with problems at the local high school. You are the leader of this committee.

The meetings started with polite sharing of ideas, but tensions soon became apparent. The four groups had very different ideas about the degree of seriousness of the problem and appropriate solutions. Polite criticism of ideas shifted into cynical asides and finally into heated attacks. As people became more emotional, negative comments became more personal. You are aware that some of the participants have fought over other school issues in the past.

How can you (the leader of the committee) reduce the negative emotions in this situation?

How do you build trust among the groups?

What can be done to negotiate agreement among the four groups?

303

Survey: Conflict Management Styles

Purpose: Understand your preferred style for dealing with conflicts. There are five basic approaches for dealing with conflicts: avoidance, accommodation, confrontation, compromise, and collaboration. The style that you prefer depends on how assertive you are about getting what you want and how much you value your relationship with the other participants.

Directions: Use the following scale to indicate the amount of your agreement with each of the following statements about how you deal with conflict.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

_____ 1. I try to avoid stating my opinion in order not to create disagreements.

_____ 2. When there is a disagreement, I try to satisfy the needs of the other people involved.

_____ 3. I use my influence to get my position accepted by others.

_____ 4. I try to find the middle course to resolve differences.

_____ 5. I try to discuss an issue with others to find a solution acceptable to all of us.

_____ 6. I keep my opinions to myself if they disagree with others’ opinions.

304

_____ 7. I usually go along with the desires of others in a conflict situation.

_____ 8. I am usually firm about advocating my side of an issue.

_____ 9. When I negotiate, I usually win some and lose some.

_____ 10. I like to work with others to find solutions to a problem that satisfy everyone.

_____ 11. I try to avoid disagreements with others.

_____ 12. I often go along with the recommendations of others in a conflict.

_____ 13. I stick to my position during a conflict.

_____ 14. I negotiate openly with others so that a compromise can be reached.

_____ 15. To resolve a conflict, I try to blend the ideas of all of the people involved.

305

Scoring:

Add questions 1, 6, and 11 to obtain your avoidance score.

Add questions 2, 7, and 12 to obtain your accommodation score.

Add questions 3, 8, and 13 to obtain your confrontation score.

Add questions 4, 9, and 14 to obtain your compromise score.

Add questions 5, 10, and 15 to obtain your collaboration score.

Discussion: Did you have a preferred conflict management style? What would encourage you to be more collaborative? How do you deal with people who use a different style of conflict management?

Source: Adapted from Rahim, M. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 368–376.

306

Activity: Observing Conflict

Management Styles

Objective: Team members use one of the following five styles to handle conflicts and disagreements:

Avoidance: trying to ignore the issue or deny that there is a problem

Accommodation: giving up one’s position in order to be agreeable

Confrontation: acting aggressively and trying to get one’s way

Compromise: seeking a balance so that everyone gets at least a part of what they want

Collaboration: searching for a solution that satisfies everyone

Activity: Observe a team or group discussion, and note what happens when there is conflict or disagreement. As an alternative, divide a group and assign them positions on a debate topic. As another alternative, see the Team Leader’s Challenge, which presents a conflict with multiple roles (teachers, administrators, students, and parents) that could be assigned and used to create a conflict. Using Activity Worksheet 7.1, note the types of communications that occur during the conflict.

307

Analysis: How well did the group members handle the conflict? Which conflict management styles did the team members use? How effective were the conflict styles in persuading others? Did the team handle its conflicts in a constructive manner?

Discussion: How can the team better handle conflicts? What can be done to encourage more use of collaboration as a conflict resolution style? Would an outside facilitator be helpful? What would the facilitator do?

308

Activity Worksheet 7.1: Observing

Conflict Management Styles

Group

Members

1 2 3 4 5 6

Gives ideas and suggestions

Clarifies or organizes the discussion

Criticizes or attacks others’ ideas

Agrees with or supports others’ ideas

309

310

CHAPTER 8 SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND

POWER

Teams use their power to influence behaviors by providing information on how to behave and by exerting pressure to encourage conformity. Individual team members secure compliance through drawing upon power resources and using a variety of power tactics to influence other members and secure compliance. The dynamics of power in teams is a major influence on the leader’s behavior, how team members interact, the impact of those in the minority, and the amount of influence members have on one another. Empowerment is at the core of teamwork where members have been given power and authority over a team’s operations. Within the team, members need to learn how to use their own power to work together effectively. Learning how to act assertively, rather than passively or aggressively, encourages open communication and effective problem solving.

311

Learning Objectives

1. Understand how social influence operates and how people respond to social influence.

2. Distinguish between conformity, obedience, and minority conversion.

3. Understand how to employ different bases of power. 4. Determine which influence tactics to use in face-

to-face and virtual contexts. 5. Explain how power changes the person holding power. 6. Describe how unequal power affects team

interactions. 7. Understand what empowerment is and how to empower

teams. 8. Explain how passive, aggressive, and assertive

power styles affect a team and its members.

312

8.1 UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND

POWER

We often find ourselves doing things in groups that we would otherwise not. We might go along with a decision that we disagree with. Or we might work much harder on a task than we would alone. This occurs because of influence originating from both individuals and the group itself. Social influence is the interpersonal process of changing the behaviors, thoughts, or attitudes of others. Attempts at social influence can spur defiance, resistance, acceptance, or compliance (Rothwell, 2015).

It is no surprise to hear that we often do not like being told what to do. We can respond to social influence with defiance or resistance. Defiance is openly disagreeing with and rejecting the request, which generally sparks confrontation and conflict. This can be positive, as constructively working through conflict can resolve issues and produce better results. However, many people, particularly those with less power or status, are uncomfortable with confrontation. Resistance is more subtle and manifests covertly, even creatively, to reject social influence. For example, a barista may “accidentally” provide caffeinated coffee to a customer who harshly demands decaffeinated. Or a flight attendant required to smile for passengers may display an obviously fake smile (Hochschild, 1983). They are not openly defying the request, but they are knowingly not doing precisely what was asked. This passive- aggressive response is generally unproductive as it involves mixed messages and deceit (Bach & Goldberg, 1974).

When social influence is successful, it can produce two outcomes. Acceptance is a change in both public behaviors and private attitudes due to social pressure—a person

313

legitimately changes their perspective. Compliance, however, is a change in public behaviors due to social pressure, but it is not a change in internal beliefs or attitudes. If we are repeatedly influenced to change our behaviors over time, we may internally accept the new way of behaving. Therefore, changes in behavior can lead to changes in attitudes.

Why do we change our behavior in groups? There are three sources of influence. The majority of members can influence us through a process of conformity. A single deviate or minority of members can also spur change through a process called conversion. Finally, obedience results from social influence originating from an individual.

We each have a different capacity to exert social influence on others. This is called power. By drawing upon bases of power (e.g., expertise, authority, coercion), we can control another’s valued physical (e.g., safety, harm, food, etc.), economic (e.g., money, position, evaluation, etc.), and social (e.g., belonging, respect, meaning, etc.) outcomes (Fiske & Berdahl, 2007). For example, professors exert influence on students by rewarding or punishing them with grades. Critically, power can be harnessed productively to create a high-functioning and satisfying team. Or power can be poorly wielded to become a source of stress and conflict.

Social psychologists conducted several classic studies on power to demonstrate the basic characteristics of social influence. These studies show how a team influences the behaviors of its members and the power that team leaders have over the members.

314

Conformity

Conformity results from a person receiving information about appropriate behavior or through implied or actual group pressure. When a majority of team members present a unified front on an issue, it can be hard to resist. Social psychologists provide two main reasons for conforming to group pressure: normative influence and informational influence (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). Normative influence refers to change based on the desire to meet the expectations of others and to be accepted by others. For example, new employees at Google may feel pressure to act Googley, a term that encompasses values such as going the extra mile, striving for excellence, and being humble (Meiert, 2013). When team members act and talk about being Googley, it creates peer pressure for new members to conform to these values. Informational influence is change based on accepting information from others about a situation. For example, online reviews can have a powerful influence on our purchase decisions because we compare our judgments with those around us.

Asch’s (1955) conformity studies show that even when group pressure is merely implied, people are willing to make wrong judgments. The participants in these experiments were asked to select which line was the same length as a target line. Participants who worked alone rarely made mistakes. However, when participants were in a room with people secretly instructed to state the wrong answers, the participants gave the wrong answers 37% of the time. Only 20% of participants remained independent and did not give in to group pressure at least once. The others conformed to group pressure even though there was no evident pressure to conform (i.e., no rewards or punishments).

315

Follow-up studies using this approach to study conformity explain why people gave in to the group even when there was no direct pressure. For many of the participants, the influence was informational. They reasoned that if the majority was giving answers that were obviously wrong, then the participants must have misunderstood the instructions. Other participants went along with the majority for normative reasons. They feared that group members would disapprove of them if their answers were different. Later studies showed that nonconformists were rated as undesirable group members.

The level of conformity is affected by several factors (Bond, 2005). Conformity plateaus at around 32% beginning with a group of four people (i.e., three against one)—there is not much difference in conformity when increasing group size beyond this number. It is most potent when publicly expressing opinions, rather than recording them privately. Finally, conformity is highest when an individual believes that members of the majority reached their decision independently from each other, as opposed to collectively forming the opinion (Wilder, 1977).

These studies show the normative and information influence that a team has over its members. In these experiments, temporary groups set up in psychology laboratories were able to change what people believed and how they behaved. The impact on a team where members have ongoing relationships with one another is much stronger. This is especially true when the team has a high degree of group cohesion: Cohesive teams have more power to influence members (Rovio et al., 2009; Sakurai, 1975).

316

Conversion

Conversion is the process by which the minority influences the majority (Moscovici, 1980, 1985). The term minority here has a statistical meaning; a minority is a person or subgroup within a larger group that has fewer members than the majority. A small coalition—or even a single individual—can deviate from the majority attitude, opinion, or behavior. Minority members who are consistent in their opposition can slowly motivate the majority to rethink their positions and seek out new information. This depends on their consistency, self-confidence, belief in their autonomy, and positive relationship with the group overall (Nemeth, 2011).

Minorities become influential by sticking to their positions. When minorities are consistent, their determination encourages the majority to rethink their position, use more information, and consider more options (Nemeth & Wachtler, 1983). If minorities are going to be influential, they must appear to be autonomous and able to make their own choices. If the minorities are viewed as supported or influenced by an outside group, their impact is reduced. Finally, minorities must appear to be part of the team. They are less effective if they reject the team or are always seen as dissenters (Levine, 1989).

The value of a minority opinion is its ability to stimulate team members to view an issue from more than one perspective: Majorities foster convergent thinking, while minorities foster divergent thinking. That is to say, majorities tend to search for information that supports majority views, while minorities stimulate a search for information on multiple sides of an issue (Nemeth & Rogers, 1996; Park & DeShon, 2010; Peterson & Nemeth, 1996). The overall effect on the team is to encourage more flexible thinking, which increases creativity and innovation. The minority may not get its way,

317

but over time, it can have a substantial impact on how the team thinks and acts.

It can be challenging to be a minority team member who disagrees with the majority. Because of the desire to be accepted by the team, individuals are often unwilling to disagree or even present an alternative view. It takes self- confidence to resist this pressure. Indeed, minority dissenters are often less liked than those who conform (Levine & Kerr, 2007). Consistent dissent may also impede progress on team goals; however, when minority opinions have some support within the team, they are more likely to be expressed and accepted (Ilgen et al., 2005). Teams that create a climate of trust and psychological safety encourage members to express their unique opinions.

318

Obedience

The Milgram (1974) obedience studies show that people are obedient to authority figures even when the requested behaviors are inappropriate. Participants believed they were part of a learning experiment at Yale University. They assumed the role of a teacher and were asked to give an electric shock (between 15 and 450 volts) to a learner whenever the learner made a mistake, and they increased the voltage of the shock with each mistake.

The participant and learner were in separate rooms and communicated to each other through speakers. However, the participant was unaware that the learner was working with the researcher and that the shocks were not real. The learner would, by design, protest the shocks (e.g., complaining of a heart problem, screaming in pain, demanding to leave, pounding on the walls). Eventually, they stopped responding altogether. When participants hesitated to administer the shocks, an authority figure in the room (i.e., a researcher in a white lab coat) would encourage them with phrases like, “Please continue” and “It is absolutely essential that you continue.” Under these conditions, nearly all participants were willing to administer mild shocks. Most (65%) obeyed the authority figure and reached the highest level of shock, even after the learner protested and stopped responding.

Variations of this study design demonstrated that several factors influenced the level of obedience. First, the more legitimate the authority figure, the more likely people were to be obedient. Obedience dropped to 48% when conducted in a strip mall and claiming to be a private industry research firm. When the researcher had to unexpectedly leave and was replaced by an unknown person (who was secretly working for the researcher), obedience dropped to 20%. Second, proximity to the authority figure and learner was important.

319

Participants were most likely to obey when the authority figure was in the room monitoring their performance. When absent, many participants would not administer a shock and lie to the authority figure about their actions. Obedience also dropped when the participant and learner were in the same room (40%) and when the participant needed to physically press the learner’s hand onto a shock plate (30%). Finally, when there was a group of people running the shock device, obedience dropped to 10% if one other person refused to obey.

The critical finding in the Milgram studies is that obedience occurs even when the authority figure does not actually have the power to reward or punish participants. Rather, it was the researcher’s perceived authority that enabled them to influence the participants. In most teams, the leaders are given limited power by their organizations. For example, team leaders usually do not conduct performance evaluations of members. Instead, evaluations usually are done by outside managers. Even without this source of power, the tendency of team members to obey authority figures gives leaders considerable power over team operations. Even in the absence of any formal positions, teams form their own power hierarchy within minutes of interacting (Gould, 2003; Tiedens, Unzueta, & Young, 2007).

320

8.2 TYPES OF POWER

Team members use various types of power to influence one another and the team. The types of power that members possess can be examined in several ways. The study of bases of power is concerned with the sources of power, whereas the study of influence tactics examines how various power tactics are used.

321

Bases of Power

There are two types of power that an individual can exert in a team or organization: soft power and harsh power (French & Raven, 1959; Raven, Schwarzwald, & Koslowsky, 1998). Soft power derives from an individual’s characteristics or personality and includes expert, referent, and information power. Harsh power is based on an individual’s formal position in an organization. It includes legitimate, reward, and coercive power. Definitions for these bases of power are provided in Table 8.1.

The types of power are related to each other and are often used together (Podsakoff & Schriescheim, 1985). For example, the more one uses coercive power, the less one is liked, so the less one can exert soft power. The more legitimate power one has, the more reward and coercive power one typically can exert. Because team leaders have less legitimate power than traditional managers, they often rely on expert and referent power to influence the team (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003).

Soft power is often more effective than harsh power (Kipnis, Schmidt, Swaffin-Smith, & Wilkinson, 1984). People prefer soft power because it permits greater freedom in the choice to comply with the request (Pierro, Kruglanski, & Raven, 2012). When supervisors use hard power, it shapes perceptions of organizational fairness and contributes to decreased performance and satisfaction with the manager (Zigarmi, Roberts, & Randolph, 2015). Alternatively, employing soft tactics can increase creativity, feelings of meaningful work, and pride.

Reward and coercive power can be used to influence people to do what is desired. In that case, though, people do what is desired only because they desire the reward or fear the punishment. The result is compliance but not acceptance.

322

These two strategies are useful for changing overt behaviors but not for changing attitudes and beliefs. Consequently, the influencer must monitor the behaviors to ensure results are forthcoming (Zander, 1994).

Table 8.1 Types of Power

Soft Power

Expert Power based on one’s credibility or perceived expertise in an area

Referent Power based on another’s liking, respect, and admiration

Information Power based on the providing, withholding, organizing, or manipulating information one has about a topic

Harsh Power

Legitimate Power based on the recognition and acceptance of a person’s authority

Reward Power based on the ability to distribute impersonal (e.g., money, promotion, etc.) or personal (e.g., praise, belonging, etc.) rewards

323

Soft Power

Coercive Power based on the ability to threaten or punish (e.g., ostracism, demotion, humiliation, etc.) undesirable behavior

Source: Adapted from French, J., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Teamwork should rely on the personal power of team members. Team decision making is better when people who have the most expertise and relevant information add to the discussion, rather than those who have more authority. Cooperation is more likely to be encouraged when team leaders use personal power sources than when they use threats of punishment. When team leaders rely on positional power to get their teams to comply with their requests, members are likely to feel manipulated and may resist.

Interdependence may help a team perform better by changing the amount of power team members have over one another (Franz, 1998). Dependence in a relationship is a basis for power, as heightened levels of overall task interdependence are associated with increased personal power. The more team members need one another to complete a task, the more power each team member has over the team.

324

Influence Tactics

Power bases enable team members to use a variety of social- influence tactics. Descriptions of these tactics are presented in Table 8.2. Their use depends on the target for influence (e.g., subordinate, peer, superior) and the objective of the influence (e.g., assign task, get support, gain personal benefit) (Yukl, Guinan, & Soitolano, 1995).

These social-influence tactics vary by directness, cooperativeness, and rationality. Direct tactics are explicit, overt methods of influence (e.g., personal appeals and pressure), whereas indirect tactics are covert attempts at manipulation (e.g., ingratiation and coalition tactics). Cooperative tactics encourage support through rational argument or consultation; competitive tactics attempt to deal with resistance through pressure or ingratiation (Kipnis & Schmidt, 1982). Finally, some tactics are based on rational argument or the exchange of support, whereas inspirational and personal appeals rely on emotion.

Table 8.2 Social-Influence Tactics

Rational argument

Use logical arguments and factual information to persuade

Consultation Seek a person’s participation in the decision

Inspirational appeals

Attempt to arouse enthusiasm by appealing to a person’s ideals

Personal Appeal to a person’s sense of loyalty or

325

appeals friendship

Ingratiation Use flattery or friendly behavior to get a person to think favorably of you

Exchange Offer to exchange favors later for compliance now

Pressure Use demands, threats, or persistent reminders

Legitimizing tactics

Make claims that one has the authority to make the request

Coalition building

Seek aid and support from others to increase the power of the request

Source: Adapted from Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15, 251–289.

People prefer the use of direct and cooperative strategies. Indeed, those who employ ingratiation or rational arguments experience greater career success (Higgins, Judge, & Ferris, 2003). Additionally, a study comparing the outcomes of using soft and hard tactics found that soft tactics were more successful than using a hard tactic. The most effective tactics are rational argument, consultation, and inspirational appeals (Falbe & Yukl, 1992). These are more socially acceptable tactics and are useful in most situations. However, status differences in a team determine which tactics are used. Traditional managers often use pressure and legitimizing tactics to influence subordinates, while subordinates often use rational argument, personal

326

appeals, and ingratiation to influence managers. Team leaders have less positional power than managers, so they are more likely to use cooperative influence strategies (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003).

327

Influence Tactics in Virtual Teams

Virtual teams use influence tactics differently. Online environments limit possible influence tactics because the online context decreases one’s social presence (i.e., how much one feels that others are involved in a communication exchange) and because many nonverbal cues present in face-to- face interactions are not typically transmitted through text- and audio-based interactions (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976; Walther, 1995). As a result, virtual team interactions are more prone to ambiguity and targets of influence have a greater ability to ignore influence attempts.

One study reveals that the most common tactics used in virtual teams include pressure (e.g., prefacing an e-mail title with “Urgent”), legitimizing tactics (e.g., cc’ing e-mails to higher organizational members), rational persuasion (e.g., using technology to record and generate data), and consultation (e.g., electronic polling, screen sharing) (Wadsworth & Blanchard, 2015). It is noteworthy that the two most common tactics—pressure and legitimizing—are considered more direct and harsher. Moreover, pressure was successfully used to influence those higher up in the organization, which is not typical in face-to-face contexts (Yukl & Falbe, 1990).

There are other differences in influence tactics when interacting virtually. Virtual team members use a novel approach called intermediation, which involves getting advice about how to approach a target from an intermediary who knows them (Steizel & Rimbau-Gilabert, 2013). This is useful when distributed members may be less familiar with the preferred interaction styles of supervisors. Finally, ingratiation— which is among the most common influence tactics in physical environments—does not emerge in studies of virtual teams (Steizel & Rimbau-Gilabert, 2013; Wadsworth & Blanchard,

328

2015). Successful ingratiation requires an emotional bond between people, which can be more difficult to foster through online interactions alone.

329

8.3 POWER DYNAMICS

The use of power changes the dynamics of the group process. Unequal power changes the way the leader treats other team members, and the way members communicate with one another. Subgroups that disagree with the majority can have a substantial influence on how the team operates.

330

Status and the Corrupting Effect of Power

Power is rewarding, so people with power often want more of it (Kipnis, 1976). It has a corrupting influence: People with more power often give themselves a higher share of rewards. It is easy for someone with power to give commands rather than make requests. Because powerful people get mostly positive feedback from subordinates, they begin to care less about what subordinates say and have an inflated view of their own worth.

Kipnis (1976) demonstrates the corrupting nature of power in studies on teams in business organizations and families. He documents a cycle of power where power leads to a desire to increase one’s power. Table 8.3 shows how the cycle operates.

One of the problems with this effect is that its impact is often unconscious. Over time, powerful leaders come to believe their subordinates are externally controlled and therefore must be monitored and commanded by their leaders to get them to do anything. It is a self-reinforcing cycle. A team may try to deal with this problem by rotating team leaders. When leaders know that they will eventually become just another team member, they are less likely to use controlling power tactics.

Table 8.3 Cycle of Power

Access to power increases the probability that it will be used.

The more power is used, the more power holders believe they are in control.

331

As power holders take more credit, they view the target as less worthy.

As the target’s worth is decreased, social distance increases.

Use of power elevates the self-esteem of the powerful.

Source: Adapted from Kipnis, D. (1976). The powerholders. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

332

Unequal Power in a Team

Teams vary in the ways power is distributed. When teams have unequal power levels among members, there tends to be more mistrust, less communication, and more social problems than in more egalitarian groups. Teams with powerful leaders tend to have less communication and more autocratic decision making, thereby reducing the quality of team decisions.

Unequal power is often caused by status differences, which have an impact on team communication (Tost, Gino, & Larrick, 2013). High-status members talk more and are more likely to address the entire team. High-status leaders have lower opinions of other team members’ communications, are less willing to view issues from the perspective of others, and are less likely to listen to others. Team members communicate more with high-status people and pay more attention to what they say. Low-status members often talk less because they recognize that their contributions are not valued. They are unwilling to state their true opinions if they differ from those of high-status people. Consequently, when high-status people speak, people tend to either agree or say nothing. As a result, high-status people have more influence in team discussions. This communication pattern does not lead to good decision making or to satisfied and motivated team members.

Women tend to experience a backlash effect from engaging in high-status displays (e.g., speaking longer or taking charge), which—according to dominant gender hierarchies—are reserved for men (Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, & Nauts, 2012). Because of the backlash effect, when women display status cues, they are perceived by both men and women as less likable, less competent, and less suitable for leadership. Moreover, women may purposely speak less than men in order to prevent the backlash effect, which can threaten their ability to attain positions of power and status in organizations and

333

teams. For example, while high-power men tend to speak more, high-power women speak just as much as low-power women and low-power men (Brescoll, 2012).

Unequal status within a team can have positive and negative effects on the ability of the team to manage conflicts (Greer & van Kleef, 2010). In some cases—for example, factory teams —unequal status can help resolve conflicts because influential leaders are better able to manage the process and coordinate a decision to resolve the conflict. However, unequal status in professional teams may lead to more team conflicts because of feelings of inequality and increased internal competition. These teams are more resistant to solutions dictated by the team leader and may experience more process and relational conflict.

Finally, various cultures have different degrees of acceptance for unequal power in teams and organizations. Power distance reflects the extent to which those who are less powerful accept and expect power to be unequally distributed in teams, organizations, and institutions (Hofstede, 2011). People from societies with a large degree of power distance—such as those in Eastern Europe, East Asia, and Africa—tend to accept authority without justification, are obedient to those with power, and may expect to be told what to do. By contrast, people from societies with a low degree of power distance—like the United States and Western Europe—tend to expect equal treatment, may not show deference to managers, and expect to be consulted by superiors. How team members respond to power imbalances and status display can be greatly influenced by cultural expectations of power distribution. For example, higher status is associated with fewer acts of dominance in Western cultures but increased acts of dominance in Eastern cultures (Kuwabara, Yu, Lee, & Galinsky, 2016).

334

Managing Unequal Power in a Team

In theory, a team should have only equal-status communication, but this is not always the case. The team leader may assume a higher status than the other team members. A team is sometimes composed of members with different levels of status within the organization. Team members should leave their external status positions at the door so that everyone on the team has equal status. However, it is difficult to interact as an equal with someone in one situation and be deferential with the same person in other situations. This is why teachers sometimes have difficulty interacting in student teams, for example.

When power is unequal because of status or other factors, a team can try to improve the situation by using team norms to equalize power and control communication. Norms level the playing field in a team. They equalize power by putting constraints on the behaviors of powerful members. For example, the norm of consensus in decision making limits the power of the leader. The team may have norms that encourage open and shared communication, prevent the use of intimidation or threats, and value independent thinking. An alternative approach is to train team leaders in facilitation skills so that they are better prepared to promote safe and equal communications within the team (Tost et al., 2013).

Computer-mediated communication tools that limit social cues and afford anonymity have some potential to minimize power differences and encourage equal participation (Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & Sethna, 1991). For example, communication channels that make people feel more anonymous and less visible are also perceived as being safer and more useful (Mao & DeAndrea, 2019). However, research reveals important caveats. First, it can be difficult to maintain anonymity. Men often attempt to reduce anonymity by soliciting and introducing

335

status information during online interactions, while women adopt strategies to maintain anonymity (Flanagin, Tiyaamornwong, O’Connor, & Seibold, 2002). Second, anonymous participants are seen as less trustworthy, less persuasive, and having less goodwill toward the group (Rains, 2007). While people may be more willing to speak up anonymously, they are also less likely to be perceived as credible.

Taken together, the use of anonymity in a team meeting should be consensual and strategic. Members should talk about why anonymity is needed and collectively agree to its use, or else it may undermine any of its benefits (Rains & Scott, 2007). Additionally, anonymity might be used strategically during brainstorming, but subsequent discussions about ideas may be conducted when members are identified.

Another option to manage power imbalances is for lower-status people to increase the power available to them. For example, they can increase their expertise by learning the skills or knowledge necessary for the team to achieve its goals. They also can develop communication skills, such as assertiveness and charisma, to increase their referent power.

336

8.4 EMPOWERMENT

Traditional bureaucratic organizations are built upon unequal power: Managers plan work, while workers execute the manager’s plan (see Chapter 1). In other words, managers retain power to make decisions, set goals, and distribute resources (Silver, Randolph, & Seibert, 2006). The worker’s role is simply to comply. Unequal power between managers and workers has at least two important consequences. First, these environments can produce apathetic workers who are disengaged from their work, contributing to turnover, low performance, and quality issues. Second, bureaucratic structures are slower to adapt to change, which is opposed to the flexibility required of contemporary organizations operating in a complex and uncertain environment (Maravelias, 2003).

Empowerment—the redistribution of power and control from managers to workers—emerged in response to these needs. Rather than a workforce dependent upon direction and routine, an empowered workforce exercises discretion and creativity in order to better adapt their roles and tasks to meet the demands of a dynamic environment (Johnson & Szamosi, 2019). Moreover, both team performance and job satisfaction increase as members feel more empowered. However, empowerment is not as simple as telling people they have power. Imagine your professor empowering the class with a $20 budget and two days to develop and implement the reading list, syllabus, schedule, assignments, lectures, activities, and grading for your course. Would learning be as effective as a more traditionally taught course? Likely not, unless the students had sufficient training and support.

Empowerment is a set of beliefs held by individuals and the team as a whole (Mathieu, Gilson, & Ruddy, 2006). Team empowerment is the delegation of authority or responsibility to the team, while individual empowerment is when team

337

members accept responsibility and are given the ability to make decisions and solve their own problems. Empowerment consists of four beliefs and cognitions:

1. Potency—belief is held that the individual or team can be effective at the task.

2. Meaningfulness—tasks are viewed as valuable and worthwhile.

3. Autonomy—individual or team has freedom and discretion over their work.

4. Impact—individual or team tasks are seen as significant for the organization.

These beliefs are important to foster at both the individual and team level. A team member that lacks self-efficacy in an otherwise empowered team will feel less psychologically empowered (Conger & Kanungo, 1988).

Empowerment benefits individuals, teams, and organizations (Seibert et al., 2011). Employees who work in empowered jobs have increased motivation because of a sense of control over their work. Empowerment increases employees’ sense of responsibility for their work and confidence in their ability to perform a task. This helps to increase employee engagement, which is one’s commitment and dedication to one’s work (Mills et al., 2013). The ability to change how the team works encourages continuous improvements and innovative solutions to problems (Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Empowered teams provide better customer service because they are more willing to accept responsibility for handling customer problems (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). Organizations benefit by having teams that function more effectively, have greater organizational commitment, and show increased acceptance of change.

The level of empowerment for teams in organizations is increasing, and teams are now using shared leadership more often to operate (Tannenbaum et al., 2012). This change is

338

driven by the recognition that self-management and empowerment are motivating for teams. However, economic pressure and organizational downsizing also are encouraging this trend. Team members are being asked to do more and take on more responsibility because of reductions in middle management. These business changes are requiring teams to take more responsibility for developing the team, regulating the team’s operations, and improving the team. Empowerment is particularly important for virtual teams whose members are unable to regularly interact face to face, as this requires that members have higher levels of initiative and proactivity (Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson, 2004).

339

Degrees of Empowerment Programs

There are many ways in which organizations and managers can foster empowerment. Sharing information is the minimum requirement for empowerment. Team members cannot meaningfully participate and make decisions without access to information, such as budgets or strategic goals. However, for a team to be fully empowered, it must have the power to make and implement decisions. Without some power to act, employees have little incentive to continue to improve the way their team operates.

Managerial practices that increase the information and control that people and teams have over their work, such as information sharing, training to develop skills, participative decision making, and contingent compensation, can foster all four of these beliefs (Liao, Toya, Lepak, & Hong, 2009). For example, learning about the larger strategies of an organization provides the team with the discretion to determine the best course of action to achieve these goals.

The use of power bases by managers impacts feelings of empowerment in employees (Randolph & Kemery, 2011). Specifically, managerial use of power via referent and personal rewards (e.g., praise or affirmation) is associated with fostering empowered workers. By contract, managerial use of expert power minimizes feelings of psychological empowerment. This suggests that managers need to be aware of how their exercise of power bases may support or undermine empowerment programs.

Social and political resources also promote empowerment (Seibert et al., 2011). For example, meaningfulness and impact stem from employees who feel trusted by managers, believe that the organization values their contributions, and receive support from peers. Empowerment also stems from

340

leaders who coach and provide feedback to team members, as opposed to control and dictate actions (Spreitzer, 2008). External leaders encourage team empowerment by allowing the team to set its own performance goals and letting the team decide how to accomplish those goals. When teams are given more responsibilities for production, customer service, or quality improvements, they experience more empowerment. Team coaches—who guide and facilitate the team but are not involved in executing its work—may be more important for fostering empowerment than external leaders (Rapp, Gilson, Mathieu, & Ruddy, 2016). Human resources policies may give the team more control over staffing, performance evaluation, and training to promote empowerment.

Another dimension of analyzing empowerment programs is the breadth of empowerment activities. Most empowerment programs give team members control over job content (i.e., the task and work procedure they perform) but not over job context (i.e., goals, reward systems, and personnel issues) (Ford & Fottler, 1995). For example, quality programs may allow employees to make changes to improve the quality of their work operations but may not allow them to influence personnel decisions. By contrast, companies like Zappos, Valve, W. L. Gore, and Morning Star are adopting a holacratic structure, in which job titles and managers are removed. Instead, self- managed units design their own work and goals and govern themselves (Bernstein, Bunch, Canner, & Lee, 2016).

341

Barriers to Empowerment Programs

Although research shows that empowerment is effective, empowerment programs are limited by managerial beliefs and organizational support. One of the main problems with empowerment programs is resistance from managers and supervisors (Mathieu et al., 2006). Managers are often told to empower work teams under their supervision, but they are ultimately held responsible for how the team performs. This is why surveys show that although 72% of supervisors believe that empowerment is good for the organization, only 31% believe that it is good for supervisors (Klein, 1984). Although some supervisors support empowerment, many are concerned about the loss of status and lack of support from upper management (Stewart, Astrove, Reeves, Crawford, & Solimeo, 2017).

Additionally, managers primarily engage in command-and- control actions because that is what they are comfortable doing (Argyris, 1998). However, this requires retaining power, which is at odds with empowerment. Power is frequently viewed as a limited resource in organizations: The more that power is shared with teams, the less power that managers have (Hollander & Offermann, 1990). This makes managers reluctant to empower teams (Tjosvold & Sun, 2006). However, power is not finite in organizations (Tannenbaum, 1968). Rather, empowerment increases the amount of power available to everyone within a team.

The increase of power is illustrated by Captain David Marquet’s command of the USS Santa Fe, a nuclear submarine in the U.S. Navy (Marquet, 2013). Marquet was shifted to command the Santa Fe at the last minute after being trained for another submarine with different operational requirements. At the time, it had the lowest operational performance and morale in the navy. His lack of training

342

resulted in giving erroneous orders. Yet the knowledgeable crew would not correct the captain because they were trained to follow orders rather than speak up. In response, he distributed power to the crew. Rather than provide orders to the crew, the crew provided their intent and reasoning up the chain of command. For example, an officer would say, “Captain, I intend to submerge the ship. We are in water we own, water depth has been checked and is 400 feet, all men are below, the ship is rigged for dive, and I’ve certified my watch team” (Marquet, 2013, p. 88). Marquet simply gave his approval. This structure shifted responsibility to the individual crew members and empowered them to make critical decisions. Every crew member exercised discretion over their tasks, yet the captain still retained command. During its next inspection, the Santa Fe achieved the highest retention and operational standings in the navy.

Resistance from supervisors and managers may be handled in a number of ways (Klein, 1984). Supervisors need to be involved in the design of the empowerment programs. The roles of supervisors should be evaluated, and their new responsibilities and authority should be clearly defined. Often supervisors need additional training in teamwork skills to prepare them for their new roles as team leaders. This includes understanding how to effectively delegate tasks without overburdening the team and encouraging managers to see themselves as a member of the team (Stewart et al., 2017). Additionally, empowerment entails the management of employee attitudes and beliefs, more so than the supervision of tasks. This requires developing a broad set of communication and interpersonal skills.

The success of team empowerment programs also relates to the organization’s structure and culture (Hempel, Zhang, & Han, 2012). Organizational decentralization enhances team empowerment because decision-making authority is delegated downward to the team. Organizational formalization at higher levels can enhance team empowerment if it reduces uncertainty

343

within the organization. Managers should allow team members to make their own decisions and have control over their work, but organizations should create formal goals and values for the teams. This provides guidance to the team and reduces uncertainty, but, at the same time, it gives the team the flexibility to decide the best ways to operate.

344

8.5 APPLICATION: ACTING ASSERTIVELY

People express power through their behaviors. They may act passively, aggressively, or assertively (Alberti & Emmons, 1978). Their emotional tone and the ways they confront problems define these power styles. Assertiveness is both a skill and an attitude (Jentsch & Smith-Jentsch, 2001). When team members act assertively, they show their willingness to be independent and accept responsibility for their actions.

345

Power Styles

The use of these power styles has important impacts on communication in teams. For example, teamwork problems are one of the chief causes of major airline accidents. Accidents happen when crew members are unwilling to communicate problems to their superiors. This lack of assertiveness in a team is a major problem—for airline crews, medical teams, police teams, and firefighting teams, among others—which is why assertiveness training is a standard element in training for action teams (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 1998; Weiss, Kolbe, Grote, Spahn, & Grande, 2017). Table 8.4 presents an overview of power styles, their impacts on teams, and situations where they often are used.

Passive

The passive style is polite and deferential. A sweet, pleasant, or ingratiating emotional tone is added to one’s communication. A person using the passive approach tries to avoid problems by not taking a stand or by being unclear about their position. By being evasive, the person using this approach is trying not to upset or anger anyone by disagreeing. The person’s desire to be liked by others is based on personal insecurity or fear of the situation.

The goal of the passive approach is to win approval and acceptance. Unfortunately, this style does not work well. Passive people often feel stressed and resentful, in part because problems never seem to go away. The receivers of passive communication often have mixed responses. They often get their way, but they are uncertain what the passive communicator really believes, so they tend to lack respect for a person using this approach.

346

The passive approach is appropriate in some situations. When a conflict becomes highly emotional, a passive response may defuse the situation. When interacting with a person of higher status, a passive response may be expected from a subordinate. There are situations where being assertive is risky. For instance, acting aggressively toward the boss may be an inappropriate or dangerous tactic.

Table 8.4 Power Styles

Style Impact Use

Passive Polite and deferential

Avoids problems

Resentment and confusion

Dangerous situations

Unequal status

Aggressive Forceful and critical

Focuses on winning

Satisfaction and withdrawal

Emergencies

Unequal status

347

Style Impact Use

Assertive Clear and confident

Problem solving

Satisfaction and trust

Most situations

Equal status

Aggressive

The aggressive style is forceful, critical, and negative. A negative emotional tone is added to the communication so that it appears more powerful. A person using the aggressive approach deals with problems and conflicts by trying to win and refusing to compromise. The underlying emotions of the aggressive style are anger, insecurity, and lack of trust. In some ways, this is similar to the passive style, which is why people sometimes swing back and forth between passiveness and aggressiveness without ever reaching an assertive position.

Use of the aggressive style is often rewarded. In many situations, people give in to people who are acting forcefully, in part because of a misapplication of the rule of reciprocity. People may defer and agree to someone’s position because it is important to them, simply because they then expect to get their way in things that are important to them. What the aggressive person does is act forcefully in all situations. There is a cost to the aggressive style. People on the receiving end of the aggressive style feel

348

resentment, act defensively, and try to withdraw from the situation.

The aggressive style can be appropriate, as in problem or emergency situations requiring forceful action. It can be a valuable approach for dealing with blocked situations where progress is stalled. If there is resistance, and change is vital to the team’s goals, then aggressiveness can be the appropriate response.

Assertive

The assertive style uses clear and confident communication. No emotions are added to messages. Assertiveness is communicating openly with concern for both others and oneself. It is taking responsibility for one’s own communication. The assertive person takes a direct problem- solving approach to conflicts and problems. The goal is to find the best solution, so the person is willing to listen and compromise.

Although they are not always successful, assertive communicators are generally satisfied with their performance. The assertive style shows respect, encourages trust in others, and inspires open communication in a team. High self- esteem and trust in the team underlie the assertive style.

The assertive approach is appropriate in most situations in which people are interacting on an equal basis and should be the most typical type of communication within a team. The absence of the assertive approach is a sign of unequal status differences that are disrupting communication within the team or unresolved conflicts that are creating a defensive communication environment in the team.

349

Use of Power Styles

Teams are more productive when their communication is primarily assertive (Lumsden & Lumsden, 1997). Both passive and aggressive styles create resentment and inhibit open communication. Teams may adopt unproductive power styles for several reasons. An aggressive style triggers a passive response, whereas an assertive style triggers an assertive response. Assertiveness is a power style used among people with relatively equal power; passiveness and aggressiveness are power styles used among people with differing levels of power.

Although the most appropriate power style to use depends on the situation, there is a tendency for people to have preferred power styles they enact regardless of the situation (Ames, 2008). They may focus primarily on the task or social aspects of situations. A task orientation leads to the use of more forceful power styles, while a social focus leads to less assertive styles.

Differences in power styles are often attributed to personality, gender, or racial differences. This explanation is rarely true and gets in the way of improving team communication. For example, women often act more passively than men in business teams, causing some men to assume that women are passive. Kipnis (1976) shows that this stems from organizational power, not gender. When men and women have equal power in a situation, women are not more likely than men to act passively.

Assertiveness is primarily a reflection of the distribution of power in a team. To encourage assertive communication, the team needs to reduce power differences among its members. In an organization, people work in a hierarchy that gives everyone different amounts of power. However, when people are

350

working in a team, they need to treat fellow team members as if everyone has the same amount of power.

351

Encouraging Assertiveness

Assertiveness is the power style most appropriate for teamwork. The primary key to encouraging assertiveness is to equalize power among team members. However, equalizing power might not be enough. People develop habits in communicating, so it may be necessary to provide team members with training in assertive communication (Alberti & Emmons, 1978). Assertiveness training programs use several techniques to encourage better communication in teams:

1. Active listening. Active listening is summarizing and repeating a speaker’s message to ensure it has been understood. This technique clarifies the message, shows respect and attention, and encourages more communication.

2. Positive recognition. Learning how to give others positive recognition reduces the need for manipulative power tactics. Too often, high-status people criticize what they do not like but do not acknowledge what they like.

3. Clear expectations. Learning to state expectations clearly is another communication technique that encourages assertiveness. People often misinterpret behaviors as inappropriate or resistant when, in reality, they are caused by not understanding what is desired. Clarifying expectations lets everyone know the actual issues.

4. Assertive withdrawal. Being assertive is not always the right response, so people need to know when not to participate. When situations become either too emotionally heated or threatening, people need to learn how to send a clear message of their desire to postpone or terminate conversations.

Assertiveness is a situation-specific behavior (Jentsch & Smith-Jentsch, 2001). The willingness to be assertive depends

352

on the situation and the individual’s relationship to the other people involved. People may be assertive in social or personal situations but not in work situations. They may be assertive with friends but not with strangers or business associates. This is why it is important to conduct assertiveness training in environments where team members need to apply assertive behavior.

353

SUMMARY

Social influence is the process of changing the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of others. It can result in defiance, resistance, acceptance, or compliance. Influence stems from conformity to the majority, conversion from the minority, and obedience from individuals in the team. Power is an individual’s capacity to exert influence.

Power can be analyzed by examining where it comes from and the types of techniques that are used to exert power. Team members gain power through soft bases (e.g., being an expert) and harsh bases (e.g., having authority delegated by the organization). Influence tactics can be based on encouraging others or trying to control others. People prefer to use personal power bases and cooperative tactics because these approaches are less likely to create resistance.

The use of power by teams has several important dynamics. Power tends to corrupt its users. People with power tend to use it and take personal credit for the success of their teams, which encourages them to continue to use this power approach. Unequal power in teams caused by status differences among members disrupts team communication—high-status people talk more, and people tend to agree with them more often. As a result, low-status people become reluctant to state their true opinions.

One of the core notions of teamwork is empowerment. To be effective, teams need power, authority, and responsibility to control their own behaviors. Unfortunately, organizations often have trouble sharing managerial power with teams. Empowerment programs may range from simple information sharing with team members to the development of self-managing teams. Successful empowerment programs must deal with the

354

perceived loss of power by supervisors and managers by incorporating them into the teams’ activities.

Team members may act in a passive, aggressive, or assertive manner. These are personal power styles. Although there are situations in which acting passively or aggressively is appropriate, in most team situations, assertiveness is the best approach. Assertiveness encourages clear communication and a rational approach to problems but is disrupted by unequal status in the team. There are several techniques for training group members to act more assertively.

355

Team Leadership Challenge 8

You are the manager of a technical services team that provides support services for other organizations. Over the past year, you have been trying to make the transition to a more self-managing team. For instance, you now call yourself the team leader rather than the manager. As part of the transition, the team now makes decisions about scheduling, partnering, and other task assignments. Team meetings where employees passively listen to instructions have been replaced by team discussions and group decision making. You have worked hard to encourage team members to speak up at meetings, and they are now contributing more.

At today’s meeting, a team member suggested a new way to organize work practices. You told the team you didn’t like the idea because you had tried a similar plan in the past and it did not work well. Another team member ignored your explanation and complained that you were stifling innovation and were unwilling to share power with the team.

How can you (the team leader) respond to a “bad” idea without discouraging team participation?

What is the best way to handle team members who challenge the leader’s authority?

What norms could be adopted to help the team communicate more effectively?

How much power-sharing (or empowerment) is appropriate for a work team?

356

Activity: Using Power Styles—Passive,

Aggressive, and Assertive

Objective: Team members may use one of three different power styles. The passive style is polite and deferential. This approach tries to avoid problems by not taking a stand or by being unclear about one’s position. The aggressive style is forceful, critical, and negative. This approach deals with problems and conflicts by trying to win. The assertive style uses clear and confident communication. The assertive person takes a direct problem-solving approach to conflicts and problems.

Activity: Observe the interactions in a team discussion of the Team Leader’s Challenge. Write down examples of passive, aggressive, and assertive behaviors you observed. Using Activity Worksheet 8.1, note the frequency of team members acting passively, aggressively, or assertively. An alternative activity is to break into groups and have individuals take turns using one of the three power styles during a group discussion. Participants should analyze their own and others’ performances according to their perception and reactions to each style.

Passive behavior: __________________________________________

Aggressive behavior: ______________________________________

Assertive behavior: ________________________________________

357

Activity Worksheet 8.1: Observing

Passive, Aggressive, and Assertive

Power Styles

Team Members

1 2 3 4 5 6

Passive

Aggressive

Assertive

Analysis: Which power style did the team use most often? Did certain team members adopt a similar power style for most communication? Was the team’s communication dominated by assertive, passive, or aggressive communication? Did the leader primarily use the assertive style?

Discussion: What triggers the use of a power style? Is it personality or team characteristics? How would you encourage the team to engage more in equal-status assertive communication?

358

359

CHAPTER 9 DECISION MAKING

Decision making is a central activity of teams. One of the benefits of teams is their ability to bring together multiple skills and perspectives in making decisions. Teams use different approaches to make decisions. These approaches vary in quality, speed, and acceptance by team members.

Teams encounter a number of problems when trying to make good team decisions: Group polarization and groupthink are two examples of these problems. There are structured decision- making approaches that help improve the decision-making process. Although it may be difficult at first, learning how to make consensus decisions is an important skill for teams to develop. Teams can also use crowd-based platforms and artificial intelligence to make decisions.

360

Learning Objectives

1. Understand what factors are useful for evaluating a decision-making approach.

2. Describe different individual, group, crowd-based, and algorithmic approaches to making decisions.

3. Explain the main advantages and disadvantages of each decision-making approach.

4. Determine when group interaction is and is not needed to make a good decision.

5. Understand how individual, group, and algorithmic biases influence decisions.

361

9.1 DECISION MAKING IN TEAMS

Decision making is the process of selecting a course of action from a set of alternatives. It is a central activity of teams and organizations. Teams make decisions that impact the group itself, such as determining goals, assigning duties, and choosing how to make decisions. Teams also make decisions for organizations, such as estimating future sales, forecasting economic changes, developing a new product, and creating a strategy for achieving goals.

There are several methods teams can use to make decisions. Selecting the right decision-making approach is an important consideration. These options may be viewed as lying along a continuum, from decisions made by individuals, by the team as a whole, or by online crowds or artificial intelligence algorithms. These options are shown in Table 9.1. Each of these approaches has strengths and weaknesses, and each has consequences for decision speed, accuracy, and acceptance by the team.

362

9.2 DECIDING HOW TO DECIDE: EVALUATING

DECISION-MAKING APPROACHES

There is no single optimal decision-making strategy. Rather, teams must evaluate the situation and select the decision- making approach that best meets the nature of the problem. The best decision might be made by deferring to an expert, voting, reaching a consensus, or using an artificial intelligence algorithm. What should be considered when determining how to make a group decision? Three interrelated criteria for evaluating a decision-making approach are quality, speed, and acceptance (Johnson & Johnson, 1997).

The first criterion is quality. In general, decision-making techniques that combine unique information held by team members produce higher quality decisions. This is especially true if the problem is ill-structured or complex. Successfully launching a new product, for example, relies on integrating expertise in marketing, engineering, and finance. Yet, if the decision is not complex or team members all share the same information and perspectives, the decision may not improve with group discussion. In this case, a leader or expert can make high-quality decisions alone. Additionally, facilitating productive task conflict is advantageous for improving decisions, as this encourages members to reconsider and combine their knowledge in new ways.

Table 9.1 Approaches to Decision Making

Individual Decision Making

Leader decides autocratically.

363

Designated expert makes the decision.

Consultative: Leader consults with the team and then decides.

Group Decision Making

Team decisions are aggregated without interaction (e.g., averaging).

Team decisions are aggregated with limited interaction (e.g., nominal group technique).

Democratic: Team discusses, votes, and decides by majority rule.

Consensus: All team members participate and agree to accept the decision.

Crowd and Algorithmic Decision Making

Wisdom of the crowd: The response of a large, diverse group is aggregated.

Prediction markets: Participants make forecasts by buying and selling various probabilities of an event occurring.

364

Artificial intelligence: Algorithms are used to identify patterns and make predictions.

The second criterion is speed. Group decision making is often slower than individual decision making, but the importance of speed as a criterion varies. In many cases, the issue is not speed but priority. It is important to prioritize the decisions a team needs to make. Some decisions are important and must be made quickly, whereas other decisions can be put off until the team gathers more information. Teams often spend too much time on unimportant decisions and not enough time on the important ones. Meanwhile, time pressure can encourage teams to preemptively converge on a decision before a full discussion of information, which reduces the quality of the decision.

The third criterion is acceptance. To the extent that a decision requires the support and acceptance of team members to be implemented, the decision should include input from team members (Murnighan, 1981). Teams often use majority voting to speed up the decision-making process, but this technique can limit the level of acceptance of the decision by the losing minority. When acceptance is important, teams should use consensus decision making. However, teams can also overvalue and thus overuse consensus for trivial issues.

A critical caveat regarding acceptance relates to the cultural dimension of power distance (Hofstede, 2011). Cultural values create differences in the degree to which people accept unequal power distributions in a group. This encompasses the extent to which participation is typically practiced and accepted in group decision making. Team members from a high power distance culture (e.g., many Asian, South American, and Middle Eastern countries) are generally less willing to participate in decision making, instead preferring that decisions be made autocratically by a leader (Khatri,

365

2009). By contrast, a leader in a low power distance culture (e.g., Austria, Sweden, and the United States) is typically expected to engage in more participatory decision-making practices.

Once the nature of the problem is understood, the best approach can be selected. In general, a more group-oriented approach (e.g., voting, consensus) is best when a high- quality decision is needed or when team acceptance is needed to implement the decision. Although, the effectiveness of group decision-making approaches also depends on skilled facilitation.

366

9.3 INDIVIDUAL DECISION MAKING

Decisions impacting the group can be made by an individual, such as a leader or expert. While these decisions can be made quickly, they may also reduce group performance and cohesion by fostering conflict, competitive behavior, and demotivation.

367

Leader Decides

A leader can make an autocratic decision without any participation from the group. This approach is typically used by a manager to make routine administrative decisions or by a leader when they believe they have expertise lacking in the team. If the leader is indeed the most knowledgeable person on the team, then this approach can produce an effective decision. However, autocratic decisions may be less likely to be embraced by a team in low power distance cultures, so it should be used when group acceptance is unimportant to the implementation of the decision (Vroom & Jago, 1974).

368

Designated Expert

A decision may be assigned to an internal or external expert when other team members lack essential knowledge. Deferring to an individual expert can lead to a superior decision if they possess the requisite knowledge. However, experts possess specialized but narrow knowledge (Larrick & Feiler, 2016). This means that they often have an incomplete view of complex problems, making expert decisions fallible in these instances. Additionally, the wrong expert may be selected. Expertise is difficult to recognize (Baumann & Bonner, 2013), and managers are overly confident in the capabilities of single experts (Groysberg, Lee, & Nanda, 2008). The group also may disagree on the expertise of the designated individual, which reduces acceptance of their decision and fuels conflict.

369

Consultative Decision Making

Consultative decision making—also called a judge-adviser system—occurs when one person has the authority or responsibility to make a decision, but they ask for advice and comments from team members before deciding (Bonaccio & Dalal, 2006). This approach is useful because it takes little time to complete, and it can provide the leader with crucial information to aid in decision making.

While the judge benefits from receiving advice, the extent of this benefit is limited by several factors. First, the judge is subject to egocentric advice discounting—the tendency to give more weight to one’s own opinion over that of an advisor (Yaniv, 2004). As a result, leaders tend to undervalue the opinions of others (see Morrison, Rothman, & Soll, 2011), although this tendency decreases when the advisors are known experts (Goldsmith & Fitch, 1997) and when judges are less familiar with the domain of the decision (Harvey & Fischer, 1997). Second, the most influential advisor is not necessarily the most accurate. Leaders weigh advice based on their evaluation of the adviser’s confidence, yet confidence is poorly related to information accuracy (Barton & Bunderson, 2014).

Finally, this approach does not optimally use all of the team’s expertise, and members may silence their true opinions due to norms, obedience, or fear of retaliation (Morrison, 2014). It also does not fully develop commitment to the group’s decision. Rather, it may encourage competition among team members to influence the leader and become a source of process conflict.

370

Problems With Individual Decision Making

While individuals can make good decisions, there are a host of counterproductive behaviors and cognitions that impede their accuracy. An individual’s capacity to make decisions is bounded by their limited access to and processing of information (Simon, 1972). People are subject to confirmation bias (Nickerson, 1998). This means that they seek out or interpret information in ways that support their preconceived beliefs and expectations, while avoiding or disregarding information that contradicts their beliefs and expectations.

Individuals experience decision fatigue when they repeatedly make decisions, which leads to impaired, impulsive, and irrational choices (Pignatiello, Martin, & Hickman, 2018; Vohs et al., 2008). Decision fatigue also makes people more susceptible to using heuristics (Pocheptsova, Amir, Dhar, & Baumeister, 2009). Heuristics systematically and predictably distort how information is processed (Kahneman, 2011). They reduce the cognitive effort required for decision making at the cost of the accuracy of the decision.

As shown by research conducted by Tversky and Kahneman (1974, 1981), heuristics can deteriorate the quality decision of even talented individuals. Through the availability heuristic, for example, people overestimate the prevalence of events concerning information that is vivid or frequently heard. You are more likely to die from taking a bath, being struck by lightning, or fireworks than from flying in a plane. However, the frequency and vividness with which media outlets discuss airline accidents make them more easily recalled. Individuals rely too much on readily available information, even when it is insufficient for making an accurate judgment. Research has identified several other heuristics, such as the tendency to be overly influenced by arbitrary starting points, accepting more risk when a

371

decision is framed as a potential loss compared to a potential gain and being overconfident in one’s ability to make predictions (Bazerman & Moore, 2013).

372

9.4 GROUP DECISION MAKING

Teams can also collectively make decisions in which all members participate. This approach is best suited for decisions that are too complex for one individual to perform or problems that are too difficult for one individual to solve. Additionally, a group composed of similar members with overlapping skills and knowledge is less likely to benefit from making group decisions. Composing teams with heterogeneous members can improve decisions by increasing the amount of unique information available to the team (Winquist & Larson, 1998). There are three primary advantages to group decision-making techniques: knowledge pooling, error reduction, and group acceptance of the decision.

First, teams can collectively pool and process more information than is possible by any single person (Laughlin, Hatch, Silver, & Boh, 2006). Group discussions allow the team to better integrate information and produce knowledge and ideas that no single member would have developed (Barnier, Sutton, Harris, & Wilson, 2008). This enables teams to make higher quality and more complicated decisions than an individual (Barnlund, 1959; Hill, 1982).

Second, teams make fewer errors. Teams are more likely than individuals to detect and reject incorrect information (Rajaram, 2011). Teams also are better judges of their own knowledge (Thompson & Cohen, 2012), meaning that they are more aware of what they do and what they do not know. This focuses attention toward areas of less confidence that need to be understood before making a decision. Finally, teams have a better collective memory, which protects against misremembering details or repeating prior mistakes.

Third, team members accept the decision more and they are more committed to implementing the decision when they

373

participate in the process (Vroom & Jago, 1988). Involving the team in the decision can reduce the emergence of conflict and motivate members.

There are several ways in which groups can combine information. These vary on the degree to which team members interact with each other, which has implications for how information is integrated.

374

Aggregation Without Interaction

Although counterintuitive, group interaction is not necessary for superior group decisions. High-quality decisions can result from aggregating the individual preferences of group members without any direct information exchange. Aggregation is well suited for two kinds of decisions. It is useful for making estimations (e.g., how many sales will we make this quarter?) and for deciding among a set of discrete alternatives (e.g., preference for Option 1, 2, or 3). Estimations are aggregated using the group average, while votes are determined by the pluralistic majority (i.e., response with the most votes). Aggregated group decisions are often superior to the judgment of individuals and, in some cases, of interacting groups (Hastie & Kameda, 2005).

The effectiveness of aggregation rests on a diverse set of participants independently contributing their preference— that is, without knowledge of other group members’ preferences (Ariely et al., 2000). Diversity of perspectives is needed to avoid amplifying biases rooted in shared opinions or information. Independence is necessary to prevent social influence and conformity from affecting preferences. When these conditions are met, aggregation can produce superior decisions with little cognitive or social effort (Hastie & Kameda, 2005). The aggregated preferences of just 5 to 10 experts can make highly accurate decisions (Mannes, Soll, & Larrick, 2014).

This approach was used to locate the wreckage of a lost nuclear submarine (Surowiecki, 2005). In 1968, the USS Scorpion disappeared on its way back to Virginia after a tour of duty in the Atlantic. The navy identified a 20-mile diameter search area with depths of two miles. Searches based on expert opinion and deliberation had failed to locate the wreckage. Dr. John Craven, a navy scientist, crafted a series

375

of scenarios about what could have happened to the submarine and what the crew’s response might have been. He then asked a range of specialists—mathematicians, submarine crews, salvage workers—to individually bet on the likelihood of each of these scenarios. These guesses were aggregated using Bayes’ theorem to create a probability distribution of where the wreckage was most likely to be. The USS Scorpion was found a mere 220 yards (that is just 0.125 miles) away from the location of the highest probability. Despite no individual choosing that location, the group’s collective estimate was incredibly accurate (Thompson, 2012).

There are several advantages to aggregation. It works best when group members do not interact, which reduces the time and resources necessary. This also makes it preferable for larger or virtual teams where it is not practical for everyone to meet. It is also relatively easy to include people from outside the team if additional expertise is needed for the decision. Finally, aggregation is considered fair, so the team often accepts the decision.

Aggregation is not without drawbacks. The primary challenge is ensuring that team members contribute their preferences independently from each other. Also, if the team is not sufficiently diverse or if all members share redundant information, aggregation can amplify biases and produce low- quality decisions. At the same time, critical information has less influence because each member’s contribution is equally weighted and there is no information exchange between group members. This makes it less suited for complex problems that require integrating group knowledge.

376

Aggregation With Limited Group Interaction

Sometimes, it is desirable for group members to exchange information before reaching a decision. The challenge is to do so while limiting the negative impacts of social and informational influence. Techniques achieve this by anonymizing group members or structuring group interactions before aggregation.

Nominal Group Technique

The nominal group technique allows a group of people to focus on the task of making a decision without developing any social relations. It is called nominal because it does not require a true group. When using this technique, the leader states the problem to the group. People write down their solutions or estimates to the problem privately. Each person then publicly states their answer, and the answers are recorded so everyone can see them. Group members may ask questions to clarify the others’ positions, but they cannot criticize the ideas. The participants then use a rank- ordering procedure to rate the value of the solutions. This rank ordering is used to select the group’s preferred solution.

The advantage of the nominal group technique is that it is relatively quick, discourages pressure to conform, and does not require group members to get to know one another before the decision-making process (Delbecq, Van de Ven, & Gustafson, 1975). However, this technique requires a trained facilitator to conduct the session, and only one narrowly defined problem can be addressed at a time.

377

Delphi Technique

The Delphi technique uses a series of written surveys to generate ideas and make forecasting estimates (Dalkey, 1969). A group of experts is given a survey containing several open- ended questions about the problem to be solved. The results of this survey are summarized and organized into a set of proposed solutions by a facilitator. These solutions are sent to the participants, who are then asked to comment on the solutions based on the first survey. The process allows some limited information exchange and is repeated until the participants start to reach an agreement on a solution to the problem.

The Delphi approach is useful when it is necessary to include a specific set of people in a decision who are distributed geographically and cannot meet in person (Delbecq et al., 1975). The number of people involved makes no difference, so a large group of people could participate at the same time. This approach is also useful when there is great disagreement on an issue that requires subjective judgments to resolve. However, the process is time consuming (it can take more than a month for a typical decision) and requires developing and analyzing surveys.

378

Fully Interacting Teams

Teams can also fully interact with each other prior to making a decision. This allows for greater information exchange and error reduction. However, some group discussion is necessarily devoted to coordination and social issues, which prevents individuals from focusing solely on their tasks. Additionally, discussions are asynchronous—only one person can effectively communicate at a time. As a result, it takes time for all team members to discuss their perspectives and knowledge.

Communication problems emerge when teams have decision-making discussions (Di Salvo, Nikkel, & Monroe, 1989). Decisions can get bogged down in emotional conflicts that damage the morale of teams. Powerful or talkative team members can dominate discussions and disrupt a group’s ability to integrate information. Discussions in a team can get sidetracked, interrupted, or become disorganized. Finally, minimally engaged (i.e., social loafers) members may contribute little to the discussion and fail to critically listen to what others are saying. Efficient group decision making requires skillful facilitation, carefully structured meetings, and a productive communication climate.

To fully benefit from group discussion, members need to share all relevant information before making a decision. Tindale and Winget (2019) offer the following strategies for achieving this:

1. Ensure that there is sufficient time to devote to group discussion.

2. Instruct participants not to express their initial preference for a decision and to avoid forming an initial preference until the end of the discussion (Mojzisch & Schulz-Hardt, 2010).

379

3. Establish a transactive memory system (Wegner, 1987) such that certain team members are responsible for certain kinds of information depending on their relative expertise and role. This improves the information processing capacity of the team by reducing the cognitive load of each member (Stasser, Vaughan, & Stewart, 2000). Additionally, teams are more likely to share unique information when members are aware of each other’s expertise before deliberations (Baumann & Bonner, 2013).

4. Frame decision making as first gathering information as accurately and thoroughly as possible before making a decision (Brodbeck, Kerschreiter, Mojzisch, & Schulz- Hardt, 2007). Focusing on reaching a consensus discourages members from bringing up unique information (Postmes, Spears, & Cihangir, 2001).

5. Keep a record of all information that is presented during group discussion, instead of relying on memory (Sawyer, 1997).

6. Maintain a norm of information sharing, and facilitate information exchange (Larson, Foster-Fishman, & Franz, 1998). Forcing groups to continue a discussion—even if they believe all relevant information has been discussed —can improve sharing of unique information (Larson, Foster-Fishman, & Keys, 1994).

7. Establish groups that add a new diverse member, so that they are more open to questioning their conclusions and can shift to a more accurate decision (Phillips, Liljenquist, & Neale, 2009).

Following these strategies increases the likelihood of teams making a high-quality decision through voting or by reaching a consensus.

Democratic Decision Making

380

In democratic decision making, the group discusses and exchanges information before making a decision by aggregation (i.e., averaging or majority vote). Although this is a popular decision-making style that benefits from information exchange, it can create problems. The biggest problem is when time constraints, impatience, and decision fatigue causes teams to prematurely close discussion on an issue and rush to a vote. Moreover, those who disagree with the vote may be unwilling to support and implement the decision after it has been made (Castore & Murnighan, 1978). Because there are winners and losers, voting may create resentment among team members. This can lead to a lack of commitment from the losing minority.

Additionally, members are likely to conform to the majority views if the vote is taken publicly. Worse still, teams may begin a discussion with a vote to see what members think— this fosters conformity and inhibits a broad discussion of relevant information. Despite these limitations, democratic decision making can be a successful approach if preceded by a carefully structured group deliberation.

Consensus Decision Making

The consensus approach to decision making involves members fully combining preferences and collectively agreeing on a decision. Accepting the decision does not mean that the decision is a member’s favorite alternative: It means that each team member is voluntarily willing to support the decision (Hackett & Martin, 1993). Consensus is achieved when each team member can answer “yes” to the following questions:

Are you willing to agree that this is what the team should do next?

381

Can you go along with this position?

Can you support this alternative?

The goal of consensus decision making is to develop a collaborative solution that allows all participants to win. Rather than voting, where one side wins and another side loses, consensus decision making attempts to create win–win solutions. Teams using consensus not only make better decisions, but the process improves their decision-making skills and social relations among team members.

Consensus decision making might be time-consuming, but it is the best way to fully use team resources. When successful, consensus also produces the most satisfaction of any decision-making approach (Schweiger, Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986). The consensus approach should be used for complex decisions requiring the full support of the team for implementation. It takes time, energy, and skill to reach consensus, but consensus decisions have a greater likelihood of being implemented by the team. Table 9.2 (see page 181) presents some guidelines to help team members reach a consensus.

Table 9.2 Guidelines to Help Reach Consensus

Avoid arguing for your own position without listening to the position of others.

Do not change your position just to avoid conflict.

Do not try to reach a quick agreement by using conflict reduction approaches, such as voting or tossing a coin.

382

Encourage others to explain their position so that you better understand any differences.

Do not assume that someone must win and someone must lose when there is a disagreement.

Discuss the underlying assumptions, listen carefully to one another, and encourage the participation of all members.

Look for creative and collaborative solutions that allow both sides to win rather than compromises where each side only gets some of what it wants.

Source: Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (1997). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

These guidelines show the techniques people can use to help obtain consensus on an issue, but they can be difficult to apply. When people disagree, the emotions generated by the disagreement work against these guidelines. Conflict is uncomfortable, and people want to end it quickly. It is psychologically easier to adopt a quick-solution strategy rather than to be patient, listen, and search for collaborative solutions.

If a team gets stuck trying to reach consensus, it can use several options to break the impasse. The team can agree to not agree and then move on to a related issue. Changing topics and returning to an issue later reduces the emotional tension created during a conflict. If a decision must be made quickly, the team can decide that it must use an alternative, such as voting, or it may decide to develop a compromise solution whereby each side gives in on one or more of its demands. When time is available, the team may ask for outside

383

help or bring in a trained facilitator to manage the decision process.

384

Problems With Group Decision Making

The benefits of group decision making, however, are not absolute. Teams are susceptible to normative and informational influences that can produce consensus on a disastrous decision that no individual would have selected alone (Nijstad, 2009). There are many different types of problems that can disrupt a team’s ability to make a good decision. The team may not sufficiently share unique information. Group stressors, like disagreements, negative emotions, and time pressure, can impede decision making. Group polarization can affect a group decision by making the result more extreme because of interpersonal processes. The term groupthink describes a number of group decision-making flaws caused by the group’s desire to maintain good relations rather than to make the best decision.

Discussion of Shared Information

Group discussions produce superior decisions when members exchange unique information. However, teams rarely actually do this (Stasser, 1999). Instead, group discussions overwhelmingly focus on already shared information or common knowledge. Even the use of computer-mediated communication technologies is not associated with greater sharing of unique information (Lu, Yuan, & McLeod, 2012). Three kinds of poor information processing suppress unique information from being shared: negotiation focus, discussion biases, and evaluation bias (Brodbeck et al., 2007).

Teams with a negotiation focus approach discussion as a means of sharing opinions and identifying the majority preference for a decision, rather than exchanging information and learning from each other. Second, several discussion biases

385

emerge in group discussions. Shared information is often brought up first during discussions (Stasser & Titus, 1985), and shared information is repeated more often than unique information. Third, individuals evaluate shared information differently. Team members socially validate each other’s shared information as being correct. This increases the perception that shared information is more credible and important, which makes it more influential in the final group decision. When these problems disrupt the discussion of the decision, the group needs to focus on improving its internal communication.

Disagreements

A common group decision-making problem is premature closure— that is, trying to avoid disagreement by voting to make a quick decision. This technique works for making the decision but often leads to implementation problems later. Politics, a domineering leader, hidden agendas, poor norms, and other factors can cause disagreements. Because of the disagreements, there is social pressure for people to agree with each other in a meeting, so misinformation is often not corrected and may be amplified (Sunstein & Hastie, 2014).

Too little disagreement can also be a problem. Disagreement helps stimulate thinking and leads to better decisions. Group discussions with some disagreement lead to better decisions than conflict-free group discussions (Schwenk, 1990). However, these constructive conflicts come at a cost. Group discussions with substantial disagreement are rated as less satisfying experiences by team members and reduce interest in continuing to interact with the team.

Impact of Emotions

386

Emotions have both positive and negative effects on group decision making. Positive emotions can help to improve group discussions and decision making (Emich, 2014). When team members feel positive, they are more likely to share their unique perspective with the team, and they are more likely to ask questions and try to understand other team members’ perspectives. Positive emotions encourage team members to feel more confident in interacting with the team. This increases the information available to a team when making a decision, which improves the quality of those decisions.

However, negative emotions can create problems for group decision making. When teams face a lot of pressure, they tend to become risk averse and head toward safe, generic solutions that have worked in the past (Gardner, 2012). There is a drive toward consensus that prevents the stating of alternative views, ideas, and perspectives. Team members tend to defer to the team leader. These factors reduce the amount of team creativity and the quality of decisions.

Negative pressure on a team may be due to time constraints or outside influences. Teams respond to time pressure by trying to make quick decisions. To do this, they often use decision- making approaches that are simple and inadequate (Zander, 1994). For example, a team may support the first useful suggestion and prevent further discussion of alternatives. A team may select a plan that has worked in the past without fully examining whether it is applicable to the current situation. Finally, a team may delegate the decision to the leader or a team member, thereby forgoing the benefits of team analysis.

Stress from forces outside a team may also lead to poor decision making. When teams experience stress, they have a stronger desire for uniformity of opinion among members (Kerr & Tindale, 2004). This desire for unanimity means that the team exerts stronger pressure on deviant opinions. This can

387

lead to groupthink or allowing the leader to make the decision. Stress disrupts the decision-making process by reducing the number of ideas generated and the analysis of issues. It can cause a desire to make decisions more quickly in order to reduce uncertainty, thereby rushing the decision- making process. All this leads to poor-quality decisions.

Group Polarization

Although it might be expected that the outcome of group discussions would be a decision that corresponds to the average of the team’s initial position, this is not always the case. The effect of a group discussion can lead to a final decision that is more extreme than the average position of its members, which can be either a riskier or more cautious decision, depending on the initial inclination of the team. This phenomenon is called group polarization.

Research by Stoner (1961) showed that groups made riskier decisions than individuals. This was called the risky shift phenomenon. Groups tend to move toward an extreme and become either more risk oriented or more conservative (Myers & Lamm, 1976). This is caused by normative and informational influences.

Normative influence describes how the existing team norm affects the decision-making process. Team members want to create a favorable impression, so they compare their answers to the team norm and then shift their positions to try to attain more consistency with the norm (Myers & Lamm, 1976). The team norm shifts as members change their positions in an attempt more typically represent the team’s position. The combined effect of these shifts is to move the team’s decision more to the extreme.

388

Information influence is caused by the amount of exposure to information during a group discussion. When a team discusses an issue, most of the discussion is from the dominant position (Kerr & Tindale, 2004). People prefer to hear information they agree with, so other team members reward the sharing of common information. Because team members are more exposed to arguments supporting the dominant position, they shift their opinions in that direction (Burnstein & Vinokur, 1977).

Groupthink

The most famous type of group decision-making problem is groupthink, a term coined by Janis (1972). Janis used the analysis of historical decisions to show how decision-making processes can go wrong. The U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2002, based on the belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, is an example of groupthink (Badie, 2010). Groupthink occurs when group members’ desire to maintain good relations becomes more important than reaching a good decision. Instead of searching for a good answer, they search for an outcome that preserves group harmony. This leads to a bad decision that is then accompanied by other actions designed to insulate the group from corrective feedback. Since the initial identification of groupthink, researchers have expanded on the causes and implications of this phenomenon (Table 9.3).

Table 9.3 Model of Groupthink

Antecedent Conditions

Structural: Group has a domineering leader and limited input from outside the group.

389

Cohesiveness: The desire to maintain good relations is dominant.

Stress: Outside forces put stress on the group to make a decision.

Decision Symptoms

Illusion of invulnerability: Group believes that its decision will work.

Direct pressure on dissenters: Group suppresses negative comments in group discussion.

Self-censorship: Group members do not state their opinions if they differ from the group.

Illusion of unanimity: Group members believe that everyone agrees with the decision.

Mind guards: Group members protect the leader and group from negative information about the decision.

Decision Defects

Group considers only a few alternatives when making a decision.

390

Group fails to examine the adverse consequences of its decision or consider what to do if the decision does not work.

Group does not seek the advice of outside experts.

Source: Adapted from Janis, I. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Three main factors contribute to groupthink: structural decision-making flaws, group cohesiveness, and external pressure (Parks & Sanna, 1999). Structural decision-making flaws create bad decisions because they impair the group decision-making process. These flaws include ignoring input from outside sources, a lack of diversity in viewpoints within the group, acceptance of decisions without critical analysis, and a history of accepting decisions made by the leader. Group cohesiveness encourages groupthink by creating an environment that limits internal dissension and criticism. External pressure for a decision limits discussion time and encourages the group to support the first plausible option presented to the members.

The external pressure experienced by the group leads to a set of symptoms of groupthink. These symptoms convince the group that it has made a good decision and that everyone in the group agrees with it. Consequently, there is internal pressure on members not to voice their concerns and objections. The collective effect of these symptoms is a poor decision, made without considering alternative options or long-term consequences of the decision.

There are a variety of tactics that groups can use to help overcome the groupthink effect and other decision-making problems (Sunstein & Hastie, 2014). Because the leader has

391

more influence than other members, leaders should reserve expressing their opinion at the beginning of the group’s discussion. The group should establish a norm that encourages critical thinking during decision making. Members should acknowledge each other’s areas of expertise and roles, and the leader should invite members to present their unique perspectives. Finally, after a decision has been made, the group should schedule another meeting to identify the benefits and problems with decisions before finalizing them.

392

9.5 CROWD AND ALGORITHMIC DECISION MAKING

Technological advances provide new ways for teams to make important decisions. Doing so can circumvent many of the problems of group discussion while producing a superior decision. Rather than relying on their own internal expertise, teams can look outward to harness the wisdom of crowds, prediction markets, or artificial intelligence.

393

Wisdom of the Crowd

The wisdom of the crowd (or crowdsourcing) draws upon the same logic as group aggregation without interaction—that the combined independent and diverse opinions of a group are more accurate than individuals (Surowiecki, 2005). The difference is a matter of scale. Online crowd-based platforms can harness the collective intelligence of thousands, even millions, of people. With the potential to quickly, accurately, and cheaply produce superior decisions, organizations are increasingly turning to the crowd (Afuah & Tucci, 2012; Bonabeau, 2009). Using the crowd is best suited for decisions that benefit from diverse opinions and perspectives (Flostrand, 2017). Crowds can be used for market research, forecasting future events, making estimates, generating innovative ideas, or voting on decisions.

The classic example of this is Francis Galton’s 1906 competition to guess the weight of an ox at a county fair (Surowiecki, 2005). Of the 800 respondents, no one got close to the actual weight of 1,198 pounds. However, they all got it right. The average of the 800 guesses was 1,197 pounds— merely 1 pound off. This works because, with a large enough group, as many people will overestimate as underestimate the true value. This makes the group average much more accurate than any individual (Larrick & Soll, 2006).

The relative ease and accuracy of using crowd-based platforms make it a viable approach for teams to make some decisions. However, there are important challenges to consider. First, crowd-based platforms are sensitive to social influence, which can lead to social herding when participants see what previous participants have contributed (Muchnik, Aral, & Taylor, 2013). It can also be challenging to recruit an appropriately diverse and knowledgeable crowd to participate —thousands of elementary school children are unlikely to

394

make accurate geopolitical forecasts. Attracting and motivating the appropriate crowd with incentives like money, reputation, or status is necessary (Malone, Laubacher, & Dellarocas, 2010). Finally, outsourcing the decision to a crowd-based platform may decrease the acceptance of the decision by the team or organization. Even when organizations intentionally turn to crowd-based platforms to broaden their information, they more highly weight and rely upon information from familiar internal sources (Piezunka & Dahlander, 2015).

395

Prediction Markets

Organizations are also beginning to use prediction markets to make decisions (Borison & Hamm, 2010). For example, Google and Ford Motor Company use prediction markets to forecast new product success, product quality, deadlines being met, and other external events (Cowgill & Zitzewitz, 2015).

A prediction market operates much like the stock market. It allows individuals to place monetary bets on the probability of an event happening (e.g., will there be a recession in the next year?). While participants generally do not directly communicate with each other, they are influenced indirectly through various market indicators (e.g., trading prices, volume, and volatility) and external information. These indicators influence the price at which participants are willing to buy and sell various probabilities. Financial incentives motivate participants to find the best information and to learn from each other. This process continues until the event occurs.

Prediction markets are accurate, efficient, and continuously updated as new relevant information emerges. This makes them suitable for making decisions in uncertain and dynamic contexts. However, they require a critical mass of active and informed participants, generally over 50 people.

396

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) create new possibilities for how humans and machines can work together to make decisions. Already, professionals in such fields as medicine, psychology, human resource management, banking, science, transportation, public administration, and law use AI to guide important decisions (Shrestha, Ben-Menahem, & von Krogh, 2019). When talking about AI in this context, typically people are referring to a subfield called machine learning. Machine learning analyzes a set of defined examples (i.e., training data) to generate an algorithm. This algorithm is applied to new examples to make predictions or categorize things.

Imagine that you want to create an algorithm to make hiring decisions. First, you show the computer two sets of examples: résumés from previous applicants that you hired and résumés from previous applicants that you rejected. As the computer analyzes these examples, it detects patterns that differentiate the two groups of résumés. This might include conventional things like GPA, but it might also detect subtle differences like the number of letters in the applicant’s middle name. The algorithm represents the combination of these patterns that best differentiate the two groups. Once completed, the algorithm can be applied to a new applicant’s résumé to classify it as either hire or reject. Moreover, feedback on the accuracy of this classification can be used to further improve the algorithm.

The ability of AI to process the tremendous amounts of information that organizations and teams have access to can mitigate the problems of attention that people experience during decision making (Van Knippenberg, Dahlander, Haas, & George, 2015). There are four approaches for integrating AI into the decision-making process (Shrestha et al., 2019):

397

1. Full human-to-AI delegation—AI algorithms make decisions without any human intervention, such as for fraud detection and dynamic pricing. This is useful for when the speed of decision is critical, as a computer can respond more quickly than a human decider.

2. AI-to-human sequential decision making—AI is first used to generate a shortlist of alternatives, but humans make the final choice. This is effective when the decision contains a large number of alternatives, such as sifting through thousands of job applications or ideas generated by a crowd-based platform. AI categorizes, differentiates, and narrows down the set of alternatives so that humans can evaluate them more effectively.

3. Human-to-AI sequential decision making—Humans first filter a small set of alternatives and then use AI to evaluate and select the best. This is useful when humans have high confidence in the small set of alternatives, but narrowing them down further requires significant time and processing large amounts of data. For example, the team can create a shortlist of top potential baseball players to hire and then use algorithms to analyze the granular performance data of these candidates to make the final decision.

4. Aggregated human–AI decision making—Both humans and AI produce decisions, and the results are aggregated through averaging or majority rule. Here, the AI operates more like a team member.

AI enables teams to draw from near-limitless information to quickly make accurate decisions and predictions (Agrawal, Gans, & Goldfarb, 2018). Moreover, AI offers new sophisticated ways of group interaction (Jarrahi, 2018). For example, a human swarming platform uses AI algorithms to enable people to anonymously interact with each other in real-time to collectively converge upon a decision (Metcalf, Askay, & Rosenberg, 2019).

398

While AI offers significant advantages for decision making, it is essential that teams are aware of its limitations. AI has an interpretability problem. The algorithm is a “black box” that cannot explain the reasoning of how it came to a decision—the combination of patterns and weighting of factors is often too complex to describe. This makes it difficult to identify hidden biases that might be present in the algorithm. Ironically, AI is not free from human bias. For example, Amazon abandoned the development of a hiring algorithm based on 10 years of applicant résumés (Dastin, 2018). From the overrepresentation of male applicants during this time period lead, the algorithm learned to discriminate against female candidates based on data points like attending an all-women’s college. Algorithms are only as good as the data they are trained on. Bias in the training data can amplify human stereotypes and discrimination.

399

SUMMARY

Making decisions is a central function of teams. Decisions can be made by an individual, the team, external online crowds, and artificial intelligence. Considering the decision quality, speed, and acceptance guides which decision-making approach is most appropriate.

An individual can make decisions for routine or simple problems where a diversity of perspectives is not needed. High-quality decisions can be made by an individual if they are the most knowledgeable person on the team. However, expertise is difficult to determine. Decisions made by an individual are less accepted by the team and can foster conflict.

Group decisions vary on the degree of interaction between members. More interaction allows for greater information exchange and higher decision acceptance but also introduces social influences that can reduce decision quality and speed. Aggregation without interaction can produce high-quality decisions by integrating preferences by averaging estimates or majority rule. Structured group techniques (nominal group and Delphi) can take a long time and allow for information exchange with limited interaction and reduced support.

Fully interacting groups discuss before either aggregating decisions or reaching a consensus. Group decisions are better than individual decisions when the team has a diversity of perspectives, the discussion is open, and the problem is suitable for a group. The largest advantage of group decision making is the ability to bring more resources to solving complex and ill-structured problems. Discussions need to be effectively managed to broaden the information considered and prevent premature decisions. This approach produces the most

400

acceptance by team members but is most susceptible to counterproductive social and informational biases.

A team’s ability to make a decision can be disrupted by too much or too little conflict, pressure to decide quickly, and outside stress. Group decisions tend to be more extreme than individual decisions because of the group polarization effect. The desire to maintain good relations within a team may disrupt the group decision-making process and cause groupthink. Groupthink leads to inadequate decisions that are nonetheless strongly defended by the group members.

Teams can also harness online crowds and artificial intelligence to make decisions based on diverse perspectives and large datasets. Crowd-based platforms allow thousands of participants to vote or provide estimates that tend to be highly accurate. Prediction markets allow participants to dynamically buy and sell probabilities of a future event based on new information and indirect signals. Machine learning artificial intelligence creates algorithms from training data that can accurately make predictions and classify new data. These approaches can be highly accurate but require additional resources to implement.

401

Team Leadership Challenge 9

You are the head of a university department with 10 faculty members. Although you try to organize meetings using an agenda, things do not always work out as planned. Faculty members often spend too much time talking about minor issues and do not get around to dealing with important issues. Most of the time, you try to get the group to reach consensus on issues. This is because voting often fails to resolve the conflict over the issue, so you have to discuss and redecide the issue in the future.

The dean is pressuring you to make a decision about an admissions policy for new students. You have brought the topic up several times in department meetings, but the faculty cannot reach an agreement about the details of the policy. The dean wants an answer soon, or he will elect to impose a policy on the department.

How can you (the head of the department) improve decision making at department meetings?

What type of decision style should you use for the admissions policy?

If the department is unable or unwilling to make a decision, how should you handle the situation?

402

Activity: Making Consensus Decisions

Objective: Consensus decision making requires discussing an issue until all agree to accept it. Acceptance does not mean that the decision is the member’s favorite alternative; it means the member is willing to accept and support the decision. Learning consensus decision making is an important skill for a team.

Activity: Form a group and have it develop consensus answers to the following questions:

What is the most important skill for a team member to possess?

What is the most important characteristic of a good team leader?

What is the greatest benefit of using teamwork?

What is the greatest problem with using teamwork?

While the group is trying to reach consensus, have an observer use Activity Worksheet 9.1 to note whether the group follows the Guidelines to Help Reach Consensus.

403

Activity Worksheet 9.1: Observing the

Guidelines to Help Reach Consensus

Did the team follow the guidelines

presented below? Yes No

1. Avoid arguing for your own position without listening to the positions of others.

2. Do not change your position just to avoid conflict.

3. Do not try to reach a quick agreement by using conflict reduction approaches, such as voting or tossing a coin.

4. Encourage others to explain their position so that you better understand any differences.

5. Do not assume that someone must win and someone must lose when there is a disagreement.

404

Did the team follow the guidelines

presented below? Yes No

6. Discuss the underlying assumptions, listen carefully to one another, and encourage the participation of all members.

7. Look for creative and collaborative solutions that allow both sides to win rather than compromises where each side only gets some of what it wants.

Analysis: Was the group successful in reaching a consensus for its decisions? Did the group follow the guidelines for consensus decision making?

Discussion: What advice could you give a team to improve its ability to make consensus decisions?

405

Activity: Group Versus Individual

Decision Making

Objective: There are benefits and problems with group decision making. Although groups should make superior decisions because they can combine information from multiple members, aspects of the group decision-making process may prevent the group from fully using its resources.

Activity: Create a list of about 15 items that can be ranked and compared to a correct answer. This could be a commercially available “survival” task, the populations of a set of states, or the rankings of U.S. presidents by historians. Have the participants rank the items individually and then as a group through group discussion. You may want to have an observer record the number of communications from each group member during the discussion.

Analysis: Present the correct rankings and calculate the difference between the individual and group rankings versus the correct answers. Is the group score better than the average of the individual scores? Is the group score better than the best individual score? If you used an observer, what is the relationship between knowledge of the topic and the amount of communication?

Discussion: What are the advantages and disadvantages of group decision making? What factors prevent the group from fully using the knowledge of its members?

406

407

CHAPTER 10 LEADERSHIP AND

FOLLOWERSHIP

A team has many ways of selecting a leader and assigning leadership roles. The leader may be assigned by the organization or emerge from team interactions, or leadership roles may be distributed among team members. What is the best style of leadership? There is no definitive answer to this question, but several approaches have been developed. Leaders can be individuals with certain traits, behaviors, and skills. Self-managing teams share leadership responsibilities across members to provide a variety of benefits. It is apparent that team leadership requires skills and responsibilities that are different from traditional leadership approaches. Team leaders do not manage the team; they help the team solve problems in order to be more effective. Additionally, burgeoning research is investigating the role of followers and ideal followership.

408

Learning Objectives

1. Understand the process of leadership. 2. Describe how leader traits and follower

perceptions that contribute to leadership emerge in groups.

3. Differentiate between trait, behavioral, contingency, relational, and charismatic approaches to leadership.

4. Understand how the situation and relationships impact leadership.

5. Explain how to build high-quality leader–follower relationships.

6. Explain the importance of functional and shared leadership in teams.

7. Understand why followership is important in teams.

409

10.1 DEFINING LEADERSHIP

Stogdill (1974) notes that “there are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept” (p. 259). This has produced, by one estimate, 35,000 different definitions, frameworks, and theories for understanding leadership (Dubrin, 2000). After decades of research, there remains little consensus on what leadership is.

So how do we make sense of leadership? There is general agreement that leadership is best conceptualized as a goal- oriented influence process between a leader and followers (Day & Antonakis, 2017; Northouse, 2019). This influence process results from leader traits and behaviors, follower perceptions of the leader, and the context of the situation. Influence implies change—leadership consists of actions that transform the goals, values, beliefs, and emotions of followers. Leadership in teams involves determining team objectives, motivating shared commitment to achieve these objectives, and establishing and maintaining the team’s culture and social relationships.

Some scholars differentiate between management and leadership, specifically regarding the power bases they use to exert influence (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Managers typically engage in transactional leadership, in which they draw upon harsh-power resources (e.g., authority, reward, or punishment; see Chapter 8) to influence workers. This transaction is an exchange: Managers detail the tasks to be completed (e.g., course syllabus) and provide rewards or punishment (e.g., points) based on how well a worker meets these requirements. By contrast, effective leaders engage in transformational leadership, in which they draw upon personal or soft sources of power (e.g., referent, information, or

410

expertise) to influence team members to voluntarily follow them. They communicate a shared vision, foster team pride, and otherwise inspire, stimulate, and motivate followers to create a shared acceptance and commitment to the group’s goals. While transactional leadership may be useful for maintaining established routines, transformational leadership is suited for situations that require change.

While a useful starting point, a definition of leadership alone does not provide much guidance on how to be an effective leader. Leadership research differentiates between leadership emergence (i.e., being recognized as a leader) and leadership effectiveness (i.e., being a good leader), both of which offer insights for group dynamics. Emerging research focuses explicitly on leadership in a team context. Finally, it is also important to consider the critical yet underrated role of followership—there can be no leader without followers.

411

10.2 LEADERSHIP EMERGENCE

When no leader is assigned to a group, a leader usually emerges to coordinate its actions (Hemphill, 1961). However, people do not lead simply because they want to—they lead because they are perceived as a leader by their peers. Leadership emergence is the process by which the team recognizes the leadership status of one or more leaders (Paunova, 2015). The traits, abilities, and behaviors of the potential leader, as well as the perceptions of the followers, influence whether someone is recognized as a leader.

412

Leader Traits, Abilities, and Behaviors

Personality traits affect who becomes a team leader. They are, in order of greatest impact, extraversion, conscientiousness, openness, emotional stability, and agreeableness (Zaccaro, Dubrow, & Kolze, 2017). Extroverts express confidence, dominance, and enthusiasm, so they are often initially selected as leaders (Bendersky & Shah, 2013). Potential leaders are also moderately assertive (Ames & Flynn, 2007) and even narcissistic (Nevicka, De Hoogh, Van Vianen, Beersma, & McIlwain, 2011). However, personality traits that predict leader emergence are not necessarily related to leader effectiveness. For example, agreeableness is not strongly associated with leadership emergence but is much more important for leadership effectiveness.

Cognitive abilities like intelligence, creativity, and capacity to think divergently are strongly related to leadership emergence (Ensari, Riggio, Christian, & Carslaw, 2011). Leaders often emerge because they offer a solution to a problem faced by the team. However, individuals who are significantly more intelligent than team members can have difficulty being recognized as a leader (Simonton, 1985). This discrepancy in intelligence translates into difficulty communicating complex solutions, not being viewed as representative of the group, and being socially aloof. In support of this, a recent study shows that perceptions of leadership effectiveness decline when the leader has an IQ above 120 (Antonakis, House, & Simonton, 2017). Finally, individuals with high emotional intelligence have a greater capacity for empathy, emotional regulation, and understanding emotions. Evidence shows that emotional intelligence has a greater impact on leadership emergence than intelligence and personality traits (Côté et al., 2010).

413

A significant predictor of leader emergence is participation rate. Early research identified the babble effect, finding that the most frequent communicator in a team often emerges as the leader—regardless of the quality of their contributions (Mullen, Salas, & Driskell, 1989). However, subsequent research supports a quality-of-communication hypothesis—that members who frequently provide low-quality contributions to group discussions are viewed as having less leadership potential (Jones & Kelly, 2007). Neuroscience supports the importance of communication quality, showing that frequent and high-quality leader-initiated communication synchronizes the neural activities of followers and leaders (Jiang et al., 2015). Neural synchronization and communication frequency can predict leader emergence within 30 seconds of an interaction. In virtual and distributed teams, participation rate and quality of written communication are critical and have a much greater impact on leadership emergence than do personality traits (Balthazard, Waldman, & Warren, 2009).

414

Follower Perceptions

Leadership emergence is also influenced by characteristics unrelated to leadership effectiveness, such as gender, race/ethnicity, and physical features (Paunova, 2015). This is explained by implzicit leadership theory, which explains that people have prototypical notions about what constitutes a good leader (Lord, 1985). Prototypical leaders tend to be White (Gündemir, Homan, De Dreu, & Van Vugt, 2014), male (Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, & Ristikari, 2011), and attractive (Little, 2014). Grint (2010) summarizes the prototypical leader with the acronym THWAMP (tall handsome White alpha males of privilege). While people rely on their prototypes to decide who will be effective leaders, these prototypes are not necessarily accurate.

Most implicit leadership research focuses on gender differences. Men tend to emerge as leaders more frequently than women, despite few differences in leadership effectiveness (Badura, Grijalva, Newman, Yan, & Jeon, 2018). Indeed, a meta-analysis spanning 49 years of research found that women are rated by others as more effective leaders than men, despite men rating themselves as more effective (Paustian-Underdahl, Walker, & Woehr, 2014). Race can likewise be gendered. For example, Asian stereotypes are more feminine and Black stereotypes are more masculine compared to White stereotypes (Galinsky, Hall, & Cuddy, 2013). As a result, a Black person is more likely to be selected for a masculine leadership position.

Gender differences in leadership emergence may result from the way gender stereotypes intersect with leader prototypes (Eagly & Karau, 2002). The typical feminine stereotype emphasizes communal qualities, such as emotion and warmth, whereas the typical masculine stereotype emphasizes agentic qualities, such as productivity and power (Williams & Best,

415

1990). Although both communal and agentic qualities are needed, members tend to overemphasize the importance of agentic qualities in leaders (Koenig et al., 2011). This causes team members to view males as more likely candidates for leadership and to see male behaviors as more important in leaders. However, stereotypes about leaders and gender qualities are dynamic. Coinciding with greater societal changes, women are being seen as more agentic (Donnelly & Twenge, 2017), and effective leaders are being seen as more communal (Duehr & Bono, 2006).

416

10.3 MODELS OF EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP

There is a difference between being recognized as a leader and being an effective leader. Leadership effectiveness is the subject of an immense amount of research. However, we still have an elusive grasp on precisely what constitutes effective leadership. Scholars generally agree that there is no single universally effective leadership style. Instead, different types of leaders and leadership are useful in different situations, and leaders are more important in some situations than in others. However, we may also romanticize leadership too much, undeservingly overattributing team successes or failures to the actions of leaders (Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987).

Several approaches to leadership effectiveness offer different implications for organizations and teams (see Table 10.1). Each of these approaches define effective leadership by emphasizing different facets of the leader, followers, and situation. None of these models individually offer a complete view of effective leadership. However, they collectively present a multifaceted framework for thinking about what effective leadership might look like in a given situation. Additionally, these models are also not mutually exclusive: An effective leader may draw from or exhibit several of these models at the same time.

Table 10.1 Models of Leadership

Model Implication

Trait Effective leaders can be selected by their inherent traits.

417

Model Implication

Behavioral Effective leaders can be developed by training in appropriate skills and behaviors.

Contingency Effective leaders are defined by the requirements of the situation.

Relational Effective leaders develop high-quality relationships with each follower.

Charismatic Effective leaders communicate clear, visionary, and inspirational messages that motivate the team.

418

Trait Approach

The trait approach is the oldest model of leadership. It assumes that leadership effectiveness results from an individual possessing a certain set of attributes (e.g., height, intelligence, and confidence). Identifying and measuring these attributes should allow for selecting good leaders. While some traits may predict leader emergence, they do not always correlate with leadership effectiveness.

Enthusiasm for trait leadership wavered after the 1940s as research failed to confirm strong and consistent relationships between traits and effective leadership (Stogdill, 1948). The basic problem with the trait approach is that people who are successful leaders in one situation (e.g., business) are not necessarily successful in others (e.g., politics, religion). In other words, leadership effectiveness is not strictly the result of human traits but, in part, defined by the context.

However, methodological advances and more complex theorizing has revitalized trait leadership research (Zaccaro, 2012). Contemporary research moves beyond direct correlational relationships between traits and leadership and instead offers complex models that more explicitly account for combinations of traits, situational contingencies, and processes. This new line of trait leadership has found more consistent and stronger relationships between individual attributes and leadership effectiveness. Effective leaders have traits that bolster their capacity to influence others (e.g., extraversion, dominance, emotional intelligence) and to solve problems (i.e., intelligence, creative thinking).

Incidentally, many of these same leadership traits are associated with narcissism (e.g., arrogant, entitled, self- confident), Machiavellianism (e.g., manipulative, callous,

419

power-seeking), and psychopathy (e.g., thrill-seeking, impulsive, little empathy). These three personality traits are collectively known as the dark triad of personality (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). People with these traits frequently seek and attain positions of leadership (Furtner, Maran, & Rauthmann, 2017). Despite these traits being less socially valued, those with dark triad personalities can (but not always) be effective leaders. Judge, Piccolo, and Kosalka (2009) identify the dark and bright sides of these personalities in terms of leadership.

420

Behavioral Approach

The behavioral approach defines effective leadership by the ways that leaders act. This approach attempts to determine what good leaders actually do in order to identify those actions and train people to be good leaders. Most of the research on leader behavior focuses on two issues: decision- making style and task versus social focus.

The decision-making approach primarily compares authoritarian with democratic leadership (Lewin & Lippitt, 1938). Democratic leaders who invite the participation of followers in making decisions tend to promote higher morale, job satisfaction, and commitment. However, democratic decision making can be slow, and leaders may be viewed as weak. Autocratic leaders tend to be more efficient decision makers, but this style can create dissatisfaction and implementation problems among followers. For example, followers often slack off when an autocratic leader is not around. Still, as discussed in Chapter 9, there is no single optimal way to make a decision—it depends heavily on the context and situation.

Behavioral research also identified task and social components of leadership (Katz, Maccoby, Gurin, & Floor, 1951; Likert, 1961; Stogdill & Coons, 1957). During their interactions with followers, leaders can emphasize initiating structure or social consideration. Initiating structure is a focus on task-oriented and directive behaviors, while consideration is a focus on developing and maintaining supportive social relations between the team members. Is a leader’s primary role to organize and manage the task, or is it to ensure that team members feel satisfied and motivated? Research in this area has been contradictory and inconclusive, except for the finding that team members like leaders who show social consideration (Yukl, 1989).

421

The behavioral approach provides a framework for leaders to consider how their actions may advance or hinder the task and social aspects of the team. However, it does not reveal precise behaviors of good leadership: There is no universally preferred style of leadership. Instead, this research revealed that effective leadership behaviors are contingent upon the situation. If a team is performing a routine task, the leader should focus on social relations because the team does not need help with the task. If a project team is working on a difficult problem, a good leader helps the team better understand and work on the task.

422

Contingency Approach

Scholars could not identify universal traits or behaviors that defined effective leaders separate from the situation. From this, several contingency theories consider how effective leadership depends upon situational factors. Some of these theories assert that the situation defines the right kind of leader and that not all leaders can be effective in all situations (Fiedler, 1964). Others emphasize that effective leaders adapt their styles to the situation.

Perhaps the most enduring contingency theory is the situational approach developed by Hersey and Blanchard (1969). This theory is particularly relevant to groups because it links the leader’s behavior to the characteristics of followers. It also asserts that leadership should develop followers to become more autonomous. While this makes intuitive sense, the situational approach has also been critiqued for a lack of empirical evidence supporting its validity (Thompson & Vecchio, 2009).

Situational leadership theory starts with the assumption that there are four basic styles of leadership, based on a combination of task and relationship orientations. Leaders can be directing (high task and low relationship), coaching (high task and high relationship), supporting (low task and high relationship), or delegating (low task and low relationship). The appropriate style depends on the readiness level of the team. Team readiness is based on the skills of team members, their experience with the task, their capacity to set goals, and their ability to assume responsibility. As the team’s readiness level increases, the leader’s behavior shifts from directing to coaching, supporting, and then delegating.

423

Imagine you are the leader of a team of adolescents in a summer work program. On the first day, your team has little experience with the task and little experience working together. As the leader, you need to take control of the situation and get the team to start working together. A task- oriented (directing) approach is needed to structure and assign tasks. As the team gains some experience, your leadership style can soften (coaching) to reward the team’s accomplishments. Once the team learns how to perform the job and act responsibly, you need to further reward members by allowing them to participate in the decision-making process (supporting). This both helps increase their commitment to the team and helps develop their leadership skills. When the team can take full responsibility for performing its task, your job shifts to addressing issues outside the team since you are no longer needed to guide the team. As the leader, you delegate most of the internal leadership functions and let the team manage itself (delegating).

As may be seen from this example, situational leadership theory makes two crucial points. First, the leader needs to adjust their style of acting relative to the readiness of the team. Second, leadership is a developmental process, and the leader’s behavior should promote team autonomy and readiness. A team that is unprepared for teamwork may need a directive leader in order to perform well. However, consistent directive leadership encourages dependence on the leader rather than team learning and development (Lorinkova, Pearsall, & Sims, 2013). Leaders need to focus on empowering the team through active participation in decision making and collaboration in developing work roles and processes. In the long run, this approach encourages team learning, performance, and resilience.

424

Relational Approach

Theories often assume that leaders have a consistent leadership style with all followers. By contrast, leader– member exchange theory focuses on the quality of the relationship between a leader and each follower (Graen & Uhl- Bien, 1995). As a leader forms high- or low-quality relationships with followers, this creates in-groups and out- groups. In-group followers receive more information, attention, support, and resources. Consequently, they are more productive, more committed, and more satisfied than out- group members (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012). They also experience less role ambiguity and role conflict and have more opportunities for professional development by taking on additional tasks. This translates to higher rates of promotions and career success.

The importance of this perspective is in the recognition that a team is composed of several individuals. A leader does not treat everyone alike, and a leader may be performing effectively with some team members but ineffectively with others. Leaders of virtual or distributed teams, for example, can more easily form relationships with colocated members due to the reduced communication cost (Liao, 2017). The development of high- or low-quality relationships occurs early and is based on little or superficial information about the subordinates. Sometimes, it is influenced by irrelevant factors, such as similarity, personality, and attraction rather than by actual performance. A leader may form higher quality relationships with members who are more similar to themselves. This raises important issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Leaders need to be mindful of the consequences of developing high-quality relationships unequally across team members. This fosters relationship and status conflicts (Schermuly &

425

Meyer, 2016) and encourages secretive, exclusionary, and retaliatory behavior among followers (Omilion-Hodges & Baker, 2013; Townsend, Phillips, & Elkins, 2000). Discrepancies can also be a source of discrimination that impacts the career success of out-group members (Gelfand, Nishii, Raver, & Schneider, 2007). By contrast, inclusive leaders that develop high-quality relationships with diverse members can reduce team member turnover (Nishii & Mayer, 2009).

How do you develop high-quality leader–member relationships? Communication plays a critical role. Omilion-Hodges and Baker (2017) identified several dimensions of leader–member communication associated with high- and low-quality relationships (see Table 10.2).

426

Charismatic Approach

The idea of charismatic leadership was first introduced by sociologist Max Weber (1947). He defined it as people who, by virtue of an extraordinary set of personality and physical characteristics, are seen by followers as exceptional leaders and capable of great feats. While this near-supernatural conception of charismatic leadership remained popular, contemporary theorizing has moved away from this trait perspective (Antonakis, Bastardoz, Jacquart, & Shamir, 2016).

A contemporary view of charismatic leadership focuses not on the outcome of inspiring fervent followers but instead on communicating clear, visionary, and inspirational messages that motive the team. Far from being an innate trait that the lucky few are born with, charisma is a set of verbal and nonverbal communication skills that can be practiced and learned (Antonakis, Fenley, & Liechti, 2011). These skills are not new: Aristotle first articulated the importance of logos (using convincing logic and rationale), ethos (establishing credibility), and pathos (evoking strong emotions) in order to influence an audience. Despite these skills being taught in introductory public speaking classes, they tend to be less well-known in business contexts.

Table 10.2 Dimensions of Leader–Member Communication Exchange

Dimensions of High-

Quality Leader–Member

Communication Exchange

Dimensions of Low-Quality

Leader–Member Communication

Exchanges

Professional trust— recommends for high-

Professional trust—

provides harsh critiques

427

Dimensions of High-

Quality Leader–Member

Communication Exchange

Dimensions of Low-Quality

Leader–Member Communication

Exchanges

profile projects and asks for opinion

Professional

development— discusses career goals and provides developmental feedback

Verbal communication

—provides compliments, praise, and recognition

Nonverbal

communication—pays attention and uses eye contact

Affective—expresses concern for emotional well-being

Accessibility—is available for discussions

and disregards preferences

Professional development

—does not explain important task, career, and organizational knowledge

Verbal communication— interrupts and provides abrupt and impulsive comments

Nonverbal communication

—sighs and provides discouraging body language

Social—excludes from jokes and informal conversations and gatherings

Betrayal—spreads lies and shares information provided in confidence

Source: Adapted from Omilion-Hodges, L. M., & Baker, C. R. (2017). Communicating leader–member relationship quality: The development of leader communication exchange scales to measure relationship building and maintenance through the exchange of communication-based goods. International Journal of Business Communication, 54(2), 115–145.

428

What is in the magic sauce that enables leaders to be charismatic? Antonakis, Fenley, and Liechti (2012) identified 12 charismatic leadership tactics that have the most substantial impact on improving perceptions of leadership, competence, and trustworthiness (see Table 10.3). A little rhetorical flourish can have a considerable impact: 65% of leaders trained in these techniques were perceived as above- average leaders, compared to only 35% of leaders who did not receive training. When used during public speaking and during everyday conversations with team members, these tactics make messages more memorable, engaging, and impactful.

Table 10.3 Charismatic Leadership Tactics

Tactic Example

Metaphors, similes, and analogies

“This persistent conflict is like a riptide pulling us away from land. The longer we wait to address it, the farther from shore we will be and the harder it will be to get back.”

Stories and anecdotes

“I was filled with pride from watching patients receive imaging in the MRI machine that I designed. However, it was when I saw a little girl sobbing with fear at the prospect of being placed within one that I realized my failure to consider the experience of children in my design.”

Contrasts “I joined this company not for the prestige but to do good in the world.”

429

Tactic Example

Rhetorical questions

“Do you want to sell sugar water for the rest of your life, or do you want to come with me and change the world?”

—Steve Jobs convincing then Pepsi executive John Sculley to join Apple in 1983

Three-part lists

“Completing this project by tomorrow is going to take a lot of commitment, creativity, and coffee.”

Expressions of moral conviction

“Who is going to ultimately pay for this mess that we’ve created? It is not our donors but the children we are supposed to be helping. This is not right, especially because the fix is so simple.”

Reflection of group sentiments

“I know that you are all tired because I feel the same way. Just like you, I am disappointed and demotivated. But I have a plan, and by this time tomorrow, we will be finished.”

430

Tactic Example

Setting high goals

“It’s possible to make a self-sustaining city on Mars by 2050, if we start in 5 years.”

—SpaceX Founder Elon Musk in 2019, explaining his strategy to colonize Mars with 1 million people

Confidence in the teams’ ability to achieve goals

“The deadline is daunting. Another team might tremble at this timeline. But we are not just another team. I believe that we can rise to the challenge of meeting this deadline. We have the experience and intelligence. All we need is the will to do it.”

Animated voice

Passionate speakers change the speed, pitch, and volume of their voice to emphasize emotions like sadness, excitement, and anger.

Facial expressions

Eye contact and, as appropriate, smiling, frowning, and laughing can reinforce a message.

Gestures Hand movements can reinforce confidence and command attention.

431

Source: Adapted from Antonakis, J., Fenley, M., & Liechti, S. (2012). Learning charisma. Transform yourself into the person others want to follow. Harvard Business Review, 90(6), 127–130.

432

10.4 TEAM LEADERSHIP

While many traditional leadership theories can be applied in teams, they do not adequately explain the range of leadership processes present in teams. Instead, traditional theories treat leadership the same across individual, team, and organizational contexts (Kozlowski, Mak, & Chao, 2016). However, team contexts are unique. Some teams may have, at the same time, several formal and informal leaders, both internal and external, to the team (Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010). Other teams have no formal leadership, while still others distribute or rotate leadership roles among members.

A predominant difference between traditional views of leadership and team leadership lies in the difference between vertical leadership and shared leadership (Pearce & Conger, 2002). Most leadership theories assume the leader is positioned hierarchically above and external to the team (i.e., vertical leadership). However, many teams do not functionally operate this way (Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007). The complexity and ambiguity faced by teams mean that no single member is likely to possess all the requisite skills and knowledge to successfully lead. Moreover, specialized and skilled team members often desire increased autonomy in exercising their knowledge.

In response to these issues, theories of team leadership offer a more complete view of leadership processes in teams. Understanding team leadership requires moving away from thinking of a leader as a single individual but as a set of functions that may be shared by many of a team’s members (Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2004). These functions revolve around problem-solving activities that advance team effectiveness. Any team member that advances team effectiveness is then engaging in leadership.

433

Functional Approach

From a functional leadership perspective, the leader helps the team operate more effectively (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001). The leader’s “main job is to do, or get done, whatever is not being adequately handled for group needs” (McGrath, 1962, p. 5). In other words, a leader is a problem solver who identifies what team functions need improvement and then develops actions to correct the situation (Mumford, Todd, Higgs, & McIntosh, 2017). Functional leadership is not a specific style of leadership behavior but, rather, the problem-solving orientation to dealing with the emergent problems that teams face. This, of course, requires adequate knowledge of group dynamics for teams.

The focus of the team leader depends on the specific situation the team faces. Morgeson and colleagues (2010) identified 15 leadership functions: composing the team, defining the mission, establishing expectations and goals, structuring and planning, training and developing, sensemaking, providing feedback, monitoring team performance, managing team boundaries, challenging the team, performing team tasks as needed, solving task- and relationship-related problems, providing resources, encouraging self-management, and supporting social climate. These functions illustrate the range of problems that leaders can encounter, from managing conflict and developing cohesion, to setting objectives and making decisions. Moreover, they must do this while also navigating changing and uncertain organizational environments, constraints, and resources (Zaccaro et al., 2001).

Leaders are rarely provided prepackaged problems complete with all of the necessary information needed to solve them. Rather, many team problems are ill-structured and have no straightforward solution path, meaning that both the problem

434

and solution can be construed in several different ways (Mumford & Connelly, 1991). Leaders must determine, gather, and evaluate the information that is relevant to the problem. From this, they must devise and implement a solution. The problem might concern new products and services being developed by the team, or they may pertain to the dynamics of the team itself. A leader, for example, may need to identify and manage team conflict. There is no one correct path for achieving this, and the potential paths depend on the specific individuals and circumstances of the team. Ultimately, leaders help the team solve problems in order to meet its goals, while developing the skills and abilities of the team members so they have the collective capacity for leadership. They promote team learning by giving performance feedback to the team and using this information to help the team develop performance strategies that are more effective.

Successfully navigating these kinds of problems depends on the leader cultivating problem-solving skills, social- judgment skills, and knowledge (Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, & Fleishman, 2000). Problem-solving skills include defining problems, analyzing the problem causes, understanding the solution constraints, and evaluating ideas (Chapters 11 and 12 discuss problem solving and creativity in more detail). Social-judgment skills include perspective- taking to assess how others will respond to a solution; understanding the needs, goals, demands, and problems of others; adapting behavior; motivating team members; and communicating the solution vision. Finally, the leader needs relevant knowledge of the task, coworkers, and organization. For example, knowledge of group dynamics provides you with a set of concepts, frameworks, and theories that can be applied to diagnose and treat various team problems. In the absence of this knowledge, you are less likely to successfully recognize, talk about, and solve team problems.

435

There are several approaches that team leaders can take to support the team (Hackman, 2012). Leaders can focus on the structure and context of the team to ensure it has the capabilities to succeed. Alternatively, team leaders can be actively involved in the internal operations of the team to facilitate performance. Finally, leaders can assume the role of coach to guide the team when they encounter challenges to performance. From a leadership perspective, establishing the context for the team is the most critical factor.

Providing a Context for Teams

Team leaders provide a supportive context for teams by focusing on the team’s direction, structure, and external relations (Hackman, Walton, & Goodman, 1986; Wageman, Hackman, & Lehman, 2005). One of the primary roles of the team leader is to set the direction for the team. Establishing a clear and engaging direction for the team is a crucial part of motivating team performance.

The leader creates the circumstances that enable successful performance. This includes a facilitative group structure and a supportive organizational context. A facilitative group structure includes engaging tasks, a team whose members have the skills to complete the task, and team norms that encourage effective performance. A supportive context provides the team with necessary information and resources and rewards team excellence.

The third leader role is oriented toward the team’s external relations. The leader links the team to the organization and buffers the team from any interference from the organization. The leader has a public relations job to perform, making sure the team has the resources and support it needs from the organization.

436

Facilitating Internal Operations

Active team leaders impact the team’s cognitive, motivational, emotional, and coordination processes (Zaccaro et al., 2001). From a cognitive perspective, team leaders help identify the issues that the team needs to manage, facilitate problem solving by the team, and help form the team’s performance strategies. They do not solve the team’s problems directly but facilitate the team’s ability to engage in effective problem solving.

Another major role of the leader is to motivate team members to work hard for the team. Leaders do this by facilitating team cohesion and a sense of collective efficacy. They develop challenging task assignments that require interdependence in order to encourage commitment. Leaders acknowledge good performance and celebrate team successes to reward team performance.

From an emotional perspective, the leader helps manage the team’s stress and promote a positive mood among team members. The leader impacts the team’s mood by modeling positive states, providing counseling and support to team members, and constructively managing conflict. This means creating a safe environment where team members feel free to participate without fear of punishment.

Finally, the leader improves coordination in the team by identifying the individual roles of team members, matching team members’ capabilities to their roles, developing performance strategies, and monitoring and providing feedback about performance. The leader is also responsible for creating times for the team to reflect on its performance and reevaluate its goals and processes.

437

Team Coaching

Team coaching is a team leader intervention designed to improve coordination and performance by guiding the team (Hackman & Wageman, 2005). There are three types of team coaching: motivational, consultative, and educational. Motivational coaching is designed to minimize social loafing and increase team commitment. Consultative coaching focuses on strategies to improve team performance and increase coordination among team roles and tasks. Educational coaching helps build the knowledge, skills, and abilities of team members and the team as a whole.

How the leader coaches a team depends on its stage of development. These stages affect the readiness of the team to accept and use different types of coaching. At the beginning of a project, team members need to become oriented toward each other and prepare to work on the task. A coaching intervention that motivates the team by enhancing commitment to both the team and the task is appropriate. During the midpoint transition period, strategy-oriented coaching that helps the team analyze and improve operations is valuable. When most of the team’s work has been completed, educational coaching helps the team learn from the experience and enables members to use these lessons in future team activities.

Coaching is about building the team, not about directing the team how to do its work. Unfortunately, leaders too often focus on micromanaging the team’s activities rather than on building the capabilities of the team. Research shows that leaders who actively listen to team members and incorporate their ideas into the team’s decisions help improve both members’ evaluations of their teams and the quality of team decisions (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). Dysfunctional team leaders tend to micromanage their teams, engage in autocratic decision making, and be overconfident in their own skills (McIntyre & Salas, 1995). This pattern of leadership reduces

438

respect for such leaders and prevents constructive feedback in order to improve their behavior.

439

Shared Leadership

While functional leadership centralizes the role of leadership in a single person, shared leadership recognizes that all leadership functions do not need to be performed by the same person (D’Innocenzo, Mathieu, & Kukenberger, 2016). Instead, functions can be shared, distributed across members, or rotated among members as needed (Zhu, Liao, Yam, & Johnson, 2018). Sharing leadership empowers all members to concurrently monitor the team’s climate and performance, diagnose problems, and develop solutions. This allows team members to take on leadership roles in domains relevant to their expertise, while being a follower in others. These benefits improve team performance and allow the team to be more responsive to complex problems (Morgeson et al., 2010).

Adopting shared leadership in a team offers several benefits. Teams sharing leadership functions have more trust, more cohesion, more consensus, and less conflict (Bergman, Rentsch, Small, Davenport, & Bergman, 2012). Shared leadership emphasizes the social relations among team members and the collective enactment of leadership. Because it promotes communication and support among team members, shared leadership promotes trust, team cohesion, and satisfaction. Consequently, shared leadership improves both the task and social aspects of team performance (D’Innocenzo et al., 2016; Wang, Waldman, & Zhang, 2014). It is also a better predictor of team performance than vertical leadership (Ensley, Hmieleski, & Pearce, 2006). Finally, virtual teams adopting shared leadership benefit from improved collaboration and performance (Hill & Bartol, 2016; Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014).

Self-Managed Teams

440

Shared leadership is an important competency for fostering self-managing teams (Magpili & Pazos, 2018). In order to better adapt to rapid change and uncertainty, organizations are increasingly flattening hierarchy and transferring power to autonomous units of self-managing teams (Bernstein et al., 2016). In the United States, nearly 75% of the top 1,000 firms use self-managed teams (Douglas & Gardner, 2004). This shifts responsibility for team success from external managers to the team itself. This reduces the need for managers and allows the remaining managers to focus on tasks outside the team. When they are successful, self-managing teams encourage the empowerment of employees and the development of team member skills.

The shift to self-managing teams is not an all-or-nothing process. Rather, there are many levels of self-management depending on how willing the organization is to give the team new responsibilities (Hackman, 2002). Typically, self- managing teams are responsible for monitoring and managing their own work processes, but an external leader may either provide support or directly intervene in the team’s operations (Morgeson, 2005). When leaders intervene by preparing teams for change or providing supportive coaching, they are viewed as effective leaders and increase satisfaction with leadership. When they directly intervene in the team’s operations, they decrease satisfaction with leadership. Active involvement by the leader is viewed as negative by the team because it takes away the team’s autonomy. Active interventions are only related to team effectiveness and satisfaction when the team cannot manage on its own.

Not all kinds of teams benefit equally from self-management (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). Production or service teams benefit more from self-management than professional and project teams. In production teams, team members complete more routine tasks and can be cross-trained, which allows them to

441

understand the issues involved in each other’s work. By contrast, professional team members already have increased autonomy and have different types of expertise, thereby limiting members’ understanding of each other’s perspectives (Uhl-Bien & Graen, 1992). Professional and project teams have leaders who are highly involved in managing the task (Levi & Slem, 1996). The lack of a single best approach to leadership should not be too surprising. When the task is complex and the team’s goals are unclear, a strong leader is needed to provide clear direction. When the task is relatively routine, the need for a leader is greatly diminished. The more experience people have in performing the task and working as a team, the better able they are to become self-managing.

442

10.5 FOLLOWERSHIP

While many believe that having strong leadership skills on a résumé is helpful, they might shirk at the notion of emphasizing strong followership skills. Yet followers are the unsung heroes of leadership, for there can be no leader without followers. Compared to leadership, research on followership is in its nascency (Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, & Carsten, 2014). Given the increase of shared leadership practices in teams, it becomes important to seriously consider what it means to be a good follower.

Just as implicit leadership theories inform the prototypical leader, leaders have implicit followership theories about followers (Sy, 2010). Managers consider good followers to be industrious (e.g., hardworking, productive, goes above and beyond), enthusiastic (e.g., happy, outgoing, and excited), and good citizens (e.g., loyal, reliable, and a team player). By contrast, ineffective followers are defined by incompetence (e.g., inexperienced, slow, and uneducated), insubordination (e.g., arrogant, rude, and bad-tempered), and conformity (e.g., easily influenced, soft-spoken, and follows trends). While many of these traits are perhaps unsurprising, it is notable that followers who conform are thought of negatively. After all, influence is a cornerstone of leadership. Understanding this requires thinking more critically about what ideal followership might look like.

Kelley (1988) offers a two-dimensional framework for followership. The first dimension captures how passively (i.e., negative energy and withdrawn) or actively (i.e., positive energy and committed) engaged the follower is with the group and their work. The second dimension reflects the degree to which the follower is overly dependent on the

443

leader versus being capable of independent and critical thought. These dimensions produce five kinds of followers.

1. Passive followers are passive and uncritical; they complete tasks but take little initiative and do not question the leader.

2. Conformist followers are active but uncritical; they are compliant, to the point of being servile to the leader.

3. Alienated followers are critical thinkers who passively fulfill their role; they are often disgruntled and cynical.

4. Pragmatic followers exist in the middle, adapting themselves as needed to survive organizational change.

5. Effective followers are the ideal type—highly committed, hold themselves accountable for high performance, provide honest and constructive critiques to leaders, and proactively seek out overlooked problems.

This framework praises followers who can engage in constructive questioning and challenging of leaders, as opposed to blind obedience and deference. Leaders would be wise to consider how their actions may encourage or impede effective followership. Likewise, followers should keep in mind that not all leaders are effective—destructive leaders produce harmful consequences for teams and organizations (Thoroughgood, Sawyer, Padilla, & Lunsford, 2018). Engaged and proactive followers play a critical role in defending against dysfunctional leaders (Kelley, 2008). Effective followership may itself evolve into leadership.

444

SUMMARY

Leadership is an influence process between leaders and followers. Leaders may be designated by their organizations, teams may select their own leaders, or teams can be self- managing. In the absence of an assigned leader, a leader emerges through the team’s interactions. Leader emergence is influenced by followers’ implicit theories and the potential leader’s traits, skills, and behaviors.

Leader emergence is not the same as leader effectiveness. There are several approaches to studying leadership. Each of these approaches has different implications for the way leaders should be selected and trained:

1. The trait approach defines the personality characteristics of successful leaders.

2. The behavioral approach examines the value of different behavioral styles, such as task orientation and social orientation.

3. The contingency approach considers how the situation influences the kind of leadership needed.

4. The relational approach focuses on the development and impact of leader–follower relationships.

5. The charismatic approach emphasizes the role of creating impactful messages to influence and inspire followers.

6. The functional approach defines a leader as a problem solver who identifies and solves problems faced by the team.

One of the most enduring leadership theories for teams is situational leadership theory, which defines four styles of leadership: directing, coaching, supporting, and delegating. The leader should select the style to use based on the readiness level of the team. In addition, the leader should use an appropriate style to promote team development.

445

Leadership in teams also depends on solving functional problems. Teams are increasingly engaging in shared leadership, in which functional leadership roles are rotated or distributed across members. This is essential for implementing self-managing teams, which shift responsibility from management to the team members.

Leaders only exist at the consent of followers. Followership varies along dimensions of passive/active and dependent/independent. Cultivating followers who constructively disagree with leaders can improve team effectiveness and prevent dysfunctional leadership.

446

Team Leadership Challenge 10

You are an attorney in a law office with several other attorneys, paralegal assistants, clerical staff, and an office technician. Leadership is shared among the attorneys, and you are the leader for the staff meetings and for office management issues. Decisions about how the office operates are made in weekly meetings with the entire staff. The office technician has informed you that problems are increasing with the office computer system and it is time to make a major change. This technological decision will affect the work of everyone in the office.

The office functions well, and people have good working relationships. Although they do not welcome learning a new computer system, many people in the office recognize that a change in technology is needed. For most office decisions, the staff discusses issues and makes a group decision. However, there are many technical aspects to the computer system decision, and you are uncertain whether everyone should be involved in this decision.

How should you (the leader for office management issues) make the decision about the new computer system?

Are the team members capable of making this decision, or is this a time when more authoritative leadership is important?

What leadership style is best here? Why?

447

Survey: Leadership Styles

Purpose: To help you understand your preferred leadership styles. Situational leadership theory says that the best style of leadership depends on the characteristics of the situation. However, people often have preferred leadership styles that they use frequently, regardless of the situation.

Directions: Imagine that you are the leader of a team facing the eight situations that are listed below. How should you as the team leader make the decisions to resolve the situations? Review these four decision options, and select which approach is best for each situation:

Option A: Make the decision yourself, and tell the team what to do.

Option B: Ask the team members for advice but make the decision yourself.

Option C: Facilitate the team’s decision-making process.

Option D: Let the members of the team decide by themselves what to do.

_____ 1. The team’s performance has been dropping, and personality clashes are increasing. You have tried to be friendly and sympathetic to their problems, but this does not seem to be working. What should you do to improve the team’s performance?

_____ 2. Because of financial problems in the organization, you have been ordered to make budget

448

cuts for the team. There are a variety of options, including reducing the number of team members or work hours. How should you make the budget cuts?

_____ 3. You are considering a major change—replacing the office computer system. The team works well together and has been consistently successful. They respect the need for change, but they are not computer experts. How should you make the decision and manage the change program?

_____ 4. It is the beginning of the sports season, and your team needs to reduce the number of players on the roster from 27 to 25. How should you decide who will be removed from the team?

_____ 5. You have received information that indicates some recent quality problems in the team’s work. The team has a good record of accomplishment. You are not sure what is causing the performance problems. What should you do to improve the situation?

_____ 6. The team has just completed a major project deadline, and it is time to celebrate. You think a party or social activity is an appropriate reward. What kind of celebration should you have?

_____ 7. The team has been performing fairly well. The previous team leader was very controlling. You want the team to continue to be successful, but you would also like to improve the social relations among team members. How should you try to improve the situation?

_____ 8. The team’s office is being redecorated, and there are many decisions to be made. These decisions relate to furniture, carpeting, wall colors, and so on. The budget for the project has already been established. How should these decisions be made?

449

Scoring

The number of situations you marked A is your directing score.

The number of situations you marked B is your coaching score.

The number of situations you marked C is your supporting score.

The number of situations you marked D is your delegating score.

Discussion: Did you have a preferred leadership style? In which situations is this leadership style most appropriate? How flexible are you with your leadership style?

Source: Adapted from Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. (1997). Behavior in organizations: Understanding the human side of

work (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

450

Activity: Observing the Leader’s

Behavior

Objective: Situational leadership theory defines four types of leader behavior: directing, coaching, supporting, and delegating. The most useful behavior depends on the readiness level of the team. Team readiness relates to the skills, experience, and responsibility level of the team.

Activity: Select a variety of situations to observe and analyze the behavior of leaders. These situations can come from teams or organizations you belong to, videos of leaders interacting with teams, business case studies, or the Team Leader’s Challenges in this book. Use Activity Worksheet 10.1 to classify the leader’s behavior using the types from situational leadership theory, rate the readiness level of the team, and analyze the match between these factors.

Analysis: According to situational leadership theory, does the style of behavior used by the leader match the readiness level of the team? Was the style of leadership used effective? How should the leader behave to be more effective?

Discussion: What are the implications of using a leadership style that is too controlling or task oriented? What are the implications of using a leadership style that gives subordinates too much freedom and responsibility? How will team members respond to these styles of leadership?

451

Activity Worksheet 10.1: Rating the

Leader’s Behavior

Which of the following styles best describes the leader’s behavior?

______ Directing (high task and low relationship)

______ Coaching (high task and high relationship)

______ Supporting (low task and high relationship)

______ Delegating (low task and low relationship)

Overall, how would you rate the readiness level of the team?

______ Low ______ Medium ______ High ______

How well did the leader’s behavior match with the group’s readiness level?

Leadership Style

Directing Coaching Supporting Delegating

Low Medium High

452

Group Readiness

453

454

CHAPTER 11 PROBLEM SOLVING

Team problem-solving approaches are based on a rational model consisting of eight stages: problem recognition, problem definition, problem analysis, solution criteria, generating alternatives, selecting a solution, implementation, and evaluation of the results. In practice, however, this rational approach is rarely followed, and teams often find themselves developing solutions before they understand the problems. At each stage of the problem-solving process, teams can use a number of techniques to improve their problem- solving abilities. Using these techniques helps teams become more effective as problem solvers.

455

Learning Objectives

1. Distinguish between a well-structured and ill-structured problem. 2. Understand the differences between how teams typically solve problems and how

they should solve problems. 3. Explain each step of the rational problem-solving process. 4. Understand the factors that improve and disrupt the ability of a team to

recognize, define, and analyze problems. 5. Understand the factors that improve and disrupt the ability of a team to

recognize, define, and analyze problems. 6. Explain how to establish solution criteria, generate ideas, and select a

solution. 7. Describe the importance of the implementation and evaluation of a solution. 8. Explain several techniques for improving teams in their problem-solving efforts.

456

11.1 UNDERSTANDING PROBLEMS

A problem can be many things: the difference between the current state and a desired state, a dilemma with no apparent solution, an undesirable situation without a way out, a question that cannot currently be answered, or a situation team members must manage effectively (Pokras, 1995). Generally, a problem exists when there is a goal but an unclear path for achieving that goal. Problem solving can be thought of as the process of identifying and selecting a path to that goal.

Problems exist on a continuum from well structured to ill structured (Newell & Simon, 1972; Schraw, Dunkle, & Bendixen, 1995; Schwaber, 2004). Well-structured problems have clear beginning and ending states with an objectively correct and knowable solution path between them (e.g., solving a puzzle or following a recipe). Solving well-structured problems generally only requires the application of domain expertise or known procedures (Newell & Simon, 1972). By contrast, ill-structured problems have vague beginning states, unspecified goals, and indeterminate pathways between the problem and solution (e.g., fixing a failing business or improving product quality). These problems involve conflicting assumptions, evidence, and opinions that can produce multiple definitions of the problem with different paths to several possible solutions. Moreover, it is also unknown if a possible solution even exists.

Ill-structured problems are endemic to teams and organizations, from resolving interpersonal conflict to developing business strategy. Leadership is increasingly associated with the ability to facilitate problem solving (Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004). Advancing within an organizational hierarchy corresponds to shifting from a focus on well-structured to ill- structured problems (Brightman, 1978). An anecdote from a friend working in Silicon Valley explains it like this:

When you first get hired, you are given a problem and a solution. Your job is simply

to build this solution. To get promoted, the expectation is that you can be given a

problem without a solution. Your job is to determine the right solution and then to

build it. Finally, at the senior level, you are not given anything—your job is to

find the unknown problems and lead your teammates into solving it.

It is little surprise that problem solving is considered the most important skill for new college graduates (NACE, 2019). Despite 100% of employers across industries stating that problem solving is essential to career readiness, only 56.8% of employers rated graduates as proficient in this skill. As we will see in this chapter (and the next), effective problem- solving strategies are not always intuitive.

In a work environment, a problem for many teams is simply how to complete their tasks or assignments. A team’s assignment contains two primary problems: (1) determining the nature of the assignments (i.e., task) and how to complete them (i.e., process) and (2) managing problems and obstacles encountered when performing them. These obstacles may be technical issues, conflicting viewpoints, or interpersonal conflicts.

While there is no single best way to solve all problems, scholars have developed general models that help in this process. Research on problem solving can be divided into three categories: describing the ways in which teams typically solve problems (i.e., descriptive), prescribing an ideal process to solve problems (i.e., prescriptive), and explaining what improves this process (i.e., functional). Teams that follow a procedure are often better at solving problems.

457

11.2 DESCRIPTIVE APPROACH: HOW TEAMS TYPICALLY SOLVE PROBLEMS

The descriptive approach identifies the typical patterns of communication that teams follow during problem solving. This is based on merely observing group interactions, without recommending any specific structure. In a foundational series of studies, Poole and Roth (1989a, 1989b) found that teams generally follow one of three distinct paths: unitary, solution centered, and complex cycle.

The unitary path was the least used approach. It represents a rational approach to problem solving in which the team advances through four stages: orientation, conflict, emergence, and reinforcement (Fisher, 1970). These stages are analogous to the stages of team development (forming, storming, norming, and performing) discussed in Chapter 3. In the orientation stage, the team socializes to develop trust and cohesion and gets oriented to the problem. The conflict stage involves members asserting different opinions regarding the problem and possible solutions. In the emergence stage, the team becomes cohesive and develops consensus around the problem and alternatives. In the reinforcement stage, the team is satisfied with the group and confident in its solution.

The second most frequent path was solution orientation. Rather than attempting first to define or analyze the problem, this path begins with the team discussing possible solutions and making a decision. Without a clear understanding of the problem, these solutions tend to be inadequate. Finally, the most common path was a complex cycle, in which the team repeated several cycles of discussing the problem, then developing solutions, then returning to the problem, and so forth. Over 50% of all the teams began with discussing solutions, bypassing consideration of the problem. These teams invested considerable amounts of time in discussing solutions before ultimately returning to analyze the problem.

The descriptive approach reveals the variety of paths that teams take when solving problems. In understanding these paths, you can evaluate and intervene in the problem-solving process. This research also shows that teams rarely engage in rational problem-solving processes when their interactions are unstructured. Understanding as much as possible about a problem at the beginning can reduce the overall time spent solving the problem.

458

11.3 RATIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING: HOW TEAMS SHOULD SOLVE PROBLEMS

The descriptive approach explains what teams typically do when solving problems. But what should teams do to effectively solve problems? The prescriptive and the functional approaches offer guidance.

The prescriptive approach recommends an “ideal” procedure for team discussions (Fisher, 1970, 1980). Rational problem solving is a stepwise model frequently used in organizational problem solving (an alternative model, design thinking, is discussed in Chapter 12). This approach is based on the assumptions that (a) team members should use rational problem- solving strategies and (b) using a structured approach will lead to a better solution. The value of formal structured approaches to problem solving varies depending on the type of problem. The more ill-structured and complex the problem, the more helpful it is if the team uses a structured approach to solve it (VanGundy, 1981, 1984). An outline of this approach is presented in Figure 11.1, which shows the main steps in a formal, rational problem- solving model.

Description

Figure 11.1 Prescriptive Problem-Solving Approach

Source: Adapted from Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. New York, NY: Heath; VanGundy, A. (1981). Techniques of structured problem solving. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

The functional approach builds upon the prescriptive approach but emphasizes that the quality of team discussions is more important than systematically following the prescribed order. In other words, effective problem solving is contingent on how well the team satisfies critical five requisite functions (Orlitzky & Hirokawa, 2001):

1. Problem analysis—accurately understanding of the problem through investigating and challenging its nature, seriousness, root causes, and consequences

2. Determining criteria—establishing what a solution must do to be considered effective and identifying criteria or standards for evaluating solutions

3. Generating alternative solutions—generating or being aware of several feasible and appropriate solutions

4. Evaluating positive consequences of solutions—evaluating each alternative solution against the criteria and considering the relative merits of each solution

459

5. Evaluating negative consequences of solutions—evaluating each alternative solution against the criteria and considering the relative weaknesses of each solution

A meta-analysis of the functional approach shows that the three most important requisite functions for effective problem solving are, in order, (1) evaluating negative consequences, (2) problem analysis, and (3) determining solution criteria (Orlitzky & Hirokawa, 2001). In other words, teams that seek a complete understanding of the problem, carefully articulate what a solution must do, and critically evaluate the negative outcomes of various solutions are most likely to effectively solve problems.

What contributes to satisfying or inhibiting these requisite functions? Team members should be vigilant, critical thinkers who pay attention to the process of problem solving (Tasa & Whyte, 2005). However, teams often jump quickly to the solution stage without adequately defining the problem (Hackman & Morris, 1975). In their desire to develop solutions quickly, they focus on the symptoms of the problem rather than trying to understand the real causes of the problem. The teams do not discuss their problem-solving strategies or develop plans to research possibilities. Typically, they try to apply solutions that have worked in the past.

When teams rush to solve problems, their decision-making process is often based on intuitive, automatic, emotional thinking rather than on rational, conscious, logical thinking (Milkman, Chugh, & Bazerman, 2009). In many cases, problem solving is improved by slowing down the decision-making process in order to promote rational rather than intuitive thinking. Teams that spend time following a structured approach to problem solving make better decisions, and members are more satisfied with the problem-solving process.

A team may not follow a structured approach to problem solving because of constraints on the process, such as limited time, money, and information. Because of these constraints, teams often seek satisficing solutions rather than optimal solutions (Simon, 1979). Perfection is expensive and time-consuming. Collecting all relevant information needed to solve problems may take longer than the time or resources available to teams. In most cases, teams try to find acceptable solutions (those that meet their basic needs), given the constraints of the situation. Next, we look more deeply at each stage in the rational problem-solving process.

460

Problem Recognition

Being able to recognize a problem is often more important than being able to solve one (Mackworth, 1965). Teams should constantly monitor their task, goals, processes, resources, environment, and social relationships for problems. Additionally, having an open and flexible mind is essential, as people fail to notice problems that run counter to their expectations.

There are three ways in which problems can be “found” (Getzels, 1982). Presented problems are given to the team and simply await being solved—they do not need to be recognized. Discovered problems exist but are not clearly defined to the team. For example, a leader may recognize that the team is not as cohesive as it could be (a symptom), but gathering more information is needed to understand why (the problem). Finally, created problems involve inventing a problem that is not currently recognized. Many scientific and technological breakthroughs involve created problems.

Problems vary in their levels of severity, familiarity, and complexity (Moreland & Levine, 1992). The more severe a problem is, the more likely it is to be identified as a hindrance. Acute problems with identifiable onsets and impacts are often recognized, whereas chronic problems that are less visible are often ignored. Possessing domain knowledge makes problems in that domain more familiar and more easily recognizable. Novel problems outside the domain knowledge of team members are more difficult to interpret, and teams may assume they are unique, one-time events that will go away by themselves. Complex problems are challenging to analyze and interpret because they involve numerous interconnected factors. People often fail to recognize the complexity of novel problems and instead treat them as simple (Mumford, Martin, Elliott, & McIntosh, 2018).

Team norms have a substantial effect on problem recognition (Moreland & Levine, 1992). Teams with norms supporting communication and positive attitudes toward conflict are more likely to identify and discuss problems. Teams vary in how open they are to the environment. Closed teams that are internally focused are less likely to be aware of problems in the environment. Open teams monitor what is happening in the environment. Also, they are better able to prepare for problems in the future because they identified the issues beforehand.

Team performance affects the problem recognition process (Moreland & Levine, 1992). A team that is performing successfully will sometimes ignore problems. From their perspective, the problems cannot be very important, given that the team is currently successful. Unsuccessful teams also tend to ignore problems. These teams focus on their main performance problems and, as a result, are less likely to notice other problems. The notion of continuous improvement is designed to help deal with this issue. In continuous improvement, teams assume that part of their function is to improve operations. In essence, all teams—both successful and unsuccessful—are required to identify problems and work to solve them on an ongoing basis.

Characteristics of the environment also affect a team’s ability to identify and analyze problems (Moreland & Levine, 1992). Many modern environments (e.g., political, business, technological) have substantial levels of change and uncertainty. The rapidity of change creates a need to stay alert and prepare for future problems, while the level of uncertainty makes it more difficult to do so. Teams vary in their relations to the outside environment. For example, some work teams are required to accept the definitions of problems given by their organizations. In contrast, other teams are open to information about potential problems from outside sources (e.g., customers, suppliers, and the public).

Once a team identifies a problem, it may decide not to solve it. There are other alternatives. The team may decide to deny or distort the problem, thus justifying their

461

choice to ignore it. The team may decide to hide from the problem, given that problems sometimes go away by themselves. If the problem is difficult for the team to understand, it may decide just to monitor the problem.

462

Problem Definition

Defining the problem consists of clarifying the scope of the problem. This is perhaps the most pivotal task in problem solving, as it directs all future activities and defines success of the project. How a problem is defined ultimately impacts the quality, originality, and elegance of the solution (Arreola & Reiter-Palmon, 2016). Inaccurate problem definitions produce ineffective solutions. Well-structured problems generally have straightforward definitions, as there is a clear problem and solution path. Ill-structured problems, however, are more difficult because they are complex and there are many ways to frame the problem. Teams can simplify the problem and use constraints to improve the problem definition. It is also important to take time and to consider multiple viewpoints when defining the problem.

Defining ill-structured problems requires balancing between oversimplification and overcomplication (Mumford et al., 2018). For example, the problem of microplastics polluting the ocean and entering the food chain is well recognized (Ivar do Sul & Costa, 2014). However, a single solution is unlikely to solve the entirety of this issue. Rather, simplifying this problem into smaller and more manageable parts may be fruitful: How can we clean microplastics from the ocean? How can we prevent microplastics from entering the food

supply? How might we eliminate microplastics from polluting the ocean to begin with? Each of these problem definitions is different, and each requires different skill sets and expertise to address. While simplification can be helpful, oversimplifying a complex problem reduces the likelihood of finding a creative and effective solution.

Adding constraints is another way to improve the problem definition, as this adds structure to ill-structured problems. For example, Medeiros, Partlow, and Mumford (2014) asked students to develop an advertising campaign for a new product. Some students were provided constraints relating to fundamentals (e.g., make a campaign for 18- to 24-year-olds), themes (e.g., focus the ad on nightlife), and resources (e.g., you have a budget of $100,000). The results indicated that having some constraints increased the quality and creativity of the campaigns. However, it is important to note that both too few and too many constraints were associated with lower quality solutions. Similar findings emerge in fields such as architecture (Weisberg, 2011), engineering (Pool, 1997), art (Stokes & Fisher, 2005), and business (Dean & Sharfman, 1996). Constraints may be provided by the organization, determined by the team, or informed by problem analysis.

Effective problem definitions integrate the viewpoints of others and take time to develop. Teams are often composed of members with different experiences, knowledge, backgrounds, values, and personalities. As a result, members understand and define problems differently (Reiter-Palmon, Herman, & Yammarino, 2008). However, team members are also rarely aware that others define problems differently (Cronin & Weingart, 2007). This can be a source of misunderstanding, disagreement, and conflict in the team. Teams must develop a shared mental model of the problem. One strategy is to define the problem in several different ways before moving forward (Baer, 1988). Finally, having an incubation period in which the team spends time away from working on the problem can lead to insights about how to define it (Smith & Blankenship, 1991).

In developing the problem definition, teams should discuss the gap between the existing and desired states and evidence of this gap. The problem definition should avoid stating a specific solution or presuming causes of the problem, as this can misdirect the team away from more fruitful solutions. Gerald Smith (1989) summarized less effective and more effective conceptualizations of problem definitions (see Table 11.1).

Table 11.1 Conceptualizations of Problem Definitions

463

Conceptualization Comments ExampleConceptualization Comments Example

Means and strategies— preemptively specifying a specific solution

People often overestimate the effectiveness of an initial solution, while closing off from consideration other, more promising solutions.

“We have to increase the size of our team to get this done.”

Causal diagnosis— presupposing potential causes of the current state

People incorrectly assume the causes of a problem, which may misdirect from actual causes.

“The real problem is that we are not moving ahead quickly enough.”

Values and preferences

—stating the ends served by a solution

Not all stakeholder values may be reflected in the statement, and therefore, it produces an unacceptable solution.

“We need to convince the professor to allow more time on this assignment.”

Difficulties— identifying obstacles to goal achievement

Obstacles can be assumed, implicit, or self-imposed.

“It’s difficult advancing on this project when we run out of time at our meetings.”

Goal state

specification—stating the desired goal

Provides an open-ended way of stating a goal, but the goal may evolve during problem solving.

“This year’s sales must reach $3.2 million.”

Gap specification— comparing what is and what is desired

Desired goals tend to evolve during the problem solving process.

“Our projected team costs are $100,000 over budget.”

Knowledge specification

—providing all relevant known (and presumed) facts and beliefs related to the problem

It is hard to determine which facts or beliefs are truly relevant to the problem. The amount of data may be overwhelming.

“Our product is 20 years old; our competitor is outspending us on advertising; sales are going down.”

Perspective—providing a point-of-view statement

This is an ideal statement supported by observable facts but also allows several equally valid interpretations to emerge.

“Students are increasingly feeling stressed and anxious in college, while demand for mental health support exceeds the available resources.”

Source: Adapted from Smith, G. F. (1989). Defining managerial problems: A framework for prescriptive theorizing. Management Science, 35(8), 963–981.

464

Problem Analysis

Typically, the first encounter with a problem is only with its symptoms. Most of the real problem lies hidden. The team must investigate deeper to find the problem itself and validate its fundamental sources. It needs to separate the symptoms (which are effects) from the causes. The team should also actively strive to validate or invalidate the problem’s legitimacy, as initial problem definitions can be incomplete or inaccurate.

Problem analysis consists of seeking out information about the defined problem—who is affected, what its impact is, when does it occur, where does it occur, why does it occur, and how does it occur. This includes identifying the root causes, impacts, stakeholders, and seriousness of the problem. The team may interview stakeholders, observe relevant processes, experience the problem firsthand and generate necessary facts. The precise strategies to use are dependent on the nature of the problem and the situation.

Teams are subject to the many biases described throughout this book (e.g., groupthink, polarization, and conformity) as they gather and discuss information. Three problems are of particular concern during problem analysis. First, teams can experience information overload (Eppler & Mengis, 2004). Complex problems involve many variables, and there is often an abundance of information available. Sifting through this data can be overwhelming. When this happens, people gather information without critically processing it. Setting deadlines for gathering information forces the team to stop and process the data—the team can always decide that more information is needed. Second, teams may experience information underload when insufficient data is gathered or when more time is spent on reviewing shared information than on discussing specialized information (Stasser, 1992). Third is conformation bias (Nickerson, 1998). People seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs, so the team should intently seek out and discuss information that can invalidate their assumptions about the problem and its definition. The team must instead consider the problem from different, even opposing perspectives.

One method to encourage a team to consider new ways of thinking about problems and solutions is six thinking hats developed by de Bono (1999). The team collectively discusses the problem while each member is assigned a role based on one of six thinking styles, which are represented metaphorically by a hat color. This encourages the team to think in different or unfamiliar ways about the nature of the problem. Likewise, the team may ask a member to “take off” a thinking hat to consider the problem differently.

Blue hat thinking is process oriented and focuses on metacognition (e.g., where are we now?), planning (e.g., what should we do next?), and reflection (e.g., what should we take away from that?).

White hat thinking offers a neutral perspective focused on the information that is available (e.g., what do we know?) or needed (e.g., do we have the data to show that?).

Red hat thinking offers a focus on emotions, hunches, feelings, and intuition (e.g., have you considered how others might feel about that?).

Black hat thinking offers a critical perspective that uses logic, judgment, and caution to consider the challenges and weaknesses of ideas (e.g., here is why that is not a good idea … ).

Yellow hat thinking focuses on the benefits (e.g., how is that going to help us?) and speculation (e.g., what if … ).

465

Green hat thinking focuses on creativity and encourages new ideas, alternatives, and thinking “outside the box.”

Other tools may be useful for analyzing problems (Pokras, 1995). Charting unknowns directs team members to discuss what they do not know about the problem, which generates hidden facts, questions, and new places to look for information (Pokras, 1995). During symptom identification, the team tabulates all aspects or symptoms of a problem. This can be used in conjunction with repetitive “why” analysis (Serrat, 2017). In this process, a facilitator states the problem or symptoms then asks, “Why is this happening?” For each answer, the facilitator asks, “Why is that?” and repeats this several times until an underlying cause is identified. The team should not provide a guess each step but, rather, verify responses with data. Responses can be visually mapped out to aid in discussion.

While problem recognition, definition, and analysis are presented sequentially, teams move fluidly back and forth across these functions (Pretz, Naples, & Sternberg, 2003). As a team uncovers new information and dispels inaccurate assumptions, they can refine the definition of the problem. These stages should be approached as an iterative process with the goal of validating and refining the definition of the problem.

466

Establishing Solution Criteria

With a clear understanding of the causes and consequences of the problem, the team should establish solution criteria (Orlitzky & Hirokawa, 2001). Solution criteria define the requirements of an acceptable solution. They specify what the solution must do, not what it is. For example, IKEA develops a new piece of furniture by first determining its price (Terdiman, 2008). This one criterion significantly constrains the subsequent choice of materials, construction, and design, yet there remains enough space to invite a wide range of solutions.

Criteria incorporate necessary values, needs, functions, or constraints (e.g., time or resources). They might come from the team’s analysis of the problem, or key stakeholders might dictate them. There are many criteria possible to evaluate alternative solutions, including cost, effectiveness, acceptability, and ease of implementation. Not all criteria are equally important; some might be requirements, while others are preferences. Teams should carefully consider the criteria that they use and rank order their importance. Additionally, a rating scale can be developed (e.g., 0 = not acceptable, 1 = somewhat acceptable, 2 = acceptable). From this, a criteria matrix can be created to rate alternatives (Pokras, 1995). The criteria matrix allows the team to analyze and discuss the relative merits of the alternatives in a structured manner.

467

Generating Alternatives and Selecting a Solution

Finding an effective solution depends on developing several high-quality alternatives (Paulus, Kohn, & Arditti, 2011). The ability of a team to accomplish this is related to the knowledge and skills of team members. However, it also depends on the team’s climate. The climate of an effective team encourages open discussion of ideas, where minority ideas are heard and taken seriously by the majority. A good solution balances the needs of various team members and stakeholders, efficiently uses time and resources, and fosters group harmony (Fisher et al., 1991).

Teams sometimes use creativity and other structured techniques to generate alternative solutions to problems. Techniques such as brainstorming and the nominal group technique (discussed in Chapter 12) can be used to generate alternatives. An important value of these techniques is that participation by all team members is encouraged. However, these participation techniques are useful only if the team is willing to give divergent ideas a fair evaluation. Too often, conformity pressure leads teams to adopt solutions used in the past.

After generating alternatives, teams must consider how to determine the best solution. Teams should consider the positive and, in particular, negative effects of each alternative (Orlitzky & Hirokawa, 2001). To address this, teams can foster minority dissent or assign a devil’s advocate to find faults with a solution (Valacich & Schwenk, 1995). It is important to combat defending a favorite idea and instead focus on evaluating the benefits and costs of the alternatives. This can lead to a final solution containing elements from multiple alternatives. A criteria matrix can also be used to rank the alternatives to determine a final solution.

Sometimes, none of the available alternative solutions are appealing, in which case the team selects the least objectionable proposal. This leads to rationalizing among team members to bolster their belief that the decision is acceptable. Teams may overemphasize the positive attributes of a selected solution and deny its negative aspects in order to justify their choice (Janis & Mann, 1977).

Teams can use many decision-making procedures to select the solution, such as voting and consensus (see Chapter 9). After the team has made its decision, it may want to hold a second-chance meeting to review the decision. Even when the team decides by consensus, it is useful to have a second-chance meeting to air concerns about the decision. The meeting helps prevent factors such as groupthink and the pressure to conform from inappropriately influencing the decision.

468

Implementation

A solution is not a good one unless it is implemented. This requires commitment from the team to support and enact its solution. One of the benefits of team decision making is that participating in the decision process creates a sense of commitment to it (Vroom & Jago, 1988).

A problem-solving team is obliged to think about implementation issues when making a decision (Zander, 1994). It is not useful to agree on a solution that cannot be implemented. This means that the team should plan how the solution is to be implemented, including consideration of the required people, time, and resources. It may be useful to bring the people affected by the planned solution into the decision-making process to encourage their acceptance of the solution.

Implementing a new solution implies change. Force field analysis is a way to understand the factors that support or inhibit change (Lewin, 1951). Driving forces are factors that initiate or encourage change (e.g., the client desperately needs this product). Restraining forces are the obstacles that prevent success and the factors that contribute to the problem (e.g., the product is $500 over the client’s budget). Through identifying all these forces, the team can use this information to decide on strategies for implementation—teams want to increase the driving forces that encourage the change and reduce the restraining forces that prevent the change from occurring. Teams often focus on the driving forces that are promoting the change. However, most unsuccessful change efforts are due to the restraining forces (Levi & Lawn, 1993). Reducing the power of the restraining forces is a necessary precondition for change.

Finally, the implementation stage includes generating action plans, considering contingency plans, and managing the project based on these plans. An action plan is a practical guide to translating the solution into reality—a step-by-step road map, if possible (Pokras, 1995). It emphasizes the timing of various parts and assigning responsibility for actions. The plan also should establish standards to evaluate successful performance. Events rarely go as planned (Buehler & Griffin, 2015). The team should establish a monitoring and feedback system to ensure that team members are aware of the progress made. Larger action items should be broken down into stages and monitored. Feedback to the team on progress with individual assignments should be a regular part of team meetings.

469

Evaluation

Evaluation is one of the most overlooked steps of the problem-solving process. Once a solution is implemented, the team needs to examine how the solution was implemented and what the effects were. A successful solution addresses the goals specified during problem definition. Even when teams do an excellent job of analyzing the problem and developing solutions, there are unforeseen factors that may lead to failure. Sometimes, the solution only solves a part of the problem, or implementing a solution creates new, unexpected problems. The evaluation stage provides information for future problem identification and solving.

Lewin (1951) suggested treating a solution as a hypothesis that needs to be tested. Teams should evaluate the impacts of the solution and identify further actions that need to be taken (and later evaluated). Problem-solving teams frequently engage in a problem–solution cycle, in which the solution gives rise to another problem that needs to be solved through the problem-solving process. A summary of the problem-solving process, along with effective and ineffective practices, is provided in Table 11.2.

Table 11.2Summary of Effective and Ineffective Problem Solving

Problem-Solving

Stage Effective Problem Solving Ineffective Problem Solving

Problem recognition Monitoring group dynamics and environmental cues for problems

Possessing relevant domain knowledge

Team norms that encourage conflict

Failing to recognize the complexity of novel problems

Presented with too many problems for limited attentional capacity

Minimizing or ignoring problems

Problem definition Simplifying complex problems

Defining the problem with relevant constraints

Considering multiple viewpoints

Creating several definitions of the problem

Taking time away from the problem

Oversimplifying or overcomplicating the problem

Imposing too few or too many constraints on ill- structured problems

Unaware of differences in how team members define the problem

Defining a problem with a specific solution or cause

470

Problem-Solving

Stage Effective Problem Solving Ineffective Problem Solving

Problem analysis Validating the problem’s existence

Identifying gaps in knowledge

Gathering expert opinions and information needed

Setting deadlines for gathering data

Confirmation bias

Information overload

Information underload

Solution criteria Criteria reflect relevant stakeholder needs and values

Rank ordering criteria

Unnecessary or irrelevant criteria based on guesses or assumptions

Generating alternatives and selecting a solution

Generating many possible solutions

Encouraging minority dissent and devil’s advocacy

Vigorously considering negative consequences of alternatives

Emergence of groupthink and conformity

Overemphasizing positives of a solution

Implementation Identify driving forces and restricting forces that impact implementation

Creating an action plan to clarify timeline, procedures, roles, and goals

Not considering the required people, time, and resources

471

Problem-Solving

Stage Effective Problem Solving Ineffective Problem Solving

Evaluation Testing and validating solutions toward solving the problem

Engaging in a problem– solution cycle

Assuming the solution solved the problem

Not monitoring for new problems that emerge

472

11.4 APPLICATION: CONSTRUCTING A SHARED MENTAL MODEL THROUGH

PROCESS MAPPING

Problem-solving teams are typically established for brief periods to solve specific organizational problems or to encourage organizational improvements (Fiore & Schooler, 2004). These teams work on a variety of issues, such as quality, process improvement, reengineering, and organizational development. Problem-solving teams may be composed of people from different organizational levels, from production and service employees to professionals and managers, and from different parts of an organization. Consequently, team members often do not know one another’s areas of expertise and may have communication problems because of professional language and background differences. Because of these characteristics, problem-solving teams often rely on facilitators and the use of structured problem-solving techniques.

Teams must have a shared conceptualization of a problem in order to solve it. A team cannot coordinate its problem-solving efforts without this shared mental model. In problem solving, the mental model includes the nature of the problem, roles and skills of team members, and the mutual awareness of team members. A shared understanding of a problem ensures that all team members are solving the same problem.

Process mapping is an engineering problem-solving technique that helps to construct a shared mental model for the team (Fiore & Schooler, 2004). The team develops a process map of how the situation currently operates (an “as is” map) that defines the parts of a process and the linkages among the parts. The team then develops a “should be” map that describes how the process should operate. These maps are then used to analyze the organization’s operations and develop recommendations for improvement.

The value of process mapping is that it facilitates team communication regarding the problem definition, which improves later problem solving. In jointly developing the process map, the team arrives at a shared understanding of the problem. This overcomes the tendency of teams to skip to the solution stages of a problem. It also creates an environment where diverse team members can share their knowledge about the problem.

As team members engage in process mapping, the unique knowledge of each team member is made explicit. The team becomes aware of both the unique and common knowledge it shares. It is forced to negotiate its understanding of the issues related to the problem. Process mapping creates an external representation of a shared problem that facilitates the team’s ability to work together to solve the problem. It forces the team to acknowledge deficiencies (the problems in the “as is” map) before attempting to develop solutions. The value of such techniques is that they provide a structure for communications and focus the team on clearly defining the problem before it develops solutions.

Research demonstrates that structured approaches help teams make better decisions, increase members’ satisfaction with solutions, and increase commitment to implementation (Pavht, 1993). These problem-solving approaches are effective because they promote more equitable participation in decisions, reduce the negative impact of unequal status, and increase the likelihood that the ideas of low-status employees are considered.

473

SUMMARY

Problems exist when there is an unclear path to a desired goal. Well-structured problems are straightforward and often have one single, objectively correct solution. Ill-structured problems are complex and often novel, with unclear problems and solutions. Problem solving requires that a team analyze the nature of the problem, then develop and implement a solution. Unfortunately, many things can go wrong during these two steps. The study of team problem solving uses descriptive, functional, and prescriptive approaches to understand and improve the problem-solving process.

The descriptive approach looks at how a team typically solves a problem. Most teams iteratively cycle through discussions about the problem, then solutions, then the problem. Many teams simply go straight to discussing solutions, bypassing consideration of the problem altogether. Finally, a minority of teams go through a sequential problem-solving process similar to stages of team development. Solutions are often generated in a rather haphazard fashion, frequently without strong consideration of the problem.

The prescriptive approach to problem solving describes an ideal sequence of advancing through discussions: problem recognition, problem definition, problem analysis, solution criteria, generating alternatives, evaluating alternatives, solution selection, implementation, and evaluation. The functional approach provides advice on how to improve the team problem-solving process during this process.

The problem recognition is affected by the severity and complexity of the problem, team norms about discussing problems, and the amount of uncertainty in the environment. Problem definition requires simplifying problems, using relevant constraints, and considering multiple viewpoints. During problem analysis, teams gather information to validate or invalidate the existence of the problem, while avoiding confirmation bias, information overload, and information underload. From this, the team should create and rank order solution criteria.

The process of developing and selecting alternative solutions is improved by creativity techniques to generate several alternatives. Teams need to avoid groupthink while evaluating the positive and negative consequences of alternatives. Once a solution is selected, the team should consider the driving and restricting forces influencing the implementation of the solution and create a detailed action plan. Finally, the team should validate that the solution solved the problem and monitor for new and unexpected problems.

An effective team views the problem from multiple perspectives, analyzes a variety of alternatives using established criteria, and manages the group process to ensure that all members may participate. The team’s ability to solve problems may be hurt by rushing to the solution stage, constraints limiting the amount of analysis, confusion about evaluation criteria, and social factors that disrupt the group process.

Organizations use temporary problem-solving teams to deal with a variety of issues and to encourage improvement. These teams function more effectively if they use structured techniques, such as process mapping.

474

Team Leadership Challenge 11

Your organization uses improvement teams composed of professionals and managers throughout the organization to solve important organizational problems. Team membership is highly valued because participation provides good visibility to upper management. Consequently, team members are highly motivated to perform. You have been selected to lead the next team. To prepare for the role, you have been discussing problems with former team leaders.

The last improvement team got off to a fast start. At the first meeting, the team diagnosed the problem and started generating solutions. Members quickly focused on a preferred alternative and began developing an implementation program. After several months of work, the team presented its proposal to top management. However, when it started implementing the proposal, serious problems became apparent, and the project was scrapped.

How can the new team leader avoid the problems of the previous project team?

What problem-solving approaches should you use?

How can you prevent the team from wasting time on a proposal that does not really solve the problem?

475

Activity: Using Problem-Solving Techniques

Objective: Problem solving improves when a team follows a structured approach. The team should analyze the problem thoroughly before developing alternatives. It should develop a set of alternatives and then use evaluation criteria to help select a solution. Force field analysis can be used to understand the issues related to implementing a solution.

Activity: Have the team follow a structured approach to problem solving. The team can be given either an organizational problem or a social problem to solve. For example, develop a program to improve graduation rates at a university or encourage the use of condoms. After a problem has been selected, the team should use a repetitive “why” analysis to understand the causes of the problem, develop several alternative solutions, use the criteria matrix to analyze the alternatives, select an alternative solution, and use force field analysis to understand the issues that can affect implementation of the solution.

Step 1: Analyze the problem using a repetitive “why” analysis (Activity Worksheet 11.1). State a clear definition of the problem. Then, complete the following analysis of the causes of the problem by asking what caused the problem. Repeat to identify underlying causes. This analysis helps the team understand the different causes of the problem.

476

Activity Worksheet 11.1

Repetitive Why Analysis

Problem Definition:

Why? Causes of the problem Why? Underlying causes Why? Underlying causes

Source: Adapted from Team Problem Solving, a 50 Minute Manager Series publication by Sandy Pokras, available from Logical Operations (www.logicaloperations.com).

Step 2: Generate alternative solutions to the problem. Make sure that each alternative relates to at least one of the causes identified in Step 1.

Step 3: Analyze the alternative solutions using a criteria matrix (Activity Worksheet 11.2). For this activity, use cost, effectiveness, and acceptability as criteria for evaluating the alternatives. Rate each alternative solution as high, medium, or low on these three criteria, and then combine these into an overall rating. Use this analysis to select a preferred solution.

477

Activity Worksheet 11.2

Criteria Matrix

Evaluation Criteria

Alternative Solutions Cost Effective Acceptable Overall

Source: Adapted from Team Problem Solving, a 50 Minute Manager Series publication by Sandy Pokras, available from Logical Operations (www.logicaloperations.com).

Step 4: Good ideas often do not get implemented because the advocates focus on the benefits of the proposals and ignore the problems. Evaluate the benefits and problems of your solution using force field analysis (Activity Worksheet 11.3).

478

Activity Worksheet 11.3

Force Field Analysis

Driving Forces: What are the benefits

of our approach? Who will support it?

Why?

Restraining Forces: What problems does

our approach have? Who may resist it?

Why?

Source: Adapted from Team Problem Solving, a 50 Minute Manager Series publication by Sandy Pokras, available from Logical Operations (www.logicaloperations.com).

Step 5: Develop a plan to implement your proposal based on the results of the force field analysis.

Analysis: Did the team members find the use of the structured problem-solving approach helpful? What aspects of it did they like or dislike? Did it improve the quality of the solution?

Discussion: What are the advantages and disadvantages of using a structured approach to problem solving?

479

Descriptions of Images and Figures Back to Figure

Details shown in the flowchart are listed as follows:

1. Problem recognition and definition 2. problem analysis 3. Generate alternative solutions 4. Select solutions 5. Implement solution 6. Evaluate outcome

An arrow from step 6, labeled “If not successful, feedback,” points to step 3.

An arrow from step 6, labeled “If successful, continue to next phase” points outward.

480

481

CHAPTER 12 CREATIVITY,

INNOVATION, AND DESIGN THINKING

Developing creative and useful solutions to problems is an important concern for teams. Designing thinking is a problem- solving process that can stimulate group creativity and produce solutions that meet human-centered needs. However, the dynamics of teams tend to limit creativity because of cognitive, social, and organizational problems. The solution to promoting creativity in teams requires approaches that combine the benefits of individual creativity and team creativity. Organizations can help encourage creativity by providing supportive organizational climates.

482

Learning Objectives

1. Understand the difference between creativity and innovation.

2. Describe the process of moving from idea generation to idea implementation.

3. Explain how necessary team member skills change during the innovation process.

4. Understand the iterative process of design thinking.

5. Apply brainstorming, the nominal group technique, brainwriting, and hybrid brainstorming to improve team creativity.

6. Understand what factors impede and support innovation in teams.

483

12.1 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION

Organizations use innovation teams to create novel solutions to problems—from developing new products to designing new procedures. Both creativity and innovation play a function in this process (Anderson, Potocˇnik, & Zhou, 2014). Creativity is the process of generating ideas that are not just novel but also useful—a creative solution also must effectively solve a problem (Amabile, 1983). By contrast, innovation builds upon creativity by focusing on implementing the idea to create better procedures, practices, or products (West & Farr, 1989). Together, creativity and innovation represent the beginning and end points of the innovation process.

The innovation process is both paradoxical and uncertain. First, there is a notable paradox of innovation: The two stages of idea generation and idea implementation often require conflicting skills (Bledow, Frese, Anderson, Erez, & Farr, 2009; Thayer et al., 2018). For example, playful and relaxed group climates can aid in idea generation; however, structure and stress improve idea implementation. This paradox makes it challenging to compose and manage innovation teams, as their requirements change as they progress. Second, the innovation process is defined by uncertainty (Jalonen, 2012). Without knowing what solution to implement or problem to solve, there are high levels of ambiguity surrounding team tasks and expectations. This produces unclear roles, responsibilities, and norms that interfere with efficient teamwork and taskwork.

There is no single pathway to innovation. To aid in navigating the sometimes paradoxical and uncertain requirements of the innovation process, this chapter introduces two models of innovation and their implications for teamwork. First, the four phases of the idea journey

484

highlight the general steps involved in moving from creativity to innovation in an organizational context. Next, design thinking—a popular process for innovation—is introduced. Finally, factors that foster team creativity are explored.

485

12.2 FOUR PHASES OF THE IDEA JOURNEY

Perry-Smith and Mannucci (2017) propose a four-phase model that reflects the process of moving from creativity to innovation: idea generation, idea elaboration, idea championing, and idea implementation. While several factors facilitate this process, these scholars describe distinct needs associated with each phase: cognitive flexibility, support, influence, and shared vision. This model provides a useful synthesis of creativity and innovation research.

486

Idea Generation

The journey begins with idea generation, which is the process of generating and selecting a novel and useful idea. This might include creating the core idea for a new advertising campaign, new product, or new research paper. At this point, the selected idea is generally vague, flawed, and half-baked —future phases focus on refining the idea further. Generating novel ideas requires cognitive flexibility, or the ability to shift cognitive schemas and form uncommon associations between distant ideas (Amabile, 1983; De Dreu, Baas, & Nijstad, 2008). Cognitive flexibility can include the ability to break out of established mental models, appreciate complexity, suspend judgment, and use broad categories to view issues. It can be helpful to play with ideas and view problems from alternative perspectives.

Cognitive flexibility is encouraged by exposure to divergent perspectives and approaches from different team members (Perry-Smith, 2006). It can also come from serendipitous encounters with the social environment or unconscious thoughts (Campbell, 1960; Zhong, Dijksterhuis, & Galinsky, 2008). Many famous creative ideas have come from looking at something commonplace from a different perspective. For example, Post-it notes were developed by scientists wondering how to use a “low-tack” glue that had been discovered by accident. Many creative ideas in science come from younger scientists who are not fully indoctrinated into the existing paradigm or from interdisciplinary scientists who are changing fields. It is common to become locked in old ways of thinking or routine ways of working, so we do not see creative alternatives to our situation.

487

Idea Elaboration

The next phase is idea elaboration, which consists of clarifying, evaluating, and refining the initial idea (Mainemelis, 2010). Early ideas are rough and inconsistent. This phase moves the idea from a vague concept to something that is sharable with others, which might include drafting a key message for an ad, sketching out a new product, or writing the first draft of a research paper. Refinement can help budding ideas achieve their full potential (Harvey, 2014). During this phase, emotional support and constructive feedback are critical needs.

People fear appearing stupid, outrageous, or inappropriate when sharing new and uncertain ideas (Detert & Edmondson, 2011). Psychological safety is essential at this stage. Emotional support from team members and other stakeholders can motivate and encourage them to continue developing the idea. Constructive feedback is likewise needed to adjust and change the idea (Harrison & Rouse, 2015). Novel ideas rarely come into the world fully formed; it can take several iterations of feedback and adjustment until it takes the shape of a viable solution. Early harsh criticism, however, can hinder motivation to continue the project.

488

Idea Championing

The next phase is idea championing, which consists of obtaining approval and resources to continue with the idea. This might be pitching the idea to a venture capitalist, advocating to organizational leadership of the need for the new solution, or submitting a patent to protect the idea. Influence emerges as the key concern for this phase, so teams benefit from charismatic leadership (see Chapter 10). A compelling argument for the novel idea and its potential impact must be articulated to secure the support of external gatekeepers (Howell & Higgins, 1990). It may also be necessary to persuade new members with needed skills to join the team. Championing an idea requires presenting oneself as (1) enthusiastic and confident about the success of the innovation, (2) persistent under adversity, and (3) having the right people involved (Howell, Shea, & Higgins, 2005).

489

Idea Implementation

The final phase is idea implementation, which consists of both the production and impact of the innovation (West, 2002). Production includes transforming the idea into a finished product, service, or process. This is accomplished by developing a shared vision—“a common mental model of the future state of the team or its tasks that provides the basis for action with the team” (Pearce & Ensley, 2004, p. 260). A shared vision is the most important factor in predicting a team’s ability to produce an innovative outcome (Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009). It is also associated with positive teamwork behaviors like higher commitment, coordination, information sharing, helping behaviors, motivation, sense of ownership, and responsibility (Fleming, Mingo, & Chen, 2007; Lingo & O’Mahony, 2010).

The impact of the innovation concerns its acceptance and use. Just because an innovation does what it is supposed to do does not mean that people will adopt it. Rather, novel solutions and practices can be easily dismissed (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006). A shared vision is likewise essential to develop with those who should adopt the innovation. Failing to communicate this vision clearly can lead to misinterpretations of the idea that threaten its adoption (Carlile, 2004).

A poignant reminder of this concern is the history of handwashing (Best & Neuhauser, 2004; Davis, 2015). In 1846, Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis briefly saved the lives of maternity patients. He was distraught by the high rate of women dying of childbed fever in the hospital. After several failed experiments (some considering the role of bells and various birthing positions), he made the radical connection between autopsies and maternity ward deaths. Believing that physicians were transferring “cadaverous particles” from an

490

autopsy to a mother during childbirth, he began cleaning his hands and instruments with a chlorine solution. Notably, germs were unknown of at this time, and chlorine was not a known disinfectant. Rather, Semmelweis believed that chlorine best eliminated the smell from after an autopsy. Childbed deaths remarkably decreased after this change. Upon announcing this novel practice to his colleagues, the senior physicians rejected it. They resented the implication that they were to blame for childbed fever. Semmelweis eventually lost this and subsequent jobs due to berating those who rejected his handwashing practices. He died in 1865 at an insane asylum. The importance of handwashing would reemerge 20 years after his death upon further development for germ theory. This story illustrates the challenge of instilling a shared vision with the intended adopters, even if it is a superior solution.

491

12.3 WHAT IS DESIGN THINKING?

A human-centered approach to innovation, called design thinking, is increasingly popular in industry and education (Brown, 2008, 2009). Design thinking has been adopted in sectors as varied as banking, health care, technology, and engineering. Companies using design thinking to develop innovative products and services include Amazon, GE, Pixar, IBM, Proctor & Gamble, Intuit, Kaiser Permanente, Panasonic, and Deutsche Bank. Design thinking relies on multidisciplinary team collaboration, making it an important topic in contemporary teamwork practices. Despite its growing popularity, however, there remains ambiguity as to precisely what design thinking is and how it is practiced (Carlgren, Rauth, & Elmquist, 2016). To understand what design thinking is, it helps to first consider what it is not.

Teams can often converge too quickly on a specific solution for a problem that is superficially understood. Significant time and resources can be spent developing a new product, process, or practice, just to learn that it is not desirable by the people it is supposed to help. Such efforts fail to solve the right problem. Take, for example, the U.S. government’s failed attempt in the early 1900s to improve the efficiency of acorn grinding (Beckman & Barry, 2007). Acorn flour, a staple food for many Native American tribes at this time, was processed by women who would sit together and grind acorns by hand using a granite slab as a mortar. The U.S. government provided them with iron grinders in an attempt to improve their efficiency. However, these grinders failed to be adopted. Acorn grinding was about more than just food processing—it was an important component of their culture and served as a way to pass along traditions and tell stories. The iron grinders were an undesirable solution because they interfered with these valued practices. Without

492

understanding the deeper meanings and broader context for human behavior, solutions that are novel—and even useful— may nonetheless fail to be adopted.

Design thinking approaches address this issue by reversing the process: It begins with gaining a deep understanding of the problem, then iteratively designing a solution to address that problem (Beckman & Barry, 2007; Brown, 2008, 2009). Desirability is a primary concern in design thinking, with a focus on problem finding and problem framing. This process is recursive—upon gaining further insights from interviews, observations, and tests, teams frequently return to earlier stages of the process. Moreover, design thinking carries with it several mindsets and attitudes that inform practices, such as failing fast and having a bias toward action (Carlgren et al., 2016; Micheli, Wilner, Bhatti, Mura, & Beverland, 2019). The story of Embrace Innovations’ development of a low-cost infant incubator offers an overview of this process.

493

Embrace Innovation: Design Thinking in Action

Each year, 15 million low-birthweight and premature babies are born around the world. One million of these children die within 24 hours because they are unable to regulate their body temperature. Many who survive face long-term health problems. Most of these deaths (99%) occur in lower-income countries because of the prohibitive cost of the treatment: infant incubators that each cost $20,000. As a part of a class at the Stanford d.school, a team of students decided to build an affordable incubator that would cost just $250 (Kelley & Kelley, 2013). This was a seemingly straightforward technical challenge: Design a cheaper incubator to be used by hospitals. Had they done this, however, they would have failed to help.

Rather than jumping into creating a cheaper incubator, the team traveled to Nepal. There, they toured hospitals and interviewed physicians and parents to understand those impacted by the problem. What they found was surprising— these hospitals already had several infant incubators, which were donated to them. However, they were not being used because the babies needing them were born in rural villages over a day’s travel away. To survive the trip, infants needed to maintain constant skin-to-skin contact with the mother to regulate their body temperature. Further interviews revealed that most of these families simply could not afford to travel to the hospital nor pay its fees. Moreover, limited health care and access to electricity prevented placing low- cost incubators in these rural locations. A $250 incubator in hospitals would do little to improve infant health outcomes.

Faced with this complicated situation, the team reframed their challenge away from hospitals. They needed to create a low-cost warming device for parents in rural villages without electricity. At this point, the team consulted external

494

experts, brainstormed ideas, and produced and tested several prototypes. This resulted in a product that resembles a sleeping bag that contained a pouch for a removable heating pad. After placing a paraffin-based heating pad in boiling water for a few minutes, it released an appropriate amount of heat to maintain body temperature for four hours. They returned to Nepal yet again to seek feedback on this prototype. They discovered that Western medicines were considered too strong, driving mothers to underdose their children. This corresponded to mothers heating a pad to around 30° Celsius, rather than the 37° needed to keep an infant alive. The design team subsequently replaced a precise temperature gauge with a binary indicator that simply displayed “OK” to prevent second-guessing. Costing just $25, this device has since helped over 300,000 babies in 22 countries.

This story of Embrace Innovations illustrates the process of design thinking. It involves exploring and validating the problem, questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and testing many potential solutions. Early on, the team could have devoted their energy to developing a $250 incubator. Instead, they first focused on finding the right problem to solve by focusing on the user. Next, we will explore the design thinking process in greater detail.

495

12.4 THE DESIGN THINKING PROCESS

Design projects can be assigned or inspired. An organization might assign the team with achieving a strategic goal, such as improving the waiting room experience for urgent care. Alternatively, someone might be inspired by personal experience. For example, Doug Dietz, a developer for GE Healthcare, found himself in a hospital proudly watching patients use the new MRI machine that he helped design (Kelley & Kelley, 2013). Then he saw a young girl walking toward his new machine, fearful and crying about the forthcoming loud and confined experience. The technician called an anesthesiologist to sedate the patient, which is when Doug learned the heartbreaking statistic that 80% of pediatric patients require sedation when having an MRI scan. To a sick young child, his MRI machine was more an instrument of terror than of imaging. Dismayed at this insight, Doug became determined to fix this problem. He eventually did, by redesigning the MRI machine experience to feel more like an adventure for kids. For example, a room and machine were painted to resemble a spaceship, and staff playfully described the procedure (e.g., saying the loud noises are the engines preparing to enter hyperspeed). Doug knew that he achieved his goal when he overheard a girl who enjoyed the experience so much that she asked if she could return the following day to have another adventure.

There are a variety of ways in which design thinking is conceptualized and practiced. Carlgren and colleagues. (2016) identified five major themes of design thinking: user focus, problem framing, visualization, experimentation, and diversity. Beckman and Barry (2007) frame design thinking as a process of problem finding, problem selecting, solution finding, and solution selecting. Meanwhile, IDEO’s framework

496

reduces this down to the three-stage process of inspiration, ideation, and implementation.

One of the most popular frameworks comes from Stanford’s d.school, which divides design thinking into five phases (Doorley, Holcomb, Klebahn, Segovia, & Utley, 2018; Micheli et al., 2019):

1. Empathize—observe and interview those impacted by the problem to gain insights into their needs, hopes, and desires.

2. Define—synthesize the data as a team and (re)frame the problem that the team will attempt to solve.

3. Ideate—generate many ideas for solving the problem. 4. Prototype—develop low-fidelity experiential, visual,

and/or tangible representations of the idea. 5. Test—invite potential users to experience the prototypes

to learn more about the problem and refine the solution.

Though design thinking is presented as a sequential process, it is not. Teams often progress through these stages nonlinearly, iteratively, cyclically, and concurrently with each other. For example, prototype testing can be conducted early on to gain empathy from users or redefine the problem.

497

Empathize

Teams should begin the design project with exactly one assumption: that they do not know enough about the problem. The first goal is to gain a thorough understanding of the users and their needs. Here, “users” constitute the broad array of stakeholders who are affected by the problem and who will be impacted by the innovation. Users include the various people who will purchase, implement, use, and maintain the innovation. If redesigning the waiting room experience for urgent care, for example, relevant stakeholders include physicians, nurses, orderlies, staff, interior designers, patients, the family of patients, and insurance companies. Teams can even gain additional inspiration talking to people in other “waiting” contexts, such as checking out of the grocery store or waiting for an attraction at Disneyland.

Building empathy is achieved through open-ended exploration and ethnographic methods like observations and interviews. Surveys are less helpful because they are closed-ended and provide limited opportunities for elaborating, clarifying, or probing deeper. By contrast, observations and interviews produce valuable insights—interpretations of human behavior that provide new directions for innovation. Insights provide the aha moment that sparks a novel idea.

Observing

People do not always know what they need, as illustrated by Embrace Innovations’ initial goal of making a $250 infant incubator. It was after observing the absence of used incubators that they stumbled upon the real problem. Observing requires keeping a curious and open mind that can see many viewpoints. Observations can be organized into the

498

AEIOU framework to capture details about human behavior (Wasson, 2000):

Activities—describe the goals that people have and how they are trying to achieve them.

Environments—describe the space where activities are occurring and how people are behaving in it.

Interactions—describe the interactions between the user and other people and/or artifacts that impact the achievement of their goal.

Objects—describe the objects in the environment and how they are being used (or not) by the user to achieve their goal.

Users—describe the people being observed in terms of their personality, roles, needs, values, and biases.

When observing, it is useful to separate objective observations (e.g., what did you see people do?) and subjective interpretations (e.g., how do you think they were feeling?). Generating insights from observations requires interpretation, but it becomes difficult to share and reinterpret observations without the “raw” objective observations.

Interviewing

The purpose of interviewing is to understand why people do what they do. This provides insights into how they make sense of their activities, their goals, and how they feel. Ultimately, this provides insights into what the user needs.

499

What follows are some guiding principles for developing and running interviews:

Consider your goals for the interview—what do you hope to learn, or what assumptions do you want to question?

Draft the interview guide, including a brief introduction regarding your intentions.

Test the interview guide with a teammate or friend, and refine it based on feedback.

Interview in pairs, with one person taking notes and the other fully engaging with the interviewee.

Ask questions that solicit stories, such as “Tell me about the last time you felt frustrated waiting in urgent care” or “When was the last time you had a good waiting experience?”

Avoid questions that can be answered with a “yes” or “no.”

Probe deeper by asking follow-up questions like, “Why?” and “Tell me more about … ”

Follow up on nonverbal cues that interviewees display, such as “You seem less than thrilled about these changes; can you explain why?”

Invite your note-taking teammate to ask follow-up questions at the conclusion of the interview.

Reflect on the interview, and revise the guide as needed.

Synthesizing Insights

500

The data collected during empathy building is messy and unstructured—it is hard to know what is important. The team must collectively synthesize their insights in order to identify problems to solve. Teams can synthesize insights using several tools. Beckman and Barry (2007) suggest identifying interesting stories and visualizing user behavior on two-by-two matrices. Other approaches include empathy maps, personas, and journey maps.

An empathy map summarizes key insights from the interview (Gray, 2017). Typically, empathy maps include sections to write down the user’s goals and significant things that they said, they heard from others, and actions and behaviors they do. They also include room to provide interpretations of what they might be thinking or feeling. Visualizing this information can help to identify interesting contradictions, themes, or needs that the user is experiencing. Similarly, a persona integrates insights from several users to create a representation of a typical user (Welsh & Dehler, 2013). A persona often resembles a social-media profile, with demographic information, brief narrative, interests, and needs. This helps to keep focus on the user as the design process unfolds. Finally, a journey map is a timeline of the users’ activities that details the experiences and emotional responses that users face (Dalton & Kahute, 2016). Creating and discussing these artifacts as a team leads to interpretations and hunches that inform user needs.

501

Define

Problems rarely come appropriately labeled for the team to implement. Rather, novel innovations stem from a novel framing of the problem. Problem framing is among the most challenging—and important—tasks in the innovation process (Beckman & Barry, 2007; Bessant, Öberg, & Trifilova, 2014). The problem statement is the jumping-off point for brainstorming. It is typically framed by asking a “How might we … ” question, such as these:

How might we improve the MRI experience for children?

How might we increase access to mental health resources for at-risk youth?

How might we redesign the office hour experience for college students?

How might we reimagine the lost-and-found process in cities?

It is critical that the problem is framed neither too broadly nor too narrowly. A narrowly defined problem boxes in thinking and preemptively assumes a solution. Imagine that people are disappointed with the food options on a college campus. Narrowly framing the challenge as, “How might we build more restaurants on campus?” anchors the problem statement to a specific solution: physically building more restaurants. Similarly, a broad challenge like, “How might we make food better on campus?” encompasses many factors, such as seating, lines, organic, healthy, faster, local, diverse, cheaper, and so forth. Teams are likely to become

502

overwhelmed and discouraged without narrowing down the scope of the challenge.

A well-scoped challenge focuses on a human-centered outcome. For example, “How might we expand student access to a variety of food options on campus?” This challenge focuses on a specific outcome (i.e., access to a variety of foods) that is desired by a specific user (i.e., students), without defining a specific solution. This invites a range of creative solutions that might achieve this outcome—drone or robot delivery service, rotating food trucks, lunch exchange, potlucks, and communal kitchens.

Teams can also focus a challenge around how they want to make a user feel as a result of their innovation. Imagine that a design team learns that students feel uncomfortable accessing mental health resources on campus because it requires traversing an open and seldom-used lawn to enter the building. This walk makes students feel exposed and visible because it is obvious to any spectators where they were going. The team can frame this challenge as, “How might we help students feel less exposed when accessing mental health resources?” Focusing on feelings shifts attention away from any specific solution. Rather, it emphasizes what the solution must do to be effective. This opens many possibilities, such as a privacy tunnel to access resources, telemedicine to avoid physically walking to resources, and lawn games to increase foot traffic to the unused lawn.

Crafting a well-scoped design challenge is an art, one that balances the right amount of creativity and constraint for a team to create a novel and useful solution. Moreover, teams will often find themselves refining and reframing the problem as they discover more about the user. If the team has trouble framing a problem, they can brainstorm around questions to ask about the challenge (Gregersen, 2018).

503

Ideate

With a well-scoped problem statement, teams are ready to ideate. This involves both generating potential solutions and selecting a solution. Generating many ideas is important as it increases the probability of producing a good solution (Paulus et al., 2011). There are many methods for generating ideas: Smith (1998) identified 172 strategies, tactics, and enablers used by designers! Some commonly used techniques include mind mapping, analogies, and brainstorming.

Mapping

Visualizing ideas aids in their expression and refinement (Bresciani, 2019; Gonçalves, Cardoso, & Badke-Schaub, 2014). Mind mapping is a nonlinear, free-formed way of imaging and exploring spontaneous associations between concepts (Buzan & Buzan, 2006; Davies, 2011). This makes it useful as a form of individual brainstorming or as collaborative sensemaking (Liedtka, 2015). It begins with placing an image or topic in the center of a paper (e.g., entertainment in a waiting room). Associated concepts are added in a radial manner with lines connecting ideas (e.g., parade, in-flight consoles, arcade, and noisy). Lines and text progressively get thinner and smaller as they move outward, with the entire map eventually resembling a neuron. The mind map can spur new associations among ideas, while also developing a shared mental model among the team members.

Analogies

504

A challenge of generating novel ideas is expressing a novel idea—something new is sometimes difficult to explain. Analogies are powerful ways of spurring novel ideas (Hey, Linsey, Agogino, & Wood, 2008; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 2007). An analogy encourages consideration of how two ideas are alike and not alike, and in doing so, it creates an opportunity to consider something from a new perspective. Imagine, for example, what the Netflix of virtual teaching might look like. Or the Uber of higher education? Or how Disney would design an urgent-care waiting room? Reconciling the similarities and differences of these two disparate ideas can spur innovative ideas: What is the equivalent of binge- watching a course? What would on-demand education look like? How could waiting in urgent care be fun? Analogies force people to rethink or discard previous ways of thinking. The classic example of this is Canon’s development of the minicopier, in which a cheaply produced beer can was the analogy that spurred the development of a replaceable drum kit for a new copy machine (Nonala & Kenney, 1991).

Brainstorming

The best-known and most widely used idea generation technique is brainstorming (Osborn, 1957), during which group members interact face to face to share thoughts and ideas with each other. Brainstorming is designed to deal with the problem of less structured group discussions—that groups spend too much time evaluating ideas and not enough time generating ideas. The four basic rules of brainstorming are to (1) not criticize any ideas, (2) encourage contributing wild ideas, (3) focus on quantity, not quality, of ideas, and (4) combine and build on the ideas of others. These rules work best when modeled by a leader and reinforced through norms.

Despite its popularity, a considerable body of research shows that group brainstorming often produces fewer ideas and fewer

505

good ideas than individuals working alone (Mullen, Johnson, & Salas, 1991; Putman & Paulus, 2009). Several factors account for these findings (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987; Heslin, 2009; Rietzschel, Nijstad, & Stroebe, 2006; VanGundy, 1984). First, production blocking occurs when participants cannot vocalize their ideas because others are talking. Moreover, it can be difficult to remember an idea until it can be shared with the group. Production blocking increases as group size increases (De Vreede, Briggs, & Reiter-Palmon, 2010). Second, evaluation apprehension occurs when participants withhold their ideas out of fear that others, particularly high-status members, will not approve of them. Participants may also doubt the quality of their contribution. Finally, other factors like social loafing and going off-topic also inhibit effective brainstorming. While a skilled facilitator can help to improve face-to-face brainstorming (Santanen, Briggs, & Vreede, 2004), subsequent methods have been developed to overcome these limitations.

The nominal group technique involves pooling a group’s ideas without interaction and, therefore, with limited production blocking (Ven & Delbecq, 1974). A facilitator announces the brainstorming topic, but then group members silently think and write down ideas individually. After 20 to 30 minutes, each person reads aloud an idea while the facilitator records them visually. Clarifying questions are only allowed after all ideas have been posted. The nominal group technique outperforms interactive brainstorming groups, with nominal groups producing more ideas and more original ideas (Rietzschel et al., 2006).

Brainwriting was designed to limit production blocking and social loafing and encourage the processing of ideas (Heslin, 2009; VanGundy, 1984). This entails team members writing down an idea on a sheet of paper, each with a different color ink to reduce social loafing. Then, they pass the paper to the person on the right. The person receiving the paper silently

506

reads the idea and adds their own idea before passing it along to the right again. Participants can pass if they are unable to think of an additional idea. When a participant receives a paper with four ideas, they read those ideas and place the paper on the center of the table. Paulus and Yang (2000) found that this brainwriting is as good or superior to the nominal group technique.

Electronic brainstorming uses technological platforms that allow participants to communicate virtually. This affords greater levels of anonymity and the ability for all participants to interact and contribute simultaneously. Participation can also be tracked. As a result, teams experience lower production blocking, evaluation apprehension, and social loafing. A meta-analysis confirms that electronic brainstorming produces more and higher quality ideas than face-to-face brainstorming (DeRosa, Smith, & Hantula, 2007). However, these benefits generally surfaced with eight or more participants. Participants interacting electronically are also more satisfied than those who interact face to face. Perhaps most interesting of all is that, contrary to face-to-face groups, the quality and quantity of ideas increases as group size increases.

Finally, hybrid brainstorming involves alternating between individual and group ideation. This approach can be more effective than individual or group ideation alone. Studies show benefits to both alone-to-group and group-to-alone hybrid brainstorming. Alone-to-group brainstorming provides time for participants to individually generate ideas without production blocking and evaluation apprehension, then be inspired by and build upon ideas in the group setting. Indeed, one study found that a period of individual brainstorming, followed by group brainstorming, produces more ideas (Baruah & Paulus, 2008). However, group-to-alone brainstorming provides time for individuals to reflect and build upon ideas previously shared in the group. This

507

ordering has also been shown to be more effective, both in initial brainwriting (Paulus, Korde, Dickson, Carmeli, & Cohen-Meitar, 2015) and face-to-face conditions (Korde & Paulus, 2017). The general conclusion is that hybrid brainstorming can be beneficial, regardless of the order in which it takes place.

Design teams use any and all of these methods for idea generation—there is no single prescribed way. Research does, however, offer a few suggestions for brainstorming. One of the critical problems in brainstorming sessions is that people often spend their time looking for faults in new ideas (West, 2012). This reduces enthusiasm and participation in creativity activities like brainstorming. When commenting on a teammate’s idea, rather than saying “no” or “yes, but … ,” team members are encouraged to say “yes, and … ” This phrase facilitates building on the idea being presented before deciding it will not work. This simple technique changes the climate of a team meeting and encourages everyone to try out new ideas. A few rounds of “yes, and … ” can produce insightful and novel ideas.

Research indicates that creative synergy occurs in teams using constructive controversy with psychological safety (Fairchild & Hunter, 2014; Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2013). Constructive controversy supports creativity because it results in team members sharing a more extensive range of ideas, more closely analyzing ideas, and developing more original solutions. However, this only occurs when the team has sufficient psychological safety that creates an open learning climate for discussion and innovative thinking. For creativity to flourish, team members need to feel comfortable expressing their opinions as well as giving and receiving feedback from others.

In summary, some useful brainstorming guidelines include the following:

508

Foster norms that support a playful and psychologically safe group climate.

Remind the team of rules for brainstorming.

Brainstorm around a defined, well-scoped problem statement.

Begin with group or solitary brainstorming before alternating.

Strive for quantity of ideas, not quality.

Make ideas visual to everyone using short phrases or images.

Build upon a single idea (use “yes, and … ”) before moving on to another.

Refrain from evaluating or critiquing ideas.

Idea Selection

After many ideas are generated, teams must select an idea. This begins with reviewing the alternatives generated and combining items that seem similar. At this point, teams can vote or reach consensus to determine which idea to move forward with. Another technique is multiple voting, in which team members each have three to five votes. Sometimes these votes might be labeled (e.g., most feasible idea, wildest idea, etc.). Each team member then applies these votes to the ideas that they support. When all team members have completed their selections, the votes are tallied, and items that received zero to one vote are removed. The alternatives that were selected are discussed, and the team considers new ways of combining or synthesizing alternatives. These steps are

509

repeated until only a few options remain. At this stage, the team can use consensus to select the final alternative.

Another approach for idea selection includes determining selection criteria and rating ideas against these criteria. Criteria formation can be time-consuming but also can spur important discussions regarding the project and its goals (Beckman & Barry, 2007). Depending on the nature of the challenge, the team may decide to move forward with several ideas and rapidly test them out in the next stage.

510

Prototype

During this stage of design thinking, teams create prototypes of the selected solution. A prototype is a visible, tangible, or experiential representation of an idea. They can be used to quickly validate or invalidate the hidden assumptions present in their solution. They can also stimulate imagination and act as a form of idea generation itself. This stage emphasizes a bias for action: If the team is uncertain about something or deliberating the merits of an idea, they should create a prototype that makes the idea visible or testable. Emphasis is placed on quickly building scrappy prototypes (Meyer & Marion, 2010). Early prototypes can be made in 20 to 30 minutes using nearby cheap materials. New products can be prototyped using cardboard. New apps can be prototyped typed using paper. New services can be prototyped through skits. Effective prototypes are designed to test assumptions and are experiential for the user.

Testing Assumptions

Prototyping is somewhat analogous to the study design component of scientific research. Researchers do not begin a study by blindly handing out surveys, assigning interventions, or mixing chemicals. Before this, they identify an important hypothesis or research question—the answer to which will advance knowledge in a meaningful way. Then, they design a study that can convincingly answer this question. Upon completing the study, they can identify which claims about the world they can and cannot support.

Similarly, prototypes are designed to test an assumption about the nature of the solution. New ideas are full of these assumptions, and they are often incorrect. For example, the

511

previous example of providing iron acorn grinders to Native American tribes was based on the (untested) assumption that the users wanted to more efficiently grind corn. They did not. People design assumptions about the user and the problem into solutions. In the example of Embrace Innovations, the team initially created a precise temperature gauge of the incubator, assuming that this would be helpful for the user. However, upon testing it, they learned that users feared overdosing their children and would keep the heating pad at a lower temperature than required. As a result, solutions may not be used as intended, may not address a need, or might be too complex. Prototypes allow the team to test specific questions and gain valuable user feedback early. The results provide direction for refining the solution.

The founding of e-commerce store Zappos is perhaps the archetypal example of prototyping (Ries, 2011). In 1999, Nick Swinmurn had the radical idea of selling shoes online. At the center of this business model was the assumption that people would buy shoes online without trying them on first. Online retail was, at this time, unproven. So he designed a “study” to validate this assumption. He went to a local store and took photos of various shoes. He put the photos, descriptions, and prices on a rough website and waited. People started buying the shoes. When they did, he simply went to the shoe store, bought the shoes, and shipped them to the customer. In doing so, his prototype validated a key assumption of the solution—that people would indeed buy shoes online without trying them on first. With this validation, Swinmurn was able to move the business idea forward and convince others of its promise. A single prototype does not need to represent the entire solution. It is sometimes better to test smaller features in isolation to identify more precisely what works and what does not. Teams can also test alternative versions of a feature to see which users prefer and discover why. A useful tool to facilitate this process is the test card (Osterwalder, 2015). This is a

512

fill-in-the blank card that details (1) what the team believes (e.g., people will buy shoes online), (2) how they will verify this (e.g., post pictures and a description of shoes online), (3) what they will measure (e.g., how many people purchase shoes online), and (4) how the team knows they are right (e.g., if 20 people buy shoes in one day).

Experiential Prototypes

Prototypes also need to be experiential. Explaining a solution to a user is unlikely to be useful. Ambiguity makes it difficult for the user to fully understand the solution verbally, and it limits the usefulness of feedback they might provide. To be experiential, the prototype should be something visual or tangible to the user. This can include things like 3D-printed objects or a wireframe of an app. It can also include low-fidelity prototypes like storyboards, sketches, and scrappy objects made with available materials. An experiential prototype acts as a boundary object (discussed in Chapter 6), which allows both the designer and the user to manipulate, discuss, and critique a budding solution in more concrete terms.

For example, a friend is an architect who uses prototyping to design houses. Upon meeting with a client, he places a nearby object, like a water bottle, on the table and says, “I’m going to build you a house. It will look like this.” The client usually protests, stating a preference for something else (e.g., something more square-shaped). With this feedback, the architect finds a suitable object in the environment (e.g., a book) and says, “Okay, I’m going to build you a house that looks like this.” After several iterations and joining of objects, both the architect and client create a shared understanding of what the desired house will look like. In this case, the initial prototype is relatively unimportant. Prototyping is not necessarily about

513

“getting it right” the first time but, instead, creating a jumping-off point to learn more about the user needs and validate assumptions about a solution.

Experiential prototypes also include role-playing, scenarios, or improv skits with users. These are particularly useful for service-based solutions (Zomerdijk & Voss, 2011). Here, the design team devises a scenario in which users play a central role. Again, the team is not merely performing for an audience of users but, rather, creating a scenario in which a user will be the star. This enables the team to quickly observe how the user responds to a new situation.

Imagine a team redesigning the urgent care waiting room experience. They converge upon the solution of making urgent care feel fun by providing an optional waiting room with entertainment like, say, an animal balloon artist. Ahead of time, the team plans a rough dialogue with specific roles that each member plays, such as the receptionist, the animal balloon artist, and other patients waiting in the room. They also design a role for the user to play, such as the patient checking in. Upon finding a user to participate, they explain the setting and their role (e.g., “Pretend that you have a rash and that you are checking in to urgent care”). Then, let the experience play out. One team member observes and takes notes: How do they respond to the receptionist explaining the option for the other room? Do they choose it? How do they react when the animal balloon artist comes in? For how long are they engaged? At the end of the scenario, an interviewer probes what the user enjoyed and did not enjoy about the experience. This feedback can quickly be used to revise the scenario—they might change the kind of entertainment available (in-flight screens or a comedian). They can also test variations, such as the willingness of patients to pay a surcharge for the upgraded waiting room experience or whether the patient has children present. They

514

might even play with different kinds of illnesses or injuries.

It is not easy to show a stranger a scrappy prototype or invite them to participate in a scenario. Prototyping can be challenging when team members strive for perfection or getting it right the first time. Establishing and maintaining a playful, nonjudgmental group climate is vital at this stage.

515

Test

The prototyping stage focuses on identifying the assumptions that need to be validated and building prototypes to test these assumptions. During the testing stage, the team engages users with the prototypes to solicit feedback. The goal of this stage is not necessarily to get it right but, rather, to gain useful and actionable feedback. The following guidelines help to generate effective user feedback:

1. Assign team members the role of observing and taking notes during the test. Consider asking permission to record audio or video of the test.

2. Test prototypes in the contexts and environments in which they will be used. For example, a team might design a map to aid in navigating a building. Do not stop people to show them the map—this is not how people would stumble upon it in real life. Instead, hang the map in the building (or maybe test several locations), and watch people. Are people still wandering around lost? Why are they not seeing your map? Interview the people who both walk past the map and those who use it to understand why.

3. Avoid overexplaining how the prototype works or how it solves a problem. Instead, learn from how users interact and struggle with using the solution naturally. Do not correct users if they use the prototype incorrectly.

4. Solicit feedback. This can include users talking through their experience. It can also involve an interview afterward that asks about what they liked, what they did not like, what they were confused about, and what they would change about the solution.

5. Accept negative feedback, and do not justify the solution to the user. Your goal is to learn about their experience with the prototype, not to sell them on the idea.

516

Experimentation is essential to design thinking, but it can be uncomfortable because it involves ambiguity and failure (Micheli et al., 2019). Initial ideas might seem more feasible on paper than in real life, or solutions may not be as desirable to users as anticipated. Failure and negative feedback are to be expected, encouraged, and celebrated. Adopting a learning-oriented and optimistic mindset is particularly useful at this stage of the design process.

Based on the feedback, the team may decide to return to any of the previous stages of design thinking. The results may reveal the need to reframe the problem or may inspire new ideas. As teams learn more about the user, the problem, and the solution, they should move back and forth through the process to constantly refine their ideas. Over time, a workable solution may surface that addresses the problem.

517

12.5 PROMOTING TEAM CREATIVITY AND

INNOVATION

The idea journey framework and the design thinking process provide insights into how innovation teams operate. What other factors promote team innovation? Research reveals that team diversity, knowledge integration, team climate, and organizational context are important predictors of creativity. While team conflict is sometimes attributed to sparking innovation, findings are mixed on this factor.

518

Team Diversity

One of the most often referenced benefits of working in teams is the synergistic integration of diverse knowledge, skills, and abilities. Meta-analyses reveal that diversity can support team innovation (Van Dijk, Van Engen, & Van Knippenberg, 2012). Specifically, teams with more job-related diversity—functional background, educational background, and job knowledge—are associated with greater team innovation. This relationship is particularly strong with teams that have norms and structures that promote the open exchange of ideas. By contrast, a relationship between demographic diversity (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity, or age) and team innovation has mixed support (Webber & Donahue, 2001; Hülsheger et al., 2009; Van Dijk, Van Engen, & Van Knippenberg, 2012). This is likely due to social-categorization processes and intergroup biases that impede information sharing, thereby undermining the benefits of diversity (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004). Chapter 13 explores these issues in greater detail.

519

Information Integration

Diversity, by itself, does not make a team more creative (Hoever, Van Knippenberg, Van Ginkel, & Barkema, 2012). Rather, it is through communication that team members are exposed to divergent perspectives and approaches that challenge their thinking and spur novel ideas (Perry-Smith, 2006). Team diversity can also trigger communication with people outside of the team, which can further expose them to new information and perspectives (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003). A meta-analysis confirms that both internal communication (i.e., within the team) and external communication (i.e., outside the team) are related to team innovation (Hülsheger et al., 2009). Importantly, it is not simply a matter of more communication: This can actually undermine innovation (Kratzer, Leenders, & Engelen, 2004). Rather, team innovation benefits from high-quality communication through which members integrate their unique knowledge (Van Knippenberg, 2017). Creative teams constructively discuss, debate, challenge, and integrate the different ideas of members.

520

Conflict

There is mixed support for the assertion that conflict benefits creativity. (Conflict is discussed in Chapter 7.) Individual studies suggest that group conflict can spur creativity and innovation by encouraging information integration, particularly on nonroutine tasks like brainstorming (Jehn, 1995; Puck & Pregernig, 2014). A study of Chinese information technology teams found that creativity was impeded by both too little and too much task conflict, concluding that the most creative teams had moderate levels of conflict early in the project (Farh et al., 2010).

However, meta-analyses synthesizing dozens of individual studies do not support a relationship between task conflict and innovation (Hülsheger et al., 2009; O’Neill et al., 2013). Subsequent research concluded that task conflict does not foster information integration (Hoever et al., 2012). From this, Van Knippenberg (2017) recommends that teams focus on promoting information integration rather than fostering task conflict to advance creativity.

521

Team Climate for Innovation

A team climate encompasses the atmosphere created through the shared perception of team practices, procedures, and rewards (Schneider & Reichers, 1983). A climate is produced through interactions and communication that establish what behaviors are appropriate and desirable by the team. West (1990) identified four components that foster a team climate for innovation. First, support for innovation is created through the expectation and approval of attempting to introduce novel practices. Some teams and organizations prefer executing routine operations and conformity to established practices; innovation may be actively discouraged or simply not supported. Second, task orientation encompasses a commitment to task performance characterized by individual and team accountability through monitoring, feedback, and critical appraisals. Third, participative safety built upon trust and support facilitates an environment where members can safely express new ideas without fear of judgment. Finally, team innovation benefits from shared goals that are clear, valued by members, and feasible. Fostering behaviors and communication that reinforce these components creates a team climate that is positively related to team innovation (Hülsheger et al., 2009).

522

Organizational Context

Organizations say that creativity is a valuable goal, but they often reject creative ideas (Mueller, Melwani, & Goncalo, 2012). This negative bias toward creativity is due to uncertainty. When people are uncertain, they tend to favor well-known and practical ideas rather than creative ones. Uncertainty also interferes with people’s ability to recognize creative ideas.

Creativity implies risk. Organizations focus on providing consistency, minimizing error, and reducing risk. This is the inherent conflict with organizational creativity. The problem is not that there are no creative individuals and teams in organizations but, rather, that their creativity is not rewarded. Work environments can either stimulate or provide barriers to creativity. Table 12.1 presents a list of environmental factors that research has shown affects creativity in the workplace (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996).

Table 12.1 Environmental Stimulants and Obstacles to Creativity

Factor Stimulant to Creativity Obstacle to

Creativity

Freedom Employees need the freedom to decide what tasks to perform and how to perform them, and they need control over their work process.

A lack of freedom in the way employees select projects and perform tasks discourages creativity.

523

Factor Stimulant to Creativity Obstacle to

Creativity

Management Managers need to be good role models, have good technical and communication skills, and provide clear directions but use limited controls and protect teams from negative organizational influences.

Management styles that discourage creativity include unclear direction, poor technical and communication skills, and too much control.

Encouragement New ideas need to be encouraged. There should be no threat of evaluation.

A lack of support or apathy toward new approaches reduces the motivation for creativity.

Recognition Employees should believe that creativity will receive appropriate feedback, recognition, and reward from the organization.

Inappropriate, unfair, and critical evaluations and the use of unrealistic goals limit creativity.

524

Factor Stimulant to Creativity Obstacle to

Creativity

Cooperation The organizational climate should support cooperation and collaboration, acceptance of new ideas, rewards for innovation, and the allowance of risk taking.

Interpersonal and intergroup competition within an organization or work group disrupts the creative process.

Time Creativity requires time to explore new ideas and requires less rigid schedules.

Too great a workload or day- to-day crises that redirect focus away from long-term projects reduce creativity.

Challenge Tasks that are interesting, important, and not routine encourage creativity.

Organizations that emphasize consistency and do not support risk taking discourage creativity.

525

Factor Stimulant to Creativity Obstacle to

Creativity

Motivation There should be the desire to do something important or a sense of urgency to create and complete the task because of competition from outside the organization.

Organizational factors, such as a bad reward system, excessive bureaucracy, and a lack of regard for innovation, reduce creativity.

Source: Creativity in Context, Teresa M. Amabile, Copyright © 1996 Teresa M. Amabile and Westview Press. Reproduced by permission of Taylor & Francis Group.

526

12.6 VIRTUAL CREATIVITY

Virtual teams are potentially more creative than face-to-face teams or individuals working independently because of less cognitive interference and fewer social inhibitors. This inspiration can occur if the leader appropriately captures the benefits of virtual creativity. There are several guidelines and techniques a virtual leader can follow to gain the advantages of virtual creativity.

1. Involve participants from varied knowledge areas and backgrounds. The geographical distribution of virtual teams may enable the participation of individuals representing different experiences. The broader the base of participants engaging in a shared idea generation process, the more it should broaden the base of ideas contributed.

2. Take multiple parallel approaches to the same problem. When idea generation occurs in one location, any idea heard by the rest of the group influences their thinking. When an initial idea takes the group in a particular direction, other directions of creative thought may be completely abandoned. The solution to this is to introduce many initial ideas simultaneously without cross-influence and then build on each. Brainwriting is the most established technique to do this. While brainwriting can be used face to face, brainwriting is readily used in a virtual setting. Most commercial group support systems (GSS) products—and even a wiki or Google Docs—support brainwriting. Using brainwriting tools, a leader can break the group into subgroups and have each subgroup generate ideas separately. When this virtual approach is used, ideas from one subgroup do not influence other subgroup discussions.

527

3. Anonymity is more easily accomplished in a virtual setting. Anonymity may benefit the creativity process by removing social inhibitors. Reducing these inhibitors may foster the contribution of riskier and more novel ideas. Anonymity also enables the leader to seed risky or provocative ideas into the discussion in order to encourage more out-of-the box thinking by other participants.

4. Role-play techniques during idea generation may contribute to a broader set of ideas and perhaps more novel ideas. Role-play may be easier to manage in a virtual setting because of the reduced level of social inhibitors. A simple role-play technique is to assign a celebrity identity (historical or popular culture) to each participant and ask everyone to generate ideas that the celebrity might produce. Imagine the broad base of ideas that might be contributed if participants are asked to imagine themselves as the Dalai Lama, Lady Gaga, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, or Batman. Some GSS and creativity products permit users to contribute ideas with the signature of a celebrity.

528

SUMMARY

Creativity is generating novel and useful ideas. Innovation is implementing creative ideas into a new product, service, or practice. Teams create innovations through a process of idea generation, idea elaboration, idea championing, and idea implementation. Innovation is a challenge for teams because each of these stages requires different, even opposing, skills in teammates.

Design thinking is a human-centered approach to innovation frequently used in education and industry. The nonlinear process moves teams between empathy, defining problems, ideation, prototyping, and testing to solve challenging problems. This process emphasizes focusing on users, embracing failure, experimentation, curiosity, and collaboration.

Ideation methods include mind mapping, analogies, and brainstorming. The primary goal of brainstorming is to generate lots of ideas, but production blocking, evaluation apprehension, and social loafing interfere with this in face- to-face groups. Research shows that face-to-face brainstorming is often less effective compared to nominal group techniques and electronic brainstorming. Hybrid brainstorming techniques, involving both individual and group brainstorming, can be as effective as nominal group methods.

Creativity in groups is enhanced through job-related diversity, knowledge integration, and a climate for innovation. There is mixed support for conflict enhancing creativity in groups. Although organizational leaders claim they want to encourage creativity, their actions often do not match their words. Creativity is required for organizations to adapt to the changing environment, but organizations tend to encourage consistency and stability rather than

529

innovation. Organizations can either encourage or discourage creativity through factors such as management orientation, availability of resources, recognition for risk taking, and a cooperative climate.

530

Team Leadership Challenge 12

You are the leader of a team of writers and artists at an animation studio. Typically, the studio develops a script or movie idea that it purchased externally. However, the management is inspired by the design thinking practices used at Pixar to internally create worlds, characters, and stories. For example, directors each pitch three ideas to the chief creative officer to be selected as the next project. Selected projects enter a long development phase that includes the design team going out to experience the environments that will be included in the film, communicating ideas and characters visually through storyboards and physical models, and providing iterative feedback to each other.

You are excited about this new direction. However, the team of writers and artists is hesitant. Creating the entire story (as opposed to buying a prospective script) seems daunting. Moreover, the team feels uncomfortable providing constructive criticism to each other, and management has, in the past, discouraged failure and mistakes.

How will you explain the design thinking process to the team?

What specifically can you do you foster a psychologically safe environment that rewards failure and speaking up?

What resources will you ask of the upper management to support this transition to design thinking?

531

Activity: Comparing Different

Creativity Techniques

Objective: Creativity may be improved by using one of the creativity techniques presented in this chapter. Teams can try out these techniques to see how well they work.

Activity: Divide members into three teams, and have each team use a different creativity technique—group discussion, brainstorming, or brainwriting. Each of these is useful for generating alternative solutions. Spend about 20 minutes using the creativity technique, then use multiple voting to select the preferred alternative. For a creative challenge, try developing a new advertising slogan for your organization, or write a creative caption for a cartoon in The New Yorker magazine.

Group Discussion: Have the group discuss creative solutions to the problem.

Brainstorming: To start a brainstorming session, the team leader must clearly state the issues to be discussed and review the guidelines for brainstorming. During the brainstorming session, all team members should try to suggest as many ideas as possible. Every idea is accepted by the team and noted on the recorder’s sheet. The leader’s job is to keep team members on track by keeping them focused on the issue. No one is allowed to criticize ideas. Instead, members are encouraged to build on the suggestions made by others. It is up to the leader to make sure no criticisms occur during the brainstorming session.

532

Brainwriting: Brainwriting starts with the same general approach as brainstorming. Teams are brought together, the leader announces the issue, and team members are told to be open and build on each other’s ideas. The difference is that the team’s interaction is in writing. Have each person write down several alternative ideas, throw their paper into a central pool, and pull out someone else’s paper to add to. Team members are to build on the ideas presented in the lists they receive. When the team is finished generating ideas, combine all lists for the team to review.

Selecting a solution using multiple voting: The team reviews the alternatives generated by the creativity session and combines items that seem similar. Each team member selects two to five alternatives that they would like to support. After all team members have completed their selections, tally the votes and discard items that received zero or one vote. Discuss the alternatives selected, and look for ways to combine or synthesize them. Repeat these steps until only a few options remain for the team to use to arrive at a consensus.

Analysis: Which technique generated the most creative solution? What did team members like and dislike about the creativity technique they used? Would they want to use the technique in the future?

Discussion: What are the advantages of and problems with using group discussion and these two creativity techniques? How can you encourage a team to be more creative?

533

534

CHAPTER 13 DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION

Diversity in a team stems from differences in demographic, psychological, and organizational characteristics. Differences can be a resource that provides the team with multiple perspectives on an issue, but they can also divide the team into competitive subgroups. If diverse teams can prevent intergroup biases from emerging, they can perform better on decision making, problem solving, and creativity tasks. Team problems emerging from diversity are unlikely to go away by themselves, but actions can be taken to promote inclusive climates that help teams gain the benefits of diversity.

535

Learning Objectives

1. Explain why diversity is increasingly important for teams and organizations to manage.

2. Distinguish between different kinds of difference and diversity. 3. Understand how individual, cognitive, and social processes contribute to

diversity problems. 4. Explain how stereotypes, prejudice, and biases are interconnected. 5. Understand how and under what conditions different kinds of diversity affect team

performance. 6. Explain the importance of information elaboration and how to facilitate it. 7. Understand ways to support diversity and inclusion.

536

13.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF DIVERSITY

A confluence of factors continues to make diversity of great importance to teams and organizations (Mor Barak, 2016). Legislation in countries around the world is combating discrimination against marginalized social groups and bringing them into the workforce. People are entering the workforce later in life due to advanced education, and they are working later into life due to improved health and retirement insecurity. The working-age population of developing countries is surging, while it is declining in more developed countries. Global economic integration is encouraging the migration of both workers and employers to balance the needs of labor supply and demand. Social categories are expanding, producing new and broader conceptions of diversity. As organizations become more global, their workforce must be able to interact in diverse markets. As these factors coincide with the increased use of teamwork in organizations, people are increasingly working together with a multitude of experiences, ages, backgrounds, abilities, identities, cultures, and expectations.

Diversity is at the core of teamwork. If people have identical knowledge, skills, or perspectives, then there is little reason to organize them into teams. Diversity offers a valuable resource for teams and organizations. But diversity is also a central challenge for teamwork. Diversity is not always beneficial—it can increase conflict and turnover and lower performance and cohesion (Mannix & Neale, 2005). This is the paradoxical dilemma of diversity (Bassett-Jones, 2005)—organizations that avoid diversity lose opportunities for increased innovation, creativity, and productivity, while organizations that embrace diversity risk workplace conflict, distrust, and tension. How do you get different people to work together smoothly and effectively as a team? Navigating this paradox requires understanding how difference and diversity impact team functioning.

537

13.2 DIFFERENCE AND DIVERSITY

What constitutes a diverse team? This is a challenging question, as the term diversity is used inconsistently and imprecisely. Diversity refers to the distribution of differences among members of an organizational unit (e.g., a team) that lead them to view themselves as similar to or different from one other (Roberson, 2019; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). This definition highlights that diversity is a unit-level construct—an individual is not diverse, but rather, a team is diverse on a specific difference. A team of five male engineers would not be considered diverse on sex or occupation. A team composed of female, non-binary, and male engineers would be diverse on gender identity but not on occupation.

538

Types of Difference

Although people often think of diversity in terms of gender or ethnicity, research investigates a broad range of differences. Differences are any of the innumerable categories used to describe or classify people, such as team cohesion, profession, age, personality, gender expression, status, and knowledge. McGrath, Berdahl, and Arrow (1995) differentiate between three categories of differences that affect teams in organizations. Demographic diversity relates to social categories like gender, race, ethnicity, ability, class, sexuality, and age. Psychological diversity relates to differences in cognitions, behavior, values, attitudes, personality, skills, and knowledge. People can be conservative or liberal, religious or not religious, risk-oriented or risk-averse, cohesive or not cohesive. Organizational diversity relates to a person’s relationship to an organization, such as rank, occupation, department, and power. This kind of diversity can produce differences in language or terminology that may lead to miscommunication, while power differences may disrupt the team’s communication process.

In the United States, demographic distinctions of gender, race, class, sexuality, ability, and age hold significance in many situations (Allen, 2003), but this is not true in all societies or eras. For example, religion is a more important demographic variable in the Middle East than in the United States. Differences among European immigrants were considered very important in the United States during the early 1900s, but these differences do not hold the same significance today. This illustrates that many differences are not an objective way to classify people. Rather, many differences emerge from social, historical, political, and organizational contexts (McDonald, 2019).

It is sometimes useful to distinguish between how easily differences can be observed (Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998; Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002). Surface-level diversity includes more visible and immutable differences that tend to affect people immediately (e.g., age, sex, race). Given their visibility, these differences are theorized to more quickly activate stereotypes, bias, and in-group/out-group dynamics that can negatively impact team processes and outcomes (Milliken & Martins, 1996). Surface-level diversity may lead to problems with communication, team cohesion, and conflict but often has mixed or limited effects on overall team performance.

By contrast, deep-level diversity includes psychological or task-oriented differences that are less observable, take more time to recognize, and are more malleable (e.g., attitude, values, knowledge, and expertise). These differences are considered more functional and are thought to improve team decision making, creativity, and performance (Harrison & Humphrey, 2010). While social divisions may eventually emerge from deep-level diversity, surface-level differences are often most immediately salient. As a result, divisions along surface-level differences can occur early and shape the dynamics of the team. Over time, however, the negative impact of surface diversity diminishes while the negative impact of deep diversity increases (Harrison et al., 2002).

539

Types of Diversity

There are at least three kinds of diversity that can be present in teams: variety, separation, and disparity (Harrison & Klein, 2007). Each of these conceptualizes diversity differently and suggests different consequences.

Variety diversity consists of differences in the kind or source of information among members, such as education, functional background, and knowledge. Minimal variety (i.e., homogeneity) occurs when all members share the same attribute (e.g., a health care team in which all members are nurses). Maximal variety (i.e., heterogeneity) occurs when all members differ on the same attribute (e.g., a health care team composed of a nurse, a physician, and a physical therapist). Variety diversity is theorized to be beneficial to teams, particularly in complex and nonroutine tasks. Greater variety means greater access to nonredundant information, which can foster productive task conflict and improve creativity, innovation, and decision quality.

Separation diversity consists of differences in values, opinions, and attitudes, particularly about team goals and processes. Minimal separation results when all members hold the same position on an issue (e.g., the product is ready to launch), while maximal separation results when the team is equally divided into two opposing subgroups (e.g., half the team believes the product is ready to launch, while the other half believes that it is not ready). Greater separation diversity is associated with poorer team outcomes, such as increased conflict and distrust and decreased cohesion and performance.

Disparity diversity consists of asymmetric differences in socially valued resources among members, such as status, prestige, power, decision-making authority, or pay. Minimal disparity means that all members have equal amounts of the resource. Maximal disparity means that one member has most or all of the resource, while all other members have little or none. For example, this exists in teams where one member has seniority over other novice members, or a team supervisor retains all decision-making authority. This kind of diversity is also associated with negative outcomes, as inequities can promote resistance, defiance, and competition. It can also stifle participation and voice, which impedes information sharing.

Importantly, several kinds of diversity can occur concurrently to amplify or negate outcomes. For example, while high levels of variety (e.g., knowledge) can improve decision making, members may fail to share relevant information if the team also has high disparity (e.g., power imbalances). Likewise, teams with high levels of separation and variety (e.g., two nurses have one opinion and two physicians have an opposing opinion) can create even stronger divides between subgroups, fracture team identity, and foster competitive behaviors.

Notably, Harrison and Klein’s (2007) framework does not specifically address demographic differences (e.g., age, gender, sex, race). This is because, depending on the context, demographic differences may represent separation, variety, and/or disparity. For example, gender can be associated with access to specialized information (variety), be negatively related to team cohesion (separation), or be a source of status difference that marginalizes their role in a team (disparity). This underscores the importance of considering the context-dependent meaning of diversity in the specific team or organization under consideration.

Finally, diversity research typically focuses on a single category of difference independent from others (e.g., race, or gender, or status). However, diversity can be more deeply understood by considering intersectionality. People simultaneously embody several types of difference (e.g., race and gender and status), and it is the combination of these

540

differences that impact their experiences (Kang & Bodenhausen, 2015). For example, leadership evaluations of white women and women of color are different because of the intersection of race, gender, and status (Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010). More sophisticated conceptualizations of difference using intersectionality offer much promise for understanding diversity in work teams. This concept is intertwined somewhat with the concept of demographic fault lines, which is discussed later in this chapter.

541

Diversity Over Time

Team diversity is not static—it evolves over time as team members interact and as membership changes. As people work together in a team, they develop a sense of identity with the team, which becomes stronger as the team becomes more cohesive. Over time, members form a shared mental model, develop coordination patterns, build emotional bonds, and create a common language for communicating. This leads to a convergence of attitudes, beliefs, and values that reduces the significance of background differences among team members (Harrison et al., 2002). Members identify with a team to the extent that membership is emotionally important to them and they care about its collective goals (Eckel & Grossman, 2005). One implication of team formation is that team members shift their social categories and create a new social identity. Members working together in a team develop the category of teammate. This category can become more important than the other ways that members previously categorized the people on the team.

However, team membership also changes over time—members come and go (Mathieu et al., 2014). This underscores the need to consider the impacts of diversity as team members are added, substituted, and subtracted (Li, Meyer, Shemla, & Wegge, 2018). For example, teams with minimal informational-variety diversity may change members over time to eliminate redundant knowledge types and increase diversity. However, as diversity changes, teams are likely to experience process and performance losses, as the teams must redirect time and resources to rebuild transactive memory systems, team identity, and team coordination patterns.

542

13.3 HOW DIVERSITY OPERATES

What processes emerge in diverse teams? When team members categorize each other into different social groups (e.g., demographic, psychological, or organizational differences), intergroup dynamics can emerge. Categorization can occur immediately upon the team’s formation—often but not always—based on surface-level differences (e.g., gender). It can also emerge later in the team’s development based on deep-level differences (e.g., learning about the political, religious, or occupational background of a member).

The terms in-group and out-group are used to describe the intergroup relationships. These are relative terms. From the perspective of engineering students, for example, other students in the College of Engineering might be viewed as an in-group, while students in the College of Liberal Arts might be viewed as an out-group. From the perspective of the liberal arts students, however, engineering students might be an out-group. Importantly, social groups are not mutually exclusive—subgroups are often nested within larger groups. Both these engineering and liberal arts students are members of the same university; however, the context may make this superordinate identity more or less salient. During a graduation ceremony, for example, this superordinate identity may supersede differences in colleges.

Intergroup dynamics, while not inevitable, activate an array of intergroup biases that can promote competition, conflict, aggression, and rejection. In teams, these biases can negatively impact team cohesion and performance. Sources of intergroup biases stem from personality traits, social processes, and cognitive processes.

543

Personality Traits

Personality traits can foster intergroup conflict in contexts where group-based social hierarchies are legitimized. For example, cultural values in an organization might afford higher status and power to those on top of a social hierarchy (e.g., men in a patriarchal hierarchy). People high on a personality trait called authoritarianism tend to view the world as a dangerous place. In an effort to protect themselves, they accept established social hierarchies and favor punishment for people who violate these norms (Altemeyer, 1998). A similar but distinct personality trait is social dominance orientation (SDO). This describes the tendency to accept (high SDO) or reject (low SDO) group-based social hierarchies (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001). People high in SDO tend to endorse in-group superiority and generally prefer group-based inequality (Ho et al., 2015). These beliefs then justify prejudice and discrimination against out-group members.

544

Social Processes

Intergroup conflict can also emerge from a social process of competition between groups (see Chapter 5). Realistic group conflict theory suggests that the desire for limited resources spurs both cooperation with in-group members and competition with out-group members (Sherif, 1966). Exacerbating this is the discontinuity effect—the tendency for people to act more competitively in groups than as individuals (Wildschut & Insko, 2007). Within an organization, competition might be for promotions, office space, jobs, and project resources. Within a team, scarce resources might include power, influence, respect, status, and desired roles or tasks. Conflict, prejudice, discrimination, and hostility arise when the out-group is perceived as a threat to these limited resources.

From this perspective, one way that diversity affects team interaction is by creating power differentials within the team (McGrath et al., 1995). In teams with unequal power among members, the level of communication is reduced, and the powerful members control the communication process. Power differences affect team cohesion because individuals with similar status are more likely to interact with one another and form friendships (Tolbert, Andrews, & Simons, 1995). Power differences may also lead diverse teams to have more internal conflicts because of conflicting goals and increased miscommunication. However, when competing groups are united by common goals (see Chapter 5) or a superordinate identity, these prejudices can be reduced.

545

Cognitive Processes

An alternative view is that people categorize their social world into groups and treat the members of those groups differently based on their categories (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2010). This can occur in the absence of competition for resources. These categories can be relatively arbitrary. For example, we are more likely to categorize people in ways that are easily observable (e.g., race rather than religion). Once these categories are formed, they have important implications for how people perceive and interact with others.

The theories of social identification and self-categorization suggest that intergroup bias is the natural outcome of categorizing someone as an out-group member (Zhong, Phillips, Leonardelli, & Galinsky, 2008). When we see ourselves as a member of a group, we are motivated to think and act in ways that increase the positive distinctiveness of our in- group in relation to out-groups. Our self-esteem is closely tied to the social standing of our in-group. This is why sports fans experience pride when their team wins and agony when they lose.

Positive distinctiveness is sustained through intergroup biases that encourage us to view in-groups positively and out-groups negatively. Through in-group favoritism, we view the group we belong to (our in-group) more positively, and we like, trust, and act friendlier toward in-group members. By contrast, through out-group derogation, members are viewed as less capable or threatening. Additionally, there is a neurological component to intergroup bias: In-group favoritism is amplified through the effects of the hormone oxytocin, which is associated with in-group cooperation and defense (De Dreu & Kret, 2016). Contributing to these tendencies are stereotypes, implicit biases, and attribution errors, which create and reinforce inaccuracies and misperceptions about in-group and out-group members.

Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

A stereotype is a generalization of a social group that oversimplifies their characteristics (Fiske, 1998). In-groups receive positive stereotypes, while out-groups—particularly underrepresented out-groups—receive negative stereotypes. Stereotypes inform prejudices, which are attitudes toward a social group. Out-groups can evoke fear, anger, or contempt when they are perceived to interfere with the goals, resources, or values of the in-group. By contrast, in-groups can evoke pride. Prejudices then foster discrimination, in which people are treated differently based on their social group. Negative attitudes can promote exclusion or hostility, while positive attitudes can promote helping behaviors.

For example, team members often use gender as an irrelevant cue for expertise (Cohen & Zhou, 1991). Those who are perceived to have expertise generally have more considerable influence in decision making and are assigned leadership roles in teams. However, team members tend to value the expertise of a man above that of a woman, regardless of actual expertise (Ridgeway, 1997). This is particularly salient today in historically male-dominated contexts, such as science and engineering teams. A recent study identified the male tendency to evaluate less educated female teammates more favorably when compared to highly educated female teammates (Joshi, 2014). Additionally, the team’s gender composition impacted how the expertise of highly educated women was used—teams dominated by men used women’s expertise less when compared to teams with a higher proportion of women. These results indicate that gender inequality based on stereotypes and prejudice remains present in teams.

While a stereotype can, in theory, encompass an infinite number of attributes, the reality is that stereotype content is remarkably consistent across cultures (Cuddy et al., 2009; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). Two fundamental dimensions of stereotypes exist which

546

impact intergroup perceptions: warmth and competence (Kervyn, Fiske, & Yzerbyt, 2015). Warmth appraises the sociability (e.g., cooperativeness and kindness) and morality (e.g., trustworthiness and sincerity) of the group. Competence appraises the status, skills, capabilities, and intelligence of the group. In-group stereotypes are typically represented by high warmth and high competence, while out-group stereotypes fall elsewhere.

Where a stereotype falls along the warmth and competence dimensions influences emotional (i.e., prejudice) and behavioral (i.e., discrimination) tendencies toward members of that group (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007). As shown in the behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes (BIAS) map, these tendencies can be helpful versus harmful and active versus passive (see Figure 13.1).

The BIAS map reveals that stereotypes can form different kinds of out-groups, each with different prejudices and discriminatory behaviors. Not all discrimination is hostile and overt. Rather, much of it is subtle, manifesting in the exclusion from opportunities or the absence of help. This has important implications for teams. Greenwald and Pettigrew (2014) assert that in-group helping contributes more to discrimination and inequality than does out-group derogation. For example, leader–member exchange theory (see Chapter 10) describes how leaders early on determine whether a follower is an in-group or out-group member. In- group members receive more resources, mentoring, and assistance; have better performance evaluations; and are more satisfied with being part of the team than are members of the out- group. Leaders need to consider how in-group favoritism may create lasting inequalities in the team (Gelfand et al., 2007).

Description

Figure 13.1 Behaviors From Intergroup Affect and Stereotypes (BIAS) Map

547

Source: Adapted from Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631–648.

Implicit Bias

Even when people earnestly believe that they hold no bias for or against certain social groups, they may be influenced by unconscious biases (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). This is the concept of implicit bias, which states that a lifetime of experiences and messaging creates associations between social groups and certain attitudes or beliefs. Implicit negative and positive associations toward social groups can unintentionally impact people’s decisions, preferences, and behaviors.

The implicit association test (IAT) measures the strength of these associations (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). It does this through a series of questions asking the person to sort a concept into one of two categories, such as categorizing math between male or female (Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald, 2002). Through various iterations of this procedure, they can measure the time it takes to respond to various pairings. While people can quickly and correctly respond to pairings for which they have strong associations (e.g., male/math; female/language), they respond more slowly to pairings for which they have a weak association (e.g., female/math; male/language). Implicit association tests have been developed to study various categories, including race, gender, religion, ethnicity, sexuality, age, and weight.

Attribution Errors

Attributions about in-groups and out-groups act to form and sustain stereotypes. We quickly form generalized impressions of an entire out-group after limited contact with a few members (Quattrone & Jones, 1980). The accompanying out-group homogeneity effect promotes impressions of the out-group as members being “all the same” and interchangeable, in contrast to the perceived diversity and complexity of in-group members.

We also attribute different causes to the positive and negative actions of out-group members. The ultimate attribution error explains how successes and failures can be attributed to either dispositional (e.g., personality, ability, skills, motivation) or situational (e.g., luck, circumstances, other people) factors (Pettigrew, 1979). The ultimate attribution error describes our tendency to differentially attribute the successes and failure of in-group and out-group members:

In-group member success is attributed to dispositional factors (e.g., “Of course she completed everything on time—she is a dedicated team member!”).

In-group member failure is attributed to situational factors (e.g., “They did not finish this task because administration just did not give them enough time.”).

Out-group member success is attributed to situational factors (e.g., “He got lucky by stumbling on the right answer.”).

Out-group member failure is attributed to dispositional factors (e.g., “She did not complete her task right because she just is not smart enough.”).

548

These attributional differences sustain in-group positivity and out-group negativity by encouraging us to overlook the shortcomings of the in-group while emphasizing the mistakes of the out-group.

From this perspective, diversity encourages us to misperceive people. We prejudge others on the basis of their categories rather than on how others actually behave. This causes people to treat others inappropriately, to have more deficient communication, and to dislike and distrust others without getting to know them (Mannix & Neale, 2005). People may either ignore or misinterpret the contributions of out-group or different members. Over time, these members respond to this by contributing less to team communication. The lack of power these members experience causes them to have less impact on the team’s decisions and fewer opportunities to contribute their perspective and knowledge to the team (Tolbert et al., 1995).

549

13.4 EFFECTS OF DIVERSITY ON TEAM PERFORMANCE

Decades of research has examined both specific differences (e.g., gender or race) and categories of differences (e.g., surface vs. deep or task-related vs. non-task-related) to determine whether diversity helps or hinders team performance. The answer is a resounding, “it depends.” Several meta-analyses integrating the findings of over 100 studies provide mixed and inconsistent conclusions (Mannix & Neale, 2005; Van Knippenberg et al., 2004; Van Knippenberg & Mell, 2016; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Webber & Donahue, 2001; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). You can choose nearly any kind of diversity and find studies that both support and refute its benefit to a team.

These inconsistent findings have shifted research away from investigating whether diversity helps or hinders team performance and toward determining when diversity helps or hinders team performance. The answer to this question is more straightforward: Diversity can be beneficial to team performance when intergroup bias does not impede information elaboration. This is explained through the categorization–elaboration model (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004), which integrates the perspectives of information processing and social categorization.

An information-processing perspective offers an optimistic view of diversity (Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath, 1997). It states that differences in knowledge, skills, and perspectives provide a team with a greater pool of cognitive and informational resources. This, in turn, can lead to improved problem solving, higher quality decisions, and creativity. These benefits emerge from information elaboration—when task-relevant information and perspectives are carefully discussed, debated, and integrated by the team. As a result, the information-processing perspective predicts that diversity will improve team performance.

Social categorization offers a pessimistic view of diverse teams. Integrating theories of social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and self-categorization (Turner et al., 1987), social categorization predicts that differences among team members lead to in-group/out- group divisions (e.g., “us vs. them”). The strength of this division is amplified if subgroups differ along more than one attribute (e.g., subgroups defined by gender and occupation, such as two female engineers and two male marketing professionals), a concept referred to as a fault line (Lau & Murnighan, 1998). When faced with tension or conflict, subgroups more easily fracture and become adversarial along these fault lines. The formation of subgroups fosters intergroup bias that increases conflict and decreases team member cohesion, friendships, communication, trust, and cooperation (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). As a result, the social categorization perspective predicts that diversity hinders team performance.

550

Categorization–Elaboration Model

The categorization–elaboration model reconciles the conflicting predictions of information processing and social categorization. It does this by integrating and extending these theories (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004) (see Figure 13.2). Specifically, it emphasizes that information elaboration and intergroup bias are not inevitable consequences of diversity. Rather, the effects of diversity are dependent on contextual factors.

Information elaboration does not happen automatically. Indeed, teams often fail to successfully integrate unshared information (Van Ginkel & van Knippenberg, 2008). It takes motivation and skill (e.g., negotiation, decision making, etc.) for team members to effectively share information (Chaiken & Trope, 1999). Also, the need for information elaboration is dependent on the complexity of the task—routine tasks generally require less or no extensive information processing compared to more complex tasks (Jehn et al., 1999). Critically, people tend to disregard information from out-group members and are less willing to share information with them (Lau & Murnighan, 2005). In doing so, intergroup bias can disrupt the effective information elaboration needed to benefit from diversity.

Intergroup bias, however, does not always result from a perceived difference. Rather, the difference must be made salient to the team. Gender diversity may foster intergroup bias if gender is made a meaningful difference in that context, such as when completing a gender- based task compared to a gender-neutral task (Pearsall, Ellis, & Evans, 2008). Intergroup bias is particularly likely to emerge when a difference is perceived as a threat to the team’s identity, values, status, or resources (Van Leeuwen, Van Knippenberg, & Ellemers, 2003). This means that any kind of difference—surface, deep, demographic, psychological, or organizational—has the potential to become the basis for intergroup bias.

Description

Figure 13.2 Categorization–Elaboration Model

Source: Adapted from Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008–1022.

The effects of diversity are also dependent on contextual factors (Van Knippenberg & Mell, 2016). For example, intergroup bias is less likely to negatively impact team performance on a routine task because information elaboration is not required. Teams that work cooperatively on interdependent tasks generally benefit from diversity, as do teams with a learning orientation that engage in team reflexivity activities. When people view themselves as dissimilar from their team, they are less involved in information exchange and decision making (Hobman, Bordia, & Gallois, 2004) and more likely to withdraw from tasks and leave the organization (Liao, Chuang, & Joshi, 2008).

551

Contextual factors external to the team can also impact team outcomes. For example, surface- level diversity is rarely of consequence to team performance (Jackson & Joshi, 2011). However, in occupations dominated by male or White employees, gender and ethnic diversity does have a negative impact on team performance. Similarly, in organizations primarily staffed by younger people (e.g., high technology), team performance is negatively associated with age diversity. Here, the organizational and extraorganizational contexts—which reflect institutional norms and behaviors—of work teams influence whether surface-level diversity disrupts performance. They conclude that surface-level diversity is more likely to negatively impact team outcomes “if the work teams are islands of diversity struggling to succeed in a sea of homogeneity” (Jackson & Joshi, 2011, p. 667).

What does this mean for teams? Diversity is a fact of life for most organizations. The important question is not whether diverse teams are better or worse than homogeneous teams— they have the potential to be either. What matters is how to support diverse teams in operating more effectively. The challenge of diversity is to get the benefits of functional diversity and differences in perspectives, while managing the communication and conflict problems created by diverse people working together.

552

13.5 APPLICATION: SUPPORTING DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION

When diversity is not handled effectively, it can increase conflict, create emotional problems, and reduce team effectiveness. Problems associated with diversity can be managed by establishing shared goals and preventing fault lines. Diversity training can help to inhibit bias and misperceptions. It is particularly important to create an inclusive environment so that members feel valued for their differences. Leadership plays an important role in all of these practices.

553

Managing Goals and Identities

Differences are problematic when they cause members to view themselves as dissimilar from each other and divide the team into subgroups. This can be prevented or combated through developing shared superordinate identities and goals that minimize attention to subgroup differences (Van Der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005). Encouraging members to categorize themselves by a shared identity can unite the team and reduce intergroup bias (Rink & Jehn, 2010). A team identity is developed by establishing shared norms, values, rewards, and symbols. Additionally, shared experiences, like challenges or social events, can foster a team identity. When the team has a strong sense of team identity, members are more willing to share ideas and pay attention to the ideas of other team members. Team identification helps members move beyond individual differences and focus on the needs of the team.

Additionally, group divisions are stronger when subgroups differ along more than one attribute (e.g., gender and task) (Lau & Murnighan, 2005). A technique called crosscutting can combat this tendency (Rico, Sánchez-Manzanares, Antino, & Lau, 2012). This involves assigning task roles so that they do not overlap with other differences. For example, avoid assigning all women to communication roles and men to engineering roles. Rather, assign both men and women to both roles. Crosscutting makes social categorization more complex and can weaken the emergence of intergroup bias.

554

Diversity Training

Diversity training is aimed at fostering positive intergroup interactions by focusing on increasing awareness of biases about other groups, monitoring behavior, and practicing appropriate communication (Bezrukova, Spell, Perry, & Jehn, 2016). The goal is to increase skills and knowledge in order to reduce stereotyping, discrimination, and intergroup bias. For example, a study of faculty in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) programs demonstrates that implicit-bias training improved unconscious but not explicit attitudes toward women in the field (Jackson, Hillard, & Schneider, 2014).

Training that acknowledges differences among cultures (multiculturalism) has a more positive impact on social interaction than practices that focus on ignoring group differences and avoiding inappropriate behavior (color blindness) (Vorauer, Gagnon, & Sasaki, 2009). Multicultural approaches lead to an outward focus and encourage more interaction with other team members. In contrast, color blindness encourages a prevention focus where team members are concerned about not offending others. Anxiety over saying the wrong thing reduces communication, which can lead to increased misunderstandings among team members.

Although emphasizing similarities among team members may increase group harmony, it discourages viewing issues from multiple perspectives (Todd, Hanko, Galinsky, & Mussweiler, 2011). Acknowledging differences among team members encourages viewing issues from multiple perspectives, which improves decision making. Multicultural teams are more likely to be creative when team members recognize and respect the differences among the team (Crotty & Brett, 2012). This encourages team members to feel more comfortable with stating ideas from their unique perspective. Team members acknowledge their cultural differences and try to combine these different perspectives in unique ways to support the development of creative ideas.

555

Generational Differences: Traits or Stereotypes?

Research identifies many generational differences among people working today. Successive generations tend to be more neurotic, extroverted, and conscientious and have higher self-esteem (Lyons & Kuron, 2014). From a work attitude perspective, the newer generation of workers has less overall job commitment and satisfaction. Regarding teamwork, there are mixed results, with some studies showing no generational differences, while other studies find older workers are more comfortable with working in teams. Overall, there is an increase in individualism and a decrease in the desire to work in teams.

These generational differences are statistically significant, but how should a team leader or member use this information? Statistically significant does not mean that every 20-year-old is less of a team player or more conscientious than every 50-year- old. Regardless of generational trends, each team member is a person, not a category, and should be treated as an individual. Be careful about turning information about group traits into stereotypes that affect how you treat your teammates.

556

Fostering Inclusion

While a diverse team provides the opportunity for greater performance, these gains are unlikely to emerge without inclusionary practices (Shore, Cleveland, & Sanchez, 2018). Inclusion focuses on the experience of an individual within a work group. It refers to the extent to which an individual feels welcomed as an insider with unique characteristics that provide value to the group (Shore et al., 2011). Members who feel included are more engaged in tasks and express their perspectives. Inclusion benefits everyone, but it is particularly beneficial for members of historically marginalized social groups (Winters, 2014).

Exclusionary behaviors, however, are common in the workplace and are among the most damaging to well-being, belonging, and work-related attitudes (O’Reilly, Robinson, Berdahl, & Banki, 2015). For example, supervisors are more likely to ignore or avoid employees who express different goals (Wu et al., 2015). Similarly, people may avoid interacting with people who are different to escape feelings of anxiety or awkwardness (Shelton & Richeson, 2006). Finally, people can experience brief and subtle messages, called microaggressions, which express hostile, derogatory, or negative messages toward their social group (Sue, 2010). A meta-analysis reveals that both overt and subtle forms of discrimination are at least equally damaging to individual (e.g., satisfaction, career success, stress, turnover), organizational (e.g., withdrawal, turnover, performance), physical health (e.g., pain, substance use, cardiovascular health), and psychological health (e.g., self-esteem, depression, anxiety, and anger) outcomes (Jones, Peddie, Gilrane, King, & Gray, 2016).

How can an organization foster an inclusive climate? Inclusion is particularly important at the team level, as this is the primary context for social interaction in organizations. However, support for diversity inclusion must also exist throughout the organization to be effective—recall that organizational and extraorganizational contexts influence the relationship between team diversity and performance. Supporting diversity through inclusion consists of several practices and processes (Mor Barak et al., 2016; Nishii & Rich, 2014; Sabharwal, 2014; Shore et al., 2018):

1. Feeling safe—Managers and teammates actively encourage members to express different opinions. Actions and words should reinforce that it is psychologically and physically safe to do so without retaliation, rejection, or discrimination. Otherwise, information elaboration will be inhibited, and the team cannot benefit from diversity (Edmondson & Lei, 2014).

2. Belongingness—Teammates have frequent positive interactions that produce a stable and secure relationship (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Each member feels that they are an insider and have equal access to information and resources from managers and leaders.

3. Value and respect—Managers and teammates express appreciation for member identity groups, as opposed to rejecting or ignoring them. Members have opportunities to get to know each other in more personal ways and share nonwork aspects of their identities. For example, members can be encouraged to share details about their background and how it informs their approach to the task.

4. Influence in decision making—Diverse perspectives from all team members are actively sought and integrated into the decision-making process of the team and organization (Mor Barak et al., 2016). Managers provide multiple opportunities for upward communication, seek informal feedback, are open to alternative ideas, and actually incorporate this information whenever appropriate.

5. Authenticity—Members can comfortably share unique aspects of their identity that differ from the dominant organizational culture. When people believe they will be negatively evaluated by deviating from dominant norms, they might hide their true attitudes and create a false persona to blend into the organization. For example, a lesbian employee can feel pressure to “pass” as straight in some workplaces, resulting in dodging

557

conversations about partners and not bringing them to organizational events (Spradlin, 1998).

6. Recognizing, honoring, and advancing diversity—Leaders and managers must not simply espouse support for diversity but follow through with actions. There is not just a focus on increasing representation of social groups but fair and equal practices across employees in the organization.

People who work in inclusive environments tend to be more committed, satisfied, and helpful than those who do not (Nishii & Rich, 2014). Moreover, they can suppress intergroup biases (Nishii, 2013) and foster information elaboration (Li, Lin, Tien, & Chen, 2017), which is essential for teams to realize the benefits of diversity. At the end of this chapter is a survey to evaluate the extent to which you feel included in the team.

558

Leadership

Leadership plays an important role across all these practices. From a functional perspective, team members should monitor and act in response to issues relating to diversity when they arise. Still, leaders, particularly those with status and power, have an important role in both exclusion and inclusion. On the one hand, leader in-group favoritism can promote inequality and exclusion (Gelfand et al., 2007). On the other hand, leaders can promote inclusion through fostering safe climates and challenging unfair rules (Cottrill, Denise Lopez, & Hoffman, 2014; Mitchell et al., 2015).

Randel and colleagues (2018) propose five leadership behaviors that advance inclusion through fostering acceptance and appreciation of members: supporting group members, ensuring justice and equity, shared decision making, encouraging diverse contributions, and helping members to fully contribute. These behaviors align with the components of an inclusive climate and underscore the central role that leaders play in supporting diversity in teams. These behaviors can enhance work group identification, psychological empowerment, and performance.

559

SUMMARY

Diversity and inclusion continue to be relevant for organizations due to changing workforce demographics and the adoption of teamwork. Although we often think of diversity in terms of demographic differences (e.g., gender, ethnicity, age), diversity also includes psychological (e.g., values, personality, knowledge) and organizational (e.g., tenure, occupation, status) differences among people. Diversity can differ along dimensions of variety, separation, and disparity of team members.

Diversity operates through individual personality traits, social processes (competition for resources), and cognitive processes (intergroup bias). People categorize others and use stereotypes to explain differences between groups. The categorization process can lead to cognitive biases that produce prejudice and discrimination that favors in-groups. Team members and leaders are affected by these biases and may treat team members differently because of their backgrounds. This reduces members’ ability and willingness to contribute to the team’s efforts.

The effects of diversity on teams are complex. The performance differences between homogeneous and heterogeneous teams depend on the contextual factors. Personal or surface- level diversity may increase conflict in teams, while functional or deep-level diversity can improve team performance on a variety of tasks. Research supporting the categorization– elaboration model shows that diversity can improve team performance when intergroup bias does not impede information elaboration.

Teams and organizations can adopt programs to help teams manage intergroup bias and support diversity and inclusion. Teams should develop shared goals and identities, while using crosscutting to prevent fault lines from forming. Diversity training programs can increase awareness of the differences among types of people and improve a team’s ability to communicate. Teams and organizations should also develop inclusive climates that foster belongingness and appreciation for members of different groups. Leadership behaviors play an essential role in supporting these goals.

560

Team Leadership Challenge 13

You are the professor in an undergraduate engineering design class. The yearlong class uses student teams to complete a complex design project. Your goal is to simulate a real-world professional experience in the class, but you also need to ensure that it is a safe and productive learning experience for the students.

Like many engineering classes, there are few women students. In the past, you have not been concerned about gender issues when assigning students to project teams. However, last year you received several complaints from women students about feeling bullied and unsupported in their teams. These students were the only women in their design teams.

How should you (the professor) distribute the few women engineering students among the project teams?

Are there actions you could take to provide support for the women students in the class?

How do you handle complaints from women students about team relations?

561

Survey: Work Group Inclusion

Purpose: Increase your awareness of how included you and members of the team feel. Inclusion comprises both feelings of belongingness and uniqueness. Belongingness relates to having positive interactions with a group and feeling accepted by them. Uniqueness relates to feeling differentiated from the group and that these differences are valued.

Directions: Using the scale that follows, indicate the amount of agreement with each of the following statements about yourself in the context of your team.

1   2   3   4   5

Strongly Disagree         Strongly Agree

_____ 1. I am treated as a valued member of my work group.

_____ 2. I belong in my work group.

_____ 3. I am connected to my work group.

_____ 4. I believe that my work group is where I am meant to be.

_____ 5. I feel that people really care about me in my work group.

_____ 6. I can bring aspects of myself to this work group that others in the group don’t have in common with me.

_____ 7. People in my work group listen to me even when my views are dissimilar.

_____ 8. While at work, I am comfortable expressing opinions that diverge from my group.

_____ 9. I can share a perspective on work issues that is different from my group members.

_____ 10. When my group’s perspective becomes too narrow, I am able to bring up a new point of view.

Scoring:

Add Questions 1–5 to obtain your belongingness score (between 5 and 25). The higher the score, the more you feel that you belong to your group.

Add Questions 6–10 to obtain your uniqueness score (between 5 and 25). The higher the score, the more you feel that you are valued for your uniqueness in the group.

Discussion: How included do members of the team feel? What team and organizational experiences have contributed these feelings of belongingness and uniqueness? What changes can be made to the team to increase feelings of inclusion?

Source: Chung, B. G., Ehrhart, K. H., Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Dean, M. A., & Kedharnath, U. (2019). Work group inclusion: Test of a scale and model. Group & Organization Management, 45(1), 75–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601119839858

562

Activity: Understanding Gender and Status Differences in a

Team

Objective: Diversity can be caused by demographic (e.g., gender), psychological (e.g., personality), or organizational (e.g., status) differences. The more powerful a group is, the more likely it is to communicate, speak forcefully, and contradict others. It is sometimes assumed that women’s communication is more polite and deferential than men’s communication, but this may have more to do with status than gender or personality differences. This activity helps explore this question.

Activity: Use the observation form (Activity Worksheet 13.1) to record the communication in a team meeting that comprises male and female members. Alternatively, organize a small-group discussion on the Team Leader’s Challenge with a mixed-gender group. You may also want to create all-male and all-female groups for comparison purposes.

Analysis: Women and low-status team members use the first two communication styles more often, while men and high-status team members use the last two communication styles more often. Compare the various communications of women with those of men in the group, and compare the communication level and style of high-status members (e.g., leader) with that of low-status members. Also, note which type does most of the communicating in the group.

Discussion: How do you explain the differences among communication styles of team members? Are these differences because of status, personality, or gender differences? What should a team do to make sure diversity differences do not interfere with full participation and acceptance in the team?

Team Members

1 2 3 4 5 6

Phrases ideas tentatively and politely

Shows agreement and support for others

Confronts issues using direct and forceful language

Contradicts and disagrees with others

Total number of communications:

563

Descriptions of Images and Figures Back to Figure

In the graphical representation, the x-axis is labeled “Competence” and y-axis is labeled “Warmth.” The left, right, bottom, and top ends of the x- and y-axis are labeled “Low” and “High,” respectively. Details shown in the graph are listed anticlockwise from 1st quadrant to 4th quadrant as follows:

Types of fundamental

dimensions Emotions Behaviors

High Competence and High Warmth

Admiration and pride

Actively help and protect the group

Typically viewed as the ingroup

Low Competence and High Warmth

Pity and sympathy

Passively cooperate and associate with the group

May also patronize or neglect members

Low Competence and Low Warmth

Contempt and disgust

Actively harm by removing, attacking, fighting, and sabotaging the group

High Competence and Low Warmth

Envy and jealousy

Passively harm by excluding, demeaning, hindering, and scapegoating the group

Back to Figure

Details of the flowchart are listed as follows:

Step 1a: Team diversity

Step 1b: Social Categorization

Intergroup bias

Identity threat

Faultlines

Step 1c: Information Processing

Motivation

Ability

564

Task complexity

Step 2: Information Elaboration

Sharing, discussing, debating, and integrating task-based knowledge

Step 3: Team performance

565

566

PART IV ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT OF TEAMS

Shutterstock/Oshchepkov Dmitry

567

568

CHAPTER 14 TEAM, ORGANIZATIONAL,

AND INTERNATIONAL CULTURE

The shared values, beliefs, and norms of a team, organization, or nation are known as its culture. A team’s culture affects how team members communicate and coordinate work. Organizational and international cultures influence the degree to which individuality, status, and uncertainty are accepted and used. Culture affects how teams operate within organizations. The success of work teams depends on the level of support they receive from their organization, which, in turn, depends on the organization’s culture. At the same time, the use of teams changes an organization’s culture. International differences in culture impact how teams are used and operate. Multinational teams are composed of members from different cultures who are linked by communication technology. These teams must manage their cultural differences in order to operate effectively. Cultural intelligence is a critical predictor in the successful cultural adaption of multicultural teams.

569

Learning Objectives

1. Explain what culture is and how it impacts human behavior.

2. Understand when a strong team culture improves teamwork and when it prevents it.

3. Describe organizational culture and how it impacts people in organizations.

4. Differentiate between the two main types of organizational cultures.

5. Understand how different dimensions of international culture affect teamwork.

6. Explain how international culture impacts teamwork.

7. Understand strategies to manage cultural differences.

8. Describe the components of cultural intelligence.

570

14.1 WHAT IS CULTURE?

Culture is a complex and multifaceted concept that pervades many aspects of life (Erez & Gati, 2004). While culture is often equated with nationality (Kirkman et al., 2016), culture forms in any group that has sustained interactions and a shared history. This includes contexts like social groups, teams, organizations, and even classrooms. Understanding that culture and nationality are distinct is important, as significant variations of culture can exist within a single nation.

It is easy to focus on the observable elements of culture, such as behavior, dress, and language. However, hidden from view are the underlying cultural values, beliefs, attitudes, and assumptions that inform behavior and shape interpretations of the world. In this way, culture is like a group’s personality (Schein, 2017). Personality consists of underlying values and beliefs that manifest in observable patterns of behavior. An extraverted person, for example, is likely to be talkative and sociable. Similarly, culture includes the underlying values and beliefs shared by a group that influences its collective behavior. Culture influences assumptions about concepts like time, relationships, reality, and participation.

Culture, then, is a shared pattern of assumptions, values, and beliefs that guides how groups of people behave (Schein, 2017). It defines for a group what is possible or not possible, appropriate or inappropriate, right or wrong, and good or bad. In doing so, culture fundamentally encourages and constrains various behaviors and ways of thinking. Culture is learned—it is reproduced and revised through ongoing observations, stories, rules, rewards, and punishments. Culture is also dynamic—a group creates and

571

revises its culture in response to internal and external challenges or changes. This enforces a shared way of understanding and interacting in the world, which provides a sense of belonging, identity, predictability, and stability to members. The degree to which culture shapes our experiences can be difficult to recognize because it provides a taken-for-granted and often unconscious way of interpreting the world. We often become aware of these outcomes through their absence—finding ourselves in an unfamiliar culture can produce anxiety because things do not make sense.

Consider your thoughts and feelings on the first day of high school, college, or a new job. You may have heard people use unfamiliar phrases, felt uncertain of what you were supposed to do, discovered rivals that you were supposed to oppose, felt unsure of whom you were supposed to listen to, and even questioned what you were doing there. You likely had some mishaps—misusing a term, dressing the wrong way, addressing someone improperly, or speaking out of turn. However, people corrected you, and you learned and adapted. Eventually, you grow more confident in how things are done, what is expected of you, and how to interact with others. Things begin to make sense, and you can focus on your tasks. This is how culture operates. It provides a common set of behaviors and perspectives so that the group (e.g., team, organization, nation) can effectively interact while pursuing its goals. If every day felt like the first day, it would be difficult for groups to pursue collective goals.

There are at least two reasons why awareness of culture is important for teamwork. First, it is important for team members to understand how they influence and are influenced by the culture that they weave for themselves. Likewise, it is also important to consider how the organizational culture in which they are embedded influences the team. Second, teams are becoming increasingly multicultural and multinational. Teams with culturally different members offer the advantage

572

of diverse perspectives. However, realizing these benefits requires managing misunderstandings and conflict. Building awareness of culture and the capacity for cultural adaptation is important for the success of these teams. Cultural competencies are essential teamwork skills for navigating contemporary workplaces (Leung, Ang, & Tan, 2014). To explore these issues, this chapter discusses culture in the context of teams, organizations, and nations.

573

14.2 TEAM CULTURE

Teams often benefit from a strong culture. This occurs when members closely share conceptions of the norms, identity, values, roles, authority, goals, and strategies in the team. A shared culture makes clear the appropriate behaviors, communication, and roles for members to engage in. This reduces uncertainty and misunderstandings, which helps the team operate as a single unit. Culture also fosters a sense of belonging. Through ongoing interactions, the team creates a shared interpretation of events, which further binds the team together (Morgan & Ogbonna, 2008). Together, these elements of team culture help to meet the human needs for stability and identity. This also increases team performance by facilitating trust and positive affect (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994). Developing a strong team identity and culture is especially important for teams that span organizational and international boundaries. The team’s culture provides a way to unite team members who have different views of teamwork and teamwork practices.

Leaders play an important role in establishing team culture. They model appropriate behaviors and responses, allocate rewards and punishments, and make decisions based on their values. Indeed, the birthplace of an organization’s culture is the small team that founders initially bring together (Schein, 2017). For example, Jeff Bezos emphasized the value of cost-cutting early in the founding of Amazon. One manifestation of this value was making cheap desks by hammering legs onto doors. Amazon continues to use these “door desks” in offices around the world as a symbol of its core value of frugality (Karlinsky & Stead, 2018).

Any number of values can be incorporated into a team’s culture. For example, a benefit of teamwork is information

574

sharing among team members to coordinate work activities (Zarraga & Bonache, 2005). Yet knowledge sharing requires a collaborative team culture. Team members may be reluctant to share information, given that information is a valuable individual commodity in work organizations. A collaborative team culture includes mutual trust, leniency in judging others, the courage to state opinions, and willingness to help. When a collaborative culture exists, the team is better able to use the resources of its members.

Team culture relates to team support or the availability of helping behaviors within a team (Drach-Zahavy, 2004). Support includes both emotional support and help or assistance in performing the task. Teams that are group-oriented (rather than individualistic) and are less status-oriented provide more team support. Studies on high-stress action teams, like nursing teams, show that supportive team cultures reduce the negative impacts of work stress (Drach-Zahavy, 2004).

However, there are times when a strong culture can disadvantage a team. A drawback to reinforcing a shared view of the world is that it is challenging to think outside that view (Lorsch, 1986). This can impede efforts by the team to be creative or to adapt to changing external circumstances. The story of HP designing a $49 printer offers a salient example (Watson, 2003).

In the early 2000s, HP was the market leader of high-quality printers. Their designers had released a remarkably inexpensive $79 printer, but facing competition from rival Lexmark (i.e., environmental change), they were mandated with reengineering an entire line of printers from scratch that cost $30 less. This was met with resistance from the experienced designers and engineers. The team was proud of producing high-quality printers, and they were skeptical about being able to find ways of further reducing costs. In response, the manager quietly grabbed an HP printer and

575

proceeded to stand on top of it. Their printers at the time were so durable that they could support the weight of a 200- pound adult. This image allowed the team to see past their shared assumption of how to construct a printer (e.g., using a metal case). With a new way of seeing the problem, the team used plastic parts to create a smaller printer with better image quality and speed. However, it could no longer be used as a stepstool.

This illustrates the importance of recognizing the drawbacks of a strong culture. A culture that encourages members to stick to the same way of doing things can threaten its survival in changing environments. New team members with different perspectives are better able to challenge the status quo and encourage the team to adapt. Alternatively, a team’s culture might emphasize continual reflection and adaption as a core value to overcome inertia. Leaders should try to establish an appropriate culture early in the team’s life because it is easier to begin to establish a culture than it is to change an existing one.

576

14.3 DEFINING ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

The concept of organizational culture arose during the 1980s as a way to explain why some organizations were consistently successful. Peters and Waterman (1982) used the concept of organizational culture as a way of describing the practices of the best U.S. companies. Schein (1992) was influential in arguing that the principles for examining national cultures could be used to describe organizational cultures.

Organizational culture refers to the shared values, beliefs, and norms of an organization. Researchers studying organizational culture emphasize various aspects as key to understanding how organizations operate. For Deal and Kennedy (1982), an organization’s customs, rituals, and traditions help reveal the underlying values that guide organizational decision making. Davis (1984) focuses on the shared meanings and beliefs of organizations because they affect an organization’s strategies and operating procedures. Kilmann and Saxton (1983) view culture as determining the team norms and behavioral patterns of employees.

Regardless of which characteristic of organizational culture is selected, there are features of cultures that are common to all perspectives (Schein, 2017). All members of an organization are embedded within its organizational culture. Culture provides structural stability for the organization because its influence is pervasive and slow to change. The varied aspects of culture are integrated and form a consistent pattern within the organization. Culture reflects the shared learning by organization members that contains cognitive, behavioral, and emotional elements. Finally, organizational culture affects both the internal operations of the organization and how it relates to its external environment.

577

Organizations do not necessarily have uniform cultures. Rather, they often contain networks of groups that develop their own styles of operating and interacting. These are organizational subcultures. Such subcultures arise from mergers and acquisitions, geographic differences in facility locations, or operating in different departments. An employee’s profession or occupational community is a particularly strong source of an organizational subculture. An occupational community refers to the shared knowledge, language, and identity formed by those working in a particular area of specialization (Bloor & Dawson, 1994). For example, engineers and sales representatives have different occupational communities and, therefore, occupy different subcultures within an organization. They use different professional languages, styles of interacting with others, and assumptions about the world. This can make working together on cross-functional teams difficult (Morgan & Ogbonna, 2008).

Organizations may be characterized by assessing the integration of their separate subcultures (Van Maanen & Barley, 1985). When the shared beliefs and assumptions held by working groups are similar across organizations, the organizations have strong cultures. For example, in the 1980s and 1990s, Hewlett-Packard had a strong organizational culture that defined how managers should treat employees: encouraging an open-door policy, fostering independence, and promoting equal status relations. These practices operated throughout all divisions of the company.

However, teams can also develop a different interpretation of organizational events and policies. This point is illustrated by research conducted by communication scholars Kirby and Krone (2002). They studied the use—or rather disuse—of parental leave benefits offered by an organization’s formal policies. Despite having the official right to protected leave for new parents, overhearing disgruntled discussions

578

from coworkers about “picking up the slack” from those using parental leave created a culture that dissuaded team members from actually using it. In other words, the policy exists, but the team culture prevents its use.

579

14.4 ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND TEAMWORK

An organizational culture that encourages employee involvement and participation is a necessary support for teamwork. In a supportive organizational culture, managers are less likely to resist using teams, and there are better relations between teams and other parts of the organization. Self-managing teams are much more likely to be successful in organizations whose culture supports empowerment and teamwork. Overall, organizational culture is one of the largest predictors of the successful use of teams by companies (Levi & Slem, 1995).

Organizational culture defines the norms that regulate acceptable behaviors in an organization. When these cultural norms conflict with the use of teams, organizations have a difficult time using teams successfully. For example, norms about communication that are part of an organization’s culture may limit the organization’s ability to use teams (Minssen, 2006). Many organizations do not support open communication from workers to managers, across departments, or from top management to the rest of the organization. This limits the amount of communication that occurs in a team and the team’s ability to relate to other parts of the organization.

Walton and Hackman (1986) identify two distinct types of organizational cultures that affect the use of teams: control cultures and commitment cultures. Status and power drive the control strategy. It is hierarchical and tightly controlling. The relations among people are adversarial and untrusting. It is difficult to operate teams in this context. The commitment strategy reduces the number of organizational levels of authority, focuses on quality, and adopts methods to encourage open communication and participation. It uses teams

580

and gives them the authority to operate successfully. This type of culture empowers both individuals and teams to increase commitment to their organization’s goals.

Obviously, most organizations fall somewhere between these two approaches. Although managers may want to shift to a commitment strategy, if the existing culture is control oriented, it will be difficult to change. Developing teams is a struggle when their use is not compatible with existing cultural practices. Teams operate better in a commitment- oriented culture because they are given the resources, training, and power they need to succeed.

It is critical for the organizational culture to support collaborative work for teams to operate successfully (Dyer et al., 2007). It is an arduous task for a traditional control- oriented culture to change enough to promote good teamwork. Organizations may want to promote teamwork and create commitment-oriented organizational cultures; however, they may resist changing the existing system of power, authority, and rewards. Employees are often cynical of announcements by management that it will simply create teams when the culture does not support the use of teams.

The importance of organizational culture as a primary support for teamwork is both a problem and a benefit (Levi & Slem, 1995). Organizational culture is not easy to change. Developing an organizational culture that supports teamwork is a long-term process. It is not something that can be dictated by top management or announced as a new organizational program. Changing an organizational culture requires a consistent effort on the part of management to show that employee involvement and teamwork will be valued and rewarded. This must be done through both communication and action. If what an organization says it believes does not match its actual behavior, a credibility gap is created, and trust between the organization and its employees drops.

581

In organizations without uniform cultures, cultural change may occur within subcultures (Dyer et al., 2007). However, even successful subcultures do not necessarily spread to other parts of an organization. For example, General Motors (GM) created a new organizational culture at its NUMMI facility to support teamwork. Although this team-based approach to manufacturing was successful, the approach was not adopted by other GM facilities. Although there are many successful examples of production teams and even self- managing teams, these approaches reveal the limited impact on manufacturing companies (Vallas, 2003). Production teams are often islands of innovation surrounded by traditional work systems because management has not allowed a culture of teamwork to spread throughout the organization.

There is a benefit to this relationship between organizational culture and teamwork. Once an organization begins to create an organizational culture that supports teamwork, the culture can support a wide variety of teams. The organizational culture provides the foundation, and from that foundation, an organization can experiment with developing the types of teams that can successfully fulfill its mission.

582

14.5 DIMENSIONS OF INTERNATIONAL CULTURE

Organizational and team cultures are nested within a national context. It can be difficult to instill norms or practices at these lower levels that oppose values held at the larger level. A popular way of considering national culture is through dimensional values held by a society, such as individualism-collectivism. This allows national cultures to be compared across these dimensions.

The two most frequently used frameworks for conceptualizing dimensions of culture in organizational contexts are those developed by Hofstede (1980) and House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, and Gupta (2004). Hofstede’s pioneering work identified four cultural dimensions from studying IBM employees in 72 different societies, which was later expanded to six dimensions (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010). House and colleagues (2004) identified nine similar cultural dimensions from studying 951 organizations across 62 societies during the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research (GLOBE) project. We will describe how teamwork may be influenced by three of Hofstede’s dimensions: individualism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance (see Table 14.1). However, an important caveat must be noted about their application.

Dimensional approaches have been critiqued for overlooking within-nation variation of culture (Kirkman et al., 2016)— people do not share uniform cultural values in a nation. Using these dimensions to teach about culture, then, can be questioned for incorrectly “projecting national-level culture characteristics onto individuals or organizations” (Brewer & Venaik, 2014, p. 1063). In other words, it may be misleading to apply broad frameworks of national culture onto an individual, such as assuming that all people from the

583

United States are highly individualistic. This can promote cultural ignorance and perpetuate false stereotypes that are ultimately counterproductive for managers and team members. Even Hofstede clarifies that his cultural dimensions “are meant to be a test of national culture, not of individual personality; they distinguish cultural groups or populations, not individuals” (Hofstede, 1998, p. 481). Still, these cultural dimensions remain a popular way to learn about and study culture in organizations, teams, and individuals. While they provide a useful framework, they should be thoughtfully applied.

584

Individualism Versus Collectivism

The individualism-collectivism dimension is a predominant component of national cultures that has a strong influence on teamwork. The interactions of individualistic members tend to embody autonomy, privacy, individual recognition, immediate family and self-orientation, openness and candor, task- oriented group activities, and I-language (Hofstede, 2011). Given these traits, people high in individualism are associated with greater comfort engaging in conflict, general resistance to working in teams and/or self-management teams (Kirkman & Shapiro, 1997), and performing worse in groups when instructed to “do your best” compared to having specific group or individual goals (Erez & Somech, 1996). Still, other research shows that individualistic groups tend to be more creative then collectivist groups (Goncalo & Staw, 2006). People from the United States, Australia, Great Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, and New Zealand tend to score the highest on individualism (Hofstede et al., 2010).

By contrast, collectivism is associated with loyalty to the group, opposition to other groups, belongingness, cooperation, we-language, relationship-oriented group activities, harmony, disapproving of self-promotion, and following group opinions. People value the ties between people and are expected to look after one another. Self- interest is subordinate to the interests of the social group or team, making conformity expected and discouraging open conflict. Collectivist members are less likely to resist team membership and more likely to accept self-management, which enhances team effectiveness (Kirkman & Shapiro, 1997). Most of the world is composed of people living in collectivist cultures; for example, in collectivist countries like Guatemala, Ecuador, and Panama (Hofstede et al., 2010). Also, many countries in Asia, such as India, South Korea, Thailand,

585

and Japan, are comparatively more collectivist than the United States.

Table 14.1 Dimensions of Organizational Culture

Individualism ↔ Collectivism

Low power distance ↔ High power distance

Weak uncertainty avoidance

↔ Strong uncertainty avoidance

586

Power Distance

The power distance dimension of culture is the degree to which people accept unequal power distribution in organizations and society (Hofstede et al., 2010). In high- power cultures, large power and status differences are acceptable. In such cultures, great respect and deference are shown to higher status people; as a result, challenging their authority is uncomfortable, and team members are more willing to accept the leader’s decisions. A high-power culture can be a problem for teams because accepting the leader’s view can reduce team creativity. Participation is not easy for people in high-power cultures because they believe communication from above is more important than their own ideas. In an unequal-status situation, the higher status person does most of the communicating, and most communication is directed at the person with the highest status.

In low-power cultures, people are less willing to accept the authority of others based on the positions they hold in an organization. Their viewpoint is more egalitarian, and they prefer to seek consensus. Team members take more initiative and do not automatically accept management directives. Members’ more open communication styles can create more conflicts. Their sense of independence from the organization’s authority may lead the team into decisions that are not sensitive to the politics of the organization. Egalitarian communication in decision making may improve the quality of the decisions but reduce the team’s ability to implement them because of the lack of deference to the concerns of the surrounding organization.

587

Uncertainty Avoidance

Cultures vary in willingness to accept uncertainty (Hofstede et al., 2010). Uncertainty is the degree to which people feel threatened by ambiguous situations or change. Weak uncertainty avoidance cultures, like Hong Kong, China, India, and the United States, value change. They tend to be action oriented and do not plan changes in advance. People in these cultures are open and willing to try out new ideas. They may be averse to formal rules. Conflict is more likely to be viewed as positive because it encourages new ideas and change.

Strong uncertainty avoidance is associated with a preference for clear and consistent rules and norms that define appropriate behavior. This permits people to feel that they know what is expected of them. People in risk avoidance cultures try to maintain the security of the status quo, in part because they fear the potential for failure during change. They expect authority figures to have all of the answers, and they are prone to accept universal truths. This means that open conflict is considered inappropriate—people avoid controversies or become compliant during controversies. Finally, they are less tolerant of different people and ideas. Together, these values can promote social harmony and stability. Strong uncertainty avoidance is prevalent in cultures found in Japan, Germany, and Belgium.

588

Comparing the United States and Japan

The United States and Japan present a valuable comparison of the effects of culture on teamwork. Applying the dimensions discussed previously, U.S. organizations tend to display individualism, low power, and risk taking, whereas Japanese organizations tend to display collectivism, high power, and risk avoidance. These differences significantly affect the use of teams and how teams operate.

The focus of U.S. management practice is on controlling, motivating, and rewarding individual performance. The individual remains independent of the organization and is expected to remain committed to the organization only as long as it is in their best interest. There is less use of teamwork in the United States than in other industrialized countries (Cole, 1989). The focus on competition and individualism in U.S. culture limits teamwork, especially among professional and managerial staff.

In the Japanese approach to management, the individual does not have a job but, rather, is part of the organization (Ouchi, 1981). Japanese organizations stress the interdependence of all employees. Their participative style is marked by mutual respect and common interests (Pascale & Athos, 1981), and consensus decision making is practiced at all levels of their organizations.

Teamwork programs, such as quality circles and production teams, are more common in Japanese companies. Management creates these teams to serve as mechanisms for employee participation. The focus of teamwork is on improving the productivity of the work system. Participation allows employees to make suggestions, but management retains control over all decisions (Cole, 1989). Unlike teamwork programs in

589

the United States, participation does not imply power sharing with the workers in hierarchical Japanese corporations.

The Japanese have a more cautious view of change because their culture is more attuned to the value of promoting social harmony. Japanese companies tend to implement incremental changes because of their concern for social relations and job security (Prochaska, 1980). On teams, there is less conflict and more conformity. Consequently, Japanese teams are viewed as less creative and less willing to take risks than U.S. teams.

Japanese teams use consensus decision making. Consensus is easier to reach in Japanese teams because people are less independent and try to avoid conflict. They are confident that compromise solutions can be found, so they do not rush to decisions. This makes Japanese decision making slower but the implementation of decisions faster. Once a Japanese team has made a consensus decision, it knows that everyone supports the implementation of the decision.

This comparison between U.S. and Japanese cultures demonstrates several points about organizational culture. First, cultures affect how teams operate. Second, national cultures affect organizational cultures. Third, cultures do not prevent the use of teams, but they do affect the way teams operate.

590

14.6 INTERNATIONAL DIFFERENCES IN TEAMWORK

International cultural differences have a variety of impacts on the meaning of teams and how they operate. Globalization and virtual teamwork have increased the use of teams that incorporate members from different cultures. Becoming aware of cultural differences and one’s own cultural biases is important for effective teamwork.

Cultures have different views about the meaning of teams at work (Gibson & McDaniel, 2010). The individualism- collectivism dimension influences the expectations and understanding of teamwork, resulting in different metaphors that contribute to various expectations of team roles, values, scope, membership, and objectives (Gibson & Zellmer- Bruhn, 2001). Those from individualistic cultures tend to assess teams and teamwork using metaphors of sports (e.g., clear objectives, coach, players, competitions, etc.), associates (e.g., cliques, clans, crews, etc.), or military (e.g., engaging in campaigns, battles, survival, etc.), while those from collectivist cultures observe teams and teamwork using metaphors of family (e.g., parental roles like father, mother, brother, etc.) and community (e.g., teammates are buddies, friends, neighbors, etc.). Psychological safety can be influenced by the metaphors used by teams—a family provides a safer climate than the military. This also suggests that team members from different nations likely have different expectations for how a team will be managed—for example, a member of a team expecting a familial teamwork environment will not have their expectations of guidance and support met if they are involved with a team managed as associates.

Cultures also have different interpretations of team success (Gibson & McDaniel, 2010). Mexicans emphasize socioemotional

591

relations as an important criterion for team success, while Anglos emphasize primarily task performance. For example, forging business relationships in Mexico may begin with more informal interactions during dinner where business topics are initially avoided in favor of fostering interpersonal relationships. Trust operates differently in different cultures. In Japan, trust within a team is based on personal ties with team members, while trust in U.S. teams is based more on common team identity and performance. These different meanings for teamwork imply differences in team norms and in the importance of building relationships among team members.

Differences among cultures can produce communication errors (Vignovic & Thompson, 2010). People communicating in a second language are more likely to make spelling and grammar errors. In addition, cultures have different communications norms that can lead to misinterpretation. For example, when Americans e-mail, they often use a conversational style in the message. However, Chinese business professionals tend to write brief, direct e-mail messages that are solely task oriented. This can lead to the misinterpretation by Americans that Chinese people lack social skills, are unfriendly, or are untrustworthy.

Communication problems can also occur because of differences in the expression of emotions (Adam, Shirako, & Maddux, 2010). When team members are negotiating, expressing anger may lead to greater concessions from American negotiators but to fewer concessions from Asian and Asian American negotiators. The reason for this difference is that displaying negative emotions is less acceptable in Asian cultures. Cultural rules for displaying emotions make it acceptable for Western individualistic cultures to amplify emotional expressions, while Eastern collectivist cultures tend to limit or suppress the expression of emotions, especially negative emotions. However, in other cultures like Israel, the display of negative emotions is a useful conflict

592

technique that can help the parties better understand the nature of the conflict and encourage a quicker resolution.

Team decision-making practices are impacted by culture (Gibson & McDaniel, 2010). In collectivist, high-power cultures like Japan, team members are more cooperative, more likely to support the opinion of the leader, and more likely to use equal allocation approaches to resolve dilemmas. However, individualist cultures like the United States may make higher quality decisions because they are more willing to tolerate and be influenced by minority opinions during a group discussion.

When trying to resolve conflicts, cultures have different preferences about approaches (Gibson & McDaniel, 2010). U.S. teams prefer integrative solutions that maximize mutual interests, while Germans prefer using existing rules and practices, and Japanese prefer to defer to higher status individuals. Americans focus on synthesizing the conflicting interests of the parties involved in a conflict, while Chinese try to avoid conflict, focus on the collective interest, and defer to authority decisions. Chinese prefer a cooperative approach to conflict because of their increased concerns about preserving social relations and obedience to authority figures.

Attitudes toward team empowerment affect how different cultures use teams at work (Hempel et al., 2012). In high- power cultures like China, empowerment practices and self- managing teams are less likely to be used. In Chinese companies, managers often control the behaviors of team members. However, in a study of high-technology teams in China, when teams were given more empowerment, team performance improved. Although cultures may encourage certain practices, team members may respond well to alternative approaches to managing teams.

593

14.7 MULTINATIONAL TEAMS

Multinational teams are composed of individuals from different cultures working on activities that span national borders (Snell, Snow, Davison, & Hambrick, 1998). This type of team is formed in a global company or through alliances among companies in different geographic areas. Multinational teams use representatives from two or more countries to ensure that the perspectives of local organizations, cultures, and markets are represented in the team. The main challenge for such teams is to learn how to integrate this cultural diversity into a functioning unit.

Multinational teams deal with three important concerns for global companies: local responsiveness, global efficiency, and organizational learning (Snow, Snell, Davison, & Hambrick, 1996). Their work serves to customize products and services to different cultures and coordinate local activities and markets for global companies. At the same time, multinational teams help integrate operations across parts of a multinational organization to improve efficiency. Multinational teams encourage innovation by bringing together ideas from various parts of an organization.

594

Characteristics of Multinational Teams

While the multiple perspectives of multinational teams are an asset, the diversity within a team can create communication, trust, and conflict problems that limit team effectiveness (Burke, Priest, Wooten, DiazGranados, & Salas, 2008). The ability of members of multicultural teams to understand or make sense of other team members’ behavior relates to cultural distance. High cultural distance creates problems because team members have difficulty interpreting the meaning of other team members’ behaviors, so the team has difficulty communicating and interacting.

The importance of people’s cultural identity can vary within a team (Burke et al., 2008). People have multiple identities; the identity that is most salient depends on the situation. People can identify with their national, organizational, or team culture when interacting within a team. A team leader can promote a sense of similarity among team members to encourage a common social identity. This helps improve social relations among team members. Alternatively, a team leader can encourage members to view each other as unique individuals in order to foster personal identities. This may encourage members to present their unique perspectives during group decision making.

To be successful, multinational teams must deal with differences in culture that affect how people work and communicate in teams (Earley & Gibson, 2002). The two main cultural dimensions that affect these teams are individualism and power distance. Teams from Asian, collectivist cultures are slower to develop team cohesion and performance than multicultural and individualistic culture teams (Takeuchi, Kass, Schneider, & VanWormer, 2013). These differences are difficult to resolve because these teams rely on technology for their communications.

595

Many of the difficulties multinational teams experience stem from communication problems (Earley & Gibson, 2002). Cultures vary in how they communicate information. For example, in collectivist cultures like some Asian countries, communication is often indirect with a positive tone. Communication frequently uses qualifiers and ambiguous words to avoid confrontation and preserve group harmony. In individualist cultures, communication is more direct, even when it is conveying negative information. Communication is about facts and is viewed as distinct from the relationship with the listeners.

Rewarding multinational team members may pose problems because of cultural ideas about how rewards should be given (Snell et al., 1998). A focus on individual rewards may be considered inappropriate for teamwork in collectivist cultures. Although team rewards are valuable, team members are often more responsive to the rewards they receive from their home organization.

Cultures vary in how status oriented they are (Earley & Gibson, 2002). In high-power cultures, communication is more formal, with most coming from higher status members. In those cultures, lower status members tend to be polite and deferential in their communications. In low-power cultures, communication is more information oriented, and participation is more equal.

Miscommunication in multinational teams is made worse by a teams’ reliance on communications technology. Virtual teams can be a problem when spanning cultures because of the difficulty communicating gestures, nonverbal cues, symbolic content, and contextual information (Gibson & McDaniel, 2010). In addition, individualists have more favorable attitudes toward virtual teams than collectivists. This makes it more difficult for multinational teams to develop trust and mutual understanding in their communications (Earley &

596

Gibson, 2002). Culture-based communication problems are more difficult to manage in these virtual teams.

Some of the technological characteristics of virtual teams help to improve the performance of culturally diverse teams (Gibson et al., 2014). Communication technologies, such as e- mail, social media, and videoconferencing, help teams overcome the constraint of being physically separated. Decision-aid technologies, such as knowledge databases and decision support software, help teams overcome problems created by cultural difference. The ability of today’s technology to document communications allows team members to review past communications and encourages individual accountability. Relying on technologies like e-mail reduces stereotyping, biases caused by accents, and in-group/out- group distinctions that can hurt team performance.

597

Creating Effective Multinational Teams

The main challenges of multinational teams are to understand the meaning of the behaviors of other team members and to develop a mental model of how to operate as a team (Burke et al., 2008). Team members need to learn perspective taking, which is the ability to see the world from the vantage point of another. It helps reduce anxiety about interacting with others, facilitates social coordination, and develops social bonds in a team. In addition, cultural differences about how to operate need to be negotiated in order to develop common understandings. Teams that are good at negotiating differences of opinion and values are better able to manage their cultural differences. Strategies to develop effective multinational teams include spending more time initially starting the team, training the team, and using strong leadership. The goal of these actions is to develop a hybrid team culture that can unify the team.

Multinational teams should schedule face-to-face meetings early in their existence to develop personal relationships and a shared understanding among team members (Earley & Gibson, 2002). Clearly, shared goals, norms, member roles, and agreement about performance criteria should be established (Snow et al., 1996). These are part of a formal team contract that needs to be developed at the onset of teamwork to reduce any later misunderstandings. Multinational teams should spend more effort on developing project plans and other types of project management structures. Face-to- face meetings need to be scheduled at key points in the plan to clarify any misunderstandings about the team’s progress.

Training programs that explain the organization’s strategy and culture encourage a common perspective (Snell et al., 1998). This type of training is especially useful at the onset of teamwork. Cross-cultural team building that

598

increases awareness of cultural differences in work practices and communication improves team operations. Teamwork skills that should be the focus of training include conflict resolution, negotiation skills, project management, and interpersonal communication. In addition, training in the use of communications technology can decrease misunderstandings caused by differences in the use of technology.

Strong leaders are valuable for coordinating actions and managing conflicts in the team (Katzenbach & Smith, 2015). Strong team leaders are more acceptable in some cultures like Japan, so it may be hard to avoid using them. Virtual teams often need leaders who are more powerful to help coordinate communications and work assignments. Multicultural teams perform better when they have strong designated leaders (Earley & Gibson, 2002). Leaders provide direction, motivate team members, and ensure the team stays on course. Leaders help develop the hybrid culture that unites a diverse team.

When multicultural teams encounter internal problems, it is important for team leaders to try to understand if the root problem is cultural misunderstandings (Dibble & Gibson, 2013). It is impossible to eliminate cultural differences, but teams can increase their understanding of the cultural differences in norms, expectations, and attitudes. Increased awareness and appreciation of cultural differences encourage collaboration because team members are better able to interpret communications and adjust their behavior to allow better coordination of efforts. Without this awareness, team members often “retreat” and do not communicate when encountering culture-based conflicts.

Effective multinational teams often develop a strong hybrid culture that provides a common sense of identity for team members and facilitates their interactions. A hybrid culture is both a set of rules about how to act and a set of expectations about how the team operates (Earley &

599

Mosakowski, 2000). It creates a shared understanding that allows members to better interpret communication from other team members. This is more likely to occur when team leaders acknowledge cultural differences rather than trying to ignore or suppress dissimilarities (Gibson & McDaniel, 2010). Cultural diversity is a benefit to teams because of the variety of perspectives their members contribute, but teams need to develop their own hybrid culture to encourage collective effort. Because developing a hybrid culture takes time, team performance in multinational teams typically improves over time.

600

14.8 CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE

While broad dimensions, like individualism-collectivism, provide an accessible view to culture, they can be limited in practical utility for teams. Drawing from the concept of customer segmentation, Venaik and Midgley (2015) suggest that fewer than 50% of people may embody the values associated with a national culture. This suggests that mere knowledge about cultural similarities and differences may not be enough to promote effective multinational teamwork.

An alternative approach is to understand the attitudes, traits, and worldviews that help people succeed in multicultural contexts (Leung et al., 2014). For example, Van Der Zee and Van Oudenhoven (2000) found that five personality traits predict multicultural effectiveness: emotional stability, social initiation, open-mindedness, cultural empathy, and flexibility. One of the most widely used frameworks is Earley and Ang’s (2003) concept of cultural intelligence (CQ). Cultural intelligence consists of four individual characteristics: metacognition, cognition, motivation, and behavior. Teams with members who score high on these traits display greater cultural adaptation and performance in multicultural contexts (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008). This can inform both selecting team members and designing training experiences.

Metacognitive CQ relates to the degree of awareness a person has before, during, and after intercultural interactions. Those who score high on this characteristic actively question their own cultural assumptions, monitor their behavior and thought process, and constantly update their mental models of cultural norms. Cognitive CQ consists of knowledge of cultural similarities and differences in norms, practices, and conventions. This knowledge can stem from personal

601

experiences (e.g., traveling or intercultural interactions) and educational experiences (e.g., Hofstede’s cultural values framework).

Not everyone is comfortable engaging in cross-cultural interactions. Motivational CQ includes how much a person values learning about and functioning in intercultural situations. People high on this characteristic focus attention and energy to navigate cross-cultural interactions and are confident in their ability to succeed. Finally, behavioral CQ consists of the ability to perform appropriate verbal and nonverbal actions during interactions. For example, in China, it can be inappropriate to directly say “no.” Instead, an indirect and vague statement (e.g., “maybe”) or expressing embarrassment may be needed. Performing appropriate nonverbal behaviors is likewise important. In many Asian countries, carefully examining and caring for a business card is critical for successful business interactions.

These four characteristics of cultural intelligence provide a framework for the general skills and competencies needed for successful cultural adaptation. Subsequent research indicates that CQ mitigates some of the challenges associated with culturally diverse teams. Higher CQ is associated with the development of shared values (Adair, Hideg, & Spence, 2013), increased information sharing and cooperative behaviors (Imai & Gelfand, 2010), and greater team trust and cohesion (Moynihan, Peterson, & Earley, 2006). Ultimately, the performance (Groves & Feyerherm, 2011) and creativity (Crotty & Brett, 2012) of multicultural teams are correlated to the team’s average CQ, with the metacognitive and behavioral CQ being the strongest indicators of task performance (Leung et al., 2014). In other words, the capacity to reflect upon and perform culturally relevant behaviors may be more important for multicultural team performance than knowledge (e.g., Hofstede’s cultural dimensions).

602

Cultural intelligence is also strongly related to leadership. Cross-cultural leadership effectiveness is associated with high CQ (Groves & Feyerherm, 2011; Rockstuhl, Seiler, Ang, Van Dyne, & Annen, 2011), with the motivational component of CQ being particularly important (Deng & Gibson, 2008). High leader CQ also promotes team knowledge sharing (Chen & Lin, 2013). Leaders must be sensitive to the norms of the different national and ethnic cultures of team members. For example, if a leader asks a team member from India whether their work will be finished by Friday and he answers “yes” (which is a likely answer), he may not mean that it will be finished on Friday. It could be that he heard you and understood the question. The experienced leader would not ask a yes/no question but ask instead, “When will your work be completed?” Similarly, cultures vary by the way they relate to time, including the daily calendar (some cultures start early in the morning, some start later; some cultures take siestas; some cultures have midday prayer), religious and ethnic holidays, willingness to work during family time, and the importance of being on time.

The concept of cultural intelligence illustrates that knowledge of cultural similarities and differences may not be enough to promote effective teamwork. Rather, developing metacognitive, motivational, and behavioral competencies is likewise important in fostering successful intercultural adaption in teams. Demonstrating appropriate behavioral norms and language is vital to building trust.

603

SUMMARY

Culture consists of values and beliefs that define appropriate norms, roles, and values. This enables and constrains certain behaviors and ways of thinking. Team culture develops over time and is strongly influenced by its organizational context. Culture has many influences on how a team operates because it affects commitment to the team, styles of communication and collaboration, and the support members provide for one another. However, a strong team culture can inhibit success in dynamic environments or when creativity is required.

Organizational culture relates to the shared values, beliefs, and norms of an organization. It provides a sense of identity to its members and defines acceptable behaviors. Organizations may have unified cultures or may be composed of networks of subcultures based on occupation or background.

The use of teams in an organization depends on its organizational culture. Cultural norms can either support teamwork or limit a team’s ability to operate effectively. Two distinct types of organizational cultures are those based on power and control and those based on participation and commitment. The two types provide very distinct contexts for teamwork. The importance of organizational culture for teamwork is both a benefit and a problem. Once an organizational culture supports teamwork, it is usually able to support a wide variety of types of teams. However, it is difficult to change organizational cultures that do not support teamwork.

International culture may be viewed as varying along dimensions, such as individualism, power, and uncertainty. The individualist-collectivist dimension defines the group orientation and cooperation of people. The power dimension

604

examines whether people accept power differences or strive for egalitarian relations. The uncertainty dimension concerns whether people value rules and stability or are willing to take risks to change how they operate. United States and Japanese companies differ on these three dimensions of teamwork.

Differences in international culture affect the meaning of teams and many teamwork processes. Multicultural teams are more likely to have communication problems because of language differences and differences in communication norms. Decision-making practices, conflict resolution approaches, and support for empowerment are impacted by cultural differences.

Multinational teams are composed of members from different national cultures who deal with problems of global connectivity and local responsiveness for multinational companies. These teams must deal with cultural differences that affect communication and power dynamics while relying on technology for communication. Successful multinational teams tend to spend more time initially developing social relations and team practices in order to create a unifying hybrid team culture.

Cultural intelligence consists of the competencies required to successfully adapt to a multicultural environment. There are four facets of cultural intelligence: metacognition, cognition, motivation, and behaviors. High cultural intelligence is associated with greater levels of team trust, cohesion, performance, and creativity.

605

Team Leadership Challenge 14

You are the manager of the sales staff at a consumer products store that is part of a national chain. The company is very hierarchical and operates following strict, bureaucratic procedures. It is a classic “command and control” organizational culture.

You are concerned that the strict focus on rules and procedures is hurting customer service and relations. Employees seem more concerned about following the rules than they are about pleasing the customers. You believe that shifting to teamwork, with you as team leader rather than manager, would encourage more customer service orientation among the staff. However, you are uncertain whether teamwork is compatible with the organization’s culture.

How can you (the manager) create teamwork in an organizational culture that is not team oriented?

What kinds of problems do you expect to encounter using teams in this organizational environment?

How do you handle relations between the team and the larger organization?

606

Survey: Individualism– Collectivism

Purpose: Understand your position along this important cultural dimension. Individualism-collectivism is considered by many to be the most important dimension for explaining differences among cultures. It also has a direct relationship to teamwork, since it concerns how people view and relate to others. Individualism- collectivism can be analyzed as a perception of oneself or as norms about how to relate to others.

Directions: The following is a list of opposing beliefs. Circle the number that reflects your personal position along the continuum between these opposing beliefs.

1. I enjoy being different from others.

1 2 3 4 5 I enjoy being similar to others.

2. I see myself as independent from others.

1 2 3 4 5 I see myself as part of a social group.

3. I present my personal accomplishments when meeting new people.

1 2 3 4 5 I present my group’s accomplishments when meeting new people.

4. It is important for 1 2 3 4 5 It is important

607

me to act as an independent person.

for me to be a member of a group.

5. When I have a need, I rely on myself.

1 2 3 4 5 When I have a need, I turn to others for help.

6. If there is a conflict between personal and group values, I follow my personal values.

1 2 3 4 5 If there is a conflict between personal and group values, I follow the values of the group.

7. I do what is enjoyable to me personally.

1 2 3 4 5 I do what the people around me feel is most enjoyable to do.

8. I follow my personal attitudes.

1 2 3 4 5 I follow the group’s norms and rules.

9. When making decisions, I am not overly sensitive to

1 2 3 4 5 I take the feelings of people around me into account

608

the feelings of other people around me.

when making decisions.

10. I do not hesitate to change my relationships even if it is not in my best interest at the moment to do so.

1 2 3 4 5 I maintain established relationships even if they are not in my best interest anymore.

Scoring:

Add Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 to obtain your score for self-perception of collectivism.

Add Questions 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 to obtain your score for following collectivist social norms.

Discussion: What are the benefits and problems with individualists and collectivists on teams? How similar are members of your team on this dimension? What are the problems with working on teams with people from a strongly collectivist culture?

Source: Adapted from Fisher, R., Ferreira, M., Assmar, E., Redford, P., & Harb, C. (2009). Individualism-collectivism as descriptive norms: Development of a subjective norm approach to culture measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40(2), 187–213.

609

Activity: Evaluating a Team’s Culture

and Cultural Context

Objective: Teams have cultures that are similar to and different from the cultures of their organizations and countries. It is essential to understand these cultural differences because teams encounter difficulties when their team cultures are at variance with the cultural context of their organizations or countries. Organizational and international cultures vary on the following four dimensions:

1. In control-oriented cultures, leaders attempt to monitor and control the behavior of subordinates, whereas leaders in commitment-oriented cultures are facilitators who guide and motivate subordinates.

2. In individualist cultures, people seek individual achievement and recognition, whereas in collectivist cultures, people value the ties between themselves and others, and self-interest is subordinate to that of the team.

3. In high-power cultures, people show great respect to higher status people and feel uncomfortable challenging authority. In low-power cultures, people take a more egalitarian view and are less willing to accept authority.

4. In high–uncertainty avoidance cultures, people value stability and group harmony, whereas people in low high–uncertainty avoidance cultures value action and are willing to take risks.

Activity: Discuss with members of an existing team their team’s culture and the cultural context for the

610

team. The existing teams can be either work teams or student teams at a university. Use the rating form (Activity Worksheet 14.1) to note the team’s culture and its cultural context on the four dimensions.

Analysis: How similar is the team’s culture to its cultural context? On which dimensions are there culture gaps? What problems can occur when there are differences between the team’s culture and its cultural context?

Discussion: Why is it important for a team’s culture to be compatible with its cultural context?

611

Activity Worksheet 14.1

Evaluating a Team’s Culture and Its Cultural

Context

Rate the team by placing a “T” on the scale below; rate the cultural context by placing a “C” on the scale.

Commitment Oriented——————————--———Control Oriented

Individualism——————————————-————— Collectivism

Low Power—––——————————————--———— High Power

Risk Taking–———————————————---——— Risk Avoidance

612

Activity: Comparing Teams in the

United States and Japan

Objective: Culture has a major impact on how people act in teams. Cultures do not prevent the use of teams, but they do affect how the teams operate. The impacts of culture create opportunities and problems for teamwork.

United States and Japanese team members differ on the major dimension of international culture. The United States is an individualistic, low–power distance, risk-taking culture; while Japan is a collectivistic, high–power distance, risk avoidance culture.

Activity: Form a group, and discuss the benefits and problems with leading a United States versus Japanese team. You could also select other international cultures, such as Mexico or Israel, for comparison.

Analysis: Would you prefer being a team leader of a United States or Japanese team? Why? In what situations or tasks are the different cultures’ teams better? How would your management of these cultural teams differ?

613

614

CHAPTER 15 VIRTUALITY AND TEAMWORK

Nearly all teams interact virtually some of the time. Virtuality encompasses the extent to which team members rely on communication technologies to overcome the distance between team members. However, the characteristics of technologies enable and constrain the kinds of interactions that team members can have, making some technologies more or less suited for different kinds of tasks. Team members need to be aware of how to choose the right technology. Moreover, geographic dispersion has different impacts as team members are flung across spatial, temporal, and configurational arrangements. Virtual teams offer both benefits and challenges. Addressing these challenges is essential for improving the effectiveness of virtual teams.

615

Learning Objectives

1. Describe two dimensions of virtuality. 2. Understand how media richness and synchronicity shape the kinds of communication

available to teams. 3. Determine which communication technologies are better suited for different team

tasks. 4. Understand how spatial, temporal, and configurational dispersion each impact team

functioning. 5. Understand various techniques for managing virtuality in teams.

616

15.1 VIRTUALITY AND VIRTUAL TEAMS

In today’s technological landscape, nearly all teams are virtual to a degree. Although virtual teams often consist of geographically distributed members who rely almost entirely on technology, many colocated teams use a combination of technology and face-to-face meetings for team interactions (Gibson et al., 2014). Most large companies use virtual teams, and many teams use technology to support their activities. International surveys reveal that 46% of all organizations use virtual teams, and in a subset of that sample, 66% of multinational organizations use virtual teams in the workplace (Minton-Eversole, 2012). Another survey revealed that 79% of workers reported always or frequently working in virtual teams (Ferrazzi, 2014). This makes understanding the impacts of virtuality significant for both colocated and globally distributed teams.

Virtuality is a multidimensional concept that captures the degree to which team members are geographically dispersed and the degree to which teams rely on technologies to mediate their interactions (Raghuram, Hill, Gibbs, & Maruping, 2019). Virtuality exists on a continuum from face to face to low virtuality to fully virtual teams (Mesmer-Magnus, DeChurch, Jimenez-Rodriguez, Wildman, & Shuffler, 2011). In many respects, virtual teams are no different from other kinds of teams. They still have the same basic team processes, are subject to competition, and require leadership. They still experience issues with power, difference, and conflict. They still make decisions, solve problems, and innovate. They still need clear roles, goals, and communication. In other words, many of the teamwork concepts, theories, and research presented in this text equally apply to virtual teams.

A core difference of virtual teams, however, is that communication technologies mediate team interactions. This presents advantages while also amplifying some challenges. Virtual teamwork offers tremendous benefits for individuals and organizations—members can enjoy flexible work arrangements, team composition can be optimized to include geographically distributed experts, different time zones can enable continuous 24/7 productivity, technology can enable knowledge sharing across organizational and geographic boundaries, and organizations can save on travel and relocation costs (Dulebohn & Hoch, 2017).

However, research also points to the unique challenges of virtual teamwork—virtual teams are prone to experience higher task conflict and lower communication frequency, knowledge sharing, performance, cohesion, and satisfaction (Ortiz de Guinea, Webster, & Staples, 2012). Several factors relating to membership, work visibility, and communication contribute to these adverse outcomes. Membership in virtual teams can be fleeting, with members leaving after fulfilling a specific task. Members of virtual teams often feel disconnected from each other and uncertain of their tasks. Work is less visible, making progress more challenging to monitor and members more difficult to lead. Communication is a critical solution to many of these issues, but members can also become overwhelmed by the amount of it. Finally, interactions mediated through technologies are less vivid, making it difficult to pick up on and respond to social cues. Virtual team members consistently express dislike for virtual communication (Purvanova, 2014). Miscommunication can run rampant in virtual teams, particularly when members span cultural and national boundaries.

Realizing the benefits of virtuality requires managing its challenges. This chapter first describes how two dimensions of virtuality—communication technologies and geographical dispersion—impact team functioning. Then, recommendations are given for composing, leading, and developing effective virtual teams.

617

15.2 COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES

The first dimension of virtuality is the degree of dependence on technology to mediate team interactions. Information communication technologies (ICTs) can support geographically dispersed teamwork in four different ways (McGrath & Hollingshead, 1994; Mittleman & Briggs, 1999). First, technologies can gather and present information for a team, such as collaborative document management systems and electronic whiteboards. Second, technologies can help team members communicate both with each other and with people outside of the team. Third, collaboration technologies like group support systems can help teams process information by providing systems to structure brainstorming, problem solving, and decision making. Fourth, collaborative technologies can structure the group process by creating meeting agendas, assignment charts, and project management tools. Virtual teams use mediated communication to manage relationships, share information, make routine decisions, and solve more complex problems. There are various types of technologies that support virtual teamwork, each of which has different characteristics that enable and constrain these interactions.

618

Characteristics of Communication Technologies

There are two general goals of communication: conveying information and converging on shared meaning (Dennis, Fuller, & Valacich, 2008). We convey information during tasks like generating new ideas, reminding teammates of a deadline, or providing a status update. This information is often unambiguous and straightforward. However, many teamwork tasks involve converging on a shared understanding or “getting on the same page,” such as managing conflict (e.g., agreeing on the issue and a resolution), defining a problem to solve, or convincing the team to change directions. This information is more complex and nuanced, which requires a sustained discussion.

Characteristics of ICTs enable and contain the kinds of interactions that team members can have (e.g., Hambley, O’Neill, & Kline, 2007), making some technologies more or less suited for different kinds of tasks (conveying or converging). It is important to choose communication technologies with characteristics that align with the team task (Malhotra & Majchrzak, 2014). While there is no definitive set of criteria for making these decisions, it is helpful to consider media richness, media synchronicity, and documentation.

Media Richness

Media richness varies from low (i.e., lean) to high (i.e., rich) depending on the amount of information that can be transferred through the medium (Daft & Lengel, 1986). Face-to-face interactions provide rich transfer of social cues, gestures, and nonverbal communication, which ideally suits it to more emotional, complex, and personal conversations (e.g., managing conflict). Rich media also enhances the social presence experienced by participants. Social presence refers to the degree to which using the technology resembles the experience of communicating with another person face to face (Lowry, Roberts, Romano, Cheney, & Hightower, 2006). Higher social presence is associated with improved quality, appropriateness, and accuracy of communication. This makes rich media best suited for tasks that involve converging upon a shared meaning.

On the other end of the media richness spectrum are lean, text-based technologies like e- mails and instant messages. Text-based platforms filter out many social cues (Walther, 1995) and limit opportunities for immediate verbal and nonverbal feedback (Byron, 2008). This makes communication through lean media more prone to misunderstandings. However, it may also block the transmission of status cues, which can foster equal participation and decrease bias against low-status members (Driskell, Radtke, & Salas, 2003).

Lean communication technologies are best used for conveying simple and routine communication that does not require interaction, such as sending a reminder about a meeting. However, lean communication is not always devoid of all context: Adams, Miles, Dunbar, and Giles (2018) claim that people can use nonstandardized textual cues such as emoticons to convey relational meaning, personality, and emotion when communicating via leaner media. In addition, people may consider features like spelling mistakes, capitalization, and speed of response when interpreting a message.

Somewhere in the middle of media richness are video- and audio-conferencing technologies, which provide more—but not all—of this relevant social information. While well-run discussions can be productive on these moderately rich technologies, there are other factors to consider. People often multitask during audio-only interactions. Many people find videoconferencing to be awkward and prefer not to be on display. However, the visual component also facilitates opportunities for fun and informal discussion that can strengthen

619

social bonds. Carefully and proactively managing meetings is an essential component of successful virtual teams (see Chapter 6).

Media Synchronicity

Media synchronicity is another aspect of ICTs that influences the speed and interactivity of team communication (Dennis et al., 2008). Synchronous communication (e.g., face-to-face communication, teleconference, and videoconference) allows for real-time and concurrent interaction by all team members. Asynchronous communication (e.g., e-mails and text messages) involves temporal gaps in responses, less immediate feedback, and a lack of concurrent participation.

Synchronous communication occurs in real time and provides immediate opportunities for feedback, questions, and interpreting social cues. This makes it useful for collaborative teamwork tasks that necessitate developing shared understandings, like problem solving, discussing complex or emotional information, reaching consensus, managing conflict, negotiation, and status reporting. Moreover, the higher the task interdependence among team members, the more critical it is to have synchronous communication (Rico & Cohen, 2005). However, it can be challenging for distributed team members to find a common time in which they can all interact together.

Asynchronous communication allows team members to interact beyond boundaries of time. Because it lacks some social context and opportunities for immediate clarification, it is better suited for conveying simple and ambiguous information like e-mailing the agenda for a future meeting. Indeed, arranging a teleconference simply to review the agenda for a future meeting would likely be seen as a waste of time. Interdependent tasks, like reaching consensus using asynchronous communication, are more challenging (Baltes, Dickson, Sherman, Bauer, & LaGanke, 2002). However, tasks like brainstorming are improved because members do not need to take turns contributing ideas (Gallupe, Bastianutti, & Cooper, 1991). Temporal delays afforded by asynchronous communication can also temper potentially destructive emotional outbursts and provide more time for non-native speakers of the team’s language to process and respond to messages.

Documentation

Many technologies can store records of team interactions. Documenting team interactions improves virtual team performance (Martinelli, Waddell, & Rahschulte, 2017). It also has important task and social impacts (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991). Documented team discussions can be reviewed to verify agreements and understanding team decisions. It helps absent team members understand what was discussed. It produces a searchable record of discussions. While this can be helpful, it may also be a deterrent for open communication. For example, the capability of communication technologies to automatically document a message may inhibit managers from using them for fear of recording errors. Overall, a meta-analysis reveals that documentation can improve team effectiveness by reducing perceived risk, increasing visibility of work, and compensating for low trust (Breuer et al., 2016).

620

Types of Communication Technologies

The majority of research investigating virtual teams has focused on conventional computer- mediated communication technologies, such as text-based messaging and team conferencing tools (Raghuram et al., 2019). However, practice has outpaced scholarly research on other newer technologies like social media and virtual environments. An analysis of popular technologies and their uses is summarized in Table 15.1.

Text-Based Messaging Tools

Commonly used text-based messaging tools include e-mail, instant messaging, and electronic bulletin boards. These can be used for synchronous or asynchronous communication between individuals or with larger groups. However, they are also lean communication channels that lack the richness of verbal and nonverbal cues, which make them prone to misunderstandings. As such, they are best used for communicating straightforward information and having individual casual conversations.

E-mail remains the most frequently used tool for virtual teamwork (Cardon & Marshall, 2015). Yet it is often employed in ways that overwhelm or confuse the recipients. Effective team e- mail messages (Martinelli et al., 2017)

Are carefully sent to only the team members that need to receive them

Include a detailed subject line that captures the ongoing message content and action requested—update the subject line as needed

Are restricted to one item per e-mail to prevent actions from being overlooked or forgotten

Provide clear action items for each receipt of the e-mail that consists of (1) what needs to be done, (2) by whom, and (3) by when

Should be promptly acknowledged by the recipient

Instant messaging offers a synchronous way of interacting with both individuals and teams. Creating team connections via instant messaging or chat rooms can help simulate the informal social interactions of colocated teams (Thompson & Coovert, 2006). When chat room connections are kept open, teams create a virtual environment that is similar to a physical work environment where casual conversations can occur at any time. Users of instant messaging often adopt an informal communication style that is similar to social conversation in person. It leads to briefer communications that are more informal and that occur more often, which is similar to the informal communications that occur in “brick and mortar” work environments. Just as with e-mail, however, complex and difficult conversations should be moved to richer media.

Finally, electronic bulletin boards and project management applications offer a virtual space for interactions, making announcements, and monitoring progress. These are effective places to store and make visible team charters, goals, status updates, and timelines. Bulletin boards also allow for threaded discussions, which consist of ongoing communication around particular issues. This creates a useful record of interactions, which can be used for socializing new team members and reviewing rationales for certain decisions.

621

Conferencing Tools

Conferencing tools enable team interactions in real time. Audio conferences involve voice- only interactions over phone or software applications, which can include the entire team or one-on-one calls. These are often easy to set up technically and generally liked by workers (Cardon & Marshall, 2015). However, 82% of surveyed workers admitted to multitasking during teleconferences (Ferrazzi, 2014). This underscores the importance of managing these kinds of meetings (see Chapter 6 for guidelines on virtual meeting management).

Videoconferencing improves upon teleconferencing by including visual cues like gestures and facial expressions from team members. This added context makes videoconferencing useful for more complex and emotional discussions. The visual component can also inhibit multitasking and social loafing, although being on display can also make participants uncomfortable. Many platforms allow the team to record and even transcribe videoconferences, making it useful for documentation. This also allows supervisors and team members who could not attend to review the meeting. While useful, videoconferences have limitations and challenges. Low bandwidth can distort the audio and video feed. Technical issues delay the conference. There are also financial considerations for maintaining a conference room and subscribing to videoconferencing applications that may be beyond the control of the team.

Webcasting is a variation of videoconferencing that focuses attention on a speaker and limits interactions between team members. Webcasts operate as a virtual presentation, involving video of the speaker and corresponding visual aids to provide additional context (e.g., slideshow and screen sharing). Facilitators can offer various kinds of interactions, such as a shared digital whiteboard, speaker-to-audience communication, and between-audience communication. Challenges include maintaining the attention of the audience and ensuring that the audience accurately understands the message.

Emerging Technologies

The impact of newer technologies like immersive environments, social media, and social- networking platforms on virtual teams are just beginning to be studied (Gilson et al., 2015). Montoya, Massey, and Lockwood (2011) propose that 3D virtual environments (3DVEs), like Second Life, can enhance decision making and teamwork behaviors. For example, Schouten, van den Hooff, and Feldberg (2016) found that, compared to text-only interaction, groups making a decision through a 3DVE had better shared understandings and higher levels of consensus, cohesion, and satisfaction. Additionally, Venkatesh and Windeler (2012) found that teams using a 3DVE were more cohesive than those using a traditional online collaboration system.

Similarly, enterprise social-networking and social-media platforms show promise in promoting effective teamwork through both synchronous and asynchronous communication. These platforms can display a range of interactive textual, audio, and visual content. They can be used to share ideas, receive feedback, and post milestones. They can also be used to share personal experiences, which can develop the social relationships between members. For example, members can create video tours of their workspace to provide the team with context and mental imagery that can improve communication (Ferrazzi, 2014).

Such uses of social media can enhance trust, identification, and morale. Indeed, research shows that social media can enhance feelings of being a group (Askay, Blanchard, & Stewart, 2013), foster spontaneous conversations (Ellison, Gibbs, & Weber, 2015), make virtual work more visible (Leonardi, 2014), and develop the transactional memory systems (i.e., who knows what) of distributed team members (Leonardi, 2015). Workers and organizations both

622

anticipate that social media will transform the nature of virtual work in the coming years (Cardon & Marshall, 2015).

Table 15.1 Analysis of Team Communication Technologies

Tool Richness Synchronicity Simple Information (Conveyance)

Complex Information (Convergence)

Managing Conflicts

Developing Social Relations

E-mail Low Asynchronous X

Instant messaging

Moderate Both X X

Bulletin boards Low to moderate

Both X

Audio conference

Moderate Synchronous X X X X

Videoconference Moderate to high

Synchronous X X X

Webcast Moderate Synchronous X X

3D immersive environments

High Synchronous X X

Social media Medium to high

Both X X

623

15.3 GEOGRAPHIC DISPERSION

The second dimension of virtuality is geographic dispersion. Virtual teams typically have members who are physically and/or temporally dispersed from each other. However, not all kinds of dispersion are equal. O’Leary and Cummings (2007) propose three dimensions of geographic dispersion that each independently influence team processes: spatial, temporal, and configurational. The nature of geographical dispersion influences the kinds of communication technologies available to a virtual team and presents challenges for effective teamwork.

624

Spatial Dispersion

Spatial dispersion relates to the average physical distance separating members. Distance has at least three implications. First, it can enhance the performance of the team by providing access to otherwise inaccessible expertise and perspectives (Ale Ebrahim, Ahmed, & Taha, 2009). This can also increase the cultural diversity present in the team, which offers both a resource and a potential source of misunderstanding, language barriers, differences, and intergroup dynamics (Marlow, Lacerenza, & Salas, 2017).

Second, as distance increases, the possibility for rich face-to-face interactions becomes more difficult and costly (e.g., time, expense, etc.). Spatial dispersion is associated with less frequent and less effective communication (Ortiz de Guinea et al., 2012). When members do communicate, it is often through technologies that offer limited ability to convey emotions (Peñarroja, Orengo, Zornoza, & Hernández, 2013). As a result, distributed teams are less able to engage in the spontaneous communication that fosters cohesion and trust, establishes effective norms, and develops a common understanding of the task (Hinds & Mortensen, 2005). Team performance can decrease even when teams have members on different floors of the same building (Siebdrat, Hoegl, & Ernst, 2009).

Third, distance makes one’s work less visible to other team members and managers (Leonardi, 2014). This can erode team trust and undermine performance. Trust is based on directly observing someone’s behavior (Aubert & Kelsey, 2003) and reinforced through ongoing interactions (Robert, Denis, & Hung, 2009). Distributed virtual teamwork offers few opportunities for either. Virtual team members may assume, even in the absence of evidence, that others are engaged in social loafing (Monzani et al., 2014). This can undermine performance by fostering suspicions of unfairness in terms of rewards, support, and recognition. For example, Chrobot-Mason, Ruderman, Weber, and Ernst (2009) found that employees suspected managers of treating employees differently based on cultural similarity (e.g., a Chinese manager preferentially promoting workers from China). Maintaining a climate of team procedural justice—in which decisions are perceived to be made fairly and transparently—can mitigate some of these negative impacts on team performance (Magni, Ahuja, & Maruping, 2018).

625

Temporal Dispersion

Temporal dispersion is the degree to which team members overlap in their work hours (e.g., shift work or different time zones). While team members in North and South America have high spatial dispersion, they experience lower temporal dispersion due to overlapping time zones. This allows team members to more easily communicate synchronously and engage in some spontaneous interactions. Spontaneous communication is a core driver of team trust, cohesion, information sharing, and performance (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2011).

By contrast, east–west collaborations (e.g., South America and Asia) have both high spatial and temporal dispersion. As temporal dispersion increases, so does the reliance on asynchronous communication. This acts as a barrier to spontaneous communication. Additionally, response delays impede the ability of teams to adapt to change and engage in real-time problem solving. Temporal dispersion creates challenges with coordinating schedules and tasks (Espinosa, Cummings, & Pickering, 2011).

Teams can adopt several practices for managing temporal dispersion, but they often create work–life balance issues. Traveling for frequent face-to-face meetings can produce travel fatigue while reliance on e-mail can produce e-mail overload (Nurmi, 2011). Alternatively, teams can schedule synchronous conferences at the “edge” of workdays (e.g., at the beginning or end) when there is an overlap in work hours (Tang, Zhao, Cao, & Inkpen, 2011). While this can be workable, employees accustomed to a flexible work culture find that this approach conflicts with childcare pickup/drop-off, public transit schedules, or commuting traffic. Members in some locations may agree to alternate having meetings at inconvenient times (e.g., after work hours). However, some sites may leverage the status of their members or location to continuously favor their time zone. These examples illustrate that overcoming the challenges of temporal dispersion is not necessarily as simple as finding time for videoconferencing—accommodating temporal dispersion may take sacrifices that some team members are less willing to accept.

626

Configurational Dispersion

Configurational dispersion consists of the distribution of team members across different locations. This consists of three different components: (1) the number of geographically dispersed sites, (2) the extent to which members are unevenly distributed across those sites, and (3) the number of isolated members working alone at a site. As team members are unevenly distributed across sites, it provides opportunities for some subgroups to interact face to face, while others must rely on synchronous or asynchronous communication technologies (Privman, Hiltz, & Wang, 2013). Some configurations are more likely to activate in-group/out-group dynamics and team fault lines (Lau & Murnighan, 2005; see Chapter 13).

Two studies illustrate the impact of configurational dispersion. Polzer and colleagues (2006) studied 45 teams of six graduate students at 10 universities. Teams with one member across six different locations (i.e., 1-1-1-1-1-1) experienced the lowest levels of conflict and highest levels of trust. By contrast, teams with three students each at two sites (i.e., 3-3) formed subgroups and experienced the highest conflict and lowest trust. Another study shows that minority subgroups on imbalanced teams (i.e., 4-2) produced more conflict and poor transactional memory systems, team identification, and coordination due to social- categorization processes (O’Leary & Mortensen, 2010). However, isolated team members (i.e., 5-1) experienced fewer of these negative outcomes—they are less likely to be treated as a geographical subgroup. Taking these two studies together suggests that teams composed of many isolates may do better than those containing subgroups.

When subgroups form in virtual teams, the results are often negative. For example, subgroups can lead to in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination in the form of biased information sharing and conflict between subgroups (Yilmaz & Peña, 2014). Similarly, Hinds, Neeley, and Cramton (2014) found that power struggles between team members differing by language, location, and nationality triggered fault lines that divided the team into subgroups.

627

15.4 MANAGING VIRTUALITY ON TEAMS

The preceding sections reviewed two dimensions of virtuality—communication technologies and geographic dispersion—and described how they impact team functioning. However, it is critical to understand that these impacts emerge inconsistently across studies of different virtual-team types. For example, studies of virtuality have examined student versus organizational teams, short-term versus long-term teams, and functional versus project-based teams (Gibbs, Sivunen, & Boyraz, 2017).

Studies of short-term (i.e., a day or less) virtual teams—typically composed of students— reveal that virtuality is associated with increased task conflict, less frequent communication, poorer knowledge sharing, lower performance, and more dissatisfaction (Ortiz de Guinea et al., 2012; Purvanova, 2014). These studies paint a rather bleak view of virtuality. However, studies examining long-term virtual teams—both with students and “real” business teams—provide a more optimistic view. While these teams still experienced decreased knowledge sharing and less frequent communication, they also achieved high performance and satisfaction. Interestingly, both short- and long-term teams expressed a general dislike for virtual communication.

An optimistic interpretation of this discrepancy is that virtual teams are not destined for disappointment. Rather, virtuality introduces various challenges for teams associated with technology use, geographic dispersion, and cultural differences (Schulze & Krumm, 2017). Teams that successfully manage these challenges can benefit from virtuality. Guidance for managing virtual teams is provided next, which should be adapted to fit the specific circumstances of any particular team.

628

Determine Team Size and Locations

The size, locations, and membership of a virtual team impact its performance. First, virtual teams should be kept small. Ferrazzi (2014) found that virtual teams with more than 13 members performed poorly. Larger teams are more prone to social loafing and less likely to share information and build social relationships with one another.

Miloslavic, Wildman, and Thayer (2015) recommend composing either fully colocated or fully distributed teams (i.e., a single member in each location). However, if that is not possible, then equally sized subgroups should be formed at each location. Additionally, the leader should be physically positioned in a subgroup that is equal to or larger than the others so that they can maintain power. Finally, the leader should facilitate frequent communication and cultivate a team identity to inhibit intergroup dynamics from emerging.

629

Develop Virtual Teams

Membership in virtual teams may be temporary or ongoing (Miloslavic et al., 2015). Temporary members join a team to complete a specific subtask or because the project itself is relatively short term. In either case, members anticipate disbanding from the team relatively quickly at the completion of their task. By contrast, members of ongoing virtual teams anticipate working together for the long term. This difference in membership lifespan influences how to best develop the team.

When membership is temporary, people focus more on efficiently and effectively completing their task (Miloslavic et al., 2015). They are less concerned about team satisfaction and developing social relationships. Small talk and socialization may be considered a waste of time. Rather, these members benefit more from initial meetings that provide clear objectives and detailed plans so that they can monitor their own behavior and more easily coordinate with others (Dubé & Robey, 2008). They also need norms that regulate communication and define appropriate behavior. Establishing clear communication norms (e.g., communicate frequently, no multitasking, and always acknowledge messages) improves both role clarity and team performance (Henderson, Stackman, & Lindekilde, 2016). These structures, combined with periodic meetings, enhance coordination and collaboration because most of the work is done individually.

Membership in ongoing teams is different. In addition to initial meetings to clarify goals and establish norms described previously, it is also essential to develop social relationships among team members. Often, virtual team meetings are entirely focused on communicating task-related information. Initial face-to-face meetings can familiarize teammates with each other’s communication and work styles, personalities, capacities, work roles, and cultural context (Hinds & Cramton, 2013). Periodic face-to-face meetings can then develop and maintain these social relationships. In addition, team members can be encouraged to informally communicate with each other on a regular basis using technology, such as through social media and text messages. However, the burden of arranging synchronous communication and travel for face-to-face meetings needs to be considered and monitored (Tang et al., 2011).

630

Develop Knowledge of Communication Technologies

Team members need to understand the limitations and uses of communication technologies. Explaining a complex idea through an instant message or calling a meeting to transfer simple information are both ineffective ways of communicating. While this may appear self-evident, inappropriate technology choice is not uncommon in virtual teams (Malhotra & Majchrzak, 2014). In further support of this, Lam (2016) demonstrated that training in media characteristics (e.g., media synchronicity and convergence vs. conveyance) improved the quality and quantity of virtual communication in teams.

It is also crucial for team members to understand how to adapt media use to fit the evolving needs of a team. Team members who use computer-mediated communication for over 90% of their interactions reported significantly lower levels of effectiveness, commitment, and harmony (Johnson, Bettenhausen, & Gibbons, 2009). By contrast, using sequentially different technologies for interactions (e.g., e-mail followed by a phone call) can reduce errors and perceptions of information overload (Stephens, 2007; Stephens & Rains, 2011). Alternatively, some communication challenges might be best addressed by using multiple technologies simultaneously (Lee, Watson-Manheim, & Chudoba, 2014). For example, using a phone call while reviewing complex information in an e-mail can combine visual and auditory sources of information to improve comprehension.

631

Use Skillful Virtual Communication

Virtual teams often have increased conflict because of misunderstandings and reduced communication (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005). These communication problems increase the emotional frustration of people working in virtual teams. This is one reason why the effectiveness of virtual teams and member satisfaction are positively related to the level of personal communication among team members. Many of these problems go away as members develop a shared mental model and learn how to interpret communication from other members.

Virtual teams have difficulty establishing and maintaining mutual knowledge (Driskell et al., 2003). They lack contextual cues during communication: This leaves members less certain about the people with whom they are interacting, unsure how the message is being interpreted, and unclear as to whether the communication is successful. It is more difficult to know whether fellow members of virtual teams have adequately understood a message. Facial cues and nonverbal feedback reduce the uncertainty one feels with a communication. Without this information, inaccuracies and confusion can occur that reduce team performance. People from high–uncertainty avoidance cultures can find this particularly challenging.

For example, the reduced social cues in e-mail messages may make it difficult to communicate emotions, but people are often unaware of this problem and believe they are communicating effectively. E-mail readers often cannot tell whether the writer is attempting to be sarcastic or funny (Kruger, Epley, Parker, & Ng, 2005). A writer’s overconfidence in their ability to communicate via e-mail is a cause of miscommunication in virtual teams.

Based on Spitzberg’s (2006) model of computer-mediated communication competences, the expressiveness and coordination of text-based interactions are important skills to develop for virtual teams. Expressiveness captures the ability to compensate for the absence of verbal and nonverbal cues. For example, people can use uppercase letters and emoticons to express emotions (Kalman & Gergle, 2014). Appropriately using expressions can help in managing conflict and developing social relationships with team members (Ayoko, Konrad, & Boyle, 2012). Coordination represents being able to skillfully initiate, respond to, and conclude a conversation. When an e-mail is met with unexplained silence, as an example, it can lead to frustration and feelings of rejection (Panteli & Fineman, 2005).

632

Consider the Intercultural Context

Team members benefit from general knowledge about cultural similarities and differences. It is particularly important to understand cultural differences in technology use so that behaviors are not incorrectly attributed to individual characteristics. Preference for e- mail formality, content, and promptness significantly differs across cultures (Holtbrügge, Weldon, & Rogers, 2013). For example, Chinese workers are more accepting of mobile phone use (e.g., instant messaging) during meetings than American counterparts (Cardon & Dai, 2014). In another study, Chinese employees expressed a greater desire to do business with an e-mail sender that engaged in facework (e.g., including a short sentence like, “I hope all is

well.”) in the message (Richard & McFadden, 2016). These examples emphasize the importance of clarifying technology use expectations and preferences early in the team’s development.

Miscommunication through technology can cause people to make faulty assumptions about the characteristics of the communicator (Vignovic & Thompson, 2010). This misinterpretation can be especially important when teams communicate across cultures. In a laboratory study, e- mail messages were sent that either contained technical language errors (spelling or grammar) or etiquette errors (short messages without conversational tone). Grammar and spelling errors led recipients to believe that the sender lacked intelligence and conscientiousness. However, etiquette errors caused the recipients to believe that the sender lacked extraversion, agreeableness, and trustworthiness. When told that the sender was from another culture, recipients forgave the technical errors (they assumed the errors were due to culture and not personality) but did not forgive the etiquette errors.

Multilingualism also impacts virtual team functioning and communication. Members with less proficiency in the team’s language can be overwhelmed by synchronous communication (Tenzer & Pudelko, 2016). Other members may experience linguistic ostracism, in which they feel isolated because they cannot fully understand the content of discussions (Dotan-Eliaz, Sommer, & Rubin, 2009). This undermines collaboration by fostering anger and rejection. In multilingual teams, it is helpful to use asynchronous media so that these members have time to process and rehearse their communication (Shachaf, 2008).

Finally, it is vital to adapt both spoken and written communication in multilingual virtual contexts. Anawati and Craig (2006) observed that while 80% of team members would adapt their spoken communication (e.g., slowing down, avoiding slang, and using short sentences), only 60% similarly adapted their written communication. Using precise language and clarifying the meaning of words can decrease miscommunication (Cagiltay, Bichelmeyer, & Akilli, 2015). These relatively small adaptations have a significant impact: Adapting one’s behaviors to different cultures improves trust, communication, and performance in virtual teams (Chang, Hung, & Hsieh, 2014).

633

Develop and Sustain Trust

Trust in virtual teams is associated with increased knowledge sharing, team performance, cohesion, commitment, and satisfaction (Breuer et al., 2016). Communication plays a critical role in establishing and sustaining trust in teams. Kirkman, Rosen, Gibson, Tesluk, and McPherson (2002) found that trust forms when team members are reliable, consistent, and responsive in their interactions with team members. However, this trust is also fragile—it is lost quickly when virtual-team members deviate from these expectations. Team leaders need to continuously create opportunities to cultivate, reinforce, and sustain trust.

Another challenge is to accurately place trust in others. People are wary of misplacing trust in a team member. This influences preferences in communication technology use (Levi & Rinzel, 1998). When the source of the communication is seen as trustworthy, almost any communication medium is acceptable to the team; however, when it is not viewed as trustworthy, then face-to-face or other information-rich communication is required to evaluate the truthfulness of the message. In further support, Schilke and Huang (2018) found that even superficial verbal interactions—not necessarily visual or face to face—enhanced the accuracy of trusting judgments of virtual members.

634

Adapt Leadership to Virtuality

Leading virtual teams is more challenging than leading face-to-face teams (Huang, Kahai, & Jestice, 2010). Virtual teams start with lower levels of cohesion and trust among members. They often do not have a shared set of norms and work procedures. Since they are located in different places, it is more difficult for team members to view themselves as part of a team. Technology constraints on communication can create confusion about taskwork and limit the development of social relations.

The hierarchical approaches to team leadership may not be effective in overcoming these barriers to team performance (Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014). Leaders do not have the option to easily monitor and supervise team members. Consequently, virtual teams need to focus on empowering individual team members to perform. Higher performing virtual teams have members that display more leadership behaviors, especially behaviors related to keeping track of the team’s work and performance (Carte, Chidambaram, & Becker, 2006). Leaders of virtual teams also need to take a more active role in monitoring and developing the social aspects of teamwork.

635

SUMMARY

Virtuality captures the degree to which team members are geographically dispersed and the degree to which teams rely on technologies to mediate their interactions. The use of communication and collaboration technologies has expanded rapidly and is changing how teams operate. The new technologies increase access to information, support internal and external communication, and help teams manage their task and group processes. Differences among communication technologies are related to their richness, synchronicity, and ability to document interactions.

Teams can use an abundance of communication technologies, including text-based messaging, audioconferences, videoconferences, and electronic bulletin boards. Organizations are increasingly adopting social media and 3D virtual environments to enhance teamwork processes and outcomes. Despite this, e-mail remains the dominant medium for communication in many teams.

Geographic dispersion has different impacts as team members are flung across spatial, temporal, and configurational arrangements. Spatial dispersion increases cultural diversity and makes work less visible and face-to-face meetings more costly. Reliance on communication technologies can impede the development of cohesion and trust. Temporal dispersion increases reliance on asynchronous communication, which introduces coordination problems. Team members may make sacrifices to arrange synchronous meetings, but this comes at a cost to work–life balance. Configurational dispersion can produce intergroup dynamics as members are unevenly distributed across locations.

The outcomes of team virtuality are mixed. Short-term virtual teams tend to have poor performance and satisfaction, while long-term teams can achieve high levels of performance and satisfaction. Teams need to manage the challenges of virtuality to be successful. This includes considering the team size, location, development, communication skills, use of technology, intercultural context, trust development, and leadership.

636

Team Leadership Challenge 15

You are the leader of a virtual team that is coordinating research projects among your corporation’s five research centers, distributed around the world. Although you had a coordinators’ meeting several years ago, cost and time constraints make it impossible to regularly meet in person. The research centers have videoconferencing equipment, but time differences among the sites make the use of videoconferencing services difficult. Consequently, most of your team’s communication is done via e- mail.

The virtual team has worked well at exchanging information and keeping everyone up to date on the progress of research. However, there is a growing conflict between one of the U.S. research centers and the Asian center; they seem to be unable to coordinate activities and negotiate project roles. Their e-mails are getting more critical and disrespectful, and the rest of the team is tired of reading their back-and-forth bickering.

How can you (the team leader) deal with this communication problem?

What kind of communication technology should you use to resolve the issue? Why?

What role might intercultural dynamics contribute to this issue?

Could establishing new technology communication norms be used to prevent such problems in the future?

637

Activity: Developing Norms for Virtual Teams

Objective: Virtual teams need to develop different norms to regulate team interactions. Norms for virtual teams are sometimes called netiquette rules.

Activity: Develop a set of norms for a virtual team (Activity Worksheet 15.1). These norms should cover communication, participation, and decision making. What other types of norms are needed to help a virtual team operate effectively? You should try developing norms for the use of e-mail, texting, telephones, and videoconferencing.

Analysis: How do the norms differ for the different types of technology? How are technology communication norms different from face-to-face meeting norms?

Discussion: What are the advantages and disadvantages of virtual teams? Can the development of new norms improve how virtual teams operate? What other actions should be taken to support the use of virtual teams?

638

Activity Worksheet 15.1: Norms for Virtual Teams

Communication name:

Participation/response norms:

Decision-making/conflict resolution norms:

Other team norms:

639

Activity: Experiencing Teamwork in a Simulated Virtual Team

Objective: Virtual teams often rely on e-mail for their communication, but performing team tasks using only written communication may be more difficult than using face-to- face communication.

Activity: Create three teams. For the first team, divide the members into two separate rooms, and have them perform a teamwork task by sending written messages or texting. For the second team, divide the members into two separate rooms, and have them perform a teamwork task talking on their cell phones. For the third team, have them meet together face to face to perform a teamwork task. The task could be solving a problem, making a decision, or planning an event.

Analysis: Compare the experiences of performing tasks using written versus cell phone versus face-to-face communication. How effective and enjoyable were these approaches?

Discussion: What are the problems created by the reliance on communication technology for teams? What types of tasks are best suited for different communication technologies?

640

641

CHAPTER 16 EVALUATING AND

REWARDING TEAM PERFORMANCE

An important way to motivate teams is through performance evaluation and reward systems. Performance evaluations communicate to the team how well it is performing. This information may be used to provide direction, motivate performance, and distribute rewards. Team members should participate in the evaluation process, given that they are most aware of the contributions of individual team members.

The shift to teamwork often requires organizations to change the way they reward people. The individual reward programs used in traditional organizations may not reward commitment and participation in teams. Organizations can use combinations of individual, team, and organizational rewards to motivate teams. The best reward program depends on the nature of the task and the type of team.

642

Learning Objectives

1. Explain the characteristics of an effective team performance management system and how it affects teamwork.

2. Understand how to develop effective individual and team performance measures.

3. Understand how biases influence the evaluation process.

4. Plan the delivery of performance feedback to individuals and teams.

5. Explain how organizations can change their reward systems to support teamwork.

6. Distinguish between individual, group, and organizational rewards.

7. Determine the best type of reward based on the type of team.

643

16.1 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Performance management is an ongoing process of identifying, measuring, and developing individual and team performance and aligning performance with the strategic goals of the organization (Aguinis, 2019). This serves many functions, such as orienting employees to expectations, generating information for making administrative decisions (e.g., promotion, salary adjustment, termination), developing worker skills, and identifying emerging needs of the organization.

Effective performance management systems can improve motivation, retain talented workers, and further strategic goals. Many evaluation systems, however, are poorly designed or implemented. This can reward undesirable behaviors, introduce bias, damage workplace relationships, decrease motivation, waste resources, and increase turnover.

644

16.2 EVALUATING PERFORMANCE

Performance consists of a combination of behaviors and results (Aguinis, 2019). Behaviors are how people do their work, while results are what they actually produce. While results are an important aspect of performance, behaviors—such as those associated with collaboration, leadership, and information elaboration—are also critical for successful team performance.

Teamwork is not an innate ability but, rather, a constellation of knowledge, skills, and abilities that need to be developed. Specifying and evaluating team member behaviors underscores the importance of developing these skills. Moreover, there may not be a solution for the types of ill-structured problems to which teams are often assigned. For example, around 90% of pharmaceutical research fails to produce a viable drug due to the complexity and uncertainty of the task. Failure to produce a result does not necessarily mean that the team failed to perform (Edmondson, 2011). Effective performance evaluation must consider such contextual factors.

Team performance evaluation systems often fall victim to three pitfalls (Aguinis, Gottfredson, & Joo, 2013). First is a poor balance between measuring individual and team performance (Barnes, Hollenbeck, Jundt, DeRue, & Harmon, 2011). Overemphasizing individual performance fosters internal competition, while overemphasizing team performance can lead to social loafing. Second, teams may be assigned too much or too little authority by managers. Assigning too much authority can lead teams to pursue results undesired by the organization (Langfred, 2004). Providing too little authority by assigning goals can diminish responsibility and cohesion because members were not involved in determining the objectives. Finally, organizations may fail to provide sufficient resources to

645

develop and implement a performance management system that properly aligns individual, team, and organizational goals.

So how should a team performance management system be designed and implemented to avoid these pitfalls? Aguinis and colleagues (2013) offer five research-based recommendations: measure both individual and team performance, measure processes and outcomes, develop performance measures with internal and external input, gather performance information from multiple sources, and foster team learning and growth.

646

Measure Individual and Team Performance

Team performance should be evaluated by three components (Aguinis, 2019). The first is individual task performance. This relates to specific tasks central to a team member’s job, such as the quality and quantity of code written by a programmer. The second is individual contextual performance. This relates to specific behaviors that contribute to team performance, such as information elaboration, conflict management, and leadership. Contextual performance is important because although an individual may be technically skilled, they can underperform in team contexts. The final component is overall team performance, which can include (MacBryde & Mendibil, 2003) the following:

Effectiveness—extent to which stakeholders are satisfied with the results (e.g., quality, quantity, cost, time, etc.)

Efficiency—extent to which team processes support goal achievement (e.g., leadership, coordination, conflict management, etc.)

Learning and growth—extent to which the team improved specific skills (e.g., ideation, communication, decision making, etc.)

Team member satisfaction—extent to which team interactions contributed to personal growth and well-being and members wish to continue being a team

In developing performance evaluation components, two things need to be considered. First, there should be an alignment between individual, group, and organizational goals. In other words, team members should have a clear understanding of how

647

individual goals contribute to team goals and how team goals contribute to strategic organizational goals (Aguinis, Joo, & Gottfredson, 2011). Second, performance measures should be monitored and refined on an ongoing basis (Scott & Einstein, 2001). This is necessary to correct for unintended negative consequences of the performance goals.

648

Measure Processes and Outcomes

Individual and team performance should be evaluated by both process and outcome measures (Meyer, 1994). Process measures specify observable behaviors that members and teams display when completing their work. This might include ratings of the degree to which a team member actively seeks dissenting opinions, uses supportive communication, and refuses to follow team ground rules. Assessing observable behaviors is more accurate and less susceptible to stereotypes and perceptual biases than simply trying to rate a vague concept like cooperativeness. Importantly, process measures provide essential context for understanding the causes of positive or negative outcomes and for providing feedback to team members. Outcome measures capture the extent to which goals are achieved, often through quantifiable characteristics of what is produced (e.g., cost, time, quantity, and stakeholder satisfaction).

Characteristics of the team inform whether process or outcome performance measures should be emphasized (Scott & Einstein, 2001). Teams with stable members that complete routine and repetitive tasks (e.g., assembly line teams) are best measured through objective outcomes. Short-term project teams composed of cross-functional members that serve a specific purpose (e.g., innovation team) benefit from outcome measures as well as frequent process measures. Information generated by frequent process evaluations allows the team to monitor and correct problems before the project concludes. Similarly, network teams are composed of distributed members whose membership rapidly changes to meet evolving conditions. Unstable membership obscures the link between team composition and particular outcomes, making frequent process measures essential.

649

Develop Measures With Internal and External

Input

To make the performance evaluation process fair and to motivate performance, people need to know, in advance, how their performance will be measured and the acceptable levels of performance. Without goals and accurate measurement criteria, team members cannot know how to act to receive positive evaluations. An ideal way of achieving this is to collaboratively develop performance measures with input from managers, team members, and outside stakeholders (Scott & Einstein, 2001).

The process begins with the manager providing the team with broad strategic goals and then allowing the team to develop performance goals and measures. This approach balances authority in the team: Managers ensure that measures reflect strategic organizational goals, while empowering the team and instilling accountability for team performance. Moreover, team members gain a more nuanced understanding of their job roles and work context (Morgeson & Dierdorff, 2011), which allows them to develop more specific and accurate measures of performance. This process can effectively be incorporated early in a team’s formation through the development of a team charter (Aguinis, 2019).

The manager should support the team’s efforts to develop accurate and reliable measures (Meyer, 1994). It is helpful to provide exemplars of successful performance measures. For example, Ohland and colleagues (2012) developed the Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness (CATME), which provides behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) for several teamwork processes. BARS provide a description of observable behaviors and ask a rater to score the strength or frequency of these behaviors. Managers should also initiate meetings to foster a shared understanding of performance

650

measures, ensure that assessment includes both individual and team performance, and confirm that measurements relate to factors that the team has the ability to influence (Zigon, 1997).

Meanwhile, it is the team’s responsibility to proactively generate and agree to indicators of individual task, individual contextual, and team performance. This can include expectations for team member behaviors and developmental goals. It can be helpful to seek advice from other teams on how to generate, propose, and explain performance measures (Aguinis, 2019). Typically, a team performance measurement system contains 5 to 15 different measures (Jones & Moffett, 1999; Meyer, 1994). Overly complex systems distract members with gathering data and monitoring activities, rather than focusing on managing the project. Using BARS encourages the rater to focus on the target’s behavior rather than on personality or inferences. Including team members in the development of behavioral scales is a good way to improve the relevance and credibility of the evaluation system. Table 16.1 presents a simple behavioral scale developed by students for evaluating contributions to team projects (Levi & Cadiz, 1998).

651

Gather Ongoing Performance Information From

Multiple Sources

After measures of team performance are developed, the team can begin executing its project. As they pursue and complete tasks, teams must be responsible for consistently seeking out feedback from team members, managers, and other teams about their performance. The goal is to provide information and opportunity for continuous improvement of team performance.

High-performing teams regularly monitor their performance on goals, strategies, and processes in order to adapt them to changing conditions (Schippers et al., 2014). Team members should have frequent check-ins to constructively evaluate each other’s individual task and contextual performance. This allows team members to understand how their performance is being perceived by others and provides opportunities for improvement. Moreover, peer evaluations can discourage social loafing and improve workload sharing and cooperation (Erez, Lepine, & Elms, 2002). Team check-ins also help team leaders recognize and respond to emergent problems facing the team (e.g., motivation, cooperation, conflict). Finally, discussing self-appraisals of performance is particularly useful for ensuring that team members understand what is expected of them.

Table 16.1 Behavioral Rating Scale to Evaluate Student Team Projects

Use the following rating scale to evaluate your team members’ behavior on the class project:

1 = never 2 = sometimes 3 = usually 4 = always

Did the team member you are rating

A. Make commitments to do tasks?

652

B. Do their fair share of the work?

C. Produce work with acceptable quality?

D. Actively participate in team discussions and decision making?

Rate each team member:

Team member A B C D Total

1 ___________ _________ + _________ + _________ + _________ = _________

2 ___________ _________ + _________ + _________ + _________ = _________

3 ___________ _________ + _________ + _________ + _________ = _________

4 ___________ _________ + _________ + _________ + _________ = _________

Although it is valuable to include team member evaluations in the performance evaluation system, some team members are uncomfortable evaluating coworkers’ performances, especially when the evaluations are related to pay increases (Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1995). Team members feel more comfortable evaluating one another when they can use objective performance standards and the ratings remain confidential.

Meanwhile, managers or team leaders can support the team’s self-monitoring efforts by providing resources and coaching. They should also observe and document team performance and the contributions of team members so that helpful and accurate feedback can be offered.

653

Rater Bias

All evaluation systems that use people rather than purely objective scores may suffer from bias. Contextual factors can motivate both peers and managers to distorted ratings of performance (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995; Wang, Wong, & Kwong, 2010). For example, people might inflate ratings in order to avoid confrontation and conflict or to protect valued relationships. They can also be used to promote disliked workers out of the unit. Reciprocity bias occurs when people feel obligated to give positive ratings after they received positive ratings from others. Similarly, deflated ratings can be used to encourage workers to leave and punish, coerce, or build a record of poor performance against a disliked member.

One type of bias is unique to teams. The team halo effect describes how team members view the success and failure of teams (Naquin & Tynan, 2003). When teams are successful, team members view success as caused by the team; when they are unsuccessful, they tend to blame individual members for the failure. This type of scapegoating is likely to affect team members’ evaluations of one another. When the team is successful, there is a tendency to rate every team member as a good performer. When teams fail, members are more likely to give negative performance evaluations to selected members.

There are many reasons why people may distort performance ratings. Distorted ratings can lead to incorrect decisions and contribute to unfairness and inequity. However, they can be combatted. Having to justify ratings to a supervisor can increase the accuracy of ratings (Mero, Guidice, & Brownlee, 2007). Additionally, justifying ratings during a face-to-face meeting, as opposed to in writing, can also increase the accuracy of ratings.

654

Use Performance Reviews to Foster Learning and

Development

Performance management systems generate information used for implementing corrective actions and for fostering learning and development. Team performance evaluations should not encourage competition among team members by ranking employees against one another.

No single person has a holistic view of a team’s performance. Fully assessing team performance requires a multirater evaluation that includes information from self-appraisals, member evaluations, leaders, managers, and stakeholders. Multirater performance evaluations are more reliable and valid than manager-only evaluations (Rynes, Gerhart, & Parks, 2005). Moreover, those being evaluated are more likely to believe that feedback from multiple sources is more credible and fairer.

Performance reviews generally occur through periodic (e.g., quarterly, semiannually, annually) appraisal meetings, during which a manager (or team leader) discusses multirater performance feedback. Managers should have at least two meetings (Aguinis, 2019). The first meeting includes all team members and focuses on team-level performance and results using information from supervisors, outside stakeholders, and team evaluations. The second meeting is conducted individually with each team member to discuss individual task and context performance using information from self-appraisals, peer ratings, and supervisor evaluations.

Both of these appraisal meetings can be structured similarly. The manager should emphasize that the purpose of the meeting is to review performance information and provide developmental feedback. The first goal is to establish a shared understanding of observable and specific performance measures

655

by discussing self-appraisals and multirater evaluations. Any discrepancies should be resolved before moving forward. Next, the consequences of the behaviors (e.g., how it negatively or positively impacted team functioning or organizational goals) should be discussed, followed by identifying specific steps for improving performance. It can be helpful to ask the team members to summarize the main conclusions in their own words to ensure a shared understanding is reached. Next, the manager can assign rewards based on performance (e.g., compensation changes or awards). Finally, a follow-up meeting should be scheduled in the near future to review progress toward implementing steps for improvement. This emphasizes the importance of following through with the feedback from performance appraisals.

What if an individual does not make changes based on performance appraisals? Managers should follow appropriate organizational guidelines, which may include coaching, training, or transferring. However, before a formal disciplinary warning (which may foster resentment or embarrassment), one approach is to provide once-in-a-career decision-making leave (Aguinis, 2019; Falcone, 2007). This provides a paid day off for the individual to contemplate whether they wish to remain in the organization. They may decide to resign or stay. If they choose to stay, however, they must prepare a letter convincing the manager that they accept responsibility for the performance issues and explain the specific actions they will take to address these issues. This process is not punitive, nor does the letter enter their formal employment file, unless they fail to fulfill their promised actions. Built upon adult learning theory, decision- making leave acts to hold people responsible for their actions rather than punish them.

Giving Feedback

656

People rarely start off as superstar performers. Achieving high performance takes resilience, learning, and development. Critically, it requires feedback, which can build confidence, develop competence, and enhance engagement (Silverman, Pogson, & Cober, 2005). Yet a meta-analysis of 131 studies investigating the relationship between feedback and performance found that 38% of feedback programs actually produced a negative effect on performance (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996).

This is due, in part, because people are uncomfortable judging others or fear negative reactions. As a result, they avoid providing constructive feedback. Meanwhile, the other person assumes that silence means their performance is adequate. This creates a feedback gap in which meaningful performance communication is not being provided or sought (Moss & Sanchez, 2004). Any feedback is likely to be too late to make corrections and too punitive to foster learning and development.

For constructive feedback to be effective, it must be actionable (Cannon & Witherspoon, 2005). This means that it is provided with time to make corrections, it specifies and provides examples of undesired behaviors, it clarifies the undesired consequences, and it identifies behaviors that can be changed. This allows a person to see the consequences of their behavior and provides a path to improvement. Criticizing a person, rather than their behavior, fosters a defensive communication climate that impedes listening and learning.

Not all feedback needs to focus on deficiencies in order to improve performance. Feedback based on a strengths-based approach, as opposed to a weakness-based approach, can also benefit people (Aguinis, Gottfredson, & Joo, 2012). Constructive feedback typically involves identifying weaknesses, providing negative feedback on what was done incorrectly, and asking the person to overcome these weaknesses to improve performance. By contrast, a strengths-

657

based approach identifies a person’s strengths and encourages the further development of those strengths to improve performance.

658

16.3 REWARDING PERFORMANCE

An organization’s reward system can influence performance through both incentive and sorting effects (Nyberg, Maltarich, Abdulsalam, Essman, & Cragun, 2018). Rewards produce incentive effects, which influence employee motivation, attitude, attention, and effort. Rewards also differentially attract and retain workers through sorting effects—employees who are dissatisfied with a reward system may leave the organization. The reward system needs to be effectively communicated to workers so that they have a clear line of sight between their effort and their reward. Designing a reward system that attracts high-performing workers is a critical source of competitive advantage for organizations (Gerhart, Rynes, & Fulmer, 2009; Lazear, 1986).

Both relational and tangible rewards can improve performance (Aguinis, 2019). Relational returns include status, public recognition, sabbaticals, opportunities for learning, and opportunities to form personal relationships at work. Tangible returns can include base pay, bonuses, and stock options. The largest contributor to compensation is base pay, which is calculated based on the role that an employee has in an organizational hierarchy.

Organizations are rapidly adopting contingent pay systems (sometimes called pay for performance) to supplement base pay, in which compensation is directly linked to ongoing individual, team, and/or organizational performance (Gerhart et al., 2009). Over 70% of companies in the United States report using contingent pay systems to attract and retain high-performing workers (PayScale, 2019), and most Fortune 1000 companies use team-based incentives (Merriman, 2009). However, how individual versus team performance is balanced in these decisions has significant consequences for teamwork.

659

Rewarding Individual Team Member Performance

In many organizations, rewards are based on job descriptions (Lawler, 1999). Specific jobs have salary ranges attached to them, and employees are paid based on their jobs and periodic performance evaluations from their managers. Individual reward systems are useful for motivating high performers but may discourage cooperation and teamwork. Most U.S. employees prefer individual incentives rather than team-based rewards. This is particularly true of employees who have high levels of achievement motivation (Rynes et al., 2005). Individuals who are high performers may have negative attitudes toward team rewards because they perceive them as inequitable (Trank, Rynes, & Bretz, 2002). However, this is somewhat mitigated if high performers believe that teamwork is necessary to accomplish important tasks (Haines & Taggar, 2006).

Individual performance systems can support teamwork by rewarding employees for developing skills or competencies that benefit the organization (Lawler, 1999). Skill-based pay encourages individuals to learn new skills, which makes them more flexible and increases their understanding of the work process (Gross, 1995). The primary benefit of this approach is to improve the flexibility of the team in performing its task. It is most commonly used when the team member skills are not too widely divergent and the team’s actions are highly interdependent. For example, factory workers who are multiskilled can take over one another’s jobs when bottlenecks occur or when team members are absent. Professional teams that provide an integrated service to customers, such as in the insurance or banking industry, use multiskilled workers to improve customer service.

The primary advantage of skill-based pay is organizational flexibility. However, several problems may occur with skill- based pay programs (Luthans & Fox, 1989). Training costs rise because of skill-based pay. There can be quality and

660

productivity problems because employees are working on new jobs in order to gain new skills. Promotions may be limited after a few years because employees have learned all the skills offered by the company. Therefore, skill-based pay is often used to make the transition into work teams and then abandoned once most of the workers have completed their skills training (Gross, 1995).

Knowledge-based pay or career ladders are a type of skill- based pay for professional workers (Lawler, 2000). Multiskilled professionals are a benefit to professional teams. Cross-training will not create the skills, but job rotation helps an organization nurture the development of professionals with skills and knowledge that cross traditional professional boundaries. Knowledge-based pay, which rewards employees for their depth of knowledge in an area, is a useful organizational tool for developing and retaining technical experts.

661

Rewarding Team Performance

Organizations are adopting team rewards because using work teams makes it difficult to accurately evaluate individual performance as distinct from that of the team (DeMatteo et al., 1998). In team reward systems, pay is contingent on successful team performance (Conroy & Gupta, 2016). A recent meta-analysis suggests that performance is higher in teams when rewarding team-based performance compared to individual performance (Nyberg et al., 2018). Moreover, rewarding team performance can improve goal setting, knowledge sharing, and coordination. The effectiveness of team reward programs depends on the characteristics of the rewards, the organization, and the team (Gross, 1995; Lawler, 2000).

Team rewards can be split equally among all members or allocated based on individual contributions to the team. They can also be cooperative, target based, or piece rate. Cooperative systems reward teams based on their performance relative to other teams. Target-based systems reward teams for reaching specific goals. Finally, collective piece rate rewards are based on team output (e.g., quantity produced). Cooperative rewards tend to be most effective for creativity because they promote cohesion and information elaboration (Chen, Williamson, & Zhou, 2012). To encourage cooperation, rewards should be distributed equally among all team members. They should also be large enough to make a noticeable difference in the members’ pay.

Effective team rewards require clear team goals, measurable performance standards, and a task that requires integrated teamwork—it is essential that tasks require interdependence (Libby & Thorne, 2009; Pearsall, Christian, & Ellis, 2010). However, the incentive effect decreases as team size increases. This is because there is a weaker line of sight— the perceived link between employee actions and team or organizational outcomes. Moreover, an emphasis on team rewards

662

may encourage social loafing, discourage the performance of good workers, and create inequity problems (DeMatteo et al., 1998).

Special awards and recognition programs can reward successful team performance. Recognition awards are one-time events that acknowledge team and individual success (Gross, 1995). Awards should be given as close as possible to the time of a team success. Recognition awards may be either cash or noncash. Noncash awards should be appropriate for the specific employees and given in a manner that publicly recognizes team accomplishments.

663

Rewarding Organizational Performance

A potential problem with team incentive programs is that they may inadvertently create competition among teams within an organization (Lawler, 2000). When an organization’s work requires coordination among teams, the use of team rewards may reduce overall organizational performance. In addition, measuring the performance of individual teams may be difficult in some organizations. Profit sharing and gainsharing are useful approaches for dealing with these problems (Nyberg et al., 2018).

Profit-sharing programs are based on meeting profitability targets for the organization. However, the large number of employees involved and factors outside of employees’ control affecting profits may limit the motivational effects of these programs. Gainsharing links rewards to the performance of a specific facility or production unit. This can make them more motivating, given that fewer employees are involved. These typically focus on nonfinancial goals, such as productivity gains, safety, or customer satisfaction.

Both profit sharing and gainsharing can increase performance, communication, knowledge transfer and psychological ownership of workers (Chi & Han, 2008; Nyberg et al., 2018). Goals are also generally objective, so workers tend to accept them. However, they may also encourage both the bottom and top performers to leave the organization (Weiss, 1987).

664

Combining Reward Programs

Organizations typically use multiple performance reward programs (Aguinis, 2019), with most using individual salary systems as their primary methods of compensation. Additional compensation may be based on skills, individual merit, team incentives, and organizational incentives. It is not really a matter of choosing which system is best but, instead, of selecting the right combination of approaches. Supporting teamwork requires a careful balance between rewarding individual, team, and organizational performance. The right combination depends on the characteristics of the organization.

While a general guideline is to reward both individual and team performance (Aguinis et al., 2013), there is an important nuance to this decision (Conroy & Gupta, 2016). Only a few studies have examined the impact of mixed pay programs on performance, and the results have been inconsistent. In some studies, teams that are rewarded for a mix of individual and team performance perform better than teams rewarded solely for either individual or team performance (Blazovich, 2013; Fan & Gruenfeld, 1998; Guthrie & Hollensbe, 2004; Pearsall, Christian, et al., 2010).

However, other studies report negative effects of mixed pay programs (Barnes et al., 2011; DeShon et al., 2004; Wageman, 1995). Mixing individual and team rewards can create a social dilemma for team members. Should they act for the team or their individual self-interest? Research on social dilemmas suggests that mixing individual and team rewards may not be the best approach because team members respond more strongly to the individual rewards.

The best approach may depend on the type of tasks the team is performing (Barnes et al., 2011). Individual incentives encourage team members to put in more effort and work faster

665

but may decrease accuracy because of reduced support, cooperation, and coordination of knowledge. Focusing on one’s own work may reduce cooperation and backup behaviors by team members. Team rewards are needed when teams have high levels of interdependence and tasks require coordination and information sharing. When accuracy, coordination, and backup behaviors are important to team success, team incentives alone may be the best approach.

Culture may affect how team members respond to different types of rewards. Team members from individualistic cultures prefer individual rewards, while collectivists prefer team rewards (Duarte & Snyder, 2006). Cultural differences also affect team members’ beliefs about what constitutes good performance. Individualists focus on task success, while collectivists value the working relationships that have been developed. These differences make it difficult to reward multicultural and distributed teams.

In a student teamwork experiment, hybrid rewards worked better than individual or team rewards because they encouraged task- oriented communication and reduced social loafing (Pearsall, Christian, et al., 2010). Team rewards motivated social helping and coordination but reduced individual effort and accountability. Individual rewards had a more substantial impact on individual effort and outcomes but did not encourage helping behavior in a team. Hybrid rewards were effective in this experiment because they rewarded two different actions, so team members did not have to make trade-offs. They could focus on one goal or both goals.

Creating the right mix of individual and team rewards can be difficult. For example, when evaluating and rewarding student team projects, what percentage of the grade should be student ratings of each other’s performance versus the teacher’s evaluation of the quality of the project? The proportion of the students’ team member evaluations should be large enough to make a difference (at least 10% of the grade) but not so

666

large that it distracts the students from focusing on the task (35% or less of the grade). When students understand the advantages and disadvantages of different reward approaches, they often select about 25% for the team member evaluations proportion of the project’s grade.

667

Relationship of Rewards to Types of Teams

The type of team and its organizational level affect the reward program. Teams vary in whether they perform the basic work of the organization or supplemental work and whether the teams are temporary or permanent. The three basic types of teams are parallel, process (or work), and project teams. Organizational level affects teams because of skills (common versus specialized) and power (ability to impact the organization). Skill-based pay makes sense for a factory team but not for a professional team. Profit-sharing may be useful for a management team but inappropriate for a service team.

Parallel teams are typically part-time, temporary teams that supplement the regular work system and perform problem-solving and improvement functions (Lawler, 2000). An example of a parallel team is a quality improvement team that meets to analyze and discuss issues of quality. Parallel teams often meet regularly, follow predesigned systems for problem solving, receive teamwork training, and make recommendations for approval by management. They provide recommendations for change but do not implement them. Such teams often have a limited lifespan and disband after working on a particular topic. Parallel teams are widely seen in industry, with more than 85% of large U.S. companies using them.

Parallel teams are an excellent way to encourage employee participation in the organization. However, they create an evaluation and reward problem for the team members (Gross, 1995). There is an inherent conflict between commitment to the team’s task and commitment to the member’s primary job functions. Members of parallel teams spend limited work time in the team and most of their time working for a supervisor who is not part of the team. Because of these dual loyalties, parallel teams often have problems motivating members. Including an employee’s work on the parallel team in their performance evaluation helps deal with this dilemma.

668

A process team or work team is a full-time, permanent team that is the major part of the members’ work. Process or work teams are responsible for producing a product or providing a service (Lawler, 2000). Process teams range from factory workers assembling products to airline crews and surgical teams. Employees may have similar skills and training or be cross-functional. Process teams are used by 78% of large U.S. companies. They typically control how the task is performed but vary in how much control they have over the selection of tasks, personnel issues, and other work aspects.

The use of process teams produces many benefits when performing complex tasks and providing social support to team members (Gross, 1995). However, this type of team creates an evaluation and reward problem because it is often difficult to evaluate and reward individual behaviors in the team, given that the tasks are interdependent. Measuring the performance of these teams is inherently at the team level. Organizations may use team rewards to motivate the entire team, but it is important to recognize individual contributions as well. This often requires including team members in the performance evaluation process.

Project teams are typically composed of a diverse group of knowledge workers who come together to perform a project in a defined period (Lawler, 2000). One example is a new product development team. Project teams work on unique and uncertain tasks that require creativity and decision making. Project teams are temporary structures whose membership may change during a project and disband when the project is completed.

Project teams often require full-time commitment from team members but are of limited duration. Although they complete a project, team members’ quality of work is challenging to measure because its value may not be known until long after the work is completed. Project teams are often cross- functional and can include team members with a variety of skills and expertise. Forming a project team can be a highly

669

effective way to accomplish certain types of tasks for an organization. However, this type of team creates evaluation and reward problems, given that there is often no supervisor capable of evaluating the specialized performances of the team members (Gross, 1995).

670

Linking Rewards to Types of Team

Table 16.2 shows the relationship between the types of teams and rewards. Rewards for performance may not be needed for parallel teams; however, incentive programs may help motivate teams (Lawler, 2000). Organizational reward programs, such as profit-sharing and gainsharing programs fit well with the use of parallel teams. However, there is a weak link between the success of a parallel team and improved performance of the organization. Not only is it difficult for the team to see the connection between its work and organizational success, but success is shared with other organization members who are not on the team.

The alternative to organizational rewards is to give the team bonuses or recognition awards. One problem with using bonuses is that it is often difficult to estimate the value of the recommendations made by parallel teams, and the value is dependent on whether the ideas are accepted and implemented by management. Recognition awards are a popular alternative for rewarding parallel teams. The key to recognition programs is to give the team something it values when it has accomplished significant work.

Table 16.2 Relationship of Rewards to Types of Team

Type of

Team Use Characteristics Reward Programs

671

Type of

Team Use Characteristics Reward Programs

Parallel team Problem

solve

Improve performance

Temporary

Partial commitment

Team recognition awards

Organizational rewards

Process or work team

Make a product

Provide a service

Permanent

Full commitment

Salary-based compensation

Skill-based pay

Individual, team, and organizational rewards

672

Type of

Team Use Characteristics Reward Programs

Project team Design a

product

Implement a program

Temporary

Full commitment

Team recognition awards

Team and organizational rewards

Process or work teams benefit from the use of a variety of individual and team reward programs. Individual-based programs, like skill-based pay, encourage the development of teamwork skills. Shifting to salary-based compensation, rather than paying people for the job they perform, encourages equality among team members. Team and organizational incentive programs motivate coordinated actions. Finally, individual incentives based on team member evaluations help motivate team members when the work is not highly interdependent.

Project teams may be the most difficult type of team to reward (Taylor, 2010). A common approach is to give the team a bonus or recognition award when its task has been completed. However, project teams may work for a long time on a project, and team membership may change during the project. In addition, member participation on the team may vary so that giving each team member the same reward may be inappropriate. One alternative is to give team rewards or bonuses during project milestones. Team bonuses can be given equally or relative to the level of participation. Organizational reward programs like profit sharing may be a useful way to reward project teams in smaller organizations.

673

SUMMARY

Performance evaluations provide vital information to help a team improve its operations and motivate performance by linking to the organization’s reward system. Evaluations may focus on individual performance, team member evaluations of one another, or evaluations of the entire team. They may measure either the team members’ behavior or the results of the team’s performance.

Evaluation measures should be developed through a participative process and be linked to individual, team, and organizational goals. Participation of team members in the evaluation process is important because supervisors are often unaware of the internal operations of the team. Multirater approaches to evaluations that include team members increase the accuracy and perceived fairness of the evaluations.

There are problems and biases with any performance evaluation system. Using concrete behavioral measures reduces the impact of stereotypes and perceptual biases of raters. Confidentiality of evaluations reduces the reluctance of some team members to negatively evaluate others. Teams can suffer from the halo effect, in which they give everyone high ratings when the team is successful and scapegoat selected members with bad performance ratings when the team fails.

Rewards may motivate individual and team performance. Often the traditional individual compensation system used by organizations gets in the way of teamwork. Individual reward systems are good at motivating individual performance but may reduce cooperation and commitment to the team. Team rewards encourage cooperation but may not encourage individual motivation. Organizational reward systems encourage cooperation among teams and commitment to the overall goals of the organization.

674

Team-oriented reward programs use a combination of individual, team, and organizational reward programs. The best approach to rewarding teams depends on the type of task and team. When tasks are interdependent, the organization should use team or organizational rewards. Parallel, process (or work), and project teams differ in the amount of time and commitment to the team. This factor affects the best way to reward team participation.

Process teams require changes in how individuals are compensated to promote flexibility and skill development. Team reward programs are useful when the work of the team is so interrelated that individual performance evaluations and rewards are inappropriate. Team recognition awards are valuable ways of rewarding parallel and project teams, where team participation is not a full-time, permanent activity. Organizational reward programs, such as profit sharing or gainsharing, encourage teams in an organization to work together and reward teams that help the organization succeed.

675

Team Leadership Challenge 16

You are the leader of a quality improvement team that has worked to redesign your organization’s work processes. The team is composed of members from various parts of the organization. Although this project is important for the organization, the team members only spend part of their time working on the project. The team has met regularly for the past six months. The commitment and motivation levels of the participants have been highly variable. Some team members complain that their managers do not consider the work of the team to be important.

The team presented its proposed changes last week to management, and the response was mixed. Clearly, it will be easier for some sectors of the organization to adopt and implement the recommendations than others. The benefits of the proposed changes primarily help improve customer service, so it is difficult to measure the financial impact of the proposal. Your team has put in a lot of effort to develop this proposal, and you would like to see the members rewarded for their effort.

How should the team’s performance be evaluated?

What is the best way for you (the team leader) to reward the team members?

How should the rewards be distributed?

676

Survey: Individual Versus Team Rewards

Purpose: Understand how you think teams should be rewarded and what best motivates your performance on a team project. When people work in teams, their performance can be rewarded using individual or team rewards or a combination of both types of rewards. Organizations vary on which types of rewards they use, and individuals vary on which type of rewards they prefer.

Directions: Using the scale below, indicate the amount of agreement with each of the following statements about how teams should be rewarded.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

_____ 1. I am more motivated when rewards are based solely on the team’s performance.

_____ 2. I prefer to be rewarded based on my own performance, even when I am working on a team.

_____ 3. I prefer to be rewarded for both my individual and team performance.

_____ 4. Team members work harder when they are equally rewarded.

_____ 5. It is not fair to give everyone on the team the same reward regardless of each person’s performance.

677

_____ 6. Both individual and team rewards are necessary to motivate team members.

_____ 7. When working on a team, I prefer to be rewarded based on the team’s performance.

_____ 8. I am more motivated by individual rewards than by team-based rewards.

_____ 9. My contribution to the team should be part of my individual performance evaluation and rewards.

_____ 10. Team members should share equally in the successes and failures of the team.

_____ 11. Even when I am working on a team, I want my individual performance evaluated and rewarded.

_____ 12. Evaluations from my teammates should help determine the rewards I receive on a team project.

_____ 13. It is fair to give equal rewards to team members based on the performance of the team.

_____ 14. People are less motivated in a team if they do not receive individual evaluations and rewards.

_____ 15. A combination of individual and team rewards is the best approach for rewarding teamwork.

Scoring:

Add Questions 1, 4, 7, 10, and 13 to obtain your preference for team rewards score.

Add Questions 2, 5, 8, 11, and 14 to obtain your preference for individual rewards score.

678

Add Questions 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 to obtain your preference for a combination of individual and team rewards score.

Discussion: What are the pros and cons of individual or team-based rewards? What problems are created when you work in a team with only individual or team rewards? What do these results say about your attitudes toward working in teams?

Source: Adapted from Shaw, J., Duffy, M., & Stark, E. (2001). Team reward attitude: Construct development and initial validation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 903–917.

679

Activity: Evaluating and Rewarding a

Project Team

Objective: Developing effective evaluation and reward programs for project teams can be one of the most difficult assignments. It is important to balance evaluations of the results of the team’s work with the contributions of individual team members. Finding the right balance and ways to measure these factors is key in a successful evaluation and reward program.

Activity: Use Activity Worksheet 16.1 to develop a performance evaluation and reward program for a project team. Select either a student project team or a professional new-product design team as a specific example to use.

Analysis: Do the evaluation criteria provide sufficient direction to team members so that they know how to act in order to be successful? Will the reward program that you selected motivate team members to perform well? What problems are you likely to encounter if you use this program?

Discussion: What are the effects of using team member ratings to evaluate team performance? What is the right balance between individual and team rewards?

680

Activity Worksheet 16.1: Activity:

Evaluating and Rewarding a Project

Team

Team goals: What are the main goals of the team?

_____________________________________________________

__________

_____________________________________________________

__________

_____________________________________________________

__________

Organizational goals: How do team goals align with organizational strategy?

_____________________________________________________

__________

_____________________________________________________

__________

_____________________________________________________

__________

Team evaluation: What criteria should be used to evaluate overall team performance?

_____________________________________________________

__________

_____________________________________________________

__________

681

_____________________________________________________

__________

Member evaluation: What criteria should be used to evaluate each team member’s performance?

_____________________________________________________

__________

_____________________________________________________

__________

_____________________________________________________

__________

Reward program: How should the team’s work be rewarded?

_____________________________________________________

__________

_____________________________________________________

__________

_____________________________________________________

__________

What percentage of the reward should be based on the team’s project versus the behavior of the individual team members?

_________ % team reward—based on supervisor’s evaluation of the team project

_________ % individual reward—based on team members’ evaluations of individual performance

682

Activity: Team Halo Effect

Objective: The team halo effect is a major type of bias encountered when assessing team member evaluations. This bias can be demonstrated in a simple class activity.

Activity: Create two or more teams, and have the teams compete solving anagrams. Give one team easy anagrams to solve and the other team difficult anagrams. After the competition, have the participants anonymously rate their team members on a numeric scale.

Analysis: Compare the team member evaluations of the winning and losing teams. Were there uniformly positive evaluations for the winning team? Did the losing team members give negative evaluations to some of their teammates?

Discussion: How does the team halo effect impact the way you evaluate your teammates? How can you conduct the performance evaluation of a team project in order to reduce the halo effect? How does the team halo effect relate to team cohesion?

683

684

CHAPTER 17 TEAM DEVELOPMENT

INTERVENTIONS

Team development intervention is the term used to describe approaches to improving the operation of teams. The most common are team building and team training. Team-building programs typically focus on improving teamwork skills, developing social relations, and solving problems that disrupt team performance. Teamwork training programs teach specific teamwork skills like assertiveness; cross-train team members to improve coordination; and promote organizational learning through the use of problem-solving teams.

685

Learning Objectives

1. Understand the attitudes, behaviors, and cognitions targeted by team development interventions.

2. Determine when to use team building or team training.

3. Explain the conditions needed to support team building and team training.

4. Understand how to design, implement, and evaluate a team training program.

5. Describe various types of team training interventions.

686

17.1 WHAT ARE TEAM DEVELOPMENT

INTERVENTIONS?

Teams are central to modern organizations, yet people experience several challenges to operating successfully as a team (Lacerenza et al., 2018). These challenges stem from problems with team member competencies related to attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge. In turn, these problems disrupt the capacity for teams to successfully interact and engage in effective teamwork. Team development interventions can address these challenges (Lacerenza et al., 2018). Indeed, a meta-analysis revealed that, of all organizational interventions, team development interventions had the most substantial effect on the financial performance of an organization (Macy & Izumi, 1993).

Yet team interventions sometimes suffer from the perception of being a fad and are met with skepticism by managers and workers. Some of this skepticism is justified. Training can be poorly implemented with unclear lessons. Likewise, team- building activities that emphasize fun and light-hearted interactions among teammates (e.g., ropes course, wilderness experiences) can be difficult to translate into solving work problems (Shuffler, Burke, Kramer, & Salas, 2012). During the 1960s, encounter groups encouraged people to share their true feelings with one another. Establishing good social relations among team members requires open communication, but the approach can be carried too far. Overemphasis on self- disclosure may create embarrassing problems for group members in work settings. For example, perhaps a member should not reveal inner feelings about their boss.

There are, however, evidence-based team development interventions consisting of a wide array of tools, exercises, and training that can improve team competencies, processes,

687

and overall effectiveness (Shuffler, DiazGranados, Maynard, & Salas, 2018). Well-designed interventions target specific needs of the team and systematically address these needs. A useful heuristic for thinking about the needs that interventions target are the attitudes, behaviors, and cognitions (i.e., the “ABCs”) that support team effectiveness (Salas et al., 2009):

Attitudes are competencies relating to internal states (e.g., feelings and emotions) that influence individual decisions and actions in teams. These include team cohesion, commitment, motivation, team orientation, trust, psychological safety, empowerment, and satisfaction.

Behaviors are skill-based competencies that support teamwork. These include performance monitoring, adaptability, team leadership, information elaboration, coordination, communication, decision making, and conflict management.

Cognitions are knowledge-based competencies that support teamwork. These include shared mental models (e.g., shared understanding of team task, roles, norms, and resources), transactive memory (e.g., awareness of each team member’s specialized knowledge and skills), and situational awareness (e.g., shared understanding of the problem, its causes, and desired outcome).

Team underperformance is often associated with deficiencies relating to one or more of these ABCs. Some interventions that target these ABCs have already been introduced in this text, such as designing team membership to include the necessary knowledge and skills through team composition (Bell et al., 2018; see Chapter 2), developing a team charter to clarify roles and expectations (Mathieu & Rapp, 2009; see

688

Chapter 3), and using team debriefings to promote adaptation and shared mental models (Allen et al., 2018; see Chapter 4).

This chapter presents two popular categories of team development interventions: team building and team training. While similar, these two interventions are distinct (Tannenbaum, Beard, & Salas, 1992). Team building improves performance by improving social relationships between team members, and it is particularly useful for developing attitudes (e.g., trust) and behaviors (e.g., communication). Team training is an instructional process that improves performance by developing specific teamwork knowledge, skills, and abilities. It is particularly useful for developing knowledge (e.g., transactive memory systems) and behaviors (e.g., performance monitoring).

689

17.2 TEAM BUILDING

Team building focuses on improving the interpersonal interactions and social relationships of work teams. This consists of regularly taking time to evaluate the performance of teams to identify obstacles and develop patterns of work that are more productive. Team building is an ongoing activity, not a single event—each team interaction has the potential to sustain or change the effectiveness of group processes.

A variety of perspectives on team building emphasize different goals and approaches. Dyer and colleagues (2007) consider team building a problem-solving process that focuses on identifying barriers to team performance and making changes to overcome these barriers. Shuffler, DiazGranados, and Salas (2011) describe team building as focusing on the goals, relationships, roles, and problems facing a team. Hayes (1997) emphasizes team building as exercises that enhance team cohesion and identity.

690

Does Your Team Need Team Building?

The first step in developing a team-building program is to assess the problems the team is facing (Franz, 2012). There is no one best approach to team building for all teams (Shuffler et al., 2011). Different approaches are useful for addressing different team needs, so assessment is crucial. To determine whether team building is needed, you need criteria for effective teams and an understanding of the problems that may interfere with team performance. Table 17.1 presents a set of criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of teams.

Effective teams have clear goals and values that are understood and accepted by all team members. Team members must understand their assignments and how their roles fit into the team’s activities. The team climate provides trust and support among team members, so they are willing to share ideas and feelings. All team members participate in the team’s communication processes, and the team strives to make most decisions through consensus. Once decisions are made, team members accept them and commit to implementing the decisions. Leaders are supportive of team members and help facilitate team processes. Differences of opinion are recognized and handled, rather than ignored. The team’s organizational culture and structure are consistent with how the team operates and what it wants to accomplish. Finally, the team regularly monitors its performance and can make needed changes.

Table 17.1 Criteria for Effective Teams

Clear and measurable performance goals

Roles and assignments that are accepted by team members

691

Climate of trust, psychological safety, and support

Open and participative communication environment

Effective problem solving and decision making

Supportive leadership

Constructive handling of conflict

Supportive organizational culture and structure

Ability to monitor performance and make needed changes

Source: Adapted from Dyer, W., Dyer, W., & Dyer, J. (2007). Team building: Proven strategies for improving team performance (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.

Table 17.2 Symptoms of Ineffective Teams

Decrease in team performance

Increase in complaints from team members

Evidence of unproductive conflicts among members

Confusion about assignments, roles, and relationships

Decisions misunderstood or not enacted

Lack of involvement from team members

Lack of initiative, creativity, or effective problem solving

Ineffective meetings with low participation

692

High dependency on the leader

Source: Adapted from Dyer, W., Dyer, W., & Dyer, J. (2007). Team building: Proven strategies for improving team performance (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.

Table 17.2 presents a set of symptoms of team problems that indicate when team building is needed. Many of these symptoms identify the effects rather than the causes of problems (Dyer et al., 2007). In many cases, the two causal factors are conflicts between team members and leaders and difficulties among team members. Conflicts with team leaders often lead to overconformity, resistance to leaders, an authoritarian leadership style, and lack of trust. Problems among team members often lead to bickering, lack of trust, personality conflicts, disagreements (with limited attempts to resolve them), cliques or subgroups, and missed deadlines.

Team members may blame individuals for team problems rather than recognizing that the team process is responsible. Team conflicts and confusion are good examples of problems blamed on individuals that are really the responsibility of the team. Such problems can be addressed through team building.

For example, how does one deal with two team members who are constantly arguing with each other? If the conflict seems to be due to a “personality clash,” there may be no solution except to get rid of one or both of the team members. An individual’s personality cannot be simply rearranged to prevent future clashes. A more useful approach is to view conflict as a violation of expectations about what is to be done. Expectations focus on behavior, and behavior is open to change. The team can discuss its expectations about performance and can negotiate an agreement that allows conflicting team members to work together.

693

Similarly, confusion among team members typically arises from unclear assignments and relationships. Solving this problem focuses not on individual team members but on the team processes. Teams have to do a better job of clarifying the roles of all team members instead of attributing blame to individuals for failing to perform unclear assignments.

However, the source of teamwork problems can extend beyond the team—organizational factors may be the culprit. Many organizations trying to implement teamwork fail to appreciate how their reward system and culture limit the ability of teams to operate. For example, it is difficult to promote cooperation among team members when the organization only rewards individual performance. Likewise, the organization’s culture impacts support for team development activities (Dyer et al., 2007). Team development interventions take time and are often ongoing. Organizations need to support their teams by making time available for teams to engage in development activities.

694

17.3 TYPES OF TEAM-BUILDING PROGRAMS

Team building is most useful for improving teamwork attitudes (e.g., trust, cohesion, psychological safety, and satisfaction) and behaviors (e.g., coordination and communication) (Klein et al., 2009). Goal setting and role clarification are the most effective techniques and can also develop a team’s transactive memory system (Prichard & Ashleigh, 2007). Team-building interventions that focus on task issues are more effective at improving performance than morale-boosting activities (Cotton, 1993).

Team-building activities should be completed with an existing team—because the focus is on developing interpersonal relationships with teammates, it is less helpful to participate in a general activity with an ad hoc group. Categorizing the programs typically used in team building is difficult because there is no agreed-on set of techniques. The following subsections describe five different types of team-building programs: goal setting, role clarification, interpersonal relations, cohesion building, and problem solving.

695

Goal Setting

The goal-setting process is designed to clarify the purpose of the team and energize action among team members (Klein et al., 2009). This approach involves actively clarifying the team’s goals, developing more specific objectives, and planning how to achieve these goals. This typically is done through consensus building to create agreement about and commitment to the team’s goals. Objectives are developed to further define the team’s tasks and establish action plans that include team member assignments. The final step in a goal-setting program is to develop an evaluation and feedback system so the team can monitor the attainment of its goals (Locke & Latham, 2002).

A goal-setting program may be narrowly focused on the team’s immediate performance or broadly focused on the values and mission of the team and organization. The broader view is designed to develop a common vision for the team by exploring the team’s underlying values and purpose. The broader approach is useful for teams that will exist for a long time and for teams whose members come from diverse backgrounds (Hayes, 1997).

696

Role Clarification

The role clarification approach focuses on clarifying individual roles, team norms, and shared responsibilities of team members (Klein et al., 2009). Role conflict and role ambiguity both create stress and disrupt performance. Team members need to be clear on both their own roles and the roles others. In clarifying duties and task relationships among team members, coordination is improved, and the team is better prepared to perform its task.

Several approaches help a team to define its roles (Hayes, 1997). The negotiation approach asks team members to analyze their work situations and identify what other people could do to improve their effectiveness. This can include a list of behaviors that they appreciate and those that they want to be reduced or eliminated. The team members then negotiate changes in one another’s behaviors to get what they want from the other team members.

An alternative approach asks team members to interact and group process observers to analyze the roles they perform. These observations are used to evaluate the team’s performance. Typically, the results show the team is underusing certain behaviors and relying on a limited range of behaviors. This information may be used to help improve team interactions.

The value of role clarification approaches is that they allow team members to see themselves from the outside, through the eyes of an observer or other members. This allows members to develop a new perspective for understanding how they operate and teaches them how to adjust their interaction styles in ways that improve team operations.

697

Interpersonal Relations

Improving the interpersonal relationships of team members is critical for teamwork (Klein et al., 2009). These interventions often focus on fostering trust and communication among team members. This offers benefits such as reduced conflict and increased psychological safety. Typically, an external facilitator who creates a supportive environment can conduct exercises and lead open discussions to identify and work through interpersonal issues. Additionally, these facilitators can observe how the team operates and comment on the group process.

An exercise titled “I Like, I Wish” is used by design teams to provide constructive feedback to teammates (Doorley et al., 2018). Each person prepares a statement for each member on the team (including themselves) that follows that pattern of I like, I wish, What if. For example, “I like that you are so energetic. I wish that you would not interrupt me during our discussions. What if we assign a team member to manage interruptions?” The team meets and verbally shares each statement one at a time, without the expectation that the recipient will necessarily enact the suggestion. In a supportive environment, this exercise can facilitate discussions that improve interpersonal relationships.

698

Cohesion Building

The purpose of cohesion building is to foster team spirit and build interpersonal connections among team members. When successful, it strengthens the team’s morale, increases trust and cooperation, and develops team identity. Cohesion building occurs through techniques that create unity, a sense of belonging, and pride in the team (Hayes, 1997). The goal is to increase the sense of being a part of the team. Once team members have firmly established this relationship, they are more committed to the team goals and more supportive of the actions of other members.

One popular cohesion-building activity, although one with limited empirical support, is an outdoor experience program. In this program, the team leaves its work environment and meets in an outdoor setting. Team members are presented with a series of challenges they must deal with as a team, such as crossing a river using ropes or climbing a mountain. In working together to meet these challenges, the team develops a sense of cohesion and accomplishment. In recent years, organizations have shifted to using charity or volunteer activities, such as house building for Habitat for Humanity, to encourage pride in the team-building activity.

699

Problem Solving

Problem-solving approaches to team building involve intentionally addressing problems facing the team (Klein et al., 2009). It starts with problem identification and analysis, which may come from performance data, objective outside sources, or internal team communication. Information about team problems is gathered through surveys, interviews, or group discussions. This information is organized and shared with the team. Early on, a diagnostic session clarifies the problems and identifies the team’s strengths and weaknesses.

The diagnosis stage ends with a discussion of how the team should proceed to take action on solving its problems. A standard problem-solving approach is used to generate alternatives and develop solutions. An action plan is developed for implementing the proposed changes in how the team operates.

This sounds like a fairly straightforward approach to solving a team’s problems, but it may be difficult for a team to conduct (Dyer et al., 2007). By the time the team recognizes it has a problem, the underlying conflict may make resolution difficult. Outside consultants are often needed to help the team analyze itself, develop alternatives, and negotiate acceptable solutions.

700

17.4 TEAM TRAINING

Despite teams being central to organizations, they do not always live up to expectations (Marks, Sabella, Burke, & Zaccaro, 2002). This is due to deficiencies in the attitudes, behaviors, and cognitions required for effective team performance. Team training is an intervention that addresses these deficiencies through targeted and ongoing instruction (Salas, 2015). Of team development interventions, team training has garnered the most empirical evidence in support of its effectiveness.

However, to be effective, training must be carefully designed and implemented. Effective team training consists of five components: establishing the need for training, fostering an effective team-training climate, designing an effective team- training program, evaluating the training program, and sustaining trained teamwork behaviors (Salas, 2015).

701

Establishing the Need for Team Training

What kind of team training, if any, is necessary? Answering this question requires a detailed needs analysis, which consists of collecting data through interviews, surveys, and observations about the organization, team, and individuals (Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger, & Smith-Jentsch, 2012). Importantly, people are not skilled at accurately explaining the training that they need (Baddeley & Longman, 1978), so gathering data beyond self-reports is essential. This data is used to consider how organizational factors (e.g., recruitment practices, reward systems, culture, and strategic goals) may help or hinder teamwork, identify the specific problem faced by the team, and determine the specific teamwork competencies (i.e., attitudes, behaviors, cognitions) that need to be developed to achieve team goals.

This process also identifies who needs to participate in the training. Organizations should carefully use their limited resources to maximize the effectiveness of team training. For example, is the problem that the team leader provides overly critical feedback or that the entire team distrusts each other? The former would likely best be addressed by individual training on providing constructive feedback, while the latter may require team-building exercises to strengthen psychological safety.

702

Fostering an Effective Team-Training Climate

Once the training needs are established, an effective training climate needs to be established. The context in which the team operates has a greater impact on performance than the internal competencies of team members (Mohrman et al., 1995). Too often, team interventions focus on internal development when the source of teamwork problems exist in the surrounding organization. For example, it is difficult to promote cooperation among team members when the organization only rewards individual performance. Fostering an effective training environment includes gaining the support of organizational leadership, motivating training participants, and creating a safe training environment (Salas, 2015).

Lack of organizational support can derail the success of training. It is not uncommon for workers to experience punishment from supervisors, additional work, and mockery from peers when trying to apply skills gained during training (Holton, Bates, & Ruona, 2000). This prevents workers from wanting to participate in training or applying what they learned. Rather, trainees should be openly praised and rewarded by top leadership. Similarly, leaders should go beyond voicing support for teamwork and actually model and reward teamwork behaviors.

Individuals must also be motivated to participate in training and feel safe in the training environment. Motivation can be enhanced by emphasizing how training goals relate to job performance, describing realistic goals prior to the training, and focusing on the benefits of training rather than deficiencies of trainees. It is also critical to foster a safe training environment by reducing ambiguity about training goals and establishing appropriate behaviors. People are concerned about making errors during training, so making the training environment nonthreatening is critical.

703

Designing an Effective Team-Training Program

Several principles inform the design of an effective training program (Salas, 2015). The program should be built systematically around the specific needs of the participants, rather than offering a one-size-fits-all approach. Realistic training goals and outcomes should be clearly communicated to the participants. Training of team members should be done with the team as a whole, as this develops the team’s mental model and transactive memory. The training itself should include information about each competency and why it is important, a demonstration of each competency, an opportunity to practice each competency (e.g., role-play, simulation), and feedback on their practice performance (Salas et al., 2012).

When practicing competencies, it is important to provide clear objectives and feedback; otherwise, the wrong lessons might be learned (Cannon-Bowers, Rhodenizer, Salas, & Bowers, 1998). Finally, it is important to respond positively to errors made during training and assure the trainees that they can learn the competency. Some training programs intentionally guide participants toward making errors and then provide support for correcting them. Indeed, higher performance gains are associated with training participants in how to respond to errors, rather than training them in how to avoid errors (Keith & Frese, 2008).

704

Evaluating the Training Program

Training is a complex and recursive process. Evaluating the training program for effectiveness confirms that desired goals are being achieved. The trainer should consider what should be measured and how to measure it in order to determine what effects team training has on individuals, teams, and organizations. Four criteria can evaluate the effectiveness of training: reactions, learning, transfer, and results (Kirkpatrick, 1979).

Reactions include how satisfied and engaged participants are with the training. This is an important indicator of how motivated participants are to learn and implement any new skills (Hughes et al., 2016). Learning encompasses the extent to which the team gained new skills and knowledge. Transfer captures the extent to which the new skills and knowledge are actually used in the work environment. Training does not automatically lead to transfer—instead, this depends on characteristics of the environment and trainee (Baldwin & Ford, 1988). Finally, results represent the extent to which the training produced the desirable organizational objectives.

705

Sustaining Trained Teamwork Behaviors

Team training can significantly increase teamwork competencies. However, sustaining this outcome is challenging —research suggests that only 10% of training actually transfers to the work environment (Smith-Jentsch, Salas, & Brannick, 2001). Several factors disrupt the transfer of training: the time lag between the training and opportunities to apply the skills, an unsupportive team climate, a lack of supervisor support for their application, and an incongruence between organizational rewards and the training behaviors. Sometimes, changes in the organization or team decrease the effectiveness of the training program.

Implementing a system to reinforce and sustain the trained teamwork behaviors is essential (Salas, 2015). Several strategies encourage transfer of training, such as encouraging supervisor support of the application of new skills and providing immediate and ongoing opportunities to perform the newly learned skill. It is also beneficial to provide ongoing opportunities to relearn and practice teamwork competencies and continually assess and refine the team training program. Finally, implementing organizational rewards and policies can motivate sustained enactment of teamwork behaviors. Training is a long-term, ongoing process that requires resources and commitment from the organization.

706

17.5 TYPES OF TRAINING

Team members may only need to receive training in generic teamwork skills. This training is similar to other types of training provided by organizations. Several types of training have been developed specifically for teams, three of which are presented here: team resource management training, cross- training and interpositional training, and action learning.

707

Team Resource Management Training

Team resource management (TRM) (also called crew resource management) is a training program to develop a defined set of teamwork competencies so a team can operate without error under stressful circumstances (Goldstein & Ford, 2002). This approach was developed for the aviation industry and is applied to other action teams that perform in stressful situations, such as military and surgical teams.

TRM begins with a methodology for analyzing the team to identify its mission requirements and coordination demands. The information is used to develop a set of team competencies for training. A training method is then selected, and exercises are developed for team members to practice their new skills in environments that closely resemble the actual workplace. The exercises provide an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the training program and to provide constructive feedback to the participants. The teamwork competencies and skills needed by teams that are often the focus of the training are presented in Table 17.3.

Table 17.3 Teamwork Competencies and Skills

Competencies

and Skills Definition

Adaptability The ability to use information from the environment to change how the team operates

708

Competencies

and Skills Definition

Shared situational awareness

The development of an understanding of the team’s internal and external environment and dynamics

Performance monitoring and feedback

The ability to accurately monitor performance, provide constructive feedback, and use this information to improve operations

Leadership and team management

The ability to direct and coordinate the activities of the team

Interpersonal relations

The ability to facilitate interactions to resolve disputes and motivate performance

Coordination The ability to organize the team’s resources and actions so that performance is effective

Communication The ability to effectively exchange information with other team members

709

Competencies

and Skills Definition

Decision making

The ability to gather and analyze information and use this information to solve problems

Source: Adapted from Cannon-Bowers, J., Tannenbaum, S., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. (1995). Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements. In R. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 330– 380). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

TRM training combines classroom training with practice in simulators with feedback (Salas, Bowers, & Edens, 2001). It focuses on developing identified teamwork competencies necessary to the team and has developed a set of tools and methods for identifying and teaching needed competencies. TRM training strategies use evaluations to encourage the development of effective training programs. This training has been shown to be successful in reducing errors and accidents, improving teamwork, and increasing efficiency. The approach to training is effective because it focuses on specific teamwork competencies and provides trainees with opportunities to practice their skills and receive feedback.

Assertiveness training is an example of the type of training that is part of TRM. Problems with teamwork are a chief cause of major air carrier accidents (Jentsch & Smith-Jentsch, 2001). For example, accidents occur when crew members are unwilling to communicate problems to their superiors. This lack of assertiveness is a major problem for airline crews, medical teams, and police and firefighting teams, which is why assertiveness training is a standard element of TRM training.

710

Assertiveness is both a skill and an attitude. Consequently, training programs focus on both developing assertive communication skills and changing attitudes about when assertiveness is appropriate. Assertiveness is a situation- specific behavior. People’s willingness to be assertive depends on the situation they are in and their relationship with the other people involved in the same situation. This is why it is important to conduct assertiveness training in environments that match the same type of occasion with the assertive behavior application. A member’s willingness to act assertively is highly dependent on the team culture established by the team leader. Training programs also teach team leaders how to appropriately acknowledge assertive communications from subordinates.

711

Cross-Training and Interpositional Training

Cross-training is used to increase the flexibility of team members (Goldstein & Ford, 2002). In cross-training, team members are trained in the technical skills of two or more jobs, allowing the team to assign members to the tasks that need to be performed. In some cases, a pay-for-skills program is used to reward team members for learning new skills. A typical example of cross-training is a manufacturing team where members learn multiple roles. This allows the team to flexibly respond to changes in the work environment and to personnel changes. Cross-training programs often use on-the- job training, with experienced team members training other members.

Interpositional training is designed to develop shared mental models among team members, rather than replace each other’s role (Marks et al., 2002). A shared mental model fosters a better understanding of the working knowledge, roles, and interconnections among the actions of team members. This improves team coordination, which improves performance, especially in interdependent tasks. It also increases “backup” or assistance to team members in performing tasks.

Interpositional training is especially significant for action teams with highly interdependent work arrangements. Action team members have specialized skill sets (such as the members of a surgical team), rely on coordination to complete their tasks, and operate in challenging environments. Because of their interdependence, effective performance requires coordination among team members. Interpositional training teaches a team to better understand each other’s roles and abilities but not to replace each other’s positions.

Three types of interpositional training vary in depth of knowledge and method. Positional clarification simply

712

provides team members with information about the tasks and roles of other team members. Positional modeling adds observation of team members’ duties to this information. Positional rotation has a team member perform another member’s job to gain experience with the other’s duties. The most appropriate form of interpositional training depends on the level of interdependence in the team roles. Positional clarification is useful when there is some interdependence, while positional modeling may be preferable when teams are highly interdependent.

713

Action Learning

The action-learning approach is based on the belief that most learning occurs when people are dealing directly with real- life issues (Goldstein & Ford, 2002). The focus of action learning is to develop teams that can analyze and solve important, real-life problems in their organizations. Action learning combines training with developing innovative solutions to existing organizational problems. In the process of solving the problem and reflecting on the team’s problem- solving strategies, team members learn how to create and operate as effective problem-solving teams. The components of an action-learning program are presented in Table 17.4.

Action learning is self-managed learning (Marquardt, 2002). The team gains skills and knowledge, then shares this knowledge with the organization. Team learning includes generating knowledge by analyzing a complex problem, taking action to solve it, then evaluating the results. The team is able to perform better in the future because it has learned how to experiment with new approaches to problems and how to communicate its knowledge. It is a strategy that develops a team and promotes learning throughout an organization. Through thoughtful, innovative action, teams learn how to effectively use their resources.

The action-learning approach simultaneously solves a complex organizational issue while developing teamwork skills in people and organizations (Marquardt, 2004). It is an approach to continual learning that encourages experimentation, allows mistakes, offers support, and promotes feedback. It is a shift from a culture of training (where someone else determines what you need to know) to a culture of learning (where you are responsible for your own development).

Table 17.4 Components of an Action-Learning Program

714

1. Problem or challenge

Learning is built around a problem or issue, a task that needs solving that is important to the team and organization. Teams learn best from taking action and then reflecting on the results. The problem must be real and valuable and be capable of being affected by the team’s efforts. Examples of problems include reducing turnover, improving quality, reorganizing a department, or improving an organizational process.

2. Learning team

Teams should be relatively small, optimally from four to eight members. It is important to have a diverse perspective, so cross- functional or cross-organizational teams are best. Teams must have the ability to implement actions and affect the organizational issue they are working on.

3. Learning coach

The learning coach facilitates the group process, encourages reflection, promotes communication, and facilitates problem solving. The coach asks, What are you learning? How can you solve this problem? The coach helps the team solve its problem but also promotes reflection on the group process and learning teamwork skills.

4. Insightful questioning and reflective listening

The coach encourages questioning and discussing the problem rather than jumping to a solution. This emphasis on analysis of the problem encourages reflection, creativity, and better problem-solving skills.

715

5. Taking action

There is no learning without action. The implementation and evaluation/feedback process is the key to learning. Learning occurs in the act of reflecting on action.

6. Commitment to learning

Solving organizational problems is good, but the more important organizational benefit is the understanding gained of how to solve problems. Action learning promotes organizational learning and development. It is an approach for dealing with organizational problems; it helps develop people with the skills to solve current and future problems. It promotes learning how to learn.

Source: Adapted from Marquardt, M. Building the learning organization. Copyright © 2002, Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

716

SUMMARY

Team development interventions are evidence-based tools, exercises, and training that can improve team competencies, processes, and overall effectiveness. They target and develop specific attitudes, behaviors, and cognitions that are necessary for effective teamwork. Team building and team training are two popular team development interventions.

Team building improves performance by developing social relationships, and it is particularly useful for improving teamwork attitudes and behaviors. To be effective, team building should be an ongoing team activity. Although team- building programs have been shown to be effective, organizations and teams are often reluctant to conduct them.

Deciding whether a team needs team building requires criteria for effective and ineffective teams. Effective teams have clear goals and tasks, open communication climates, supportive leaders, and procedures for managing tasks and problems. Ineffective teams have unresolved conflicts and hostilities, confusion about goals and tasks, low levels of motivation, and high dependence on their leaders.

There are many different types of team-building activities. Goal setting is used to clarify a team’s goals and objectives. Role definition clarifies individual roles and aids in establishing group norms. Interpersonal process skills use training activities to teach members to work together as a team. Cohesion building tries to create a team identity and improve social relations among team members. Problem solving identifies the team’s main problems and works with the team to develop and implement solutions.

Team training is an instructional process that improves performance by developing specific teamwork knowledge,

717

skills, and abilities. It is particularly useful for developing teamwork knowledge and behaviors. Effective training requires a needs analysis, fostering a productive training climate, designing the team-training program, evaluating the training program, and sustaining trained teamwork behaviors. Lack of organizational support can derail the success of training programs.

There are three main types of teamwork training. TRM uses assessment to identify needed teamwork competencies and combines training with practice and feedback to ensure its effectiveness. Cross-training and interpositional training improve team flexibility and coordination by enabling team members to understand the roles and interconnections in the team. Action learning uses participation in facilitated problem-solving teams to develop teamwork skills and solve important organizational problems.

718

Team Leadership Challenge 17

You are the team leader at a large engineering design firm. The general manager of the firm is extremely frustrated with his attempts to develop and use project teams. He has tried personality testing to improve communication skills, wilderness experiences to improve problem-solving skills, and Japanese culture lessons to improve consensus decision making. None of these approaches has worked, and he now wonders whether engineers can be trained to work in teams.

The most recent team-building program is using “professional” team facilitators who are graduate students in counseling from a nearby university. Their program is getting a mixed reaction from team members. (Maybe learning to better express their feelings wasn’t what these teams needed.) The facilitators are often effective in improving the performance of the teams, but they are not encouraging them to learn how to operate independently. The director is looking for advice from her project team leaders about the use of teams and the future of team building in the firm.

What went wrong with the past team-building efforts?

What advice would you (the team leader) give the director about team building in the organization?

How can action learning be used to help promote teamwork in this organization?

719

Activity: Team Building

Objective: Team-building programs typically promote team development and learning by having the team perform some activity while observers record the group process. After the activity is completed, a facilitator discusses the group process observations with the team and uses this information to help the team improve how it operates.

Activity: Form teams of five to seven people and distribute a copy of the “University Discipline Board Decision” (Activity Worksheet 17.1) to each team. Select one or two observers, and give them one of the group process observation forms found at the end of the chapters in this book (for example, Chapter 6: Communication; Chapter 8: Power and Social Influence; Chapter 9: Decision Making; and Chapter 13: Diversity). After the team has discussed the problem outlined in the worksheet and reached a consensus decision, ask the observers to provide feedback to the team.

Analysis: Use the analysis sections in the observation sheets to discuss the group process. This activity may create gender differences, so examine how the gender mix of the teams may have affected their ability to reach an agreement.

Discussion: How can using team-building activities like this example help improve a team’s group process? Examine the activity on “Developing Norms for Virtual Teams” at the end of Chapter 15. What norms should a university develop surrounding the use of information technology?

720

721

Activity Worksheet 17.1: University

Discipline Board Decision

You are members of a University Discipline Board. You have been asked to review the following case and determine whether the accused student violated the university’s Sexual Harassment Code of Conduct or any other relevant University Code of Conduct. If you find the student guilty, you must decide on the appropriate consequence. All decisions made by the University Discipline Board must be unanimous.

722

Case

John Smith is a sophomore at the university. He is taking an English class in creative writing. He decided to write a series of stories about a serial rapist who violently preys on college women at an anonymous university. In his stories, the names of the women victims are students in his writing class. He decided to “publish” his stories by putting them on the Internet using his electronic homepage (which is based on the university’s server).

Several of the women students in the class have read the stories, were upset by them, and have complained to university administrators.

723

Decision

1. Is John Smith guilty of violating the university’s Sexual Harassment Code of Conduct or any other relevant University Code of Conduct?

_____ Yes _____ No

2. If yes, what disciplinary action should the university take?

724

Activity: Appreciative Inquiry of

Teamwork

Objective: Appreciative inquiry is an organizational development technique is rooted in the positive psychology movement, meaning that it focuses on strengths rather than deficits. It encourages people to think about what is possible, to create a positive image of the future, and to plan on how to make it happen. This activity examines the potential of teamwork by understanding your best teamwork experiences so you can learn how to create better teams in the future.

Activity: Think about the times you worked on teams when you really enjoyed participating and felt the team was very effective. Write a description of your best teamwork experience. It can be from school, work, or other types of organizations. What factors made this your favorite team? Ask group members to share their team experiences and develop a list of characteristics of successful teams. Write your answers on Activity Worksheet 17.2.

Analysis: Review your list of characteristics of successful teams. When you are in a team that lacks these characteristics, what can you do as a team leader or member to improve the team? Write out action plans for improving teams on the Activity Worksheet 17.2. Try to be as specific as possible with your recommendations.

Discussion: Review your action plans for improving teams. Have you ever tried to intervene to make your teams better? If so, what happened when you tried to

725

make your team function better? If not, what prevents you from trying to change or improve your teams?

726

Activity Worksheet 17.2: Appreciative

Inquiry of Teamwork

Characteristics of successful teams:

Action plans for improving teams:

Source: Adapted from Head, T. (2006). Appreciative inquiry in the graduate classroom: Making group dynamics a practical topic to address. Organizational Development Journal, 24(2), 83–88

727

728

APPENDIX: GUIDE TO STUDENT TEAM PROJECTS

One of the best ways to teach teamwork skills is in the context of a large-scale team project that requires team problem solving (Goltz, Hietapelto, Reinsch, & Tyrell, 2008). An unstructured real-world problem can be used as a mechanism for teaching both teamwork and problem-solving skills. The team assignment needs to be challenging and motivating (Rentz, Arduser, Meloncon, & Debs, 2008). When designing team projects, it is important to consider problem design (What are the characteristics of the task?), team design (How do students get chosen for the team?), process design (How do students manage the team process?), and evaluation design (How is student input included in the evaluation?).

Many times, students are assigned team projects with limited preparation or training about how to work in teams (Snyder, 2008). If professors do not provide instruction on how to work in teams, they should not be surprised by poor team performance and dissatisfied students. Student team members need help to deal with the following challenges: understanding the purpose of the project, encouraging participation among team members, planning the project, keeping a project on track, and negotiating conflicts. All these topics are discussed in this book.

This appendix contains advice and tools to help students conduct a team project and learn from the experience. Although there are a lot of activities at the beginning of the project, student teams that spend time planning for teamwork and taskwork are more successful in the long run (Mathieu & Rapp, 2009). The following sections present guidelines on starting the team, planning and developing the project, monitoring the project and maintaining teamwork, performing team writing, and wrapping up and completing the project. It is up to the students to work through this structure and manage their group process in order to successfully complete their team project.

729

A.1 STARTING THE TEAM

730

Team Warm-Ups

Team warm-ups are social activities designed to help the team members get to know each other. Forming social relations at the beginning of a team project helps build trust and improve communications throughout the project. Building social relations is something teams should do at the very beginning, from the first team meeting. Once the team project gets going, team members don’t want to spend time building social relations—they want to focus on the task. So for the first three weeks of your team project, start your team meetings with a 10-minute warm-up activity (see Figure A.1).

These activities encourage self-disclosure—telling the other team members about yourself. However, this is a limited self-disclosure suitable for a work environment. You have a right to privacy, so be open with your teammates, but do not feel obliged to share more than would be appropriate to share in a work environment.

731

Developing a Team Contract

An important part of starting a team is to obtain agreement about the purpose or goals of the team, the roles and responsibilities of the team members, norms or operating rules, and expectations about the performance of team members. The contract provides an initial commitment and direction for the team about how members will work together. It focuses on the teamwork process rather than on the task aspects of the team project.

Figure A.1 Team Warm-Ups

Source: Adapted from Scholtes, P. (1988).

When thinking about team goals, try to develop three to five goals. The goals can be about the task, the group process, or what members hope to accomplish working on the project. For example, is your focus getting a good grade, learning a lot about teamwork, or getting along with the other students? It is better to write specific goals rather than general goals. Objectives are the specific actions or criteria that relate to your goals. Objectives should be written so that they are measurable and the team can evaluate whether the goals were met.

Team members should discuss what they expect from each other. What are the primary roles and responsibilities of team members? This includes both task and relationship issues. Does the team expect equal commitment and participation from each member? How important is it that

732

assignments are done on time or that work is high quality? How important is working cooperatively and maintaining good social relations? What is important to you as a team member? Try to be specific about these expectations.

Meeting rules or team norms define the appropriate behaviors for the team and its members. There are a variety of issues to consider when establishing norms. How should decisions be made? What are legitimate reasons for missing meetings? What should be done when people miss too many meetings? How important is it that everyone participates in team discussions? When assignments are made, what should be done when team members do not complete them? Who is responsible for the agenda and minutes? How should conflicts and disagreements be handled? How can the team encourage members to listen attentively and respectfully to others? What should the team do to enforce its rules?

One of the main complaints people have about their performance evaluations is that they did not know what was expected of them. You have just discussed the roles and responsibilities of team members and the operating rules for the team. Should these expectations be included in team members’ performance evaluations? What criteria should be used to evaluate each team member’s performance?

To develop a team contract, team members should think about the team’s goals, objectives, roles, norms, and performance expectations. Then, the team should come to an agreement on these topics to create a written team charter. Figure A.2 presents a format for the development of a team contract.

Figure A.2 Team Contract

Source: Adapted from Herrenkohl, R. (2004). Becoming a team. Mason, OH: South-Western.

733

Leadership and Meeting Roles

Teams often establish meeting roles to help meetings operate more efficiently. The two most common meeting roles are team leader and recorder. The team leader has two functions: set up the agenda and facilitate the team meeting. The team’s agenda is designed to structure the meeting and is related to the tasks the team is performing. The leader acts as a facilitator who ensures that information is shared and processed by the team in a supportive and participative environment. This includes keeping the team discussion on track, preventing personal criticism, and ensuring participation by all team members. The team recorder takes notes on key decisions and task assignments in order to provide documentation of the team’s activities.

Student teams usually make the mistake of selecting a team leader at the first meeting. Unfortunately, they often pick the most talkative person rather than the person best suited for structuring the team’s task or facilitating team meetings. During the first three weeks of a team project, the leader role should be rotated. After that, the team can decide to keep rotating or select a permanent leader. Use the Team Role Analysis (Figure A.3) to help make your decision.

Figure A.3 Team Role Analysis

734

Managing Team Technology

Regardless of whether team members are colocated or are scattered around the world, project teams rely on technology for communication and managing project documents. Even when teams regularly meet face to face, they often use technology for both task and social communication.

Successful use of technology by teams requires addressing several issues. First, all team members need to agree on which technologies to use for various functions. Second, the team needs to make sure that everyone has sufficient capacity to use the technologies. This means that all team members have the technologies available to them and they have the skills to use the technologies. Finally, there needs to be agreement about the norms for use of the selected technology.

There are a variety of norms that teams may decide to develop about the use of technology. Here are some of the questions teams should discuss when developing technology norms. Which technology should be used for different types of communication? What is the appropriate length and response time for different technologies (for example, e-mail versus texting)? When should messages or replies be sent to everyone on the team? What are the rules for modifying or editing shared documents? When does an issue, decision, or conflict require a face-to-face meeting?

As a team, complete the Team Project Technology Survey (Figure A.4) in order to develop agreement about your team’s use of technology and to identify potential technology problems.

Figure A.4 Team Project Technology Survey

735

A.2 PLANNING AND DEVELOPING THE PROJECT

736

Challenging the Assignment

When given an assignment, most teams jump right in and start to solve what they view as the problem. Often, they work on their initial ideas until it is obvious that their first approach is not working, at which point they go back to the beginning and start over. This is a very inefficient and frustrating approach.

Take time at the beginning to understand the assignment. Ask your professor questions about the assignment. Develop an overall plan, and then question whether it will work. At the second and third team meetings, review the project assignment and the direction your team is taking. Ask the following questions: What are the benefits of our approach to the assignment? What are the problems with our approach to the assignment? Should we change our approach? It is better to change direction earlier rather than later in the project.

737

Generating Project Ideas

Student project teams often face their most difficult decision at the beginning—selecting a project topic or initial direction. If the team is having trouble developing and agreeing to ideas, try using some team creativity techniques. The following is a modified brainwriting approach that is useful.

738

Brainwriting Method

1. Write. Have each team member write down at least five ideas. 2. Review. Combine all the ideas into a large list (or use sticky notes and cover a wall).

Review the list, and combine or link ideas that are related. 3. Multivote. Allow each team member to select three alternatives they would like to

support. Tally the votes, and remove items that received no votes or only one vote. Discuss the alternatives that have been selected, and look for new ways to combine or synthesize alternatives. If necessary, repeat this process until there are five or fewer ideas.

4. Decide. Use consensus decision making to select an alternative. Avoid arguing for your own position without listening to the positions of others. Do not try to reach a quick agreement by voting or tossing a coin. Try to get others to explain their position so that you better understand the differences. Look for creative and collaborative solutions, such as integrating alternatives.

739

Project Planning

Planning is an ongoing activity for a team. To plan a project, the team needs to break the project down into its basic parts, develop a schedule proposing length of time to perform the parts and the necessary sequence to complete the parts, and assign team members to work on the parts. A project timeline is a simple graphical representation of a team project. Figure A.5 shows a project timeline for a 10-week student research project. You should try to develop a project timeline for your team project and consult it regularly to track your progress. It is useful to include some milestone reviews—times when you will review the team’s progress and modify the project plan if needed.

Figure A.5 Project Timeline

740

Roles and Assignments

Although we call it teamwork, individuals working alone who use team meetings to coordinate their activities often do most of the work on a team project. Consequently, dividing a project into various tasks, assigning individuals to perform tasks, and monitoring the completion of tasks are important team functions.

Team projects can be divided in a number of ways. The overall project can be divided into report sections (Introduction, Analysis, Discussion), or activities (data gathering, analysis, writing). Individuals can be assigned certain tasks, while the team as a whole may perform other tasks. Team members need to negotiate these role assignments with each other. Remember, equity is less a matter of whether everyone is doing the same amount of work and more about whether everyone is pulling their own weight and is equally invested in the outcome.

The most common approach used by student teams is to divide the project and assign one person to perform each part. Team meetings are used to monitor progress and coordinate activities. A few parts of the project (making strategic decisions or reviewing the final report) are left to the team as a whole. This is an efficient approach, but it leaves the team vulnerable to a team member who fails to perform their role. An alternative approach is the pair system, where at least two people are assigned to each major activity and everyone works on more than one part of the project. This approach encourages coordination and integration and protects the team from problem team members.

To create roles and assignments, the team needs to discuss the following issues:

Which parts of the project should be divided and assigned to individuals?

Which parts of the project should be done by all team members?

Who should be assigned to work on various parts of the project?

Should there be a project leader to coordinate activities?

Should the team have an editor who is responsible for putting together the final report?

The team should develop an action plan that lists the major team assignments, who is responsible for performing them, and what results are expected. The action plan needs to be periodically reviewed and modified during the course of the project.

741

Reevaluating the Project and Approach

Is this a good project topic? How can we improve or refine our definition of the project? Is our approach a good one? Are we headed in the right direction? These are very good questions to ask about the team’s initial project decisions. These are even better questions to ask during the second week of a project rather than during a midpoint crisis. Try completing a force field analysis (Figure A.6) to assist the team with these questions and answers.

A force field analysis starts when you list the driving and restraining forces related to your project topic or approach. After you list these forces, highlight the most important ones. Next, review your project by discussing the following issues:

Is this a good project topic or approach? Should we accept it or reject it?

How can we improve or refine our approach?

What additional information do we need to develop our approach to the project?

Figure A.6 Force Field Analysis: Are We Going in a Good Direction?

742

A.3 MONITORING THE PROJECT AND MAINTAINING TEAMWORK

743

Team Meetings: Sharing Information, Making Decisions, and Tracking

Assignments

Team meetings are used to coordinate activities, track progress, make decisions, and assign tasks. Team meetings should start with sharing information and reviewing progress. Team members check in by updating the team on their activities and work assignments. If the team has developed a project plan and timeline, it can review its progress on meeting the objectives. After reviewing progress, team meetings then focus on decision making. Decisions relate to project topics, management of the team, team activities, task assignments, and coordination of tasks. At the end of the meeting, important decisions are summarized, and task assignments are reviewed.

Teams need to plan their project by outlining the various tasks, deciding when the tasks need to be completed, and assigning team members to perform the tasks. Once the planning has been completed, the team should regularly review its progress on meeting these objectives. The weekly action plan (Figure A.7) is a good way to record assignments at the end of a team meeting. It also makes a good starting point for reviewing performance at the next meeting.

It is the team leader’s job to help structure and facilitate the team meeting. Simple agendas that outline the meeting structure (information sharing, progress check, team decisions, and task assignments) and identify decision topics are useful to keep the team on track. The leader can ask for input on the agenda either before or at the beginning of the meeting. The recorder monitors progress of the meeting and records the major decisions and task assignments.

744

Group Process Evaluations

Once the team has started working on its project, the team needs to monitor its progress, manage problems, and improve how it is operating. Student teams fall into behavior patterns fairly quickly. They often adopt patterns they used before in other team projects or classroom settings. These behavior patterns become stable ways of operating, even when they are not adaptive or effective. This is why it is important to set aside time to evaluate how the team is operating.

Figure A.7 Weekly Action Plan

One of the biggest problems for improving teams is to get beyond scapegoating or blaming individuals (or outside forces) for the team’s problems. It is not problem people who are causing difficulties—it is a team process that does not work. Your team has to accept responsibility that they allow problem behaviors to occur and continue. Scapegoating never leads to solutions. It is just a way of blaming others for the problem so the team does not have to work on a solution.

The team must decide whether it wants to live with its problems (and problem people) or whether it wants to evaluate what it is doing and develop strategies to work together more effectively. Team members often ignore problems (“don’t make waves”) until the problems are very disruptive and difficult to solve. It is better to identify problems early and deal with them before they disrupt the team’s operation. Regular group process evaluations are one way to do this.

Group process evaluations are performed at the end of team meetings. They help identify what the team is doing right and encourage dealing with team problems. Have each team member rate the team’s performance and then answer the following questions: What is the team doing well? What areas of improvement are needed? (See Figure A.8.) After answering these questions, discuss the responses in the team. Use the discussion to acknowledge accomplishments, identify problems, and develop solutions for the team’s problems.

Student teams should conduct group process evaluations about every other week. This helps ensure that problems are identified before they become too difficult to manage. It is useful for students to save their evaluations to track the team’s progress. The group process evaluation forms are a good history of the team’s performance and are useful for evaluating and learning from the team project experience.

745

Managing Problem Behaviors

Group process evaluations are good for identifying the problems teams encounter, but how should the team manage these problems? This activity is a method that teams can use to manage problem behaviors. The team can try it on a sample problem to learn how the approach works or use it on a problem the team is trying to resolve. Figure A.9 presents a format for this activity.

Figure A.8 Group Process Evaluation

Figure A.9 Managing Problem Behaviors Activity

746

Source: Adapted from Scholtes, P. (1994).

The first step is to select and define the problem behavior. There are many behaviors that can disrupt a team’s operation. If the team has discussed team norms, then problem behaviors can be viewed as actions that violate these norms. Common problems for teams are poor attendance, failure to complete assignments on time, dominating team discussions, or interpersonal conflicts among team members. The team should select a problem that it wants to handle better in the future.

After selecting a problem behavior for analysis, try to better define the behavior. Think of specific examples of the problem behavior. Discuss when the behavior occurs and what is causing it. What team norms does it violate? Write a definition of the behavior.

There are several approaches to managing problem behaviors. The team can try to prevent the behavior from occurring, it can compensate for the behavior by changing how the team operates, or it can try to use rewards or punishments to change the behavior. For the problem behavior identified, discuss alternative approaches for the team to manage the problem behavior, and write down your answers.

After completing this analysis, the team is ready to decide how it wants to deal with the problem behavior. Regardless of whether the team decides to do nothing or adopt one of the strategies identified in the activity, the team should review the status of the problem at its next meeting.

747

Milestone: Midpoint Evaluation

The midpoint of the project cycle is a time when teams often evaluate what they are doing. Although it is halfway through the project’s period, most teams discover that the project is less than half completed. What is worse is that the team may doubt whether they are headed in the right direction. It is time to stop and reevaluate the team’s goals and objectives, the direction of the project, and the way the team is operating. You might want to go back and review the team’s contract, conduct a force field analysis on the project’s direction, or review and modify the project timeline so it reflects the team’s actual performance. Finally, do a group process evaluation, and review how well your team is working together.

A basic midpoint evaluation technique for reflecting on the team’s performance is the start-stop-continue approach (Dyer et al., 2007). Individual team members write down what they think the team should start doing, stop doing, and continue doing in order to be more effective. The team discusses these views and looks for patterns or common responses. The team leader asks for concrete examples of the identified issues. Next, the team discusses ways to change what they are doing to become more effective.

After the midpoint, teams need to make a push toward performance. Working hard to complete the project is only useful if you are heading in the right direction and have a group process that supports teamwork. Now is the time as a team to make sure that this happens and the project moves forward.

748

A.4 PERFORMING TEAM WRITING

Writing in a team is not easy. There are lots of problems that can arise, from personality clashes to computer incompatibilities. There is no definitive approach that is the best way for a team to write together. The success of various approaches depends on the group size and the personalities and abilities of the team members.

Writing in a team is risky. You have to give up control and learn to accept differences in writing styles. You must also deal with writing and decision-making issues at the same time. This is very confusing because you sometimes do not know whether the disagreement is about what you said or how you are saying it. Added to these problems is fear—the fear that your grade will be affected and you will not get credit for your good work.

749

Overall Strategy

Writing a team paper usually has three parts: defining and outlining the project, writing the sections, and reviewing and editing. Students often go too quickly through the first stage and end up with a lot of problems and confusion later on. Students also forget about the third stage, so the final project can have the appearance of being thrown together at the last moment. Recognizing the importance of all three stages makes team writing easier and improves the quality of the project.

When defining the nature of the project, the team should discuss the particular content of the final document, which requires development of an outline of the final report and a team discussion about what information is to be presented. Try to anticipate problems, such as dealing with problem team members and keeping on schedule. Establishing a work plan with assignments and due dates helps manage some of these problems.

The team needs to decide how to divide the writing. The next section presents several options to accomplish this task. However, before you send your team members out to write their sections, you need to establish some ground rules. How long should the sections be? Should people submit drafts or relatively finished text? Should the team review the detailed outlines before writing drafts?

Although the team should develop the project’s overall outline collaboratively, there are many options for dividing up the writing and editing tasks. Although dividing the assignment is efficient (especially since it reduces meeting times), at some point everyone needs to review and edit the document. You have not done your part if you have not reviewed and agreed with (or offered modifications to) the entire document.

750

Division of Work

There is no single preferred method to divide up the tasks of writing a report. A team’s options range from having one person write the entire report, with information provided by team members, to all the team members collaboratively writing the report together. In most cases, teams select an approach between these extremes, where the project is divided and individual team members write sections of the report. Regardless of your selection, there are two additional elements to the divide-and-write approach: the weak-editor system and the strong-editor system. Your team should discuss how you want to write the project using these approaches as a starting point for your discussion.

1. Weak editor: Divide the paper into sections, and assign the writing of parts. This is probably the most common approach to team writing. It makes logical sense because it uses division of labor. However, it often leads to papers that are difficult to read because the sections do not flow smoothly together. Using this approach still requires a good editing system to help deal with the overlaps and missing information that inevitably occurs.

If your team is using this approach, then you need to spend time at the beginning defining what the sections of the paper should look like. Obviously, this includes having a good report outline so the sections do not repeat or overlap. In addition, there need to be rules about how to make the parts as compatible as possible. For example, how should each section end so the next section flows into it smoothly? Some options for writing rules include the size of each section, agreement on the key terms to use throughout the report, typical paragraph length, formatting and layout, and computer compatibility issues.

2. Strong editor: In this approach, a central editor controls most of the writing process. Although your team may elect to have individual team members work on separate sections of the report, you may want to take a more centralized approach to writing the final document. For example, the team members submit drafts of their sections of the report to a central editor who finishes the drafts and cobbles the sections together. This approach often leads to a more integrated report, but it puts stress and a lot of responsibility on a key team member.

From the professor’s perspective, this is a good approach: The report is easier to read because the writing style is more consistent. However, it does create a few problems for the team. It requires better planning because the drafts of the sections have to be submitted earlier to give time for the editor to put them all together. The editor has to put in extra work, which means that you are using your team’s best writer to integrate work rather than to write important sections. Additionally, similar to other centralized approaches, it also creates problems about how to select and reward the team member who takes this central role.

Most student teams select the weak-editor approach, where the editor’s job is merely to cut and paste parts of the report. This approach is easy for the students, but it can create problems in the paper. Often, student team reports have unexplained gaps between sections or sections that overlap with each other. The terminology used in one part of the report might be different from other parts; as a result, the reader is often uncertain if new concepts are really being used. Also, language and writing style differences can make a team paper hard to read. The strong-editor approach helps to deal with these writing problems. The main difficulty with the strong-editor approach is that it takes time. The parts of the report must be submitted to the editor early enough that the editor can work on the paper and have the team members review the final product. Regardless of which approach a team uses, everyone is responsible for the report. No team member is finished with the assignment until they have reviewed the final draft!

751

The use of technology for team writing allows an alternative approach: reciprocal composition (Duarte & Snyder, 2006). In this approach, an outline of the report is stored in an electronic database that is available to all team members. Team members work on all parts of the report by adding and editing material. Electronic document-writing tools allow the team to monitor each other’s participation in the writing process and the changes being made to the report. This approach can be very efficient because it allows all team members to work simultaneously. However, it requires a tightly structured agenda to ensure progress on all parts of the document.

752

A.5 WRAPPING UP AND COMPLETING THE PROJECT

753

Milestone: Precompletion Planning

Several weeks before the final project is due, it is time for a review meeting to evaluate the situation and plan for completion of the project. This is similar to the other milestone evaluations (such as the midpoint review), except the focus is on how to complete the project. If all is going well, this evaluation is just reviewing the project plan, coordinating submissions of material to the editor, and arranging a final review meeting. If things are not going as planned, now is the time to decide how to salvage the situation by reassigning tasks, redefining expectations about tasks and activities, or even negotiating a new contract with your professor. Even if you are having problems, your team still has some options in order to finish successfully within the next two weeks.

754

Team Evaluations

In many student team projects, the professor allows some student input on team member evaluations. This is appropriate because students know more about the performance of individual team members than the professor. It is time to review the team’s contract to see what performance expectations your team decided were relevant. You should use these to evaluate your teammates because it is not fair to evaluate people on new criteria or to evaluate different team members using different criteria.

Teams have evaluation biases. Teams tend to give everyone high evaluations when the team is successful and to scapegoat or blame a few members when the team performs poorly. Instead, you should try to honestly evaluate your teammates using the criteria your team established. It is fine to give mostly positive evaluations when your team worked well together, but it is not fair to give everyone a high evaluation if that does not reflect individual contributions.

755

Celebrating Success and Learning From the Experience

Congratulations—you finished your team project. If your team was like most project teams, you had your ups and downs along the way, with challenges and conflicts to manage. Your team should celebrate its success with a social event.

This is not likely to be your last team project as a student or professional, so you should try to learn as much as possible from the experience. If you have been saving your group process evaluations, now is a good time to review them to try to understand the teamwork process. How did your evaluations of the team’s performance change during the course of the project? What were the things that your team did well during the project? What were the areas where improvement was needed? Was your team able to resolve its problems along the way?

A final group process evaluation that examines the entire project experience can be a valuable learning tool. Remember that people learn more from positive feedback than they do from negative feedback. Make sure you try to understand what went right about the project so you can repeat it in the future.

756

757

REFERENCES

Adair, W. L., Hideg, I., & Spence, J. R. (2013). The culturally intelligent team: The impact of team cultural intelligence and cultural heterogeneity on team shared values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(6), 941– 962.

Adam, H., Shirako, A., & Maddux, W. W. (2010). Cultural variance in the interpersonal effects of anger in negotiations. Psychological Science, 21(6), 882–889.

Adams, A., Miles, J., Dunbar, N.., & Giles, H. (2018). Communication accommodation in text messages: Exploring liking, power, and sex as predictors of textisms. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158(4), 474–490.

Afuah, A., & Tucci, C. L. (2012). Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 355 –375.

Agarwal, N., & Rathod, U. (2006). Defining “success” for software projects: An exploratory revelation. International Journal of Project Management, 24(4), 358–370.

Agrawal, A., Gans, J., & Goldfarb, A. (2018). Prediction machines: The simple economics of artificial intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Aguinis, H. (2019). Performance management (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: Chicago Business Press.

758

Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. (2012). Delivering effective performance feedback: The strengths-based approach. Business Horizons, 55(2), 105–111.

Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. (2013). Avoiding a “me” versus “we” dilemma: Using performance management to turn teams into a source of competitive advantage. Business Horizons, 56(4), 503–512.

Aguinis, H., Joo, H., & Gottfredson, R. K. (2011). Why we hate performance management—And why we should love it. Business Horizons, 54(6), 503–507.

Alberti, R. E., & Emmons, M. L. (1978). Your perfect right: A guide to assertive behavior (3rd ed.). San Luis Obispo, CA: Impact.

Ale Ebrahim, N., Ahmed, S., & Taha, Z. (2009). Virtual R&D teams in small and medium enterprises: A literature review. Scientific Research and Essays, 4(13), 1575–1590.

Allen, B. J. (2003). Difference matters: Communicating social identity in organizations. Prospects Heights, IL: Waveland.

Allen, J. A., Reiter-Palmon, R., Crowe, J., & Scott, C. (2018). Debriefs: Teams learning from doing in context. American Psychologist, 73(4), 504–516.

Allen, J. A., Sands, S. J., Mueller, S. L., Frear, K. A., Mudd, M., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2012). Employees’ feelings about more meetings: An overt analysis and recommendations

759

for improving meetings. Management Research Review, 35(5), 405–418.

Allen, N. J., & Hecht, T. D. (2004). The “romance of teams”: Toward an understanding of its psychological underpinnings and implications. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(4), 439–461.

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Chao, G. T., & Bauer, T. N. (2017). Taking stock of two relational aspects of organizational life: Tracing the history and shaping the future of socialization and mentoring research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 324–337.

Alnuaimi, O. A., Robert, L. P., & Maruping, L. M. (2010). Team size, dispersion, and social loafing in technology- supported teams: A perspective on the theory of moral disengagement. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(1), 203–230.

Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47–92). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. New York, NY: Westview Press.

760

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.

Ames, D. R. (2008). In search of the right touch: Interpersonal assertiveness in organizational life. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(6), 381–385.

Ames, D. R., & Flynn, F. J. (2007). What breaks a leader: The curvilinear relation between assertiveness and leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 307– 324.

Anawati, D., & Craig, A. (2006). Behavioral adaptation within cross-cultural virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 49(1), 44–56.

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1990). Information technology and work groups: The case of new product teams. In J. Galegher, R. Kraut, & C. Egido (Eds.), Intellectual teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work (pp. 173–190). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Anderson, N., Potocˇnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333.

Andres, H. P. (2012). Technology-mediated collaboration, shared mental model and task performance. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 24(1), 64–81.

761

Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of cultural intelligence. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Antonakis, J., Bastardoz, N., Jacquart, P., & Shamir, B. (2016). Charisma: An ill-defined and ill-measured gift. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 293–319.

Antonakis, J., Fenley, M., & Liechti, S. (2011). Can charisma be taught? Tests of two interventions. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(3), 374–396.

Antonakis, J., Fenley, M., & Liechti, S. (2012). Learning charisma: Transform yourself into the person others want to follow. Harvard Business Review, 90(6), 127–130.

Antonakis, J., House, R. J., & Simonton, D. K. (2017). Can super smart leaders suffer from too much of a good thing? The curvilinear effect of intelligence on perceived leadership behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(7), 1003–1021.

Appelbaum, E., & Batt, R. (1994). The new American workplace: Transforming work systems in the United States. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

Argyris, C. (1998). Empowerment: The emperor’s new clothes. Harvard Business Review, 76(3), 98–105.

Ariely, D., Tung Au, W., Bender, R. H., Budescu, D. V., Dietz, C. B., Gu, H., … Zauberman, G. (2000). The effects of averaging subjective probability estimates between and

762

within judges. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6(2), 130–147.

Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63(7), 602.

Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J. (1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(4), 363– 377.

Arreola, N., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2016). The effect of problem construction creativity on solution creativity across multiple everyday problems. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10(3), 287–295.

Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193(5), 31–35.

Askay, D. A., Blanchard, A., & Stewart, J. (2013). Managing entitativity through social media. In T. Bondarouk & M. R. Olivas-Luján (Eds.), Social media in human resources management (pp. 143–165). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Au, W. T., & Kwong, J. Y. (2004). Measurements and effects of social-value orientation in social dilemmas. In R. Suleiman, D. V. Budescu, I. Fischer, & D. M. Messick (Eds.), Contemporary psychological research on social dilemmas (pp. 71–98). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

763

Aube, C., & Rousseau, V. (2005). Team goal commitment and team effectiveness: The role of task interdependence and supportive behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9(3), 189–204.

Aubert, B. A., & Kelsey, B. L. (2003). Further understanding of trust and performance in virtual teams. Small Group Research, 34(5), 575–618.

Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Ayoko, O. B., Callan, V. J., & Härtel, C. E. (2008). The influence of team emotional intelligence climate on conflict and team members’ reactions to conflict. Small Group Research, 39(2), 121–149.

Ayoko, O. B., Konrad, A. M., & Boyle, M. V. (2012). Online work: Managing conflict and emotions for performance in virtual teams. European Management Journal, 30(2), 156– 174.

Ayub, N., & Jehn, K. A. (2014). When diversity helps performance: Effects of diversity on conflict and performance in workgroups. International Journal of Conflict Management, 25(2), 189–212.

Bach, G. R., & Goldberg, H. (1974). Creative aggression: The art of assertive living. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Bachrach, D. G., Lewis, K., Kim, Y., Patel, P. C., Campion, M. C., & Thatcher, S. (2019). Transactive memory systems in

764

context: A meta-analytic examination of contextual factors in transactive memory systems development and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(3), 464– 493.

Baddeley, A. D., & Longman, D. (1978). The influence of length and frequency of training session on the rate of learning to type. Ergonomics, 21(8), 627–635.

Badie, D. (2010). Groupthink, Iraq, and the war on terror: Explaining US policy shift toward Iraq. Foreign Policy Analysis, 6(4), 277–296.

Badura, K. L., Grijalva, E., Newman, D. A., Yan, T. T., & Jeon, G. (2018). Gender and leadership emergence: A meta- analysis and explanatory model. Personnel Psychology, 71(3), 335–367.

Baer, J. M. (1988). Long-term effects of creativity training with middle school students. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 8(2), 183–193.

Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 24(1), 45–68.

Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 63-105.

765

Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis; a method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison- Wesley.

Bales, R. F., & Slater, P. E. (1955). Role differentiation in small decision-making groups. In T. Parsons & R. F. Bales (Eds.), Family, socialization and interaction process (pp. 259–306). Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

Balliet, D., Li, N. P., Macfarlan, S. J., & Van Vugt, M. (2011). Sex differences in cooperation: A meta-analytic review of social dilemmas. Psychological Bulletin, 137(6), 881–909.

Balliet, D., Mulder, L. B., & Van Lange, P. A. (2011). Reward, punishment, and cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 594–615.

Balliet, D., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2013). Trust, conflict, and cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139(5), 1090–1112.

Baltes, B. B., Dickson, M. W., Sherman, M. P., Bauer, C. C., & LaGanke, J. S. (2002). Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(1), 156–179.

Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., & Warren, J. E. (2009). Predictors of the emergence of transformational leadership in virtual decision teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 651–663.

766

Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.

Barczak, G., Lassk, F., & Mulki, J. (2010). Antecedents of team creativity: An examination of team emotional intelligence, team trust and collaborative culture. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(4), 332–345.

Barley, W. C., & Weickum, N. R. (2017). The work gap: A structured review of collaborative teamwork research from 2005 to 2015. Annals of the International Communication Association, 41(2), 136–167.

Barnes, C. M., Hollenbeck, J. R., Jundt, D. K., DeRue, D. S., & Harmon, S. J. (2011). Mixing individual incentives and group incentives: Best of both worlds or social dilemma? Journal of Management, 37(6), 1611–1635.

Barnier, A. J., Sutton, J., Harris, C. B., & Wilson, R. A. (2008). A conceptual and empirical framework for the social distribution of cognition: The case of memory. Cognitive Systems Research, 9(1–2), 33–51.

Barnlund, D. C. (1959). A comparative study of individual, majority, and group judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(1), 55–60.

Barnlund, D. C. (1970). A transactional model of communication. In K. Sereno & C. Mortensen (Eds.), Foundations of communication theory (pp. 83–102). New York, NY: Harper & Row.

767

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work- team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 377–391.

Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. (1997). Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 62–78.

Barsade, S. G., & O’Neill, O. A. (2014). What’s love got to do with it? A longitudinal study of the culture of companionate love and employee and client outcomes in a long-term care setting. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(4), 551–598.

Barton, M. A., & Bunderson, J. S. (2014). Assessing member expertise in groups: An expertise dependence perspective. Organizational Psychology Review, 4(3), 228–257.

Baruah, J., & Paulus, P. B. (2008). Effects of training on idea generation in groups. Small Group Research, 39(5), 523 –541.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bassett-Jones, N. (2005). The paradox of diversity management, creativity and innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 169–175.

Baumann, M. R., & Bonner, B. L. (2013). Member awareness of expertise, information sharing, information weighting, and

768

group decision making. Small Group Research, 44(5), 532– 562.

Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self- consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 610.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.

Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. A. (2013). Judgment in managerial decision making (8th ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 989–1004.

Becker, J. A., Halbesleben, J. R., & Dan O’Hair, H. (2005). Defensive communication and burnout in the workplace: The mediating role of leader–member exchange. Communication Research Reports, 22(2), 143–150.

Beckman, S. L., & Barry, M. (2007). Innovation as a learning process: Embedding design thinking. California Management Review, 50(1), 25–56.

Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Conlon, D. E., Humphrey, S. E., Moon, H., & Ilgen, D. R. (2009). Cutthroat cooperation:

769

The effects of team role decisions on adaptation to alternative reward structures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 131–142.

Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Moon, H., Conlon, D. E., & Ilgen, D. R. (2003). Cooperation, competition, and team performance: Toward a contingency approach. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 572–590.

Behfar, K. J., Mannix, E. A., Peterson, R. S., & Trochim, W. M. (2011). Conflict in small groups: The meaning and consequences of process conflict. Small Group Research, 42(2), 127–176.

Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. (2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 170–188.

Belbin, R. M. (1981). Team roles at work (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Bell, S. T., Brown, S. G., Colaneri, A., & Outland, N. (2018). Team composition and the ABCs of teamwork. American Psychologist, 73(4), 349–362.

Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., Lukasik, M. A., Belau, L., & Briggs, A. L. (2011). Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 37(3), 709–743.

770

Bendersky, C., & Shah, N. P. (2013). The downfall of extraverts and rise of neurotics: The dynamic process of status allocation in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 387–406.

Bergman, J. Z., Rentsch, J. R., Small, E. E., Davenport, S. W., & Bergman, S. M. (2012). The shared leadership process in decision-making teams. The Journal of Social Psychology, 152(1), 17–42.

Bernstein, E., Bunch, J., Canner, N., & Lee, M. (2016). Beyond the holacracy hype. Harvard Business Review, 94(7), 38–49.

Bessant, J., Öberg, C., & Trifilova, A. (2014). Framing problems in radical innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(8), 1284–1292.

Best, M., & Neuhauser, D. (2004). Ignaz Semmelweis and the birth of infection control. BMJ Quality & Safety, 13(3), 233–234.

Bezrukova, K., Spell, C. S., Perry, J. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2016). A meta-analytical integration of over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation. Psychological Bulletin, 142(11), 1227–1274.

Blazovich, J. L. (2013). Team identity and performance-based compensation effects on performance. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 19(3/4), 153–184.

771

Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(3), 305–337.

Bloor, G., & Dawson, P. (1994). Understanding professional culture in organizational context. Organization Studies, 15(2), 275–295.

Bonabeau, E. (2009). Decisions 2.0: The power of collective intelligence. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(2), 44–52.

Bonaccio, S., & Dalal, R. S. (2006). Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 127–151.

Bond, R. (2005). Group size and conformity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8(4), 331–354.

Borison, A., & Hamm, G. (2010). Prediction markets: A new tool for strategic decision making. California Management Review, 52(4), 125–141.

Bozanta, A., Kutlu, B., Nowlan, N., & Shirmohammadi, S. (2016). Effects of serious games on perceived team cohesiveness in a multi-user virtual environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 380–388.

Bradley, B. H., Anderson, H. J., Baur, J. E., & Klotz, A. C. (2015). When conflict helps: Integrating evidence for

772

beneficial conflict in groups and teams under three perspectives. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 19(4), 243–272.

Bradley, B. H., Baur, J. E., Banford, C. G., & Postlethwaite, B. E. (2013). Team players and collective performance: How agreeableness affects team performance over time. Small Group Research, 44(6), 680–711.

Bradley, B. H., Postlethwaite, B. E., Klotz, A. C., Hamdani, M. R., & Brown, K. G. (2012). Reaping the benefits of task conflict in teams: The critical role of team psychological safety climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 151– 158.

Brahm, T., & Kunze, F. (2012). The role of trust climate in virtual teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(6), 595 –614.

Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Bresciani, S. (2019). Visual design thinking: A collaborative dimensions framework to profile visualisations. Design Studies, 63, 92–124.

Brescoll, V. L. (2012). Who takes the floor and why: Gender, power, and volubility in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(4), 622–641.

773

Brett, J., & Thompson, L. (2016). Negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, 68–79.

Breuer, C., Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2016). Does trust matter more in virtual teams? A meta-analysis of trust and team effectiveness considering virtuality and documentation as moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1151 –1177.

Brewer, P., & Venaik, S. (2014). The ecological fallacy in national culture research. Organization Studies, 35(7), 1063–1086.

Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 279–307.

Brightman, H. J. (1978). Differences in ill-structured problem solving along the organizational hierarchy. Decision Sciences, 9(1), 1–18.

Brodbeck, F. C., Kerschreiter, R., Mojzisch, A., & Schulz- Hardt, S. (2007). Group decision making under conditions of distributed knowledge: The information asymmetries model. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 459–479.

Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92.

Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.

774

Brunner, B. R. (2008). Listening, communication & trust: Practitioners’ perspectives of business/organizational relationships. International Journal of Listening, 22(1), 73–82.

Buehler, R., & Griffin, D. (2015). The planning fallacy: When plans lead to optimistic forecasts. In M. D. Mumford & M. Frese (Eds.), The psychology of planning in organizations (pp. 47–73). New York, NY: Routledge.

Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the” planning fallacy”: Why people underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 366–381.

Burke, C. S., Priest, H. A., Wooten, S. R., DiazGranados, D., & Salas, E. (2008). Understanding the cognitive processes in adaptive multicultural teams: A framework. In E. Salas, G. Goodwin, & C. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations (pp. 209–241). New York, NY: Routledge.

Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Pierce, L., & Kendall, D. (2006). Understanding team adaptation: A conceptual analysis and model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1189–1207.

Burleson, B. R. (2010). The nature of interpersonal communication: A message-centered approach. In C. R. Berger, M. E. Roloff, & D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen (Eds.), The handbook of communication science (pp. 145–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

775

Burnstein, E., & Vinokur, A. (1977). Persuasive argumentation and social comparison as determinants of attitude polarization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(4), 315–332.

Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (2006). The mind map book. London, UK: BBC Books.

Byron, K. (2008). Carrying too heavy a load? The communication and miscommunication of emotion by email. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 309–327.

Cagiltay, K., Bichelmeyer, B., & Akilli, G. K. (2015). Working with multicultural virtual teams: critical factors for facilitation, satisfaction and success. Smart Learning Environments, 2.

Callow, N., Smith, M. J., Hardy, L., Arthur, C. A., & Hardy, J. (2009). Measurement of transformational leadership and its relationship with team cohesion and performance level. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(4), 395–412.

Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67(6), 380–400.

Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46(4), 823–847.

776

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (1998). Team performance and training in complex environments: Recent findings from applied research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(3), 83–87.

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Rhodenizer, L., Salas, E., & Bowers, C. A. (1998). A framework for understanding pre-practice conditions and their impact on learning. Personnel Psychology, 51(2), 291–320.

Cannon, M. D., & Witherspoon, R. (2005). Actionable feedback: Unlocking the power of learning and performance improvement. Academy of Management Perspectives, 19(2), 120 –134.

Cardon, P. W., & Dai, Y. (2014). Mobile phone use in meetings among Chinese professionals: Perspectives on multicommunication and civility. Global Advances in Business Communication, 3(1).

Cardon, P. W., & Marshall, B. (2015). The hype and reality of social media use for work collaboration and team communication. International Journal of Business Communication, 52(3), 273–293.

Carless, S. A., & De Paola, C. (2000). The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small Group Research, 31(1), 71– 88.

Carlgren, L., Rauth, I., & Elmquist, M. (2016). Framing design thinking: The concept in idea and enactment. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(1), 38–57.

777

Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568.

Carnevale, P. J., & Pruitt, D. G. (1992). Negotiation and mediation. Annual Review of Psychology, 43(1), 531–582.

Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1217–1234.

Carte, T. A., Chidambaram, L., & Becker, A. (2006). Emergent leadership in self-managed virtual teams. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15(4), 323–343.

Carton, J. S., Kessler, E. A., & Pape, C. L. (1999). Nonverbal decoding skills and relationship well-being in adults. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 23(1), 91–100.

Caruso, H. M., & Woolley, A. W. (2008). Harnessing the power of emergent interdependence to promote diverse team collaboration. In K. Phillips (Ed.), Diversity and groups (Research on Managing Groups and Teams, Vol. 11) (pp. 245– 266). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Casciaro, T., & Lobo, M. S. (2005). Competent jerks, lovable fools, and the formation of social networks. Harvard Business Review, 83(6), 92–99.

778

Castore, C. H., & Murnighan, J. K. (1978). Determinants of support for group decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22(1), 75–92.

Chaffin, D., Heidl, R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Howe, M., Yu, A., Voorhees, C., & Calantone, R. (2017). The promise and perils of wearable sensors in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 20(1), 3–31.

Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Chang, H. H., Hung, C.-J., & Hsieh, H.-W. (2014). Virtual teams: cultural adaptation, communication quality, and interpersonal trust. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(11–12), 1318–1335.

Chao, G. T. (2007). Mentoring and organizational socialization. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 179–196). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Charan, R., & Useem, J. (2002). Why companies fail. Fortune, 145(11), 50–62.

Chen, C. X., Williamson, M. G., & Zhou, F. H. (2012). Reward system design and group creativity: An experimental investigation. The Accounting Review, 87(6), 1885–1911.

Chen, J., Bamberger, P. A., Song, Y., & Vashdi, D. R. (2018). The effects of team reflexivity on psychological well-being

779

in manufacturing teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(4), 443.

Chen, M. J., & Ayoko, O. B. (2012). Conflict and trust: The mediating effects of emotional arousal and self-conscious emotions. International Journal of Conflict Management, 23(1), 19–56.

Chen, M. L., & Lin, C. P. (2013). Assessing the effects of cultural intelligence on team knowledge sharing from a socio-cognitive perspective. Human Resource Management, 52(5), 675–695.

Chen, X., & Li, S. (2005). Cross-national differences in cooperative decision-making in mixed-motive business contexts: The mediating effect of vertical and horizontal individualism. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(6), 622–636.

Chi, N. W., & Han, T. S. (2008). Exploring the linkages between formal ownership and psychological ownership for the organization: The mediating role of organizational justice. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(4), 691–711.

Choi, J. N., & Sy, T. (2010). Group-level organizational citizenship behavior: Effects of demographic faultlines and conflict in small work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(7), 1032–1054.

Chrobot-Mason, D., Ruderman, M. N., Weber, T. J., & Ernst, C. (2009). The challenge of leading on unstable ground:

780

Triggers that activate social identity faultlines. Human Relations, 62(11), 1763–1794.

Clarke, N. (2010). Developing emotional intelligence abilities through team-based learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(2), 119–138.

Cohen, B. P., & Zhou, X. (1991). Status processes in enduring work groups. American Sociological Review, 56(2), 179–188.

Cohen, M. A., Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, J. A., & Luong, A. (2011). Meeting design characteristics and attendee perceptions of staff/team meeting quality. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15(1), 90–104.

Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290.

Cole, R. E. (1989). Strategies for learning: Small-group activities in American, Japanese, and Swedish industry. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471–482.

Conroy, S. A., & Gupta, N. (2016). Team pay-for-performance: The devil is in the details. Group & Organization Management, 41(1), 32–65.

781

Costa, A. C., Fulmer, C. A., & Anderson, N. R. (2018). Trust in work teams: An integrative review, multilevel model, and future directions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(2), 169–184.

Côté, S., Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Miners, C. T. (2010). Emotional intelligence and leadership emergence in small groups. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 496–508.

Cottrill, K., Denise Lopez, P., & Hoffman, C. (2014). How authentic leadership and inclusion benefit organizations. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 33(3), 275–292.

Courtright, S. H., McCormick, B. W., Mistry, S., & Wang, J. (2017). Quality charters or quality members? A control theory perspective on team charters and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(10), 1462–1470.

Cowgill, B., & Zitzewitz, E. (2015). Corporate prediction markets: Evidence from Google, Ford, and Firm X. The Review of Economic Studies, 82(4), 1309–1341.

Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12(3), 346–371.

Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. (2007). Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 761– 773.

782

Crotty, S. K., & Brett, J. M. (2012). Fusing creativity: Cultural metacognition and teamwork in multicultural teams. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 5(2), 210– 234.

Crown, D. F., & Rosse, J. G. (1995). Yours, mine, and ours: Facilitating group productivity through the integration of individual and group goals. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64(2), 138–150.

Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631– 648.

Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., Kwan, V. S., Glick, P., Demoulin, S., Leyens, J. P., … Sleebos, E. (2009). Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some differences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(1), 1–33.

D’Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2016). A meta-analysis of different forms of shared leadership–team performance relations. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1964–1991.

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.

Dalenberg, S., Vogelaar, A. L., & Beersma, B. (2009). The effect of a team strategy discussion on military team performance. Military Psychology, 21(sup2), S31–S46.

783

Dalkey, N. C. (1969). The Delphi method: An experimental study of group opinion. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Dalton, J., & Kahute, T. (2016). Why empathy and customer closeness is crucial for design thinking. Design Management Review, 27(2), 20–27.

Das, T., & Teng, B.-S. (2004). The risk-based view of trust: A conceptual framework. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(1), 85–116.

Dastin, J. (2018, October 9). Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon- com-jobs-automation-insight/amazon-scraps-secret-ai- recruiting-tool-that-showed-bias-against-women- idUSKCN1MK08G

Davies, M. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter? Higher Education, 62(3), 279–301.

Davis, R. (2015). The doctor who championed hand-washing and briefly saved lives. NPR Morning Edition. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/health- shots/2015/01/12/375663920/the-doctor-who-championed-hand- washing-and-saved-women-s-lives

Davis, S. M. (1984). Managing corporate culture. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

784

Day, D. V., & Antonakis, J. (2017). Leadership: Past, present, and future. In J. Antonakis & D. V. Day (Eds.), The nature of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 857– 880.

de Bono, E. (1999). Six thinking hats. Boston, MA: Back Bay.

De Clercq, D., Thongpapanl, N., & Dimov, D. (2009). When good conflict gets better and bad conflict becomes worse: The role of social capital in the conflict–innovation relationship. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(3), 283–297.

De Cremer, D., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2001). Why prosocials exhibit greater cooperation than proselfs: The roles of social responsibility and reciprocity. European Journal of Personality, 15(S1), S5–S18.

De Dreu, C. K. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32(1), 83–107.

De Dreu, C. K. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 628–638.

785

De Dreu, C. K., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood–creativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(5), 739–756.

De Dreu, C. K., & Kret, M. E. (2016). Oxytocin conditions intergroup relations through upregulated in-group empathy, cooperation, conformity, and defense. Biological Psychiatry, 79(3), 165–173.

De Dreu, C. K., & Van Vianen, A. E. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), 309–328.

De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749.

De Dreu, C. K., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1191 –1201.

De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1134–1150.

De Jong, J. P., Curs¸eu, P. L., & Leenders, R. T. A. (2014). When do bad apples not spoil the barrel? Negative

786

relationships in teams, team performance, and buffering mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 514–522.

De Vreede, G.-J., Briggs, R. O., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2010). Exploring asynchronous brainstorming in large groups: A field comparison of serial and parallel subgroups. Human Factors, 52(2), 189–202.

De Wit, F. R., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390.

Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Dean, J. W., & Sharfman, M. P. (1996). Does decision process matter? A study of strategic decision-making effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 368–392.

DeChurch, L. A., Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Doty, D. (2013). Moving beyond relationship and task conflict: Toward a process-state perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(4), 559.

Delarue, A., Van Hootegem, G., Procter, S., & Burridge, M. (2008). Teamworking and organizational performance: A review of survey-based research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(2), 127–148.

Delbecq, A. L., Van De Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

787

DeMatteo, J. S., Eby, L. T., & Sundstrom, E. (1998). Team- based rewards: Current empirical evidence. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 141–183.

Deng, L., & Gibson, P. (2008). A qualitative evaluation on the role of cultural intelligence in cross-cultural leadership effectiveness. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(2), 181–197.

Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., & Valacich, J. S. (2008). Media, tasks, and communication processes: A theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 575–600.

Denny, B. T., & Ochsner, K. N. (2014). Behavioral effects of longitudinal training in cognitive reappraisal. Emotion, 14(2), 425–433.

DeRosa, D. M., Smith, C. L., & Hantula, D. A. (2007). The medium matters: Mining the long-promised merit of group interaction in creative idea generation tasks in a meta- analysis of the electronic group brainstorming literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1549–1581.

DeShon, R. P., Kozlowski, S. W., Schmidt, A. M., Milner, K. R., & Wiechmann, D. (2004). A multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1035–1056.

Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 461–488.

788

Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Deutsch, M. (2006). Cooperation and competition. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 23–40). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629– 636.

Devece, C., Ribeiro-Soriano, D. E., & Palacios-Marqués, D. (2019). Coopetition as the new trend in inter-firm alliances: Literature review and research patterns. Review of Managerial Science, 13(2), 207–226.

Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Philips, J. L., Dunford, B. B., & Melner, S. B. (1999). Teams in organizations: Prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 30(6), 678–711.

Dewulf, A., Gray, B., Putnam, L., Lewicki, R., Aarts, N., Bouwen, R., & Van Woerkum, C. (2009). Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research: A meta-paradigmatic perspective. Human Relations, 62(2), 155–193.

Di Salvo, V. S., Nikkel, E., & Monroe, C. (1989). Theory and practice: A field investigation and identification of group

789

members’ perceptions of problems facing natural work groups. Small Group Behavior, 20(4), 551–567.

Dibble, R., & Gibson, C. (2013). Collaboration for the common good: An examination of challenges and adjustment processes in multicultural collaborations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(6), 764–790.

Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497– 509.

Donnellon, A. (1996). Team talk: The power of language in team dynamics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Donnelly, K., & Twenge, J. M. (2017). Masculine and feminine traits on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory, 1993–2012: A cross- temporal meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 76(9–10), 556–565.

Doorley, S., Holcomb, S., Klebahn, P., Segovia, K., & Utley, J. (2018). Design Thinking Bootleg: Stanford University d.school.

Dotan-Eliaz, O., Sommer, K. L., & Rubin, Y. S. (2009). Multilingual groups: Effects of linguistic ostracism on felt rejection and anger, coworker attraction, perceived team potency, and creative performance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31(4), 363–375.

790

Douglas, C., & Gardner, W. L. (2004). Transition to self- directed work teams: Implications of transition time and self-monitoring for managers’ use of influence tactics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 47–65.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2010). Intergroup bias. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1084–1121). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Drach-Zahavy, A. (2004). Exploring team support: The role of team’s design, values, and leader’s support. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8(4), 235–252.

Driskell, J. E., Radtke, P. H., & Salas, E. (2003). Virtual teams: Effects of technological mediation on team performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7(4), 297–323.

Driskell, J. E., Salas, E., & Driskell, T. (2018). Foundations of teamwork and collaboration. American Psychologist, 73(4), 334.

Driskell, T., Driskell, J. E., Burke, C. S., & Salas, E. (2017). Team roles: A review and integration. Small Group Research, 48(4), 482–511.

Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46(4), 435–457.

791

Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. (2001). Building the emotional intelligence of groups. Harvard Business Review, 79(3), 80 –91.

Duarte, D. L., & Snyder, N. T. (2006). Mastering virtual teams: Strategies, tools, and techniques that succeed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dubé, L., & Robey, D. (2008). Surviving the paradoxes of virtual teamwork. Information Systems Journal, 19(1), 3– 30.

Dubrin, J. (2000). Leadership. London, UK: Houghton Mifflin.

Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer- mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Human- Computer Interaction, 6(2), 119–146.

Duehr, E. E., & Bono, J. E. (2006). Men, women, and managers: Are stereotypes finally changing? Personnel Psychology, 59(4), 815–846.

Duhigg, C. (2016, February 25). What Google learned from its quest to build the perfect team. The New York Times Magazine.

Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader–member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715–1759.

792

Dulebohn, J. H., & Hoch, J. E. (2017). Virtual teams in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 27(4), 569 –574.

Dumas, T. L., Rothbard, N. P., & Phillips, K. W. (2008). Self-disclosure: Beneficial for cohesion in demographically diverse work groups? Diversity and Groups (Research on Managing Groups and Teams, Vol. 11) (pp. 143–166). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Dyer, W. G., Dyer, W. G., & Dyer, J. H. (2007). Team building: Proven strategies for improving team performance (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.

Earley, P. C. (1999). Playing follow the leader: Status- determining traits in relation to collective efficacy across cultures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80(3), 192–212.

Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Earley, P. C., & Gibson, C. B. (2002). Multinational work teams: A new perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team

793

functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 26–49.

Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2005). Managing diversity by creating team identity. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 58(3), 371–392.

Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Strategies for learning from failure. Harvard Business Review, 89(4), 48–55.

Edmondson, A. C. (2012). Teaming: How organizations learn, innovate, and compete in the knowledge economy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 685–716.

Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 23–43.

Edmondson, A. C., & Nembhard, I. M. (2009). Product development and learning in project teams: The challenges are the benefits. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(2), 123–138.

794

Edwards, R., & Hamilton, M. A. (2004). You need to understand my gender role: An empirical test of Tannen’s model of gender and communication. Sex Roles, 50(7–8), 491–504.

Ellis, S., Carette, B., Anseel, F., & Lievens, F. (2014). Systematic reflection: Implications for learning from failures and successes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 67–72.

Ellison, N. B., Gibbs, J. L., & Weber, M. S. (2015). The use of enterprise social network sites for knowledge sharing in distributed organizations: The role of organizational affordances. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(1), 103– 123.

Ely, R. J., & Meyerson, D. E. (2010). An organizational approach to undoing gender: The unlikely case of offshore oil platforms. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 3– 34.

Emich, K. J. (2014). Who’s bringing the donuts: The role of affective patterns in group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124(2), 122–132.

Ensari, N., Riggio, R. E., Christian, J., & Carslaw, G. (2011). Who emerges as a leader? Meta-analyses of individual differences as predictors of leadership emergence. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(4), 532–536.

Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the

795

performance of startups. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 217–231.

Eppler, M. J., & Mengis, J. (2004). The concept of information overload: A review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. The Information Society, 20(5), 325– 344.

Erez, A., Lepine, J. A., & Elms, H. (2002). Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on the functioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams: A quasi- experiment. Personnel Psychology, 55(4), 929–948.

Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: From the micro level of the individual to the macro level of a global culture. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(4), 583–598.

Erez, M., & Somech, A. (1996). Is group productivity loss the rule or the exception? Effects of culture and group-based motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1513– 1537.

Espinosa, J. A., Cummings, J. N., & Pickering, C. (2011). Time separation, coordination, and performance in technical teams. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(1), 91–103.

Fairchild, J., & Hunter, S. T. (2014). “We’ve got creative differences”: The effects of task conflict and participative safety on team creative performance. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 48(1), 64–87.

796

Fairhurst, G. T. (2010). The power of framing: Creating the language of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Falbe, C. M., & Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences for managers of using single influence tactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 638–652.

Falcone, P. (2007). Days of contemplation. HR Magazine, 52(2), 107–111.

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.

Fang, F. C., & Casadevall, A. (2015). Competitive science: Is competition ruining science? Infection and Immunity, 83(4), 1229–1233.

Farh, C. I., Seo, M., & Tesluk, P. E. (2012). Emotional intelligence, teamwork effectiveness, and job performance: The moderating role of job context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 890–900.

Farh, J., Lee, C., & Farh, C. I. (2010). Task conflict and team creativity: A question of how much and when. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1173–1180.

Feitosa, J., Grossman, R., & Salazar, M. (2018). Debunking key assumptions about teams: The role of culture. American Psychologist, 73(4), 376.

797

Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 47–53.

Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., & Byington, E. (2006). How, when, and why bad apples spoil the barrel: Negative group members and dysfunctional groups. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 175–222.

Ferguson, A. J., & Peterson, R. S. (2015). Sinking slowly: Diversity in propensity to trust predicts downward trust spirals in small groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1012–1024.

Ferrazzi, K. (2014). Getting virtual teams right. Harvard Business Review, 92(12), 120–123.

Ferris, W. P. (2009). Demonstrating the challenges of behaving with emotional intelligence in a team setting: An on-line/on-ground experiential exercise. Organization Management Journal, 6(1), 23–38.

Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57(5), 271–282.

Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1963). Social pressures in informal groups; a study of human factors in housing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 149–190). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.

798

Fine, G. A. (2012). Tiny publics: A theory of group action and culture. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Fiore, S. M., & Schooler, J. W. (2004). Process mapping and shared cognition: Teamwork and the development of shared problem models. In E. Salas & S. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (pp. 133–152). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Fisher, B. A. (1970). Decision emergence: Phases in group decision-making. Communications Monographs, 37(1), 53–66.

Fisher, B. A. (1980). Small group decision making: communicating and the group process (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Fisher, D. M. (2014). Distinguishing between taskwork and teamwork planning in teams: Relations with coordination and interpersonal processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 423–436.

Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 357 –411). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

799

Fiske, S. T., & Berdahl, J. (2007). Social power. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 678–692). New York, NY: Guilford.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902.

Flanagin, A. J., Tiyaamornwong, V., O’Connor, J., & Seibold, D. R. (2002). Computer-mediated group work: The interaction of sex and anonymity. Communication Research, 29(1), 66– 93.

Fleming, L., Mingo, S., & Chen, D. (2007). Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 443–475.

Fletcher, T. D., Major, D. A., & Davis, D. D. (2008). The interactive relationship of competitive climate and trait competitiveness with workplace attitudes, stress, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(7), 899 –922.

Flostrand, A. (2017). Finding the future: Crowdsourcing versus the Delphi technique. Business Horizons, 60(2), 229 –236.

Flynn, F. J., Chatman, J. A., & Spataro, S. E. (2001). Getting to know you: The influence of personality on impressions and performance of demographically different

800

people in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3), 414–442.

Ford, R. C., & Fottler, M. D. (1995). Empowerment: A matter of degree. Academy of Management Perspectives, 9(3), 21– 29.

Forsyth, D. R. (2018). Group dynamics (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Forsyth, D. R., & Kelley, K. N. (1996). Heuristic-based biases in estimations of personal contributions to collective endeavors What’s social about social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small groups (pp. 106–123). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Franz, R. S. (1998). Task interdependence and personal power in teams. Small Group Research, 29(2), 226–253.

Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta- analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165.

French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Froyd, J. E., Wankat, P. C., & Smith, K. A. (2012). Five major shifts in 100 years of engineering education. Proceedings of the IEEE, 100, 1344–1360.

801

Furtner, M. R., Maran, T., & Rauthmann, J. F. (2017). Dark leadership: The role of leaders’ dark triad personality traits. In M. G. Clark & C. W. Gruber (Eds.), Leader development deconstructed (pp. 75–99). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Galinsky, A. D., Hall, E. V., & Cuddy, A. J. (2013). Gendered races: Implications for interracial marriage, leadership selection, and athletic participation. Psychological Science, 24(4), 498–506.

Gallupe, R. B., Bastianutti, L. M., & Cooper, W. H. (1991). Unblocking brainstorms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1), 137–142.

Gardner, H. K. (2012). Coming through when it matters most. Harvard Business Review, 90(4), 82–91.

Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., Raver, J. L., & Schneider, B. (2007). Discrimination in organizations: An organizational- level systems perspective. In R. Dipbove & A. Collella (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The psychological and organizational bases. Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.

Gerhart, B., Rynes, S. L., & Fulmer, I. S. (2009). Pay and performance: Individuals, groups, and executives. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 251–315.

Gersick, C. J. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9–41.

802

Getzels, J. W. (1982). The problem of the problem. In H. P. M. (Ed.), Question framing and response consistency. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gibb, J. R. (1961). Defensive communication. Journal of Communication, 11(3), 141–148.

Gibbs, J. L., Sivunen, A., & Boyraz, M. (2017). Investigating the impacts of team type and design on virtual team processes. Human Resource Management Review, 27(4), 590– 603.

Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 451–495.

Gibson, C. B., Huang, L., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2014). Where global and virtual meet: The value of examining the intersection of these elements in twenty- first-century teams. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 217–244.

Gibson, C. B., & McDaniel, D. M. (2010). Moving beyond conventional wisdom: Advancements in cross-cultural theories of leadership, conflict, and teams. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 450–462.

Gibson, C. B., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E. (2001). Metaphors and meaning: An intercultural analysis of the concept of teamwork. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 274– 303.

803

Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1997). The impact of information on small group choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 132–140.

Gilson, L. L., Maynard, M. T., Jones Young, N. C., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015). Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1313–1337.

Gladwell, M. (Producer). (2016, June 30). The big man can’t shoot. Revisionist History. Retrieved from http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/03-the-big-man-cant- shoot

Goldstein, I. L., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Training in organizations (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493 –503.

Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119.

Goltz, S. M., Hietapelto, A. B., Reinsch, R. W., & Tyrell, S. K. (2008). Teaching teamwork and problem solving concurrently. Journal of Management Education, 32(5), 541– 562.

804

Gomez, C., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). The impact of collectivism and in-group/out-group membership on the evaluation generosity of team members. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1097–1106.

Goncalo, J. A., Polman, E., & Maslach, C. (2010). Can confidence come too soon? Collective efficacy, conflict and group performance over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(1), 13–24.

Goncalo, J. A., & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism– collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(1), 96–109.

Gonçalves, M., Cardoso, C., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2014). What inspires designers? Preferences on inspirational approaches during idea generation. Design Studies, 35(1), 29–53.

Gould, R. V. (2003). Collision of wills: How ambiguity about social rank breeds conflict. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.

Gray, D. (2017). Updated empathy map canvas. Retrieved from https://medium.com/the-xplane-collection/updated-empathy- map-canvas-46df22df3c8a

805

Green, P., Gino, F., & Staats, B. R. (2017). Shopping for confirmation: How disconfirming feedback shapes social networks. Working Paper 18-028. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.

Greenberg, J. (2011). Behavior in organizations (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Prentice Hall.

Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. (1997). Behavior in organizations: Understanding and managing the human side of work (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Greengross, G., & Miller, G. F. (2008). Dissing oneself versus dissing rivals: Effects of status, personality, and sex on the short-term and long-term attractiveness of self- deprecating and other-deprecating humor. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(3), 393–408.

Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4–27.

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480.

Greenwald, A. G., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2014). With malice toward none and charity for some: Ingroup favoritism enables discrimination. American Psychologist, 69(7), 669– 684.

806

Greer, L. L. (2012). Group cohesion: Then and now. Small Group Research, 43(6), 655–661.

Greer, L. L., Caruso, H. M., & Jehn, K. A. (2011). The bigger they are, the harder they fall: Linking team power, team conflict, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(1), 116–128.

Greer, L. L., & Dannals, J. E. (2017). Conflict in teams. In E. Salas, R. Rico, & J. Passmore (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of team working and collaborative processes (pp. 317–344). Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2007). The pivotal role of negative affect in understanding the effects of process conflict on group performance. In E. Mannix, M. Neale, & C. Anderson (Eds.), Affect and groups (Research on Managing Groups and Teams, Vol. 10) (pp. 23–43). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2008). Conflict transformation: A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between different types of intragroup conflict and the moderating role of conflict resolution. Small Group Research, 39(3), 278–302.

Greer, L. L., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2010). Equality versus differentiation: The effects of power dispersion on group interaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1032– 1044.

807

Gregersen, H. (2018). Better brainstorming. Harvard Business Review, 96(2), 64–71.

Griffith, J. A., Connelly, S., & Thiel, C. E. (2014). Emotion regulation and intragroup conflict: When more distracted minds prevail. International Journal of Conflict Management, 25(2), 148–170.

Grint, K. (2010). Leadership: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299.

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362.

Gross, S. E. (1995). Compensation for teams: How to design and implement team-based reward programs. New York, NY: Amacom.

Groves, K. S., & Feyerherm, A. E. (2011). Leader cultural intelligence in context: Testing the moderating effects of team cultural diversity on leader and team performance. Group & Organization Management, 36(5), 535–566.

Groysberg, B., Lee, L.-E., & Nanda, A. (2008). Can they take it with them? The portability of star knowledge workers’ performance. Management Science, 54(7), 1213–1230.

808

Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1995). A meta- analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 26(4), 497–520.

Gündemir, S., Homan, A. C., De Dreu, C. K., & Van Vugt, M. (2014). Think leader, think white? Capturing and weakening an implicit pro-white leadership bias. PloS One, 9(1), e83915.

Guthrie, J. P., & Hollensbe, E. C. (2004). Group incentives and performance: A study of spontaneous goal setting, goal choice and commitment. Journal of Management, 30(2), 263– 284.

Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47(1), 307– 338.

Hackett, D., & Martin, C. L. (1993). Facilitation skills for team leaders. Menlo Park, CA: Crisp Learning.

Hackman, J. R. (1986). The psychology of self-management in organizations. In M. Pallak & R. Perloff (Eds.), Psychology & work (pp. 86–136). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

809

Hackman, J. R. (1990a). Creating more effective work groups in organizations. In J. R. Hackman (Ed.), Groups that work (and those that don’t) (pp. 479–504). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hackman, J. R. (1990b). Work teams in organizations: An orienting framework. In J. R. Hackman (Ed.), Groups that work (and those that don’t) (pp. 1–14). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. Dunnette & L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

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

Hackman, J. R. (2012). From causes to conditions in group research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), 428– 444.

Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 45 –99). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

810

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

Hackman, J. R., Walton, R. E., & Goodman, P. (1986). Leading groups in organizations. In P. Goodman (Ed.), Designing effective work groups (pp. 72–119). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Haines, V. Y., & Taggar, S. (2006). Antecedents of team reward attitude. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10(3), 194–205.

Hambley, L. A., O’Neill, T. A., & Kline, T. J. (2007). Virtual team leadership: The effects of leadership style and communication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 1–20.

Hare, A. P. (1982). Creativity in small groups. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17(4), 484– 500.

Harinck, F., & De Dreu, C. K. (2004). Negotiating interests or values and reaching integrative agreements: The importance of time pressure and temporary impasses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(5), 595–611.

811

Harkins, S. G., & Jackson, J. M. (1985). The role of evaluation in eliminating social loafing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11(4), 457–465.

Harrison, D. A., & Humphrey, S. E. (2010). Designing for diversity or diversity for design? Tasks, interdependence, and within-unit differences at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2/3), 328–337.

Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199–1228.

Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96–107.

Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045.

Harrison, S. H., & Rouse, E. D. (2015). An inductive study of feedback interactions over the course of creative projects. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 375–404.

Harvey, J. B. (1988). The Abilene paradox and other meditations on management. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

812

Harvey, S. (2014). Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 324–343.

Haselhuhn, M. P., Kennedy, J. A., Kray, L. J., Van Zant, A. B., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2015). Gender differences in trust dynamics: Women trust more than men following a trust violation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 104–109.

Hastie, R., & Kameda, T. (2005). The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions. Psychological Review, 112(2), 494–508.

Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Emotional contagion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2(3), 96–100.

Hayes, N. (1997). Successful team management. London, UK: International Thomson Business Press.

He, H., Baruch, Y., & Lin, C. (2014). Modeling team knowledge sharing and team flexibility: The role of within-team competition. Human Relations, 67(8), 947–978.

Hedman-Phillips, E., & Barge, J. K. (2017). Facilitating team reflexivity about communication. Small Group Research, 48(3), 255–287.

Helper, S., Kleiner, M. M., & Wang, Y. (2010). Analyzing compensation methods in manufacturing: piece rates, time

813

rates, or gain-sharing? (Working Paper 16540). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Hempel, P. S., Zhang, Z.-X., & Han, Y. (2012). Team empowerment and the organizational context: Decentralization and the contrasting effects of formalization. Journal of Management, 38(2), 475–501.

Hemphill, J. K. (1961). Why people attempt to lead. In L. Petrullo & B. Bass (Eds.), Leadership and interpersonal behavior (pp. 201–215). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Henderson, L. S., Stackman, R. W., & Lindekilde, R. (2016). The centrality of communication norm alignment, role clarity, and trust in global project teams. International Journal of Project Management, 34(8), 1717–1730.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training & Development Journal, 23(5), 26–34.

Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15(1), 69–95.

Heslin, P. A. (2009). Better than brainstorming? Potential contextual boundary conditions to brainwriting for idea generation in organizations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(1), 129–145.

Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 575–604.

814

Hey, J., Linsey, J., Agogino, A. M., & Wood, K. L. (2008). Analogies and metaphors in creative design. International Journal of Engineering Education, 24(2), 283–294.

Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influence tactics and work outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 89–106.

Higgins, M. C., Weiner, J., & Young, L. (2012). Implementation teams: A new lever for organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), 366– 388.

Hill, G. W. (1982). Group versus individual performance: Are n + 1 heads better than one? Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 517–539.

Hill, N. S., & Bartol, K. M. (2016). Empowering leadership and effective collaboration in geographically dispersed teams. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 159–198.

Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003). Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization Science, 14(6), 615–632.

Hinds, P. J., & Cramton, C. D. (2013). Situated coworker familiarity: How site visits transform relationships among distributed workers. Organization Science, 25(3), 794–814.

Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects

815

of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16(3), 290–307.

Hinds, P. J., Neeley, T. B., & Cramton, C. D. (2014). Language as a lightning rod: Power contests, emotion regulation, and subgroup dynamics in global teams. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5), 536–561.

Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Nagao, D. H. (2008). Accentuation of information processes and biases in group judgments integrating base-rate and case-specific information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(1), 116–126.

Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 43–64.

Hirak, R., Peng, A. C., Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. M. (2012). Linking leader inclusiveness to work unit performance: The importance of psychological safety and learning from failures. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 107–117.

Hirschfeld, R. R., & Bernerth, J. B. (2008). Mental efficacy and physical efficacy at the team level: Inputs and outcomes among newly formed action teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1429–1437.

Hirschfeld, R. R., Jordan, M. H., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., & Armenakis, A. A. (2006). Becoming team players: Team members’ mastery of teamwork knowledge as a predictor of

816

team task proficiency and observed teamwork effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 467–474.

Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., … Stewart, A. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003–1028.

Hobman, E. V., Bordia, P., & Gallois, C. (2004). Perceived dissimilarity and work group involvement: The moderating effects of group openness to diversity. Group & Organization Management, 29(5), 560–587.

Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2014). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 390–403.

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hoever, I. J., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G. (2012). Fostering team creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity’s potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 982–996.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

817

Hofstede, G. (1998). Attitudes, values and organizational culture: Disentangling the concepts. Organization Studies, 19(3), 477–493.

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1).

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity. New York: New York University Press.

Hogg, M. A., Hohman, Z. P., & Rivera, J. E. (2008). Why do people join groups? Three motivational accounts from social psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(3), 1269–1280.

Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1985). Interpersonal attraction, social identification and psychological group formation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15(1), 51 –66.

Hollander, E. P., & Offermann, L. R. (1990). Power and leadership in organizations: Relationships in transition. American Psychologist, 45(2), 179–189.

Holtbrügge, D., Weldon, A., & Rogers, H. (2013). Cultural determinants of email communication styles. International

818

Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 13(1), 89–110.

Holton, E. F., Bates, R. A., & Ruona, W. E. (2000). Development of a generalized learning transfer system inventory. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(4), 333 –360.

Hornsey, M. J. (2008). Social identity theory and self- categorization theory: A historical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 204–222.

Hornsey, M. J., Robson, E., Smith, J., Esposo, S., & Sutton, R. M. (2008). Sugaring the pill: Assessing rhetorical strategies designed to minimize defensive reactions to group criticism. Human Communication Research, 34(1), 70– 98.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), 317–341.

Howell, J. M., Shea, C. M., & Higgins, C. A. (2005). Champions of product innovations: Defining, developing, and validating a measure of champion behavior. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(5), 641–661.

Huang, R., Kahai, S., & Jestice, R. (2010). The contingent effects of leadership on team collaboration in virtual

819

teams. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1098–1110.

Huckman, R., & Staats, B. (2013). The hidden benefits of keeping teams intact. Harvard Business Review, 91(12), 27– 20.

Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2011). Many cheers make light the work: How social support triggers process gains in teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(3), 185–204.

Hughes, A. M., Gregory, M. E., Joseph, D. L., Sonesh, S. C., Marlow, S. L., Lacerenza, C. N., … Salas, E. (2016). Saving lives: A meta-analysis of team training in healthcare. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(9), 1266– 1304.

Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128–1145.

Humphrey, S. E., & Aime, F. (2014). Team microdynamics: Toward an organizing approach to teamwork. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 443–503.

Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592.

Hyde, J. S. (2014). Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 373–398.

820

Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517 –543.

Ilies, R., Wagner, D. T., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Explaining affective linkages in teams: Individual differences in susceptibility to contagion and individualism-collectivism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1140–1148.

Imai, L., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). The culturally intelligent negotiator: The impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on negotiation sequences and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(2), 83–98.

Ivar do Sul, J. A., & Costa, M. F. (2014). The present and future of microplastic pollution in the marine environment. Environmental Pollution, 185, 352–364.

Jackson, S. E., & Joshi, A. (2011). Work team diversity. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 651–686). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(1), 16–78.

Jackson, S. M., Hillard, A. L., & Schneider, T. R. (2014). Using implicit bias training to improve attitudes toward

821

women in STEM. Social Psychology of Education, 17(3), 419– 438.

Jalonen, H. (2012). The uncertainty of innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Research, 4(1), 1–47.

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (1997). Knowledge worker team effectiveness: The role of autonomy, interdependence, team development, and contextual support variables. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 877–904.

Jarrahi, M. H. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human–AI symbiosis in organizational decision making. Business Horizons, 61(4), 577–586.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 29 –64.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791–815.

822

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282.

Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530–557.

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

Jehn, K. A., Chadwick, C., & Thatcher, S. M. (1997). To agree or not to agree: The effects of value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on workgroup outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 8(4), 287–305.

Jehn, K. A., Greer, L., Levine, S., & Szulanski, G. (2008). The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent states on group outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(6), 465–495.

Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–251.

Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity,

823

conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741–763.

Jehn, K. A., Rispens, S., Jonsen, K., & Greer, L. (2013). Conflict contagion: A temporal perspective on the development of conflict within teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 24(4), 352–373.

Jentsch, F., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2001). Assertiveness and team performance: More than “just say no.” In E. Salas, C. A. Bowers, & E. Edens (Eds.), Improving teamwork in organizations: Applications of resource management training (pp. 73–94). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Jiang, J., Chen, C., Dai, B., Shi, G., Ding, G., Liu, L., & Lu, C. (2015). Leader emergence through interpersonal neural synchronization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(14), 4274–4279.

Johnson, D. W. (2003). Social interdependence: interrelationships among theory, research, and practice. American Psychologist, 58(11), 934–945.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (1997). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

824

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). New developments in social interdependence theory. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 131(4), 285–358.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 15–29.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college what evidence is there that it works? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 30(4), 26–35.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Tjosvold, D. (2014). Constructive controversy: The value of intellectual opposition. In M. Deutsch, P. Coleman, & E. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice. (pp. 65–85). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Johnson, P., & Szamosi, L. T. (2019). HRM in changing organizational contexts. In D. G. Collings, G. T. Wood, & L. T. Szamosi (Eds.), Human resource ,anagement: A critical approach (2nd ed., pp. 27–48). New York, NY: Routledge.

Johnson, S. K., Bettenhausen, K., & Gibbons, E. (2009). Realities of working in virtual teams: Affective and attitudinal outcomes of using computer-mediated communication. Small Group Research, 40(6), 623–649.

Jones, E. E., & Kelly, J. R. (2007). Contributions to a group discussion and perceptions of leadership: Does quantity always count more than quality? Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11(1), 15–30.

825

Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 531–546.

Jones, K. P., Peddie, C. I., Gilrane, V. L., King, E. B., & Gray, A. L. (2016). Not so subtle: A meta-analytic investigation of the correlates of subtle and overt discrimination. Journal of Management, 42(6), 1588–1613.

Jones, S., & Moffett, R. (1999). Measurement and feedback systems for teams. In E. D. Sundstrom (Ed.), Supporting work team effectiveness (pp. 157–187). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2004). Managing emotions during team problem solving: Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution. Human Performance, 17(2), 195–218.

Joshi, A. (2014). By whom and when is women’s expertise recognized? The interactive effects of gender and education in science and engineering teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(2), 202–239.

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 855–875.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

826

Kalisch, B. J., Lee, H., & Rochman, M. (2010). Nursing staff teamwork and job satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Management, 18(8), 938–947.

Kalman, Y. M., & Gergle, D. (2014). Letter repetitions in computer-mediated communication: A unique link between spoken and online language. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 187–193.

Kang, S. K., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2015). Multiple identities in social perception and interaction: Challenges and opportunities. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 547–574.

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706.

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1997). The effects of group cohesiveness on social loafing and social compensation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1(2), 156– 168.

Karlinsky, N., & Stead, J. (2018). How a door became a desk, and a symbol of Amazon. Retrieved from https://blog.aboutamazon.com/working-at-amazon/how-a-door- became-a-desk-and-a-symbol-of-amazon

Katz, D., Maccoby, N., Gurin, G., & Floor, L. G. (1951). Productivity, supervision and morale among railroad workers. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

827

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2001). The discipline of teams. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2015). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kayes, D. (2005). The destructive pursuit of idealized goals. Organizational Dynamics, 34(4), 391–401.

Kayes, D. (2006). Destructive goal pursuit: The Mt. Everest Disaster. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kayser, T. A. (1990). Mining group gold: How to cash in on the collaborative brain power of a group. El Segundo, CA: Sherif.

Keith, N., & Frese, M. (2008). Effectiveness of error management training: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 59–69.

Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 6(6), 142–148.

Kelley, R. E. (2008). Rethinking followership. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 5–16). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2013). Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us all. New York,

828

NY: Crown Business.

Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. (2001). Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 99–130.

Kerr, N. L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social dilemma analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 819–828.

Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 78– 94.

Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623–655.

Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 769–783.

Kervyn, N., Fiske, S. T., & Yzerbyt, V. (2015). Forecasting the primary dimension of social perception. Social Psychology, 46(1), 36–45.

Keysar, B., & Henly, A. S. (2002). Speakers’ overestimation of their effectiveness. Psychological Science, 13(3), 207– 212.

Khatri, N. (2009). Consequences of power distance orientation in organisations. Vision, 13(1), 1–9.

829

Kidder, T. (1981). The soul of a new machine. New York, NY: Avon.

Kidwell, R. E., Mossholder, K. W., & Bennett, N. (1997). Cohesiveness and organizational citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis using work groups and individuals. Journal of Management, 23(6), 775–793.

Kilmann, R. H., & Saxton, M. J. (1983). The Kilmann-Saxton culture gap survey. Pittsburgh, PA: Organizational Design Consultants.

Kim, S., Song, H., & Valentine, M. (2018). Cross-disciplinary temporary teams in health care organizations: The role of partner variety and shared experience. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3176306 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3176306.

Kipnis, D. (1976). The powerholders. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S. M. (1982). Profiles of organizational influence strategies: Influencing your subordinates. San Diego, CA: University Associates.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., Swaffin-Smith, C., & Wilkinson, I. (1984). Patterns of managerial influence: Shotgun managers, tacticians, and bystanders. Organizational Dynamics, 12(3), 58–67.

Kirby, E., & Krone, K. (2002). “The policy exists but you can’t really use it”: Communication and the structuration

830

of work–family policies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30(1), 50–77.

Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58–74.

Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C. B., Tesluk, P. E., & McPherson, S. O. (2002). Five challenges to virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc. Academy of Management Perspectives, 16(3), 67–79.

Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2004). The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 175– 192.

Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (1997). The impact of cultural values on employee resistance to teams: Toward a model of globalized self-managing work team effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 22(3), 730–757.

Kirkman, B. L., Shapiro, D. L., Lu, S., & McGurrin, D. P. (2016). Culture and teams. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 137–142.

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1979). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Training and Development Journal, 33(6), 78–92.

Klein, C., Diaz Granados, D., Salas, E., Le, H., Burke, C. S., Lyons, R., & Goodwin, G. F. (2009). Does team building

831

work? Small Group Research, 40(2), 181–222.

Klein, J. A. (1984). Why supervisors resist employee involvement. Harvard Business Review, 84(5), 87–95.

Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20(2), 403– 437.

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta- analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.

Kniffin, K. M., & Hanks, A. S. (2018). The trade-offs of teamwork among STEM doctoral graduates. American Psychologist, 73(4), 420–432.

Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 616–642.

Koman, E. S., & Wolff, S. B. (2008). Emotional intelligence competencies in the team and team leader: A multi-level examination of the impact of emotional intelligence on team performance. Journal of Management Development, 27(1), 55– 75.

Konradt, U., Otte, K., Schippers, M. C., & Steenfatt, C. (2016). Reflexivity in teams: A review and new perspectives. The Journal of Psychology, 150(2), 153–174.

832

Korde, R., & Paulus, P. B. (2017). Alternating individual and group idea generation: Finding the elusive synergy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 177–190.

Kou, Y., & Gui, X. (2014). Playing with strangers: Understanding temporary teams in League of Legends. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the first ACM SIGCHI Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, Toronto, Canada.

Kozlowski, S. W., & Chao, G. T. (2018). Unpacking team process dynamics and emergent phenomena: Challenges, conceptual advances, and innovative methods. American Psychologist, 73(4), 576–592.

Kozlowski, S. W., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124.

Kozlowski, S. W., Mak, S., & Chao, G. T. (2016). Team-centric leadership: An integrative review. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 21–54.

Kratzer, J., Leenders, O. T. A., & Engelen, J. M. v. (2004). Stimulating the potential: Creative performance and communication in innovation teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(1), 63–71.

Kruger, J., Epley, N., Parker, J., & Ng, Z.-W. (2005). Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we communicate as well as we think? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 925–936.

833

Krumm, S., Terwiel, K., & Hertel, G. (2013). Challenges in norm formation and adherence. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12(1), 33–44.

Kuhn, T., & Poole, M. S. (2000). Do conflict management styles affect group decision making? Evidence from a longitudinal field study. Human Communication Research, 26(4), 558–590.

Kuwabara, K., Yu, S., Lee, A. J., & Galinsky, A. D. (2016). Status decreases dominance in the West but increases dominance in the East. Psychological Science, 27(2), 127– 137.

Lacerenza, C. N., Marlow, S. L., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (2018). Team development interventions: Evidence-based approaches for improving teamwork. American Psychologist, 73(4), 517–531.

LaFasto, F., & Larson, C. (2001). When teams work best: 6,000 team members and leaders tell what it takes to succeed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Lam, C. (2016). Improving technical communication group projects: An experimental study of media synchronicity theory training on communication outcomes. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 30(1), 85–112.

Langfred, C. W. (2000). Work-group design and autonomy: A field study of the interaction between task interdependence and group autonomy. Small Group Research, 31(1), 54–70.

834

Langfred, C. W. (2004). Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual autonomy in self- managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 385– 399.

Lapinski, M. K., & Rimal, R. N. (2005). An explication of social norms. Communication Theory, 15(2), 127–147.

Larrick, R. P., & Feiler, D. C. (2016). Expertise in decision making. In G. Keren & G. Wu (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (Vol. 2, pp. 696– 721). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Larrick, R. P., & Soll, J. B. (2006). Intuitions about combining opinions: Misappreciation of the averaging principle. Management Science, 52(1), 111–127.

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

Larson, J. R., Foster-Fishman, P. G., & Franz, T. M. (1998). Leadership style and the discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(5), 482–495.

Larson, J. R., Foster-Fishman, P. G., & Keys, C. B. (1994). Discussion of shared and unshared information in decision- making groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 446.

Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social

835

loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 822–832.

Lau, D. C., & Liden, R. C. (2008). Antecedents of coworker trust: Leaders’ blessings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1130–1138.

Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 325–340.

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

Laughlin, P. R., Hatch, E. C., Silver, J. S., & Boh, L. (2006). Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Effects of group size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 644–651.

Lawler, E. E. (1999). Creating effective pay systems for teams. In E. Sundstrom (Ed.), Supporting work team effectiveness (pp. 188–212). San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

Lawler, E. E. (2000). Rewarding excellence: Pay strategies for the new economy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, S., & Ledford, G. (1995). Creating high performance organizations: Practices and results of

836

employee involvement and TQM in Fortune 1000 companies. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lawler, E. J., & Yoon, J. (1996). Commitment in exchange relations: Test of a theory of relational cohesion. American Sociological Review, 61(1), 89–108.

Lazear, E. P. (1986). Salaries and piece rates. Journal of Business, 59(3), 405–431.

Leahey, E. (2016). From sole investigator to team scientist: Trends in the practice and study of research collaboration. Annual Review of Sociology, 42, 81–100.

Leaper, C., & Ayres, M. M. (2007). A meta-analytic review of gender variations in adults’ language use: Talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(4), 328–363.

Lee, C., Farh, J., & Chen, Z. (2011). Promoting group potency in project teams: The importance of group identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(8), 1147–1162.

Lee, C. S., Watson-Manheim, M. B., & Chudoba, K. M. (2014). Investigating the relationship between perceived risks in communication and ICT-enabled communicative behaviors. Information & Management, 51(6), 688–699.

Leonardi, P. M. (2014). Social media, knowledge sharing, and innovation: Toward a theory of communication visibility. Information Systems Research, 25(4), 796–816.

837

Leonardi, P. M. (2015). Ambient awareness and knowledge acquisition: Using social media to learn “who knows what” and “who knows whom.” MIS Quarterly, 39(4), 747–762.

Leung, K., Ang, S., & Tan, M. L. (2014). Intercultural competence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 489–519.

Levi, D., & Cadiz, D. (1998). Evaluating team work on student projects: The use of behaviorally anchored scales to evaluate student performance (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. TM29122). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.

Levi, D., & Lawn, M. (1993). The driving and restraining forces which affect technological innovation in organizations. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 4(2), 225–240.

Levi, D., & Rinzel, L. (1998). Employee attitudes toward various communications technologies when used for communicating about organizational change. In P. Vink, E. Koningsveld, & S. Dhondt (Eds.), Human factors in organizational design and management (pp. 483–488). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.

Levi, D., & Slem, C. (1995). Team work in research and development organizations: The characteristics of successful teams. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 16(1), 29–42.

Levi, D., & Slem, C. (1996). The relationship of concurrent engineering practices to different views of project

838

success. In O. Brown & H. Hendrick (Eds.), Human factors in organizational design and management (Vol. 5, pp. 25–30). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.

Levine, J. M. (1989). Reaction to opinion deviance in small groups. In P. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence: New perspectives (pp. 187–231). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Levine, J. M., & Choi, H. (2004). Impact of personnel turnover on team performance and cognition. In E. Salas & S. M. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance. (pp. 153–176). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Levine, J. M., & Kerr, N. L. (2007). Inclusion and exclusion: Implications for group processes. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 759–784). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Lewicki, R. J., & Brinsfield, C. (2017). Trust repair. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 287–313.

Lewicki, R. J., Polin, B., & Lount, R. B. (2016). An exploration of the structure of effective apologies. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 9(2), 177– 196.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York, NY: Harper.

839

Lewin, K., & Lippitt, R. (1938). An experimental approach to the study of autocracy and democracy: A preliminary note. Sociometry, 1(3/4), 292–300.

Lewis, K. (2004). Knowledge and performance in knowledge- worker teams: A longitudinal study of transactive memory systems. Management Science, 50(11), 1519–1533.

Li, A., Early, S. F., Mahrer, N. E., Klaristenfeld, J. L., & Gold, J. I. (2014). Group cohesion and organizational commitment: Protective factors for nurse residents’ job satisfaction, compassion fatigue, compassion satisfaction, and burnout. Journal of Professional Nursing, 30(1), 89– 99.

Li, C. R., Lin, C. J., Tien, Y. H., & Chen, C. M. (2017). A multilevel model of team cultural diversity and creativity: The role of climate for inclusion. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(2), 163–179.

Li, J., Meyer, B., Shemla, M., & Wegge, J. (2018). From being diverse to becoming diverse: A dynamic team diversity theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(8), 956– 970.

Li, N., Kirkman, B. L., & Porter, C. O. (2014). Toward a model of work team altruism. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 541–565.

Liao, C. (2017). Leadership in virtual teams: A multilevel perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 27(4), 648– 659.

840

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(2), 106–124.

Liao, H., Toya, K., Lepak, D. P., & Hong, Y. (2009). Do they see eye to eye? Management and employee perspectives of high-performance work systems and influence processes on service quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 371 –391.

Libby, T., & Thorne, L. (2009). The influence of incentive structure on group performance in assembly lines and teams. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 21(2), 57–72.

Liedtka, J. (2015). Perspective: Linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive bias reduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(6), 925–938.

Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Lingo, E. L., & O’Mahony, S. (2010). Nexus work: Brokerage on creative projects. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 47–81.

Little, A. C. (2014). Facial appearance and leader choice in different contexts: Evidence for task contingent selection based on implicit and learned face-behaviour/face-ability associations. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5), 865–874.

841

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35- year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.

London, M. (2014). The power of feedback: Giving, seeking, and using feedback for performance improvement. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lord, R. G. (1985). An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership and behavioral measurement in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 87–128.

Lorinkova, N. M., Pearsall, M. J., & Sims, H. P. (2013). Examining the differential longitudinal performance of directive versus empowering leadership in teams. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 573–596.

Lorsch, J. W. (1986). Managing culture: The invisible barrier to strategic change. California Management Review, 28(2), 95–109.

Lowry, P. B., Roberts, T. L., Romano, N. C., Cheney, P. D., & Hightower, R. T. (2006). The impact of group size and social presence on small-group communication: Does computer-mediated communication make a difference? Small Group Research, 37(6), 631–661.

842

Lu, L., Yuan, Y. C., & McLeod, P. L. (2012). Twenty-five years of hidden profiles in group decision making: A meta- analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), 54–75.

Lumsden, G., & Lumsden, D. (1997). Communicating in groups and teams. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Luthans, F., & Fox, M. L. (1989). Update on skill-based pay. Compensation & Benefits Review, 21(4), 62–67.

Lyons, S., & Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S139–S157.

MacBryde, J., & Mendibil, K. (2003). Designing performance measurement systems for teams: theory and practice. Management Decision, 41(8), 722–733.

Mackworth, N. H. (1965). Originality. American Psychologist, 20(1), 51–66.

Macy, B. A., & Izumi, H. (1993). Organizational change, design, and work innovation: A meta-analysis of 131 North American field studies—1961–1991. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 7(1993), 235–313.

Magni, M., Ahuja, M. K., & Maruping, L. M. (2018). Distant but fair: Intra-team justice climate and performance in dispersed teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 35(4), 1031–1059.

843

Magpili, N. C., & Pazos, P. (2018). Self-managing team performance: A systematic review of multilevel input factors. Small Group Research, 49(1), 3–33.

Mainemelis, C. (2010). Stealing fire: Creative deviance in the evolution of new ideas. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 558–578.

Malhotra, A., & Majchrzak, A. (2014). Enhancing performance of geographically distributed teams through targeted use of information and communication technologies. Human Relations, 67(4), 389–411.

Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Rosen, B. (2007). Leading virtual teams. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(1), 60–70.

Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2002). The effects of contracts on interpersonal trust. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(3), 534–559.

Malone, T. W., Laubacher, R., & Dellarocas, C. (2010). The collective intelligence genome. MIT Sloan Management Review, 51(3), 21–31.

Mannes, A. E., Soll, J. B., & Larrick, R. P. (2014). The wisdom of select crowds. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(2), 276–299.

Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in

844

organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2), 31–55.

Mao, C. M., & DeAndrea, D. C. (2019). How anonymity and visibility affordances influence employees’ decisions about voicing workplace concerns. Management Communication Quarterly, 33(2), 160–188.

Maravelias, C. (2003). Post-bureaucracy—Control through professional freedom. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(5), 547–566.

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376.

Marks, M. A., Sabella, M. J., Burke, C. S., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2002). The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 3–13.

Marlow, S. L., Lacerenza, C. N., & Salas, E. (2017). Communication in virtual teams: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 27(4), 575–589.

Marquardt, M. (2002). Building the learning organization. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Marquardt, M. (2004). Harnessing the power of action learning. Training & Development, 58(6), 26–33.

845

Marquet, L. D. (2013). Turn the ship around!: A true story of turning followers into leaders. New York, NY: Penguin.

Martin, J., Knopoff, K., & Beckman, C. (1998). An alternative to bureaucratic impersonality and emotional labor: Bounded emotionality at The Body Shop. Administrative Science Quarterly, 429–469.

Martinelli, R. J., Waddell, J. M., & Rahschulte, T. J. (2017). Projects without boundaries: Successfully leading teams and managing projects in a virtual world. Hoboken, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

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

Mathieu, J. E., Kukenberger, M. R., D’innocenzo, L., & Reilly, G. (2015). Modeling reciprocal team cohesion– performance relationships, as impacted by shared leadership and members’ competence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 713.

Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410–476.

Mathieu, J. E., & Rapp, T. L. (2009). Laying the foundation for successful team performance trajectories: The roles of team charters and performance strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 90–103.

846

Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. (2014). A review and integration of team composition models: Moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 40(1), 130–160.

Matsuo, M. (2006). Customer orientation, conflict, and innovativeness in Japanese sales departments. Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 242–250.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

Maynard, M. T., Kennedy, D. M., & Sommer, S. A. (2015). Team adaptation: A fifteen-year synthesis (1998–2013) and framework for how this literature needs to “adapt” going forward. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(5), 652–677.

Maynard, M. T., Mathieu, J. E., Rapp, T. L., & Gilson, L. L. (2012). Something(s) old and something(s) new: Modeling drivers of global virtual team effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), 342–365.

Mayo, A. T., & Woolley, A. W. (2016). Teamwork in health care: Maximizing collective intelligence via inclusive collaboration and open communication. AMA Journal of Ethics, 18(9), 933–940.

Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York, NY: MacMillan.

847

McCallin, A., & Bamford, A. (2007). Interdisciplinary teamwork: Is the influence of emotional intelligence fully appreciated? Journal of Nursing Management, 15(4), 386– 391.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five- factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81–90.

McDonald, J. (2019). Difference and intersectionality. In A. M. Nicotera (Ed.), Origins and traditions of organizational communication: A comprehensive introduction to the field. New York, NY: Routledge.

McFarland, L. A., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015). Social media: A contextual framework to guide research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(6), 1653–1677.

McGrath, J. E. (1962). Leadership behavior: Some requirements for leadership training. Washington, DC: U.S. Civil Service Commission.

McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

McGrath, J. E., Berdahl, J. L., & Arrow, H. (1995). Traits, expectations, culture, and clout: The dynamics of diversity in work groups. In S. Jackson & M. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

848

McGrath, J. E., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1994). Groups interacting with technology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

McIntyre, R. M., & Salas, E. (1995). Measuring and managing for team performance: Emerging principles from complex environments. In R. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 9– 45). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Medeiros, K. E., Partlow, P. J., & Mumford, M. D. (2014). Not too much, not too little: The influence of constraints on creative problem solving. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(2), 198–210.

Meiert, J. O. (2013, August 13). An ex-Google employee explains what it means to be ‘Googley.’ Business Insider. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/the- meanings-of-googliness-2013-8

Meindl, J. R., & Ehrlich, S. B. (1987). The romance of leadership and the evaluation of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 30(1), 91–109.

Menges, J. I., & Kilduff, M. (2015). Group emotions: Cutting the Gordian knots concerning terms, levels of analysis, and processes. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 845–928.

Mero, N. P., Guidice, R. M., & Brownlee, A. L. (2007). Accountability in a performance appraisal context: The effect of audience and form of accounting on rater response and behavior. Journal of Management, 33(2), 223–252.

849

Merriman, K. K. (2009). On the folly of rewarding team performance, while hoping for teamwork. Compensation & Benefits Review, 41(1), 61–66.

Mesmer-Magnus, J., Niler, A. A., Plummer, G., Larson, L. E., & DeChurch, L. A. (2017). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A continuation. Career Development International, 22(5), 507–519.

Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., DeChurch, L. A., Jimenez-Rodriguez, M., Wildman, J., & Shuffler, M. (2011). A meta-analytic investigation of virtuality and information sharing in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 214–225.

Metcalf, L., Askay, D. A., & Rosenberg, L. B. (2019). Keeping humans in the loop: Pooling knowledge through artificial swarm intelligence to improve business decision making. California Management Review, 61(4), 84–109.

Meyer, C. (1994). How the right measures help teams excel. Harvard Business Review, 72(3), 95–101.

Meyer, M. H., & Marion, T. J. (2010). Innovating for effectiveness: Lessons from design firms. Research- Technology Management, 53(5), 21–28.

Micheli, P., Wilner, S. J., Bhatti, S. H., Mura, M., & Beverland, M. B. (2019). Doing design thinking: Conceptual review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(2), 124–148.

850

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Milkman, K. L., Chugh, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). How can decision making be improved? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 379–383.

Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 402–433.

Mills, M., Fleck, C., & Kozikowski, A. (2013). Positive psychology at work: A conceptual review, state-of-practice assessment, and a look ahead. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(2), 153–164.

Miloslavic, S. A., Wildman, J. L., & Thayer, A. L. (2015). Structuring successful global virtual teams. In J. L. Wildman & R. L. Griffith (Eds.), Leading global teams (pp. 67–87). New York, NY: Springer.

Minssen, H. (2006). Challenges of teamwork in production: Demands of communication. Organization Studies, 27(1), 103 –124.

Minton-Eversole, T. (2012). Virtual teams used most by global organizations, survey says. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management.

Mitchell, R., Boyle, B., Parker, V., Giles, M., Chiang, V., & Joyce, P. (2015). Managing inclusiveness and diversity in

851

teams: How leader inclusiveness affects performance through status and team identity. Human Resource Management, 54(2), 217–239.

Mittleman, D., & Briggs, R. O. (1999). Communication technologies for traditional and virtual teams. In E. Sundstrom (Ed.), Supporting work team effectiveness (pp. 246–270). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups: Examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 1015– 1039.

Mohammed, S., Ferzandi, L., & Hamilton, K. (2010). Metaphor no more: A 15-year review of the team mental model construct. Journal of Management, 36(4), 876–910.

Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., & Morhman, A. M. (1995). Designing team-based organizations: New forms for knowledge work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mojzisch, A., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2010). Knowing others’ preferences degrades the quality of group decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(5), 794– 808.

Montoya, M. M., Massey, A. P., & Lockwood, N. S. (2011). 3D collaborative virtual environments: Exploring the link between collaborative behaviors and team performance. Decision Sciences, 42(2), 451–476.

852

Monzani, L., Ripoll, P., Peiró, J. M., & Van Dick, R. (2014). Loafing in the digital age: The role of computer mediated communication in the relation between perceived loafing and group affective outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 279–285.

Moody, J., & White, D. R. (2003). Structural cohesion and embeddedness: A hierarchical concept of social groups. American Sociological Review, 68(1), 103–127.

Mooney, A. C., Holahan, P. J., & Amason, A. C. (2007). Don’t take it personally: Exploring cognitive conflict as a mediator of affective conflict. Journal of Management Studies, 44(5), 733–758.

Mor Barak, M. E. (2016). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Mor Barak, M. E., Lizano, E. L., Kim, A., Duan, L., Rhee, M.- K., Hsiao, H.-Y., & Brimhall, K. C. (2016). The promise of diversity management for climate of inclusion: A state-of- the-art review and meta-analysis. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 40(4), 305–333.

Moreland, R. L. (2010). Are dyads really groups? Small Group Research, 41(2), 251–267.

Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. (1996). Socially shared cognition at work: Transactive memory and group performance. In What’s social about social cognition?

853

Research on socially shared cognition in small groups (pp. 57–84). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1982). Socialization in small groups: Temporal changes in individual–group relations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 137–192.

Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1989). Newcomers and oldtimers in small groups. In Psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 143–186). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1992). Problem identification by groups. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity (pp. 17– 48). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (2002). Socialization and trust in work groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 5(3), 185–201.

Morgan, P. I., & Ogbonna, E. (2008). Subcultural dynamics in transformation: A multi-perspective study of healthcare professionals. Human Relations, 61(1), 39–65.

Morgeson, F. P. (2005). The external leadership of self- managing teams: Intervening in the context of novel and disruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 497–508.

854

Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36(1), 5–39.

Morgeson, F. P., & Dierdorff, E. C. (2011). Work analysis: From technique to theory. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 3 –41). Washington, DC: APA.

Morgeson, F. P., Reider, M. H., & Campion, M. A. (2005). Selecting individuals in team settings: The importance of social skills, personality characteristics, and teamwork knowledge. Personnel Psychology, 58(3), 583–611.

Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 173–197.

Moscovici, S. (1980). Toward a theory of conversion behavior. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 209–239). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.

Moscovici, S. (1985). Innovation and minority influence. In S. Moscovici, G. Mugny, & E. V. Avermaet (Eds.), Perspectives on minority influence (pp. 9–52). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Moser, K. S., & Axtell, C. M. (2013). The role of norms in virtual work. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12(1), 1–6.

855

Moss, S. E., & Sanchez, J. I. (2004). Are your employees avoiding you? Managerial strategies for closing the feedback gap. Academy of Management Perspectives, 18(1), 32 –44.

Motley, M. T. (1990). On whether one can (not) not communicate: An examination via traditional communication postulates. Western Journal of Communication, 54(1), 1–20.

Moynihan, L. M., Peterson, R. S., & Earley, P. C. (2006). Cultural intelligence and the multinational team experience: Does the experience of working in a multinational team improve cultural intelligence? In C. Ya- Ru (Ed.), National culture and groups (Vol. 9, pp. 299– 323). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Muchnik, L., Aral, S., & Taylor, S. J. (2013). Social influence bias: A randomized experiment. Science, 341(6146), 647–651.

Mudrack, P. E., & Farrell, G. M. (1995). An examination of functional role behavior and its consequences for individuals in group settings. Small Group Research, 26(4), 542–571.

Mueller, J. S., Melwani, S., & Goncalo, J. A. (2012). The bias against creativity: Why people desire but reject creative ideas. Psychological Science, 23(1), 13–17.

Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(1), 3–23.

856

Mullen, B., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (1989). Salience, motivation, and artifact as contributions to the relation between participation rate and leadership. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25(6), 545–559.

Mumford, M. D., & Connelly, M. S. (1991). Leaders as creators: Leader performance and problem solving in ill- defined domains. The Leadership Quarterly, 2(4), 289–315.

Mumford, M. D., Martin, R., Elliott, S., & McIntosh, T. (2018). Creative failure: Why can’t people solve creative problems. The Journal of Creative Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/jocb.372

Mumford, M. D., Todd, E. M., Higgs, C., & McIntosh, T. (2017). Cognitive skills and leadership performance: The nine critical skills. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 24– 39.

Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 11–35.

Murnighan, J. K. (1981). Group decision making: What strategies should you use. Management Review, 70(2), 55– 62.

Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal- based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

857

Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83(4), 602–627.

NACE. (2019). Job outlook 2019. Bethlehem, PA: National Association of Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from https://www.naceweb.org/store/2018/job-outlook-2019

Naquin, C. E., & Tynan, R. O. (2003). The team halo effect: Why teams are not blamed for their failures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 332–240.

Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 941 –966.

Nemeth, C. J. (2011). Minority influence theory. In P. Van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 362–378). New York, NY: SAGE.

Nemeth, C. J., & Rogers, J. (1996). Dissent and the search for information. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35(1), 67–76.

Nemeth, C. J., & Staw, B. M. (1989). The tradeoffs of social control and innovation in groups and organizations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 175–210.

Nemeth, C. J., & Wachtler, J. (1983). Creative problem solving as a result of majority vs minority influence.

858

European Journal of Social Psychology, 13(1), 45–55.

Nevicka, B., De Hoogh, A. H., Van Vianen, A. E., Beersma, B., & McIlwain, D. (2011). All I need is a stage to shine: Narcissists’ leader emergence and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 910–925.

Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.

Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1754–1774.

Nishii, L. H., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Do inclusive leaders help to reduce turnover in diverse groups? The moderating role of leader–member exchange in the diversity to turnover relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1412–1426.

Nishii, L. H., & Rich, R. E. (2014). Creating inclusive climates in diverse organizations. In B. M. Ferdman & B. R. Deane (Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (Vol. 1, pp. 330–363). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (2007). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 85(7/8), 162–171.

859

Nonala, I., & Kenney, M. (1991). Towards a new theory of innovation management: A case study comparing Canon, Inc. and Apple Computer, Inc. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 8(1), 67–83.

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 44–59.

Nowak, M., & Sigmund, K. (1993). A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the prisoner’s dilemma game. Nature, 364(6432), 56–58.

Nurmi, N. (2011). Coping with coping strategies: How distributed teams and their members deal with the stress of distance, time zones and culture. Stress and Health, 27(2), 123–143.

Nyberg, A. J., Maltarich, M. A., Abdulsalam, D. D., Essman, S. M., & Cragun, O. (2018). Collective pay for performance: A cross-disciplinary review and meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2433–2472.

O’Leary, M. B., & Cummings, J. N. (2007). The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. MIS Quarterly, 31(3), 433–452.

O’Leary, M. B., & Mortensen, M. (2010). Go (con) figure: Subgroups, imbalance, and isolates in geographically

860

dispersed teams. Organization Science, 21(1), 115–131.

O’Leary, M. B., Mortensen, M., & Woolley, A. W. (2011). Multiple team membership: A theoretical model of its effects on productivity and learning for individuals and teams. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 461–478.

O’Neill, T. A., Allen, N. J., & Hastings, S. E. (2013). Examining the “pros” and “cons” of team conflict: A team-level meta-analysis of task, relationship, and process conflict. Human Performance, 26(3), 236–260.

O’Neill, T. A., Hoffart, G. C., McLarnon, M. M., Woodley, H. J., Eggermont, M., Rosehart, W., & Brennan, R. (2017). Constructive controversy and reflexivity training promotes effective conflict profiles and team functioning in student learning teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 257–276.

O’Neill, T. A., McLarnon, M. J., Hoffart, G. C., Woodley, H. J., & Allen, N. J. (2018). The structure and function of team conflict state profiles. Journal of Management, 44(2), 811–836.

O’Reilly, J., Robinson, S. L., Berdahl, J. L., & Banki, S. (2015). Is negative attention better than no attention? The comparative effects of ostracism and harassment at work. Organization Science, 26(3), 774–793.

Ohland, M. W., Loughry, M. L., Woehr, D. J., Bullard, L. G., Felder, R. M., Finelli, C. J., … Schmucker, D. G. (2012). The comprehensive assessment of team member effectiveness: Development of a behaviorally anchored rating scale for

861

self- and peer evaluation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(4), 609–630.