Team managment dis 3
krishnap2493
textbook.pdf
Making the teaM: a guide for Managers
S i x t h E d i t i o n
Leigh L. Thompson Kellogg School of Management
Northwestern University
330 Hudson Street, NY NY 10013
A01_THOM4204_06_SE_FM.indd 1 10/31/16 8:03 PM
Vice President, Business Publishing: Donna Battista Director of Portfolio Management: Stephanie Wall Director, Courseware Portfolio Management: Ashley Dodge Senior Sponsoring Editor: Neeraj Bhalla Editorial Assistant: Lauren Russell Vice President, Product Marketing: Roxanne McCarley Director of Strategic Marketing: Brad Parkins Strategic Marketing Manager: Deborah Strickland Product Marketer: Becky Brown Field Marketing Manager: Lenny Ann Kucenski Product Marketing Assistant: Jessica Quazza Vice President, Production and Digital Studio, Arts and Business: Etain O’Dea
Director of Production, Business: Jeff Holcomb Managing Producer, Business: Ashley Santora Operations Specialist: Carol Melville Creative Director: Blair Brown Manager, Learning Tools: Brian Surette Content Developer, Learning Tools: Lindsey Sloan Managing Producer, Digital Studio, Arts and Business: Diane Lombardo Digital Studio Producer: Monique Lawrence Digital Studio Producer: Darren Cormier Digital Studio Producer: Alana Coles Full-Service Project Management and Composition: SPi Global Interior Design: SPi Global Cover Design: Pam Verros Cover Art: © Paul Capobianco Printer/Binder: RRD Crawfordsville Cover Printer: Phoenix
Copyright © 2018, 2014, 2011 by Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved. Manufactured in the United States of America. This publication is protected by copyright, and permission should be ob- tained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise. For information regarding permissions, request forms, and the appropriate contacts within the Pearson Education Global Rights and Permissions department, please visit www.pearsoned.com/permissions/.
Acknowledgments of third-party content appear on the appropriate page within the text.
PEARSON and ALWAYS LEARNING are exclusive trademarks owned by Pearson Education, Inc. or its af- filiates in the U.S. and/or other countries.
Unless otherwise indicated herein, any third-party trademarks, logos, or icons that may appear in this work are the property of their respective owners, and any references to third-party trademarks, logos, icons, or other trade dress are for demonstrative or descriptive purposes only. Such references are not intended to imply any sponsorship, endorsement, authorization, or promotion of Pearson’s products by the owners of such marks, or any relationship between the owner and Pearson Education, Inc., or its affiliates, authors, licensees, or distributors.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Thompson, Leigh L., author. Title: Making the team : a guide for managers / Leigh L. Thompson, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University. Description: Sixth Edition. | New York : Pearson Education, 2016. | Revised edition of the author’s Making the team, [2014] Identifiers: LCCN 2016042609| ISBN 9780134484204 | ISBN 0134484207 Subjects: LCSH: Teams in the workplace. | Performance. | Leadership. | Organizational effectiveness. Classification: LCC HD66 .T478 2016 | DDC 658.4/022—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc. gov/2016042609
ISBN 10: 0-13-448420-7 ISBN 13: 978-0-13-448420-4
A01_THOM4204_06_SE_FM.indd 2 10/31/16 8:03 PM
For my home team: Bob, Sam, Ray, and Anna
A01_THOM4204_06_SE_FM.indd 3 10/31/16 8:03 PM
BRIEF CONTENTS
Part 1 Building the team 1 Chapter 1 Types of Teams 3 Chapter 2 Designing the Team 26 Chapter 3 Leading Teams 51 Chapter 4 Team Cohesion and Trust 82
Part 2 team Performance 109 Chapter 5 Performance and Productivity 111 Chapter 6 Team Communication and Collective Intelligence 133 Chapter 7 Team Decision Making 163 Chapter 8 Managing Team Conflict 196 Chapter 9 Creativity and Innovation in Teams 219
Part 3 teams in Organizations 249 Chapter 10 Subgroups and Multi-Teams 251 Chapter 11 Team Networking and Social Capital 275 Chapter 12 Virtual Teamwork 299 Chapter 13 Multicultural Teams 323
Appendix 1 Rewarding Teamwork 345 Appendix 2 Managing Meetings 361 Appendix 3 Creating Effective Study Groups 371
References 374 Name Index 434 Subject Index 449
iv
A01_THOM4204_06_SE_FM.indd 4 10/31/16 8:03 PM
CONTENTS
Preface xvii
Part 1 Building the team 1
Chapter 1 tYPES OF tEaMS 3 Teams vs. Groups 4 Why Should Organizations Have Teams? 5
Information Technology 5 Competition 6 Globalization and Culture 7 Multigenerational Teams 7
Task Focus 8 Tactical Teams 8 Problem-Solving Teams 9 Creative Teams 9
Types of Team Autonomy 12 Manager-Led Teams 12 Self-Managing Teams 13 Self-Directing Teams 15 Self-Governing Teams 15
Observations About Teams and Teamwork 16 Teams Should Be the Exception, Not the Rule 16 Managers Fault the Wrong Causes for Team Failure 17 Teams Require Attention 17 Experimenting with Failures Leads to Better Teams 17 Conflict is Not Always Detrimental 18 Strong Leadership is Not Always Necessary for Strong Teams 18 Good Teams Can Still Fail Under the Wrong Circumstances 18 Retreats Will Not Fix All the Conflicts Between Team Members 19
What Leaders Tell Us About Their Teams 20 Most Common Type of Team 20 Team Size 20 Team Autonomy versus Manager Control 20 Team Longevity 20 The Most Frustrating Aspect of Teamwork 20
v
A01_THOM4204_06_SE_FM.indd 5 10/31/16 8:03 PM
vi Contents
Developing Your Team-Building Skills 22 Accurate Diagnosis of Team Problems 22 Evidence-Based Management 23 Expert Learning 24
A Warning 24 Chapter Capstone 25
Chapter 2 DESIGNING tHE tEaM 26 Team Design 27 Define the Goal 27
Ends vs. Means 27 Performance vs. Learning Goals 28 Promotion vs. Prevention Goals 29 Goal fit 29 Pre-Planning vs. On-line Planning 30 Timelines and Time Pressure 30 Capacity Problems vs. Capability Problems 32
Selecting Team Members 32 Member-Initiated Team Selection 33 Optimal Team Size 33 Skills, Talents, and Abilities 35 Roles and Responsibilities 35 Diversity 38
Processes: How to Work Together 43 Task vs. Outcome Interdependence 43 Transition and Action Processes 45 Structure 45 Norms 46 Team Coaching 48
Chapter Capstone 50
Chapter 3 LEaDING tEaMS 51 Leadership Versus Management 52 The Leadership Paradox 52 Leaders and the Nature–Nurture Debate 54
Trait Theories of Leadership 54 Incremental Theories of Leadership 57
Leadership Styles 58 Task Versus Person Leadership 59 Transactional Versus Transformational Leadership 60
A01_THOM4204_06_SE_FM.indd 6 10/31/16 8:03 PM
Contents vii
Autocratic Versus Democratic Leadership 62 Leader Mood 65
Expectations of Leaders 66 Implicit Leadership Theories 66 Prototypicality 66 Status & Uncertainty 66
Leader–Member Exchange 68 Attributes that Influence Differential Treatment 68 Advantages of Differential Treatment 69 Disadvantages of Differential Treatment 70
Power 70 Sources of Power 71 Power Distance 72 Using Power 73 Effects of Using Power 73
Participative Management 74 Task Delegation 77 Parallel Suggestion Involvement 77 Job Involvement 79 Organizational Involvement 79
Chapter Capstone 81
Chapter 4 tEaM COHESION aND trUSt 82 Team Identity 83
Group Entitativity 83 Group Identity 83 Identity Fusion 84 Common Identity and Common Bond Groups 84 Relational and Collective Identity 84 Self-verification vs. Group-verification 85
Team-Member Exchange 85 Group-serving Attributions 87
Group Potency and Collective Efficacy 87 Team Efficacy and Performance 87
Group Mood and Emotion 88 Group Affect and Performance 90 Emotional Contagion 90 Behavioral Entrainment 91 Emotional Nonconformity 92
A01_THOM4204_06_SE_FM.indd 7 10/31/16 8:03 PM
Emotional Intelligence 92 Leadership and Group Emotion 92
Group Cohesion 94 Cohesion and Team Behavior 94 Cohesion and Performance 94 Building Cohesion in Groups 95 Fear of Social Exclusion 96
Group Trust 96 Trust vs. Respect 96 Trust & Monitoring 97 Trust Congruence 98 Propensity to Trust 98 Types of Trust 98 Repairing Broken Trust 100 Psychological Safety 100
Group Socialization & Turnover 101 Group Socialization 102 Phases of Group Socialization 102 Old-timers’ Reactions to Newcomers 105 Deviant Opinions 106 Newcomer Innovation 106 Turnover and Reorganizations 107
Chapter Capstone 108
Part 2 team Performance 109
Chapter 5 PErFOrMaNCE aND PrODUCtIVItY 111 An Integrated Model of Team Performance 112 Team Context 112
Organizational Context 113 Team Design 113 Team Culture 113
Essential Conditions for Successful Team Performance 114 Expertise 115 Engagement 118 Execution 126
Performance Criteria 128 Productivity 128
viii Contents
A01_THOM4204_06_SE_FM.indd 8 10/31/16 8:03 PM
Cohesion 129 Learning 130 Integration 130
Team Performance Equation 131 Chapter Capstone 132
Chapter 6 tEaM COMMUNICatION aND COLLECtIVE INtELLIGENCE 133 Collaboration 134
Uneven Communication 134 Knowledge Specialization 135 Knowledge Sharing and Knowledge Hiding 135 Transforming Knowledge into Solutions 136 Experienced Community of Practice 136 Adaptive Capacity 137 Monitoring and Talking to the Room 137
Team Mental Models 137 Reflective vs. Reflexive Mental Models 138 Representational Gaps 138 Accuracy 139 Correspondence 140
Transactive Memory Systems 141 Centralized vs. Decentralized TMS 142 Differentiated vs. Integrated TMS 142 Tacit Coordination 143 Routine vs. Nonroutine Tasks 143 Resilience to Team Member Loss 144 Reaction to Free-Riding 144 Developing a TMS 144
Common Information Effect 148 Hidden Profile 151 Ineffective Strategies 153 Effective Interventions 154
Team Learning 158 Environment 158 Newcomers and Rotators 158 Vicarious vs. In Vivo Experience 159 Threat, Change, and Failure 159
Contents ix
A01_THOM4204_06_SE_FM.indd 9 10/31/16 8:03 PM
After-Action Review (AAR) 159 Routinization vs. Innovation Trade-Offs 159
Chapter Capstone 162
Chapter 7 tEaM DECISION MaKING 163 Team Decision Making 164 Individual Decision-Making Biases 164
Framing Bias 165 Overconfidence 165 Confirmation Bias 167 Decision Fatigue 168
Individual Versus Group Decision Making 168 Demonstrable versus Non-Demonstrable Tasks 168 Groups Out-Perform Individuals 168 Group to Individual Transfer 169 Minorities versus Majorities 170 Group Decision Rules 170 Refusal to Make Decisions 172
Groupthink 172 Learning from History 174 Reducing Groupthink 174
Escalation of Commitment 178 Project Determinants 180 Psychological Determinants 180 Social Determinants 181 Structural Determinants 181 Minimizing Escalation of Commitment to a Losing Course of Action 182
Abilene Paradox 183 How to Avoid the Abilene Paradox 184
Group Polarization 185 The Need to be Right 187 The Need to be Liked 187 Conformity Pressure 188
Unethical Decision Making 190 Rational Expectations Model 190 False Consensus 191 Vicarious Licensing 191 Desensitization 191
Chapter Capstone 195
x Contents
A01_THOM4204_06_SE_FM.indd 10 10/31/16 8:03 PM
Chapter 8 MaNaGING tEaM CONFLICt 196 Relationship, Task & Process Conflict 197
Relationship Conflict 197 Task Conflict 199 Process Conflict 199 Impact on Performance 200 Personality & Conflict 202 Team Identification 202 Power & Conflict 202 Organizational Climate and Conflict 203 Global Culture and Conflict 203
Types of Conflict 204 Proportional and Perceptual Conflict 204 Conflict States vs. Conflict Processes 205 Conflict Contagion 205 Distributive vs. Procedural Conflict 205 Equity, Equality and Need 205 Minority and Majority Conflict 207 Work–Family Conflict 209 Organizational Culture Conflict 209
Conflict Management 209 Conflict Modes 209 Contingency Theory of Task Conflict and Performance in Teams 211 Investment Model of Conflict 212 Wageman and Donnenfeld’s Conflict Intervention Model 214 Interests, Rights, and Power Model of Disputing 216
Chapter Capstone 217
Chapter 9 CrEatIVItY aND INNOVatION IN tEaMS 219 Nature vs. Nurture 220 Creativity Versus Innovation 221
Convergent versus Divergent Thinking 221 Radical versus Incremental Innovation 223 Creative Realism 224 Fluency, Flexibility, and Originality 226 Exploration versus Exploitation 227
Brainstorming Versus Brainwriting 228 Brainstorming 228 Brainstorming versus Nominal Group 229
Contents xi
A01_THOM4204_06_SE_FM.indd 11 10/31/16 8:03 PM
Brainwriting 230 Speedstorming 231 Electronic Brainstorming 232
Threats to Team Creativity 233 Social Loafing 233 Conformity 234 Production Blocking 234 Performance Matching 235 What Goes on During a Typical Group Brainstorming Session? 236
Best Practices for Enhancing Team Creativity 236 Motivational Methods 236 Cognitive Methods 238 Facilitator-Led Methods 241 Leader and Organizational Methods 244
Chapter Capstone 247
Part 3 teams in Organizations 249
Chapter 10 SUBGrOUPS aND MULtI-tEaMS 251 Intergroup Relations 252
In-Groups and Out-Groups 252 Social Comparison 252 Team Rivalry 253 In-group Bias 254 Transgression Credit 254
Subgroups 254 Size 255 Identity, Resource, and Knowledge Subgroups 255 Number of Groups 256 Impact on Performance 256 Faultlines 257 Status 259 Deference 261 Intragroup Deviance 261
Team Boundaries 261 Underbounded versus Overbounded Teams 261 Founding Teams 262 Informing, Parading, and Probing Teams 262 X-Teams 263
xii Contents
A01_THOM4204_06_SE_FM.indd 12 10/31/16 8:03 PM
Teams in Matrix Organizations 264 Cross-functional Teams 264 Multi-team Systems 264 Integration Between Teams 265 Integration Across Multiple Teams and Components of a Business Unit 266
Teamwork in Reorganizations & Mergers 267 Reorganizations 267 Mergers 267
Improving Interteam Relationships 269 Perspective Taking 269 Superordinate Identity 269 Contact 270 Apology 272 Assistance and Help 273 Affirmation 273
Chapter Capstone 274
Chapter 11 tEaM NEtWOrKING aND SOCIaL CaPItaL 275 Taskwork and Teamwork 276
Taskwork vs. Teamwork 276 Taskwork and Teamwork Network Structures 276 Factors that Affect Networks 277
External Leadership 277 General vs. Differential 278
External Roles of Team Members 278 Organizational Networks 280
Sharing Knowledge 280 Insider vs. Outsider Knowledge Valuation 280 Human Capital and Social Capital 282 Boundary Spanning 284 Boundary Loosening Versus Boundary Tightening 285 Cliques Versus Entrepreneur Networks 285 Team Social Capital 287 Friendship, Trust, and Advice Ties 288 Leadership Ties 290
Increasing your Social Capital 292 Analyze your Social Network 293 Identify Structural Holes 293 Expand the Size of the Network 294
Contents xiii
A01_THOM4204_06_SE_FM.indd 13 10/31/16 8:03 PM
Diversify Networks 295 Build Hierarchical Networks 296 Recognize Gender Scripts in Networks 297 Reputation Management 297
Chapter Capstone 298
Chapter 12 VIrtUaL tEaMWOrK 299 Place–Time Model of Social Interaction 300
Face-to-Face Communication 301 Same Time, Different Place 303 Different Time, Same Place 305 Different Place, Different Time 306
Information Technology and Social Behavior 309 Reduced Status Differences: The Weak Get Strong Effect 309 Equalization of Participation 310 Increased Time to Make Decisions 310 Information Suppression 311 Risk Taking 311 Disinhibition and the Negativity Effect 312 Task Performance and Decision Quality 312 Trust and Rapport 313
Virtual, Hybrid, and Traditional Teams 313 Prevalence 313 Advantages 314 Identification 315 Leadership 315 Attention and Problem-Solving 316 Conflict 316 Geographic Faultlines 316
Enhancing Virtual Teamwork 317 Team Formation 317 Technology 317 Shared Mental Models 318 Boundary Objects 319 Initial Face-to-Face Experience 320 Objective Self-Awareness 321 Integrity 321
xiv Contents
A01_THOM4204_06_SE_FM.indd 14 10/31/16 8:03 PM
Cave and Commons Flexibility 321 Coaching the Virtual Team 322
Chapter Capstone 322
Chapter 13 MULtICULtUraL tEaMS 323 Challenges of Cross-Cultural Teamwork 324
Multinational Teams 324 Stereotypes versus Prototypes 324
Cultural Values 325 Defining Culture 325 Iceberg Model 325 Hofstede’s Model 325 Dignity, Face and Honor Cultures 331 Tight versus Loose Cultures 333
Cultural Intelligence 333 CQ Model 333 Cultural Metacognition 335 Fusion Teamwork 336 Multicultural Engagement 336 Work Ways 337
Multicultural Teamwork 337 Creative Innovation 337 Relationship Orientation 338 Networks 338 Egalitarian Values 338 Status Perceptions 339 Emotional Display 339
Multicultural Collaboration 340 Ethnocentrism 340 Cultural Relativism 340
Managing Multicultural Teams 341 Change and Adaptation 341 Transactive Memory Systems 342 Language Barriers 342
Cultural Change 342 Integration 343 Assimilation 343
Contents xv
A01_THOM4204_06_SE_FM.indd 15 10/31/16 8:03 PM
Separation 343 Marginalization 344
Chapter Capstone 344
Appendix 1 Rewarding Teamwork 345
Appendix 2 Managing Meetings 361
Appendix 3 Creating Effective Study Groups 371
References 374 Name and Author Index 434 Subject Index 449
xvi Contents
A01_THOM4204_06_SE_FM.indd 16 10/31/16 8:03 PM
PREFACE
Making the Team has two audiences: leaders and team members. For leaders, the book provides direction about how teams can be designed to function optimally; for team members, the book focuses on the skills necessary to be productive.
Since the publication of the first five editions, many advances have occurred in team and group research. Every chapter has new information, new research, updated examples, and more. Specifically, I have made the following major changes to the sixth edition of Making the Team:
1. Revised chapter structure: The order of the chapters is slightly changed to reflect the revised three-part structure of the book: Building the Team, Team Performance, and Teams in Organizations. The book still contains 13 chapters (suitable for semes- ter or quarter-length courses). Rewarding Teamwork is now an appendix. And Vir- tual Teams and Multicultural Teams are each separate chapters.
2. Internal structure of chapters: Most of the chapters have new subheads that reflect new theories, research, and topics.
3. New, updated research: True to the book’s defining characteristic—providing managers with the most up-to-date research in a digestible fashion—I have included the latest research about teamwork and group behavior, thus keeping the book true to its strong research focus and theory-driven approach.
4. Surveys of managers and executives: The updated research also reports on the survey of executives that we have conducted at Kellogg for the past 17 years. The survey in the first edition reported the responses of 149 managers and executives; the sixth edition has a database of more than 1,200 team managers.
5. New research studies: More than 220 new research studies have been cited. 6. More case studies: I have included more examples and illustrations of effective
(as well as ineffective) teamwork. More than 160 new case studies and examples of actual company teams have been added. And, each chapter has a new, updated opening example.
7. Illustrations and examples: Many of the concepts and techniques in the chapters are supplemented with illustrations and examples from real teams, both contem- porary and historical. I do not use these examples to prove a theory; rather, I use them to illustrate how many of the concepts in the book are borne out in real-world situations.
New exercises, cases, and supplemental material: The supplemental material and teaching support materials have been greatly improved so as to complement the text. This allows students to have a more integrated experience inside and outside of the classroom. The book strongly advocates experientially based teaching, and the instruc- tor now has even more options for making the concepts come alive in the classroom. All of the supplements are available on Pearson’s Instructor’s Resource Center; instruc- tors should contact a Pearson sales representative to be assigned a user name and password. I have also developed a MOOC (massive online open course) that anybody, anywhere in the world can enroll in for no charge: High Performance Collaboration: Leader- ship, Teamwork, and Negotiation (on coursera). In addition, I have developed Teamwork
xvii
A01_THOM4204_06_SE_FM.indd 17 10/31/16 8:03 PM
xviii Preface
101, which contains four 15-minute videos about teamwork, accessible by: http://www .kellogg.northwestern.edu/news_articles/2014/12202014-teamwork-101.aspx, or simply Google “teamwork 101 Kellogg.”
The revision was sparked not only by advances—as well as calamities—in the corporate world, but even more, by the great scientific research about teamwork that my colleagues have relentlessly contributed to the field of management science in the years since the first edition was published.
One of the reasons why I love this field is that there are so many wonderful people with whom to collaborate. The following people have had a major impact on my think- ing and have brought joy and meaning to the word collaboration: Cameron Anderson, Linda Babcock, Max Bazerman, Terry Boles, Jeanne Brett, Susan Brodt, John Carroll, Hoon-Seok Choi, Taya Cohen, Jennifer Crocker, Susan Crotty, Jeanne Egmon, Hal Ersner-Hershfield, Gary Allen Fine, Craig Fox, Adam Galinsky, Wendi Gardner, Dedre Gentner, Robert Gibbons, Kevin Gibson, James Gillespie, Rich Gonzalez, Deborah Gru- enfeld, Brian Gunia, Erika Hall, Reid Hastie, Andy Hoffman, Elizabeth Seeley Howard, Molly Kern, Peter Kim, Shirli Kopelman, Rod Kramer, Laura Kray, Terri Kurtzburg, Sujin Lee, Geoffrey Leonardelli, John Levine, Allan Lind, George Loewenstein, Jeff Loewen- stein, Bob Lount, Denise Lewin Loyd, Brian Lucas, Beta Mannix, Kathleen McGinn, Vicki Medvec, Tanya Menon, Dave Messick, Terry Mitchell, Don Moore, Michael Mor- ris, Keith Murnighan, Janice Nadler, Maggie Neale, Erika Petersen, Kathy Phillips, Jason Pierce, Robin Pinkley, Jo-Ellen Pozner, Mark Rittenberg, Ashleigh Rosette, Ken Savitsky, David Schonthal, Vanessa Seiden, Catherine Shea, Marwan Sinaceur, Ned Smith, Har- ris Sondak, Tom Tyler, Leaf Van Boven, Kimberly Wade-Benzoni, Cindy Wang, Juinwen Wang, Laurie Weingart, Judith White, and Elizabeth Ruth Wilson.
The revision of this book would not have been possible without the dedication, organization, and creativity of Ellen Hampton, Larissa Tripp, and Joel Erickson, who created the layout, organized the information, edited the hundreds of drafts, mastered the figures, organized the permissions for the exhibits in each chapter, and researched many of the case studies for this book.
In the book, I talk quite a bit about the “power of the situation” and how strongly the environment shapes behavior. The Kellogg School of Management is one of the most supportive, dynamic environments that I have ever had the pleasure to be a part of. My colleagues across the Kellogg School are uniquely warm, constructive, and gener- ous. Directing the KTAG (Kellogg Team and Group) Center has been a pleasure beyond compare. I am very grateful for the generous grants I have received through the years from the National Science Foundation’s Decision, Risk and Management Program, the Kellogg Team and Group Center, and its sister, the Dispute Resolution Research Center.
This book is very much a team effort of the people I have mentioned here; their talents are diverse, broad, and extraordinarily impressive. I am deeply indebted to my colleagues and students, and I am grateful that they have touched my life. I would like to thank Paul Capobianco for the photograph of the University of Wisconsin Men’s Heavy Weight Varsity rowing team: Cox: Brandt Roen, 8: Sam Weeks, 7: Sebastian Amberger, 6: James Lueken, 5: Christoph Bub, 4: Jonah van der Weide, 3: George Perrett, 2: Nick Montalvo, Bow: Jacob Hurlbutt.
A01_THOM4204_06_SE_FM.indd 18 10/31/16 8:03 PM
P A
R T
Building the TeamI
M01A_THOM4204_06_SE_P01.indd 1 10/24/16 9:28 PM
M01A_THOM4204_06_SE_P01.indd 2 10/24/16 9:28 PM
This page intentionally left blank
3
The ad was posted to Facebook: Diggers needed for an exotic expedition. Experience needed in paleontology or anthropology. Willing to fly to South Africa within the month. And “the person must be skinny and preferably small, they must not be claustrophobic, they must be fit, they should have some caving experience. Climbing experience would be a bonus.1” Dr. Lee Berger, a university paleoanthropologist, selected six slender women from 57 applicants for a major excavation. The team squeezed themselves through a long vertical chute which narrowed to a gap just 18 inches wide and inched their way to a landing zone at the bottom of the cave. The team of women crouched in the fossil chamber plotting, digging, and bagging densely packed bones in 6-hour shifts in near total darkness, connected to the surface by the nearly two miles of power cables that local climbers had threaded from the surface to the fossil chamber. Dozens of scientists watched excitedly on video from a tent outside the cave and waited to catalog samples. Dr. Berger invited 30 scientists from 15 countries to Johannesburg for a 6-week frenzy of fossil research and the putting together of skeletons from the assembled parts. Teams were divided by specific body part—one group for feet, one for legs, one for skulls, and so forth, while Berger and his advisers rushed between groups. The discovery of 1,550 fossil fragments was ultimately regarded as a breakthrough discovery in the field.2
2Smith, D. (2015, September 10). Small spelunkers required: The ad that led to the discovery of Homo naledi. The Guardian. guardian.com; Young, E. (2015, September 10). 6 tiny cavers, 15 odd skeletons, and 1 amaz- ing new species of ancient human. The Atlantic. theatlantic.com; Schreeve, J. (2015, September 10). This face changes the human story. But how? National Geographic. nationalgeographic.com
1From ad posted to Facebook by Lee Berger, © October 7, 2013 Dr.Lee Berger.
Types of Teams1 C
H A
P T
E R
M01B_THOM4204_06_SE_C01.indd 3 10/24/16 4:37 PM
4 Part 1 • Building the Team
A shared goal and an interdependent group of people are the defining characteristics of teams. Whereas most businesspeople are not digging up fossils in caves, they do engage in missions that involve significant economic and social stakes.
Virtually everyone who has worked in an organization has been a member of a team at one time or another. Good teams are not a matter of luck; they result from hard work, careful planning, and commitment from the sponsoring organization. Designing effec- tive teams is a skill that requires a thorough understanding of groups to ensure that the team works as designed. Although there are no guarantees, understanding what makes teams work will naturally lead to better and more effective teams. This book introduces a systematic approach that allows leaders, managers, executives, trainers, and professionals to build and maintain excellent teams in their organizations.
Our systematic approach is based on scientific principles of learning and change. Implementing change requires that managers audit their own behavior to see where mistakes are being made, consider and implement new techniques and practices, and then examine their effects. Unfortunately, accomplishing these tasks in a typical orga- nization is not easy. This chapter sets the stage for effective learning by defining what a team is—it’s not always clear! We distinguish three types of teams in organizations based on their task focus. We also distinguish four types of teams in terms of their authority. We expose the most common myths about teamwork and share some observations from team leaders. We provide the results of our survey assessment on how teams are used in organizations and the problems with which managers are most concerned.
TEAMS VS. GROUPS
A group is a collection of people. A team is an interdependent group of people working for a shared goal. A work team is a collection of individuals who share responsibility for specific outcomes for their organizations. Not everyone who works together or is in proximity belongs to a team. A team is a group of people who are interdependent with respect to information, resources, and skills and who seek to combine their efforts to achieve a common goal. Teams have five key defining characteristics.3
First, teams exist to achieve a shared goal. Simply put, teams have work to do. Teams produce outcomes for which members have collective responsibility and reap some form of collective reward. Second, team members are interdependent regarding a common goal. Interdependence is the hallmark of teamwork. Interdependence means that team members cannot achieve their goals single-handedly but instead, must rely on each other to meet shared objectives. There are several kinds of interdependencies, as team members must rely on others for information, expertise, resources, and support. Third, teams are bounded and remain relatively stable over time. Boundedness means the team has an identifiable membership; members, as well as nonmembers, know who is on the team. Stability refers to the tenure of membership. Most teams work together for a meaningful length of time—long enough to accomplish their goal. Fourth, team members have the authority to manage their own work and internal processes.
3Alderfer, C. P. (1977). Group and intergroup relations. In J. R. Hackman & J. L. Suttle (Eds.), Improving life at work (pp. 227–296). Palisades, CA: Goodyear; Hackman, J. R. (1990). Introduction: Work teams in organiza- tions: An oriented framework. In J. Hackman (Ed.), Groups that work and those that don’t. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
M01B_THOM4204_06_SE_C01.indd 4 10/24/16 4:37 PM
Chapter 1 • Types of Teams 5
We focus on teams in which individual members can, to some extent, determine how their work gets done. Finally, teams operate in a larger social system context. Teams are not islands unto themselves. They do their work in a larger organization, often alongside other teams. Furthermore, teams often need to draw upon resources from outside the team and vice versa—something we discuss in Part III of this book.
A working group by contrast, consists of people who learn from one another, share ideas, but are not interdependent in an important fashion and are not working toward a shared goal. Working groups share information, perspectives, and insights; make decisions; and help people do their jobs better, but the focus is on individual goals and accountability. For example, a group of researchers who meet each month to share their new ideas is a working group.
WHY SHOULD ORGANIZATIONS HAVE TEAMS?
Teams and teamwork are not novel concepts. In fact, teams and team thinking have been around for years at companies such as Procter & Gamble and Boeing. For example, during collaboration on the B-2 stealth bomber between the U.S. Air Force, Northrop Grumman, and 4,000 subcontractors and suppliers in the early 1980s, teams were employed to handle different parts of the project.4
Managers discovered a large body of research indicating that teams can be more effective than the traditional corporate hierarchical structure for making decisions quickly and efficiently. Even simple changes such as encouraging input and feedback from workers on assembly lines can make a dramatic improvement. For instance, quality control (QC) circles and employee involvement groups encourage employee participa- tion.5 It is a mark of these programs' success that this kind of thinking is considered conventional wisdom nowadays. Although these QC teams were worthy efforts at fos- tering the use of teams in organizations, the teams needed for the restructuring and reengineering processes of the future may be quite different. For example, Zappos.com uses holacracies, which are radical self-management systems in which managers no lon- ger exist and the traditional corporate hierarchy is gone. Concentric circles of responsi- bility replace organizational charts, and employees choose which circles they belong to and what projects they work on. People don’t have one job; they have multiple “roles” and “lead links” are designated to communicate between circles. The company’s 1,500 employees define their own jobs and anyone can set the agenda for a meeting but to prevent anarchy, processes are strictly enforced.6 At least four challenges suggest that building and maintaining effective teams is of paramount importance.
InformatIon technology
In our research, 72% of managers and leaders report that they work in hybrid teams in which they are not physically co-located.7 In the collaboration economy, employees are
4Kresa, K. (1991). Aerospace leadership in a vortex of change. Financier, 15(1), 25–28. 5Cole, R. E. (1982). Diffusion of participating work structures in Japan, Sweden and the United States. In P. S. Goodman et al. (Eds.), Change in organizations (pp. 166–225). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 6From At Zappos, Pushing Shoes and a Vision by David Gelles, © JULY 17, 2015 The New York Times. 7Thompson, L. (2016). Constructive Collaboration Executive program survey, Kellogg School of Management.
M01B_THOM4204_06_SE_C01.indd 5 10/24/16 4:37 PM
6 Part 1 • Building the Team
knowledge workers and teams are knowledge integrators. One of the challenges of the information era is in finding where the information is located within the company, or connecting and communicating with others who may be working halfway around the globe. What do people look for in experts? They look for expertise, trustworthiness, communication skills, a willingness to help, years of experience, and an awareness of other resources. LinkedIn launched Lookup, an app that lets employees find, learn about, and contact coworkers through in-app messaging or by email. Senior product managers at LinkedIn realized that as the company grows and new people join the team, it is vital to know where the information is.8
In the collaboration economy, the role of managers has shifted accordingly; they are no longer primarily responsible for gathering information from employees working below them in the organizational hierarchy and then making command decisions based on this information. Their new role is to identify the key resources that will best imple- ment the team’s objectives and then to facilitate the coordination of those resources for the company’s purposes.
The jobs of the team members have also changed significantly. This can be viewed as a threat or a challenge. In 2015, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that approximately 15.8 million people, or 10 percent of the workforce, worked from home at least 1 day per week. That’s an increase of 18 percent from only 3 years earlier.9 Decisions may now be made far from their traditional location; indeed, sometimes they are even made by contractors, who are not employees of the company. This dramatic change in structure requires an equally dramatic reappraisal of how companies structure the work environment.
competItIon
Information technology has also allowed customers and clients to gain immediate access to knowledge and information about products and services. This knowledge creates greater competition among companies vying for customers and market share. The average busi- ness loses 50 percent of its customers every 5 years. Just a 2 percent increase in customer retention has the same effect as decreasing costs by 10 percent. And, acquiring new cus- tomers can cost as much as five times more than retaining current customers.10 With so much at stake, companies aggressively compete in a winner-take-all battle for market share. Thus, bringing out the best in teams within the company has become even more important. This means that people can be expected to specialize more, and these areas of expertise will get ever more narrow and interdependent. This is the core structure of a team-based approach to work. For example, when Apple began developing its own brand of electric cars from the ground up, project leaders were given permission to create a 1,000-person team and recruit employees from anywhere in the company, including engi- neers who created the iPhone and iPod. The industrial design team was staffed with designers who had experience working for European and American auto makers. Dozens
8Chaykowski, K. (2015, August 19). LinkedIn's new employee directory app ‘Lookup’ could boost daily activity on its network. Forbes. forbes.com 9U.S. Census Bureau daily feature for October 8: Work From Home Week. (2015, October 8). United States Census Bureau. census.gov 10From How to build customer loyalty, © JUL 20, 2015 Forbes.
M01B_THOM4204_06_SE_C01.indd 6 10/24/16 4:37 PM
Chapter 1 • Types of Teams 7
of other employee teams were tasked with researching robotics, metals, materials, or fiscally efficient automobile production methods and supply chains.11
globalIzatIon and culture
Another challenge is globalization. An increasingly global and fast-paced economy requires people with specialized expertise, yet the specialists within a company need to work together. As acquisitions, restructurings, outsourcing, and other structural changes take place, the need for coordination becomes all the more salient. Changes in corpo- rate structure and increases in specialization imply that there will be new boundar- ies among the members of an organization. Boundaries both separate and link teams within an organization, although the boundaries are not always obvious.12 These new relationships require team members to learn how to work with others to achieve their goals. Team members must integrate through coordination and synchronization with suppliers, managers, peers, and customers. Teams of people are required to work with one another and rarely (and, in some cases, never) interact in a face-to-face fashion. With the ability to communicate with others anywhere on the planet (and beyond!), people and resources that were once remote can now be reached quickly, easily, and inexpensively. This has facilitated the development of the virtual team—groups linked by technology so effectively it is as if they are in the same building. However, cultural differences, both profound and nuanced, can threaten the ability of teams to accomplish shared objectives.
multIgeneratIonal teams
Multigenerational teams are composed of people of different generations who work in different ways and follow different norms when it comes to collaborating and teaming. This is largely due to the shaping experiences some generations have had with technol- ogy at a young age that have affected how they think and work. For example, in 2015, more than one-in-three American workers—54 million in all—were millennials (persons born between 1981 and 1997), surpassing Generation X to become the largest segment of the United States workforce.13 Sometimes, communicating with someone from a dif- ferent generation can be as challenging as communicating with someone from a different culture. Unless managers and companies take the time to understand the different work and value systems of the other generations, they are doomed to be disappointed and frustrated. Values to consider in teams composed of different generations include: the importance of family; achievement orientation; team versus individual orientation; and the need for feedback, attention, and coaching. Mixed generations in the office can often lead to awkward face-to-face interactions. For example, millennials have been referred to as the “new office moron” by Businessweek because they don’t know how to dress, use a
11Wakabayashi, D., & Ramsey, M. (2015, February 15). Apple gears up to challenge Tesla in electric cars. The Wall Street Journal. wsj.com 12Alderfer, C. P. (1977). Group and intergroup relations. In J. R. Hackman & J. L. Suttle (Eds.), Improving life at work (pp. 227–296). Palisades, CA: Goodyear; Friedlander, F. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. 13Fry, R. (2015, May 11). Millennials surpass Gen Xers as the largest generation in the U.S. labor force. Pew Research Center. pewresearch.org
M01B_THOM4204_06_SE_C01.indd 7 10/24/16 4:37 PM
8 Part 1 • Building the Team
landline, or be professional in a meeting—using their cell phones to text or browse the Internet.14 Millennials view traditional employment with skepticism.15 For these reasons, Acuity insurance instituted gaming clubs for its young workforce. And Workday, a cloud computing provider, invites junior staffers to lead meetings, offers mentoring programs, and rotates employees through different divisions throughout the company to keep them engaged and build their skills and experiences.16
TASK FOCUS
Teams do one of three types of tasks: tactical, problem solving, and creative. Exhibit 1-1 describes the disadvantages and advantages of tactical, problem-solving, and creative teams.
tactIcal teams
Tactical teams execute a well-defined plan. Some examples of tactical teams include cardiac surgery teams, many sports teams, and other teams that are tightly organized.17 For tactical teams to be successful, there must be a high degree of task clarity and unambiguous role definition. In a study of the success of NBA (National Basketball Association) players, teams on which players played together longer won more games
14Why etiquette schools are thriving. (2010, October 14). Businessweek. businessweek.com 15Zaino, G. (2015, January 5). Three things forward-thinking companies need to know to attract millennial independent workers in 2016. Huffington Post Business. huffingtonpost.com 16Lewis, K. R. (2015, June 23). Everything you need to know about your Millennial co-workers. Fortune. fortune.com 17LaFasto, F. M. J., & Larson, C. E. (2001). When teams work best: 6,000 team members and leaders tell what it takes to succeed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Key Objective Process Focus Threats
Tactical • Directive, highly-focused tasks • Role clarity • Well-defined operation • Accuracy
• Role ambiguity • Lack of training standards • Communication barriers
Problem-solving • Focus on issues • Separate people from problem • Consider facts, not opinions • Conduct thorough investigation • Suspend judgment
• Failure to stick to facts • Fixate on solutions • Succumb to political pressures • Confirmatory information search
Creative • Explore possibilities and alternatives
• Production blocking • Uneven participation
Exhibit 1-1 Types of Work That Teams Do
Based on Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, F. M. (1989). Teamwork: What must go right/what can go wrong. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, © Leigh L. Thompson.
M01B_THOM4204_06_SE_C01.indd 8 10/24/16 4:37 PM
Chapter 1 • Types of Teams 9
(holding constant the players' own stats); and if “bad teams” played together a lot, they won more than they should have based on other criteria.18
One type of tactical team is a crew. A crew is a group of expert specialists each of whom has a specific role position, performs brief tasks that are closely synchronized with others, and repeats those events across different environmental conditions.19 To assess whether a particular team is a “work crew,” complete the survey in Exhibit 1-2. Located at a barren site with Earth’s most unforgivable climate, the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station at summer peak requires 150 scientists, technicians, and support staff all working in concert to accomplish the research goals of the station. The 6-month arctic winter where temperatures can drop to –76°F tests the mettle of the remaining 45 workers who persevere through 6 months of complete darkness unbroken by sup- ply planes, Wi-Fi, or cell phone service. Winter crews with specific skills maintain the station’s telescopes, monitor the “ice cube lab” of computers that collect daily scientific data, and watch over necessities for survival such as diesel generators that run the sta- tion’s heating systems and electricity, and hydroponic greenhouses which provide 30 pounds of vegetables each week.20
problem-solvIng teams
Problem-solving teams attempt to resolve problems, usually on an ongoing basis. To be effective, each member of the team must expect and believe that interactions among members will be truthful and of high integrity. Some examples of problem-solving teams include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Sandia Labora- tory’s nuclear weapons team.21 A crisis team is an example of a problem-solving team. Crisis teams may deal with a sudden crisis, such as a natural disaster (e.g., tsunami) or a smoldering crisis, such as a product defect or scandal that begins small and then escalates out of control.22 Some organizations have existing, permanent crisis teams to handle crises; other organizations improvise. (see Exhibit 1-3). The contamination crisis at Chi- potle that sickened more than 500 customers, sent the company’s stock tumbling, and darkened the company’s image, directed dozens of teams to implement severe new food safety measures after three different pathogens were linked to five known outbreaks.23
creatIve teams
Creative teams are those in which the key objective is to create something, think out-of- the-box, and question assumptions. The process focus of creative teams is on explor- ing possibilities and alternatives. We discuss creative teams in much more depth in Chapter 9. Examples of creative teams include IDEO design teams, Hallmark’s creative advisory group, and the teams responsible for Netflix original programming.
18Berman, S. L., Down, J., & Hill, C. W. (2002). Tacit knowledge as a source of competitive advantage in the National Basketball Association. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 13–31. 19Klimoski, R., & Jones, R. G. (1995). Staffing for effective group decision making. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making (pp. 9–45). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; Sundstrom, E. D., DeMeuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45(2), 120–133. 20Berfield, S. (2014, June 11). A guide to wintering in the South Pole. Bloomberg Business. bloomberg.com 21LaFasto & Larson, When teams work best. 22Irvine, R. B. (1997, July). What’s a crisis anyway? Communication World, 14(7), 36. 23Berfield, S. (2015, December 22). Inside Chipotle’s contamination crisis. Bloomberg Business. bloomberg.com
M01B_THOM4204_06_SE_C01.indd 9 10/24/16 4:37 PM
10 Part 1 • Building the Team
1. In general, when you joined your group, how clear were your roles and responsibilities?
1———————2———————3———————4———————5
extremely unclear extremely clear
2. To what extent does your group recruit for specific job positions that need to be filled for the group to be successful?
1———————2———————3———————4———————5
no specific job positions all are specific job positions
3. To what extent does your group need to be in a specific work environment or setting to complete its tasks?
1———————2———————3———————4———————5
we can meet in just about any place
we can only do our work if we have the right work
layout and equipment/tech
4. In general, to what extent do the same group members need to be present for the group’s task(s) to be completed successfully? (R)
1———————2———————3———————4———————5
need none of the same team members
need all of the same team members
5. To what extent do all of the group members need to be present for your group to accomplish its task or goals?
1———————2———————3———————4———————5
need only one group member need all of the group members
6. To what extent is the workflow (i.e., how the work will get done) in your group well established before anyone joins the team?
1———————2———————3———————4———————5
no extent very large extent
7. To what extent does each group member need to coordinate carefully with others in the group for the group to effectively accomplish its task(s)?
1———————2———————3———————4———————5
no extent very large extent
8. To what extent would your activities in the group (including the task(s) that you are responsible for) change if you were to move to another group that might be assigned to the same task or mission? (R)
1———————2———————3———————4———————5
does not change complete change
9. To what extent can your group complete its assigned task(s) if one or more of the people in the group are not there? (R)
1———————2———————3———————4———————5
cannot complete any of the task(s) can complete all of the task(s)
Exhibit 1-2 The Crew Classification Scale
M01B_THOM4204_06_SE_C01.indd 10 10/24/16 4:37 PM
Chapter 1 • Types of Teams 11
10. In general, how frequently do people come and leave as members of your group? (R)
1———————2———————3———————4———————5
daily never
11. Approximately how long will your group work together to complete its major task? (R)
1———————2———————3———————4———————5
1 hour to 1 day more than 1 year
12. Overall, how frequently has your group revisited/revised its roles and responsibilities since it was formed? (R)
1———————2———————3———————4———————5
never more than five times
Exhibit 1-2 The Crew Classification Scale
“Crews: A distinct type of work team” from Journal of Business and Psychology by Sheila Simsarian Webber, Richard J Klimoski 18(3), 261–279, PP. 268. Copyright (c) 2004 Springer New York LLC. Reprinted by permis- sion of Human Sciences Press, Inc. .
Note. (R), 6 reverse coded items
Exhibit 1-3 Organizational Crisis Teams
Based on Pearson, C.M. and Clari, J.A. (1998). Reframing crisis management. American Management Review, 23, 59–76; James, E. H. & Wooten, L.P. (2009). Leading teams in crisis situations: From chaos to extraordinary performance. Effective Executive 12(5), 14–19, © Leigh L. Thompson.
• Walmart & Hurricane Katrina • Apollo 13 Tiger Team
• SARS team in China • US Airways Flight 1549 • Chipotle E.coli crisis • Zika virus outbreak
• CISCO and global recession • BP Gulf Oil Spill • Volkswagen emissions crisis
• City of Flint, Michigan lead disaster
• Wells Fargo phony accounts
Members are brought together to prevent, prepare, and be on call to handle crisis situations
Unexpected events in which the organization has virtually no control and perceived limited fault or responsibility
Sudden Crisis
Formal Team
Ad hoc team that adapts to given situation moment by moment
Improv Team
Events that begin as small internal problems within an organization become public to stakeholders and over time, escalate into crisis status as a result of inattention by management
Smoldering Crisis
M01B_THOM4204_06_SE_C01.indd 11 10/24/16 4:37 PM
12 Part 1 • Building the Team
TYPES OF TEAM AUTONOMY
Teams differ greatly in their degree of autonomy and control vis-à-vis the organization. Consider the four levels of control depicted in Exhibit 1-4.
manager-led teams
The most traditional type of team is the manager-led team. In the manager-led team, the manager acts as the team leader and is responsible for defining the goals, methods, and functioning of the team. The team itself is responsible only for the actual execu- tion of their assigned work. Management is responsible for monitoring and managing performance processes, overseeing design, selecting members, and interfacing with the organization. Examples of manager-led work teams include automobile assembly teams, surgery teams, sports teams, and military teams. A manager-led team typically has a dedicated, full-time, higher-ranking supervisor, as in a coal-mining crew.
Manager-led teams provide the greatest amount of control over team members and the work they perform; they allow the leader to have control over the process and products of the team. In addition, they can be efficient in the sense that the manager does the work of setting the goals and outlining the work to be done. In manager-led
Exhibit 1-4 Authority of Four Illustrative Types of Work Teams “The design of work teams” from Handbook of organizational behavior by J.W. Lorsch. Copyright © 1987 by J.W. Lorsch Reprinted by permission of by J.W. Lorsch.
Design of the Organizational Context
Design of the Team as a Performing Unit
Monitoring and Managing Performance Processes
Executing the Task
Manager-Led Work Teams
Self-Managing Work Teams
Self-Designing Work Teams
Self-Governing Work Teams
Area of Management Responsibility
Area of Team Responsibility
M01B_THOM4204_06_SE_C01.indd 12 10/24/16 4:37 PM
Chapter 1 • Types of Teams 13
teams, managers don’t have to passively observe the team make the same mistakes they did. These teams also have relatively low start-up costs. However, there can be some key disadvantages, such as diffusion of responsibility and conformity to the leader. In short, members have less autonomy and empowerment. Manager-led teams may be ideally suited for simple tasks in which there is a clear goal, such as task forces or fact-finding teams. For example, GE Oil and Gas team leader, Steve Mumm, a former Army captain, leads a team of 50 employees to finish construction of a $35 million drilling safety system, known as a “stack,” designed to prevent gas blowouts during deepwater exploration. Steve points to his top-down style, “To get the pieces where they need to be at the right time takes someone out there motivating, directing, organizing. It takes a leader to do it.”24
self-managIng teams
In self-managing or self-regulating teams, a manager or leader determines the over- all purpose or goal of the team, but the team is at liberty to manage the methods by which to achieve that goal. Self-managed teams are increasingly common in organiza- tions. Examples include executive search committees and managerial task forces. Self- managing teams improve productivity, quality, savings, and employee morale, as well as contribute to reductions in absenteeism and turnover.25 These benefits have been observed in both manufacturing and service settings. In one investigation of 121 service technician teams, those that were empowered developed team processes that effectively increased quantitative performance and indirectly increased customer satisfaction.26 For example, at Pivotal Labs, there are no managers; instead, employees work in project teams, and pairs of programmers switch out almost daily to work with other teams and other projects. Using “balanced teams,” the emphasis is on productivity rather than managerial meetings to discuss productivity.27
Ruth Wageman formally studied 43 self-managing teams in the Xerox service organi- zation.28 According to Wageman, seven defining features emerged in the superbly perform- ing teams but not in the ineffective teams, including: clear direction, a team task, rewards, material resources, authority to manage their work, goals, and strategic norms. The success of self-managing work teams is defined by four predictors and variables: group task design, encouraging supervisory behaviors, group characteristics, and employee involvement.29 For a summary of critical success factors, see Exhibit 1-5.
Self-managing teams build commitment, offer increased autonomy, and often enhance morale. However, one disadvantage is that the manager has much less control over the process and products, making it difficult to assess progress. In one investigation, the effectiveness of three types of changes (personnel, process, and structure) were
24From Battle-tested: From Soldier to business leader by Brian O’Keefe, © NOVEMBER 10, 2015 Fortune. 25Stewart, G. I., & Manz, C. C. (1995). Leadership and self-managing work teams: A typology and integrative model. Human Relations, 48(7), 747–770. 26Mathieu, J., Gilson, L., & Ruddy, T. (2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness: An empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 97–108. 27Blakeman, C. (2015, December 9). Pivotal labs finds success with self-managed teams. Inc. inc.com
29Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness. Human Relations, 49(5), 643–675.
28From Critical success factors for creating superb self-managing teams by Ruth Wageman in Organizational Dynamics, © 1997 Elsevier.
M01B_THOM4204_06_SE_C01.indd 13 10/24/16 4:37 PM
14 Part 1 • Building the Team
Exhibit 1-5 Critical Success Factors for Self-Managing Teams
Based on Wageman, R. (1997b, Summer). Critical success factors for creating superb self-managing teams. Organizational Dynamics, 26(1), 49-61 ; Cohen, S.G., Ledford, G.E., Spreitzer, G.M. (1996). A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness. Human Relations, 49(5), 643–675, © Leigh L. Thompson.
Team Goals • Can team members articulate a clear direction, shared by all members, of the basic purpose that
the team exists to achieve? • Can the team articulate specific goals? • Do these goals stretch their performance? • Has the team specified a time by which they intend to accomplish these goals? • Can the team work together without duplicating or wasting efforts and doing so with a “can-do” attitude? • Is the team effective in innovating and coming up with new solutions that address changing task demands?
A Real Team Task / Group Task Design
Group Characteristics
Team Rewards / Employee Involvement Context
Basic Material Resources
Authority to Manage the Work
• Group task identity: Is the team assigned collective responsibility for all the team’s customers and major outputs?
• Group task variety: Are members cross-trained to help and substitute efforts for each other? • Group task feedback: Does the team get team-level data and feedback about its performance? • Is the team required to meet frequently, and does it do so? • Group task significance: Is the team motivated to take care of the important work they perform
and cooperate with one another when they perceive the work they do as significant?
• Group composition – Group expertise – Group size adequacy – Group stability of membership
• Counting all reward dollars available, are more than 80 percent available to teams only and not to individuals?
• Are team rewards tied to team performance and development of team capabilities? • Does the team have access to information about work processes, quality, customers, business
performance, competitors and organizational changes? • Does the team get training that enables team members to grow in their knowledge required for
their effective performance?
• Does the team have the resources, the equipment, space, tools, and materials that permit the team to accomplish their work?
• Does the team have its own meeting space?
• Does the team have the authority to decide the following (without first receiving special authority): – How to meet client demands – Which actions to take and when – Whether to change their work strategies when they deem necessary
• Group task autonomy: Is the team given the power to make decisions about business performance and required to make collective decisions about work strategies (rather than leaving it to individuals)?
• Can the team allocate resources efficiently in order to adjust to variation in work conditions?
Strategy Norms • Do team members encourage each other to detect problems without the leader’s intervention? • Do members openly discuss differences in what members have to contribute to the team? • Do members encourage experimentation with new ways of operating? • Does the team actively seek to learn from other teams? • Are there standards of behavior that are shared by the team members? • Is there a shared belief among the team members that the group can be effective?
M01B_THOM4204_06_SE_C01.indd 14 10/24/16 4:37 PM
Chapter 1 • Types of Teams 15
examined in structurally misaligned teams.30 These teams were more likely to change their process more frequently than their structure, resulting in detrimental effects on performance. However, when teams received feedback interventions, they were more likely to change their structure and thereby improve their performance.
self-dIrectIng teams
Self-directing or self-designing teams determine their own objectives and the meth- ods by which to achieve them. Management has responsibility only for the team’s orga- nizational context. Self-directed teams offer the most potential for innovation, enhance goal commitment and motivation, and provide opportunities for organizational learning and change. However, self-directed or self-designing teams are extremely time consum- ing, have the greatest potential for conflict, and can be very costly to build. Furthermore, it can be extremely difficult to monitor their progress. Other disadvantages include marginalization of the team and lack of team legitimacy. However, self-directed teams are often capable of great accomplishments.
Self-designing teams may be ideally suited for complex, ill-defined, or ambigu- ous problems and next-generation planning. Some companies have “free time” policies that allow employees to pursue novel projects they feel passionate about. According to Google, by allowing employees to have “20 percent time” for their projects, several success- ful launches including Google Glass, Google driverless car, Gmail electronic mail service, Google News service, Google Maps, and the social networking site Orkut were possible. Similarly, at Southwest Airlines, self-directing teams are a core value. The company limits the emphasis on formal organizational structure and instead trusts decision making to the individual worker or management committee. When a well-known author forgot his identi- fication card needed to board the plane, the empowered team member was able to assure his identity from the back cover of one of his books and permitted the author to board the plane, preventing a dreaded flight delay. In a traditional top–down structure, the team member would have to call her manager, who then may have to call another manager, but the power of the self-directing team circumvented the bureaucratic hassle.31 By reducing bureaucracy, self-directed teams help the bottom line. At W.L. Gore Company, 9,500 employees across 50 locations work without formal hierarchies, no bosses, and minimal job titles. Associates choose their work and negotiate roles with team members. Manufacturing facilities are capped around 200 workers to keep the focus on “we decided” instead of “they decided.” The company scores high on annual lists of best places to work and innovation leaders.32
self-governIng teams
Self-governing teams and boards of directors are usually responsible for executing a task, managing their own performance processes, designing the group, and designing the organizational context. They have wide latitude of authority and responsibility. In
30Johnson, M. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., DeRue, D. S., Barnes, C. M., & Jundt, D. (2013). Functional versus dys- functional team change: Problem diagnosis and structural feedback for self-managed teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(1), 1–11. 31Nayab, N. (2011, August 24). How employee empowerment has pushed companies ahead. Bright Hub. brighthub.com; D’Onfro, J. (2015, April 17). The truth about Google’s famous ‘20% time’ policy. Business Insider. businessinsider.com; How companies are changing their culture to attract (and retain) millennials. (2015, August 19). Business.com. business.com 32LaBarre, P. (2012, March 5). When nobody (and everybody) is the boss. CNNMoney. management.fortune. cnn.com.; Our culture. (2016, August). Gore [Company website]. gore.com
M01B_THOM4204_06_SE_C01.indd 15 10/24/16 4:37 PM
16 Part 1 • Building the Team
many companies, the president or chief operating officer has been replaced with an executive, self-governing team.33 For example, LRN Founder Dov Seidman stood in front of his executive team and tore up the traditional organizational chart and announced that all members would now “report” to the company mission. The com- pany is managed through elected employee councils and is responsible for recruiting, performance and resource management, and conflict resolution.34
Yet, there are trade-offs involved with each of these four types of teams. Self- governing and self-directed teams provide the greatest potential in terms of commitment and participation, but they are also at the greatest risk of misdirection. When decisions are pushed down in organizations, team goals and interests may be at odds with orga- nizational interests. Unless everyone in the organization is aware of the company’s interests and goals, poor decisions (often with the best of intentions) may be made. An organization that chooses a manager-led group is betting that a manager can run things more effectively than a team can. If it is believed that the team can do the job better, a self-governing or self-designing team may be appropriate. One implication of this is that the manager’s traditional role as a collector of information is less and less important. However, it is important to think about the direction of movement. One investigation tested predictions from Structural Adaptation Theory on the longitudinal effects of centralizing versus decentralizing decision-making structures in teams.35 Results from ninety-three, 4-person teams documented that it was more difficult for teams to adapt to a centralized decision-making structure after formally working within a decentralized structure than it was to adapt in the opposite direction.
OBSERVATIONS ABOUT TEAMS AND TEAMWORK
There is a lot of folklore and unfounded intuition when it comes to teams and team- work. We want to set the record straight by exposing some of the observations that managers find most useful. This is not an exhaustive list, but we believe the factors on this list have the most value for leaders when it comes to understanding how teams perform, change, and grow.
teams should be the exceptIon, not the rule
Don’t create a team for the sake of “teamwork.” If one person can accomplish a goal single-handedly, let that person do it! When companies are in trouble, they often restructure into teams. However, organizing people into teams does not solve problems; if not done thoughtfully, this may even cause more problems. Perhaps it is for this reason that Basecamp, a Web application company, instilled a “month off” policy under which employees take a month off from coming into the office and instead work on mock-ups or prototypes of new products. Employees are free to work wherever they want. By
33Ancona, D. G., & Nadler, D. A. (1989). Top hats and executive tales: Designing the senior team. Senior Management Review, 31(1), 19–28. 34Seidman, D. (2012, June 26). Work in progress: Working in a self-governing office. Financial Times. finan- cialtimes.com 35Hollenbeck, J. R., Aleksander, P. J., Ellis, S. E., Humphrey, A. S, Garza, & Ilgen, D. R. (2011). Asymmetry in structural adaptation: The differential impact of centralizing versus decentralizing team decision-making structures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114(1), 64–74.
M01B_THOM4204_06_SE_C01.indd 16 10/24/16 4:37 PM
Chapter 1 • Types of Teams 17
having a full month to dedicate to innovation without the hassle and interruptions of team meetings and administration, individuals can innovate.36
Teams can outperform the best member of the group, but there are no guaran- tees. Admitting the inefficiency of teams is hard, especially when most of us would like to believe the Gestalt principle that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts! Teams are not a panacea for organizations; they often fail and are frequently overused or poorly designed. In the best circumstances, teams provide insight, creativity, and cross- fertilization of knowledge in a way that a person working independently cannot. In the wrong circumstances, teamwork can lead to confusion, delay, and poor decision making.
managers fault the Wrong causes for team faIlure
Imagine yourself in the following situation: The wonderful team that you put together last year has collapsed. The new product line is not forthcoming, conflict has erupted, and there is high turnover. What has gone wrong? If you are like most managers, you place the blame on one of two things: (1) external, uncontrollable forces (e.g., a bad economy) or (2) the people on the team (e.g., difficult personalities). Conveniently for the manager, both of these problems do not directly implicate poor leadership. However, according to most research investigations, neither of these causes is the actual culprit. Most team problems are not explained by external problems or personality problems. Faulty team design is a key causal factor in underperforming teams.
The misattribution error is the tendency for managers to attribute the causes of team failure to forces beyond their personal control. Leaders may blame individual team members, lack of resources, or a competitive environment. When the leader points to a problem team member, the team’s problems can be neatly and clearly understood as emanating from one source. This protects the leader’s ego (and in some cases, the manager’s job), but it stifles learning and destroys morale. It is more likely that the team’s poor performance is due to a structural, rather than personal, cause. Furthermore, it is likely that several things, not just one, are at work.
teams requIre attentIon
Many new managers believe that their role should be one of building the most effective relationships they can with each individual subordinate; they erroneously equate man- aging their team with managing the individual people on the team.37 These managers rarely rely on group-based forums for problem solving and diagnosis. Instead, they spend their time in one-on-one meetings. Teamwork is expected to be a natural conse- quence. As a result, many decisions are based upon limited information, and decision outcomes can backfire in unexpected and negative ways. Leaders need to help managers learn about teamwork.
experImentIng WIth faIlures leads to better teams
It may seem ironic, but one of the most effective ways to learn is to experience failure. For example, Twitter was born out of a failed project called Odeo. Twitter founder Evan
36Fried, J. (2012, May 31). Workplace experiments: a month to yourself. 37Signals. 37signals.com 37Hill, M. (1982). Group versus individual performance: Are N + 1 heads better than one? Psychological Bul- letin, 91, 517–539.
M01B_THOM4204_06_SE_C01.indd 17 10/24/16 4:37 PM
18 Part 1 • Building the Team
Williams and his team were struggling to get excited about a podcasting service that didn’t offer everything that iTunes—a major competitor—did. Sure enough, soon after it was introduced, Odeo failed. So, Williams and his team took the experience from Odeo and developed a completely new social media that allowed people to send simple updates via text.38 A failed team effort should be viewed as a critical source of information from which to learn. However, when you are the one failing, failure is hard to embrace. The true mark of a valued team member is a willingness to learn from mistakes.
Surprises and ambiguity are often a cause of failure, so it is important to examine how teams can best deal with surprise and the unexpected. One investigation examined how SWAT teams and film production crews deal with surprises and upsets by engaging in organizational bricolage—in which they restructure their activities by role shifting, reorganizing routines, and reassembling their work.39
conflIct Is not alWays detrImental
Many leaders boast that their teams are successful because they never have conflict. However, it is a fallacy to believe that conflict is detrimental to effective teamwork. In fact, conflict may be necessary for effective decision making in teams as it can foment accuracy, insight, understanding, trust, and innovation.
strong leadershIp Is not alWays necessary for strong teams
A common myth about leadership is that to function effectively, teams need a strong, powerful, and charismatic leader. In general, leaders who control all the details, manage all the key relationships in the team, have all the good ideas, and use the team to execute their “vision” are usually overworked and underproductive. Teams with strong leaders sometimes succumb to flawed and disastrous decision making.
A leader has two main functions: a design function, meaning that the leader struc- tures the team environment (working conditions, access to information, incentives, training, and education), and a coaching function, meaning that the leader has direct interaction with the team.40
good teams can stIll faIl under the Wrong cIrcumstances
Teams are often depicted as mavericks: bucking authority, striking out on their own, and asking for permission only after the fact. Such cases do occur, but they are rare and tend to be one-shot successes. Most managers want consistently successful teams.
To be successful in the long run, teams need ongoing resources and support. By resources, we mean more than just money. Teams need information and education. In too many cases, teams tackle a problem that has already been solved by someone else in the company, but a lack of communication prevents this critical knowledge from reaching the current task force.
38Miller, C. (2012, October 30). Why Twitter’s C.E.O. demoted himself. New York Times. nytimes.com 39Bechky, B. A., & Okhuysen, G. A. (2011). Expecting the unexpected? How SWAT officers and film crews handle surprises. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 239–261. 40Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
M01B_THOM4204_06_SE_C01.indd 18 10/24/16 4:37 PM
Chapter 1 • Types of Teams 19
To lay the best groundwork for teams, it is important to consider the goals and resources of the team: Are the team’s goals well defined? Does everyone know them? Are the goals consistent with the objectives of other members of the organization? If not, how will the inevitable conflict be managed? Does everyone on the team have access to the resources necessary to successfully achieve the goal? Is the organizational hierarchy designed to give team members access to these resources efficiently? If not, it might be necessary to reconsider the governance structure within which the team must operate. What are the rights of the team members in pursuing their duties, who can they contact, and what information can they command? It is also important to assess the incentive structure existing for team members and for those outside the team with whom team members must interact. Are the team members' incentives aligned? Are team members' incentives aligned with those of the group and the organization, for instance, to cooperate with one another and to fully share information and resources? There is no one-size-fits- all solution to team structure. For instance, it may be appropriate for team members to compete with one another (in which case, cooperation may not be an achievable feature of the group dynamic). Choosing the structure of the group and the incentives that moti- vate the individuals inside it are essential factors contributing to the success of any team.
retreats WIll not fIx all the conflIcts betWeen team members
Teams often get into trouble. Members may fight, slack off, or simply be unable to keep up with their responsibilities, potentially resulting in angry or dissatisfied customers. When conflict arises, people search for a solution to the team problem. A common strat- egy is to have a “team-building retreat,” “corporate love-in,” or “ropes and boulders course” where team members try to address underlying concerns and build trust by engaging in activities—like rock climbing—that are not part of what they ordinarily do as a team. A team retreat is a popular way for team members to build mutual trust and com- mitment. A retreat may involve team members spending a weekend camping and engaging in cooperative, shared, structured activities. However, unless retreats address the structural and design problems that plague the team day to day in the work environment, they may fail. For example, one company facing leadership issues decided to have a consultant run a team-building retreat. The employees played games that put them into different roles so they could understand more about each other and the issues they faced day to day. However, the retreat did not accomplish the company goal because the employees did not discuss the games process. One employee commented that it was too bad the leadership was not stronger at the company because on paper it was the perfect job, but after expe- riencing yet another bad team-building experience, she decided to leave the company. Another example of a nonproductive work retreat came when a large nonprofit company had a lot of discord between employees. To help resolve this, the executive director asked the staff to participate in a retreat by going into the woods, standing in a circle, and hold- ing a stone to express their negative feelings. Needless to say, the discord continued.41
Design problems are best addressed by examining the team in its own environ- ment while team members are engaged in actual work. For this reason, it is important to take a more comprehensive approach to analyzing team problems. Retreats are often
41Balderrama, A. (2012, June 18). The worst team-building experience you’ve ever had. CareerBuilder. career- builder.com
M01B_THOM4204_06_SE_C01.indd 19 10/24/16 4:37 PM
20 Part 1 • Building the Team
insufficient because they encourage managers to attribute team failures to interpersonal dynamics, rather than examining and changing deeper, structural issues.
WHAT LEADERS TELL US ABOUT THEIR TEAMS
To gain a more accurate picture of the challenges leaders face in their organizations when designing, leading, and motivating teams, we conducted an assessment, spanning 18 years, of over 1,300 executives and managers from a variety of industries.42 Here are some highlights of what they told us.
most common type of team
The most common type is the middle management team, followed by cross-functional, operations, and service teams. Cross-functional teams epitomize the challenges outlined earlier in this chapter. They have the greatest potential, in terms of integrating talent, skills, and ideas, but because of their diversity of skills and responsibilities, they provide fertile ground for conflict.
team sIze
Team size varies dramatically, from 3 to 100 members, with an average of 11.75. How- ever, the modal team size is 10. These numbers can be compared with the optimum team size. As we discuss later in the book, teams should generally have fewer than 10 members—more like 5 or 6.
team autonomy versus manager control
Most of the managers in our assessment were in self-managing teams (49%), followed by manager-led teams (45%), with self-directing teams (6%) distinctly less common (see Exhibit 1-6). There is an inevitable tension between the degree of manager control in a team and the ability of team members to guide and manage their own actions. Manager-led teams provide more control, but less innovation than what stems from autonomous teams. We do not suggest that all teams should be self-directing. Rather, it is important to understand the trade-offs and what is required for each type of team to function effectively.
team longevIty
Teams vary a great deal in terms of how long they have been in existence. On average, teams are in existence for 1 to 2 years (see Exhibit 1-7).
the most frustratIng aspect of teamWork
Managers considered several possible sources of frustration in managing teams. The most frequently cited cause of frustration and challenge in teams is developing and
42Thompson, L. (2016). Leading high impact teams executive program survey [survey data set]. Kellogg School of Management Executive Program. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
M01B_THOM4204_06_SE_C01.indd 20 10/24/16 4:37 PM
Chapter 1 • Types of Teams 21
sustaining high motivation, followed by minimizing confusion and coordination prob- lems (see Exhibit 1-8). We discuss motivation and engagement in Chapter 5. We ana- lyze conflict (and ways to effectively manage it within a team) in Chapter 8 and address creativity in Chapter 9. Not surprisingly, among the skills on the most-wanted list for managerial education are developing and sustaining high motivation, developing clear goals, fostering creativity and innovation, training, and minimizing confusion and coordination problems. Consequently, we designed this book to prepare managers and reeducate executives in how to effectively deal with each of these concerns.
Exhibit 1-6 Team Autonomy Versus Manager Control Based on Leading high impact teams. Team leadership survey from the Kellogg School of Management Executive Program. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, © Leigh L. Thompson.
45% 49%
6%
Manager-led 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Self-managing Self-directing
Exhibit 1-7 Team Longevity Based on Leading high impact teams. Team leadership survey from the Kellogg School of Management Executive Program. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, © Leigh L. Thompson.
7%
29%
19%
7%
38%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Less than 6 months
6–12 months 1–2 years 3–5 years Over 5 years
M01B_THOM4204_06_SE_C01.indd 21 10/24/16 4:37 PM
22 Part 1 • Building the Team
Exhibit 1-8 The Most Frustrating Aspects of Teamwork Based on Leading high impact teams. Team leadership survey from the Kellogg School of Management Executive Program. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, © Leigh L. Thompson.
M an
ag in
g co
nfl ic
t p ro
du ct
iv el
y 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
N et
w or
ki ng
Pa rti
ci pa
tiv e
m an
ag em
en t
Se le
ct io
n/ Re
cr ui
tm en
t i ss
ue s/
cr ite
ria
So ci
al iz
at io
n/ C
or po
ra te
c ul
tu re
C om
pe ns
at io
n
C oo
pe ra
tio n/
C om
pe tit
io n
am on
g m
em be
rs M
an ag
in g
pe op
le p
ro bl
em s
D ec
is io
n- m
ak in
g
Pr ob
le m
-s ol
vi ng
Le ad
er sh
ip a
nd d
ire ct
io n
D ea
lin g
w ith
p ol
iti cs
D ev
el op
in g
cl ea
r g oa
ls
Fo st
er in
g cr
ea tiv
ity /In
no va
tio n
M in
im iz
in g
co nf
us io
n/ C
oo rd
in at
io n
pr ob
le m
s
D ev
el op
in g/
Su st
ai ni
ng h
ig h
m ot
iv at
io n
Tr ai
ni ng
55%
45%
41%
35%
31%31% 29%
26% 24%
31%
24%
20%
17%
13%13%13% 11%
DEVELOPING YOUR TEAM-BUILDING SKILLS
This book focuses on three skills: accurate diagnosis of team problems, evidence-based management, and expert learning.
accurate dIagnosIs of team problems
It is difficult to identify a single measure of team functioning because team effective- ness is hard to define. For example, perhaps your organization beat the competition in winning a large contract, but the contract was ultimately not very profitable. Was this a victory or a failure? What will be the implications for future competition?
Many people make the mistake of looking for causes after they observe effects. In the scientific literature, this is known as sampling on the dependent variable.
M01B_THOM4204_06_SE_C01.indd 22 10/24/16 4:37 PM
Chapter 1 • Types of Teams 23
For example, if your goal is to identify the determinants of a successful team, it may appear useful to look for effective teams in your organization and then try to determine what is common among them. This sounds logical, until you realize that there may be many common factors that have nothing to do with making a team successful. Or there may be common features that interfere with good teamwork but are nonetheless difficult to detect—perhaps precisely because they are common to all the teams, successful or not. One important example of this is the institutional background of the company, for example, taking certain established practices for granted, such as operating procedures, information sources, and even contractual relationships. In this case, the team may be effective, but not as effective as it might otherwise be. A manager who is also entrenched in the institutional framework of the company may perceive a team as effective, while overlooking its shortcomings. Thus, it is essential to be as independent and critical as possible when analyzing team effectiveness.
How do you avoid the trap of sampling on the dependent variable? From a meth- odological point of view, you can do one of two things: (1) identify a preexisting baseline or control group—that is, a comparison group (in this case, unsuccessful teams)—and look for differences between the two; or (2) do an experiment in which you provide different information, education, communication, and so on to one group (randomly assigned) but not the other. Then look for differences. Unfortunately, most executives do not have the time or resources to do either of these things. This book provides insights based upon research that has done these things before drawing conclusions. However, nothing can substitute for a thoughtful understanding of the environment in which the team operates, the incentives facing team members, and so on. We discuss these factors throughout this book.
Another problem is called hindsight bias, or the “I knew it all along” fallacy.43 This is the tendency to believe that something seems obvious, even inevitable, after you learn about it when you have not predicted (or cannot predict) what will happen. This can result in an unfortunate form of overconfidence: Managers think they know every- thing, when in fact they don’t. We often see managers engage in post hoc justification rather than careful reasoning. The best way to avoid this trap is to actively learn about other possibilities, critically examine your assumptions, and be open to a change of mind once you have the facts. As you read this book, some things will surprise you, but much will seem obvious. As a general principle, do not rely on your intuition; rather, test your assumptions.
evIdence-based management
For every managerial problem, there are a dozen purported solutions and quick fixes. How can a manager knowledgeably choose among them? The answer, we think, is the science of teamwork.
Team- and group-related research is based on scientific theory. Group-related research accounts for over one-sixth of all the research in social psychology and one- third of the most cited papers in social psychology journals focus on groups and
43Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight does not equal foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 288–299.
M01B_THOM4204_06_SE_C01.indd 23 10/24/16 4:37 PM
24 Part 1 • Building the Team
teams.44 The interventions presented in this book have a key quality going for them: They are theory-based and empirically supported. This means that they are not based on naive, intuitive perceptions; rather, they have been scientifically examined. This is known as evidence-based management.45 This book was written to provide managers with up-to-date, scientifically based information about how best to manage their teams.
expert learnIng
Effective managers make mistakes, but they don’t make the same mistakes twice. Expert learning involves the ability to continually learn from experience. One of the great fal- lacies about learning is that people reach a point where they have acquired all the knowledge they need; in contrast, great leaders are always learning. In this book, we use a model that we call expert learning to refer to how managers can continually benefit even from the most mundane experiences. Consider Chris Argyris’ distinction between single-loop versus double-loop learning.46 According to Argyris, single-loop learning is learning that is primarily one-dimensional. For example, a leader may believe that she has nothing to learn from a subordinate but that the subordinate can learn from her. Therefore, the interactions between the leader and the subordinate will be primarily one-directional, or single loop. In contrast, Argyris argues that effective leaders engage in double-loop learning processes, which involve a reciprocal interchange between leaders and teams. This means, of course, that not only do leaders coach, direct, and instruct their teams but also that teams help their leaders learn.
Another important aspect of learning is the use of examples to illustrate and con- vey concepts. Experiential and example-based learning is more effective than didactic (lecture-based) learning.47 When people fail to use knowledge they actually possess, this is known as the inert knowledge problem.48 The key to unlocking the pervasive inert knowledge problem lies in how the manager processes the information, and when man- agers link examples to concepts, they learn better.49 Thus, in this book, we attempt to provide several ways of looking at the same problem via a combination of theory, research, and real business practices.
A WARNING
We believe that teamwork, like other interdependent social behaviors, is best perfected in an active, experimental, and dynamic environment. Thus, to fully benefit from this book, it is necessary for you to actively engage in teamwork and examine your own behavior.
44Abrams, D. A., De Moura, G. R., Marques, J. M., & Hutchison, P. (2008). Innovation credit: When can leaders oppose their group’s norms? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(3), 662–678. 45Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (2006). Evidence-based management. Harvard Business Review, 84(1), 62–74. 46Argyris, C. (1977a). Double loop learning. Harvard Business Review, 55(5), 115–125. 47Nadler, J., Thompson, L., & Van Boven, L. (2003). Learning negotiation skills: Four models of knowledge creation and transfer. Management Science, 49(4), 529–540; Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. (2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 393–408. 48Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education. New York: Macmillan. 49Thompson, L., Loewenstein, J., & Gentner, D. (2000). Avoiding missed opportunities in managerial life: Analogical training more powerful than individual case training. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 60–75.
M01B_THOM4204_06_SE_C01.indd 24 10/24/16 4:37 PM
Chapter 1 • Types of Teams 25
It may seem somewhat heretical to make the point in a textbook that team-building skills cannot be learned exclusively from a textbook, but we do so anyway.
We strongly urge you to work through the models and ideas presented here in the context of your own experience. We can think of no better way to do this than in a classroom setting that offers the opportunity for online, applied, experiential learning. It is easy to watch, analyze, and critique other teams, but much more challenging to engage in effective team behavior yourself. We hope that what you gain from this book, and the work you do on your own through team-building exercises, is the knowledge of how to be an effective team member, team leader, and team designer. In the long run, we hope this book will help you in developing your own experience, expertise, and models of how you can best function with teams.
Chapter Capstone
There is no foolproof scientific formula for designing and maintaining an effective team. If there were, it would have been dis- covered by now. In some ways, a team is like the human body: No one knows the exact regimen for staying healthy over time. How- ever, we have some very good information about the benefits of a lean diet, exercise, stress reduction, wellness maintenance, and early detection of disease. The same goes for teamwork. Just as we rely on science to
cure disease and to advance health, this book takes an unabashedly scientific approach to the study and improvement of teamwork in organizations. There is a lot of mispercep- tion about teams and teamwork. Intuition and luck can only take us so far; in fact, if misapplied, they may get us into trouble. The next chapters in Part I focus on building the team. Part II focuses on optimizing teams to perform, and Part III focuses on the bigger picture—the team in the organization.
M01B_THOM4204_06_SE_C01.indd 25 10/24/16 4:37 PM
26
The launch of Healthcare.gov in 2013 was such a failure that it nearly ended the Affordable Care Act. The Obama administration was “running the biggest start-up in the world, and they didn’t have anyone who had run a start-up, or even run a business1” said David Cutler, health adviser to President Obama’s 2008 campaign. To explain how poorly the website was originally designed, on Healthcare.gov’s first day online, only six people were able to use the site to successfully sign up for health insurance. However, the large-scale failure pushed the administrative team to create a new initiative—the Marketplace Lite team (MPL), composed of an elite and diverse group of designers and developers from different tech companies. Their mission? Rescue the website from expensive contractors and bureaucratic mismanagement. The MPL team spent months rewriting critical code infrastructure for the Healthcare.gov website. Guided by a start-up culture, the team lived and worked together in a nondescript suburban home in Maryland. More often than not, the MPL team butted heads with the government’s bureaucratic project managers who were alarmed when the work schedule changed or if one feature of the website was dropped in exchange for fixing a more critical feature. The MPL team had a different view of the project than the government team; the MPL team saw glitches and bugs not as roadblocks, but as details that could be fine-tuned once the whole website code structure was stable. In the fall of 2014, the new Healthcare. gov website rolled out with much greater efficiency—down from 76 pages of forms, to just 16. Eighty-five percent of all users were able to get through the forms to a successful insurance purchase (compared to only 55 percent in the first version). The MPL team also slashed costs on the log-in page: down from a fixed cost of $250 million + $70 million yearly maintenance to a lean $4 million to build and $1 million to maintain per year.2
2Meyer, R. (2015, July 9). The secret startup that saved the worst website in America. The Atlantic. theatlantic. com/technology/worst-website-in-america/397784/; Goldstein, A., & Eilperin, J. (2013, November 2). Health- Care.gov: How political fear was pitted against technical needs. The Washington Post. washingtonpost.com/
1From HealthCare.gov: How political fear was pitted against technical needs, © The Washington Post
Designing the Team2 C
H A
P T
E R
M02_THOM4204_06_SE_C02.indd 26 10/24/16 5:08 PM
Chapter 2 • Designing the Team 27
The story of the MPL team turnaround involves selecting the right goal, choosing the right people, and developing a process. In this chapter, we focus on how to build effective teams from the ground up. The starting point presumes that the manager has determined that teams are necessary to do the work required. For expositional purposes, we take the point of view of the manager when we discuss building the team. However, all of our messages can be extended to the team members themselves (as in the case of self-managing and self-designing teams). There are three key responsibilities involved in team design: defining the goal, selecting team members, and managing the team process.
Team Design
Contrary to popular wisdom, it is more important to have a well-designed team than a team with a good leader. In an intensive study of customer service teams at Xerox with team sizes ranging from 3 to 12 people, well-designed teams were more successful on a number of key organizational effectiveness criteria—assuming collective responsibility, monitoring their own performance, managing their own task strategies, and customer approval—than were poorly designed teams.3 Poorly designed teams, even under good leadership, were significantly less effective. In the case of Xerox, team effectiveness was judged by supervisors as well as customers, thus providing a comprehensive view of team effectiveness. Once it is determined that a team is desirable for the work and viable within the organization, the manager must then focus intently on three aspects: defining the goal, selecting the team, and managing the process.
Define The goal
By definition, teams are goal-directed entities. However, many teams fail to make explicit plans or develop performance strategies.4 Those that do, however, usually perform bet- ter, especially when the appropriate performance strategy is not obvious.5 For example, when surgical teams follow a checklist, patient-mortality rates are cut almost in half and complications reduce by more than a third.6
Ends vs. MEans
An analysis of teams at Xerox revealed two common errors when it came to goal setting: Some teams failed to set any direction at all, and some teams set a direction that focused exclusively on means (the how) but did not specify the ends (the why).7 The first error occurs when teams assume that everyone knows why they are there and the team is
3Wageman, R. (1997). Case study: Critical success factors for creating superb self-managing teams at Xerox. Compensation and Benefits Review, 29(5), 31–41. 4Hackman, J. R., Brousseau, K. R., & Weiss, J. A. (1976). The interaction of task design and group performance strategies in determining group effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 350–365; Weingart, L. R. (1992). Impact of group goals, task component complexity, effort, and planning on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(5), 682–693. 5Ibid. 6Szalavitz, M. (2009, January 14). Study: A simple surgery checklist saves lives. Time. time.com 7Wageman, R. (1997). Case study: Critical success factors for creating superb self-managing teams at Xerox. Compensation and Benefits Review, 29(5), 31–41.
M02_THOM4204_06_SE_C02.indd 27 10/24/16 5:08 PM
28 Part 1 • Building the Team
launched into action without a thoughtful discussion of the purpose. The second error occurs when there is excessive focus on how a team should function.
Team goals should: (1) be clear and simple, and (2) specify ends but not means.8 In terms of clear and simple, the best team mission statements contain only a few objec- tives. Those objectives orient the team and allow members to make thoughtful decisions. For example successful teams at Xerox continually referred to their goals when making tough decisions: “Would this action please the customer and would it do so without excessive cost to Xerox?”9 A large-scale meta-analysis of teams revealed that specific, difficult goals yield considerably higher team performance compared with nonspecific goals.10 Successful teams specify their ends but not the means.11 Their mission statement is clear about the team’s purpose but does not prescribe the steps on how the team should get there.
PErforMancE vs. LEarning goaLs
Some team members have a high-performance orientation, whereas other team mem- bers have a high-learning orientation.12 A performance orientation reflects a desire to gain favorable judgments of performance or avoid negative judgments of competence. A learning orientation reflects the desire to understand something novel or to increase competence in a task. For example, Procter and Gamble has a “heroic failure award,” TATA has a “dare to try award,” video gaming company Supercell opens a bottle of bubbly when a game fails, and innovation lab, Google X rewards their teams for failure because it encourages innovation, improves engagement, and provides valuable learning opportunities.13 In one investigation, the effectiveness of performance and learning orientations was examined. Halfway through a 3-hour simulation in which teams needed to make a series of decisions, their communication channel began to deteriorate. To perform effectively, teams needed to adapt their roles. Teams with difficult goals and a high-performance orientation were the least able to adapt. Teams with difficult goals and a high-learning orientation were most likely to adapt. Moreover, cultural diversity is more positive for team performance when team members’ learning orientation is high and performance avoidance orientation is low.14 Learning goals focus groups on stra- tegic processes, and indeed, groups with learning goals discuss more strategic informa- tion and report greater satisfaction with performance than do performance-goal
8Ibid. 9From Case study: Critical success factors for creating superb self-managing teams at Xerox by Ruth Wage- man in Compensation and Benefits Review, © 1997 SAGE Publications. . 10Kleingeld, A., van Mierlo, H., & Arends, L. (2011). The effect of goal setting on group performance: A meta- analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1289–1304. 11Wageman, R. (1997a, Summer). Case study: Critical success factors for creating superb self-managing teams at Xerox. Compensation and Benefits Review, 29(5), 31–41. 12LePine, J. (2005). Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: Effects of goal difficulty and team composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1153–1167. 13Morgan, J. (2015, March 30). Why failure is the best competitive advantage. Forbes. forbes.com 14Pieterse, A., Van Knippenberg, D., & Van Dierendonck, D. (2013). Cultural diversity and team performance: The role of team member goal orientation. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 782–804.
M02_THOM4204_06_SE_C02.indd 28 10/24/16 5:08 PM
Chapter 2 • Designing the Team 29
groups.15 Teams are most effective when they have a high-learning orientation coupled with high team identification because this allows them to form more accurate team goal mental models and effectively plan their process.16 In another investigation, teams were assigned one of three types of goals (specific learning, general “do your best” learning, and specific performance). Teams with specific learning goals performed worse than did teams with general “do your best” learning goals or specific performance goals.17
A performance-prove goal orientation drives people to outperform others. For example, teams at Thomson Reuters compete for a “catalyst fund”—a pool of money for internal innovation. And teams at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser- vices compete in innovation contests in which each team is seeded with $5,000 to design a prototype to be judged by senior officials. One winning idea was software for tuberculosis screening trucks in Kenya which instantly assesses the risk level of patients and provides a searchable database for genetic information.18 A performance-prove goal orientation motivates team performance more when people are identified with their team but motivates individual performance more when people are less identified with their team.19
ProMotion vs. PrEvEntion goaLs
Two key types of chronic goals are promotion goals, in which a person attempts to achieve desired positive outcomes and prevention goals, in which a person attempts to avoid negative outcomes. People experience regulatory fit when they pursue a goal in a way that aligns with their chronic goal orientation. A study of table football players revealed that team members whose goal orientation (promotion vs. prevention) was aligned with their role (offense vs. defense positions) were more successful.20
goaL fit
Goal fit refers to the congruence between group members and the group with respect to the goals.21 A high goal fit occurs when the members have shared goals and collec- tively pursue those goals. The positive affect exhibited by leaders and team members is
15Winton, S. L., & Kane, T. D. (2015). Effects of group goal content on group processes, collective efficacy, and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(2), 129–139. 16Pearsall, M. J., & Venkataramani, V. (2015). Overcoming asymmetric goals in teams: The interactive roles of team learning orientation and team identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 735. 17From Goal setting in teams: The impact of learning and performance goals on process and performance by Jennifer D. Nahrgang, D. Scott DeRue, John R. Hollenbeck, Matthias Spitzmuller, Dustin K. Jundt, Daniel R. Ilgen in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, © 2013 Elsevier. 18Rathi, A. (2014, November 19). To encourage innovation, make it a competition. Harvard Business Review. hbr.org; Scola, N. (2014, September 30). Health department applies ‘shark tank’ philosophy to the work of the bureaucracy. The Washington Post. washingtonpost.com 19Dietz, B., van Knippenberg, D., Hirst, G., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2015). Outperforming whom? A multilevel study of performance-prove goal orientation, performance, and the moderating role of shared team identifica- tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100 (6), 1811–1824. 20Memmert, D., Plessner, H., Hüttermann, S., Froese, G., Peterhänsel, C., & Unkelbach, C. (2015). Collective fit increases team performances: Extending regulatory fit from individuals to dyadic teams. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45(5), 274–281. 21Witt, L. A., Hilton, T. F., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2001). Addressing politics in matrix teams. Group & Organization Management, 26, 230–247.
M02_THOM4204_06_SE_C02.indd 29 10/24/16 5:08 PM
30 Part 1 • Building the Team
a positive predictor of group-level goal fit. A study of 96 work teams revealed that group-level goal fit leads to better group performance.22
PrE-PLanning vs. on-LinE PLanning
Planning in teams is important for effectively pursuing goals. Planning is the develop- ment of alternative courses of action for the accomplishment of a mission or goal.23 One type of planning is task-focused and another is team-focused.24 Taskwork focuses on work goals and task-specific performance requirements; in contrast, teamwork focuses on interpersonal interaction requirements and team member capabilities.25
It is useful to distinguish preplanning (planning before actually performing the task) and online planning (planning during the task itself ).26 Teams permitted to plan between periods of task completion perform better than those that plan only during periods of task completion or do not have opportunities to discuss and develop plans.27 In one investigation, the efficacy of four different “team aids” for articulating and repre- senting knowledge in teams were tested: individual clipboards, team checklists, team clipboards, and a control condition with no clipboards or checklists. Teams were chal- lenged with a complex task of target identification in a military operation in which a target could be peaceful or hostile, military or civilian, and approached by air, surface, or submarine. Team aids (i.e., team checklists and team clipboards) enhanced team performance more than individual aids (i.e., individual clipboards).28
tiMELinEs and tiME PrEssurE
Differences in how members think about time can dramatically affect team process and outcomes. Consider four time-based individual differences: time urgency, time perspec- tive, polychronicity (doing several unrelated tasks at one time), and pacing style.29 Per- ceived urgency or time pressure positively affects performance when teams have strong temporal leadership, such that they manage the time-related aspects of their work.
22Seong, J. Y., & Choi, J. N. (2014). Effects of group-level fit on group conflict and performance: The initiating role of leader positive affect. Group & Organization Management, 39(2), 190.
25Marks, 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; 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.
23Marks, 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. 24Fisher, D. M. (2014). Distinguishing between taskwork and teamwork planning in teams: Relations with coordination and interpersonal processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 423.
26Weingart, L. R. (1992). Impact of group goals, task component complexity, effort, and planning on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(5), 682–693. 27Shure, G. H., Rogers, M. S., Larsen, I. M., & Tasson, J. (1962). Group planning and task effectiveness. Soci- ometry, 25(3), 263–282. 28Sycara, K., & Lewis, M. (2004). Integrating intelligent agents into human teams. In E. Salas & S. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 29Mohammed, S., & Harrison, D. A. (2013). The clocks that time us are not the same: A theory of temporal diversity, task characteristics, and performance in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 244–256.
M02_THOM4204_06_SE_C02.indd 30 10/24/16 5:08 PM
Chapter 2 • Designing the Team 31
A field study of 111 project teams found that perceived time pressure positively affected performance when the team was under strong temporal leadership.30 And, a study of 71 teams in a business process outsourcing firm revealed that leaders who are able to man- age diversity in terms of team members’ temporal styles had better performing teams as compared to leaders who take a weaker role in managing such temporal style differ- ences.31 Moreover, shared temporal cognition reduced the negative effects of poly- chronicity diversity on team performance and exerted a strong, positive effect on overall team performance.32
How much time should a group devote to completing its work? A typical response might be “as long as it takes.” This answer is neither good nor practical. When a work group is given a specific amount of time to do a job, its members adjust their behavior to “fit” whatever time is available. When time is scarce, team members work harder, worry less about the quality of their output, and focus on the task rather than social or emotional issues. However, if more time becomes available, these employees continue to work as though time was still scarce, rather than relaxing. Thus, it is important to properly manage how teams are initially introduced to their tasks. For example at Microsoft, teams deliver code on tight schedules by assembling people into hundreds of teams of 10 to 12 people, working in 3 week work sprints. Using cloud-based collaboration tools, teams communicate directly with customers and other teams.33
Consider an investigation in which three groups were evaluated according to their ability to solve puzzles.34 Each group had a different task load (completing 20, 40, or 80 anagrams), time limit (5, 10, or 20 minutes), and group size (1, 2, or 4 persons). Each group had three work periods. The task load remained the same for all periods for any given group, but the time interval increased, decreased, or remained constant. Groups of all sizes, and over all possible time intervals, solved more anagrams per member- minute the higher the assigned task load; groups of any size and for any given task load solved more anagrams per member-minute the shorter the time limit; and for any given load and time limit, productivity was higher the smaller the size of the group. Thus, the more the work load per member-minute, the more work gets done. The point is clear: Teams adapt themselves to the constraints presented to them, such as the amount of time they have to perform a task.
Not only is team performance susceptible to arbitrary “norming” cues, but team communication and interaction and some aspects of product quality are also affected
30Maruping, L. M., Venkatesh, V., Thatcher, S.M.B., & Patel, P. (2015). Folding under pressure or rising to the occasion? Perceived time pressure and the moderating role of team temporal leadership. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 58(5), 1313–1333. 31Mohammed, S., & Nadkarni, S. (2011). Temporal diversity and team performance: The moderating role of team temporal leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 489–508. 32Mohammed, S., & Nadkarni, S. (2014). Are we all on the same temporal page? The moderating effects of temporal team cognition on the polychronicity diversity–team performance relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 404–422. 33Denning, S. (2015, October 27). Surprise: Microsoft is agile. Forbes. 34McGrath, J. E., Kelly, J. R., & Machatka, D. E. (1984). The social psychology of time: Entrainment of behavior in social and organizational settings. Applied Social Psychology Annual, 5, 21–44.
M02_THOM4204_06_SE_C02.indd 31 10/24/16 5:08 PM
32 Part 1 • Building the Team
by these factors.35 For example, short time limits on an initial task induce teams to spend more time on task-oriented behaviors and less time on interpersonal interaction, whereas teams with a longer time period engage in more interpersonal interactions.
caPacity ProbLEMs vs. caPabiLity ProbLEMs
Consider two kinds of problems related to this issue: capacity problems and capability problems.36 Capacity problems occur when there is not enough time to do all of the required tasks, although each task is easy. Capability problems occur when the task is difficult, even though there is plenty of time in which to do it. Capacity problems lead to a faster rate of task activity on subsequent trials regardless of the actual time limits set for those later trials; capability problems lead to more extensive processing of infor- mation, hence a slower rate of production on subsequent trials regardless of the actual time limits set for those trials.
Time limits are important from the standpoint of organizational planning and budget considerations. The Attentional Focus Model (AFM) predicts how time pres- sure affects team performance.37 The AFM model suggests that time pressure narrows group members’ attention to the most salient features of the task. As time pressure increases, the things that appear most central to completing the task become more salient and other factors are not considered. Time pressure can either enhance or reduce performance depending on the requirements for successful task performance. Specifi- cally, when teams are under time pressure, they filter what they judge to be less impor- tant information.38
selecTing Team members
Once managers have determined the goal, they are ready to focus on how to best select members for their team. The freedom to select team members may be constrained in many ways: Managers may be limited to selecting members from a particular depart- ment, of a particular status, and so on. In other cases, managers may go outside the organization to recruit. At the opposite extreme, some managers do not have a choice about who is on their team; existing departmental structures determine team member- ship. Many teams are built by accretion and swapping members, not just created from scratch. There are two key errors that leaders often make: they make the team too big (overstaffing bias) and they make the team too homogeneous. In 2012, Tim Solso, chair- man of General Motors Company was frustrated with the large size and homogeneity of the company board observing, “Often you have people saying the same thing, it’s just
35Kelly, J. R., Futoran, G. C., & McGrath, J. E. (1990). Capacity and capability: Seven studies of entrainment of task performance rates. Small Group Research, 21(3), 283–314; Kelly, J. R., & McGrath, J. E. (1985). Effects of time limits and task types on task performance and interaction of four-person groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(2), 395–407. 36Kelly, J. R., Futoran, G. C., & McGrath, J. E. (1990). Capacity and capability: Seven studies of entrainment of task performance rates. Small Group Research, 21(3), 283–314. 37Karau, S., & Kelly, J. (1992). The effects of time scarcity and time abundance on group performance quality and interaction process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 542–571. 38Kelly, J. R., & Loving, T. (2004). Time pressure and group performance: Exploring underlying processes in the attentional focus model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 185–198.
M02_THOM4204_06_SE_C02.indd 32 10/24/16 5:08 PM
Chapter 2 • Designing the Team 33
not as efficient as a smaller board39.” Conversely, when BlackRock founding partner Sue Wagner was being considered for a seat on Apple’s board of directors, she was able to meet with nearly every director within just a few weeks because of the small size of the team. Apple’s board believes that keeping their director team small allows the team to stay flexible, have in-depth discussions, and stave off the negative effects of big group meetings.40
MEMbEr-initiatEd tEaM sELEction
The preceding discussion took the point of view of the leader in assembling a team. What factors motivate a person to join a particular team? Potential group members make decisions to join groups based on group attributes (e.g., characteristics of the group itself, including its status, past success, and member composition) as well as relationship attri- butes (e.g., their personal relationship with group members).41 Member-initiated groups are not necessarily exclusive of others. In one investigation, participants played four rounds of “social poker” (a card game in which self-selected groups compete for money). Some people were not chosen to be on any team; nevertheless, when “isolates” earned nothing, self-organized groups frequently included isolates, even at their own expense.42
oPtiMaL tEaM sizE
Leaders consistently struggle with the question of how many people to put on a team. Generally, teams should be fewer than 10 members. It is wise to compose teams using the smallest number of people who can do the task.43 Unfortunately, there is a perva- sive tendency for managers to err on the side of making teams too large. According to the team scaling fallacy, as team size increases, people increasingly underestimate the number of labor hours required to complete projects.44 This is because leaders focus on process gains but fail to consider process losses. Unfortunately, managers seriously underestimate how coordination problems geometrically increase as team members are added. In 2016, the defense budget of the United States was $598 billion dollars. The bloated bureaucracy means that it takes an average of 221�2 years from the start of a weapons program, through design and production, to first deployment.45
40Chaffin, B. (2015, December 22). Apple makes it easier for shareholders to nominate board members. The Mac Observer. macobserver.com; Lublin, J. S. (2014). Smaller boards get bigger returns. The Wall Street Journal. wsj.com
39From maller Boards Get Bigger Returns by Joann S. Lublin in The Wall Street Journal, © Aug. 26, 2014 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
41Barsness, Z., Tenbrunsel, A., Michael, J., & Lawson, L. (2002). Why am I here? The influence of group and relational attributes on member-initiated team selection. In M. A. Neale, E. Mannix, & H. Sondak, Toward phenomenology of groups and group membership (Vol. 4, pp. 141–171). Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier Limited. 42Arrow, H., & Crosson, S. (2003). Musical chairs: Membership dynamics in self-organized group formation. Small Group Research, 34(5), 523–556. 43Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 44Staats, B. R., Milkman, K. L., & Fox, C. R. (2012). The team scaling fallacy: Underestimating the declining efficiency of larger teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(2), 132–142. 45Lehman, J. (2015, December 30). Disarming the Navy through bureaucratic bloat. The Wall Street Journal. wsj.com
M02_THOM4204_06_SE_C02.indd 33 10/24/16 5:08 PM
34 Part 1 • Building the Team
Teams that are overgrown have a number of disadvantages.46 Larger teams are less cohesive,47 and members of large teams are less satisfied with team membership, par- ticipate less often in team activities, and are less likely to cooperate with one another.48 People are more likely to behave in negative and socially unacceptable ways in larger teams, perhaps because team members feel more anonymous or are less self-aware.49
Large groups may be more productive than small groups, but their marginal pro- ductivity declines as each person adds less and less value. A longitudinal study of 549 research groups found that the marginal productivity of larger groups declined as het- erogeneity increased.50 People in large groups are more self-conscious and concerned about projecting the right image, and so they avoid serious topics. As group size increases, conformity increases in a negatively accelerating fashion, such that each addi- tional person who agrees with the majority has less overall influence.51 Another problem of large teams concerns the equality of participation. For example, in a team of two to three, one person may do more of the talking, but all may participate. As the size of the team grows, more people do less talking relative to others. Sometimes, a few members say and do nothing.
In contrast, there are advantages to smaller, even understaffed, teams. Members of understaffed teams work harder, engage in a wider variety of tasks, assume more respon- sibility for the team’s performance, and feel more involved in the team.52 For these reasons, the CEO of SAP decided to restructure his 20,000 employee development team into teams of 8 to 12 people.53
If smaller teams are more advantageous, why are they relatively rare? The problem is that managers of teams appear to have an overstaffing bias. When team leaders are
46Nieva, V. F., Myers, D., & Glickman, A. S. (1979, July). An exploratory investigation of the skill qualification testing system. U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, TR 390. 47McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 48Kerr, N. L. (1989). Illusions of efficacy: The effects of group size on perceived efficacy in social dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25(4), 287–313; Markham, S. E., Dansereau, F., & Alutto, J. A. (1982). Group size and absenteeism rates: A longitudinal analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 25(4), 921–927. 49Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343–356; Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (1989). Deindividuation and the self-regulation of behavior. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed.), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates. 50Cummings, J. N., Kiesler, S., Zadeh, R. B., & Balakrishnan, A. D. (2013). Group heterogeneity increases the risks of large group size: A longitudinal study of productivity in research groups. Psychological Science, 24(6), 880–890. 51Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343–356; Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (1989). Deindividuation and the self-regulation of behavior. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed.), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates. 52Arnold, D. W., & Greenberg, C. I. (1980). Deviate rejection within differentially manned groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43(4), 419–424; Perkins, D. V. (1982). Individual differences and task structure in the performance of a behavior setting: An experimental evaluation of Barker’s manning theory. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10(6), 617–634; Petty, R. M., & Wicker, A. W. (1974). Degree of manning and degree of success of a group as determinants of members’ subjective experiences and their acceptance of a new group member. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4, 43; Wicker, A. W., Kermeyer, S. L., Hanson, L., & Alexander, D. (1976). Effects of manning levels on subjective experiences, performance, and verbal interaction in groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 17(2), 251–274; Wicker, A. W., & Mehler, A. (1971). Assimilation of new members in a large and a small church. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(2), 151–156. 53Karlgaard, R. (2013, November 13). Team management: Think small and agile. Forbes. forbes.com
M02_THOM4204_06_SE_C02.indd 34 10/24/16 5:08 PM
Chapter 2 • Designing the Team 35
asked whether their teams could ever become too small or too large, 87 percent believe that understaffing is possible, but only 62 percent believe that overstaffing is possible.54
The question of how to downsize is critical in teams. One study investigated three types of downsizing on task focus: downsizing that eliminates the leader, downsizing that maintains the hierarchy (leader), and downsizing that integrates hierarchy. Only the teams that lost their leader (and hierarchy) increased their effort on task-related behaviors.55
skiLLs, taLEnts, and abiLitiEs
Many leaders struggle with the criteria to use in team member selection. The following skills are important to think about when forming any team:
Technical or functional expertise If the task calls for open-heart surgery, a chemist or a lawyer will not suffice, no matter how great they are at what they do. Team members must demonstrate competence to perform what they need to do for the team to accomplish its goals. In most team tasks, it is necessary to recruit members with diverse skills. With increasing specialization, it is rare for one person to be knowledgeable in all aspects of a complex task.
Task-management skills It is not enough for team members to simply perform their functional area of expertise. They need to coordinate the efforts of the team, set goals, and enact plans. Task-management skills involve planning the work, moni- toring performance, dealing with disappointments and unknowns, and surmount- ing coordination problems (see Exhibit 2-1 the left-hand side of the exhibit focuses on task-management skills; the right-hand side focuses on interpersonal skills.)
Interpersonal skills People on teams are not just automatons that simply carry out their tasks according to some predetermined plan. Because members of teams are people first—with their own issues, problems, and agendas—and team members second, the people side of teams exerts a powerful influence on productivity. Inter- personal skills include the ability to give constructive criticism, be objective, give recognition, learn from others, and so on. Consult the right-hand side of Exhibit 2-1 for examples of interpersonal skills in groups.
roLEs and rEsPonsibiLitiEs
People often assume different roles on a team. The TREO (Team Role Experience and Orientation) survey suggests that people occupy one of 6 different team roles.56 Those roles include:(1) Organizer (the person who acts to structure what the team is doing to meet their goals and timelines); (2) Doer (the person who volunteers to do the work to accomplish the goal and meet deadlines; (3) Challenger (the person who prods the team to consider alternatives; (4) Innovator (the person who generates new and creative ideas
54Cini, M., Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1993). Group staffing levels and responses to prospective and new members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 723–734. 55DeRue, D. S., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M. D., Ilgen, D. R., & Jundt, D. K. (2008). How different team downsizing approaches influence team-level adaptation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 182–196. 56Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kukenberger, M. R., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. (2015). Team role experience and orientation: A measure and tests of construct validity. Group & Organization Management, 40(1), 6–34.
M02_THOM4204_06_SE_C02.indd 35 10/24/16 5:08 PM
36 Part 1 • Building the Team
and suggestions; (5) Team Builder (the person who establishes and adheres to norms and maintains group cohesion; and (6) Connector (the person who brings the team to relevant other groups and stakeholders). (See Exhibit 2-2 to examine your role.)
According to the theory of the strategic core of teams, certain team roles are most important for team performance, and the characteristics of the role holders in these “core” roles are more important than others for overall team performance. A field inves- tigation of 778 teams drawn from 29 years of major league baseball (1974–2002) dem- onstrated that whereas high levels of experience and job-related skills are important predictors of team performance, the link between career experience, job-related skills, and ultimate performance is much stronger when the characteristic is possessed by core role holders (as opposed to non-core role holders).57 There is often a hierarchy of roles
57Humphrey, S., Morgeson, F., & Mannor, M. (2009). Developing a theory of the strategic core of teams: A role composition model of team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 48–61.
Task-Management Skills Interpersonal Skills
Initiating Suggesting new goals or ideas
Clarifying key issues
Giving additional information, such as examples, rephrasing, and implications, about points made by others
Stimulating the team to continue working when progress wanes
Clarifying attitudes, values, and feelings
Pulling together ideas and suggestions
Keeping the team headed toward its stated goals
Questioning the quality of the team’s methods, logic, and results
Performing a “team mem- ory” function by document- ing discussion and outcomes
Caring for operational details
Encouraging Fostering team solidarity by reinforcing others
Information seeking
Elaborating
Energizing
Opinion seeking
Coordinating
Orienting
Challenging
Recording
Detailing
Harmonizing Mediating conflicts
Compromising Shifting one’s own position on an issue to reduce con- flict in the team
Gatekeeping Encouraging all team members to participate
Reflecting Pointing out the positive and negative aspects of the team’s dynamics, and calling for change if necessary
Following Accepting the ideas offered by others, and serving as an audience for the team
Standard setting Clarifying attitudes, values, and feelings
Exhibit 2-1 Task-Management and Interpersonal Skills
Based on Beene, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 41–49, © Leigh L. Thompson.
M02_THOM4204_06_SE_C02.indd 36 10/24/16 5:08 PM
Chapter 2 • Designing the Team 37
Organizer Doer Challenger
• I like to sort out details of a team project
• I like to decide who will do which task
• I keep the team on pace and aware of deadlines
• I make sure members are clear about responsibilities
• I keep track of how well the team is doing
• I organize the team • I structure activities • I suggest the steps to
follow
• I like when the team is busy and gets things done
• People look to me when something needs to be done
• I follow through on assignments
• I can be counted on when tasks need to be done
• I get my assignments done • I step up and do whatever
is necessary to make the team successful
• I volunteer for difficult assignments
• I’m always committed to the task
• I’m comfortable being critical
• I challenge assumptions • I question why we do
things a certain way • I voice a different opinion to
keep the team thinking • I question what the team
should do to get the job done
• I’m not afraid to question members’ authority
• I point out potential risks • I can refute ideas that are
unsound
Innovator Team Builder Connector
• I volunteer new ideas • I test new ideas • I make suggestions when
the team gets stuck • I get bored when we do
the same thing each time • I’m known for being
creative • I come up with new meth-
ods to accomplish the task • I share new ideas • My team sees me as
innovative
• I calm people down and get them focused
• I support the common interest
• I help deal with conflict • I help different people work
together effectively • I maintain good working
relationships • It upsets me when I see
members frustrated • I find common ground • I encourage members
when they are challenged
• I get the resources our team needs to be successful
• I coordinate the team with people outside of the team
• I spread ideas outside the team
• I’m a spokesperson for the team
• I connect with people who can help my team succeed
• I find out what is going on outside and share with my team
• l am the team liaison • I promote the team’s
mission to outsiders
Exhibit 2-2 Team Role Experience and Orientation
Based on Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kukenberger, M. R., Donsback, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. (2015). Team role experience and orientation; A measure and tests of construct validity. Group and Organization Management, 40(1), 6–34, © Leigh L. Thompson.
in a team. Hierarchically differentiated groups, composed of high- and low-power indi- viduals perform better on interdependent tasks than when all members are high in power or are low in power.58
Backing-up behavior is defined as “the discretionary provision of resources and task-related effort to another member of one’s team that is intended to help that team
58Ronay, R., Greenaway, K., Anicich, E. M., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). The path to glory is paved with hierarchy when hierarchical differentiation increases group effectiveness. Psychological Science, 23(6), 669–677.
M02_THOM4204_06_SE_C02.indd 37 10/24/16 5:08 PM
38 Part 1 • Building the Team
member obtain the goals as defined by his or her role.”59 However, there are some costs of backing-up behavior, such as when the team member providing backup neglects their own taskwork, especially when the workload is evenly distributed.60 Moreover, backing- up may lead to free riding, as team members who receive high amounts of backing-up behavior decrease their taskwork in subsequent tasks.
divErsity
Diversity is any attribute that another person may rely upon to notice differences.61 U.S. Air Force Major General Larry Spencer says of diversity, “You wouldn’t line up 11 quarter- backs or 11 linemen on a football field to make a play. You need diversity. People have their own unique backgrounds and skill sets that help them accomplish the mission. We need all those talents and only when we work together do we find success.”62
TypES Of DIvERSITy There are three types of diversity in workgroups: social category diversity, value diversity, and informational diversity.63 Social category diversity refers to explicit differences among group members in social category membership, such as race, gender, and ethnicity.64 Value diversity is present when members of a workgroup differ in terms of what they think the group’s real task, goal, or mission should be. Informational diversity refers to differences in knowledge bases and perspectives that members bring to the group.
In a study of 92 workgroups, informational diversity positively influenced group performance by increasing task conflict.65 Social category diversity positively influenced group member morale. Lack of social category diversity may hurt group performance. For example, all-male or male-dominated teams make decisions that are overaggres- sive.66 Value diversity decreases satisfaction, intent to remain in the group, and commit- ment to the group by increasing relationship conflict.
DEgREE Of DIvERSITy Within a group, diversity may be extreme (with everyone highly different from one another); moderate (such as one subgroup); or a hybrid type, known as a faultline in which diversity is moderate and highly visible. A study of over 1600
59From Backing up behaviors in teams: The role of personality and legitimacy of need by Christopher O.L.H. Porter, John R. Hollenbeck, Daniel R. Ilgen, Aleksander P. J. Ellis, Bradley J. West, and Henry K Moon in Journal of Applied Psychology, © 2003 The American Physiological Society. 60Barnes, C., Hollenbeck, J., Wagner, D., DeRue, S., Nahrgang, J., & Schwind, K. (2008). Harmful help: The costs of backing-up behavior in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 529–539. 61Williams, K.Y., & O’Reilly, C.A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140. 62Generals reflect on importance of diversity. Secretary of the Air Force Office of Public Affairs.af.mil by Buzanowski, J. G. (2009, February 5) 63Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999, December). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741–763. 64Jackson, S. (1992). Diversity in the workplace: Human resources initiatives. The professional practice series. New York: Guilford Press. 65Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999, December). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741–763. 66LePine, J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Colquitt, J. A., & Ellis, A. (2002). Gender composition, situational strength, and team decision-making accuracy: A criterion decomposition approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88(1), 445–475.
M02_THOM4204_06_SE_C02.indd 38 10/24/16 5:08 PM
Chapter 2 • Designing the Team 39
managers in 76 work units revealed a negative relationship between gender faultlines and loyal behavior; and a positive relationship between a supportive diversity climate and loyal behavior.67 For example, a long time female engineer at NASA recalled often being the only woman in the room for project meetings and even being asked to take notes. The assumption from her male colleagues: she was a secretary.68
OBjECTIvE vS. pERCEIvED DIvERSITy Objective diversity is the actual compositional attributes of a group (e.g., differences in demographic or functional background); per- ceived diversity is people’s subjective understanding of differences in their group. There is only a modest correlation between objective and perceived diversity; and the motives of group members (e.g., need to belong vs. distinctiveness) affect perceived diversity.69 When the effects of actual dissimilarity are controlled for, perceived deep-level diversity predicts negative job attitudes, decreases helping behavior, increases turnover, and leads to withdrawal.70 In one investigation, people’s judgments of others’ contribu- tions, group effectiveness, and desire to work with the group again were increasingly negative as the proportion of women in the group increased, yet there were no perfor- mance differences as a function of gender composition.71
DIvERSITy anD TEaM pERfORManCE A study of 83 teams from eight organizations found that age and educational diversity were positively related to team performance when teams engaged in and enjoyed effortful cognitive activities—known as need for cognition.72 Conversely, diversity in learning and performance orientation decreases team performance; but if teams engage in reflexivity—talking about how they work as a team—the negative effects of diversity can be counteracted.73 Groups whose mem- bers differ in terms of social category as well as in their information discuss informa- tion more thoroughly and perform better than do groups who do not have both types of diversity.74 Groups that are diverse in terms of social category are perceived to be more positive and accepting of others, engaged in more persistent and confident artic- ulation of divergent perspectives, and are more engaged in the task than are homo- geneous groups.75
67Chung, Yunhyung, et al. (2015). Cracking but not breaking: Joint effects of faultline strength and diversity climate on loyal behavior. Academy of Management Journal 58(5), 1495–1515. 68LaFrance, A. (2015, July 13). The women who rule Pluto. The Atlantic. theatlantic.com 69Ormiston, M. E. (2015). Explaining the link between objective and perceived differences in groups: The role of the belonging and distinctiveness motives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(2), 222–236. 70Liao, H., Chuang, A., & Joshi, A. (2008). Perceived deep-level dissimilarity: Personality antecedents and impact on overall job attitude, helping, work withdrawal, and turnover. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106, 106–124. 71West, T. V., Heilman, M. E., Gullett, L., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Magee, J. C. (2012). Building blocks of bias: Gender composition predicts male and female group members’ evaluations of each other and the group. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 1209–1212. 72Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C (2009, June). When and how diversity benefits teams—the impor- tance of team members’ need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 581–598. 73Pieterse, A. N., van Knippenberg, D., & van Ginkel, W. P. (2011). Diversity in goal orientation, team reflexiv- ity, and team performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114(2), 153–164. 74Phillips, Mannix, Neale, & Gruenfeld. Diverse groups and information sharing. p. 96. 75Phillips & Loyd. When surface and deep-level diversity collide. p. 96.
M02_THOM4204_06_SE_C02.indd 39 10/24/16 5:08 PM
40 Part 1 • Building the Team
Teams benefit from multiple sources of task and informational diversity.76 Educational diversity refers to heterogeneity in terms of education; national diversity refers to differences in culture. Both types of diversity provide teams with information-processing benefits that outweigh the limitations associated with social categorization processes.77 In general, groups with greater educational diversity are more likely to use information. In contrast, national diversity tends to raise issues of social categorization, which hinders information use.78 However, diversity in cognitive styles does not always benefit team performance. An investigation of teams performing a building task revealed that hetero- geneity in cognitive style hindered their ability to reach a strategic consensus and led to more errors.79
MInORITy InfluEnCE When we refer to a minority viewpoint, we are not describing the views held by a demographic minority; rather, we are referring to the presence of a sta- tistical minority. The presence of a minority opinion has beneficial effects in terms of prompting others to make sounder judgments and in launching better discussions. Minority opinions can arise from one of two sources—from a member of one’s own team (an in-group member) or a member of another group (an out-group member). Both can be effective; however, a minority opinion offered by an in-group member is often more influential.80 Yet, people in an in-group may be particularly unlikely to offer a different viewpoint because of the strong pressure to conform and a reluctance to express views that effectively threaten the group.81 Indeed, when two people on the same team disagree with one another, there is more uncertainty, greater stress and anxiety, and more concern about social relationships.82 In short, people on the team may want to repair the relationships, rather than discuss the issues. Indeed, disagreement with out-group members is more tolerable than disagreement with in-group members. Perhaps this is why in-group minorities use the phrases “I don’t know” and “I’m not sure” much more often when expressing a different view than do out-group members.83
76Rink, F., & Ellemers, N. (2010). Benefiting from deep-level diversity: How congruence between knowledge and decision rules improves team decision making and team perceptions. Group Processes Intergroup Relations, 13(3), 345–359. 77Dahlin, K., Weingart, L., & Hinds, P. (2005). Team diversity and information use. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1107–1123. 78Ibid. 79Aggarwal, I., & Woolley, A. W. (2013). Do you see what I see? The effect of members’ cognitive styles on team processes and errors in task execution. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(1), 92–99. 80David, B., & Turner, J. C. (1996). Studies in self-categorization and minority conversion: Is being a member of the out-group an advantage? British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 179–199. 81Phillips, K. W. (2003). The effects of categorically based expectations on minority influence: The importance of congruence. Personality Sociology and Psychology Bulletin, 29, 3–13. 82Moscovici, S. (1985a). Innovation and minority influence. In S. Moscovici, G. Mugny, & E. Van Avermaet (Eds.), Perspectives on minority influence (pp. 9–52). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; Moscovici, S. (1985b). Social influence and conformity. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 347–412). New York: Random House. 83Phillips, K. W. (2003). The effects of categorically based expectations on minority influence: The importance of congruence. Personality Sociology and Psychology Bulletin, 29, 3–13.
M02_THOM4204_06_SE_C02.indd 40 10/24/16 5:08 PM
Chapter 2 • Designing the Team 41
Members in the majority exhibit greater integrative complexity than do those in the minority.84 For example, a study of opinions rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court found that authors of majority opinions tend to concern themselves with specifying all imagin- able contingencies under which the law should and should not apply to ensure the longevity of their precedent.85 In contrast, the authors of minority opinions often focus on arguments that could eventually facilitate the precedent’s overruling. This suggests that people who are exposed to members who hold a majority view experience an increase in their own levels of integrative thought; in contrast, people exposed to minority opin- ions or unanimous groups actually experience a decrease in integrative thinking.86
BuIlDIng a DIvERSE TEaM Leaders need to be thoughtful about diversity. Left to their own instincts, most leaders and most teams opt for homogeneity, not diversity. For example in a large-scale study spanning 33 project groups over 4 years, work partner choice was biased toward others of the same race.87 When people in actual work groups had an opportunity to select future group members, their choices were biased toward not only those who were from the same racial group as themselves but also those who had a reputation for being competent, hardworking, and with whom they had developed strong working relationships. Another investigation revealed that top management teams tend toward “homosocial reproduction” (i.e., selecting people in their own image) rather than diversity. In a longitudinal analysis of a major Dutch newspaper publisher of 25 years, poor performance and high diversification caused teams to select “likes,” and this tendency was even stronger when competition increased.88 When pressure increases, top management teams tend to “hire likes and fire unlikes.”
valuIng DIvERSITy When groups are persuaded of the value of diversity (versus the value of similarity) for their team’s performance, diverse groups perform better when they hold prodiversity (vs. prosimilarity) beliefs.89 The more a team values diversity, the more likely they are to construe their diversity in terms of individual differences and the less likely they are to construe diversity in terms of group-level differences (e.g., race and gender).90
84Gruenfeld, D. H. (1995). Status, ideology and integrative complexity on the U.S. Supreme Court: Rethinking the politics of political decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 5–20. 85Ibid. 86Gruenfeld, D. H., Thomas-Hunt, M. C., & Kim, P. (1998). Cognitive flexibility, communication strategy, and integrative complexity in groups: Public versus private reactions to majority and minority status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 202–226. 87Hinds, P., Carley, K. M., Krackhardt, D., & Wholey, D. (2000). Choosing workgroup members: The balance of similarity, competence, and familiarity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making Processes, 81(2), 226–251. 88Boone, C., Olffen, W., Van Witteloostuijn, A., & Brabander, B. (2004). The genesis of top management team diversity: Selective turnover among top management teams in Dutch newspaper publishing, 1970–1994. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 633–656. 89Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. (2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1189–1199. 90Homan, A. C., Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A., & Koning, L. (2010). Believing shapes seeing: The impact of diversity beliefs on the construal of group composition. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(4), 477–493.
M02_THOM4204_06_SE_C02.indd 41 10/24/16 5:08 PM
42 Part 1 • Building the Team
HOw MuCH DIvERSITy? The optimal degree of diversity may depend on interpersonal congruence—the degree to which we see ourselves as others see us. A longitudinal study of 83 work groups revealed that diversity improved performance on creative tasks—provided that interpersonal congruence was high.91 Yet, diversity undermined the performance of groups with low interpersonal congruence. The amount of group variability (diversity) affects how they react to atypical group members. When groups are more diverse, atypical members are evaluated more positively than when the group is homogeneous.92 Reactions to diversity also depend on people’s values, such as being conservative; people who are less conservative are more tolerant of diversity.93
COnflICT Diverse teams will often (but not always) experience more conflict than will homogeneous groups, as individuals attempt to reconcile one another’s views or simply decide upon a single course of action. In an investigation of 45 teams from the electron- ics divisions of three major corporations, functional background diversity drove task conflict, but multiple types of diversity drove relationship conflict.94 Race and tenure diversity are positively associated with relationship conflict, whereas age diversity is negatively associated with relationship conflict. In a study of top management teams in bank holding companies, heterogeneity with respect to age and experience outside the industry was positively related to turnover rates.95 If improperly managed, culturally diverse groups may not reach their potential.
SOlOS anD TOkEnS Individuals experience solo status when they are the only member of their social category (e.g., gender and race) present in a group. Tokens are people in groups who are typically underrepresented or part of a minority, often historically dis- advantaged. The smaller the number of other token (disadvantaged and minority) group members present, the more negative the experience for the individual. Solos are more visible in a group and are more likely to be isolated and experience role entrapment.96 The increased visibility pressures create performance pressure on the token. Because they are more likely to be stereotyped according to their group membership, they experi- ence isolation and are essentially trapped in whatever role is expected of them. An investigation comparing men’s and women’s job performance ratings revealed that women’s performance evaluations worsened as their proportion within the workgroup declined, whereas men’s performance evaluations were independent of their relative
91Polzer, J. T., Milton, L. P., & Swann, W. B. (2002). Capitalizing on diversity: Interpersonal congruence in small work groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 296–324. 92Hutchison, P., Jetten, J., & Gutierrez, R. (2011). Deviant but desirable: Group variability and evaluation of atypical group members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1155–1161. 93Roccas, S., & Amit, A. (2011). Group heterogeneity and tolerance: The moderating role of conservation values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5), 898–907. 94Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28. 95Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin, K. (1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarities and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 675–689. 96Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 465–490.
M02_THOM4204_06_SE_C02.indd 42 10/24/16 5:08 PM
Chapter 2 • Designing the Team 43
numbers in the workgroup.97 In a testing situation, solos performed more poorly during an oral examination.98 Moreover, men, particularly solos and non-solos, appear to merit positive evaluations simply by being men.99
Processes: hoW To WorK TogeTher
task vs. outcoME intErdEPEndEncE
Team members rely on one another and are therefore, interdependent. There are two key types of team interdependence: task interdependence and outcome interdependence. A meta-analysis of 7,563 teams revealed that task interdependence is primarily associated with team performance via task-focused functioning (e.g., action); whereas outcome interdependence is associated with team performance via relational functioning (e.g., cohesion).100
Many types of task interdependence affect the way teams get their work done.101 (See Exhibit 2-3.) Consider the following three types of task interdependence:
• Pooled interdependence occurs when group members work independently and then combine their work. Consider a department store’s furniture department. It comprises several salespeople, each of whom is compensated based on sales per- formance. On an interdepartmental level, the sales of each salesperson are totaled and compared across departments, so that cosmetics, furniture, and men’s acces- sories can all be compared and added together to determine overall store profit. Throughout this process, each salesperson is independent. Another example is a team of sprinters, each running as fast as they can; the team’s output is simply the average time.
• Sequential interdependence is the classic assembly line, or division of labor; each member of the team with a particular skill or task to perform. Members are increasingly interdependent, with those further down the line more dependent on others. For example, a relay race in which each runner needs to hand off a baton to the other team member.
• Reciprocal interdependence is the highest form of interdependence. Every mem- ber is dependent on others at all levels—not just in a simple linear fashion, as in sequential interdependence. Consider a cycling team in which members ride in a rotating pace line, and change position every few seconds to maintain a high, steady speed. Similarly, when software developers are writing code, each person must have a high degree of familiarity with the other pieces of the program; oth- erwise, the likelihood of bugs increases significantly.
98Sekaquaptewa, D., & Thompson, M. (2002). The differential effects of solo status on members of high- and low-status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(5), 694–707. 99Williams, C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in “female” professions. Social Forces, 39, 253–267.
97Sackett, P. R., DuBois, C. I. Z., & Wiggins-Noe, A. (1991). Tokenism in performance evaluation: The effects of work group representation on male-female and white-black differences in performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 263–267.
100Courtright, S.H., Thurgood, G.R., Stewart, G.L., & Pierotti, A.J. (2015). Structural interdependence in teams: An integrative framework and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(6), 1825–1846. 101Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
M02_THOM4204_06_SE_C02.indd 43 10/24/16 5:08 PM
44 Part 1 • Building the Team
High levels of task interdependence, which require interactions among group members to obtain crucial resources, consistently enhance performance.102 Highly interdependent members generate solutions faster, complete more tasks, and perform better than teams whose members are not highly dependent on one another. Top man- agement teams with higher interdependence experienced higher team and subsequent firm performance when the team was more cohesive and had more communication. However, teams with low interdependence had higher performance when communica- tion and cohesion were lower.103
To a large degree, greater specialization means greater interdependence because team members must rely on others to complete their portion of the work. The start-up times for reciprocal interdependence may seem daunting, but it may be especially important for highly complex tasks that require high levels of customer satisfaction. Another advantage of reciprocal interdependence is that all team members know the overall objectives of the team and may feel more accountable. Team values also influence the nature of their interdependence. A longitudinal field study of 39 project teams
102Fan, E. T., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (1998). When needs outweigh desires: The effects of resource interdepen- dence and reward interdependence on group problem solving. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20(1), 45–56. 103Barrick, M. R., Bradley, B. H., Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Colbert, A. E. (2007). The moderating role of top management team interdependence: Implications for real teams and working groups. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 544–577.
Exhibit 2-3 Three Types of Interdependence Based onThompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill, © Leigh L. Thompson.
Pooled Interdependence
X
Product
Reciprocal Interdependence
Sequential Interdependence
M1 M2 M3
M1 M2 M3 X
Product
M1
M2 M3 M4
Group Members
M02_THOM4204_06_SE_C02.indd 44 10/24/16 5:08 PM
Chapter 2 • Designing the Team 45
revealed that teams whose members shared egalitarian values (i.e., a desire to create a shared sense of membership) develop highly interdependent task approaches and patterns of interaction. In contrast, groups whose members hold meritocratic values (i.e., where individuals are motivated to demonstrate their unique abilities to other group members) develop low-interdependence task approaches.104
transition and action ProcEssEs
Teams do not work in a steady state; they need to shift their processes. Process shifts are points in time when teams complete a focal process and change to another pro- cess.105 Certain interventions may promote discussions about key issues to affect per- formance.106 A study of teams competing scheduling assignment problems revealed five types of process shifts: (1) mission analysis is a discussion of the task objectives, environ- ment and resources, e.g., “how many hours can employees work each week?”; (2) goal specification is the discussion of task goals, and the prioritization of goals for task accom- plishment, e.g., “Lets win!”; (3) tactical strategy is a discussion of the courses of action that would be employed in task achievement, e.g., “we should assign workers with lower wages first”; (4) operational strategy is a discussion of roles and responsibilities of mem- bers, e.g., “I’ll be responsible for keeping track of hours worked”; and (5) action process is a discussion of actual performance of the assigned task, e.g., “I will put Chris on this task, and Brayden on this assignment.”107
structurE
Team structure refers to how clearly the group’s processes are articulated by team leaders and the organization, and the extent to which they are closely adhered to by team members. Groups that are highly structured have specialized roles and routines; groups that are low in structure do not have set roles and routines. Groups with low structure are often allowed to allocate work and organize themselves in any way that they please. They are often not assigned roles and are not given specific routines for doing a given task. They are simply asked to deliver. In contrast, highly structured teams are asked to assume specialized roles and take on distinct jobs. They are often told how to engage in the processes in order to deliver. Switching jobs or roles is usually not permitted. An analysis of 80 small production groups revealed that those teams with low structure suffered more than highly structured groups when turnover occurred.108 For example German automaker, Volkswagen, follows a “command-and-control” structure where roles are carefully delegated from top management, and even relatively minor team decisions require formal approval. Work teams are highly structured to
104Wageman, R., & Gordon, F. (2006). As the twig is bent: How group values shape emergent task interde- pendence in groups. Organization Science, 16(6), 687–700. 105Marks, 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. 106Kennedy, D. M., & McComb, S. A. (2014). When teams shift among processes: Insights from simulation and optimization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 784. 107From “When teams shift among processes: Insights from simulation and optimization by Deanna M. Kennedy, Sara A. McComb in Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 784, © 2014 American Psychological Association. 108Rao, R. D., & Argote, L. (2006). Organizational learning and forgetting: The effects of turnover and struc- ture. European Management Review, 3, 77–85.
M02_THOM4204_06_SE_C02.indd 45 10/24/16 5:08 PM
46 Part 1 • Building the Team
specific tasks. Conversely, at Facebook, roles are molded around people, rather than vice versa, and new engineers are instructed to find the place where they will make the most impact.109
norMs
“[People] cannot help producing rules, customs, values, and other sorts of norms when- ever they come together in any situation that lasts for any considerable time.”110 Norms are shared expectations that guide behavior in groups. Just as role negotiation and status competition occur early on in the development of groups, so do norms, or the ideas and expectations that guide appropriate behavior for members. Norms differ from formal rules in that they are not written down. Because norms are expectations about appropri- ate behavior, they embody information about what people should do under various conditions. This makes it easier for people to respond appropriately under new or stress- ful conditions and helps ensure that everyone is working toward the same goal. Thus, norms reduce coordination problems. Precious time is not lost while members wonder what to do. For example at Nordstrom, the employee handbook reads, “Use your best judgment in all situations”; and Zappos, an online shoe store, says of their social media policy: “be real and use your best judgment.”111
DEvElOpMEnT anD EnfORCEMEnT People in new groups rely on their definition of a situation in order to retrieve an appropriate script.112 A script is a prescriptive sequence of behaviors that dictates appropriate behavior in a given situation. Many norms develop within the first few minutes of a team’s first meeting, such as whether it is appropriate to come a few minutes late, seating arrangements, and so on.113 As soon as the group members act collectively, they have established a new behavior, which serves as a prec- edent.114 All group members now have a shared script for “how we do this in a group.” The issue for the group when they face their next task or decision, is not “what shall we do?” but “shall we proceed as before?”115 This precedent shapes members’ shared beliefs about appropriate behavior. One norm relates to helping behavior. The more extraverted group members are, the more helping norms develop.116
109McCracken, H. (2015, November 24). How Facebook keeps scaling its culture. Fast Company. fastcompany. com; Ewing, J. (2015, September 23). Volkswagen C.E.O. Martin Winterkorn resigns amid emissions scandal. The New York Times. nytimes.com 110From The psychology of social norms by Muzafer Sherif, © 1936 Harper & brothers. 111From Take These Two Steps To Rival Nordstrom’s Customer Service Experienceby Micah Solomon, © MAR 15, 2014 Forbes. 112Bettenhausen, K., & Murnighan, J. K. (1985). The emergence of norms in competitive decision-making groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 350–372. 113Bettenhausen, K., & Murnighan, J. K. (1985). The emergence of norms in competitive decision-making groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 350–372; Gersick, C. J. C. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9–41; Schein, E. H. (1988). Process consultation: Its role in organization development (Vol. 1). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 114Arrow, H., & Burns, K. (2004). Self-organizing culture: How norms emerge in small groups. In M. Schaller & C. S. Crandall (Eds.), The psychological foundations of culture. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 115From Self-organizing culture: How norms emerge in small groups by Arrow, H., & Burns, K. In M. Schaller & C. S. Crandall (Eds.), The psychological foundations of culture, © 2003 Psychology Press. 116Gonzalez-Mulé, E., DeGeest, D. S., McCormick, B. W., Seong, J. Y., & Brown, K. G. (2014). Can we get some cooperation around here? The mediating role of group norms on the relationship between team personality and individual helping behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 988.
M02_THOM4204_06_SE_C02.indd 46 10/24/16 5:08 PM
Chapter 2 • Designing the Team 47
When norms are left strictly to natural processes and interaction patterns among members, the individuals who are most disruptive and least self-conscious may set unfavorable norms. This is because people who are the most outspoken and the least self-conscious do the most talking. One of the best ways to counteract undesirable norms is to introduce productive norms and structure early on; structure is the opposite of free-form interaction, where anything goes. For example, when Lars Dalgaard was the CEO of SuccessFactors, a cloud-based software company, he set the norm that no one was to blind carbon copy someone on an email. Dalgaard reasoned that this norm helped people remember to be human at work: “When you look someone in the eye, you’re not going to be that rude. It’s just impossible.”117 Additionally, if someone came to him with a complaint about another employee, he immediately brought them into the email chain and set the norm that at his company, people talk issues through.118 Other norms may focus on improving group cohesion. For example at Skimlinks, the term, “skimlove,” depicts the company’s interest in team cohesion. On Friday after- noons, skimlove is shown through something similar to a show-and-tell, where team members can talk about what they built or achieved that week. The company also has a song where the lyrics are about helping each other.119
Although some level of agreement is necessary for an expectation to become a norm, this does not mean that norms may not be in conflict. For example, in one hos- pital, nurses might think that the amount of work the administrators expect the nurses to do is about right, whereas in another, nurses might think the administrators expect the nurses to do too much paperwork.120 It may be that the norm within one depart- ment of a company is to allow its employees to take time during the workday to handle personal matters as long as the time is made up later, but this may not be considered acceptable behavior in another department within the same company.
nORM vIOlaTIOn Like rules, norms may often be violated. What are the consequences of norm violation within a team? Typically, the first response of a team to a norm viola- tor is not exclusion but rather, to persuade that person to change. When regularity is interrupted, or violated, the “injured” parties frequently attempt to regain regularity by appealing to the norm (e.g., “Why didn’t you circulate the report—we always do that!”). When a team member repeatedly violates a norm, there are serious repercussions, even if the behavior in question is useful for the organization. Consider for example, the studies conducted at the Hawthorne Works plant in the 1940s. Strong norms developed among work group members concerning the rate of acceptable productivity. That is, members in a particular work group developed a pace at which to work; it was just enough to produce the desired output requested by the supervisor, but not enough to overly tax the group’s members. Consequently, when members of the work group failed to produce at the level displayed by their peers, they were sharply reprimanded. Furthermore, when members of the group overproduced (worked harder than other members of the group),
117From Lars Dalgaard: Build trust by daring to show that you’re human by Adam Bryant, © OCT. 17, 2015 The New York Times 118Bryant, A. (2015, October 17). Lars Dalgaard: Build trust by daring to show that you’re human. New York Times. nytimes.com 119Inc (producer). (2015). How to successfully create cohesive company culture. 120Argote, L. (1989). Agreement about norms and work-unit effectiveness: Evidence from the field. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10(2), 131–140.
M02_THOM4204_06_SE_C02.indd 47 10/24/16 5:08 PM
48 Part 1 • Building the Team
they were harshly punished. In the Hawthorne Works plant, researchers observed a behavior called “binging,” in which the “rate buster” (i.e., the overproducer) was given a sharp blow to the arm so as to reprimand the employee and decrease the level of output.
Certainly, not all cases of norm violation in organizational work groups are met with physical aggression. The first response of a team to a norm violation is usually to attempt to correct the misbehavior with some reminders. Teams will often persist in this kind of corrective activity for a long period before they move to more drastic measures. Indeed, other forms of punishment and aggression are perhaps even more detrimental to individual and organizational well-being, such as ostracism, in which people are excluded from certain social, or professional, activities.121 Ostracism can have negative repercussions for the company as well if the isolated individual is not given sufficient information to effectively do their job.
CHangIng nORMS Once established, norms are not easily changed. Norms are often maintained over several generations, during which older members gradually leave the team and new members join.122 The team’s efforts to transmit their norms are particu- larly strong when newcomers are involved.123 Teams are highly motivated to provide newcomers with the knowledge, ability, and motivation they will need to play the role of a full member. Consequently, newcomers are usually receptive to these attempts because they feel a strong need to learn what is expected of them.124
tEaM coaching
Team coaching is “direct interaction with a team intended to help members make coordinated and task-appropriate use of their collective resources in accomplishing the team’s work.”125 According to Hackman and Wageman’s theory of team coaching, coaching involves three distinct features:126
• The functions that coaching serves for a team • The specific times in the task–performance process when a coaching intervention
is most likely to have the intended effects • The conditions under which team-focused coaching is likely to facilitate performance
121Williams, K. D. (1997). Social ostracism. In R. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 133–170). New York: Plenum Publishers. 122Jacobs, R. C., & Campbell, D. T. (1961). The perpetuation of an arbitrary tradition through several gen- erations of a laboratory microculture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 649–658; Weick, K. E., & Gilfillan, D. P. (1971). Fate of arbitrary traditions in a laboratory microculture. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 179–191. 123Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1991). Culture and socialization in work groups. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 585–634). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1989). Newcomers and oldtimers in small groups. In P. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology or group influence (2nd ed., pp. 143–186). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 124Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar orga- nizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226–251; Van Maanen, J. (1977). Experiencing organiza- tion: Notes on the meaning of careers and socialization. In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Organizational careers: Some new perspectives (pp. 15–45). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
126Ibid.
125From A theory of team coaching by J. Richard Hackman and Ruth Wageman, © 2005 Academy of Management Review.
M02_THOM4204_06_SE_C02.indd 48 10/24/16 5:08 PM
Chapter 2 • Designing the Team 49
Examples of coaching include a press meeting before a new product is announced, giving team feedback on performance, or asking the team thoughtful questions about their recommendations for a new strategy. Although personally coordinating the work of a team, or negotiating resources is, on the surface, quite useful for the team, it is not coaching.127 According to Hackman, “coaching is about building teamwork, not about doing the team’s work.”128 As important as coaching is for team success, leaders focus their behavior less on team coaching than on other aspects of the team leadership portfolio.129
TypES Of COaCHIng Coaching can be educational, motivational, or strategic. (See Exhibit 2-4.)130 Coaching that focuses on ability, knowledge, and skill is educational in nature. For example, a coach might either provide or suggest that a person get training on particu- lar skills, such as marketing or emotional intelligence. Coaching that focuses on how to enhance involvement is motivational in nature. For example, a coach might suggest that team members enhance their commitment to the team by outlining their goals and target dates for completing those goals. Finally, coaching that focuses on how to best integrate
127Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 128Ibid. 129From Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances by J. Richard Hackman, © 2002 Harvard Business Press. 130Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 269–287; Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Timing performance process
Direction Structure Context Coaching Examples
Beginning Effort (motivation)
Challenging Task design Reward system
• Minimize social loafing
• Build team commitment
Setting target dates and outlining goals
Middle performance Strategy
(coordination/ consultative)
Clear Team norms
Information system
• Minimize habitual behavior
• Invent uniquely appropriate strategies
Performing a task with another colleague
End of task cycle
knowledge and Skill (ability/
educational)
Conse- quential
Team composition
Educational system
• Minimize silo thinking
• Build pool of talent
Training on specific skills
EXHIBIT 2-4 Structural, Contextual, and Coaching Contributions to Team performance processes
Based on Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2004). When and how team leaders matter. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 37–74; Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005, April). A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 269–287, © Leigh L. Thompson.
M02_THOM4204_06_SE_C02.indd 49 10/24/16 5:08 PM
50 Part 1 • Building the Team
members’ strengths and abilities is consultative in nature. For example, a coach might suggest that the team members practice performing a particular task with one another.
According to Hackman and Wageman, the three coaching functions—education, motivation, and consultation—address a team’s task performance processes, not mem- bers’ interpersonal relationships. Thus, coaching functions are interventions that inhibit threats to performance and enhance synergetic gains for each of these three performance processes. For team coaching to be effective, four conditions have to be present.131
First, the team performance processes that are essential for success (i.e., expertise, engagement, and execution) must be relatively unconstrained by task or organizational requirements.
Second, the team must be well designed and the organizational context supportive. Well-designed teams respond better to good coaching and are undermined less by inef- fective coaching, more so than poorly designed teams.132
Third, coaching behaviors should focus on salient task performance processes, rather than interpersonal relationships or processes not under a team’s control. For example in one investigation, leaders trained in two specific forms of process facilitation—strategy development and coordinating—were able to lead their teams through a specific battle simulation operation better.133
Finally, coaching interventions should be introduced when the team is ready and able to incorporate them. For motivational interventions, the beginning of the task cycle is ideal. For consultative–strategy interventions, the midpoint is ideal, and for educa- tional interventions, the end of the task cycle is optimal. Leaders who use active coach- ing are evaluated less positively, in terms of team member satisfaction with leadership, yet their teams are more effective, particularly under change and disruption.134
131Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 269–287. 132Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices versus hands-on coaching. Organization Science, 12(5), 559–577. 133DeChurch, L. A., & Marks, M. A. (2006). Leadership in multi-team systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 311–329. 134Morgeson, F. P. (2005). The external leadership of self-managing teams: Intervening in the context of novel and disruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 497–508.
Chapter Capstone
Designing a team begins with a goal. Teams that have clear and elevating goals are best positioned to succeed. We discussed the importance of learning versus performance goals and introduced the difference between promotion- and prevention-focused goals. The selection of team members should not be left to chance. Indeed, two common errors that managers make are the overstaffing bias and the homogeneity bias. The optimal team size is the fewest number of people required
to accomplish a task. We focused on diver- sity and noted that in general, informational diversity is positively associated with team performance; whereas social category diver- sity improves group cohesion. We explored how to build a diverse team, beginning with valuing diversity. The process of managing a team on a day-to-day level begins with estab- lishing norms. The effective leader can coach the team with regard to information, motiva- tion, and coordination.
M02_THOM4204_06_SE_C02.indd 50 10/24/16 5:08 PM
51
Uber founder, Travis Kalanick has a strong entrepreneurial drive, but early on, he struggled to establish himself as a business leader. Before founding his start-up company, Uber, Kalanick launched a file-sharing company and lived with his parents for several years and didn’t take a salary. At Uber, his leadership approach fosters a culture of entrepreneurs and encourages project innovation and ownership in all his employees. For example, in an after-hours meeting in 2015, product manager, Greg Greiner, and department head, Max Crowley, noticed an unmet need for guest vouchers for Uber rides, particularly during holidays. They scrounged the office and found a few stray engineers working late and pulled them into their meeting, which escalated into a long weekend “workation and hackathon.” Nine additional Uber staffers heard about the project, and arrived at the Airbnb house they had rented, and began mapping out the project. Designers helped engineers visualize a front-end interface for the app, engineers tackled making it function, and Crowley and Greiner kept everyone in sync. By the end of the weekend, two of the engineers rode back to the city still coding in the backseat while Crowley navigated traffic. UberEvents successfully rolled out to U.S. customers in 2016, and Uber was valued at $62.5 billion.1
1Lagorio-Chafkin, C. (2015, December 11). How a rogue team secretly built Uber’s latest project over a weekend. Inc. inc.com
Leading Teams3 C
h a
p t
e r
Travis Kalanick did not become a billionaire by having his own vision; he mobilized a team to achieve greatness. In this chapter, we differentiate leadership from management and we consider the question of whether leaders are born or made. We describe two views of leader- ship: incremental versus entity theories of leadership. We examine the leadership paradox: the fact that teams usually need leaders, but the very presence of a leader threatens the autonomy of the team. We then describe several leadership styles and examine people’s expectations of leaders. We also discuss how leaders use power and its effects on them and their teams.
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 51 10/25/16 1:06 PM
52 Part 1 • Building the Team
LEADERSHIP VERSuS MANAGEMENT
Leadership is not the same as management. People don’t want to be managed; they want to be led. Management is a function that must be exercised in any business or team, whereas leadership is a relationship between the leader and the led that can energize a team or organization (see Exhibit 3-1).2 Leadership is the ability to influence people to achieve the goals of a team. A leader is able to influence people to achieve a goal.
One defining characteristic of leadership is the point of view that the leader of the team adopts. The leader of the team has a point of view that allows him or her to: (1) see what needs to be done; (2) understand the underlying forces that are working in the organization; and (3) initiate action to make things better.3 Exhibit 3-2 reveals that the leader’s point of view is different from the followers’ point of view, and different still from those who are bureaucrats, administrators, and contrarians.
THE LEADERSHIP PARADOX
Leadership—or one person taking the helm of the group’s efforts—seems antithetical to teamwork. Yet, leaders are often necessary for effective teamwork: to shape goals, coordinate effort, and motivate members. Traditional notions of leadership—that is, top–down, command-and-control approaches—may be ineffective in the team-based organization. Indeed, one investigation found that employees in highly participative work climates provided 14 percent better customer service, committed 26 percent fewer clinical errors, demonstrated 79 percent lower burnout, and were 61 percent less likely to leave the organization than employees in more authoritarian work climates.4
Few people understand how to transform themselves into leaders. For example, in one plant, resistance toward participative management programs took the form of
2Maccoby, M. (2000, January/February). Understanding the difference between management and leadership. Research Technology Management, 43(1), 57–59. 3Clawson, D. (2003). The next upsurge: Labor and the new social movements. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 4”From The impact of participative management perceptions on customer service, medical errors, burnout, and turnover intentions by Angermeier, Ingo Dunford, Benjamin B. Boss, Alan D. and Boss, R. Wayne in Journal of Healthcare Management, © 2009 American College of Healthcare Executives.”.
Management Leadership
A function A relationship
Planning Selecting talent
Budgeting Motivating
Evaluating Coaching
Facilitating Building trust
Exhibit 3-1 Management Versus Leadership
“Understanding the difference between management and leadership” from research technology Management by Michael Maccoby. Copyright © 2000 by Michael Maccoby. reprinted by permission of Industrial research Institute.
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 52 10/25/16 1:06 PM
Chapter 3 • Leading Teams 53
supervisors keeping their “hands off” as newly formed semiautonomous work teams attempted to solve problems. When questions arose that teams were unable to handle, supervisors replied, “That’s not my job; it’s the team’s problem.” In essence, the supervi- sors were undermining the teams so they could resume their traditional position of authority.
The question of how one leads others who are supposed to lead themselves is the essence of the team paradox encountered by leaders of self-managing and self-directing teams.5 Attempts to cope with this leadership challenge often result in negative supervi- sor reactions, including resistance to change,6 role conflict,7 unwillingness to relinquish
5Stewart, G. L., & Manz, C. C. (1995). Leadership and self-managing work teams: A typology and integrative model. Human Relations, 48(7), 747–770. 6Manz, C. C., Keating, D. E., & Donnellon, A. (1990). Preparing for an organizational change to employee self-management: The management transition. Organizational Dynamics, 19(2), 15–26. 7Letize, L., & Donovan, M. (1990, March). The supervisor’s changing role in high involvement organizations. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 13(2), 62–65.
Point of View Examples of What This Person Would Say
Follower “What do you want me to do?” “Will you give me more authority?” “I need you to clear the obstacles for me.”
Bureaucrat “That’s not my job.” “I’ll pass that on to so-and-so.” “Our procedures don’t allow that.” “We’ve never done it that way.” “This hasn’t been approved.” “I can’t do that without my supervisor’s permission.”
Administrator “What did they do last time?” “We’ve never done it that way.” “Let’s see, what was the rule on that?”
Contrarian “That will never work!” “We tried that before.” “That’s a terrible idea.” “You won’t be able to fund it.” “You will never be able to do it on time.”
Leader “Do you see what needs to be done?” “Do you understand the underlying forces at play?” “Are you willing to initiate action to make things better?”
Exhibit 3-2 The Leader’s Point of View
CLaWSON, JaMeS G., LeVeL three LeaDerShIp, 2nd eD., © 2002. reprinted and electronically reproduced by permission of pearson education, Inc., Upper Saddle, New Jersey.
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 53 10/25/16 1:06 PM
54 Part 1 • Building the Team
power,8 fear of appearing incompetent,9 and fear of job termination.10 These responses may cause leaders to engage in actions that thwart, rather than facilitate, team effective- ness. The best leaders serve a vital role in coordinating team members, resolving disputes or disagreements, motivating individuals, monitoring performance, and maintaining the goals and focus of the group.
LEADERS AND THE NATuRE–NuRTuRE DEBATE
Are leaders born or self-made? With regard to the nature versus nurture debate, there are two theories about what makes a leader effective. The entity theory of leadership asserts that leaders are born, whereas the incremental theory claims that leadership skills can be learned and leaders can develop. In one investigation of how people behave when put into a leadership situation, those who believed in an incremental theory of leadership were more confident, less anxious, and less depressed than those who held an entity theory of leadership. Even more important, those who held incremental views outperformed those who held entity views on a leadership task.11
TraiT Theories of Leadership
The entity, or trait theory of leadership is sometimes referred to as the “great man theory of leadership,” and it argues that leadership is largely an inborn characteristic of a person and therefore is largely inflexible, or at least not something that can be easily developed, learned, or acquired.12 In this sense, a person’s capability for leadership is regarded as fixed. Strict proponents of the entity theory of leadership claim people are either born leaders or born followers: They either have it or don’t. If they do have it, they dictate, command, and control. If they don’t have it, they follow those who do have it. Leader- ship is largely viewed as unidirectional—from the top down—with leaders imparting truth, wisdom, and directives to those beneath them. Furthermore, trait theories of leadership tend to give leaders too much credit for corporate success and too much blame for failures when in fact, the leadership skills of the CEO are much less predictive of which companies actually succeed.13
INTELLIGENCE AND LEADERSHIP Many organizations, including the armed forces, have relied on intelligence testing to select leaders. The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) is administered to all persons who wish to enlist in the U.S. military.
8Verespej, M. A. (1990, December 3). When you put the team in charge. Industry Week, 30–31. 9Manz, C. C., Keating, D. E., & Donnellon, A. (1990). Preparing for an organizational change to employee self-management: The management transition. Organizational Dynamics, 19(2), 15–26. 10Verespej, M. A. (1990, December 3). When you put the team in charge. Industry Week, 30–31. 11Hoyt, C. L., Burnette, J. L., & Innella, A. N. (2012). I can do that: The impact of implicit theories on leader- ship role model effectiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(2), 257–268. 12Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, & management applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press. 13Belsky, G. (2012, June 11). How much does the big boss really matter? Time. time.com
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 54 10/25/16 1:06 PM
Chapter 3 • Leading Teams 55
Furthermore, results of large national samples of general mental ability (GMA) indicate that intelligence is linked to career success, such as income and occupational prestige.14
PERSONALITY AND LEADERSHIP Psychologists, political scientists, and historians have studied the personalities of leaders in governmental, business, and educational organiza- tions to identify the common threads. However, decades of research have failed to yield an agreed upon list of key traits shared by all leaders.15 Simonton gathered information about 100 personal attributes of all U.S. presidents, such as their family backgrounds, educational experiences, occupations, and personalities.16 Only three of these vari- ables—height, family size, and number of books published before taking office— correlated with how effective the presidents were in office. The 97 other characteristics, including personality traits, were not related to leadership effectiveness at all. By chance, 5 percent, or 5 out of the 100, would be significant!
Studies of the “big five” personality traits have revealed some correlations with leadership. Agreeableness and conscientiousness are positively related to perceptions of ethical leadership.17 People who score high on extraversion, openness to experience, and conscientiousness are nominated more as task- and relationship-oriented leaders; those who score high on agreeableness are more likely to emerge as relationship- oriented leaders.18 Leaders who are extraverted have more productive team results when their employees are passive but not when they are proactive.19
Narcissists are more likely to emerge as a leader in a group, but they are no more skilled than nonnarcissistic people.20 Similarly, people high in trait dominance emerge as leaders because they behave in ways that make them appear competent, even when they actually lack competence.21
BIRTH ORDER AND LEADERSHIP Yet another entity theory is that leadership is based on birth order. Cross-sectional data show some indication that first-born children may be more intelligent, but longitudinal data do not support this.22
14Judge, T. A., Klinger, R. L., & Simon, L. S. (2010). Time is on my side: Time, general mental ability, human capital, and extrinsic career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 92–107. 15Yukl, G. A. (1981). Leadership in organizations. London: Prentice-Hall International. 16Simonton, D. K. (1987). Why presidents succeed: A political psychology of leadership. New Haven, CT: Yale Uni- versity Press. 17Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediat- ing roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1275–1286. 18Emery, C., Calvard, T. S., & Pierce, M. E. (2013). Leadership as an emergent group process: A social network study of personality and leadership. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(1), 28–45. 19Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hoffman, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage: The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 528–550. 20Brunell, A. B., Gentry, W. A., Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Kuhnert, K. W., & DeMarree, K. G. (2008). Leader emergence: The case of the narcissistic leader. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1663–1676. 21Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009). Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 491–503. 22Andeweg, R. B., & van den Berg, S. B. (2003). Linking birth order to political leadership: The impact of parents or sibling interaction? Political Psychology, 24(3), 605–623.
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 55 10/25/16 1:06 PM
56 Part 1 • Building the Team
hiring task, both men and women preferred to hire a man over a woman if the two were equally qualified,35 and men preferred to hire a man even when he was clearly less quali- fied.36 When people were asked to evaluate male and female members’ contributions to a joint outcome—unless they were given feedback about people’s actual contributions— they devalued the work of the females and rated them as less competent, less influential, and less likely to have played a leadership role, even when the contributions were identi- cal for men and women.37 However, when groups are threatened and desire change, they favor female leaders.38 To the extent female group leaders engage in self-monitoring (reflecting and thinking about their behaviors and how they are viewed by others), they are considered to be more influential and valuable for their groups.39
incremenTaL Theories of Leadership
There is overwhelming evidence that environmental and situational factors strongly affect leadership. In fact, a great deal of evidence indicates that leadership has more to do with the environment than one’s own personality. So, why do so many people believe that fixed traits, such as intelligence and personality, can predict leadership? The romanticized conception of leadership is that leaders have the ability to control and influence the fates of their organizations and people.40 The fundamental attribution error is the tendency to overemphasize the impact of stable personality and dispositional traits, and underem- phasize the impact of the situation on people’s behavior.41 In fact, more temporary, situ- ational characteristics can usually explain a great deal of human behavior.
Incremental theories of leadership focus on how leaders do two things, vis-à-vis teamwork in their organizations. First, it focuses on how leaders directly interact with their teams. The second thing these leaders do is to structure the external environment so that the team can best achieve its goals. In both of these tasks, leadership is bidirec- tional, with leaders learning from their team just as often as they provide direction for their team. These leaders maintain the relationship between the group and organization to ensure that organizational objectives are being pursued. Leaders also coordinate team members, resolve disputes or disagreements, motivate individuals, monitor performance, and establish the goals and focus of the group.
33Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta- analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22. 34Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter-stereo- typical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629–645.
35Foschi, M., Lai, L., & Sigerson, K. (1994). Gender and double standards in the assessment of job applicants. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 326–339. 36Foschi, M., Sigerson, K., & Lembesis, M. (1995). Assessing job applicants: The relative effects of gender, academic record, and decision type. Small Group Research, 26(3), 328–352. 37Heilman, M. E., & Haynes, M. C. (2005). No credit where credit is due: Attributional rationalization of women’s success in male–female teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 905–916. 38Brown, E. R., Diekman, A. B., & Schneider, M. C. (2011). A change will do us good: Threats diminish typical preferences for male leaders. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(7), 930–941. 39Flynn, F. J., & Ames, D. R. (2006). What’s good for the goose may not be as good for the gander: The ben- efits of self-monitoring for men and women in task groups and dyadic conflicts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 272–281. 40Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78–102. 41Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173–220). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
GENDER AND LEADERSHIP Leadership over-emergence occurs when a person’s lead- ership emergence is higher than their actual effectiveness.23 Men tend to over-emerge as leaders; and when women engage in agentic leadership behaviors—the level exhibited by men—they are seen as over-emerging.24 A meta-analysis of hundreds of studies revealed that contrary to stereotypical beliefs about male and female differences, men do not engage in more task-oriented behavior, nor do women behave in a more rela- tional (considerate) fashion; women lead in a more democratic style and men use a more autocratic style.25
A meta-analysis review of 75 studies of mixed-gender groups revealed that women are less likely to become leaders than men in laboratory and naturally occurring groups.26 Yet, women display more of the desirable transformational leadership behav- iors positively related to team performance compared to men.27 And, the shares of companies whose boards include at least one woman outperformed those of companies with all-male boards by 26 percent, with the explanation being that women might be more appropriately risk averse.28 When women are exposed to the gender stereotype of women (vulnerable and accommodating), they avoid leadership roles in favor of nonthreatening subordinate roles,29 and their aspirations for leadership positions decline. People perceive women less favorably when they are in leadership positions, and they evaluate women’s behavior less favorably.30 For example, women are regarded as less competent than men, and in group interaction, people give men more opportunities to speak than women.31 People respond more favorably to men who self-promote (boast) than to men who are modest; however, the opposite is true for women.32 In fact, female leaders are devalued when they act in a masculine manner,33 and overt displays of competence and confidence by women can result in rejection, especially from men.34 In a simulated job interview and
23Lanaj, K., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2015). Leadership over-emergence in self-managing teams: The role of gender and countervailing biases. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), 1476–1494. 24Ibid. 25Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256. 26Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 685–710. 27Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing men and women. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569–591. 28Goodman, J. (2012, October 15). Empowered women hold the key to a business’s success. Fast Company. fastcompany.com 29Davies, P. G., Spencer, S. J., & Steele, C. M. (2005). Clearing the air: Identity safety moderates the effects of stereotype threat on women’s leadership aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 276–287. 30Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 190(3), 573–598; Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22. 31Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. Z., & Zelditch, M. (1977). Status characteristics and social interaction. New York: Elsevier. 32Giacolone, R. A., & Riordan, C. A. (1990). Effect of self-presentation on perceptions and recognition in an organization. The Journal of Psychology, 124, 25–38.
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 56 10/25/16 1:06 PM
Chapter 3 • Leading Teams 57
hiring task, both men and women preferred to hire a man over a woman if the two were equally qualified,35 and men preferred to hire a man even when he was clearly less quali- fied.36 When people were asked to evaluate male and female members’ contributions to a joint outcome—unless they were given feedback about people’s actual contributions— they devalued the work of the females and rated them as less competent, less influential, and less likely to have played a leadership role, even when the contributions were identi- cal for men and women.37 However, when groups are threatened and desire change, they favor female leaders.38 To the extent female group leaders engage in self-monitoring (reflecting and thinking about their behaviors and how they are viewed by others), they are considered to be more influential and valuable for their groups.39
incremenTaL Theories of Leadership
There is overwhelming evidence that environmental and situational factors strongly affect leadership. In fact, a great deal of evidence indicates that leadership has more to do with the environment than one’s own personality. So, why do so many people believe that fixed traits, such as intelligence and personality, can predict leadership? The romanticized conception of leadership is that leaders have the ability to control and influence the fates of their organizations and people.40 The fundamental attribution error is the tendency to overemphasize the impact of stable personality and dispositional traits, and underem- phasize the impact of the situation on people’s behavior.41 In fact, more temporary, situ- ational characteristics can usually explain a great deal of human behavior.
Incremental theories of leadership focus on how leaders do two things, vis-à-vis teamwork in their organizations. First, it focuses on how leaders directly interact with their teams. The second thing these leaders do is to structure the external environment so that the team can best achieve its goals. In both of these tasks, leadership is bidirec- tional, with leaders learning from their team just as often as they provide direction for their team. These leaders maintain the relationship between the group and organization to ensure that organizational objectives are being pursued. Leaders also coordinate team members, resolve disputes or disagreements, motivate individuals, monitor performance, and establish the goals and focus of the group.
33Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta- analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22. 34Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter-stereo- typical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629–645.
35Foschi, M., Lai, L., & Sigerson, K. (1994). Gender and double standards in the assessment of job applicants. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 326–339. 36Foschi, M., Sigerson, K., & Lembesis, M. (1995). Assessing job applicants: The relative effects of gender, academic record, and decision type. Small Group Research, 26(3), 328–352. 37Heilman, M. E., & Haynes, M. C. (2005). No credit where credit is due: Attributional rationalization of women’s success in male–female teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 905–916. 38Brown, E. R., Diekman, A. B., & Schneider, M. C. (2011). A change will do us good: Threats diminish typical preferences for male leaders. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(7), 930–941. 39Flynn, F. J., & Ames, D. R. (2006). What’s good for the goose may not be as good for the gander: The ben- efits of self-monitoring for men and women in task groups and dyadic conflicts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 272–281. 40Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78–102. 41Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173–220). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 57 10/25/16 1:06 PM
58 Part 1 • Building the Team
SEATING ARRANGEMENTS When a group sits at a table, the person at the head of the table has a greater probability of emerging as the leader, even when the seating is randomly determined.42 Consider the implications of seating arrangements at a five- member rectangular table.43 Two persons sat on one side of the table and three on the other side. Although no one sat on the end seat, specific predictions were made about who should emerge as the leader if eye contact and control of communication were important causal factors. Whereas those seated on the two-person side of the table could maintain easy eye contact with three of the group members, those on the three-person side could best focus their attention on only two members. Therefore, it was predicted that those on the two-person side would be able to influence others more, and hence, were more likely to become leaders. Indeed, 70 percent of the leaders came from the two-person side. Judgments of leaders’ power are often based on how they look on an organization chart: Holding everything else constant, if there is a long vertical line by a leader’s name, that leader is judged to have more power than leaders with a short vertical line.44
RANDOM SELECTION OF LEADERS Organizations spend millions of dollars each year carefully selecting leaders, often using psychological tests to do so. However, an inves- tigation of team performance revealed that teams with randomly selected leaders per- formed better on all organizational decision-making tasks than did teams whose leaders were systematically selected.45 Moreover, teams with a random leader adhered more strongly to the team’s decision. Systematically selected leaders often undermine group goals because they assert their personal superiority at the expense of developing a sense of shared team identity.
LEADERSHIP STYLES
One trip to the bookstore, or one online search of the academic literature can produce a dizzying array of enticing (yet poorly understood) leadership approaches. Often, these approaches are presented in the form of metaphor: leader as coach, leader as servant, leader as guide, leader as conductor, and so on.46 In a recent literature review of academic journals, we found more than 20 variations of leadership styles spanning a wide range, including: visionary, charismatic, participatory, servant, contingent, transformational, and
42Nemeth, C. J., & Wachtler, J. (1974). Creating the perceptions of consistency and confidence: A necessary condition for minority influence. Sociometry, 37(4), 529–540; Riess, M. (1982). Seating preferences as impres- sion management: A literature review and theoretical integration. Communication, 11, 85–113; Riess, M., & Rosenfeld, P. (1980). Seating preferences as nonverbal communication: A self-presentational analysis. Journal of Applied Communications Research, 8, 22–30. 43Howells, L. T., & Becker, S. W. (1962). Seating arrangements and leadership emergence. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, 148–150. 44Giessner, S. R., & Schubert, T. W. (2007). High in the hierarchy: How vertical location and judgments of leaders’ power are interrelated. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104(1), 30–44. 45Haslam, S. A., McGarty, C., Brown, P. M., Eggins, R. A., Morrison, B. E., & Reynolds, K. J. (1998). Inspect- ing the emperor’s clothes: Evidence that random selection of leaders can enhance group performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2(3), 168–184. 46Thompson, L., & Rosette, A. (2004). Leading by analogy. In S. Chowdhury (Ed.), Financial times next generation business series. London: Prentice Hall.
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 58 10/25/16 1:06 PM
Chapter 3 • Leading Teams 59
transactional. The corporate world and popular business presses have coined even more varieties of leadership—often branding them with a particularly influential individual’s name, such as the “Jack Welch lexicon of leadership”47 or the “Warren Buffet CEO.”48 Consider the following leadership styles as choices leaders can make.
Task Versus person Leadership
Leaders vary in terms of how much they focus on the people (relationships) and the task.49 (See Exhibit 3-3.) Task-oriented leaders focus on accomplishing the objectives of the team; relationship-oriented leaders focus on the people. Person-focused leaders allow members of their team more freedom in their work, permit team members to use their own judgment in solving problems, and grant members authority. Conversely, task-oriented leaders typically act as the spokesperson of their group, push for more work and higher production, and determine what should be done and how it should be accomplished.50 Ideally, leaders who focus on getting the work done and supporting
47Krames, J. A. (2001). The Jack Welch lexicon of leadership: Over 250 terms, concepts, strategies & initiatives of the legendary leader. New York: McGraw-Hill. 48Miles, R. P., & Osborne, T. (2001). The Warren Buffett CEO: Secrets of the Berkshire Hathaway managers. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 49Blake, R.R., & Mouton, J.S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf. 50Sergiovanni, T.J., Metzcus, R., & Burden, L. (1969). Toward a particularistic approach to leadership style: Some finds. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 62–79.
Exhibit 3-3 Managerial Grid
Based on Blake, r.r., & Mouton, J.S. (1964). The managerial grid. houston, tX: Gulf, © Leigh L. thompson.
Task Concern
Authority-Obedience Manager
P eo
pl e
C on
ce rn
LOW
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
(Low People - High Task)
Middle of Road Manager
Focus on work output as well as
employee morale
(Medium People and Task)
Impoverished Manager
(Low People - Low Task)
Country Club Manager
(High People - Low Task)
Team Manager
(High People - High Task)
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 59 10/25/16 1:06 PM
60 Part 1 • Building the Team
their people are team leaders. Leaders who are accountable are more team-oriented, particularly when they identify with their team.51
TransacTionaL Versus TransformaTionaL Leadership
The transactional versus transformational paradigm views leadership as either a matter of contingent reinforcement of followers or the moving of followers beyond their self- interests for the good of the team, organization, or society.52 Transformational leader- ship (TFL) is developmental and usually begins with a transactional approach. At a basic level, leaders and their teams are in an exchange relationship that involves negotia- tion to establish outcomes and rewards.53 A psychological contract is a person’s belief in mutual obligations between that person and another party, such as an employer or leader.54
In contrast, transactional leadership depends on the leader’s power to reinforce subordinates (team members) for their successful completion of the bargain (task). However, this type of leadership sets up a competitive relationship: “If you limit yourself to transactional leadership of a follower with rewards of carrots for compliance, or pun- ishments with a stick for failure to comply with agreed-on work to be done by the fol- lower, the follower will continue to feel like a jackass.”55
ADVANTAGES Transformational leaders motivate their teams to work toward goals that go beyond immediate self-interest, and motivate their teams to do more than they origi- nally expected to do as they strive for higher-order outcomes.56 In an investigation of the performance of 118 R&D project teams from five companies, transformational lead- ership predicted technical quality, schedule performance, and cost performance 1 year later, and profitability and speed-to-market 5 years later.57 Teams with transformational leaders have higher teamwork quality and more inter-team collaboration.58 TFL is asso- ciated with a more positive effect on teams, enhancing resilience, learning goal
51Giessner, S. R., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W., & Sleebos, E. (2013). Team-oriented leadership: The interactive effects of leader group prototypicality, accountability, and team identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(4), 658. 52Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press; Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row; Hollander, E. P. (1964). Leaders, groups, and influence. New York: Oxford University Press. 53Hollander, E. P. (1986). On the central role of leadership processes. International Review of Applied Psychology, 35, 39–52. 54Rousseau, D. M., & Tijoriwala, S. A. (1998). Assessing psychological contracts: Issues, alternatives, and measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 679–695. 55From Power, leadership, and the management of stress by Harry Levinson, © 1980 Professional Psychology. 56Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. 57Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for leadership: A lon- gitudinal study of research and development project team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 202–210. 58Cha, J., Kim, Y., Lee, J. Y., & Bachrach, D. G. (2015). Transformational leadership and inter-team collabora- tion exploring the mediating role of teamwork quality and moderating role of team size. Group & Organization Management, 40(6), 715–743.
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 60 10/25/16 1:06 PM
Chapter 3 • Leading Teams 61
orientation, and ultimately, better performance.59 TFL also shapes team proactivity, particularly when the task is varied.60 Conversely, people who are taught skills by an extrinsically motivated leader are less interested in learning and enjoy what they are doing less than people taught by an intrinsically motivated leader, even when the lessons and the learning are identical.61 TFL is associated with positive workgroup climates.62 Transformational CEOs are more likely to have goal congruence within their team, which is related to better organizational performance.63
Transformational leaders rely on three behaviors, charisma, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration, to produce change.64 Leaders who demonstrate vision develop employees who are adaptive and proactive in response to change.65 Leaders who self-sacrifice (put aside their own self-interest in the service of the larger organization) generate higher productivity, higher effectiveness, and are seen as more group oriented.66 In the early 1960s, when Warren Buffett was recruiting backers for one of his first invest- ment partnerships, he deposited more than 90 percent of his personal savings into the fund. When Hewlett–Packard hit a downturn in 1970, cofounder Bill Hewlett took the same 10 percent pay cut as the rest of his employees. During the early years at Charles Schwab, whenever the customer-service phone lines got really busy, founder Chuck Schwab answered calls along with everyone else at the company who held a broker’s license.67 Leaders who engage in organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) model effective leadership and promote their teams to also display OCBs.68
Transformational leaders have more satisfied subordinates.69 Transformational leaders create teams that are characterized by collective openness to experience,
59Chi, N. W., & Huang, J. C. (2014). Mechanisms linking transformational leadership and team performance: The mediating roles of team goal orientation and group affective tone. Group & Organization Management, 39(3), 300; Sommer, S. A., Howell, J. M., & Hadley, C. N. (2015). Keeping positive and building strength: The role of affect and team leadership in developing resilience during an organizational crisis. Group & Organization Management, 41(2), 172. 60Wu, C. H., & Wang, Z. (2015). How transformational leadership shapes team proactivity: The mediating role of positive affective tone and the moderating role of team task variety. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 19(3), 137. 61Wild, T. C., Enzle, M. E., Nix, G., & Deci, E. L. (1997). Perceiving others as intrinsically or extrinsically motivated: Effects on expectancy formation and task engagement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(8), 837–848. 62Wang, P., Rode, J. C., Shi, K., Luo, Z., & Chen, W. (2013). A workgroup climate perspective on the relation- ships among transformational leadership, workgroup diversity, and employee creativity. Group & Organization Management, 38(3), 334. 63Colbert, A. E., Kristof-Brown, A. L., Bradley, B. H., & Barrick, M. R. (2008). CEO transformational leader- ship: The role of goal importance congruence in top management teams. The Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 81–96. 64Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. 65Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., & Mason, C. M. (2010). Leader vision and the development of adaptive and proactive performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 174–182. 66van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 25–37. 67Deutschman, A. (2009, September 18). How authentic leaders “walk the walk.” Businessweek. businessweek.com 68Yaffe, T., & Kark, R. (2011). Leading by example: The case of leader OCB. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 806–826. 69Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Supervisors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695–702; Ross, S. M., & Offermann, L. R. (1997). Transformational leaders: Measurement of personality attributes and work group performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(10), 1078–1086.
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 61 10/25/16 1:06 PM
62 Part 1 • Building the Team
agreeableness, extraversion, and greater conscientiousness. Transformational leadership has a positive impact on team performance because teams trust their leaders.70
DISADVANTAGES Group-focused transformational leadership has a positive impact on team innovation, but a negative impact on individual motivation.71 In some instances, transformational leadership can have a dark side, such as when a charismatic leader, like Jim Jones, motivates people to do something that is lethal.72 (See Exhibit 3-4.) Leaders who exhibit antinormative behaviors are judged more positively and given more credit relative to antinormative team members, ex-leaders, and established leaders.73 Moreover, under some conditions, charismatic leaders promote disenchantment among team members. The hypocrisy attribution dynamic refers to the tendency for team members to draw sinister conclusions about a leader’s behavior.74 This can happen when employees are prompted to engage in sensemaking in strong value-driven organizations.
auTocraTic Versus democraTic Leadership
Another view of leadership focuses on a continuum of behavior ranging from entirely autocratic to purely democratic.75 Also known as vertical leadership (emanating from the top down), this type of leadership stems from an appointed or formal leader of a team, whereas shared leadership is a group process in which leadership is distributed among, and stems from, team members. Autocratic leadership is displayed by leaders who seek sole possession of authority, power, and control, whereas democratic leader- ship is displayed by leaders who share authority, power, and control with their team. Initially, teams led by a directive leader outperform those led by an empowering leader. However over time, empowering leaders instigate more improvement via increased team learning, coordination, and mental model development.76 In one investigation, the effectiveness of 71 change management teams in companies was examined as a function of vertical versus shared leadership.77 Shared leadership significantly predicted team
70Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 863–871. 71Li, V., Mitchell, R., & Boyle, B. (2016). The divergent effects of transformational leadership on individual and team innovation. Group & Organization Management, 41(1), 66–97. 72Hogan, R., Raskin, R., & Fazzini, D. (1990). The dark side of charisma. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 343–354). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America. 73Abrams, D., De Moura, G. R., Marques, J. G., & Hutchison, P. (2008). Innovation credit: When can leaders oppose their group’s norms? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(3), 662–678. 74Cha, S. E., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). When values backfire: Leadership, attribution, and disenchantment in a values-driven organization. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 57–78. 75Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, & management applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press. 76Lorinkova, 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. 77Pearce, C. L., & Sims, Jr., H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(2), 172–197.
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 62 10/25/16 1:06 PM
Chapter 3 • Leading Teams 63
Exhibit 3-4 The Dark Side of Transformational Leadership
Leigh L. thompson
The People’s Temple was a cultlike organization based in San Francisco that primarily attracted poor residents. In 1977, the Reverend Jim Jones, who was the group’s political, social, and spiritual leader, moved the group with him to Jonestown, a jungle settlement in Guyana, South America. On November 18, 1978, Congressman Leo R. Ryan of California traveled to Guyana to investigate the cult. Three members of Ryan’s task force, and a cult defector, were murdered as they tried to leave Jonestown by plane. Convinced that he would be arrested and implicated in the murder, which would inevitably lead to the demise of the People’s Temple, Jones gathered the entire community around him and issued a call for each person’s death, to be achieved in a unified act of self-destruction. In November of 1978, 910 people compliantly drank and died from a vat of poison-laced Kool-Aid.
B et
tm an
n / G
et ty
Im ag
es
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 63 10/25/16 1:06 PM
64 Part 1 • Building the Team
effectiveness, as assessed by managers, internal customers, and team members. A meta- analysis of 42 independent samples of shared leadership revealed a positive relationship with team effectiveness, and even more so when the task was complex.78 (For a summary of several different leadership styles and their representative behaviors, see Exhibit 3-5.) A study of 59 consulting teams revealed that shared leadership emanates from shared purpose, social support, voice, and external coaching. Moreover, shared leadership pre- dicts team performance, as rated by clients.79 Overtime, shared leadership is related to growth in group trust, which enhances performance.80
78Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 181. 79Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of anteced- ent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1217–1234. 80Drescher, M. A., Korsgaard, M. A., Welpe, I. M., Picot, A., & Wigand, R. T. (2014). The dynamics of shared leadership: Building trust and enhancing performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 771.
Leader Type Representative Behaviors
Aversive leadership Engaging in intimidation Dispensing reprimands
Directive leadership Issuing instructions and commands Assigning goals
Transactional leadership Providing personal rewards Providing material rewards Managing by exception (active) Managing by exception (passive)
Transformational leadership Providing vision Expressing idealism Using inspirational communication Having high-performance expectations
Empowering leadership Encouraging independent action Encouraging opportunity thinking Encouraging teamwork Encouraging self-development Participative goal setting Encouraging self-reward
Exhibit 3-5 Representative Behavior of Five Types of Leaders
From “Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: an examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors” by Craig L. pearce and henry p. Sims Jr in Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 6(2), 172–197, (c) 2002 american psychological association.
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 64 10/25/16 1:06 PM
Chapter 3 • Leading Teams 65
Leader mood
According to the mood contagion model, leaders transmit their own moods to team members, just as a person with a cold might infect others.81 Moods manifest themselves through a leader’s facial, vocal, and postural cues, and team members can accurately ascertain leaders’ moods on the basis of nonverbal cues. When leaders are in a positive mood, in comparison to a negative mood, team members experience more positive moods, and groups as a whole are characterized by a more positive affective tone. More- over, groups with leaders in a positive mood show more coordination and expend less effort than those in a negative mood. For example, the previous chairman and CEO of General Electric, Jack Welch, said:
An upbeat manager with a positive outlook somehow ends up running a team or organization filled with . . . well, upbeat people with positive outlooks. A sourpuss somehow ends up with an unhappy tribe all his own. Unhappy tribes have a tough time winning. Work can be hard. But your job as leader is to fight the gravitational pull of negativism. That doesn’t mean you sugarcoat the challenges. It does mean you display an energizing, can-do attitude about overcoming them.82
Passion is usually considered to be desirable. Leadership competence increases obsessive passion; but leaders’ perceptions of their team members’ competence influ- ences harmonious passion. Both harmonious passion and obsessive passion negatively influence the ability to develop challenging goals because they prompt teams to rush into goal setting.83 Negative emotions also affect leadership. People who show compas- sion and contempt are more likely to be viewed as leaders because they are seen as more intelligent.84 Teams with higher epistemic motivation (i.e., a desire to thoroughly understand a situation) perform better when their leaders display anger, but teams with lower epistemic motivation perform better when the leaders express happiness.85
Leader–team perceptual distance is the difference between a leader and a team in terms of how they perceive things.86 The more disconnect between what the leader sees and what the team sees, the worse the team performance. And, this effect is stronger when the team’s perceptions are more positive than that of the leader.87
81Sy, T., Cote, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact of the leader’s mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 295–305. 82From How to be a good leader, © April 4, 2005 Newsweek LLC. 83Thorgren, S., & Wincent, J. (2013). Passion and role opportunity search: Interfering effects of conflicts and overloads. International Journal of Stress Management, 20(1), 20. 84Melwani, S., Mueller, J. S., & Overbeck, J. R. (2012). Looking down: The influence of contempt and compas- sion on emergent leadership categorizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1171. 85Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Beersma, B., van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., & Damen, F. (2009). Searing sentiment or cold calculation? The effects of leader emotional displays on team performance depend on follower epistemic motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 562–580. 86Gibson, C. B., Cooper, C. D., & Conger, J. A. (2009). Do you see what we see? The complex effects of per- ceptual distance between leaders and teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 62–76. 87Ibid.
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 65 10/25/16 1:06 PM
66 Part 1 • Building the Team
EXPECTATIONS OF LEADERS
Leader categorization theory argues that people use their mental image of an ideal leader (ideal leader prototype) as an implicit benchmark to determine their receptivity toward actual leaders and their own leadership potential.88
impLiciT Leadership Theories
People who are dependent on leaders hold particular expectations of leaders, or implicit leadership theories (ILTs) about whether a leader is worthy of influence (or LWI).89 ILTs are preconceived ideas that specify what teams expect of their leaders.90 Conse- quently, if a leader is judged to be a LWI, teams are more willing to be influenced by that leader. Thus, the degree of LWI respect accorded by teams, in large part, determines the effectiveness of the leader. Given that ILTs drive LWI, it behooves leaders to under- stand the ILTs that teams hold. The behaviors that people expect of leaders (the ILTs that drive LWI) are somewhat different for appointed versus elected leaders.91 For appointed leaders, being sympathetic (e.g., humorous, caring, interested, truthful, and open to ideas) and taking charge (e.g., responsible, active, determined, influential, aggressive, and in command) are key. For elected leaders, being well dressed (i.e., clean cut), kind, and authoritative are most important. (For a specific list of the characteristics, see Exhibit 3-6.)
proToTypicaLiTy
People prefer prototypical leaders and dislike nonprotoypical leaders and this is particu- larly true for those who prefer structured, stable environments.92 Leaders who are regarded to be most like team members are evaluated to be more effective than leaders who are seen as not very similar to their teams.93
sTaTus & uncerTainTy
The perceived status of the leader affects the team’s preferences regarding leadership style. Low-status leaders are rated as more effective by their teams when they use a directive style, whereas high-status leaders are viewed as more effective when they use
88Van Quaquebeke, N., van Knippenberg, D., & Eckloff, T. (2011). Individual differences in the leader catego- rization to openness to influence relationship: The role of followers’ self-perception and social comparison orientation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(5), 605–622. 89Kenney, R. A., Schwartz-Kenney, B. M., & Blascovich, J. (1996). Implicit leadership theories: Defining leaders described as worthy of influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(11), 1128–1143. 90Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1993). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. New York: Routledge. 91Kenney, R. A., Schwartz-Kenney, B. M., & Blascovich, J. (1996). Implicit leadership theories: Defining leaders described as worthy of influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(11), 1128–1143. 92Leicht, C., de Moura, G. R., & Crisp, R. J. (2014). Contesting gender stereotypes stimulates generalized fair- ness in the selection of leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5), 1025–1039. 93Hains, S. C., Hogg, M. A., & Duck, J. M. (1997). Self-categorization and leadership: Effects of group proto- typicality and leader stereotypicality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(10), 1087–1099.
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 66 10/25/16 1:06 PM
Chapter 3 • Leading Teams 67
Exhibit 3-6 Leader Behaviors That Determine Whether People Accord Influence to a Leader
Based on “Implicit leadership theories: Defining leaders described as worthy of influence” by Source: Based on Kenney, r. a., Schwartz-Kenney, B. M., & Blascovich, J. In Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1996 22(11), 1128–1143, © Leigh L. thompson.
• Knowledgeable • Responsible • Well spoken • Active • Determined • Influential • Aggressive • In command
• Open to others’ ideas • Respect for team • Friendly • Caring • Honest • Enthusiastic • Sense of humor • Popular
Take Charge
Sympathetic
Characteristics and Skills expected of
Appointed Leaders
Examples of Appointed Leaders: • Leaders of U.S. Armed Forces • Supreme Court Justices • President’s cabinet members
• Knowledgeable • Responsible • Well spoken • Independent • Influential • Determined • Risk taker • Aggressive • In command
• Open to others’ ideas • Respect for team • Friendly • Caring • Honest • Enthusiastic • Sense of humor • Popular
• Tall • Clean-cut
Authoritative
Kindness
Appearance
Characteristics and Skills expected of
Elected Leaders
Examples of Elected Leaders: • President of United States • Members of Congress • Mayors, Governers
dp a pi ct ur e al lia nc e / A la m y S to ck P ho to
G eo
rg io
s K
o lli
d as
/ S h
u tt
er st
o ck
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 67 10/25/16 1:06 PM
68 Part 1 • Building the Team
a participative style.94 Moreover, teams whose leaders are viewed more favorably perform better on complex group tasks.
Environmental conditions, such as change, uncertainty and risk, affect how people perceive leaders. For example, under conditions of uncertainty, people with high and stable self-esteem show a stronger preference for democratic leadership; however, people with low and unstable self-esteem prefer autocratic leadership.95 Indeed, in uncertain times, groups prefer and support nonprototypical leaders more than prototypical leaders.96
Paradoxically, leaders who express creative ideas may be viewed as having less lead- ership potential. For example, creative idea expression is negatively related to perceptions of leadership potential.97 Only when people are told to focus on a “charismatic” proto- type leader does creative idea generation not hurt the judgment of leaders.
LEADER–MEMBER EXCHANGE
The Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) model focuses on the relationships that lead- ers develop with particular subordinates and what leaders and subordinates offer and receive in such relationships. LMX theory operates on the premise that leaders give different team members (subordinates) differential amounts of attention and treatment (LMXD).98 Empathy can prompt team leaders to engage in preferential treatment of team members. However, preferential treatment is reduced when leaders feel highly accountable because they are concerned about fairness.99
aTTribuTes ThaT infLuence differenTiaL TreaTmenT
Some of the key determinants that lead to close, trusting relationships between leaders and their team members include: the subordinate’s similarity to the leader, their dem- onstrated competence, and extraversion. Early on in a group, team member extraversion and leader agreeableness predict relationship quality, but as the relationship develops, performance is the key predictor.100 Leaders who are treated in a close, connected
94Sauer, S. J. (2011). Taking the reins: The effects of new leader status and leadership style on team perfor- mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 574–587. 95Schoel, C., Bluemke, M., Mueller, P., & Stahlberg, D. (2011). When autocratic leaders become an option— Uncertainty and self-esteem predict implicit leadership preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 521–540. 96Rast, D. E., Gaffney, A. M., Hogg, M. A., & Crisp, R. J. (2012). Leadership under uncertainty: When leaders who are non-prototypical group members can gain support. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), 646–663. 97Mueller, J. S., Goncalo, J. A., & Kamdar, D. (2011). Recognizing creative leadership: Can creative idea expres- sion negatively relate to perceptions of leadership potential? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2), 494–498. 98Graen, G. (1976). Role making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. 99Blader, S. L., & Rothman, N. B. (2014). Paving the road to preferential treatment with good intentions: Empathy, accountability and fairness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 65–81. 100Nahrgang, J. D., Frederick, P., Morgeson, F. P., & Ilies, L. (2009). The development of leader–member exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance influence leader and member relationships over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 256–266.
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 68 10/25/16 1:06 PM
Chapter 3 • Leading Teams 69
fashion by their own superiors often develop close relationships with their own subor- dinates. The closer employers believe their own leader’s profile to be to their view of leadership, the better the quality of their LMX.101 That is, the more leaders embody the leadership behaviors that their employees and teams expect of them, the better their relationships. Inclusive leaders reduce turnover in groups, especially in diverse groups.102 Leaders who invest in their members and empower them instill better individual per- formance and better team performance.103
adVanTages of differenTiaL TreaTmenT
Some evidence indicates that LMX increases team member commitment. For example, a large-scale study of multiple organizations revealed that LMX and organizational commitment increases for those employees who identified their supervisor with the organization.104 Another field study of 330 employees in 45 hospitals revealed that high- LMX employees were less likely to leave their organization prior to a succession event, but of the few that experienced a succession event, it was the high-LMX employees who were more likely to leave.105
LMX differentiation is also associated with improved employee and team perfor- mance. For example, ethical leadership is related to greater LMX and improved employee performance.106 When leaders and followers have proactive personalities, this enhances LMX and leads to increased job satisfaction, commitment, and better job performance.107 A field study of 184 bank employees working under 42 branch managers found that lead- ers who had higher-quality relationships with their bosses and who were more central in their peer networks formed higher-quality relationships with their subordinates.108 Additionally, LMX also drove subordinates’ job satisfaction and turnover intensions. Specifically, those with higher LMX with their superiors had higher job satisfaction, more positive perceptions of their work environment, and a greater willingness to con- tinue to work for the business. Conversely, leaders with lower-quality LMX relationships with their superiors and who were less central in their peer networks perceived they
101Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of the role of implicit lead- ership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 659–676. 102Nishii, L. H., & Mayer, D. (2009). Do inclusive leaders help the performance of diverse groups? The mod- erating role of leader-member exchange in the diversity to group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1412–1426. 103Gilad, C., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel study of leadership, empow- erment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 331–346. 104Eisenberger et al. (2010). Leader-member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The contri- bution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1085–1103. 105Ballinger, G. A., Lehman, D. W., & Schoorman, F. D. (2010). Leader-member exchange and turnover before and after succession events. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(1), 25–36. 106Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Workman, K., & Christensen, A. L. (2011). Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader-member exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 204–213. 107Zhang, Z., Wang, M., & Shi, J. (2012). Leader-follower congruence in proactive personality and work outcomes: The mediating role of leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 111–130. 108Venkataramani, V., Green S. G., & Schleicher, D. J. (2010). Well-connected leaders: The impact of leaders’ social network ties on LMX and members’ work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1071–1084.
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 69 10/25/16 1:06 PM
70 Part 1 • Building the Team
lacked influence and had less access to opportunities and limited resources. Moreover, subordinates with lower LMX had lower job satisfaction, more negative perceptions of their workplace, and were more likely to look for other work opportunities.
disadVanTages of differenTiaL TreaTmenT
LMX and the differential treatment it accords is not without its disadvantages. At the individual level, LMX positively contributes to customer-rated performance by enhanc- ing role engagement; however, at the team level, LMX negatively affects financial per- formance by disrupting team coordination.109 Differential treatment may create an “in-group” among those with whom the leader invests. Inner-circle members (i.e., those who are close to the leader) feel safer in their group and participate more in group dis- cussions; leaders recognize them and give them larger bonuses.110 A study of 87 intact teams indicated that LMXD hurts group process and reduces perceptions of justice in the organization.111 Unfortunately, leaders call upon inner-circle members more, even when they do not possess the expert knowledge. Consequently, team members may grow resentful and view the leader and that subordinate as a subteam or coalition, particularly when other team members do not have a close, trusting relationship with the leader. When leaders treat a certain subordinate in a more distant, impersonal fashion, that subordinate may not be as involved in her task and not perform as well. Differentiated leadership (leaders treating individuals in a group differently) diminishes group effective- ness by lowering members’ self-efficacy and group efficacy; group-focused leadership facilitates group identification and collective efficacy, which increases effectiveness.112
When the organizational work climate is low, LMX may have particularly detri- mental effects. A study of 276 employees revealed that LMX differentiation was related to more negative work attitudes and coworker relations, as well as higher levels of with- drawal behaviors in a low-work climate.113
POWER
Power is the ability of a person to control the outcomes of another person in a relation- ship.114 Control over others’ outcomes can be direct or indirect. And control can be unilateral or bilateral.
Leaders are concerned about maintaining their power, particularly when another group member poses a threat to their leadership and the power in the group is unstable.
109Li, A. N., & Liao, H. (2014). How do leader–member exchange quality and differentiation affect perfor- mance in teams? An integrated multilevel dual process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 847. 110Burris, E. R., Rodgers, M. S., Mannix, E. A., Hendron, M. G., & Oldroyd, J. B. (2009). Playing favorites: The influence of leaders’ inner circle on group processes and performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(9), 1244–1257. 111Cobb, A. T., & Lau, R. S. (2015). Trouble at the next level: Effects of differential leader–member exchange on group-level processes and justice climate. Human Relations, 68(9), 1437–1459. 112Wu, J., Tsui, A., & Kinicki, A. (2010). Leading groups: Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 90–106. 113Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2010). Differentiated leader-member exchange: The buffering role of justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1104–1120. 114Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley.
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 70 10/25/16 1:06 PM
Chapter 3 • Leading Teams 71
For example, leaders seek proximity to team members who pose a threat to their own power as a way to control and regulate the threat posed by that member.115 When lead- ers perceive their power to be threatened, they create divisions among subordinates to protect their power and reduce the threat of alliances among subordinates.116
A key challenge is that people who are in a position of power, namely leaders, often have an egocentrically biased view of themselves, believing themselves to be more fair, generous, and trustworthy than others evaluate them to be. In a complementary fashion, those who lack power are highly distrustful of those who have power.117 People regard power-seeking individuals to be unethical and question the motives of those who seek to enhance their control.
sources of power
Power is the capacity to influence; influence is the actual use of power through specific behaviors.118 There are six key sources of power that people use in organizations and teams: expert, legitimate, incentive, coercive, informational, and referent power.119
115Mead, N. L., & Maner, J. K. (2012). On keeping your enemies close: Powerful leaders seek proximity to ingroup power threats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 576–591. 116Case, C. R., & Maner, J. K. (2014). Divide and conquer: When and why leaders undermine the cohesive fabric of their group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(6), 1033.
118Klocke, U. (2009). “I am the best”: Effects of influence tactics and power bases on powerholders’ self- evaluation and target evaluation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(5), 619–637.
117Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
119French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1968). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright & A. F. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics (pp. 259–270). New York: Harper & Row.
Source of Power Definition
Legitimate power Based on a person’s holding of a formal position; other person complies because of belief in legitimacy of power holder.
Reward power Based on a person’s access to rewards; other person complies because of desire to receive rewards.
Coercive power Based on a person’s ability to punish; other person complies because of fear of punishment.
Expert power Based on personal expertise in a certain area; other person complies because of belief in power holder’s knowledge.
Referent power Based on a person’s attractiveness to others; other person complies because of respect and liking for power holder.
Informational power Based on power related to the extent and content of an indi- vidual’s knowledge base.
Network power Based on the breadth and depth of connections the person has in their professional and personal network.
Exhibit 3-7 Sources of Power
Based on French, J. r. p., Jr., & raven, B. h. (1968). the bases of social power. In D. Cartwright & a. F. Zander (eds.), Group dynamics (pp. 259–270). New York: harper & row; raven, B. h. (1993). the bases of power: Origin and recent developments. Journal of Social Issues, 49(4), 227–251, © Leigh L. thompson.
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 71 10/25/16 1:06 PM
72 Part 1 • Building the Team
(See Exhibit 3-7, which also includes network power as a key source of influence in organizations.)In one investigation, one member of a group was given power over oth- ers based on either higher expertise (expert power) or position (legitimate power). They then used either harsh or soft tactics with their team. Power holders who influence using harsh tactics have greater self-evaluations (feelings of superiority) but do not appreciate their team.120 Leaders who use expert power are more liked, more influen- tial, and engender more confidence when they express themselves in a manner con- gruent with their status, such as using powerful speech.121 Power disparity in groups benefits performance when it is dynamically aligned with the power-holder’s task competence, but it harms group performance when it is not aligned with task competence.122
power disTance
Power distance is the degree to which a person is accepting of an unequal distribution of power.123 With respect to leadership, power distance refers to the extent to which a leader expects his or her subordinates to acknowledge a formal power relationship and therefore, be more obedient and accepting of the leaders’ influence. With respect to teams, power distance reflects the team members’ shared preferences regarding the degree to which their leader’s directives should be respected.124 To the extent that teams and leaders share congruent perceptions of leader–team power distance, this can benefit the team. Leaders of low-power distance teams may be perceived as unfair if they have a high power–distance orientation. For example in one investigation, when supervisors engaged in “unjust” behavior toward a team member, that member retaliated and the other team members banded together to collectively fight the perceived injustice. This effect was further magnified when the unjustly treated team member was a strategic core member.125 Leaders are more inclined to enact fair procedures when team members’ belongingness needs are high, and empathic leaders are more likely to take members’ needs into account.126
120Klocke, U. (2009). “I am the best”: Effects of influence tactics and power bases on powerholders’ self- evaluation and target evaluation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(5), 619–637. 121Loyd, D. L., Phillips, K. W., Whitson, J., & Thomas-Hunt, M. C. (2010). How congruence between status speech style affects reactions to unique knowledge. Group Process and Intergroup Relations, 13(3), 379–395. 122Tarakci, M., Greer, L. L., & Groenen, P. J. (2015). When does power disparity help or hurt group perfor- mance? Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(3), 415–429.
123Yang, J., Mossholder, K. W., & Peng, T. K. (2007). Procedural justice climate and group power distance: An examination of cross-level interaction effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 681. 124Cole, M. S., Carter, M. Z., & Zhang, Z. (2013). Leader–team congruence in power distance values and team effectiveness: The mediating role of procedural justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 962. 125Siegel Christian, J., Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Ellis, A. P. (2012). Examining retaliatory responses to justice violations and recovery attempts in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1218. 126Cornelis, I., Van Hiel, A., De Cremer, D., & Mayer, D. M. (2013). When leaders choose to be fair: Follower belongingness needs and leader empathy influences leaders’ adherence to procedural fairness rules. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 605–613.
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 72 10/25/16 1:06 PM
Chapter 3 • Leading Teams 73
using power
Wageman and Mannix identify three patterns of power use by team members: overuse, abdication, and managing the resource.127
Overuse: The team member uses his or her power (i.e., special status) to exert influence over most aspects of group functioning and to dominate the team. For example, when leaders make an explicit command, team members are more likely to make a deviant decision.128 Similarly, the powerful team member who uses his or her special status to exert influence hinders the group’s effectiveness.129
Abdication: People who have an interdependent self-construal are more likely to relinquish their power within a group when they believe their own leadership performance is poor, but not if they can blame another person.130
Managing the resource: The powerful team member influences other mem- bers only in the specific domain of his or her special resources. This is the most effective use of power. For example, in an investigation of 16 team operating rooms learning to use a new technology for cardiac surgery, a key question was whether team leaders could work together under pressure (i.e., real life and death situations) and successfully use the new technology.131 The most effective leaders communicated a motivating rationale and minimized their status differences. This allowed other team members to speak up.
effecTs of using power
Power enhances role identification, such that when people believe they have power, they identify more with the role they possess.132 Power also leads to a self-anchoring effect such that powerful people use themselves as a reference point when judging others’ internal states, making them less perceptive.133 People in positions of power are less motivated to scan their environment or process information. People with more power discount advice from others because they have elevated confidence in their own judg- ments. Heightened power produces verbal dominance, which reduces team communica- tion and hurts team performance.134 Moreover, failure to heed advice results in less
127Wageman, R., & Mannix, E. A. (Eds.). (1998). Uses and misuses of power in task-performing teams. In R. Kramer and M. Neale (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 128Conway, L. G., & Schaller, M. (2005). When authorities’ commands backfire: Attributions about consensus effects on deviant decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 311–326. 129Wageman, R., & Mannix, E. A. (Eds.). (1998). Uses and misuses of power in task-performing teams. In R. Kramer and M. Neale (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 130Ratcliff, N. J., & Vescio, T. K. (2013). Benevolently bowing out: The influence of self-construals and leader- ship performance on the willful relinquishing of power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 978–983. 131Edmonson, A. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in inter- disciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1419–1452. 132Joshi, P. D., & Fast, N. J. (2013). Power and reduced temporal discounting. Psychological Science 24(4), 432–438. 133Overbeck, J. R., & Droutman, V. (2013). One for all social power increases self-anchoring of traits, attitudes, and emotions. Psychological Science, 24(8), 1466–1476. 134Tost, L. P., Gino, F., & Larrick, R. P. (2013). When power makes others speechless: The negative impact of leader power on team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1465–1486.
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 73 10/25/16 1:06 PM
74 Part 1 • Building the Team
accurate judgments.135 People with power are less dependent on others and therefore less motivated to pay attention to the actions of others.
In contrast, people who are powerless (i.e., resource dependent on others) have an incentive to carefully attend to those who are in power. For example, graduate students (who are dependent on professors to obtain their degree) spend an inordinate amount of time recalling and processing behaviors and activities engaged in by faculty mem- bers.136 Similarly, those who have more power show more variability in their behaviors; in short, they engage in a broader array of behaviors.137
Power also makes people see the world with “rose-colored glasses,” that is, it makes people focus on more positive, rewarding information and less on negative, threatening information. Powerful people make more optimistic judgments regarding the risks they face in their lives (e.g., health risks) compared to powerless individuals.138 When power- ful people interact with others, they are more likely to focus on how much others like them and less likely to focus on others’ negative feelings toward them.139 This tendency to focus on rewards might help explain why powerful people sometimes choose risky strategies in the pursuit of their goals. When contemplating a potential high-risk merger, for example, powerful organizational leaders might focus more on the potential payoffs of the merger and less on the inherent dangers. Powerful leaders may also withhold effort on tasks if they perceive the task as unworthy of themselves.140
PARTICIPATIVE MANAGEMENT
Some managers believe that power and control should remain in the hands of a few high- level executives. This model of leadership assumes that the leader has all of the answers, knowledge, and ideas in the organization. A different view is a model of leadership that delegates authority downward, toward individuals and groups. In this model, leadership is more equally shared by members, as teams develop over time. Colin Powell advised:
Whether you’re a CEO or the temporary head of a project team, the buck stops here. You can encourage participative management and bottom-up employee involve- ment, but ultimately, the essence of leadership is the willingness to make the tough, unambiguous choices that will have an impact on the fate of the organization. I’ve
135See, K. E., Morrison, E. W., Rothman, N. B., & Soll, J. B. (2011). The detrimental effects of power on confidence, advice taking, and accuracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 272–285. 136Kramer, R. M. (1996). Divergent realities, convergent disappointments in the hierarchic relation: Trust and the intuitive auditor at work. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations (pp. 216–245). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 137Guinote, A., Judd, C. M., & Brauer, M. (2002). Effects of power on perceived and objective group vari- ability: Evidence that more powerful groups are more variable. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 708–721. 138Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychol- ogy, 36, 511–536. 139Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1362–1377. 140DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Mead, N. L., & Vohs, K. D. (2011). How leaders self-regulate their task performance: Evidence that power promotes diligence, depletion, and disdain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(1), 47–65.
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 74 10/25/16 1:06 PM
Chapter 3 • Leading Teams 75
seen too many non-leaders flinch from this responsibility. Even as you create an informal, open, collaborative corporate culture, prepare to be lonely.141
Empowering leadership is positively related to knowledge sharing and team efficacy, which in turn is positively related to better team performance.142 When teams have to learn a new task requiring coordination, leadership style (participative versus authoritative) makes a difference in the development and implementation of effective tactics. Teams led by a “coordinator,” in which all team members share equal responsibility for determining the team strategy and directing its activities, implement better tactics than commander-led teams.143
Exhibit 3-8 depicts a continuum of team empowerment. Level 1 teams have the least power; they are often new teams, perhaps lacking the skills, experience, or training to implement more control. Perhaps this is why many successful self-directed
141From Quotations from Chairman Powell – A Leadership Primer by Oren Harari, © 2015 Oren Harari. 142Srivastave, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1239–1251. 143Durham, C., Knight, D., & Locke, E. A. (1997). Effects of leader role, team-set goal difficulty, efficacy, and tactics on team effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72(2), 203–231.
Exhibit 3-8 Team Empowerment Continuum
Based on Wellins, r. S., Byham, W. C., Wilson, J. M. (1991). Empowered teams. Oxford: Jossey-Bass ; Kirkman, B., & rosen, B. (1999). Beyond Self-Management: antecedents and Consequences of team empowerment. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58–74; rapp, t. L., Gilson, L. L., Mathieu, J. e., & ruddy, t. (2016). Leading empowered teams: an examination of the role of external team leaders and team coaches. the Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 109–123, © Leigh L. thompson.
A m
ou nt
o f E
m po
w er
m en
t
Amount of Responsibility / AuthorityLow High
High
High amount of organizational impact
Team types: • Merger and
• Legal counsel C-Suite executive selection committee
Aquisitions team
•
Moderate to High amount of
organizational impact
Team types: • Facility design team • Purchasing team • Human Resources team
Low to Moderate amount of
organizational impact
Team types: • • Delivery of integrated
services
Production scheduling
• Quality inspectors
Level 2 40%
Level 3 60%
Level 4 80%
Low
Level 1 20%
Low amount of organizational impact
Team types: • Entry level sales • Call center team
Installation team•
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 75 10/25/16 1:06 PM
76 Part 1 • Building the Team
organizations intentionally devote 20 percent of the team members’ and leaders’ time to training in the first year.144 Job skill training is necessary to give team members the depth and breadth they need to effectively carry out the broadened range of activities that self- directed teams perform. Conversely, feelings of powerlessness lead to depression and organizational decline. (See Exhibit 3-9 for conditions that lead to powerlessness.)
Once management has considered the potential benefits of a more employee- empowering leadership style, it must determine how to best implement this new struc- ture. The variety of approaches to inviting participation in the workforce can be clustered into four types of approaches: task delegation, parallel suggestion involvement, job involvement, and organizational involvement.145
144Wellins, R. S. (1992). Building a self-directed work team. Training and Development, 46(12), 24–28. 145Lawler, E. E. (1988). Choosing an involvement strategy. Academy of Management Executive, 11(3), 197–204.
Context Factor Leading to State of Powerlessness
Condition
Organizational factors • Significant organizational change/transitions • Start-up ventures • Excessive, competitive pressures • Impersonal, bureaucratic climate • Poor communication, and limited network-forming systems • Highly centralized organizational resources
Supervisory style • Authoritarian (high control) • Negativism (emphasis on failures) • Lack of reason for actions/consequences
Reward systems • Noncontingency (arbitrary reward allocations) • Low incentive value of rewards • Lack of competence-based work • Lack of innovation-based rewards
Job design • Lack of role clarity • Lack of training and technical support • Unrealistic goals • Lack of appropriate authority/discretion • Low task variety • Limited participation in programs, meetings, and decisions
that have a direct impact on job performance • Lack of appropriate/necessary resources • Lack of network-forming opportunities • Highly established work routines • Too many rules and guidelines • Low advancement opportunities • Lack of meaningful goals/tasks • Limited contact with senior management
Exhibit 3-9 Factors That Lead to a Potential State of Powerlessness “the empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice” from the academy of Management review by Jay a. Conger and rabindra N. Kanungo, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 477. Copyright © July 1988 by Jay a. Conger and rabindra N. Kanungo. reprinted by permission of academy of Management review.
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 76 10/25/16 1:06 PM
Chapter 3 • Leading Teams 77
Task deLegaTion
Many managers mistakenly think that every task requires their constant attention from beginning to end. Delegation is the handing over of the responsibility and authority required to accomplish a task without relinquishing final accountability. The spirit of task delegation is multifold: to invite others to have a share in the performance of work; to have leaders do other, more important things and to mentor. This not only serves the interests of the employees, who presumably want to have a greater hand in the work and operations of the company, but also serves the interests of the leader and the organiza- tion in creating more efficient uses of time.
There are right and wrong ways to delegate that depend on things such as team members’ skill levels and the nature of the work. Exhibit 3-10 outlines guidelines for successful delegation. The inability to delegate effectively creates two negative conse- quences for the organization: overloaded executives and underused subordinates. Both may lead to work-related stress and burnout—not to mention many forms of under- performance. By giving meaningful responsibility to subordinates, managers give them the opportunity to perform their jobs well, demonstrate ability, experience success, be visible within the organization, develop skills, and experience new challenges.
paraLLeL suggesTion inVoLVemenT
The idea behind parallel suggestion involvement is to invite employees and team members to make suggestions about organizational procedures and processes. Thus, employees are given opportunities and are actively encouraged to recommend tactics for increasing sales, minimizing production costs, increasing customer satisfaction, and so on. The classic example of parallel suggestion involvement is the suggestion box, which is not even lim- ited to employees—customers can be asked to make recommendations as well. Quality circles also invite workers to share ideas about improving production and products. The parallel suggestion strategy is cost effective; providing a venue to solicit suggestions can be relatively inexpensive, but it can potentially have huge payoffs in terms of improving organizational functioning. Parallel suggestion involvement can significantly reduce turn- over and absenteeism because employees who feel that their interests, concerns, and ideas are valued are more motivated. An examination of 23 neonatal intensive care units showed that to the extent to which team leaders were inclusive (i.e., minimized status differences and allowed members to collaborate in process improvement), teams were more engaged in their work and learned from one another to improve their performance.146 For example, at Quirk, an employee first posts an idea on a flowchart and then recruits 12 other cowork- ers to support the idea. Other employees can then “like” it by adding a sticker next to it on the flowchart wall. Ideas that are supported are then viewed by the top leadership team; and if they approve it, it gets moved to the “It’s happening board,” and the idea gets put into motion. If the leadership team does not initially support the idea and the originator still believes it has purpose, it goes onto on the debate wall and gets voted on by the com- pany’s employees, who can then override the top leadership’s initial decline of the idea.147
146Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and profes- sional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in healthcare teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 941–966. 147Kjerulf, A. (2014, February 10). Kill the suggestion box–Here’s a much better way. Positive Sharing. posi- tivesharing.com
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 77 10/25/16 1:06 PM
78 Part 1 • Building the Team
Until leaders have an opportunity to gather information they feel is relevant to their determination of each team member’s ability to contribute, they may weigh each person’s input equally. Leaders have difficulty differentially weighting their staff as much as they should and tend to use an equal-weighting strategy.149 Once leaders have had experience with their team, some may have greater influence on the basis of their competence, abil- ity, and willingness to accept extra role responsibilities.150 In one investigation, 84 leaders of 4-person decision-making teams made 63 decisions. Both experience and providing leaders with accurate information about particular members led to greater differentiation and better accuracy in differentiation.151
Job inVoLVemenT
Job involvement entails restructuring the tasks performed by employees to make them more rewarding, enriching, and in the case of teams, more autonomous. When people are challenged with interesting tasks, they perform more effectively and creatively. There are a variety of ways in which this may be achieved, such as providing employees with feedback from customers, restructuring tasks so that employees complete a whole and meaningful piece of work, and training employees with new skills and knowledge so that their job scope increases. With job involvement, employees at the lowest levels get new information, power, and skills; and they may be rewarded differently. For example, people may be rewarded for team effort and group-level productivity. Unlike parallel suggestion involvement, job involvement affects the daily work activities of employees. For this reason, job involvement is considerably more costly than parallel suggestion involvement because of the high start-up costs of reconfiguring job descriptions, train- ing, and in many cases, the physical reconfiguration of the workplace. For example, when Alcoa Inc. wanted their employees to be more engaged, they surveyed their work- force and launched a plan in which employees’ personal objectives were realized in new job training, which resulted in a 20-percent increase in employee engagement over 3 years.152 At REI—a culture based on camping, hiking and other environmental pursuits—employees submit a challenging “dream” adventure and have the chance to win REI equipment to take on their trip.153
organizaTionaL inVoLVemenT
The fact that leaders want to move in a direction of participation and empowerment does not mean that this can be done by merely changing their own behavior and style, independent of other organizational forces. Leadership style and strategy must be inte- grated into the organizational context.
148Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Sego, D. J., Hedlund, J., Major, D. A., & Phillips, J. (1995). Multilevel theory of team decision making: Decision performance in teams incorporating distributed expertise. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 292–316.
149Brehmer, B., & Hagafors, R. (1986). Use of experts in complex decision making: A paradigm for the study of staff work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 181–195. 150Graen, G., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In B. Staw & L. L. Cum- mings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 175–208). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 151Phillips, J. M. (1999). Antecedents of leader utilization of staff input in decision-making teams. Organiza- tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77(3), 215–242. 152Jusko, J. (2012, December 17). Alcoa’s data-driven approach to employee engagement. Industry Week. industryweek.com 153Patek, S. (2015, August 6). 10 examples of companies with fantastic cultures. Entrepreneur. entrepreneur.com
Set goals and be specific
Look at the task with the employee and review the task itself, the outcome expected, the timeframe, and when progress will be reviewed. Do not assume that the person you del- egate the task to will understand your expecta- tions or needs upfront. Be diligent about providing specific details and ask- ing if your instructions are understood.
Delegate to the right person
Choose the group or individual with the right experience level, skill level, and who are posi- tively motivated. Vary your choices to avoid favoritism.
Identify those affected by the delegation decision
If there are other employ- ees that need to know of the task delegation in order to provide resources, give access, and to elimi- nate assumptions, com- municate this information to all relevant parties soon after the task is delegated.
Give autonomy and support assurance
Reassurance of support, giv- ing employees the freedom to work on the task solution with authority, and ensuring they have access to the resources they need will motivate the employee to get the task done and reduce task frustration.
Delegate lone responsibility
Give the task to one person, group, or team to own. It is dis- heartening for employees to work on completing a task and then find out mid-stream that another group is also working on a task they thought was solely their responsibility.
Get the employee’s buy in
Discuss how long the employee feels the task should take, how they feel they can tackle the job, and what the completed task will look like.
Ask for questions and additional ideas
Review the task instructions with the employee and test their under- standing of their deliverables. See if the employee has any insight or questions about the task.
Provide periodic feedback
Delegate the task and in the same conversation, plan when it is best to review preliminary results/discuss roadblocks. Corrective actions are far more effective before a deadline and reinforce learn- ing. A feedback debrief after the task goal is accomplished is also effective in showing support and gleaning learning.
Delegate tasks to build skills, not dump unwanted tasks
As employers and supervisors concern themselves with how they should best man- age their time, it is easy for a busy person to begin consid- ering delegation as a means to getting rid of undesirable tasks. However it is beneficial to employees to discuss the task from the perspective of what is in it for their benefit as well as the task value in terms of its value within the larger organization. Pass- ing the buck doesn’t build morale; instead pass along a challenge and an opportunity to learn something new in regards to skills or how the business functions.
Exhibit 3-10 Key Guidelines for Successful Delegation
Based on hall, F. (1997). effective delegation. In Brown, D. D., Lewicki, r. J., hall, D. t., and hall, F. S. (eds.), Experiences in management and organizational behavior (4th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.; Fearon, t. (2012, May). Oi, you, I’ve a job for you! Credit Management, 32–33. icm.org.uk, © Leigh L. thompson.
When using parallel suggestion involvement, it is important to differentially and accurately weigh staff input. Simply stated, team members differ in their ability to con- tribute to solving a problem. Distributed expertise refers to the fact that team members differ in the amount of knowledge and information that each brings to a problem.148
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 78 10/25/16 1:06 PM
Chapter 3 • Leading Teams 79
Until leaders have an opportunity to gather information they feel is relevant to their determination of each team member’s ability to contribute, they may weigh each person’s input equally. Leaders have difficulty differentially weighting their staff as much as they should and tend to use an equal-weighting strategy.149 Once leaders have had experience with their team, some may have greater influence on the basis of their competence, abil- ity, and willingness to accept extra role responsibilities.150 In one investigation, 84 leaders of 4-person decision-making teams made 63 decisions. Both experience and providing leaders with accurate information about particular members led to greater differentiation and better accuracy in differentiation.151
Job inVoLVemenT
Job involvement entails restructuring the tasks performed by employees to make them more rewarding, enriching, and in the case of teams, more autonomous. When people are challenged with interesting tasks, they perform more effectively and creatively. There are a variety of ways in which this may be achieved, such as providing employees with feedback from customers, restructuring tasks so that employees complete a whole and meaningful piece of work, and training employees with new skills and knowledge so that their job scope increases. With job involvement, employees at the lowest levels get new information, power, and skills; and they may be rewarded differently. For example, people may be rewarded for team effort and group-level productivity. Unlike parallel suggestion involvement, job involvement affects the daily work activities of employees. For this reason, job involvement is considerably more costly than parallel suggestion involvement because of the high start-up costs of reconfiguring job descriptions, train- ing, and in many cases, the physical reconfiguration of the workplace. For example, when Alcoa Inc. wanted their employees to be more engaged, they surveyed their work- force and launched a plan in which employees’ personal objectives were realized in new job training, which resulted in a 20-percent increase in employee engagement over 3 years.152 At REI—a culture based on camping, hiking and other environmental pursuits—employees submit a challenging “dream” adventure and have the chance to win REI equipment to take on their trip.153
organizaTionaL inVoLVemenT
The fact that leaders want to move in a direction of participation and empowerment does not mean that this can be done by merely changing their own behavior and style, independent of other organizational forces. Leadership style and strategy must be inte- grated into the organizational context.
148Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Sego, D. J., Hedlund, J., Major, D. A., & Phillips, J. (1995). Multilevel theory of team decision making: Decision performance in teams incorporating distributed expertise. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 292–316.
149Brehmer, B., & Hagafors, R. (1986). Use of experts in complex decision making: A paradigm for the study of staff work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 181–195. 150Graen, G., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In B. Staw & L. L. Cum- mings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 175–208). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 151Phillips, J. M. (1999). Antecedents of leader utilization of staff input in decision-making teams. Organiza- tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77(3), 215–242. 152Jusko, J. (2012, December 17). Alcoa’s data-driven approach to employee engagement. Industry Week. industryweek.com 153Patek, S. (2015, August 6). 10 examples of companies with fantastic cultures. Entrepreneur. entrepreneur.com
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 79 10/25/16 1:06 PM
80 Part 1 • Building the Team
Consider two types of organizations: bureaucratic and commitment organizations. Bureaucratic organizations are the traditional, hierarchical style of leadership: infor- mation, rewards, knowledge, and power are concentrated at the top of the organization. In the classic bureaucratic organization, teams do not exist or at least are not acknowl- edged. Furthermore, when they do emerge, they are often ignored, suppressed, con- tained, or neglected.154 Commitment organizations are at the opposite extreme. Teams are encouraged to form, power is not hierarchical, and the organization has a deliberately flat structure.
Organizational involvement, or the commitment approach, restructures the orga- nization so that employees at the lowest level will have a sense of involvement (commit- ment) not just in how they do their own jobs (as in the job involvement approach) but also in the performance of the entire organization. Organizational involvement strategies invite employees to contribute to higher-order strategy decisions. The McGregor Method and Theory Y are examples of high-involvement strategies in which employees make decisions about work activities, as well as organizational direction.155 Organiza- tional involvement is based on the belief that if employees are going to care about the performance of their organization, they need to know about it, be able to influence it, be rewarded for it, and have the knowledge and skills to contribute to it.
A key difference between parallel suggestion involvement and organizational involvement is that organizational involvement allows employees not only to make recommendations about how to improve organizational functioning but also to imple- ment their suggestions. Thus, employees and team members have implementation power. For example, at Waitrose Grocery and Home Goods Store, employees use an online system to post and suggest ideas to better manage the business. A simple pro- posal from one employee discussing how stacking carrots differently could improve efficiency when bringing the vegetable out from the storeroom was tested and rolled out in every store, saving time and money.156 The disadvantage of the organizational involvement strategy is that it is very difficult to know which employee-suggested strate- gies are worthwhile to implement.
Another type of organizational involvement involves top-management teams (TMTs). TMTs, as opposed to individuals, are more likely to represent the wide range of interests of the people and groups in the organization and provide valuable develop- ment experiences for its members.157 Leadership via TMTs challenges the traditional view of leadership because it moves away from the image of the leader as autonomous, prophetic, and omniscient and toward the idea that leadership is a team process.
It would seem that empowerment and greater employee participation would be the preferred mode in most companies—certainly at least, from the view of the employees.
154Walton, R. E., & Hackman, J. R. (1986). Groups under contrasting management strategies. In P. S. Goodman and Associates (Eds.), Designing effective workgroups. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 155McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. 156Trevor Clawson, T. (2015, October 13). A fond farewell to the suggestion box: Disrupting innovation management. Forbes. forbes.com 157Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., & Spector, B. (1990). The critical path to corporate renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 80 10/25/16 1:06 PM
Chapter 3 • Leading Teams 81
However, people are often uncomfortable in the absence of clear structures, guidelines, and constraints. For example, newly matriculated MBA students frequently lobby for instructor-assigned, rather than free-forming, study groups. What is the effect of empow- erment and the ambiguity it brings to the individual, the team, and the organization?
When an organization removes existing structures to provide empowerment in a more democratic fashion, it may find the ambiguity associated with the new structure uncomfortable and respond by imposing a more controlling and bureaucratic structure than the one it sought to replace. This highly rational but powerfully oppressive bureau- cracy is known as the iron cage.158 Out of a desire for order, people continually ratio- nalize their bureaucratic relationships, making them less negotiated (i.e., less based on commitment) and more structural.
158Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Translated by T. Parsons. New York: Scribner’s.
Chapter Capstone
We’ve examined several leadership styles as well as the expectations that teams hold of leaders. Leadership is a relationship between the leader and the team members. Effective
leaders have made deliberate choices about how they want to empower their team and recognize that they must continually seek feedback on their own effectiveness.
M03_THOM4204_06_SE_C03.indd 81 10/25/16 1:06 PM
82
NASA has a goal of sending humans to an asteroid by 2025 and to Mars by 2030. For the Mars mission a crew of six astronauts will train for years and travel for more than a year and a half roundtrip in a cramped space hurtling toward the red planet, logging about 32 months together. Communications transmissions from NASA on Earth will take 20 minutes to travel to the Mars station and replies will take another 20 minutes to travel home. NASA researchers are studying the factors that will allow the team to be effective under these highly challenging conditions. With training environments and qualified test subjects limited, NASA teamed up with engineers to create an unobtrusive, wearable sensor that measures team interactions. By capturing the physical, physiological and behavioral experiences and interactions of the space team, dynamic data from the team can be quantified, studied, and most important, shared with the other members of the space crew who also are wearing the sensors.1
A key factor that predicts team success on such a mission is team resilience, or the ability to bounce back from problems and challenges with energy, effectiveness, and positive action. The resilient employee is one who can take action and stay focused when things get tough; they can handle uncertainty and react in a positive way to change.2 Most of us will not travel to Mars with a team and depend on our teammates for our very lives, yet we deeply care about our teams, we make work–family sacrifices, and our teams define who we are. This chapter focuses on cohesion, trust, and team development. These dynamics form the personality of a team. We first examine the factors that lead people to feel that they are part of a team, then we examine team cohesion and trust.
1Kozlowski, S.W.J., Chao, G.T., Change, C-H., Fernandez, R. (in press). Team dynamics: Using “big data” to advance the science of team effectiveness. In S. Tonidandel, E. King, & J. Cortina (Eds.), Big data at work: The data science revolution and organizational psychology. New York, NY: Routledge Academic. 2Alliger G. M., Cerasoli C. P., Tannenbaum S. I., Vessey W. B. (2015). Team resilience: How teams flourish under pres- sure. Organizational Dynamics, 44(3), 176–184; Gaines, L. (2006). Succeeding as a manager: Five ways to build a resilient team. Ceridian Corporation Manager Toolkit. people.rice.edu
Team Cohesion and Trust4
C h
a p
t e
r
M04_THOM4204_06_SE_C04.indd 82 10/24/16 9:09 PM
Chapter 4 • Team Cohesion and Trust 83
TEAM IDENTITY
Just because senior management decides to create a team, it does not mean that the team members feel like a team. When members don’t feel like a team, they don’t act like a team.
Group Entitativity
Group entitativity refers to the degree to which people perceive themselves (and others) to be a unified, single team or collective. The greater the level of entitativity, the more people feel that the group fills their needs,3 and the more identification people have with their group.4 When people identify with their team, they think and behave in terms of “we” instead of “I.”5 When people think about their team, they assume that they should act in accordance with the principles of the team.6 When group members agree about which principle is most fundamental to them, their perceived entitativity is greater than when they do not agree about that principle, regardless of how many other principles they might agree about.7 In the face of a group transgression, outsiders rec- ommend more severe punishments for high-entitativity groups than for low-entitativity groups.8
Group idEntity
Group identity is the extent to which people feel their group membership is an important part of who they are. Membership in teams provides people with a sense of belonging. People with a greater sense of group identity judge their own group to have higher status.9 In addition, people who have been rejected from groups judge their own groups to be more meaningful and cohesive.10 People who are strongly identified with their groups feel particularly stressed when their attitudes differ from those of their group, and they avoid attempting to change the behavior of their group.11 People are
3Crawford, M. T., & Salaman, L. (2012). Entitativity, identity, and the fulfillment of psychological needs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), 726–730. 4Jans, L., Postmes, T., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2011). The induction of shared identity: The positive role of indi- vidual distinctiveness for groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(8), 1130–1141. 5Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. 6Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. 7Sani, F., Todman, J., & Lunn, J. (2005). The fundamentality of group principles, and perceived group entita- tivity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(6), 567–573. 8Newheiser, A.-K., Sawaoka, T., & Dovidio, J. F. (2012). Why do we punish groups? High entitativity promotes moral suspicion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 931–936. 9Pettit, N. C., & Lount, R. B. (2011). Through whose eyes? The impact of identification on judgments of group status. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(4), 533–547. 10Knowles, M., & Gardner, W. (2008). Benefits of membership: The activation and amplification of group identities in response to social rejection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(9), 1200–1213. 11Glasford, D., Dovidio, J., & Pratto, F. (2009). I continue to feel so good about us: In-group identification and the use of social identity—enhancing strategies to reduce intragroup dissonance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(4), 415–427.
M04_THOM4204_06_SE_C04.indd 83 10/24/16 9:09 PM
84 Part 1 • Building the Team
more likely to identify strongly with their groups if they feel uncertain and value their group.12 When people feel uncertain about themselves, they are more likely to identify with radical groups.13 Teams are most effective when members have high team identi- fication coupled with a high learning orientation.14
idEntity Fusion
Identity fusion refers to a blurring of the self–other barrier in a group, and group membership is intensely personal.15 When group members’ personal identities become fused with their social identities, their sense of self becomes nearly indistinct from their view of themselves as a group member. Fused people are more likely to endorse extreme behaviors on behalf of their group, and they are more willing to fight or die for their groups than a nonfused person, especially when their personal or social identities are activated.16
Common idEntity and Common Bond Groups
The attachment people feel for their groups is rooted in one of two bonds: bonds based on the group as a whole (common identity) and bonds felt for particular group members (common bond). For example, in an investigation of selective and nonselective university eating clubs, the people in common-identity groups were more attached to the group than to any particular member of the group, whereas people in common-bond groups were attached to particular members and to the group itself.17
rElational and CollECtivE idEntity
Relational identity is based on important relationships to particular people; collective identity is based on group memberships.18 In teams with low collective identification, diversity in expertise is negatively related to team learning and performance; however, in teams with high collective identification, diversity in expertise promotes team learning and performance.19
13Hogg, M. A., Meehan, C., & Farquharson, J. (2010). The solace of radicalism: Self-uncertainty and group identification in the face of threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1061–1066. 14Pearsall, M.J., & Venkataramani, V. (2015). Overcoming asymmetric goals in teams: The interactive roles of team learning orientation and team identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 735–748.
12Grant, F., & Hogg, M. A. (2012). Self-uncertainty, social identity prominence and group identification. Jour- nal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(2), 538–542.
15Swann, W. B., Jr., Gomez, A., Seyle, D. C., Morales, J. F., & Huici, C. (2009). Identity fusion: The interplay of personal and social identities in extreme group behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 995–1011. 16Swann, W. B., Jr., Gomez, A., Huici, C., Morales, J. F., & Hixon, J. G. (2010). Identity fusion and self-sacri- fice: Arousal as a catalyst of pro-group fighting, dying, and helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(5), 824–841. 17Prentice, D. A., Miller, D. T., & Lightdale, J. R. (1994). Asymmetries in attachments to groups and to their members: Distinguishing between common-identity and common-bond groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 484–493. 18Gabriel, S., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Are there “his” and “hers” types of interdependence? The implications of gender differences in collective versus relational interdependence for affect, behavior, and cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 642–655. 19van der Vegt, G., & Bunderson, S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The impor- tance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 532–547.
M04_THOM4204_06_SE_C04.indd 84 10/24/16 9:09 PM
Chapter 4 • Team Cohesion and Trust 85
Men and women differ in terms of their attachment styles, with women’s attach- ments being primarily relational (based on one-on-one relationships) and men’s attach- ments being strongly collective (based on team and group memberships) as well as a relational20 (see Exhibit 4-1). Attachment style and strength predicts how important teams are for employees.21
sElF-vEriFiCation vs. Group-vEriFiCation
Once a person has formed a particular identity, experiences might either reinforce or fail to reinforce that identity. Self-verification is the process by which a person seeks confirmation of his or her personal self-views. For example, people who are sensitive might want others to see them as caring. Indeed, people prefer to interact with people who verify their in-group identities more than people who enhance their identities.22
Sometimes people are threatened, such as when they are a member of a stigma- tized group. However, by affirming either themselves or their group, they can increase their motivation to perform. People who are highly identified with their group are more motivated when they engage in group affirmation; conversely, people who are less iden- tified with their group are motivated by self-affirmation.23
TEAM-MEMBER EXCHANGE
Team-member exchange (TMX) refers to the quality of reciprocal exchange between coworkers in the workplace.24 TMX affects job performance, commitment to the com- pany, job satisfaction, and turnover.25 TMX relationships influence group identification and organizational citizenship behavior toward coworkers. A study of 236 bank manag- ers and subordinates revealed that team members identify more with their coworkers when they have high TMX quality. In addition, the study found that identification with coworkers was positively related to team members helping coworkers.26 Furthermore, high levels of TMX can help the team neutralize the adverse effects of negative relation- ships on team cohesion and also team performance.27
20Gabriel & Gardner, “Are there ‘his’ and ‘hers’ types of interdependence?” 21Seeley, E. A., Gardner, W. L., Pennington, G., & Gabriel, S. (2003). Circle of friends or members of a group? Sex differences in relational and collective attachment to groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 251–263. 22Gómez, A., Seyle, D. C., Huici, C., & Swann, W. B. (2009). Can self-verification strivings fully transcend the self–other barrier? Seeking verification of in-group identities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1021–1044. 23Derks, B., van Laar, C., & Ellemers, N. (2009). Working for the self or working for the group: How self versus group affirmation affects collective behavior in low-status groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(1), 183–202. 24Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43(1), 118–135. 25Banks, G.C., Batchelor, J.H., Seers, A., O’Boyle, E., Pollack, J.M., & Gower, K. (2014). What does team– member exchange bring to the party? A meta-analytic review of team and leader social exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(2), 273. 26Farmer, S.M., Van Dyne, L, & Kamdar, D. (2015). The contextualized self: How team–member exchange leads to coworker identification and helping OCB. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 583-595. 27de Jong, J. P., Curşeu, P. L., & Leenders, R. T. A. (2014). When do bad apples not spoil the barrel? Negative relationships in teams, team performance, and buffering mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 514.
M04_THOM4204_06_SE_C04.indd 85 10/24/16 9:09 PM
86 Part 1 • Building the Team
Exhibit 4-1 Relational and Collective Attachment Styles
Based on Cross, S.e., Bacon, p.L., & Morris, M.L. (2000). the relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 791–808; Gabriel, S. & Gardner, W.L. (1999). are there “his” and “hers” types of interdependence? the implications of gender differences in collective versus relational interdependence for affect, behavior, and cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 642–655; Cross, S.e., hardin, e.e., Gercek-Swing, B. (2011). the what, how, why and where of self-construal. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(2), 142–179; howard, e.S., Gardner, W., thompson, L. (2007). the role of the self-concept and social context in determining the behavior of power holders: Self-construal in intergroup versus dyadic dispute resolution negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 614–631; triandis, h.C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Boulder, Co: Westview press, © Leigh L. thompson.
Part 1: Using the scale below, indicate the extent to which you agree with each statement. In the space next to each statement, please write the number that best indicates how you feel about the statement.
Part 2: We are all members of different groups, some of which we choose (such as sports teams and community groups) and some of which we do not (such as racial and ethnic groups). Consider your various group mem- berships and respond to the following statements, using the scale below.
1 765432
strongly disagree
strongly agree
1 765432
strongly disagree
strongly agree
1. My close relationships are an important reflection of who I am.
2. I usually feel a strong sense of pride when someone close to me has an important accomplishment.
3. When I think of myself, I often think of my close friends or family as well.
4. My sense of pride comes from knowing I have close friends. 5. My close relationships are important to my sense of what
kind of person I am.
1. When I am in a group, it often feels to me like that group is an important part of who I am.
2. When I join a group, I usually develop a strong sense of identification with that group.
3. I think one of the most important parts of who I am can be captured by looking at groups I belong to and understanding who they are.
4. In general, groups I belong to are an important part of my self-image.
5. If a person insults a group I belong to, I feel personally insulted myself.
M04_THOM4204_06_SE_C04.indd 86 10/24/16 9:09 PM
Chapter 4 • Team Cohesion and Trust 87
Group-sErvinG attriButions
When a person’s identity is fused with that of a group, experiences and outcomes that affect the group also affect the team member. Group-serving judgments offer a self-protective function for the team member by enhancing the ego. For example, in a study of 81 simulated top management teams, superior firm performance was attrib- uted to excellent teamwork, whereas inferior firm performance was attributed to exter- nal factors.28 The more cohesive the teams were, the more likely they were to make internal attributions, regardless of firm performance. When people make positive self- affirmations, they are less likely to show a group-serving judgment.29 Another form of group-serving attributions is retroactive pessimism, which occurs when people lower their evaluations of a group’s chances for success after a failed competition.30 Indeed, when supporters of two college basketball teams evaluated the chances for victory for each team, the most avid supporters of the losing team were the most likely to engage in retroactive pessimism.31
GROUP POTENCY AND COLLECTIVE EFFICACY
Group potency is “the collective belief of group members that the group can be effective.”32 Similarly, team efficacy or collective efficacy refers to an individual’s belief that a team can perform successfully.33
tEam EFFiCaCy and pErFormanCE
The results of a meta-analysis of 6,128 groups revealed that groups with higher collec- tive efficacy performed better than groups with lower collective efficacy.34 However, subsequent research indicates that the performance benefits of team efficacy are not linear, meaning excessive amounts of efficacy are not beneficial to the team and that goal monitoring behavior is important.35
Group potency might be a more important predictor of group performance than actual ability. In one investigation, 143 officer cadets working in 51 groups participated in a team simulation. The groups’ performance was measured and the study found that
28Michalisin, M. D., Karau, S. J., & Tangpong, C. (2004). Top management team cohesion and superior indus- try returns: An empirical study of the resource-based view. Group and Organization Management, 29(1), 125–140. 29Sherman, D. K., & Kim, H. S. (2005). Is there an “I” in “team”? The role of the self in group-serving judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 108–120. 30Tykocinski, O., Pick, D., & Kedmi, D. (2002). Retroactive pessimism: A different kind of hindsight bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 577–588. 31Wann, D., Grieve, F., Waddill, P., & Martin, J. (2008). Use of retroactive pessimism as a method of coping with identity threat: The impact of group identification. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 11(4), 439–450. 32Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1987, Spring). Group effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan Management Review, 28(3), 25–31. 33From “Group effectiveness: What really matters?” by Gregory P. Shea, Richard A. Guzzo in Sloan Management Review, 28(3), 25–31, © 1987 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 34Stajkovic, A., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: Meta- analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 814–828. 35Rapp, T. L., Bachrach, D.G., Rapp, A.A., and Mullins, R. (2014). The role of team goal monitoring in the curvilinear relationship between team efficacy and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 976–987.
M04_THOM4204_06_SE_C04.indd 87 10/24/16 9:09 PM
88 Part 1 • Building the Team
group potency predicted group performance over and above actual ability.36 Similarly, in an investigation of 648 military officers working in 50 self-managed teams over a 5-week period, team performance was assessed via two objective criteria (mental task performance and physical task performance) and one subjective criterion (commander team performance ratings).37 This study found that group potency had more predictive power in explaining team performance than did group cohesion. Thus, thinking “we can” is often more important than actual ability.
Groups with a strong sense of collective efficacy set more challenging goals, persist in the face of difficulty, and are more likely to succeed than groups with lower self-efficacy. Group efficacy leads to increased group identification.38 Moreover, as members spend time together, they develop more homogeneous (similar) perceptions of their efficacy.39 However, it is important for teams to not have an inflated sense of efficacy. When groups are confident at the beginning of their task, they are less likely to engage in process con- flict, a form of conflict that might ward off groupthink.40
People can hold positive or negative beliefs about groups. The beliefs about groups (BAG) scale (Exhibit 4-2) identifies four factors that collectively form a person’s beliefs about groups: group preference, positive performance beliefs, negative performance beliefs, and effort beliefs.41
GROUP MOOD AND EMOTION
Group emotion is a group’s affective state that arises from the combination of its bottom–up components (e.g., the moods of particular team members) and its top–down components (e.g., the overall mood of the company).42 Team members bring their indi- vidual-level emotional experiences, such as their chronic moods, emotions, and emo- tional intelligence to the team interaction. This emotional information is communicated to other group members. According to motivational systems theory of group involve- ment, group interaction sustains positive moods and diminishes negative moods.43 Similarly, the organization’s norms and group’s emotional history set the stage for the
36Hecht, T. D., Allen, N. J., Klammer, J. D., & Kelly, E. C. (2002). Group beliefs, ability and performance: The potency of group potency. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 6(2), 143–152. 37Jordan, M. H., Field, H. S., & Armenakis, A. A. (2002). The relationship of group process variables and team performance: A team-level analysis in a field setting. Small Group Research, 33(1), 121–150. 38van Zomeren, M., Leach, C. W., & Spears, R. (2010). Does group efficacy increase group identification? Resolving their paradoxical relationship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 1055–1060. 39Jung, D. I., & Sosik, J. J. (2003). Group potency and collective efficacy: Examining their predictive validity, level of analysis, and effects of performance feedback on future group performance. Group and Organization Management, 28, 366–391; van Zomeren, M., Leach, C.W., & Spears, R. (2010). Does group efficacy increase group identification? Resolving their paradoxical relationship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 1055–1060. 40Goncalo, 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. 41Karau, S., Moneim, A., & Elsaid, M. (2009). Individual differences in beliefs about groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 13(1), 1–13. 42Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (1998). Group emotion: A view from the top and bottom. In D. Gruenfeld, B. Mannix, & M. Neale (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams (pp. 81–102). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. 43Park, E.S., & Hinsz, V.B. (2015). Group interaction sustains positive moods and diminishes negative moods. Group Dynamics: Theory, research, and practice, 19(4), 290–298.
M04_THOM4204_06_SE_C04.indd 88 10/24/16 9:09 PM
Chapter 4 • Team Cohesion and Trust 89
Exhibit 4-2 BAG: Beliefs About Groups Scale
Based on Karou, S.J. & elsaid, a.M.M.K. (2009). Individual differences in beliefs about groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 13(1), 1–13, © Leigh L. thompson.
• I’d rather work alone than work with others. (R)
• I’m more comfortable working by myself rather than as part of a group. (R)
• I generally prefer to work toward group goals rather than individual goals.
• I prefer group work to individual work. • Whenever possible, I like to work with others rather
than by myself.
• I trust other people to work hard on group tasks. • I am always reluctant to put my fate in the hands of
other group members. (R)
• Most people can be trusted to do their fair share of the work.
• Most people loaf when working on a group task. (R)
• It is naive to think that other group members will live up to their promises. (R)
• Assigning work to a group is a recipe for disaster. (R)
• Group projects usually fail to match the quality of those done by individuals. (R)
• It work be foolish to expect a group to outperform the same number of individuals working alone. (R)
• Groups usually outperform individuals. • Groups often produce much higher quality work than
individuals. • Generally speaking, groups are highly effective.
(R) = reverse scored
Positive Performance Beliefs
Beliefs that groups are generally more effective than individuals
Negative Performance Beliefs
Beliefs that group performance outcomes are generally low in quality
Effort Beliefs Degree to which a person believes that other group members can be counted on to work hard in group tasks
Group Preferences Preferences for working in a group rather than alone
expression and feeling of emotion. For example, following a downsizing or restructuring, the overall mood of the organization or industry might be severely dampened.
Group emotion serves an important role in promoting group survival.44 The emo- tions that are felt and displayed in groups coordinate the group’s behaviors, particularly in response to threat or stress. In particular, expressed emotion in groups provides the group with information about the environment (e.g., “a layoff has been announced”). Shared emotions in groups foster group bonds and group loyalty. For example, the hap- piness a person feels about one’s own group (or collective anger about a rival group) increases the identification that person holds with their group.45
44Spoor, J. R., & Kelly, J. R. (2004). The evolutionary significance of affect in groups: Communication and group bonding. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 7, 398–416. 45Kessler, T., & Hollbach, S. (2005). Group-based emotions as determinants of ingroup identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(6), 677–685.
M04_THOM4204_06_SE_C04.indd 89 10/24/16 9:09 PM
90 Part 1 • Building the Team
Group aFFECt and pErFormanCE
Group positive affect positively influences task performance: groups whose members express positive affect perform better than those with negative affect. Shared negative feelings can positively influence task performance when they stem from an exogenous source (outside of the team) or in a one-shot group; but shared negative feelings hinder performance when they stem from an endogenous source (inside the team) and in on-going groups.46
Emotional ContaGion
Individual emotions get shared and spread among group members, much like a cold or flu spreads among people who live or work together. There are implicit methods by which this happens, such as emotional contagion, vicarious affect, and behavioral entrainment, as well as conscious, deliberate processes, such as affective influence and affective impression management.47 Group emotion can be reliably recognized by group members and outsiders, both on-site and through video ratings.48
Emotional contagion is the process whereby moods and emotions of people around us influence our emotional state. It is the process by which we “catch” other people’s emotions. Because people automatically mimic the facial movement and vocal rhythms of others, the physiological feedback from such movements often leads them to feel the accompanying emotions. The mere manipulation of facial muscles involved in a particular expression (e.g., a smile or frown) stimulates emotional feelings.49 For example, people in conversation converge on a conversational rhythm,50 nonverbal behaviors,51 and facial movements.52
Some people however, are more susceptible to “catching” the emotions of others in their groups. Similarly, some people are better at “spreading” emotions than are oth- ers. For example, people who are high in feelings of interrelatedness are good decoders of emotional expressions, and people who score higher on emotional contagion scales
46Knight, A. P., & Eisenkraft, N. (2015). Positive is usually good, negative is not always bad: The effects of group affect on social integration and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1214. 47Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. (2001). Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 99–130. 48Barsade, S. G. (2000). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion in groups. New Haven, CT: Yale University School of Management; Bartel, C., & Saavedra, R. (2000). The collective construction of work group moods. Administra- tive Science Quarterly, 45, 197–231; Totterdell, P., Kellet, S., Teuchmann, K., & Briner, R. B. (1998). Evidence of mood linkage in work groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1504–1515. 49Duclos, S. E., Laird, J. D., Schneider, E., Sexter, M., Stern, L., & Van Lighten, O. (1989). Categorical vs. dimensional effects of facial expressions on emotional experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 100–108. 50Warner, R. (1988). Rhythm in social interaction. In J. E. McGrath (Ed.), The social psychology of time (pp. 63–88). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 51Tickle-Degnen, L., & Rosenthal, R. (1987). Group rapport and nonverbal behavior. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: Vol. 9. Group processes and intergroup relations (pp. 113–136). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 52Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Lemery, C. R., & Mullett, J. (1987). Motor mimicry as primitive empathy. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 317–338). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
M04_THOM4204_06_SE_C04.indd 90 10/24/16 9:09 PM
Chapter 4 • Team Cohesion and Trust 91
are more likely to catch the emotions of those around them.53 People who categorize themselves as “group members” are more likely to converge toward what they believe is their group’s emotional experience.54 When people are explicitly asked about the emotions they experience as members of a particular group, their reported emotions converge toward a profile typical for that group.55 Identifying with a group produces convergence for emotions as well as attitudes and behaviors.56 The process of emotional contagion implies that group members will converge in their emotional states over time, leading to a homogeneous group composition.57 The average affective state of team members is related to a given team member’s affect over time, even after controlling for team performance.58 Group leaders, especially those who are high in expressiveness, might be particularly likely to influence the emotional state of the group.59
A group’s overall emotional tone or group affective tone can affect a variety of team behaviors and performance.60 For example in a study of sales teams, group affec- tive tone predicted absenteeism (groups with chronically worse moods were absent more often) and customer-directed prosocial behavior (groups with chronically worse moods were less helpful to customers).61 Similarly, a field sample of 61 work teams revealed that negative affective tone in teams served a critical link between dysfunc- tional team behavior and performance when nonverbal negative expressivity was high.62 Just as group members influence one another to form an overall affective tone, people can be drawn to groups that have members with similar emotions as their own.63 And, to the extent a group displays homogeneity of affect, they are more effective.64
BEhavioral EntrainmEnt
Behavioral entrainment refers to the processes whereby one person’s behavior is adjusted or modified to coordinate or synchronize with another person’s behavior.
53Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, Emotional contagion. 54Moons, W. G., Leonard, D. J., Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2009). I feel our pain: Antecedents and conse- quences of emotional self-stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 760–769. 55Smith, E. R., Seger, C., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Can emotions be truly group-level? Evidence regarding four conceptual criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 431–446. 56Smith, E. R., Seger, C., & Mackie, D. M. (2009). Subtle activation of a social categorization triggers group- level emotions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 460–467. 57Kelly, J. R. (2001). Mood and emotion in groups. In M. Hogg & S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook in social psychology. Vol. 3: Group processes (pp. 164–181). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. 58Ilies, R., Wagner, D., & Morgeson, F. (2007). Explaining affective linkages in teams: Individual differences in susceptibility to contagion and individualism–collectivism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1140–1148. 59Barsade & Gibson, “Group emotion.” 60George, J. M. (1996). Group affective tone. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 77–93). Chichester, UK: Wiley. 61George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 107–116. 62Cole, M., Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2008). Affective mechanisms linking dysfunctional behavior to perfor- mance in work teams: A moderated mediation study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 945–958. 63George, J. M. (1996). Group affective tone. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 77–93). Chichester, UK: Wiley. 64Ibid.
M04_THOM4204_06_SE_C04.indd 91 10/24/16 9:09 PM
92 Part 1 • Building the Team
Synchrony often happens with both micro (small) and macro (large) body movements.65 Usually, the outcome of synchronizing movement is positive affect, which can take the form of liking the other person,66 satisfaction with the interaction,67 and greater group rapport.68
Emotional nonConFormity
Emotional nonconformity occurs when a group member experiences an emotion in the name of his or her group that is inconsistent with what the collective feels. Emo- tional nonconformity results in an emotional burden (feeling responsible for carrying the emotion in the name of the group) and emotional transfer (transferring negative feelings for the in-group toward the event itself).69
Emotional intElliGEnCE
Emotional intelligence is the ability to recognize emotions in ourselves and others and to use emotional knowledge in a productive fashion. Emotional intelligence is positively linked to team performance.70 For example in one investigation, 139 respon- dents were administered the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile, a measure of group members’ emotional intelligence when working in teams (see Exhibit 4-3 for the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile). People with high emotional intelligence preferred to seek collaborative solutions when confronted with conflict.71 Studies of professionals across various organizations and industries reveal that employees with higher emotional intelligence are more effective team players and have higher job performance.72
lEadErship and Group Emotion
Leaders’ emotions strongly influence group emotion and performance. Harsh, negative leaders create demoralizing work environments. For example, Didier Lombard, former CEO of France Telecom was placed under criminal investigation for creating a toxic work environment that drove more than 30 employees to take their lives and dozens
65Siegman, A. W., & Reynolds, M. (1982). Interviewer-interviewee nonverbal communications: An interac- tional approach. In M. A. Davis (Ed.), Interaction rhythms: Periodicity in communication behavior (pp. 249–278). New York: Human Sciences Press. 66Kelly, J. R. (1987). Mood and interaction. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. 67Bernieri, F., Reznick, J. S., & Rosenthal, R. (1988). Synchrony, pseudosynchrony, and dissynchrony: Measur- ing the entrainment process in mother-infant dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 243–253. 68Hecht, Allen, Klammer, & Kelly, “Group beliefs, ability and performance.” 69Goldenberg, A.T., Saguy,T., & Halperin, E. (2014). How group-based emotions are shaped by collective emotions: Evidence for emotional transfer and emotional burden. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 107(4), 581-596. 70Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2004). Managing emotions during team problem solving: Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution. Human Performance, 17, 195–218. 71Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2002). Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution: Implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(1), 62–79. 72Farh, C. I., Seo, M. G., & Tesluk, P. E. (2012). Emotional intelligence, teamwork effectiveness, and job per- formance: The moderating role of job context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 890–900.
M04_THOM4204_06_SE_C04.indd 92 10/24/16 9:09 PM
Chapter 4 • Team Cohesion and Trust 93
The questions on the Work Group Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP) ask you about your feel- ings when working in your team. When thinking about your team, please think of your immediate work unit. Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements using a 1–7 scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Awareness of Own Emotions (Own Aware)
1. I can explain the emotions I feel to team members. 2. I can discuss the emotions I feel with other team members. 3. If I feel down, I can tell team members what will make me feel better. 4. I can talk to other members of the team about the emotions I experience.
Management of Own Emotions (Own Manage)
5. I respect the opinion of team members, even if I think they are wrong. 6. When I am frustrated with fellow team members, I can overcome my frustration. 7. When deciding on a dispute, I try to see all sides of the disagreement before I come to a
conclusion. 8. I give a fair hearing to fellow team members’ ideas.
Awareness of Others’ Emotions (Other Aware)
9. I can read fellow team members “true” feelings, even if they try to hide them. 10. I am able to describe accurately the way others in the team are feeling. 11. When I talk to team members I can gauge their true feelings from their body language. 12. I can tell when team members don’t mean what they say.
Management of Others’ Emotions (Other Manage)
13. My enthusiasm can be contagious for members of a team. 14. I am able to cheer up team members when they are feeling down. 15. I can get fellow team members to share my keenness for a project. 16. I can provide the “spark” to get fellow team members enthusiastic.
Exhibit 4-3 Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile
“emotional intelligence in teams: Development and initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup emotional Intelligence profile (WeIp-S)” from Journal of Management & Organization by peter J Jordan, Sandra a Lawrence 15, 452–469, e-Content Management. Copyright (c) 2009 by Cambridge University press. reprinted with the permission of Cambridge University press.
more to attempt suicide in a two-year period.73 One man stabbed himself during a team meeting and a woman jumped out of a window. Employees were given impossible per- formance goals and severely chastised when they did not meet their goals.
In addition, leaders’ ability to recognize emotions in their team members deter- mines the effectiveness of their leadership. Emotional aperture is the ability to recog- nize diverse emotions in a team.74 The leaders who are the most likely to be effective at transformational leadership are those who can recognize emotions accurately, exude positive emotions, and are agreeable in nature.75 Empathic leaders have employees with
73CEO charged with harassment after employee suicides (2012, July 5). The Week. theweek.co.uk
75Rubin, R. S., Munz, D. C., & Bommer, W. H. (2005). Leading from within: The effects of emotion recogni- tion and personality on transformational leadership behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 845–858.
74Sanchez-Burkes, J., & Huy, Q. (2009). Emotional aperture and strategic change: The accurate recognition of collective emotions. Organization Science, 20(1), 22–34.
M04_THOM4204_06_SE_C04.indd 93 10/24/16 9:09 PM
94 Part 1 • Building the Team
fewer complaints and daily goal progress is strongly related to a manager’s emotional aperture.76
GROUP COHESION
Group cohesiveness refers to emotional attraction among group members, and the ties that bind the group together.77
CohEsion and tEam BEhavior
Members of cohesive teams sit closer together, focus more attention on one another, show signs of mutual affection, display coordinated patterns of behavior, and are more likely to give due credit to their partners. In contrast, those who do not have a close relationship are more likely to take credit for successes and blame others for failure.78 Cohesive groups are easier to maintain. Members of cohesive teams are more likely to participate in team activities, stay on the team, convince others to join, and resist attempts to disrupt the team.79 Cohesion increases conformity to team norms.80 This can be helpful when deviance endangers the team or harmful when innovation is required. Cohesive teams are more likely to serve team, rather than individual interests.81
CohEsion and pErFormanCE
Cohesive teams are more productive with a variety of tasks than are noncohesive groups.82 In a study of 81 simulated teams of competing airlines, top management cohe- sion was associated with superior returns.83 Team cohesion and performance are related
76Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., Paddock, E. L., & Judge, T. A. (2010). A daily investigation of the role of manager empathy on employee well-being. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 127–140. 77Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity. London/New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf/New York University Press. 78Sedekides, C., Campbell, W. K., Reeder, G. D., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). The self-serving bias in relational context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 378–386. 79Brawley, L. R., Carron, A. V., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1988). Exploring the relationship between cohesion and group resistance to disruption. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(2), 199–213; Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1988). Group cohesion and individual adherence to physical activity. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(2), 127–138. 80O’Reilly, C. A., & Caldwell, D. F. (1985). The impact of normative social influence and cohesiveness on task perceptions and attitudes: A social-information processing approach. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58, 193–206; Rutkowski, G. K., Gruder, C. L., & Romer, D. (1983). Group cohesiveness, social norms, and bystander intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(3), 545–552. 81Thompson, L., Kray, L., & Lind, A. (1998). Cohesion and respect: An examination of group decision making in social and escalation dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34(3), 289–311. 82Dion, K. L., & Evans, C. R. (1992). On cohesiveness: Reply to Keyton and other critics of the construct. Small Group Research, 23(2), 242–250; Michel, J. G., & Hambrick, D. C. (1992). Diversification posture and top management team characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 9–37; Smith, K., Smith, K., Olian, J., Sims, H., O’Bannon, D., & Scully, J. (1994). Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 412–438. 83Michalisin, M. D., Karau, S. J., & Tangpong, C. (2004). Top management team cohesion and superior indus- try returns: An empirical study of the resource-based view. Group and Organization Management, 29(1), 125–140.
M04_THOM4204_06_SE_C04.indd 94 10/24/16 9:09 PM
Chapter 4 • Team Cohesion and Trust 95
reciprocally; however, the cohesion S performance relationship is significantly greater than the performance S cohesion relationship.84 Moreover, in a longitudinal study of 205 members of 57 teams, the cohesion S performance relationship grew stronger over time; whereas the performance S cohesion relationship remained steady.
BuildinG CohEsion in Groups
There are many ways to promote cohesion (see Exhibit 4-4).
BUILD IDENTITY Simply assembling people into a team is enough to produce some cohesion,85 and the more time people spend together (in a face-to-face fashion), the more cohesive they become.86 When team members think about their identity (i.e., what they stand for) and what they have in common, they become more cohesive.87
84From “Modeling reciprocal team cohesion–performance relationships, as impacted by shared leadership and members’ com-petence” by Mathieu J.E., Kukenberger M.R., D’Innocenzo L, Reilly G.. In Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 713–734, © 2015 American Psychological Association. 85Hogg, M. A. (1987). Social identity and group cohesiveness. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 89–116). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. 86Manning, J. F., & Fullerton, T. D. (1988). Health and well-being in highly cohesive units of the U.S. Army. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 503–519. 87Prentice, Miller, & Lightdale, “Asymmetries in attachments to groups and to their members.”
• Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini raised wages significantly, improved health benefits, and introduced yoga and mindfulness training to improve retention and work culture. More than a quarter of the company’s 50,000 employees participate in a meditation or yoga class, and employees who do so report a 28 percent reduction in stress levels while gaining an extra 62 minutes of productiv- ity each week. Profits increased and employee turnover was reduced following Bertolini’s first year as CEO.
• At Acuity, annual turnover for full-time employees is less than 2 percent. Employees are offered limitless tuition reimbursements, no cap on paid sick days, and a 401(k) plan with a 10 percent company contribution. But it’s more than great benefits that fosters cohesion at the Wisconsin insurance company: employees have a say in the strategic planning of the company. Quarterly town hall meetings keep employees informed, and a “lunch with an officer” program matches every employee with an executive for a face-to-face meeting. On one occasion, forty employees dressed as zombies and filmed a YouTube video on work time, called Acuity Zombie Apocalypse in which they explained why they love their jobs.
• Boston Consulting Group employees can take a social impact leave of absence for 3 to 12 months. Past employees worked for the World Food Programme, the Clinton Health Access Ini- tiative, the Gates Foundation, and the Ethiopian Agricultural Agency.
Exhibit 4-4 Fostering Cohesion in Teams
Based on Gelles, D., (2015, February 27). at aetna, a C.e.O.’s management by mantra. the New York times. nytimes.com; Zillman, C. (2015, March 5). acuity’s worker loyalty could outlast a zombie apocalypse. Fortune. fortune.com; 100 best companies to work for: the Boston Consulting Group. (2015, March 5). Fortune. fortune.com, © Leigh L. thompson.
M04_THOM4204_06_SE_C04.indd 95 10/24/16 9:09 PM
96 Part 1 • Building the Team
PHYSICAL PROXIMITY Physical proximity and real or perceived similarity strengthen team cohesion.88
PERSON–TEAM FIT Teams in which members share perceptions of supplementary and complementary fit are more cohesive and perform better than teams with lower per- ceived fit.89
CHALLENGE OR HARDSHIP External pressure and rewards for team performance also increase team cohesion.90 Sharing painful experiences promotes bonding and trust among team members.91 When teams operate in a low supervisor-focused interpersonal justice climate (characterized by low dignity and respect from superiors), they develop more cohesion.92
FEar oF soCial ExClusion
Some members believe that they are at risk of exclusion from their group. Members who fear exclusion seek to improve their inclusionary status by engaging in unethical behav- iors that benefit the group. A study of employee workgroups revealed that perceived risk of exclusion leads to pro-group, unethical behaviors when employees had a high need for inclusion.93
GROUP TRUST
Among the characteristics of “ideal members” of teams and relationships is trustworthi- ness, which is the most important attribute for all interdependent relationships.94
trust vs. rEspECt
Trust and respect are both important for teams, but they are not the same thing. Respect is the level of esteem a person has for another, whereas trust is the willingness of a
88Ruder, M. K., & Gill, D. L. (1982). Immediate effects of win-loss on perceptions of cohesion in intramural and intercollegiate volleyball teams. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4(3), 227–234; Stokes, J. P. (1983). Components of group cohesion: Inter-member attraction, instrumental value, and risk taking. Small Group Behavior, 14, 163–173; Sundstrom, E. D., & Sundstrom, M. G. (1986). Work places: The psychology of the physical environment in offices and factories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 89De Cooman, R., Vantilborgh, T., Bal, M., & Lub, X. (2016). Creating inclusive teams through perceptions of supplementary and complementary person–team fit: Examining the relationship between person–team fit and team effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 41(3), 310–342. 90Glickman, A. S., Zimmer, S., Montero, R. C., Guerette, P. J., & Campbell, W. J. (1987). The evolution of team- work skills: An empirical assessment with implications for training. US Naval Training Systems Center Technical Reports, No. 87–016; Shea & Guzzo, “Group effectiveness,” p. 110. 91Bastian, B., Jetten, J., & Ferris, L.J. (2014). Pain as social glue: Shared pain increases cooperation. Psychological Science, 25(11), 2079-2085. 92Stoverink, A. C., Umphress, E. E., Gardner, R. G., & Miner, K. N. (2014). Misery loves company: Team dis- sonance and the influence of supervisor-focused interpersonal justice climate on team cohesiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1059. 93Thau, S., Derfler-Rozin, R., Pitesa, M., & Pillutia, M.S. (2015). Unethical for the sake of the group: Risk of social exclusion and pro-group unethical behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 98–113. 94Cottrell, C., Neuberg, S., & Li, N. (2007). What do people desire in others? A sociofunctional perspective on the importance of different valued characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 208–231.
M04_THOM4204_06_SE_C04.indd 96 10/24/16 9:09 PM
Chapter 4 • Team Cohesion and Trust 97
person to rely on another person in the absence of monitoring95 (see Exhibit 4-5). Teams high in both trust and respect are desirable, as team members begin with the belief that their fellow teammates have something valuable to add to the team.96 Teams high in respect but low in trust might appear as collections of individualists, afraid of exposing their vulnerabilities for fear they might be exploited. Conversely, teams high in trust but low in respect are safe but ineffective, such that members don’t see much value in the contributions of their teammates, even if they are well intentioned. In a simulation study of top management teams, higher respect increased task conflict and decreased relationship conflict. Trust decreased process conflict.97
trust & monitorinG
Trust leads to higher performance in teams,98 but a high level of trust among team members can make members of self-managing work teams reluctant to monitor one another. In a study of 71 self-managing teams, when low monitoring was combined with
95Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734; Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404. 96Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. (2007a). The differential effects of trust and respect on team conflict. In K. Behfar & L. Thompson (Eds.), Conflict in organizational groups: New directions in theory and practice. Chicago, IL: NU Press. 97Langfred, 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. 98De Jong, B. A., & Elfring, T. (2010). How does trust affect the performance of ongoing teams? The mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 535–549.
Trust in Teams can be Measured by . . . Respect in Teams can be Measured by . . .
• I trust my teammates. • I have little faith that my teammates will consider my needs when making decisions.(R)
• I believe my teammates are truthful and honest.
• I think highly of my teammates’ character. • This team sets a good example. • Our team does things the right way. • My team deserves my consideration. • I admire my teammates. • I am proud to be part of my team. • I think my teammates have useful perspectives.
• My teammates usually have good reasons for their beliefs.
• People on my team have well-founded ideas. • I hold my team in high regard. • I think highly of my team members. • Our team has a reason to be proud. • I respect my teammates.
Note: (r) reverse-scaled item.
Exhibit 4-5 Trust and Respect in Teams
Based on Cronin, M. a., & Weingart, L. r. (2007). the differential effects of trust and respect on team conflict. In K. Behfar & L. thompson (eds.), Conflict in organizational groups: New directions in theory and practice. Chicago, IL: NU press; Cronin, M. a. (2004). The effect of respect on interdependent work. Doctoral thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, pittsburgh, pa, © Leigh L. thompson.
M04_THOM4204_06_SE_C04.indd 97 10/24/16 9:09 PM
98 Part 1 • Building the Team
high individual autonomy, team performance suffered.99 Autonomy, in a team context, is defined as the amount of freedom and discretion that a person has in carrying out assigned tasks.100 It was only when high trust in the team was combined with low indi- vidual autonomy that performance improved. The deleterious combination was high trust combined with high individual autonomy.
In addition to considering the level of trust that exists within a team, it is equally important to consider the dispersion of trust and monitoring that exists within teams. Trust asymmetry and monitoring dissensus both predict team per- formance.101 Trust asymmetry is the overall degree of asymmetry that exists across all dyads that comprise the team. Monitoring dissensus refers to the extent to which team members hold diverging perceptions about the level of monitoring that occurs within the team.
trust ConGruEnCE
Trust congruence refers to the degree to which the leader’s trust in their group is matched by the group’s trust in the leader. Higher levels of trust congruence enhance motivation and improve team performance.102
propEnsity to trust
When people have differing levels of trust in their group, this diversity increases frustra- tion, resulting in a downward trust spiral. An investigation of MBA student groups at three time periods over four months revealed that diversity in propensity to trust trig- gered a downward trust spiral, resulting in poor performance.103
typEs oF trust
There are many different types of trust in teams and, for that matter, in any human relationship. We consider five: incentive-based trust, familiarity-based trust, similarity- based trust, social network trust, and implicit trust.
INCENTIVE-BASED TRUST Incentive-based or calculated trust involves designing incen- tives to minimize breaches of trust. When an arrangement, such as a contract, is made on favorable terms for the other party, it is easier to trust that they will fulfill their end of the deal. Companies often pay bonuses in fact, to ensure just this kind of outcome.
TRUST BASED ON FAMILIARITY As people become more familiar with one another, they are more likely to trust one another. For example, distrust of new members places extra
99Langfred, “Too much of a good thing?” 100Hackman, J. R. (1983). Designing work for individuals and for groups. In J. R. Hackman (Ed.), Perspectives on Behavior in Organizations (pp. 242–256). McGraw-Hill, New York. 101De Jong, B. A., & Dirks, K. T. (2012). Beyond shared perceptions of trust and monitoring in teams: Implica- tions of asymmetry and dissensus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 391–406. 102Carter, M.Z., & Mossholder, K.W. (2015). Are we on the same page? The performance effects of congruence between supervisor and group trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1349–1363. 103Ferguson, 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.
M04_THOM4204_06_SE_C04.indd 98 10/24/16 9:09 PM
Chapter 4 • Team Cohesion and Trust 99
burdens on full members, who must work harder to make sure that the team’s expecta- tions are clear and that new members’ behaviors are monitored.104
TRUST BASED ON SIMILARITY Oftentimes, trust can develop based on commonalities, such as being alumni of the same school, belonging to the same religious institution, or having children who play on the same Little League team. People who are similar to one another in beliefs, attitudes, and interests tend to like one another more.
TRUST BASED ON SOCIAL NETWORKS Trusting relationships in organizations often are based upon social networks. Social embeddedness refers to the idea that transactions and opportunities take place as a result of social relationships that exist between orga- nizational actors.105 This is conducive to organizational teamwork in that trust and shared norms of reciprocal compliance have beneficial governance properties for the people involved. In short, embedding commercial exchange in social attachments cre- ates a basis for trust that, if accepted and returned, crystallizes through reciprocal co-investment and self-enforcement for use in future transactions. Trust based on social networks offers several advantages.106 Embedded ties reduce the time needed to reach and enforce agreements. Second, the expectations and trust associated with embedded ties increases risk taking and coinvestments in advanced technology. Third, the transfer of proprietary information through embedded ties leads to more win–win types of arrangements. Finally, embedded ties promote cooperation, even when groups will not work together very long.
IMPLICIT TRUST People might not be consciously aware of the cues that lead them to trust others.
Mood People in a positive mood tend to trust others more when they are exposed to cues that promote trust, but distrust when cues promote distrust.107
Status People with high status trust others more primarily because they believe others have positive intentions.108
Mere Exposure The more we see someone, the more we like them.109 This even applies to people that we initially do not like. However, most people do not realize that their
104Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (2002b). Socialization and trust in work groups. Group Processes and Inter- personal Relations, 5(3), 185–201. 105Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 35–67. 106Ibid. 107Lount, R. B. (2010). The impact of positive mood on trust in interpersonal and intergroup interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 420–433. 108Lount, R. B., & Pettit, N. C. (2012). The social context of trust: The role of status. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 15–23. 109Zajonc, R. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, pt.2), 1–27.
M04_THOM4204_06_SE_C04.indd 99 10/24/16 9:09 PM
100 Part 1 • Building the Team
liking for people is driven by how often they see them. Mere belonging refers to having a minimal social connection to another person, such as a shared birthday.110
Mirroring People involved in a face-to-face interaction tend to mirror one another in posture, facial expression, tone of voice, and mannerisms. Mirroring helps people to develop rapport.111 On the surface, it might seem that mimicking others would be extremely annoying—almost like a form of mockery. However, the type of mimicry that is involved in everyday social encounters is quite subtle. When two people are mimick- ing each other, their movements are like a choreographed dance; their behavior becomes synchronized. To the extent that our behaviors are synchronized with those of others, we feel more rapport, and this increases our trust in them.
Flattery We like people who appreciate us and admire us. Even if people suspect that the flatterer has ulterior motives, this still can increase liking and trust under some conditions.112
Face-to-Face Contact We are more likely to trust other people in a face-to-face encoun- ter than when communicating via another medium, such as phone or email. Perhaps this is why people often choose to travel thousands of miles for a face-to-face meeting when it would be more efficient to communicate via phone, email, or videoconference.
Pupil Dilation People trust others with dilating pupils and withhold trust from others with constricting pupils; moreover, people’s own pupils mimic changes in their partners’ pupils.113
rEpairinG BrokEn trust
Repairing trust is more difficult with groups than with individuals. Both groups and individuals are less trusting when the perpetrator denied wrongdoing and more trusting when the other party apologized for a competence-based violation or an integrity-based violation.114
psyCholoGiCal saFEty
People in teams size up how “safe” they feel bringing up certain subjects and seeking assistance from the team.115 Psychological safety (PS) reflects the extent to which people feel they can raise issues and questions without fear of being rebuffed.
110Walton, G. M., Cohen, G. L., Cwir, D., & Spencer S. J. (2012). Mere belonging: The power of social con- nections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 513–532. 111Drolet, A., Larrick, R., & Morris, M. W. (1998). Thinking of others: How perspective-taking changes nego- tiators’ aspirations and fairness perceptions as a function of negotiator relationships. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20(1), 23–31. 112Jones, E. E., Stires, L. K., Shaver, K. G., & Harris, V. A. (1968). Evaluation of an ingratiator by target persons and bystanders. Journal of Personality, 36(3), 349–385. 113Kret, M.E., Fischer, A.H., & de Dreu, C.K.W. (2015). Pupil mimicry correlates with trust in in-group part- ners with dilating pupils. Psychological Science, 26(9), 1401–1410. 114Kim, P.H., Cooper, C.D., Dirks, K.T., & Ferrin, D.L. (2013). Repairing trust with individuals vs. groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(1), 1–14. 115Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.
M04_THOM4204_06_SE_C04.indd 100 10/24/16 9:09 PM
Chapter 4 • Team Cohesion and Trust 101
Psychological safety is important in teams that need to communicate knowledge about new technological procedures to one another and learn from one another.116 Team members in one hospital intensive care unit were asked three questions: (1) How com- fortable do you feel checking with others if you have a question about the right way to do something? (2) How much do people in your unit value others’ unique skills and talents? (3) To what extent can people bring up problems and tough issues? When combined, these questions were used to create a measure of psychological safety. Team members who expressed greater psychological safety were more likely to engage in learning about how to use new technological procedures, which in turn predicted the success of implementation in the neonatal intensive care units.
PS MICROCLIMATES Within a given team, distinct PS microclimates might exist that are vitally important for team behavior, yet not readily apparent. The mPSi scale measures four key metrics associated with PS microclimate: team PS density, member-only PS density, subteam PS density, and leader PS centrality.117 Team PS density refers to the total number of existing PS ties in the team network divided by the total number of possible ties in the network. Member-only PS density is the number of existing PS ties in the member-only network divided by the total number of possible ties. Subteam PS density is the total number of existing PS ties in the subteam network divided by the total num- ber of possible ties. Subteams with greater density of PS ties are characterized by authen- tic interactions. Leader PS centrality is the proportion of existing incoming PS ties that the leader has out of all possible incoming ties.118
FOUR DIFFERENT PS MICROCLIMATES Consider four examples of PS microclimates: irreverent clique teams, potential mutiny teams, controlled conflict teams, and competi- tive advisory teams.119 Irreverent clique teams are characterized by low safety and high conflict among the leader and subteams. Potential mutiny teams are characterized by restricted communication and risk taking because of the leader’s low PS position in the team; subteam work is facilitated by higher member-to-member PS. Controlled conflict teams are characterized by member-to-member PS tension; intact teamwork is facilitated by the highly central leader’s PS brokerage influence. Competitive advisory teams are char- acterized by a highly central leader who can potentially increase PS among members.
GROUP SOCIALIZATION & TURNOVER
Teams are not permanent entities. In fact, the average lifespan of a team is approximately 24 months.120
116Tucker, A.T., Nembhard, I.M., & Edmondson, A.C. (2007, June). Implementing new practices: An empirical study of organizational learning in hospital intensive care units. Management Science, 53(6), 894–907. 117Roussin, C. J., MacLean, T. L., & Rudolph, J. W. (2016). The safety in unsafe teams: A multilevel approach to team psychological safety. Journal of Management 42(6), 1409–1433. 118Ibid. 119Ibid. 120Thompson, L. (2016). Leading high impact teams. Team leadership survey from the Kellogg School of Man- agement executive program. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
M04_THOM4204_06_SE_C04.indd 101 10/24/16 9:09 PM
102 Part 1 • Building the Team
Group soCialization
Group socialization is the process of how people enter and then (at some point) leave teams. The process is disruptive, yet it need not be traumatic or ill advised. When people begin to work together as a team, they begin a process of socialization, such that mem- bers of the team mutually shape each other’s behavior. More often, teams might undergo changes in membership such that some members might leave and new ones might enter. The process of socialization is essential for team members to be able to work together and coordinate their efforts.
Most people think of socialization as a one-way process, wherein the team social- izes the individual member—usually a newcomer—in the norms and roles of the team. However as any leader can attest, the introduction of a new team member is a process of joint socialization. Facilitating newcomer effectiveness in teams is particularly impor- tant in high-technology industries into which knowledgeable workers transition fre- quently and there is a high cost of integrating new employees.121 Three key predictors of newcomer performance are: newcomer empowerment, team expectations, and team performance.122 In an investigation of 65 project teams, newcomer performance improved over time, particularly early in socialization.123 Newcomer empowerment and the team’s expectations of the newcomer positively predicted the newcomer’s perfor- mance. Moreover, newcomers who were empowered and performed well were less likely to express intentions to leave the team.
phasEs oF Group soCialization
Think about a time when you joined an existing team. Perhaps you joined a study group that had been previously formed, accepted a summer internship with a company that had ongoing teams already in place, or moved to a different unit within your organiza- tion. In all of these instances, you went through a process of group socialization.124 Three critical things go on during group socialization that can affect the productivity of teams: evaluation, commitment, and role transition.
EVALUATION Teams evaluate individual members, and individual members evaluate teams. In short, the individuals on the team “size each other up.” People conduct a cost-benefit analysis when it comes to evaluating team members. If team members receive (or expect to receive) relatively high returns from team membership while enduring few costs, they prob- ably like their team. Teams, too, evaluate a member positively who makes many contribu- tions to the collective while exacting few costs.125 People with either little experience or
121Chen, G., & Klimoksi, R. J. (2003). The impact of expectations on newcomer performance in teams as mediated by work characteristics, social exchanges, and empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 591–607. 122Ibid. 123Chen, G. (2005). Newcomer adaptation in teams: Multilevel antecedents and outcomes. The Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 101–116. 124Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (2000). Socialization in organizations and work groups. In M. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 69–112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
negative experiences in teams often avoid working in groups.126 In a study of new, full, and marginal team members, people supported in-group full members who advocated a norma- tive position and derogated full members who espoused a deviant position.127
COMMITMENT Commitment is a person’s “enduring adherence” to the team and the team’s adherence to its members.128 Key factors that affect commitment are the alterna- tives that are available to the individual and the team. For example, if a team has its choice of several highly qualified candidates, its level of commitment to any one candi- date is less than if a team does not have as many alternatives.
ROLE TRANSITION A person usually moves through a progression of membership in the team, going from nonmember to quasi-member to full member (see Exhibit 4-6). One key to gaining full member status is to be evaluated positively by the team and to gain the team’s commitment. This can often (but not always) be achieved by learning through direct experience with the team and also through observations of others in the team. Indeed, newcomers in teams feel a strong need to obtain information about what is expected of them;129 simultaneously, teams communicate this knowledge through formal and informal indoctrination sessions.130 However, newcomers might not learn crucial information they need to perform their jobs, such as information about the preferences of supervisors or administrative procedures, until they are trusted by their coworkers.131
People who join groups can engage in either self-verification or appraisal effects.132 Self-verification occurs when group members persuade others on the team to see them as they see themselves. In contrast, appraisal occurs when groups persuade members to see
125Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley; Thibaut, J., & Kelley, H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
126Bohrnstedt, G. W., & Fisher, G. A. (1986). The effects of recalled childhood and adolescent relationships compared to current role performances on young adults’ affective functioning. Social Psychology Quarterly, 49(1), 19–32; Gold, M., & Yanof, D. S. (1985). Mothers, daughters, and girlfriends. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 654–659; Hanks, M., & Eckland, B. K. (1978). Adult voluntary association and ado- lescent socialization. Sociological Quarterly, 19(3), 481–490; Ickes, W. (1983). A basic paradigm for the study of unstructured dyadic interaction. In H. Reis (Issue Ed.), New directions for methodology of social and behavioral science: Naturalistic approaches to studying social interaction (pp. 5–21). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; Ickes, W., & Turner, M. (1983). On the social advantages of having an older, opposite-sex sibling: Birth order influences in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 210–222. 127Pinto, I. R., Marques, J. M., Levine, J. M., & Abrams, D. (2010). Membership status and subjective group dynamics: Who triggers the Black Sheep Effect? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1), 107–119. 128Kelley, H. H. (1983). The situational origins of human tendencies: A further reason for the formal analysis of structures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9(1), 8–36. 129Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar orga- nizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226–251; Van Maanen, J. (1977). Experiencing organiza- tion: Notes on the meaning of careers and socialization. In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Organizational careers: Some new perspectives (pp. 15–45). New York: John Wiley & Sons; Wanous, J. P. (1980). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, and socialization of newcomers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 130Gauron, E. F., & Rawlings, E. I. (1975). A procedure for orienting new members to group psychotherapy. Small Group Behavior, 6, 293–307; Jacobs, R. C., & Campbell, D. T. (1961). The perpetuation of an arbitrary tradition through several generations of a laboratory microculture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 649–658; Zurcher, L. A. (1965). The sailor aboard ship: A study of role behavior in a total institution. Social Forces, 43, 389–400; Zurcher, L. A. (1970). The “friendly” poker game: A study of an ephemeral role. Social Forces, 49, 173–186. 131Feldman, D. C. (1977). The role of initiation activities in socialization. Human Relations, 30, 977–990. 132Swann, W. B., Jr., Milton, L. P., & Polzer, J. T. (2000). Should we create a niche or fall in line? Identity nego- tiation and small group effectiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(2), 238–250.
M04_THOM4204_06_SE_C04.indd 102 10/24/16 9:09 PM
Chapter 4 • Team Cohesion and Trust 103
negative experiences in teams often avoid working in groups.126 In a study of new, full, and marginal team members, people supported in-group full members who advocated a norma- tive position and derogated full members who espoused a deviant position.127
COMMITMENT Commitment is a person’s “enduring adherence” to the team and the team’s adherence to its members.128 Key factors that affect commitment are the alterna- tives that are available to the individual and the team. For example, if a team has its choice of several highly qualified candidates, its level of commitment to any one candi- date is less than if a team does not have as many alternatives.
ROLE TRANSITION A person usually moves through a progression of membership in the team, going from nonmember to quasi-member to full member (see Exhibit 4-6). One key to gaining full member status is to be evaluated positively by the team and to gain the team’s commitment. This can often (but not always) be achieved by learning through direct experience with the team and also through observations of others in the team. Indeed, newcomers in teams feel a strong need to obtain information about what is expected of them;129 simultaneously, teams communicate this knowledge through formal and informal indoctrination sessions.130 However, newcomers might not learn crucial information they need to perform their jobs, such as information about the preferences of supervisors or administrative procedures, until they are trusted by their coworkers.131
People who join groups can engage in either self-verification or appraisal effects.132 Self-verification occurs when group members persuade others on the team to see them as they see themselves. In contrast, appraisal occurs when groups persuade members to see
125Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley; Thibaut, J., & Kelley, H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
126Bohrnstedt, G. W., & Fisher, G. A. (1986). The effects of recalled childhood and adolescent relationships compared to current role performances on young adults’ affective functioning. Social Psychology Quarterly, 49(1), 19–32; Gold, M., & Yanof, D. S. (1985). Mothers, daughters, and girlfriends. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 654–659; Hanks, M., & Eckland, B. K. (1978). Adult voluntary association and ado- lescent socialization. Sociological Quarterly, 19(3), 481–490; Ickes, W. (1983). A basic paradigm for the study of unstructured dyadic interaction. In H. Reis (Issue Ed.), New directions for methodology of social and behavioral science: Naturalistic approaches to studying social interaction (pp. 5–21). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; Ickes, W., & Turner, M. (1983). On the social advantages of having an older, opposite-sex sibling: Birth order influences in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 210–222. 127Pinto, I. R., Marques, J. M., Levine, J. M., & Abrams, D. (2010). Membership status and subjective group dynamics: Who triggers the Black Sheep Effect? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1), 107–119. 128Kelley, H. H. (1983). The situational origins of human tendencies: A further reason for the formal analysis of structures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9(1), 8–36. 129Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar orga- nizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226–251; Van Maanen, J. (1977). Experiencing organiza- tion: Notes on the meaning of careers and socialization. In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Organizational careers: Some new perspectives (pp. 15–45). New York: John Wiley & Sons; Wanous, J. P. (1980). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, and socialization of newcomers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 130Gauron, E. F., & Rawlings, E. I. (1975). A procedure for orienting new members to group psychotherapy. Small Group Behavior, 6, 293–307; Jacobs, R. C., & Campbell, D. T. (1961). The perpetuation of an arbitrary tradition through several generations of a laboratory microculture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 649–658; Zurcher, L. A. (1965). The sailor aboard ship: A study of role behavior in a total institution. Social Forces, 43, 389–400; Zurcher, L. A. (1970). The “friendly” poker game: A study of an ephemeral role. Social Forces, 49, 173–186. 131Feldman, D. C. (1977). The role of initiation activities in socialization. Human Relations, 30, 977–990. 132Swann, W. B., Jr., Milton, L. P., & Polzer, J. T. (2000). Should we create a niche or fall in line? Identity nego- tiation and small group effectiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(2), 238–250.
M04_THOM4204_06_SE_C04.indd 103 10/24/16 9:09 PM
104 Part 1 • Building the Team
themselves as the group sees them. Of the two, self-verification is more prevalent than appraisal. When team members encourage their group to see them the way they see them- selves, this heightens the feelings of connection to the team, lessens unhealthy relationship conflict, and improves performance on creative tasks. In contrast, when groups beseech individuals to see themselves as the group sees them, performance on computational tasks (e.g., tasks that have a single correct answer) improves.
INTEGRATING NEW MEMBERS The following strategies are especially useful for integrat- ing new members into teams:
Upper management and leaders: Make it clear why the new member is joining the team Many times, the introduction of a new team member is threatening for individuals, when it does not need not be. The manager should not assume that everyone is fully aware of why the newcomer is joining the team.
Existing team members: Reduce prototype ambiguity When the attributes, attitudes, and actions that define the typical group member of a team are not clear, the group suffers from
Exhibit 4-6 Role Transition in Groups “Socialization in small groups: temporal changes in individual-group relations” from Advances in experimental social psychology In L. Berkowitz (ed.) by richard L. Moreland and John M. Levine, Vol. 15, pp. 137–192. New York: academic press. Copyright © 1982 by richard L. Moreland and John M. Levine. reprinted by permission of John M. Levine.
Prospective Member
New Member Full Member Marginal Member
Ex-Member
Investigation Stage
Socialization Stage
Maintenance Stage
Resocialization Stage
Remembrance Stage
Recruitment Reconnaissance
Accommodation Assimilation
Role Negotiation
Accommodation Assimilation
Tradition Reminiscence
C om
m itm
en t
M04_THOM4204_06_SE_C04.indd 104 10/24/16 9:09 PM
Chapter 4 • Team Cohesion and Trust 105
prototype ambiguity.133 Group members can reduce prototype ambiguity through social negotiation processes. New members: Understand the team’s goals and processes Existing members often expect newcomers to be anxious, passive, dependent, and conforming. Further, new members who take on those characteristics are more likely to be accepted by old-timers.134 What new- comers might not realize is that they inevitably pose some threat to the team. This is often because newcomers have a fresh and relatively objective view of the team, which causes them to ask questions or express opinions that are unsettling. New members can take initiative by demonstrating an interest in learning about the team. Remember that the team might be hypersensitive about past failures, therefore, it is often a good idea to deflect defensive reactions by noting the team’s positive qualities. If newcomers are kept out of the information loop, they suffer psychologically; their sense of trust diminishes and they don’t like their team members, particularly when their exclusion seems preventable.135 Peripheral members also react more negatively when an authority favors a prototypical group member over them because peripheral members are highly insecure about their inclusion in the group.136
old-timErs’ rEaCtions to nEwComErs
Existing group members (old-timers) are less accepting of “temporary” newcomers than “permanent” newcomers because they expect temporary newcomers to be different from their group.137 Paradoxically, temporary newcomers share more unique knowledge in groups than permanent newcomers and thus enhance their group’s decision quality. However, temporary newcomers cause teams to experience more conflict and less group identification.138 When newcomers criticize their workplace, their profession, or the community, they arouse more resistance in old-timers.139 Newcomers reduce old-timer resistance when newcomers distance themselves from their previous group. Groups with out-group (i.e., diverse) newcomers are less confident about their performance, yet perform better than groups with in-group (homogeneous) newcomers.140
133Bartel, C.A., & Wiesenfeld, B.M. (2013). The social negotiation of group prototype ambiguity in dynamic organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 38(4), 503–524. 134Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1989). Newcomers and old-timers in small groups. In P. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 143–186). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 135Jones, E. E., & Kelly, J. R. (2010). “Why am I out of the loop?” Attributions influence responses to informa- tion exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(9), 1186–1201. 136Cheng, G. H. L., Fielding, K. S., & Terry, D. J. (2011). Responses of group members to procedural discrimi- nation: The role of ingroup prototypicality. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(4), 461–476. 137Rink, F., & Ellemers, N. (2009). Temporary versus permanent group membership: How the future prospects of newcomers affect newcomer acceptance and newcomer influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(6), 764–775. 138Rink, F., & Ellemers, N. (2009). Temporary versus permanent group membership: How the future prospects of newcomers affect newcomer acceptance and newcomer influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(6), 764–775. 139Hornsey, T., Grice, J., Jetten, N., Paulsen, V., & Callan, V. (2007). Group-directed criticisms and recommen- dations for change: Why newcomers arouse more resistance than old-timers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(7), 1036–1048. 140Phillips, K., Liljenquist, K., & Neale, M. (2009). Is the pain worth the gain? The advantages and liabilities of agreeing with socially distinct newcomers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(3), 336–351.
M04_THOM4204_06_SE_C04.indd 105 10/24/16 9:09 PM
106 Part 1 • Building the Team
dEviant opinions
When people strongly identify with their group, they evaluate deviants more negatively.141 Moreover, when a group member expresses a deviating opinion, angry or happy responses signal rejection or acceptance. The availability of alternative groups determines whether deviants conform to the current group or leave the group after an angry reaction.142 Peripheral group members conform more after an angry reaction, but prototypical mem- bers do not.
nEwComEr innovation
Contrary to popular opinion, turnover might benefit a group—through the exit of “old- timers” who lack the skills or motivation to help the group attain its goals and the entry of newcomers who possess needed skills.143 Three factors determine the extent to which newcomers can introduce change: (1) their commitment to the team; (2) their belief that they can develop good ideas for solving team problems; and (3) their belief that they will be rewarded. For turnover to have positive effects, it must outweigh the substantial benefits that group members derive from working together.144 In one inves- tigation of turnover, teams worked on an air surveillance task for two days.145 On both days, specialists monitored changes in plane information (e.g., airspeed and altitude) and transmitted it to the commander, who integrated this information and assigned threat values to the planes. At the beginning of Day 2, there was turnover: in some teams, one of the specialists was replaced with a specialist from another team; in other teams, the commander was replaced with a commander from another team. Teams performed better when newcomers had high rather than low ability; this was particu- larly pronounced when newcomers had high status (commander) rather than low status (specialist).
In a study of high-tech joint ventures in information technology and manufactur- ing industries, newcomers were more likely to help the team and perform better when supervisors offered developmental feedback.146
141Hutchison, P., Abrams, D., & Randsley de Moura, G. (2013). Corralling the in-group: Deviant derogation and perception of group variability. Journal of Social Psychology, 153(3), 334–350. 142Heerdink, M. W., Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., & Fischer, A. H. (2013). On the social influence of emotions in groups: Interpersonal effects of anger and happiness on conformity versus deviance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(2), 262. 143Levine, J. M., Choi, H.-S., & Moreland, R. L. (2003). Newcomer innovation in work teams. In P. B. Pau- lus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 202–224). New York: Oxford University Press. 144Argote, L., & Kane, A. (2003). Learning from direct and indirect organizations: The effects of experience content, timing, and distribution. In P. Paulus & B. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity. New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press; Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Hedlund, J. (1998). Extending the multilevel theory of team decision making: Effects of feedback and experience in hierarchical teams. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 269–282. 145Levine, J. M., & Choi, H.-S. (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. 146Li, N., Harris, T. B., Boswell, W. R., & Xie, Z. (2011). The role of organizational insiders’ developmental feedback and proactive personality on newcomers’ performance: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1317–1327.
M04_THOM4204_06_SE_C04.indd 106 10/24/16 9:09 PM
Chapter 4 • Team Cohesion and Trust 107
There are several “newcomer” roles: visitors, transfers, replacements, and consul- tants.147 Visitors are people who are expected to remain on the team for a short time and not viewed as instrumental to attaining long-term goals. Because they are viewed as lacking in commitment, their ability to change the team is muted.148 Transfers have recently belonged to a similar team and have expertise. Replacements take the place of former members. Consultants join the team to observe its work practices and suggest improvements.
turnovEr and rEorGanizations
One of the most frequently occurring but daunting challenges for teams is personnel turnover, defined as the entry of new members and/or the exit of old members.149 Turn- over represents a change in team composition that can have profound consequences for team performance because it alters the technical knowledge of the team, as well as the interpersonal dynamics. As might be expected, turnover disrupts group performance, especially when group members are reciprocally interdependent;150 when the group has low, rather than high, structure;151 and when the task is complex rather than simple.152
The decision to leave a group depends on opportunities that exist outside the group as well as threats that occur in one’s current group. In short, a group member might ask himself or herself, would it be easier to simply leave this group or should I stay with the team but argue about our differences? When people place a high level of esteem in their group, they are more likely to stay with the group and argue about their differences, but when they place a low level of esteem in their group, they are more likely to leave.153
147Arrow, H., & McGrath, J. E. (1995). Membership dynamics in groups at work: A theoretical framework. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 17, 373–411. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 148Gruenfeld, D. H., & Fan, E. T. (1999). What newcomers see and what oldtimers say: Discontinuities in knowledge exchange. In L. Thompson, J. Levine, & D. Messick (Eds.), Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; Gruenfeld, D. H., Martorana, P., & Fan, E. T. (2000). What do groups learn from their worldliest members? Direct and indirect influence in dynamic teams. Orga- nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 45–59. 149Levine, J. M., Choi, H.-S., & Moreland, R. L. (2003). Newcomer innovation in work teams. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 202–224). New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press. 150Naylor, J. C., & Briggs, G. E. (1965). Team-training effectiveness under various conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 223–229. 151Devadas, R., & Argote, L. (1995, May). Collective learning and forgetting: The effects of turnover and group structure. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL. 152Argote, L., Insko, C. A., Yovetich, N., & Romero, A. A. (1995). Group learning curves: The effects of turnover and task complexity on group performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 512–529. 153Martiny, S. E., Kessler, T., & Vignoles, V. L. (2012). Shall I leave or shall we fight? Effects of threat- ened group-based self-esteem on identity management strategies. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(1), 39–55.
M04_THOM4204_06_SE_C04.indd 107 10/24/16 9:09 PM
108 Part 1 • Building the Team
Chapter Capstone
We examined how people develop a group or team identity and the nature of how group and individual identities interact. Members of teams differ in terms of how attached they feel to one another, and these attachment styles can affect the behavior and performance of the team. Teams feel and express emotions,
and over time, team members develop simi- lar chronic emotions because of the process of contagion. We’ve focused on how to build cohesion in teams, and examined the types of trust that characterize relationships. Finally, we explored the socialization process by which teams admit newcomers.
M04_THOM4204_06_SE_C04.indd 108 10/24/16 9:09 PM
P A
R T TEAM
PERFORMANCEI I
M05A_THOM4204_06_SE_P02.indd 109 10/25/16 5:33 PM
M01A_THOM4204_06_SE_P01.indd 2 10/24/16 9:28 PM
This page intentionally left blank
111
In 2015, Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh sent out a long email to all 1,443 of his employees, urging them to take 30 minutes to read the details of what was known as Holacracy. Hsieh’s email delivered news that managers were being phased out of the company, though the main body of the letter used terms such as “teal organization”, “self-organization”, and “glass frog”—all new terms to the employees. At the end came the news that manager roles were no longer valued by the company structure and that employees had little more than a month to accept the new roles or leave the company with a severance package. In the following months, chaos and confusion reigned inside the company and 18% of the company workforce voluntarily accepted severance packages to leave, including 40% of a team working on a large technical infrastructure migration. With no bosses, work teams were replaced with “circles.” Employees start or join a circle based on the type of work they want to do and each circle has a “lead link” who is similar to a project manager but with limited authority. Circle members decide their roles and responsibilities in a series of governance meetings and track progress in tactical meetings. Many of the 269 ex-managers, upended by Holacracy, joined a circle called “Reinventing Yourself.” More than 300 circles were created in customer service, social media, Holacracy implementation, and in other areas. To smooth the transition, one executive took it upon herself to organize “Teal Talks” to help employees understand what it meant for the organization to go from “Green” to “Teal,” admitting that the CEO had no idea how people would take the news. “We’re doing now what we should have done months ago, before the offer was made, to prepare people and educate them,1” the executive said. With no hierarchical layering, meetings were more efficient, and one manager sped through 27 agenda items in 90 minutes.2
2Hodge, R.D. (2015, October 4). First, let’s get rid of all the bosses. New Republic. newrepublic.com; Silver- man, R.E. (2015, May 20). At Zappos, banishing the bosses brings confusion. The Wall Street Journal. wsj.com
1From First, Let’s Get Rid of All the Bosses by Roger D. Hodge, © October 5, 2015 New Republic
Performance and Productivity5
C h
a p
t e
r
M05B_THOM4204_06_SE_C05.indd 111 10/24/16 6:20 PM
112 Part 2 • Team Performance
Many leaders, like Tony Hsieh, are concerned about performance and team productivity. Several factors that need to be in place for successful teamwork include: talented people, motivation, and seamless coordination. Ideally, teams could benefit from a model or set of guidelines that would tell them how to organize and how to deal with inevitable threats to their goal achievement. Such a model would serve two purposes: descrip- tion, or the interpretation of events so that teams have an accurate analysis of the situ- ation; and prescription, or a recommendation on what to do to fix the situation. In this chapter, we introduce a model of team performance.
AN INTEGRATED MODEL OF TEAM PERFORMANCE
Exhibit 5-1 is a descriptive–prescriptive model of team performance. It tells us what to expect in terms of team performance and suggests ways to improve the functioning of teams. This chapter steps through each element of this model.
The message of the model is straightforward: The context of the team (referring to its internal processes, external constraints, and opportunities) influences three essential conditions for team success: expertise, engagement, and execution. These essential condi- tions are the causal determinants of the team’s ultimate performance, that is, whether it succeeds or fails. The remainder of this chapter is divided into three key sections corresponding to the three elements in the model: team context, essential conditions, and team performance.
TEAM CONTEXT
The team context includes the larger organizational setting within which the team does its work, the design of the team in terms of its internal functioning, and the culture of the team. Teams operate in a social context that shapes behavior. The team leader must
Exhibit 5-1 Integrated Model of Teamwork
Organizational Context
Team Context
Essential Conditions
Expertise • Knowledge • Skills • Education • Information
Engagement • Intrinsic • Extrinsic
Team Performance
• Productivity • Cohesion • Learning • Integration
Execution • Communication • Coordination
Team Design
Team Culture
Leigh L. thompson
M05B_THOM4204_06_SE_C05.indd 112 10/24/16 6:20 PM
Chapter 5 • Performance and Productivity 113
think not only about the internal functioning of the team (e.g., expertise, engagement, and execution) but also about the external functioning of the team, including the orga- nizational context and how the team interacts with other teams.
OrganizatiOnal COntext
The organizational context includes the basic structure of the organization (e.g., lateral and hierarchical), the information system, the education system, and the reward system. It includes the organizational policy and the material and physical resources required to accomplish group tasks. Even if a team has expertise, engagement, and execution skills, a lack of critical organizational infrastructure, such as information, tools, equip- ment, space, raw materials, money, and human resources, will hurt team performance. Teams ideally need a supportive organizational context that recognizes and welcomes their existence; responds to their requests for information, resources, and action; legiti- mizes the team’s task and how they are achieving it; and expects the team to succeed.3 A meta-analysis revealed that teams who perceive themselves to have high-performance managerial practices, sociopolitical support from the organization, and leadership are more likely to feel empowered, which ultimately leads to greater job satisfaction, orga- nizational commitment, higher task performance, and reduced turnover intentions.4 One element of the organizational context is climate. When group members regard the work climate to be unjust, they may engage in deviant behavior. The relationship between an injustice climate and deviant behavior is strongest when functional depen- dence among employees is low.5
team Design
Team design refers to the observable structure of the team (e.g., manager-led or self-managing). It refers to the leadership style within the team, functional roles, com- munication patterns, composition of the team, and the training of members. In contrast to the team’s culture, the team design is the deliberate, planful aspect of teamwork. Although the team’s culture evolves and grows and is not under the direct control of a manager, the design of a team is a deliberate decision, or choice made by the managers. Some managers may not realize that by not making decisions or leaving teamwork up to natural forces, they are in fact, designing their team.
team Culture
Culture is the personality of a team. Team culture includes the unspoken, implicit aspects of the team that are not discussed in a formal fashion but nevertheless, shape behavior. Roles, norms, and patterns of behaving and thinking are influenced by the team’s culture. One way in which teams develop their culture is by imposing ways of
3Bushe, G. R. (1984). Quality circles in quality of work life projects: Problems and prospects for increasing employee participation. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 3(2), 101–113. 4Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 981–1003. 5Priesemuth, M., Arnaud, A., & Schminke, M. (2013). Bad behavior in groups: the impact of overall justice climate and functional dependence on counterproductive work behavior in work units. Group & Organization Management, 38(2), 230–257.
M05B_THOM4204_06_SE_C05.indd 113 10/24/16 6:20 PM
114 Part 2 • Team Performance
thinking and acting that are considered acceptable. A norm is a generally agreed upon set of rules that guides the behavior of team members. Norms differ from organizational policies in that they are informal and unwritten. Often, norms are so subtle that team members are not consciously aware of them. Team norms regulate behaviors such as honesty, manner of dress, punctuality, and emotional expression. Norms can be either prescriptive, dictating what should be done, or proscriptive, dictating behaviors that should be avoided.
Norms that favor innovation or incorporate shared expectations of success may foster team effectiveness.6 Certain norms may exist in teams but not in the larger orga- nization. The attitudes of one’s closest peers (known as referent groups) strongly affect behaviors like absenteeism, more so than the norms established by the formal organi- zational units in which such referent groups are nested.7 In a classic study of organiza- tional norm setting, two teams in the Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne Works developed highly different norms, even though they were in the same shop. One group spent a lot of time in conversation and debate, played games involving small bets, and maintained uniformly high output. In contrast, the other group traded jobs (a prohibited activity), engaged in joking, and maintained uniformly low output.8
Norms develop as a consequence of precedent. The behaviors that emerge at a team’s first meeting often define how the team operates in the future—just look at the consistency of seating arrangements in business meetings. Norms also develop because of carryovers from other situations or in response to an explicit statement by a superior or coworker. They may also result from critical events in the team’s history. Goal contagion is a form of norm setting in which people adopt a goal held by others.9 Goal contagion is more likely between people who belong to the same group.10
ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS FOR SUCCESSFUL TEAM PERFORMANCE
A number of factors must be in place for a team to be successful.11 The team members must:
1. Possess the relevant expertise to perform the task. 2. Be engaged and motivated to perform the task. 3. Execute the task by coordinating with other team members.
Next, we discuss each of these essential conditions in greater detail.
6Cummings, T. G., & Mohrman, S. A. (1987). Self-designing organizations: Towards implementing quality-of-work-life innovations. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 1, pp. 275–310). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1987, Spring). Group effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan Management Review, 28(3), 25–31. 7Bamberger, P., & Biron, M. (2007). Group norms and excessive absenteeism: The role of peer referent others. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 179–196. 8Homans, G. (1950). The human group. New York: Harcourt Brace. 9Aarts, H., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Hassin, R. R. (2004). Goal contagion: Perceiving is for pursuing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 23–37. 10Loersch, C., Aarts, H., Payne, B. K., & Jefferis, V. E. (2008). The influence of social groups on goal contagion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1555–1558. 11Steiner, I. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press; Hackman, J. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorcsh (ed.). Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Criffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
M05B_THOM4204_06_SE_C05.indd 114 10/24/16 6:20 PM
Chapter 5 • Performance and Productivity 115
expertise
For teams to perform effectively, members must have the expertise, or KSAs (knowledge, skills, and ability), to accomplish the task.12 This requires that the manager appropriately match people with the right skills to the tasks at hand and to the organizational human resource structure itself. There are five crucial skills for team members:13
1. Conflict resolution—recognize and encourage task conflict but discourage rela- tionship conflict
2. Collaborative problem solving—recognize the obstacles to collaborative group problem solving and implement appropriate corrective actions
3. Communication—listen nonevaluatively and appropriately use active listening techniques
4. Goal setting and performance management—establish specific, challenging, and accepted team goals
5. Planning and task coordination—coordinate and synchronize activities, infor- mation, and task interdependencies between team members
TEAM MEMBER SKILLS One consistent predictor of team effectiveness is the team mem- bers’ cognitive ability. For example, the average level of team members’ cognitive abilities in military tank crews, assembly and maintenance teams, and service teams directly predicts their effectiveness. Trait conscientiousness also predicts effective team perfor- mance in assembly and maintenance teams and service teams.14
An effective team needs people not only with the technical skills necessary to perform the work but also interpersonal skills, decision-making skills, and problem- solving skills. Team members who demonstrate greater mastery of teamwork knowledge are also those who perform better in their teams. Field data from 92 teams in a U.S. Air Force officer development program revealed that teamwork knowledge increased task proficiency.15
TOO MUCH TALENT While most people believe that talent always helps performance, in a team setting too much talent can actually become detrimental, especially when the team must engage in a high degree of coordination to perform well. For example, the
12Stevens, M. A., & Campion, M. J. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management, 20, 503–530; Chen, G., Donahue, L. M., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Training undergraduates to work in organizational teams. Academy of Management: Learning and Education, 3(1), 27–40. 13From “The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork” by Michael J. Stevens and Michael A. Campion in Journal of Management, Vol. 20, No.2, 503-530, © 1994 SAGE Publications. 14Tziner, A., & Eden, D. (1985). Effects of crew composition on crew performance: Does the whole equal the sum of its parts? Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 85–93; 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, 377–391; Neuman, G. A., & Wright, J. (1999). Team effectiveness: Beyond skills and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 376–389; Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H., & Christiansen, N. D. (1999). The relationship between work-team personality composition and the job performance of teams. Groups and Organization Management, 24, 28–45. 15Hirschfeld, R., Jordan, M., Field, H., Giles, W., & Armenakis, A. (2006). Becoming team players: Team members’ mastery of teamwork knowledge as a predictor of team task proficiency and observed teamwork effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 467–474.
M05B_THOM4204_06_SE_C05.indd 115 10/24/16 6:20 PM
116 Part 2 • Team Performance
too-much-talent effect emerged when team members were highly interdependent (football and basketball players) but not when they were more independent (baseball players).16
LEARNING CURVES AND EXPERTISE The physical presence of other people is stimulating, and this greater arousal acts as a motivator on behavior. Whatever we might be doing, we do with more gusto when in the presence of other people, especially our team. How- ever, there is a catch: The presence of other people enhances performance for well-learned behaviors, but hinders performance for less well-learned behaviors. Thus, greater arousal or stimulation enhances our performance on well-learned tasks but hinders our perfor- mance on novel tasks. The presence of other people triggers one of two responses: challenge (if someone is an expert) or threat (if someone is not an expert). Choking under pressure occurs when a person’s performance declines despite incentives for optimal performance.17 Moreover, the cardiovascular responses of people performing a well-learned task in the presence of others provide physiological evidence that experts feel challenged—increased cardiac response and decreased vascular resistance.18 How- ever, if people are performing an unlearned task in the presence of others, they go into “threat mode”—increased cardiac response and increased vascular resistance. Consider for example, what happens to pool players when they are observed by others in pool halls.19 Novice players perform worse when someone is watching. In contrast, expert players’ games improve dramatically when they are observed. Similarly, joggers speed up on paths when someone is watching them and slow down when no one appears to be in sight.20 Additionally, people giving impromptu speeches perform worse in the presence of others than when alone.
SOCIAL FACILITATION VERSUS SOCIAL INHIBITION Social facilitation is the predictable enhancement in performance that occurs when people are in the presence of others. Social inhibition occurs when people are the center of attention and are concerned with discrepancies between their performance and standards of excellence. Thus, team leaders will actually make the performance of their team suffer if they apply performance pressure to people who are not yet an expert.
How can team players ensure that their behavior is the optimal response? There are two routes. Expertise is one way: Experts are trained to focus on what matters most. In order to combat the problems of overthinking, athletes use mental strategies such as singing or reciting mantras. For example, Calvin Johnson, former Detroit Lions receiver,
16Swaab, R. I., Schaerer, M., Anicich, E. M., Ronay, R., & Galinsky, A. D. (2014). The too-much-talent effect: Team interdependence determines when more talent is too much or not enough. Psychological Science, 25(8), 1581–1591. 17Baumeister, R. F., & Steinhilber, A. (1984). Paradoxical effects of supportive audiences on performance under pressure: The home field disadvantage in sports championships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(1), 85–93. 18Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., & Salomon, K. (1999). Social “facilitation” as challenge and threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 68–77. 19Michaels, S. W., Brommel, J. M., Brocato, R. M., Linkous, R. A., & Rowe, J. S. (1982). Social facilitation in a natural setting. Replication in Social Psychology, 4(2), 21–24. 20Worringham, C. J., & Messick, D. M. (1983). Social facilitation of running: An unobtrusive study. Journal of Social Psychology, 121, 23–29.
M05B_THOM4204_06_SE_C05.indd 116 10/24/16 6:20 PM
Chapter 5 • Performance and Productivity 117
prepared for each game by doing yoga.21 Speed skater Apolo Ohno yawned before a big race. When asked why by an interviewer, he attributed it not to fatigue, but to a psycho- logical part of his pre-race routine. “I want to be a lion,” he said with a smile.22 And, right-handed athletes improve their performance under pressure simply by activating certain parts of the brain by squeezing a ball or clenching their left hand just prior to competition.23
Practice and rehearsal is another strategy: It modifies the behavioral response hierarchy, so that the desired response becomes second nature. However, being an expert does not completely protect people from choking. In professional baseball and basketball championship series, the home team is significantly more likely to lose the decisive game than it is to lose earlier home games in the series. Why? The pressure to perform well causes people to focus their attention on the process of performing; there- fore, the focus of attention turns inward. The more pressure, the more inwardly focused people become. When people focus on overlearned or automated responses, it interferes with their performance.24 It is best to avoid trying to learn difficult material or perform complex tasks in groups because peer pressure will obstruct performance. However, if team members are experts, they will likely flourish under this kind of pressure. Practice not only makes perfect but also makes performance hold up under pressure.
PSYCHOLOGICAL FLOW At a precise point between boredom with a task and intense pres- sure is a state that psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi calls flow.25 See Exhibit 5-2.
Flow is a psychological state in which a person is highly engaged in a task. They are so interested in fact, that the person loses track of time, and the process of engaging in the task is its own reinforcement. Engagement is critical for flow. Engaged employees are more productive, more focused on the customer, safer, more profitable, and more satisfied with their jobs. In a typical organization, the ratio of engaged to disengaged employees is 2:1; in a highly productive organization, the ratio of engaged to disengaged employees is 9:1. According to the Gallup daily polling, 32% of employees in the U.S. are engaged, yet worldwide only 13% of employees working for an organization say they are engaged.26 Moreover, a meta-analysis of more than 152 organizations reveals that businesses with a high level of employee engagement have an earnings per share rate that is 3.9 times more than organizations with lower employee engagement within the same industry.27
21Sommer, S. (2016, March 16). 10 habits of highly successful athletes. Mens Journal. mensjournal.com 22From Why Apolo Ohno Keeps Yawning, © April 17, 2010 tinyjump. 23Beckman, J., Gropel, P., & Ehrlenspiel, F. (2013). Preventing motor skill failure through hemisphere-specific priming cases: Cases from choking under pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(3), 679–691. 24Lewis, B. P., & Linder, D. E. (1997). Thinking about choking? Attentional processes and paradoxical per- formance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(9), 937–944. 25Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Good business: Leadership, flow, and the making of meaning. New York: Viking Press. 26Mann, A., & Harter, J. (2016, January 7). The worldwide employee engagement crisis. Gallup. gallup. com; Flade, P., Harter, J., Asplund, J. (2014, April 15). Seven things great employers do (That other’s don’t). Gallup. gallup.com; Employee engagement: A leading indicator of financial performance. (2012). Gallup. gallup.com 27Employee engagement: A leading indicator of financial performance. (2012). Gallup. gallup.com
M05B_THOM4204_06_SE_C05.indd 117 10/24/16 6:20 PM
118 Part 2 • Team Performance
STRESS VERSUS CHALLENGE There is a fine line between challenge and stress. For exam- ple, people who strive to accomplish difficult goals may perceive their goal as a challenge, rather than a threat, and perform quite well. Challenge occurs when there is an opportu- nity for self-growth with available coping strategies; threat is experienced when the situ- ation is perceived as leading to failure with no available strategies for coping. For example, in one investigation, people evaluated companies’ stocks and had to make decisions quickly and accurately.28 The same level of goal difficulty impaired performance and adaptation to change when people appraised the situation as a threat, but it improved adaptation to change when people appraised the situation as a challenge.
engagement
It is not enough for members of a team to be skilled; they must also be engaged and moti- vated to perform. Motivation comes both from within a person and from external factors.
28Drach-Zahavy, A., & Erez, M. (2002). Challenge versus threat effects on the goal-performance relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 667–682.
Exhibit 5-2 The Flow Experience Based on Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience (p. 74). New York: harperCollins, © Leigh L thompson.
Skill Ability
C h al
le n g
e C
o m
p le
xi ty
High
Low
Low
High
Anxiety
Anxiety
Arousal
Flow
Control
Boredom
Arousal
Control
Boredom
Flow
Occurs when a task is too challenging for the person’s skill level
Occurs when a person is challenged by a task and has some of the skills necessary to achieve performance success; person is challenged by the task but also concerned about losing control; too little or too much arousal can adversely a�ect task performance
Occurs when a person feels energized and motivated to keep working at task because there is a match between the skills required for a challenging task and their expertise
Occurs when a person has complete mastery of a task but is not challenged; this can occur when the person repeatedly performs the task and does not have to make adjustments in order to accomplish the goal
Occurs when talented people are not challenged or are given tasks that are too mundane
M05B_THOM4204_06_SE_C05.indd 118 10/24/16 6:20 PM
Chapter 5 • Performance and Productivity 119
People by nature are goal directed, but a poorly designed team or organizational environ- ment can threaten team dedication and persistence. At certain times, members of a team may feel that their actions do not matter, that something always goes wrong to mess things up (e.g., a sports team on a losing streak), or that their input is not listened to. This can also happen if team members feel they are unable to affect their environment or cannot rely on others. The belief that the group has in themselves, or their group potency, is a significant predictor of actual performance.29 For example in one investigation, officer cadets completed a task in teams. Group potency, or “thinking we can,” contributed to group performance over and above measures of pure cognitive ability.30
MOTIVATION GAINS Motivation gains refer to circumstances that increase the effort expended by group members in a collective task. Motivational gains in which the less capable member works harder is known as the Köhler effect.31 A field study of relay swim- ming at the 2008 Olympics revealed that swimmers performed better (swam faster) when they were late in the relay position, rather than early.32 Those late in the relay apparently saw themselves as indispensable for the ultimate team outcome. The psychological mecha- nisms underlying the Köhler effect are social comparison (particularly when someone thinks that their teammate is more capable) and the feeling that one’s effort is indispensable to the group.33 Group members are willing to exert effort on a collective task when they expect their efforts to be instrumental in obtaining outcomes that they value personally.34 In particular, the weakest member of a team is more likely to work harder when everyone is given feedback about people’s performance in a timely fashion.35 Although motivation gains gradually start to attenuate, they remain higher when people work with several dif- ferent partners (as opposed to the same people).36 Motivation gains were also significantly greater when people worked in the physical presence of their coworker (as opposed to their virtual presence).37
SOCIAL LOAFING A more common observation in groups is motivation losses, also known as social loafing. A French agricultural engineer named Max Ringelmann was
29Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1987, Spring). Group effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan Management Review, 28(3), 25–31. 30Hecht, T. D., Allen, N. J., Klammer, J. D., & Kelly, E. C. (2002). Group beliefs, ability and performance: The potency of group potency. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 6(2), 143–152. 31Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. (1996). Social compensation and the Köhler effect: Toward a theoretical explanation of motivation gains in group productivity. In E. H. White & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Under- standing group behavior, Vol. 2: Small group processes and interpersonal relations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 32Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2011). When the whole is more than the sum of its parts: Group motivation gains in the wild. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2), 455–459. 33Kerr, N. L., Messé, L. M., Seok, D., Sambolec, E., Lount, R. M., & Park, E. S. (2007). Psychological mecha- nisms underlying the Köhler motivation gain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(6), 828–841. 34Karau, S., Markus, M., & Williams, K. (2000). On the elusive search for motivation gains in groups: Insights from the collective effort model. Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie, 31(4), 179–190. 35Kerr, N., Messé, L., Park, E., & Sambolec, E. (2005). Identifiability, performance feedback and the Köhler effect. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8(4), 375–390. 36Lount, R. M., Kerr, N. L., Messé, L. M., Seok, D., & Park, E. S. (2008). An examination of the stability and persistence of the Köhler motivation gain effect. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12(4), 279–289. 37Lount, R. B., Park, E. S., Kerr, N. L., Messe, L. A., & Seok, D. (2008). Evaluation concerns and the Köhler effect: The impact of physical presence on motivation gains. Small Group Research, 39(6), 795–809.
M05B_THOM4204_06_SE_C05.indd 119 10/24/16 6:20 PM
120 Part 2 • Team Performance
noncontributors who are displaying low effort but have high ability, than they are for those who display low ability and high effort.46
How do teams react once a free rider has been detected? If someone is not con- tributing, the other team members might attempt to reduce that person’s reward (e.g., not allow someone to put his or her name on the group report if he or she has not contributed) or reduce their own inputs (i.e., the other members of the group might stop working hard). People are more intolerant of free riders who they perceive as out- group members and are more permissive of in-group members.47 For these reasons, it is important to have clear sanctions for free riding in teams. Zappos takes deliberate measures to weed out potential free-riding employees. Any new employee who shows up late for the start of the daily 7 a.m. orientation meeting is fired on the spot. At the conclusion of the orientation, the new employees are tested on what they learned during their four-week indoctrination and must pass a final exam by answering 90% of the questions correctly or they are out of the job.48 Meaningful consequences emphasize
45Schippers, M. C. (2014). Social loafing tendencies and team performance: The compensating effect of agree- ableness and conscientiousness. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(1), 62–81.
46Gupta, N. (2012). Team responses to noncontributing members: The effects of attribution and knowledge overlap. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 16(3), 172. 47Hütter, M., & Diehl, M. (2011). Motivation losses in teamwork: The effects of team diversity and equity sensitivity on reactions to free-riding. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(6), 845–856. 48Greenfield, R. (2015, June 30). How Zappos converts new hires to its bizarre office culture. Bloomberg Business. bloomberg.com
interested in the relative efficiency of farm labor supplied by horses, oxen, machines, and men. In particular, he was curious about their relative abilities to pull a load hori- zontally, such as in a tug-of-war. In one of his experiments, groups of 14 men pulled a load, and the amount of force they generated was measured. The force that each man could independently pull was also measured. There was a steady decline in the average pull per member as the size of the rope-pulling team increased. One person pulling on a rope alone exerted an average of 63 kilograms of force. However, in groups of three, the per-person force dropped to 53 kilograms, and in groups of eight, it plummeted to only 31 kilograms—less than half of the effort exerted by people working alone.38 This detailed observation revealed a fundamental principle of teamwork: People in groups often do not work as hard as they do when alone. This is known as social loafing.
Team performance increases with team size, but the rate of increase is negatively accelerated, such that the addition of new members to the team has diminishing returns on productivity. Similar results were obtained when teams worked on intellectual puz- zles,39 creativity tasks,40 perceptual judgments, and complex reasoning.41 Social loafing has been demonstrated in many cultures, including India,42 Japan,43 and Taiwan.44 The general form of the social loafing effect is portrayed in Exhibit 5-3.
FREE RIDING People’s motivations often diminish in a team. Also, the larger the team, the less likely it is that any given person will work hard. For many team tasks, there is a possibility that others can, and will, do most or all of the work necessary for the team to succeed. This means that free riders benefit from the efforts of others while contrib- uting little or nothing themselves. Team members are sensitive to how important their efforts are perceived to be. When they think their contributions are not going to have much impact on the outcome, they are less likely to exert themselves on the team’s behalf. Moreover, if team members are working on a task that exceeds their skill level, the other members compensate for them—if they are high in conscientiousness. For example, in one investigation of student teams, team members high in conscientious- ness compensated for a social loafer in their group when he or she did not have the necessary skills.45 However, teams are much less likely to compensate for
38Ringelmann, M. (1913). Aménagement des fumiers et des purins. Paris: Librarie agricole de la Maison rustique. Summarized by Kravitz, D. A., & Martin, B. (1986). Ringelmann rediscovered: The original article. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 936–941. 39Taylor, D. W., & Faust, W. L. (1952). Twenty questions: Efficiency of problem-solving as a function of the size of the group. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 360–363. 40Gibb, J. R. (1951). Dynamics of participative groups. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado. 41Ziller, R. C. (1957). Four techniques of group decision-making under uncertainty. Journal of Applied Psychology, 41, 384–388. 42Werner, D., Ember, C. R., & Ember, M. (1981). Anthropology: Study guide and workbook. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 43Williams, K. D., & Williams, K. B. (1984). Social loafing in Japan: A cross-cultural development study. Paper pre- sented at the Midwestern Psychological Association Meeting, Chicago, IL. 44Gabrenya, W. K., Latané, B., & Wang, Y. (1983). Social loafing in cross-cultural perspective: Chinese on Taiwan. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 14(3), 368–384.
M05B_THOM4204_06_SE_C05.indd 120 10/24/16 6:20 PM
Chapter 5 • Performance and Productivity 121
noncontributors who are displaying low effort but have high ability, than they are for those who display low ability and high effort.46
How do teams react once a free rider has been detected? If someone is not con- tributing, the other team members might attempt to reduce that person’s reward (e.g., not allow someone to put his or her name on the group report if he or she has not contributed) or reduce their own inputs (i.e., the other members of the group might stop working hard). People are more intolerant of free riders who they perceive as out- group members and are more permissive of in-group members.47 For these reasons, it is important to have clear sanctions for free riding in teams. Zappos takes deliberate measures to weed out potential free-riding employees. Any new employee who shows up late for the start of the daily 7 a.m. orientation meeting is fired on the spot. At the conclusion of the orientation, the new employees are tested on what they learned during their four-week indoctrination and must pass a final exam by answering 90% of the questions correctly or they are out of the job.48 Meaningful consequences emphasize
45Schippers, M. C. (2014). Social loafing tendencies and team performance: The compensating effect of agree- ableness and conscientiousness. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(1), 62–81.
46Gupta, N. (2012). Team responses to noncontributing members: The effects of attribution and knowledge overlap. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 16(3), 172. 47Hütter, M., & Diehl, M. (2011). Motivation losses in teamwork: The effects of team diversity and equity sensitivity on reactions to free-riding. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(6), 845–856. 48Greenfield, R. (2015, June 30). How Zappos converts new hires to its bizarre office culture. Bloomberg Business. bloomberg.com
Exhibit 5-3 The Social Loafing Effect GreeNBerG, JeraLD, MaNaGING BehaVIOr IN OrGaNIZatIONS, 4th ed., ©2005. reprinted and electronically reproduced by permission of pearson education, Inc., Upper Saddle river, New Jersey.
High
The greater the number of people who work on a group task, the smaller the contribution any one member of the group will make
Low
Amount of Individual
E�ort Expended
One Person Working Alone
Number of People Working
Large Groups
Small Groups
M05B_THOM4204_06_SE_C05.indd 121 10/24/16 6:20 PM
122 Part 2 • Team Performance
the team’s core values: showing up and contributing. The leaders of these teams cor- rectly recognize that free riding and social loafing can be a serious threat to team productivity.
CAUSES OF FREE RIDING Why do people free ride in teams? Three reasons: diffusion of responsibility, a reduced sense of self-efficacy, and “sucker aversion.”
Diffusion of Responsibility In a team, a person’s effort and contributions are less identifi- able than when he or she works independently. This is because everyone’s efforts are pooled into the team enterprise and the return is a function of everyone’s contribution. It is difficult (or impossible) to distinguish one person’s contribution from another. At an extreme, this can lead to deindividuation—a psychological state in which a person does not feel personal responsibility. As a result, the person is less likely to perform or contrib- ute. Consider for example, a real-world case. A woman named Kitty Genovese was on her way home from work late one evening in New York.49 She was attacked by a man and stabbed to death. Thirty-eight of her neighbors in the apartment building where she lived saw the attacker approach and slay her but not a single person so much as called the police.
Most people attribute the neighbors’ lack of assistance to insensitivity. We might look at this however, from another perspective: People are more likely to free ride as the number of others in the group increases. Perhaps this is one reason why many people employed by companies that regularly committed accounting fraud did not blow the whistle. Observers in Kitty Genovese’s apartment building, who knew that others were also watching, felt less responsible and therefore, were less inclined to intervene. In effect, they told themselves, “someone else has probably already called for help.” Why inconvenience yourself when it is likely the woman will receive help from someone else? Of course, if everyone thinks this way, the probability that the victim eventually gets help decreases dramatically.
Reduced sense of self-efficacy In some cases, it is not diffusion of responsibility that hinders people from contributing to a team effort, but rather the feeling that our con- tributions will not be as valuable, efficacious, or worthwhile as they might be in a smaller group. We believe our contributions will not be sufficient to justify the effort. Consider for example, the problem of voting. Most everyone agrees that voting is necessary for democracy. However, the majority of people often don’t bother to vote. For example, in the 2015 parliamentary elections in Switzerland, only 48.4 percent of registered voters cast a vote. Midway through the contentious 2016 primaries for choosing candidates for the President of the United States, only 29 percent of registered voters had cast a vote.50 People may feel that their vote has such a small impact on the outcome that voting is not worthwhile. Similarly, team members may feel that they lack the ability to positively influence a team’s outcome. Indeed, when the least capable member of a team feels particularly indispensable for group success, the group actually experiences a sort of social striving effect, meaning that they work harder to achieve their goals.51
49Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 215–221. 50Voter turnout data for Switzerland, 2015. (2015). International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. www.idea.int; DeSilver, D. (2016, March 8). So far, turnout in this year’s primaries rivals 2008 record. Pew Research Center. pewresearch.org 51Hertel, G., Kerr, N. L., & Messe, L. A. (2000). Motivation gains in performance groups: Paradigmatic and theoretical developments on the Köhler effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 580–601.
M05B_THOM4204_06_SE_C05.indd 122 10/24/16 6:20 PM
Chapter 5 • Performance and Productivity 123
Sucker Aversion A common concern held by team members is whether someone will be left doing all of the work and getting little or no credit.52 Because everyone wants to avoid being taken advantage of, team members hedge their efforts and wait to see what others will do. Of course, when everyone does this, no one contributes. When people see others not contributing, it confirms their worst fears. The sucker effect becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. In contrast, the Protestant work ethic (PWE) holds that hard work leads to economic success.53 People with a strong PWE are not affected by the reasons for their partner’s low output. Whether it is a lack of ability or lack of motiva- tion, people with high PWE work hard, even if that means they are the “sucker.”54
REDUCING SOCIAL LOAFING Suppose you are managing a team that processes insurance claims. Prior to the formation of teams, you measure the average claim processing time and find it to be three days. After forming the teams, you find the average has increased to about nine days. Has your team fallen victim to social loafing? Your manager advises you to immediately dismantle the teams. Someone else tells you that the company’s incentive system needs to be overhauled. What do you think?
Before you dismantle the teams or restructure the company’s entire pay structure, consider the following:
Identifiability When each member’s contribution to a task is displayed where it can be seen by others (e.g., weekly sales figures posted on a bulletin board or email), people are less likely to loaf, or slack off, than when only overall group (or companywide) perfor- mance is made available.55 People often regard their fellow group members as a collec- tive rather than as individuals; if people think about the contributions made by each person in their group, they will be less likely to act in a self-interested fashion. The key is not identifiability per se, but rather the evaluation that identifiability makes possible.56 Indeed, many companies have replaced traditional end-of-year performance reviews with immediate feedback via real-time data.57 For example, Instacart and Pinterest use a real-time feedback tool, Reflektive, as an alternative to the traditional annual perfor- mance review. Reflektive allows employees to leave real-time feedback messages about any employee’s accomplishments, giving an ongoing peer review. At Pinterest, the tool is used to align team goals with the feedback received.58
52Kerr, N. L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social dilemma analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 819–828. 53Furnham, A. (1990a). The Protestant work ethic. New York: Routledge. 54Abele, S., & Diehl, M. (2008). Finding team mates who are not prone to sucker and free-rider effects: The Protestant work ethic as a moderator of motivation losses in group performance. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 11, 39–54. 55Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. (1981). Ringelmann revisited: Alternative explanations for the social loafing effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 224–231; Williams, K. D., Harkins, S. G., & Latané, B. (1981). Iden- tifiability as a deterrent to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(2), 303–311. 56Harkins, S. G., & Jackson, J. M. (1985). The role of evaluation in eliminating social loafing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 457–465; Harkins, S. G., & Szymanski, K. (1987). Social loafing and social facilitation: New wine in old bottles. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 57Cunningham, L. & McGregor, J. (2015, August 17). More U.S. companies moving away from traditional performance reviews. The Washington Post. washingtonpost.com 58Greenfield, R. (2015, October 12). What’s after annual performance reviews? Never-ending performance reviews. Bloomberg Business. bloomberg.com
M05B_THOM4204_06_SE_C05.indd 123 10/24/16 6:20 PM
124 Part 2 • Team Performance
Involvement Social loafing may be eliminated if the task is sufficiently involving,59 attractive,60 or intrinsically interesting.61 When tasks are highly specialized and routin- ized, monotony sets in. In contrast, when team members are responsible for all pieces of a work product or service, they feel more responsibility for the work. In one investiga- tion of a fund-raising organization, callers in an intervention group briefly interacted with a beneficiary. Callers in two control groups read a letter from a beneficiary or had no exposure to him. One month later, the intervention group displayed significantly greater persistence (142 percent more phone time) and job performance (171 percent more money raised) than the control groups.62
Challenging tasks may be particularly important for teams composed of people who are good at what they do or who believe that they are superior. Most people regard themselves to be superior on a number of intellective and social tasks. For example, the majority of people regard themselves to be better-than-average drivers;63 they also believe that they are more likely to have a better job.64 However, the positive illusion bias—unwarranted beliefs in one’s own superiority—can wreak havoc in teams. Work teams composed of people with strong motives to view themselves as distinctly more talented than others are likely to engage in social loafing when the task is unchallenging. In particular, people from individualistic cultures are most likely to have such motives.65 People who see themselves as above average are the most likely to engage in social loaf- ing because they have a false sense of the value of their contributions. Indeed, people who feel uniquely superior expend less effort when working collectively on easy tasks. However, they actually work harder when the task is challenging.
Rewards and Recognition Team members should recognize and reward contributions by individuals. At RockYou, a social game developer and advertising company, great ideas are recognized monthly with “You Rock Awards.” Peer nominations recognize employees for solving a problem, designing a game, or other innovations. You Rock nominees spin a wheel to choose an award, such as concert tickets, extra days off, or iPads.66 Similarly at Vertex Pharmaceuticals, employees get the highest possible compensation if they perform with passion and intensity, regardless of whether they meet the goal.67
59Brickner, M. A., Harkins, S. G., & Ostrom, T. M. (1986). Effects of personal involvement: Thought-provoking implications for social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(4), 763–770. 60Zaccaro, S. J. (1984). Social loafing: The role of task attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 99–106. 61Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Kasmer, J. (1985). Effects of need for cognition on social loafing. Paper presented at the Midwestern Psychology Association Meeting, Chicago, IL. 62Grant, A. M., Campbell, E. M., Chen, G., Cottone, K., Lapedis, D., & Lee, K. (2007). Impact and the art of motivation maintenance: The effects of contact with beneficiaries on persistence behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 53–67. 63Svenson, O. (1981). Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers? Acta Psychologica, 47, 143–148. 64Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion of well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210. 65Huguet, P., Charbonnier, E., & Monteil, J. (1999). Productivity loss in performance groups: People who see themselves as average do not engage in social loafing. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3(2), 118–131. 66Gannon, D. (2011, July 19). How to reward great ideas. Inc. inc.com 67Eban, K. (2014, March 13). What ails big pharma. Fortune. fortune.com
M05B_THOM4204_06_SE_C05.indd 124 10/24/16 6:20 PM
Chapter 5 • Performance and Productivity 125
Rewarding team members need not mean large financial incentives: Symbolic rewards can be more important than money. Sales managers may strategically use symbolic rewards, such as high-performer sales clubs or plaques and ceremonies honoring exemplary service, to deliver messages to the sales force. It is important for team members to feel appreciated and acknowledged by the members of their team as well as by the organization. There can be serious consequences if people feel they are not valued and respected, so much so that people are more likely to cheat and steal from the organization when they feel they have been unfairly treated.68 When people feel that they are respected by their superiors, they are more likely to contribute to the group’s welfare.69 Feeling respected is most important for members who feel the least included. Similarly, peer-based rational control, in which team members distribute economic rewards based on input from teammates, impacts performance. A field study of 587 factory workers in 45 self-managing teams at 3 organiza- tions revealed that peer-based rational control led to higher team performance.70
Team Cohesion Cohesive teams are less inclined to loaf.71 For example, when team managers’ and team members’ perceptions of organizational support are high and in agreement, performance increases, but when they are in disagreement, it decreases.72 Moreover, when team members know that they have a goal in common with other members, they are more likely to intensify their effort and motivation than when they are not aware of other members’ goals.73
Personal Responsibility When teams set their own performance goals, they are less likely to loaf.74 Teams who have empowering leadership feel more motivated and committed to their goal.75
Prosocial Motivation Prosocial motivation describes the state in which people desire to contribute to teams or collectives; pro-self motivation occurs when individuals seek to advance their own interests. Greater prosocial team motivation is linked to improved team performance and team OCBs (Organizational Citizenship Behaviors).76
68Greenberg, J. (1988). Equity and workplace status: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561–568. 69De Cremer, D. (2002). Respect and cooperation in social dilemmas: The importance of feeling included. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(10), 1335–1341. 70Stewart, G. L., Courtright, S. H., & Barrick, M. R. (2012). Peer-based control in self-managing teams: Link- ing rational and normative influence with individual and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 435–447. 71Williams, K. D. (1981). The effects of group cohesiveness on social loafing in simulated word-processing pools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42(2-B), 838. 72Bashshur, M. R., Hernandez, A., & Gonzalez-Roma, V. (2011). When managers and their teams disagree: A longitudinal look at the consequences of differences in perceptions of organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 558–573. 73Shteynberg, G., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). Implicit coordination: Sharing goals with similar others intensifies goal pursuit. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1291–1294. 74Brickner, M. A., Harkins, S. G., & Ostrom, T. M. (1986). Effects of personal involvement: Thought-provoking implications for social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(4), 763–770. 75Chen, G., Sharma, P. N., Edinger, S. K., Shapiro, D. L., & Farh, J. L. (2011). Motivating and demotivating forces in teams: Cross-level influences of empowering leadership and relationship conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 541–557. 76Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2015). Making a difference in the teamwork: Linking team prosocial motivation to team processes and effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1102–1127.
M05B_THOM4204_06_SE_C05.indd 125 10/24/16 6:20 PM
126 Part 2 • Team Performance
Team Charter At the outset of teamwork, members should develop a written statement of objectives and practices. This should be collectively written, posted, and most impor- tant, revisited regularly. In a study of MBA students competing in a business strategy simulation, those students who developed a team charter and invested in taskwork (performance strategies) outperformed teams that did not develop charters or strate- gies.77 Referred to as “stacking the deck,” laying a solid foundation of teamwork and taskwork is essential for sustained performance.
Team Performance Reviews and Feedback People often don’t realize that they are not doing their fair share. And they overestimate how much they contribute to collaborative endeavors.78 For these reasons, it is important to provide team members with clear and regular feedback. However, more is not always better. Feedback that is provided too frequently can overwhelm an individual’s cognitive resource capacity and ultimately reduce their motivation. Feedback frequency exhibits an inverted-U relationship with task performance, suggesting that moderate amounts of feedback, with sufficient pro- cessing time, are ideal.79
Team Size As the team gets larger and larger, free-riding increases. A field investigation of 212 knowledge workers within 26 teams, ranging from 3 to 19 members revealed that as team size increases, members experience relational loss, in which people feel that support is less available as team size increases.80 The larger the team, the less support team mem- bers feel they have, and this leads to diminished motivation and lower performance.
Suppose that you implement the preceding steps and your team’s performance is still less than what you think is possible, what should you do? Consider the third source of threats to productivity: execution problems.
exeCutiOn
Teams that have talent and motivation are well positioned to succeed. However, unless they are able to coordinate their talents and efforts, they may not achieve their objectives. Indeed, most of the threats to team productivity are attributable to execution problems, but managers, used to thinking in terms of expertise and engagement, fail to realize this—an example of the misattribution problem is discussed in Chapter 1.
Execution problems must be surmounted for a team to be effective. Team members may be individually good at what they do, but unless they coordinate their activities, they will not meet their team objectives. Successful execution involves the combined synchro- nization of the activities of all members. For example, after the devastating flooding in
77Mathieu, 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. 78Savitsky, K., Van Boven, L., Epley, N., & Wight, W. M. (2005). The unpacking effect in allocations of respon- sibility for group tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(5), 447–457. 79Lam, C. F., DeRue, D. S., Karam, E. P., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2011). The impact of feedback frequency on learning and task performance: Challenging the “more is better” assumption. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 116(8), 217–228. 80Mueller, J. S. (2012). Why individuals in larger teams perform worse. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 111–124.
M05B_THOM4204_06_SE_C05.indd 126 10/24/16 6:20 PM
Chapter 5 • Performance and Productivity 127
Texas in 2015, Red Cross volunteers worked with town officials in a coordinated fashion when roads were impassible: Sheriffs monitored when roads officially reopened and then let Red Cross response teams travel first through these roads leading team members to deliver supplies and food to those in need. When roads were too small and damaged to travel, team members hand-delivered supplies and food to everyone in need.81
Another example is a rowing team or a dance troupe—unless everyone is synchro- nized, they cannot achieve their performance goals, no matter how skilled and motivated the individuals. This is why teams often sing or chant to synchronize their movements and actions. Sir Adrian Cadbury, former chairman of Cadbury Schweppes, rowed in the 1952 Olympics. Sir Adrian took more than the lesson of timing from the world of rowing when he entered corporate life. “The beauty of racing in a crew is that you learn that any victory is the combined effort of everyone. In the same way company results reflect the performance of the whole firm.”82
Execution problems increase with team size and do so in an accelerating manner. The number of ways in which a team can organize itself (e.g., divide responsibilities, combine contributions, and coordinate efforts) increases rapidly as the team gets larger.83 Most people take coordination and communication in teams for granted. In other words, they do not anticipate that their handwriting will be misread by a teammate or that an email will be directed to a spam folder. People have a biased sense about the clarity of their own messages and intentions. They may not be as clear as they think they are. The problems in communication and coordination are compounded when the medium of communication is less rich, such as in email, text, and videoconferencing. What are some practical steps to ensure successful execution?
SINGLE-DIGIT TEAMS As the number of people on a team increases, it is that much harder to schedule meetings, move paperwork, and converge on ideas. The incidence of unanticipated failure increases. As a rule of thumb, teams should have fewer than ten members, and just enough to cover all needed skill areas.
AGENDAS Members need a clear sense of where they are going and how they will get there. If the team does not know where it is going, its efforts will be fragmented and members will waste time and energy.
TRAIN TEAM MEMBERS TOGETHER Team members who train together, as opposed to separately, work more effectively. This is because they have an opportunity to coordi- nate their strategies. A side benefit of training team members together is that training provides the opportunity to build trust.
81Maki, M. (2015, June 9). Texas flooding recovery: Stories from Red Cross volunteers. American Red Cross. redcrosschat.org 82From “Cadbury trusts in teamwork” by R. Phelps in Management Today, (c) Sunday, 01 September 1996 Haymarket Media Group. 83Kelley, H. H. (1962). The development of cooperation in the “minimal social situation.” Psychological Mono- graphs: General and Applied, 76(19), 1–19.
M05B_THOM4204_06_SE_C05.indd 127 10/24/16 6:20 PM
128 Part 2 • Team Performance
DIRECT COMMUNICATION For most tasks, it is better for team members to directly com- municate with the intended recipient, rather than going through others. This becomes a challenge when team members have different statuses. Ronen Shilo, CEO of Israel’s Conduit, does not want team members to “get all twisted up about level-jumping”84 and, so, encourages people to put aside the organizational chart and come to him with ideas and issues, even those who do not formally report to him.85
CLEAR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Every team needs clear performance standards. In the absence of performance standards, it is impossible to evaluate the effectiveness of a team. Ideally, team members should receive objective feedback, based on hard facts and deliverables.
How does a manager know whether a team is performing effectively? If this ques- tion is hard to answer, then it will be difficult to build a high-performance team and diagnose problems before they threaten team performance. Furthermore, even if you happen to be in the fortunate position of working on a successful team, unless you understand what makes your team effective, you may make the wrong choices or be indecisive at inopportune times.
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
What are the criteria by which we should evaluate team effectiveness? By performance criteria, we mean those factors used to evaluate the success or failure of a team effort, including: productivity, cohesion, learning, and integration.86
prODuCtivity
Productivity is arguably the most important measure of team success. Did the team achieve its goals? The most important determinant of team success is whether the team has a clear and elevating goal.87 Team productivity requires that the team has a clear goal, adapting accordingly as new information arrives, goals change, and organizational priorities shift. This also holds true for changes in the marketplace—for example, the entrance or exit of a competitor or a stock market plunge. There are many dimensions to productivity: What was the team’s output? How does the output correspond to the team’s original goals? How quickly or timely were results achieved? How effective was the outcome? What is the correspondence between the team output and a measurable accomplishment (such as improved market share and new product development) by the organization? Efficiency is also important. If the team’s goals were accomplished, at what cost did this happen? Was it worth it? The productivity of a team is highly cor- related with its goals, as well as the ability of the team to adapt, change, and
85Shilo, R. (2011, December 28). 8 essential business rules for those who don’t believe in rules. Fast Company. fastcompany.com
84From Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances by J. Richard Hackman, © 2002 Harvard Business Press.
86Hackman, J. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorcsh (ed.). Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Gruenfeld, D. H. (1998) Personal communication. 87Lafasto, F. M. J., & Larson, C. E. (2001). When teams work best: 6,000 team members and leaders tell what it takes to succeed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
M05B_THOM4204_06_SE_C05.indd 128 10/24/16 6:20 PM
Chapter 5 • Performance and Productivity 129
accommodate the goals in the face of new information, changing organizational priori- ties, and the changing marketplace.
It is not enough that the team is satisfied with the output or even that it meets some objective performance measure. Does the team’s output meet the standards of those who have to use it? If the team’s output is unacceptable to those who have to use it, the team is not effective. For these reasons, it is important to identify the legitimate clients of the team. The various end users who depend on the team’s output may focus on different performance standards (e.g., quantity, quality, cutting costs, innovation, and timeliness). At the Mayo Clinic, the best interest of the patient is the only interest to be considered. All employees know that the needs of the patient come first, and the entire organization is dedicated toward that goal.88
COhesiOn
A second major criterion on team performance is team cohesion. The word cohesion derives from the Latin word cohaesus, meaning to cleave or stick together. In physics and chemistry, cohesion refers to the force(s) binding molecules of a substance together. For teams, cohesion refers to the processes that keep members of a team (e.g., military unit, or work group) united.89 Did the team work together well, and are its members better able to work together in the future as a result of this experience? Are team members’ needs more satisfied than frustrated by the group experience,90 and “is the capacity of members to work together on subsequent group tasks enhanced or maintained”?91 Cohesion is a consistent predictor of team performance within project teams,92 but not necessarily service teams.93 Sometimes teams meet their goals, but relationships suffer and conflicts are not dealt with in a way that allow members to work productively together in the future: “Mutual antagonism could become so high that members would choose to accept collective failure rather than to share knowledge and information with one another.”94 In an effectively functioning team, the capability of members to work together on future projects is maintained and strengthened.
It is worthwhile to ask why team cohesion is important as opposed to being just a nice side benefit. For example, if a team puts a person on the moon, is this not a success
88Lee, A. (2008, September 8). How to build a brand. Fast Company. fastcompany.com 89Dion, K. (2000). Group cohesion: From “field of forces” to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 7–26. 90Sundstrom, E. D., Demeuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45(2), 120–133. 91From WORK REDESIGN Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley by J. R. Hackman and G. R. Oldham xxvii + 330 pp, © 1980 SAGE Publications. 92Gillespie, D. F., & Birnbaum-More, P. H. (1980). Status concordance, coordination and success in inter- disciplinary research teams. Human Relations, 33(1), 41–56; Greene, C. N. (1989). Cohesion and productivity in work groups. Small Group Behavior, 20, 70–86; Keller, R. T. (1986). Predictors of the performance of project groups in R&D organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 715–725. 93Sundstrom, E. D., Mcintyre, M., Halfhill, T., & Richards, H. (2000). Work groups: From the Hawthorne studies to work teams of the 1990s and beyond. Group Dynamics, 4, 44–67. 94From “Groups that work (and those that don’t): creating conditions for effective teamwork” by iJ. Richard Hackman in Jossey-Bass management series, © 23 Aug 2007 The University of Michigan.
M05B_THOM4204_06_SE_C05.indd 129 10/24/16 6:20 PM
130 Part 2 • Team Performance
regardless of whether the team was cohesive? If the team effort is really and truly a one- time effort, then maximizing team cohesion may not be necessary. However, most of us want to build teams that will last for some meaningful length of time. If team members do not enjoy working on a team, future performance will suffer.
learning
In addition to the functioning of the team as a whole, learning is also important. As anyone who has attended an executive education course can testify, cohesion may be present but learning may be absent. Simply stated, teams should provide growth and development opportunities for the individual needs of the members. People have a need for growth, development, and fulfillment. Some teams operate in ways that block the development of individual members and the satisfaction of personal needs. In short, members’ needs should be more satisfied than frustrated by the team experi- ence. Teams should be sensitive to members and provide opportunities for members to develop new skills. This does not mean that teams or organizations exist to serve individual needs; rather, successful organizations create opportunities that challenge individual members.
integratiOn
Another perspective is that of the larger organization. Thus, a fourth criterion of team performance is integration. Does the organization benefit from the team? In many instances, the team becomes so self-serving that it loses sight of the organization’s larger goals. (This is most likely the case with teams that have greater autonomy.) This can occur when the team’s goals are incompatible with those of other departments or areas. If, for instance, a company’s sales force dramatically improves sales over a short time, this does the company no good. In fact, it could even hurt the company if the manufacturing group cannot fulfill the promises made by the sales force or if the technical support group cannot handle the new customer calls. This is an example where the sales strategy backfires at the organizational level.
In other cases, different teams in the organization may reinvent things already developed by the organization because they are not able to learn from outside their group. It is important for teams to understand the organization’s goals to work effectively toward them. Teams need to integrate with other units in the organization. Practically, this means that teams must disseminate information, results, status reports, failures, expertise, and ideas in a timely and efficient manner. Achieving integration requires solid planning and coordination with the rest of the company.
In summary, there are many ways a team can perform well and unfortunately, more ways for it to be ineffective. Exhibit 5-4 summarizes the team performance analy- sis, which can be performed by team members or team leaders. The relative importance of each of the four criteria varies across circumstances, and there is no single best set of conditions for optimizing performance. Teams are governed by the principle of equifinality—a team can reach the same outcome from various initial conditions and by a variety of means.95 It is important for every team leader to think about which criteria are important when evaluating teamwork and to specify those in an a priori fashion.
95Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
M05B_THOM4204_06_SE_C05.indd 130 10/24/16 6:20 PM
Chapter 5 • Performance and Productivity 131
Conduct a performance analysis of your team using the following four criteria as a baseline. Remember, you don’t have to wait until the team is finished with its task to begin an evaluation. It is actually best to continually assess performance as the team is working toward its goal.
PRODUCTIVITY
• Does the team have a clear goal? • What objective performance measures have been established at the outset of teamwork? • Who are the legitimate clients of the team? • Does the team’s output (e.g., decisions, products, and services) meet the standards of
those who have to use it? • Under what conditions should the goal change? • What sources of information should the team consider to assess whether the initial goal
might need to be changed?
COHESION
• Do the team members enjoy working together? • What conditions could lead to feelings of resentment? • What conditions could prevent team members from working together in the future? • How are team members expected to accommodate changes, such as additions to the team,
growth, and turnover?
LEARNING
• Do the individual team members grow and develop as a result of the team experience? • Do team members have a chance to improve their skills and develop themselves? • What factors and conditions could block personal growth? • Are individuals’ growth needs understood and shared by group members? • How can team members best learn from one another?
INTEGRATION
• How does the team benefit the larger organization? • Are the team’s goals consistent with those of the larger organization? • What other groups, departments, and units are affected by the team? • What steps has the team taken to integrate its activities with those of others?
Exhibit 5-4 Team Performance Analysis
Based on Leading high impact teams. team leadership survey from the Kellogg School of Management executive program by Leigh thompson in Northwestern University, evanston, IL., © Leigh L thompson
TEAM PERFORMANCE EQUATION
Now that we have discussed the four critical measures of team performance and the three key ingredients for team success, we can put them together in a single equation for the leader to use when assessing team performance:
AP = PP + S - T
Where AP = actual productivity
PP = potential productivity
S = synergy
T = performance threats
M05B_THOM4204_06_SE_C05.indd 131 10/24/16 6:20 PM
132 Part 2 • Team Performance
The actual productivity of a team is a function of three key factors: The potential productivity of the team, synergy, and threats. The first factor, the potential productivity of a team, depends on three subfactors: task demands, the resources available to the team, and the team process.
Task demands are the requirements imposed on the team by the task itself and the rules governing task performance. Task demands determine both the resources needed for optimal performance and how to combine resources. Resources are the relevant abilities, skills, and tools possessed by people attempting to perform the task. Process concerns the way teams use resources to meet task demands. Team process describes the steps taken by the team when attempting the task and includes nonpro- ductive as well as productive actions. The task demands reveal the kinds of resources needed, the resources determine the team’s potential productivity, and the process determines the degree of potential realized.
Synergy refers to everything that can, and does, go better in a team as compared with individuals working independently.96 Performance threats refer to everything that can go wrong in a team. Unfortunately, teams often fall below their potential; there is considerable process loss, or underperformance, due to coordination problems and motivational problems.97 Leaders can more easily control threats than synergies. Syner- gies can emerge, but they usually take more time than anyone expects. Therefore, the leader’s job is to set the stage for synergies by attempting to minimize all possible threats.
96Collins, E. G., & Guetzkow, H. (1964). A social psychology of group processes for decision making. New York: Wiley. 97Davis, J. (1969). Group performance. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; Laughlin, P. R. (1980). Social combination processes of cooperative problem-solving groups on verbal interactive tasks. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Progress in social psychology (Vol. 1). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates; Steiner, I. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.
Chapter Capstone
Putting teams on a course to achieve success requires managing the internal dynamics of teams (expertise, engagement, and execu- tion), as well as the external relations of teams within the larger organization. One of the most effective things a manager can do to ensure that team success is to take a proactive approach and undertake an analysis of the essential conditions affecting team perfor- mance. One of the biggest managerial short- comings in terms of teamwork is a failure to account for threats to team performance. This is unfortunate because managers can more easily control threats than synergies. Leaders
want their teams to satisfy the end user or client, but they also need to make sure that teamwork is satisfying and rewarding for the members. If the team does not enjoy work- ing together, sustaining long-term productiv- ity will be impossible. Moreover, managing a team successfully must include managing and investing in the individual team mem- bers. As organizations move toward flatter structures and greater team empowerment, the possibility arises that team goals may become incongruent with those of the larger organization. A successful team is integrated with the larger organization.
M05B_THOM4204_06_SE_C05.indd 132 10/24/16 6:20 PM
133
It took one scientist to come up with the theory of gravitational waves but more than a thousand scientists to prove it. Albert Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves more than 100 years ago, as part of his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein’s world-changing theory stated that space and time curve in the presence of mass and that this curvature produces the effect known as gravity. When two black holes orbit each other they stretch and squeeze, creating vibrations known as gravitational waves. Even Einstein had doubts about the concept, so it was a scientific moment on par with the moon landing when an “explosion” was heard by LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) detectors in Louisiana and Washington in 2015, after 50 years of efforts to capture the waves. LIGO was constructed in 1990 (amid much controversy about money being wasted because of the completely theoretical nature of gravitational waves) and refined for 25 years. Over the years, more than a thousand scientists from 14 countries were involved with the project. Engineers learned how to create a pure vacuum for detecting sounds. U.S. scientists worked with German teams to create more sensitive lasers and enormous mirrors for capturing data. Teams of scientists from around the world analyzed data, searching in vain for positives within the collected data. Within LIGO itself, validation groups reviewed how instruments were calibrated, took apart software code, and were cognizant of charting worldwide environmental disturbances that affected listening parameters. But the most secretive was a small group whose job it was to create “blind injections” or false evidence of gravitational waves to keep scientists on point. “We didn’t know what, when or who,”1 said a fellow scientist. The refinements paid off when a newly improved detector, mere hours after going online, detected waves from a black hole collision 1.1 billion years ago. The implications for understanding the nature of the universe are enormous.2
1From Gravitational waves exist: The inside story of how scientists finally found them” by Nicola Twilley in The New Yorker, © FEBRUARY 11, 2016 Conde Nast. 2Abel, D. (2016, February 12). For the first time, the universe is heard. The Boston Globe. bostonglobe.com; Twilley, N. (2016, February 11). Gravitational waves exist: The inside story of how scientists finally found them. The New Yorker. newyorker.com
Team Communication and Collective Intelligence
6 C
H A
P T
E R
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 133 10/24/16 9:13 PM
134 Part 2 • Team Performance
Effective communication is essential for high-performance teamwork. However, as teamwork grows more specialized, communication and knowledge-sharing become more difficult. This chapter examines how team members communicate and develop mental models for understanding tasks and processes. We discuss team mental models, transactive memory systems, knowledge sharing and describe the information-depen- dence problem—the fact that team members depend on one another for critical infor- mation and knowledge. We do an in-depth exploration of transactive memory systems (TMS), which are the ways in which team members encode, store, and retrieve critical information necessary for doing their work. Finally, we make some recommendations for team learning.
COLLABORATION
Functionally diverse teams are composed of people who have different information, knowledge, and expertise and must share and integrate it. Collaboration is the art and science of sharing and using knowledge. Collaborative problem solving requires that groups generate new information and make inferences that no individual group member could have inferred. In this regard, three types of inferences might be distinguished: individual (generated by a single team member), shared (generated by the group, who all possess the information), and collaborative (new information that can be inferred from individual members’ information). Groups are best able to generate inferences from shared information, followed by individual information, but are least adept at generating collaborative inferences. One strategy for improving the quality of pooled information during collaborative problem solving is by allowing individual group members the time to internally recall and record details of personal experience or observation that can be shared later with the group as a whole. Another strategy that improves collaborative problem solving is following a process script of information gathering and sharing. This structured script or training regimen allows each group member to experience the same process and problems, establishes time for individual and group work phases, and encourages positive argument construction.3 Several factors can threaten the ability of teams to accurately share and use knowledge.
Uneven CommUniCation
The uneven communication problem refers to the fact that in virtually any group, a handful of people do the majority of the talking. For example, in a typical five-person group, two people do more than 60 percent of the talking; in a six-person group, three people do about 60 percent of the talking; and in a group of eight, four people do more than 80 percent of the talking.4 Unfortunately, people who do the majority of the talking might not be the people who are the most informed about the problem. Exhibit 6-1 plots the percentage of communication attributed to each member in groups of 3–8 members; in all cases, communication is uneven and skewed.
3Deiglmayr, A., & Spada, H. (2010). Collaborative problem-solving with distributed information: The role of inferences from interdependent information. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(3), 361–378. 4Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 134 10/24/16 9:13 PM
Chapter 6 • Team Communication and Collective Intelligence 135
Knowledge SpeCialization
Knowledge specialization, such as that present in cross-functional teams, has both posi- tive and negative outcomes. Compared to group members with shared expertise, mem- bers with unique expertise feel out of the loop, particularly when their expertise is given less weight in group decisions.5 However, members who possess unique expertise do not decrease their likelihood of emerging as a leader.
Knowledge Sharing and Knowledge hiding
Team members can either engage in explicit knowledge sharing which leaves little room for interpretation, or they might engage in tacit knowledge sharing which requires receivers to make a series of inferences. Team members who have dissimilar expertise from their teammates are more likely to exhibit creativity when the team as a whole engages in tacit, rather than explicit knowledge sharing, but when members have similar expertise to their teammates, explicit knowledge sharing leads to more creative idea generation.
Knowledge hiding occurs when people conceal knowledge from others. This triggers a reciprocal distrust loop in which teammates are unwilling to share
5Jones, E. E., & Kelly, J. R. (2013). The psychological costs of knowledge specialization in groups: Unique expertise leaves you out of the loop. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(2), 174–182.
Exhibit 6-1 Distribution of Participation as a Function of Group Size Based on Shaw, M.E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill; Bales, R.F, Strodtbeck, F.L., Mills, T.M., & Rosenborough, M.E. (1951). Channels of communication in small groups. American Sociological Review, 16, 461-468, © Leigh L. Thompson.
0
20
40
60
80
100
P er
ce nt
o f T
ot al
S pe
ec h
A ct
s
4 person group
3 person group
5 person group
7 person group
6 person group
8 person group
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 135 10/24/16 9:13 PM
136 Part 2 • Team Performance
knowledge. Moreover, the very act of hiding knowledge reduces the concealer’s own creativity.6
tranSforming Knowledge into SolUtionS
Absorptive capacity is a person’s ability to transform new knowledge into usable knowledge. Absorptive capacity involves knowledge assessment, knowledge assimila- tion, and knowledge application. For example, team members high in absorptive capac- ity agree with statements such as the following: “The people in my team are able to decipher the knowledge that is most valuable to us” (assessment), “The shared knowledge in my team makes it straightforward to understand new material in our technical areas” (assimilation) and “My team can adapt our work to utilize new technical knowledge” (application).7 According to information elaboration theory, functionally diverse teams need to transform their breadth of knowledge into actionable solutions.8 Both cognitive ability and low prefer- ences for self-reliance increase information elaboration in teams in turbulent environments.9
experienCed CommUnity of praCtiCe
Experienced community of practice is the extent to which a person is engaged with the given practice community.10 Key indicators of involvement in relevant knowledge communities include the following: open communication among members (e.g., “I feel comfortable communicating freely with others in my technical specialty”); a shared vocabulary (“There is a common understanding within my technical specialty of the words and meanings that are used within the technical specialty”); recall of previous lessons (“Participating in meetings with members of my technical specialty helps me to remember things we have learned”); and learn- ing from one another (“I learn new skills and knowledge from collaborating with others in my technical specialty”).11
Field studies reveal that teams high in knowledge-sharing practices have higher customer satisfaction and better performance.12 A meta-analysis of 4,795 groups revealed
6Černe, M., Nerstad, C.G. L., Dysvik, A., & Škerlavaj, M. (2014). What goes around comes around: Knowledge hiding, perceived motivational climate, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 172–192. 7From “Developing and Validating Field Measurement Scales for Absorptive Capacity and Experienced Com- munity of Practice” by David Cadiz, John E. Sawyer, Terri L. Griffith in Educational and Psychological Measurement vol. 69 no. 6 1035-1058, (c) December 2009 SAGE Publications. 8Van Knippenberg, D., Dreu, C. D., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008–1022. 9Resick, C.J., Murase, T., Randall, K.R., & DeChurch, L.A. (2014). Information elaboration and team per- formance: Examining the psychological origins and environmental contingencies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124(2), 165–176. 10Cadiz, D., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffith, T. L. (2009). Developing and validating field measurement scales for absorp- tive capacity and experienced community of practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 1–23. 11From “Developing and Validating Field Measurement Scales for Absorptive Capacity and Experienced Com- munity of Practice” by David Cadiz, John E. Sawyer, Terri L. Griffith in Educational and Psychological Measurement vol. 69 no. 6 1035-1058, (c) December 2009 SAGE Publications. 12Griffith, T., & Sawyer, J. (2010). Multilevel knowledge and team performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(7), 1003–1031.
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 136 10/24/16 9:13 PM
Chapter 6 • Team Communication and Collective Intelligence 137
that information sharing in groups predicted team performance.13 In one investigation, a comparison of businesses operating under the same industry conditions examined how executives in each business understood, searched for, and used knowledge to create unique advantages for their firms. The strategic outcomes of firms were predicted by each manager’s understanding of the company’s micro-level knowledge processes. In particular, not only do senior leaders differ in their beliefs about what information is available in their companies, but also how their beliefs lead to different scanning orienta- tions. In particular, knowledge becomes a strategic resource when managers engage in proactive scanning (mindful and rich search efforts) and then put that knowledge into practice via knowledge adaptation (clever, improvisational solutions to problems) and knowledge augmentation (challenging, changing, and expanding knowledge).14
adaptive CapaCity
Adaptive capacity refers to a team’s ability to adapt their strategy in the face of change and upheaval. For example, in a simulation in which teams managed a new city that required growth strategies but were then abruptly switched to manage a city that was already estab- lished and required revitalization strategies, the teams that formed similar and accurate strategy mental models and shared goal-relevant information were more successful.15
monitoring and talKing to the room
Two implicit coordination behaviors emerge within teams working in high-risk environ- ments: team member monitoring and talking to the room. Talking to the room is defined as undirected talk to relay relevant information or comment about the perfor- mance of real-time self behavior.16 For example, an investigation of 27 anesthesia teams revealed that higher-performing teams were those in which a team member’s monitoring was followed by speaking up, giving assistance, and talking to the room.17
TEAM MENTAL MODELS
Mental models are mental representations of the world that allow people to under- stand, predict, and solve problems in a given situation.18 Mental models can represent
13Mesmer-Magnus, J. R, & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 535–546. 14Nag, R., & Goia, D. A. (2012). From common to uncommon knowledge: Foundations of firm-specific use of knowledge as a resource. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 421–457. 15Randall, K. R., Resick, C. J., & DeChurch, L. A. (2011). Building team adaptive capacity: The roles of sense- giving and team composition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 525–540. 16Kolbe, M., Künzle, B., Zala-Mezö, E., Burtscher, M. J., Wacker, J., Spahn, D. R., & Grote, G. (2010, August). The functions of team monitoring and ‘talking to the room’ for performance in anesthesia teams. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings,54(12), 857–861. 17Kolbe, M., Grote, G., Waller, M.J., Wacker, J., Grande, B., Burtscher, M.J., & Spahn, D.R. (2014). Monitoring and talking to the room: Autochthonous coordination patterns in team interaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1254–1267. 18Gentner, D., & Gentner, D. R. (1983). Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates; Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1980). Mental models in cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 4(1), 71–115; Rouse, W., & Morris, N. (1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 359–363.
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 137 10/24/16 9:13 PM
138 Part 2 • Team Performance
a simple physical system, such as the trajectory of a thrown object, and also can represent a complex social system, such as an organization or financial system.
A team mental model is a common understanding that members of a group share about how something works.19 Team members have mental models about the work they do, and about the operation of their team. Mental models develop through the process of role identification behaviors (through which team members share information regard- ing their specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities).20 Teams with a cognitive founda- tion, such as a mental model, perform better than teams that lack a cognitive foundation.21
refleCtive vS. reflexive mental modelS
Reflective mental models (C-system) are formed through reasoning and deliberation; in contrast, reflexive mental models (X-system) are more automatic, intuitive, and affective in nature.22 X-system representations pertaining to the team’s task and mem- bers can compete with shared C-system mental models. For example, even when team members have similar C-system mental models, their X-system representations might not be similar; or vice versa, producing illusory concordance (i.e. thinking they agree when they don’t) or surface discordance (believing that they disagree when in fact they do agree).23
repreSentational gapS
A team that has a large representational gap has inconsistent views about the defini- tion of the team’s problem or task, such that team members have different mental models about the task. In one investigation, a large cross-functional project team at a U.S. automobile manufacturer was studied. The vehicle design team was composed of more than 200 members responsible for all aspects of auto design, engineering, and future model production. The vehicle team was subdivided into small teams, each responsible for a specific component or system of the car (e.g., body and chassis). Inten- sive study of these teams and how they worked on a day-to-day basis revealed that task disagreement was a necessary part of team functioning. The greater the representational gap, the more teams disagreed about a task24 (see Exhibit 6-2). To effectively close rep- resentational gaps in cross-functional teams, teams should share some degree of col- lective understanding about a problem so that they can “translate” their own knowledge
19Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1997). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20(2), 403–437. 20Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J., & Bell, B. S. (2010). Building the infrastructure: The effects of role identifica- tion behaviors on team cognition development and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 192–200. 21DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 32–53. 22Healey, M.P., Vuori, T., & Hodgkinson, G.P. (2015). When teams agree while disagreeing: Reflexion and reflection in shared cognition. Academy of Management Review, 40(3), 399–422. 23Ibid. 24Weingart, L. R., Cronin, M. A., Houser, C. J. S., Cagan, J., & Vogel, C. (2005). Functional diversity and conflict in cross-functional product development teams: Considering representational gaps and task characteristics. In L. Neider & C. Schriesheim (Eds.), Understanding teams (pp. 89–100). Greenwich, CT: IAP.
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 138 10/24/16 9:13 PM
Chapter 6 • Team Communication and Collective Intelligence 139
bases.25 Team members who are motivated to learn about others’ perspectives are more successful than those who are less motivated.
aCCUraCy
Suppose that you are asked to explain how the thermostat in your house operates.26 According to one (erroneous) model, the “valve” model, the thermostat works much like the accelerator in a car. People who hold a valve mental model of a thermostat rea- son that just as greater depression of the accelerator causes the car’s speed to increase at a faster rate, turning the thermostat setting to high temperatures causes the room temperature to increase at a faster rate.
A different (and correct) mental model is the “threshold” model, in which the heat is either on or off and the thermostat setting determines the duration for which the heat is on. The greater the discrepancy between the current room temperature and the thermostat setting, the longer the heat will be on. These two models have different impli- cations for how people set the thermostat in their homes. People with valve models will continually adjust their thermostat setting in an effort to reach a comfortable room tem- perature. In contrast, those with threshold models will determine at what temperature they are comfortable and set the thermostat to only one or two settings per day, a night- time setting and a daytime setting. Thermostat records revealed that people’s models of how thermostats operate predicted the stability of their actual thermostat settings.
25Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. (2007). Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 761–773. 26Kempton, W. (1986). Two theories of home heat control. Cognitive Science, 10, 75–90; Kempton, W. (1987). Two theories of home heat control. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Exhibit 6-2 A Model of Cross-Functional Product Development Team Conflict and Performance
From “Functional diversity and conflict in cross-functional product development teams: Considering repre-sentational gaps and task characteristics” from Understanding teams. In L. Neider & C. Schriesheim (Eds.) by Weingart, L. R., Cronin, M. A., Houser, C. J. S., Cagan, J., & Vogel, C. (pp. 89–100). Copyright (c) 2005 by IAP. Reprinted by permission of Information Age Publishing.
Cognitive Integration
A�ective Integration
Functional Diversity
Representational Gaps
Task Disagreement
Task Characteristics
Conflict Management Techniques
• Interests • Rights • Power
Design Discussion Quality • Transaction costs • Outcome satisfaction • Relationship • Recurrence of conflict
Team Performance • Innovativeness • Timeliness • Budget adherence • Product quality
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 139 10/24/16 9:13 PM
140 Part 2 • Team Performance
The use of an incorrect mental model can result in inefficient or undesirable outcomes. People with an incorrect mental representation of a thermostat as a valve will spend greater time and effort adjusting the thermostat setting. In addition, they will be perpetually uncomfortable because they will be either too warm or too cold.
One investigation examined the cognitive styles of team members performing a navigation and identification task.27 Teams high in spatial visualization were more process-focused than teams high in object visualization, and greater process focus was associated with fewer errors.
CorreSpondenCe
Effective teams adapt to external demands and anticipate other members’ information needs because of shared or compatible knowledge structures or team mental models. For example, when novel or unexpected events are encountered (such as when one airplane enters another’s airspace), teams that cannot overtly strategize must rely on preexisting knowledge and expectations about how the team must perform to cope with task demands. The greater the overlap or commonality among team members’ mental models, the greater the likelihood that team members will predict the needs of the task and team, adapt to changing demands, and coordinate activity with one another suc- cessfully.28 For example, the negative effects of fatigue on air crew performance can be overcome when crews develop interaction patterns over time.29 An investigation of 69 software development teams revealed that “expertise coordination”—the shared knowl- edge of who knows what—was a key predictor of team performance over and above expertise and administrative coordination.30 And, transformational leadership behaviors are associated with team mental model similarity (correspondence) and greater similarity predicts team efficacy.31
Consider Perrow’s description of the Cuyahoga disaster in his book on “normal accidents”32: On a dark evening in the fall of 1978, two vessels in the Chesapeake Bay sighted and approached each other. One vessel was the Coast Guard vessel, The Cuyahoga, whose captain assumed the approaching boat was a small fishing vessel. The captain thought he only saw 2 lights on the vessel, meaning the boat was going in
27Aggarwal, I. & Woolley, A.W. (2013). Do you see what I see? The effect of members’ cognitive styles on team processes and errors in task execution. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(1), 92–99. 28Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. A. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J. Castellan (Ed.), Individual and group decision making (pp. 221–246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates; Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Converse, S. A. (1991). Toward an integration of training theory and technique. Human Factors, 33(3), 281–292. 29Foushee, H. C., Lauber, J. K., Baetge, M. M., & Comb, D. B. (1986). Crew factors in flight operations: III. The operational significance of exposure to short-haul air transport operations (NASA TM 88322). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center. 30Faraj, S., & Sproull, L. (2000). Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management Science, 46(12), 1554–1568. 31Ayoko, O. B., & Chua, E. L. (2014). The importance of transformational leadership behaviors in team mental model similarity, team efficacy, and intra-team conflict. Group & Organization Management, 39(5), 504–531. 32Perrow, C. (1984). Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies (p. 215).
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 140 10/24/16 9:13 PM
Chapter 6 • Team Communication and Collective Intelligence 141
the same direction as his ship. The Cuyahoga’s First Mate, however, saw 3 lights, a signal for an approaching vessel. The first mate thought the captain had made the same assessment as he had, so he didn’t question the captain as the ships grew closer. The captain wrongly assumed the other fishing vessel was one he could pass and ordered a turn to port. This misjudgment of approach caused the Cuyahoga to collide with what turned out to be a large cargo vessel, and the collision caused the deaths of 11 sailors on the Cuyahoga.33 Clearly, the captain’s mental model was incorrect. In addi- tion, there was a lack of correspondence between the captain and the first mate’s mental models.
In one investigation of 83 teams working on a complex skill task over a 2-week train- ing protocol, both mental model accuracy and mental model correspondence were tested.34 Accuracy was the stronger predictor of team performance. And, the teams’ ability was related more strongly to accuracy than to mental model correspondence.
TRANSACTIVE MEMORY SYSTEMS
A transactive memory system (TMS) is a shared system for attending to, encoding, storing, processing, and retrieving information.35 Think of TMS as a division of mental labor. When each person learns in some general way what the other people on the team might know in detail, team members can share detailed memories. In essence, each team member cultivates the other members as external memory, and in doing so, they become part of a larger system. A TMS develops implicitly in many teams to ensure that important information is not forgotten. A TMS is a combination of two things: knowledge possessed by particular team members and awareness of who knows what. In this way, a TMS serves as an external storage device, such as a library or computer, that can be visited to retrieve otherwise unavailable information. Teams that have a TMS have access to more and better information than any single group member has alone. A TMS is beneficial to small groups that use quality as a performance measure, but more beneficial to large groups, groups in dynamic task environments, and groups in volatile knowledge environments that involve time as a critical performance measure.36
Team members instinctively expect that the “experts” on the team will remember the details most closely associated with their area of expertise. Even when the experts are not so clearly defined, people specialize in remembering certain kinds of informa- tion, and it is generally understood by all members of the team (although often implic- itly) which person is to remember what. This way of processing information provides
34Edwards, B., Day, E., Arthur, W., & Bell, S. (2006). Relationships among team ability composition, team mental models, and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 727–736.
33Based on Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies, Charles Perrow (pp. 215) Princeton University Press, 2011, © Leigh L. Thompson.
35Wegner, D. M. (1986). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp.185–208). New York: Springer-Verlag; Wegner, D. M., Giuliano, T., & Hertel, P. (1995). Cognitive interdependence in close relationships. In W. J. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp. 253–276). New York: Springer-Verlag. 36Ren, Y., Carley, K., & Argote, L. (2006). The contingent effects of transactive memory: When is it more beneficial to know what others know? Management Science, 52(5), 671–682.
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 141 10/24/16 9:13 PM
142 Part 2 • Team Performance
an advantage to teams because they collectively remember and use more information than individuals acting on their own—even the same number of individuals considered separately.
Centralized vS. deCentralized tmS
Teams perform better when their members know who is good at what.37 For example, when bank loan officers review the financial profiles of various companies and predict whether each company will go bankrupt, diversity in expertise and the ability of groups to recognize expertise improve predictions.38 Unexpected problems can be solved faster and with more ease when members know who is good at what.39 Such knowledge allows team members to match problems with the people most likely to solve them. People learn and recall more information in their own area of expertise when their partner has different, rather than similar, work-related expertise.40 One investigation compared groups who were trained to use their knowledge to solve problems with individuals to groups with no training. The groups who were trained to share information had more effective dialogues, were better able to recognize which members had expertise, and had better performance.41
Metaknowledge in TMS is the knowledge of “who knows what.” In some teams, metaknowledge is concentrated within one central member (centralized TMS); whereas in other teams, metaknowledge is distributed evenly among members (decentralized TMS). Centralized metaknowledge offers teams a performance advantage over decen- tralized metaknowledge because the central member can act as a catalyst for information exchange and integration.42
differentiated vS. integrated tmS
Another distinction of TMS is differentiated TMS and integrated TMS.43 Differentiated knowledge structures connect knowledge distributed across team members, such that different items of information are stored in different individual memory stores, but individuals know the general locations of the information they do not hold personally. In contrast, integrated knowledge structures connect knowledge common to all team
37Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D., & Wittenbaum, G. M. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 244–265. 38Libby, R., Trotman, K. T., & Zimmer, I. (1987). Member variation, recognition of expertise, and group per- formance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(1), 81–87. 39Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1992). The composition of small groups. In E. J. Lawler, B. Markovsky, C. Ridgeway, & H. A. Walker (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 9, pp. 237–280). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 40Hollingshead, A. B. (2000). Perceptions of expertise and transactive memory in work relationships. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3(3), 257–267. 41Bonner, B. L. & Baumann M. R. (2012). Leveraging member expertise to improve knowledge transfer and demonstrability in groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(2), 337–350. 42Mell, J.N., Van Knippenberg, D., & Van Ginkel, W.P. (2014). The catalyst effect: The impact of transactive memory system structure on team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 1154–1173. 43Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In Theories of Group Behavior (pp. 185–208). New York: Springer New York.
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 142 10/24/16 9:13 PM
Chapter 6 • Team Communication and Collective Intelligence 143
members, such that the same items of information are held in different individual mem- ory stores and the individuals are aware of the overlap because they share location information as well.
taCit Coordination
Tacit coordination is the synchronization of members’ actions based on assumptions about what others on the team are likely to do. Task-oriented groups rarely discuss plans for how to perform their tasks unless they are explicitly instructed to do so.44 Team members’ attempts to coordinate tacitly begin prior to interaction. Evaluating the com- petence of other team members however, can be difficult. Claims of personal competence by coworkers cannot always be trusted because they might reflect members’ desires to impress one another.45 Accepting coworkers’ evaluations of one another’s competence can be risky as well because these secondhand evaluations are often based on limited information46 and might reflect impression-management efforts by the people who pro- vide them.47 TMS eliminates much of the coordination loss that can plague team effec- tiveness.48 Teams that have a transactive memory structure because their members are familiar with one another are less likely to fall prey to the common information effect compared with teams composed of previously unacquainted persons.49
roUtine vS. nonroUtine taSKS
In one investigation, the completion times of teams of doctors performing total joint replacements in hospital surgeries were examined.50 Three types of learning were exam- ined: organizational experience (i.e., the number of times that kind of procedure had been performed), individual experience (i.e., the number of times a given person on a given team had performed the surgery), and team experience (i.e., the number of times any two people on a team had performed the surgery together). If successful surgical procedures were simply a function of accumulated expertise, then “team learning” should not matter. However, it does: The more times people have worked together as a
44Hackman, 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: Academic Press. 45Gardner, W. L. (1992). Lessons in organizational dramaturgy: The art of impression management. Organi- zational Dynamics, 21(1), 33–46. 46Gilovich, T. (1987). Secondhand information and social judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23(1), 59–74. 47Cialdini, R. B. (1989). Indirect tactics of image management: Beyond basking. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates. 48Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. (1998). Training people to work in groups. In R. S. Tindale, J. Edwards, E. J. Posavac, F. B. Bryant, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, E. Henderson-Kling, & J. Myers (Eds.), Theory and research on small groups. New York: Plenum Press. 49Gruenfeld, Mannix, Williams, & Neale, “Group composition and decision making.” 50Reagans, R., Argote, L., & Brooks, D. (2005). Individual experience and experience working together: Pre- dicting learning rates from knowing who knows what and knowing how to work together. Management Science, 51(6), 869–881.
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 143 10/24/16 9:13 PM
144 Part 2 • Team Performance
team, the faster (and smoother) is their surgery. For example, holding all other kinds of experience constant, a team whose members have performed 10 total knee replacements together takes 5 percent less time to complete the procedure when compared to a team that is just as accomplished but that has no experience in working together.
The benefits of TMS are not limited to teams that perform routine tasks. For example, emergency response teams, such SWAT and tactical police teams who have a TMS are better able to coordinate and adapt, resulting in better performance.51
reSilienCe to team member loSS
Teams with well-developed TMS are better equipped to withstand the unplanned loss of a team member. A study of 78, four-person teams engaged in a command-and-control simulation revealed that TMS positively affected team performance following the loss of a member.52 However, the benefits of TMS are reduced following the loss of a critical team member because team members have more difficulty engaging in plan formation.
reaCtion to free-riding
Teams with an integrated TMS structure more often perform the job for a noncontribu- tory member, whereas teams with a differentiated structure more often facilitate the team member in performing his or her job.53 Teams with a differentiated TMS suffer more negative socioemotional interactions, lower cohesion and greater conflict than teams with an integrated TMS.
developing a tmS
WORK PLANNING Teams spend a disproportionate amount of their time together doing the task, rather than deciding how it should be done. Teams whose members will work together should plan their work. The data on medical errors at St. Francis Hospital in Hartford, Connecticut revealed the importance of planning: The more times a nurse had to leave the operating room to get something, the higher the patient infection rate.54 That discovery led to a new team process of preparing for surgery.
TRAINING Training is one of the most effective ways of ensuring that groups quickly and accurately develop a TMS, and thereby protect team effectiveness. For example, federal work- hour caps to reduce training were established in 2003 in teaching hospitals that trained medical residents. A subsequent study found that patient complications in neurological brain
51Marques-Quinteiro, P., Curral, L., Passos, A.M., & Lewis, K. (2013). And now what do we do? The role of transactive memory systems and task coordination in action teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 17(3), 194–206. 52Christian, J.S., Pearsall, M.J., Christian, M.S., & Ellis, A.P.J. (2014). Exploring the benefits and boundaries of transactive memory systems in adapting to team member loss. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 18, 69–86. 53Gupta, N. (2012, August). Team responses to noncontributing members: The effects to noncontributing members: The effects of attribution and knowledge overlap. Group Dynamics Theory Research and Practice, 16(3): 172–188. 54Becker, A. L. (2012, May 28). Checklists, teamwork minimizing mistakes in medicine. The Connecticut Mirror. ctmirror.org
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 144 10/24/16 9:13 PM
Chapter 6 • Team Communication and Collective Intelligence 145
tumor units increased by 2 percent in the 5-year period after the new regulations, compared to the five years previous, suggesting that training was imperative for patient care.55
A fundamental question that companies face is whether to train individuals inde- pendently or as part of a team. As a guiding principle, there should be a high degree of correspondence between workers’ experiences during training and their experiences on the job. The key reason is that similar conditions will facilitate the transfer of knowledge learned in training to how individuals actually carry out their job. Training can be spe- cifically geared toward developing specific TMS structures. For example, teams can plan who will be responsible for what types of information; they can also make explicit efforts to discern expertise and then make that information known to members. Transactive memory training might be especially important when team members will work together only for a single project or when the team interacts with several other teams across the organization. It is important to align the unit of work—for example, individual, small team, and large group—with the unit that is being trained. Therefore, when small teams work together, they should train together; when large groups work together, they should train together; when individuals work alone, it might be best to train them individually.
If a company has limited resources for training, it is important that employees who will work together receive their technical training together. If that is not feasible, the train- ing that they do undergo together should be directly connected to the work they will do together. Merely having workers undergo interpersonal skills training together (which is largely divorced from the real work they will do together) can undermine performance. The key to effective learning in most situations is the receipt of timely and effective feedback.
EXAMPLE OF TRAINING IN WORK GROUPS As an illustration of the effect of a TMS on performance, simulated work groups were asked to assemble AM radios as part of a training experience.56 Training was organized in two ways: (1) individually-based train- ing (as is common in many companies) and (2) group training, in which groups of three people worked together. In the training phase, all individuals and groups received identi- cal information. Groups were not given any instructions in terms of how they should organize themselves. The only difference was whether people were trained alone or as part of a group.
Exactly one week later, the participants were asked to assemble the radios again. This was more difficult because no written instructions were provided, as had been the case in the training phase. In this part of the investigation, everyone was placed into a three-person team, given the parts of the radio, and asked to assemble it from memory. This meant that some of the groups were composed of people who had trained individu- ally and others of those who had trained with a team. Thus, any difference in performance between the two types of groups would be attributable to the differences in training.
Not surprisingly, the groups that had trained together performed dramatically bet- ter. They were more likely to complete the assembly and did so with fewer errors. The intact groups performed better than did the ad hoc groups because they were able to tap into the TMS that had developed spontaneously during training.
55Dumont, T. M, Tranmer, B. I., Horgan, M. A., & Rughani, A. I. (2012). Trends in neurosurgical complica- tion rates at teaching vs. nonteaching hospitals following duty-hour restrictions. Neurosurgery, 71(5), 1041. 56Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. (1996). Socially shared cognition at work. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Brower (Eds.), What’s social about social cognition? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 145 10/24/16 9:13 PM
146 Part 2 • Team Performance
A TMS and an emphasis on team training are most relevant to tactical teams (i.e., teams that carry out a procedure) as opposed to creative or problem-solving teams. Thus, if a team is assembling radio parts, operating machinery in a coal mine, flying a jetliner, or performing heart surgery, it greatly benefits the members to have trained together on the job. (See Exhibit 6-3 for a case analysis of training effectiveness.)
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
At a certain factory that assembles radios, a consultant was called in to assess variations in performance. To create healthy within-company competition, workers were organized into self-managing teams. There were four such teams in the plant, but performance varied dramatically across the four teams. What was the problem?
The consultant began her investigation by asking for information about how the different teams were trained. She uncovered four distinct training programs used by each of the teams. Upon interviewing each team in the plant, she found that each team was convinced that its method was the best one. When the consultant con- fronted teams with the evidence pointing to clear differences in performance, the team identified a number of countervailing factors that could have affected their performance. The managers were particularly concerned because the company was about to hire and train four new plant teams, and they did not know which method would be best. The consultant devised the following test using the radio assembly task. Everyone in the entire plant received identical technical training and ultimately performed in a three-person group. However, certain aspects of the training were systematically varied. The consultant tracked the following teams:
• Red team: Members of the red team were trained individually for one day. • Blue team: Members of the blue team were given individual training for one day and then,
the entire team participated in a two-day team-building workshop designed to improve cohesion and communication.
• Yellow team: Members of the yellow team were given group training for one day but were reassigned to different teams on the test day.
• Green team: Members of the green team were given group training for one day and remained in the same team on test day.
TEST DAY
On test day, the consultant wanted to capture the four key measures of team performance outlined in Chapter 5. While the hiring organization seemed primarily interested in productivity—as measured by number of units successfully completed—the consultant also was interested in assessing other indicators of team performance, such as cohesion, learning, and integration.
The consultant first asked each team to recall as much as they could about the training. In short, each team was asked to reconstruct the assembly instructions from memory. The consultant used this as a measure of organizational memory. The consultant then asked each team to assemble the radios without the benefit of any kind of written instructions. Thus, each team was forced to rely on the training principles they had learned and (hopefully) remembered. Results were timed so that each team could be evaluated with respect to both efficiency and how accurately they met specifications.
Then, the consultant asked each team member to evaluate other team members in terms of their task expertise. This was a measure of the tendency to specialize in remembering distinct aspects of the task, as well as who was regarded by all team members as having a relevant skill. The consultant videotaped each team during the critical test phase and documented how smoothly members worked together in terms of the principles of coordination. Specifically, did members drop things unintentionally on the floor? Lose parts? Bump elbows? Repeat questions and directions? Question each others’ expertise and knowledge? Or alternatively, did the team work together seamlessly?
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 146 10/24/16 9:13 PM
Chapter 6 • Team Communication and Collective Intelligence 147
Exhibit 6-3 Case Analysis of Different Types of Training Effectiveness
Based on Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. (1996). Socially shared cognition at work. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Brower (Eds.), What’s social about social cognition? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Liang, D. W., Moreland, R. L., & Argote, L. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(4), 384–393, © Leigh L. Thompson.
The videos revealed the level of team motivation and also allowed the consultant to document things such as how close members of the team sat to one another and the tone of their conversation. Finally, the consultant recorded the “We-to-I” ratio, or the number of times team members said “we” versus “I” an implicit measure of team identity and cohesion. What do you think happened?
OUTCOME
The green team outperformed all of the other teams in terms of accuracy of completion.
DEBRIEF WITH MANAGERS
One of the managers found it difficult to believe that team training received by the blue team in the area of cohesion and interpersonal skills did not make an appreciable difference. “We spend a lot of money every year trying to build trust and cohesion in our teams. Is this going to waste?” The consultant then shared the information shown in “Effects of Various Training Methods on Assembly Errors.”
The results in the graph directly compare teams with a total of six weeks of working intensively with one another on cohesion-building (non-technical skill-building) tasks with teams who are virtual strangers, with the exception of having trained together. The fewest number of errors were made by groups who trained with one another and then performed together; having special training in cohesion on top of that does not seem to matter much.
0 10 20 30
Individual (Red Team)
E�ects of Various Training Methods on Assembly Errors
Team-Building (Blue Team)
Changed to Di�erent Group (Yellow Team)
Stable Group (Green Team)
Assembly Errors
Ty pe
o f T
ra in
in g
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 147 10/24/16 9:13 PM
148 Part 2 • Team Performance
GROUP TRAINING In tactical and problem-solving teams, members who work and train together perform better than do teams whose members are equally skilled but do not train together.57 Team member change causes high levels of coordination loss when teams have key roles and when members change to a more strategically core role.58 In contrast, team training increases performance by facilitating recognition and utilization of member expertise.
The importance of work group familiarity vis-à-vis training is hard to overestimate. For example, familiarity among team members is associated with fewer accidents and fatalities among pairs of crew members working closely together in coal mines (e.g., miner operators and miner helpers).59 Although familiarity with the terrain has some- what more impact than personnel similarity, the latter factor is clearly important, espe- cially when teams work in less familiar terrain. Familiarity is associated with higher levels of crew productivity, even after labor, technology, and environmental factors are taken into account.60
STRESS REDUCTION Acute stress affects team mental models and transactive memory in teams.61 In one investigation, the performance of 97 teams working on a command- and-control simulation was negatively affected when teams were under acute stress. However, stressors that were regarded as a challenge (challenge stressor) improved performance and transactive memory; hindrance stressors negatively affected perfor- mance (even when combined with a challenge stressor).62 Similarly, when nuclear power plant control room crews were examined in a simulated crisis, higher-performing crews were more adaptable in terms of exhibiting fewer, shorter, and less complex interaction patterns.63
COMMON INFORMATION EFFECT
By pooling their different backgrounds, training, and experience, team members have the potential to work in a more informed fashion than would be the case if the decision were relegated to any single person. The fact that team members are dependent on one
57Hollingshead, A. B. (1998). Group and individual training. Small Group Research, 29(2), 254–280; Littlepage, G., Robison, W., & Reddington, K. (1997). Effects of task experience and group experience on group per- formance, member ability, and recognition of expertise. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 133–147. 58Summers, J. K., Humphrey, S. E., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). Team member change, flux in coordination, and performance: Effects of strategic core roles, information transfer, and cognitive ability. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 314–338. 59Goodman, P. S., & Garber, S. (1988). Absenteeism and accidents in a dangerous environment: Empirical analysis of underground coal mines. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(1), 81–86. 60Goodman, P. S., & Leyden, D. P. (1991). Familiarity and group productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(4), 578–586. 61Ellis, A. (2006). System breakdown: The role of mental models and transactive memory in the relationships between acute stress and team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 576–589. 62Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J., & Stein, J. (2009). Coping with challenge and hindrance stressors in teams: Behavioral, cognitive, and affective outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(1), 18–28. 63Stachowski, A., Kaplan, S. A., & Waller, M. J. (2009). The benefits of flexible team interaction during crises. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1536–1543.
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 148 10/24/16 9:13 PM
Chapter 6 • Team Communication and Collective Intelligence 149
another for information is the information dependence problem. As an example of information dependence in groups and the dire consequences it can have, consider the case in Exhibit 6-4.
When the team consists of members who come from different functional areas— with different areas of expertise, different information, different priorities, and different perceptions of problems and opportunities—the information dependence problem is exacerbated.
Suppose a three-member top-executive committee is charged with the task of hiring a new manager for an important division. The company has determined that six pieces of information are critical to evaluate for this position:
• Previous experience (A) • Academic grades (B) • Standardized test scores (C) • Performance in Round 1 interview (D) • Cultural and international experience (E) • Letters of recommendation (F)
The committee has narrowed the competition to three candidates. As is standard practice in the company, members of the hiring committee specialize in obtaining partial information about each candidate. Consider three possible distributions of information (see Exhibit 6-5):
• Non-overlapping case Each partner has unique information about each candidate.
• Distributed, partial overlap Each partner not only knows something about each candidate that others also know (common information) but also knows some unique information.
In 1955, Jonas Salk announced the development of the first polio vaccine. In the previous year before Salk’s public announcement for launching efforts for nationwide vaccination, the Centers for Disease Control convened a group of six vaccine manufacturers. These manufacturers met with the Division of Biological Standards, Jonas Salk, and a number of other experts to discuss issues related to the production of the vaccine. Some of the manufacturers shared with the group that they had encountered problems during their efforts to inactivate the virus during the manufactur- ing processes. One of the manufacturers began to explain how his company’s process had been more effective and successful at inactivating the virus. Early in this representative’s explanation, a member from another vaccine manufacturer left the room to take a phone call and came back after the discussion was finished. Within 2 weeks of the start of the nationwide vaccination program, the Centers for Disease Control began to receive reports of polio. Significantly, the children who had received the vaccine 6 to 8 days earlier had contracted polio, almost without exception, in the leg or arm where they had received the polio vaccination. Of the half-dozen reported cases, the con- taminated vaccine, containing the live virus, was manufactured in the lab of the representative who took the phone call during the pivotal discussion on inactivating the virus.
Exhibit 6-4 Information Dependence Probelm
Based on Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, F. M. J. (1989). Teamwork: What must go right/what can go wrong. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Copyright 1989 by Sage. Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications, © Leigh L. Thompson.
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 149 10/24/16 9:13 PM
150 Part 2 • Team Performance
• Fully shared case Each partner knows full information about each candidate. In this sense, the partners are informational clones of one another.
The only difference among these three cases is the information redundancy, or how equally the information is distributed among decision makers. The collective intel- ligence of the partners is identical in all three cases. Does the distribution of information affect the way the partners make decisions? In a rational world, it should not, but in real teams, it does. The impact of information on the aggregate decision of the team is directly related to the number of members of the team who know the information prior to making a group decision. Simply put, the main determinant of how much a given fact influences a group decision is not the fact itself, but rather, how many people hap- pen to be aware of this fact prior to group discussion. This team fallacy is known as the common information effect.64
This means that even though (in an objective sense) the six pieces of information are really equally important, the top management group will tend to overemphasize information (such as A and C in the distributed case) more than is warranted.
64Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1997). The impact of information on small group choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 132–140.
Exhibit 6-5 Three Possible Distributions of Information
A, B, C, D
A, B, C, E A, C, D, F
A, D
B, E C, F
A, B, C, D, E, F
A, B, C, D, E, FA, B, C, D, E, F
Distributed (partial) overlap: A, C: Common to all 3 people
B, D: Shared by 2 people E, F: Unique to 1 person
Non-overlapping: No overlap of information
between 3 people
Fully shared: All information fully shared by
all 3 people
Leigh L. Thompson
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 150 10/24/16 9:13 PM
Chapter 6 • Team Communication and Collective Intelligence 151
The common information effect has several important consequences. First, team members are more likely to discuss information that everyone knows, as opposed to unique information. This often means that technical information (which is often not fully shared) is not given the weight that experts believe it should have. Information that people have in common is not only more likely to be discussed but it also gets discussed for a longer period of time, and this too can exert a significant bias on the integrity of decision making. People are better at remembering information they have read or described more than information they hear from others.65 The result is that teams often fail to make the decision that would be supported if all the team members had full information about the choices.
hidden profile
A hidden profile is a superior decision alternative, but its superiority is hidden from group members because each member has only a portion of the information that supports this superior alternative.66 Stated another way, the information held in common by group mem- bers favors a particular choice, whereas the unshared information contradicts the choice.
For the sake of example, let’s consider an executive meeting, in which three can- didates (Alva, Jane, and Bill) are under consideration for promotion to partner in the organization. Each of the three candidates has been with the company for some number of years; each has made a different number and type of accomplishments. The executive group can promote only one person for the position at this time.
The group can benefit the organization by pooling individual members’ informa- tion so as to gain a complete picture of the qualifications of each candidate. This is particularly important when individual members of the decision-making team are biased by virtue of their own agendas.
Information that is known to only one or a few members often will be omitted from discussion.67 Team members are more likely not only to mention information if it was known to all before the discussion but also to bring it up repeatedly and dwell on it throughout the discussion. Thus, the team decision often will reflect the common knowledge shared by members before discussion rather than the diverse knowledge emanating from their unique perspectives and experiences.
Consider the scenario in Exhibit 6-6. In this situation, the initial bias favors Bill. At the outset of the meeting, each team member has more information about him (five pieces of information). The information the team has about Bill is fully shared, mean- ing that all team members are apprised of this candidate’s qualifications prior to the meeting. Obviously, Bill has done an excellent job of marketing his own achievements within the organization.
Next consider Alva, who has a combined total of eight pieces of favorable infor- mation supporting his candidacy for the partnership. However, each member of the executive team is privy only to three pieces of information about this candidate, and the
65Larson, J. R., & Harmon, V. M. (2007). Recalling shared vs. unshared information mentioned during group discussion: Toward understanding differential repetition rates. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10(3), 311–322. 66Stasser, G. (1988). Computer simulation as a research tool: The DISCUSS model of group decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24(5), 393–422. 67Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased informa- tion sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467–1478.
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 151 10/24/16 9:13 PM
152 Part 2 • Team Performance
information is not redundant. In an objective sense, Alva is by far the most qualified; yet his accomplishments are not fully shared among the top management team—a factor that will not be corrected with discussion (at least unstructured discussion).
If this team was immune to the common information effect, and the members optimally combined and pooled their unique information, Alva would prevail.
Common information also affects people’s memory for team discussions. People recall fewer unshared arguments from team discussion.68 Moreover, analysis of recorded discussions reveals that unshared arguments are less likely to be expressed.69
68Gigone & Hastie, “The impact of information on small group choice,” p. 140; Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1987). Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared informa- tion in group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 81–93. 69Stasser, G., Taylor, L. A., & Hanna, C. (1989). Information sampling in structured and unstructured discus- sions of three- and six-person groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 67–78.
Exhibit 6-6 Hidden Profiles
A,B,C A,B,C,D,EA,B,F,H
Alva
Jane
Bill
Number of Independent Pieces of Positive Information
F,G,H A,B,C,D,EA,B,G,H
C,D,E A,B,C,D,EA,B,F,G
8
5
5
Leigh L. Thompson
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 152 10/24/16 9:13 PM
Chapter 6 • Team Communication and Collective Intelligence 153
There are a lot of plausible-sounding strategies for reducing the common infor- mation effect that unfortunately, are ineffective and might cause more harm than good, such as the following:
ineffeCtive StrategieS
INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION Even when teams are explicitly told to spend more time discussing information, they still fall prey to the common information effect.70
SEPARATE REVIEW FROM DECISION In one investigation, team members were given instructions intended to curb the common information effect.71 Team members avoided stating their initial preferences and were encouraged to review all relevant facts. How- ever, the discussion primarily favored those facts initially shared by team members (67 percent of all shared facts were discussed in contrast to 23 percent of unshared facts).
INCREASE SIZE OF THE TEAM As team size increases but the distribution of information stays the same, the tendency to discuss common information increases. For example, the common information effect is more pronounced in six-person groups than in three- person groups. In a typical three-person group, 46 percent of shared information is mentioned, in contrast to only 18 percent of unshared information. This difference is even larger for six-person groups.72 Moreover, if unique information is held by racially diverse members, even less information is shared.73
INCREASE INFORMATION LOAD If members of the team are given additional information but the relative distribution of information remains the same, the common information effect still plagues the team.74 In fact, the bias to discuss shared information is most likely to occur when there is a large number of “shared” facts to discuss. Groups perform better when they can reduce their cognitive load.75
ACCOUNTABILITY Accountability refers to the extent to which people and teams feel responsible for their actions and decisions. Surprisingly, teams that are accountable are less likely to focus on unshared information than groups that are not held account- able.76 Many professional teams are highly accountable for their decisions.
70Parks, C. D., & Cowlin, R. A. (1996). Acceptance of uncommon information into group discussion when that information is or is not demonstrable. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66(3), 307–315. 71Stasser, Taylor, & Hanna, “Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of three- and six-person groups.” 72Ibid. 73Houlette, M., Sawyer, J.E., & Muzzy, E.L. (February, 2002). Convergent versus cross-cut diversity structure and group decision performance. Paper presented at the third annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Savannah, GA. 74Stasser, G., Titus, W. (1987). Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 81–93. 75Tindale, S., & Sheffey, S. (2002). Shared information, cognitive load, and group memory. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 5(1), 5–18. 76Stewart, D. D., Billings, R. S., & Stasser, G. (1998). Accountability and the discussion of unshared, critical information in decision making groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2(1), 18–23.
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 153 10/24/16 9:13 PM
154 Part 2 • Team Performance
For example in one investigation, medical teams composed of a resident, an intern, and a third-year medical student, were given information about a patient and asked to reach a diagnosis. Videotaped analysis of the discussion revealed that shared informa- tion about the patient was mentioned more often (67 percent) than was unique infor- mation (46 percent). More disconcerting was that the teams offered incorrect diagnoses substantially more often for the hidden profile patient case than the standard patient cases: Overall, 17 of the 24 hidden profile cases were diagnosed correctly (a hit rate of about 70 percent), whereas all of the standard (shared information) cases were correctly diagnosed. Clearly, the medical teams’ overreliance on previously shared information and the inability to appropriately utilize unique information led to worse decisions.77 In contrast, when groups are made to be accountable for their process (rather than outcome), they are more likely to repeat unshared information and make better decisions.78
PRE-DISCUSSION POLLING One of the most common strategies for beginning a discus- sion is polling the group. However, this strategy can have extremely negative effects on the quality of the discussion that follows if the initial preferences of the team members are based on insufficient information. If the group is unanimous, members might not see the point of discussion. Furthermore, the very act of polling triggers conformity pressure, such that lower-status group members, eager to secure their position in the organization, might agree with the majority. For example, in teams deciding which of two cholesterol-reducing drugs to market, initial preferences were the major determi- nants of the group’s final decision.79 Moreover, people tend to regard the information that they possess to be more valid than other information.80
effeCtive interventionS
Fortunately, there are ways to defeat the common information effect.
LEADERSHIP Team leaders are consistently more likely than are other members to ask questions and repeat unshared (as well as shared) information.81 Leaders play an impor- tant information management role during team discussion by focusing the team’s atten- tion, facilitating communication, stimulating member contributions, and ensuring that critical information brought out during discussion is kept alive and factored into the team’s final decision. Directive leaders are more likely than participative leaders to repeat
77Based on Christensen, C., Larson, J. R., Jr., Abbott, A., Ardolino, A., Franz, T., & Pfeiffer, C. (2000). Decision- making of clinical teams: Communication patterns and diagnostic error. Medical Decision Making, 20, 45–50. 78Scholten, L., van Knippenberg, D., Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Motivated information pro- cessing and group decision making: Effects of process accountability on information processing and decision quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 539–552. 79Kelly, J. R., & Karau, S. J. (1999). Group decision making: The effects of initial preferences and time pressure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(11), 1342–1354. 80Van Swol, L. M., Savadori, L., & Sniezek, J. A. (2003). Factors that may affect the difficulty of uncovering hidden profiles. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(3), 285–304. 81Larson, J. R., Christensen, C., Franz, T. M., & Abbott, A. S. (1998). Diagnosing groups: The pooling, manage- ment, and impact of shared and unshared case information in team-based medical decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 93–108.
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 154 10/24/16 9:13 PM
Chapter 6 • Team Communication and Collective Intelligence 155
unshared information and consequently identify the best options.82 Leaders with more experience are also more effective.83
REDIRECT AND MAINTAIN THE FOCUS OF THE DISCUSSION TO UNSHARED (UNIQUE) INFORMATION The more team members repeat common information, the less likely they are to uncover hidden profiles.84 Direct the focus of the discussion to unique information, and reintroduce noncommon information after it has been dismissed. The longer the delay in mentioning unique items of information, the lower the team’s per- formance.85 When team members are identified personally, the likelihood that unshared clues will be mentioned during discussion increases.86 When team members know who has expertise in specific knowledge domains, the amount of unshared information discussed increases significantly.87 Moreover, when groups are prompted to reflect upon who-knows-what, they make better decisions.88 In studies of groups that contain a “minority” information holder, groups make more profitable use of that knowledge when the minority information holder also possesses different information; in this sense, the social category differences signal important informational differences.89
APPROACH THE TASK AS A “PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED,” NOT A “JUDGMENT TO BE MADE” Define the task as a “problem” to be solved with “demonstrable evidence.” Teams are less likely to overlook unshared information if they believe that their task has a demonstrably correct answer.90
As an example, members of the jury are explicitly told to pay attention to the facts and evidence. They are cautioned that the lawyers representing the parties in the case are not witnesses but rather are attempting to sway members of the jury to adopt a particu- lar belief. It is precisely for this reason that trial lawyers have an opportunity to dismiss potential jurors who are regarded as unable to consider the facts because their mind is already made up—that is, they enter the courtroom with a particular bias or belief.
82Larson, 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. 83Wittenbaum, G. M. (1998). Information sampling in decision-making groups: The impact of members’ task-relevant status. Small Group Research, 29, 57–84. 84Van Swol, Savadori, & Sniezek, “Factors that may affect the difficulty of uncovering hidden profiles.” 85Kim, P. (1997). When what you know can hurt you: A study of experiential effects on group discussion and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 165–177. 86Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D., Wittenbaum, G. M. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discus- sion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(3), 244–265. 87Stasser, G. (1988). Computer simulation as a research tool. The DISCUSS model of group decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24(5), 393–422. 88Van Ginkel, W. P., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2009). Knowledge about the distribution of information and group decision making: When and why does it work? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 218–229. 89Phillips, K. W., Mannix, E. A., Neale, M. A., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2004). Diverse groups and information shar- ing: The effects of congruent ties. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(4), 497–510; Dahlin, K., Weingart, L., & Hinds, P. (2005). Team diversity and information use. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1107–1123. 90Laughlin, P. R. (1980). Social combination processes of cooperative problem-solving groups on verbal interactive tasks. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Progress in social psychology (Vol. 1). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates; Stasser, G., & Stewart, D. D. (1992). Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 426–434.
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 155 10/24/16 9:13 PM
156 Part 2 • Team Performance
RANK RATHER THAN CHOOSE When teams are instructed to “rank” candidates or alter- natives, they are more likely to make the best decision than when they are simply told to “choose.”91
CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES ONE AT A TIME Discuss one alternative fully before turning to the next.92
SUSPEND INITIAL JUDGMENT Caution team members against arriving at a judgment prior to the team discussion. The common information effect is a direct result of the biases that people bring to discussion, not the team discussion itself.93 The more group members choose the same alternative prior to the group discussion, the more strongly the group prefers information supporting that alternative.94 Even in the absence of dysfunctional group-level processes, group members tend to adhere to their initial, suboptimal decision preferences because of their tendency to evaluate information in a way consistent with their initial preference. In fact, even when all relevant information is exchanged by group members, nearly 50 percent of all groups fail to detect the supe- rior alternative.95
BUILD TRUST AND FAMILIARITY AMONG TEAM MEMBERS Teams whose members are familiar with one another are less likely to make poor decisions resulting from the com- mon information effect than are teams whose members are unacquainted.96 The more team members perceive themselves to be cooperatively interdependent with others on their team, the more they share information, learn and are effective.97 Conversely, team members who are competitive with one another withhold unique information compared to members who are cooperative.98 Groups who realize that they share a goal of elabo- rating on information are more likely to make better decisions than groups who do not elaborate.99 The willingness to share information in a mixed-motive situation might depend on whether people have a pro-self or pro-social orientation. Pro-social people
91Hollingshead, A. B. (1996a). The rank-order effect in group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(3), 181–193. 92Larson, C. E., 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), 446–461. 93Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1993). The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 959–974. 94Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., Lüthgens, C., & Moscovici, S. (2000). Biased information search in group decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 655–669. 95Faulmuller, N., Kerschreiter, R., Mojzisch, A., & Schultz-Hardt, S. (2010). Beyond group-level explanations for the failure of groups to solve hidden profiles: The individual preference effect revisited. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(5), 653–671. 96Gruenfeld, D. H., Mannix, E. A., Williams, K. Y., & Neale, M. A. (1996). Group composition and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(1), 1–15. 97De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 628–638. 98Toma, C., & Butera, F. (2009). Hidden profiles and concealed information: Strategic information sharing and use in group decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(6), 793–806. 99van Ginkel, W. P., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Group information elaboration and group decision mak- ing: The role of shared task representations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105, 82–97.
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 156 10/24/16 9:13 PM
Chapter 6 • Team Communication and Collective Intelligence 157
consistently reveal their private and important information, but pro-self individuals strategically conceal or even lie about their private and important information.100
TEAM REFLEXIVITY Team reflexivity is the process of discussing the groups’ tasks and goals and the way in which those goals can be reached.101 When group members don’t initially realize the importance of elaborating on information, team reflexivity increases the degree to which that importance is understood.102
COMMUNICATE CONFIDENCE Teams whose members are encouraged to express confi- dence about their decisions and judgments perform more effectively and learn signifi- cantly more from their interaction than do teams whose ability to communicate confidence during interaction is reduced.103 Team members who self-servingly attribute a group’s past successes to themselves are more likely to share unique information and consider more divergent alternatives.104 Moreover, teams who have at least one member experiencing positive affect share more unique information than do groups composed of members who are neutral in affect.105
MINIMIZE STATUS DIFFERENCES In one investigation, groups were formed to contain either equal-status members or unequal-status members.106 In some of these groups, the critical information required to make the best decision was given only to the low-status member. As compared with equal-status groups, mixed-status groups made poorer decisions and made fewer references to the critical information than the equal-status groups. Perhaps it is for this reason that nurses and doctors at St. Francis Hospital and Medical Center “level the authority gradient”: Everyone in the surgical room—regardless of role—is called by their first names, and not by their titles.107 Moreover, in elaborate role-plays, doctors and nurses reverse roles so they learn how they treat others. Dr. Scott Ellner immediately realized that he treated subordinates in a condescending fashion when a nurse took on the role of doctor and he felt the effects.
100Steinel, W., Utz, S., & Koning, L. (2010). The good, the bad and the ugly thing to do when sharing informa- tion: Revealing, concealing and lying depend on social motivation, distribution and importance of information. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 85–96. 101West, M. A. (1996). Handbook of work group psychology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 102van Ginkel, W. P., Tindale, R. S., & van Knippenberg, D. (2009). Team reflexivity, development of shared task representations, and the use of distributed information in group decision making. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 13(4), 265–280. 103Bloomfield, R., Libby, R., & Nelson, M. W. (1996). Communication of confidence as a determinant of group judgment accuracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(3), 287–300. 104Goncalo, G. A., & Duguid, M. D. (2008). Hidden consequences of the group-serving bias: Casual attri- butions and the quality of group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107, 219–233. 105Emich, K.J. (2014, June). Who’s bringing the donuts: The role of affective patterns in group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124(2): 122–132. 106Hollingshead, A. B. (1996b). Information suppression and status persistence in group decision making: The effects of communication media. Human Communication Research, 23, 193–219. 107Becker, A. L. (2012, May 28). Checklists, teamwork minimizing mistakes in medicine, The Connecticut Mirror. ctmirror.org
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 157 10/24/16 9:13 PM
158 Part 2 • Team Performance
DEFENSIVE VS. OFFENSIVE ORIENTATION A defensive team strategic orientation leads to greater information search than does an offensive team strategic orientation and ulti- mately better performance in hidden profile tasks.108
VIRTUAL TEAMING It might seem paradoxical to suggest that a group that could meet face-to-face would instead choose a virtual meeting, but a large-scale analysis of 94 studies of 5,596 groups indicate that virtuality improves the sharing of unique information in groups, which is linked to performance in face-to-face meetings. However, the effects of virtual teaming on openness of information sharing appear to be curvilinear, such that low levels of virtuality improve the openness of information sharing, but high levels hinder it. In other words, virtual teaming enhances the process of sharing unique information within a group, but hinders the process of promoting openness of information sharing.109
TEAM LEARNING
Group learning involves the basic process of sharing knowledge, storing knowledge, and retrieving knowledge.110 How do teams learn from their environment, newcomers, and outsiders?
environment
In an analysis of organizational learning on improvement project teams in hospital neonatal intensive care units, two distinct key factors emerged: learn-what (activities that identify current best practices) and learn-how (activities that operationalize prac- tices in a given setting).111 The hospital teams had greater success when they imple- mented practices that were supported by extensive evidence and when project team members engaged in learning activities designed to promote engagement by the unit. Thus, both learn-what (content) and learn-how (means) are important.
newComerS and rotatorS
Many groups are porous in the sense that newcomers join groups and people rotate in and out of the group. Groups are more likely to adopt the routine of a rotator when they share a superordinate identity with that member.112 A group also is more likely to adopt a routine from a rotator when it is superior to their own. When groups do not share a superordinate identity, they fail to adopt the rotator’s ideas and knowledge, even when those ideas are superior to their own and would have improved their performance.
108Woolley, A. W., Bear, J. B., Chang, J. W., & DeCostanza, A. H. (2013). The effects of team strategic orientation on team process and information search. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 114–126. 109Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., DeChurch, L. A., Jimenez-Rodriquez, 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. 110Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing knowledge in organization: An integrative frame- work and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49(4), 571–582. 111Tucker, A.T., Nembland, I.M., & Edmondson, A.C. (2007, June). Implementing new practices: An empirical study of organizational learning in hospital intensive care units. Management Science, 53(6), 894–907. 112Kane, A., Argote, L., & Levine, J. (2005). Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 56–71.
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 158 10/24/16 9:13 PM
Chapter 6 • Team Communication and Collective Intelligence 159
viCarioUS vS. in vivo experienCe
Is team performance affected when members have direct experience with a task versus task experience acquired vicariously from others? Direct task experience leads to higher levels of team creativity and more divergent products than does indirect task experience (vicarious experience).113 Teams who learn through direct task experience develop better transactive memory systems than do teams who learn vicariously.
It is important to consider the feedback offered via experience; feedback that is too detailed and specific might do more harm than good. A study of 48 trainees in a furni- ture factory performance simulation revealed that increasing feedback specificity hin- dered knowledge transfer. Those who received less specific feedback relied more heavily on explicit information processing and had more exposure to the challenging aspects of the task than did those who received more specific feedback.114 A study of learning in a Japanese manufacturing company revealed that when teams learn, reinforcing verti- cal mechanisms are necessary to coordinate TMSs.115
threat, Change, and failUre
It is inevitable that teams will fail or that the environment will challenge their ability to per- form in unexpected and dramatic ways. For example, studies of teams’ ability to adapt to sudden and dramatic changes in workload, revealed that learning and performance orienta- tion affected their ability to adapt.116 And studies of team project failure revealed that teams that believed that their organization normalized failure were able to recover more quickly.117
after-aCtion review (aar)
After-action review (AAR) or after-event review or debriefing is an approach to learn- ing and training based on a review of people’s performance on tasks. Teams that receive AAR have better team performance, team efficacy, enhanced communication and are more cohesive than are non-AAR teams.118
roUtinization vS. innovation trade-offS
Teams whose members work together for longer periods are more likely to develop a TMS and therefore will be more productive. However, there is a countervailing force at work in teams that have been together for long periods of time, namely, routinization.
113Gino, F., Argote, L., Miron-Spektor, E., & Todorova, G. (2010). First, you get your feet wet: The effects of learning from direct and indirect experience on team creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111(2), 102–115. 114Goodman, J. S., Wood, R. E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Feedback specificity, information processing, and transfer of training. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 253–267. 115Peltokorpi, V. (2014). Transactive memory system coordination mechanisms in organizations: An explor- atory case study. Group & Organization Management, 39(4), 444–471. 116Porter, C. O. L. H., Webb, J. W., & Gogus, C. I. (2010). When goal orientations collide: Effects of learn- ing and performance orientation on team adaptability in response to workload imbalance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 935–943. 117Shepard, D. A., Patzelt, H., & Wolfe, M. (2011). Moving forward from project failure: Negative emotions, affective commitment, and learning from the experience. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1229–1259. 118Villado, A.J., & Arthur, W. Jr. (2013). The comparative effect of subjective and objective after-action reviews on team performance on a complex task. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(3), 514–528.
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 159 10/24/16 9:13 PM
160 Part 2 • Team Performance
That is, because a TMS is basically a set of expectations, certain working relationships might become entrenched over time. For example, groups that experience partial mem- bership change tend to rely on the TMS structure that their old-timers developed in their original group and this is ultimately detrimental to performance.119 However, when old-timers are instructed to reflect upon their collective knowledge, these negative effects are minimized. When delegation is optional (which a TMS does not ensure), and in a world in which the team’s expectations about what is needed (e.g., consumer demand) are accurate, then more TMS should basically lead to more routinization of the task and, to a more efficient channeling of efforts by team members This will occur because there will be less coordination loss involved in understanding each team mem- ber’s role. Such expectations would seem best when there is little need for innovation. Thus, a precarious trade-off exists between routinization and innovation.
For much of the work that organizations do, routinization is a good thing; however, for a large part of what organizations do, innovation is desirable and necessary to meet the competitive challenges we outlined in Chapter 1. Thus, a well-defined TMS could hinder the team’s ability to be adaptive.
For these reasons, there might be significant problems associated with extended team longevity. As a case in point, consider an R&D facility of a large American corpora- tion.120 The division included 345 engineers and scientific professionals and was geo- graphically isolated from the rest of the organization. The 50 project groups in this division varied greatly in terms of their longevity—that is, how long members of one group had worked with one another. For a period of 15 weeks, professionals kept records of their work-related communication; any time a group member consulted or spoke with others, whether at the water cooler or in the parking lot, the interaction was recorded. Later, seven department managers and the two lab directors evaluated the performance of each project produced by each group with which they were technically familiar. The performance of these groups increased as they gained longevity, but only up to a point. After five years of working together, team project performance declined steeply, as did intraproject communication, organizational communication, and external professional communication—basically all the types of communication that served to bring fresh ideas to the group.
Four behavioral changes took place in groups that worked together for more than five years:
• Behavioral stability Project members interacting over a long time develop standard work patterns that are familiar and comfortable. This can happen very rapidly—for instance, the way people in a group tend to sit in the same places in meeting after meeting, even when there might be no logical reason for doing so. Over time, this behavioral stability leads to isolation from the outside. The group can grow increas- ingly complacent, ceasing to question the practices that shape their behavior.
• Selective exposure There is a tendency for group members to communicate only with people whose ideas agree with their own. It is related to the homogeneity
119Lewis, K., Belliveau, M., Herndon, B., & Keller, J. (2007). Group cognition, membership change, and per- formance: Investigating the benefits and detriments of collective knowledge. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(2), 159–178. 120Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 81–104.
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 160 10/24/16 9:13 PM
Chapter 6 • Team Communication and Collective Intelligence 161
bias—the tendency to select new members who are like members in the exist- ing group. Over time, project members learn to interact selectively to avoid messages and information that conflict with their established practices and disposition.
• Group homogeneity Groups that are separated from the influence of others in the organization develop a homogeneous set of understandings about the group and its environment.
• Role differentiation Groups that work and train together become increasingly spe- cialized in project competencies and roles. This results in greater role differentia- tion, which in turn results in less interaction among group members because the roles and expectations held by each are so well entrenched. Consequently, they lose access to much of the internal talent and diminished abilities to learn new ideas from one another.
Thus, in terms of actual task performance, as team longevity increases, certain social processes conspire to lower levels of project communication, which in turn decrease project performance. Project groups become increasingly isolated from key information sources both within and outside their organizations with increasing sta- bility in their membership. Reductions in project communication adversely affect the technical performance of project groups. Variations in communication activities are associated more with the tenure composition of the project group than with the project tenures of the individual engineers. Stated another way, it is not the age of the employee that is of critical importance but the age of the team. Furthermore, individual com- petence does not account for differences in performance. Thus, it is not the case that the older, less skilled members were working in teams that were of greater longevity. Furthermore, the longevity of project groups does not appear to be part of the mental models of the managers—virtually no one was aware of the tenure demographics of their project groups.
What does all of this mean for team longevity? A certain amount of familiarity is necessary for teams to work together in a productive fashion. The effect of working together tends to make team members grow more familiar with each other’s relevant knowledge base, and hence, a TMS can develop. A TMS can be helpful in tasks where coordination losses need to be reduced and tactical precision is key. Although a certain amount of routinization is desirable in any team, the overly routinized team hinders communication and obstructs innovation. Looking at this question from a team design standpoint might offer some insights. It might be desirable, for example to design some teams whose primary objective is to act as innovation experts for the creation and transfer of the organization’s best practices. Groups are more likely to benefit from the knowledge and ideas brought by a newcomer when they share a superordinate identity with one another.121 Moreover, when members sit in an integrated fashion (versus sit- ting on opposite sides of a table), a superordinate identity is more likely to be established.
121Kane, A., & Argote, L. (2002). Social identity and knowledge transfer between groups. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Denver, CO.
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 161 10/24/16 9:13 PM
162 Part 2 • Team Performance
Chapter Capstone
For teams to be effective in their work, they need to share knowledge, efficiently process and encode relevant information, and then act upon it in a thoughtful and appropri- ate fashion. Communication among team
members is a collaborative effort. The devel- opment of accurate team mental models and a TMS can partially combat the threat of the common information effect and hidden profiles.
M06_THOM4204_06_SE_C06.indd 162 10/24/16 9:13 PM
163
In 2015, German car company, Volkswagen was involved in a massive corporate scandal: Volkswagen cars with “clean diesel” engines tested by laboratories in the United States and Europe contained a “defeat device” program in the engine software. Specifically, the software sensed when the car was being driven under test conditions and then activated equipment that reduced emissions. When these “clean diesel” engines ran normally during regular driving, the software turned the “defeat device” equipment off, thereby increasing toxic emissions to more than 40 times the legal limits. One such toxin, nitrogen oxide, is a pollutant that has been found to cause bronchitis, emphysema, and other respiratory diseases. Experts speculated that the “defeat device” was installed to gain a competitive advantage for VW vehicles—seemingly low exhaust emissions on a vehicle that still could save fuel and give the driver high torque and acceleration would have broad market appeal. The cheat device affected 11 million cars worldwide and pumped between 250,000 to 1 million extra tons of harmful emissions into the air each year. Thirty managers were involved in the cheating and a variety of factors, including control by a tight-knit billionaire family, demands from powerful labor unions, and pressure from the German government, all seemed to play a role. Volkswagen heavily invested in producing a clean- diesel engine and failure to meet the standards required by American emissions tests would have embarrassed and frustrated company managers and engineers. The temptation to tweak software to dodge rules and achieve success was alluring to the confident, insular design team. The 78-year old company issued several statements apologizing for how it “totally screwed up” and vowed to fix their mistake. Volkswagen offered $1,000 to U.S. car owners and halted sales of affected cars. Volkswagen’s stock value plummeted, the chief executive, Martin Winterkorn, resigned and a number of high-ranking executives were suspended.1
1DiPietro, B. (2015, September 28). Crisis of the week: Volkswagen scandal pollutes carmaker’s reputation. The Wall Street Journal. blogs.wsj.com; Kedrosky, P. (2015, October 16). An engineering theory of the Volkswagen scandal. The New Yorker. newyorker.com; Topham, G., Clarke, S., Levett, C., Scruton, P., Fidler, M. (2015, September 23). The Volkswagen emissions scandal explained. The Guardian. theguardian.com; Russell, K., Gates, G., Keller, J., Watkins, D. (2016, January 5). How Volkswagen got away with diesel deception. The New York Times. nytimes.com
Team Decision Making Pitfalls and Solutions7
C h
a p
t e
r
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 163 10/25/16 1:09 PM
164 Part 2 • Team Performance
The debacle at Volkswagen was particularly stunning because the company had a near-perfect reputation. When the consequences of decision making are disastrous, we try to find the root of the problem, which may be due to a faulty decision-making process or deliberate wrongdoing. As we will see in this chapter, teams can follow a vigilant process and still reach bad decisions; in some cases, teams that seem to do all the wrong things still manage to succeed.
TEAM DECISION MAKING
Decision making is an integrated sequence of activities that includes gathering, inter- preting, and exchanging information; creating and identifying alternative courses of action; choosing among alternatives by integrating differing perspectives and opinions of team members; and implementing a choice and monitoring its consequences.2 For a schematic diagram of an idealized set of activities involved in a decision-making process, see Exhibit 7-1.
We begin by discussing how a variety of well-documented decision-making biases affect individual decision making and how these biases are ameliorated or exacerbated in groups. We identify several decision-making pitfalls that teams often encounter, includ- ing: groupthink, conformity pressure, escalation of commitment, the Abilene paradox, group polarization, and unethical decision making.
INDIVIDUAL DECISION-MAKING BIASES
A variety of decision-making biases plague individual decision making. (For a compre- hensive review, see Bazerman and Moore’s Judgment in Managerial Decision Making).3
2Guzzo, R. A., Salas, E., & Associates. (1995). Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 3Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. A. (2012). Judgment in managerial decision making (8th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Exhibit 7-1 Rational Model of Group Decision Making Based on Forsyth, D. (1990). Group Dynamics (2nd ed., p. 286). pacific Grove, Ca: Brooks/Cole; Guzzo, r. a., Salas, e., & associates. (1995). Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass, © Leigh L. thompson.
Planning
• Interpret and exchange information
• Create and identify alternative courses of action
• Evaluate alternatives
Decision Making
• Choose among alternatives by integrating different perspectives and opinions of team members
• Choose solution
Evaluation
• Monitor consequences
• Evaluate decision
• Seek feedback
Implementation
• Adhere to solution
Orientation
• Define the problem
• Set goal
• Plan the process
• Gather information
• Identify alternatives
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 164 10/25/16 1:09 PM
Chapter 7 • Team Decision Making: Pitfalls and Solutions 165
In this section, we briefly review four of the well-documented individual decision- making biases and discuss their implications for teams.
Framing Bias
Consider the following problem:4
Imagine that the United States is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual disease, which is expected to kill 600 people in the United States alone. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact sci- entific estimates of the consequences of the programs are as follows:
Plan A: If program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. Plan B: If program B is adopted, there is a one-third probability that 600 people will be saved and a two-thirds probability that no one will be saved. If forced to choose, which plan would you select?
When given this choice, most individual decision makers choose program A (72 percent). Now, consider the following options:
Plan C: If program C is adopted, 400 people will die. Plan D: If program D is adopted, there is a one-third probability that nobody will die and a two-thirds probability that 600 people will die.
When given the identical problem with the same options worded in terms of “deaths,” the majority of respondents choose the risky course of action (Plan D, 78 percent).5 This inconsistency is a preference reversal and reveals the framing bias. Almost any decision can be reframed as a gain or a loss relative to something.6 This is because decision makers’ reference points for defining gain and loss are often arbitrary. Several investigations have compared individuals’ versus groups’ susceptibility to the framing effect. The results are mixed: Sometimes, groups are less susceptible to framing, but in some investigations, they are just as fallible as individuals.7
OvercOnFidence
The overconfidence bias is the tendency for people to place unwarranted confidence in their judgments. Ninety-four percent of college professors believe that they are above- average teachers; 90 percent of drivers believe that they are above average; and when
4From The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, © 1981 American Association for the Advancement of Science. 5Milch, K. F., Weber, E. U., Appelt, K. C., Handgraaf, M. J., & Krantz, D. H. (2009). From individual prefer- ence construction to group decisions: Framing effects and group processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 242–255. 6Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458. 7Milch, K. F., Weber, E. U., Appelt, K. C., Handgraaf, M. J., & Krantz, D. H. (2009). From individual prefer- ence construction to group decisions: Framing effects and group processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 242–255.
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 165 10/25/16 1:09 PM
166 Part 2 • Team Performance
computer executives were given quizzes about their industry, they estimated they got only 5 percent of the answers wrong—in fact, they had gotten 80 percent wrong.8 Con- sider the questions in Exhibit 7-2. Even though the instructions in Exhibit 7-2 ask deci- sion makers to choose an upper and lower bound such that they are 98 percent sure that the actual answer falls within their bounds, most decision makers only have four answers that fall within their lower and upper confidence bounds. In a study of 100 people, 42 percent fell outside the 90 percent confidence range. In a team, overconfidence leads people to myopically focus on their teammates’ strengths, as opposed to their weak- nesses, and neglect the strengths and weaknesses of members of competitor teams.9
9Krizan, Z., & Windschitl, P. D. (2007). Team allegiance can lead to both optimistic and pessimistic predictions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 327–333.
8Brooks, D. (2009, October 27). The fatal conceit. New York Times, p. A31.
Exhibit 7-2 Overconfidence in Judgment
Based on U.S. Census Bureau (2015). census.gov; health, United States, 2014. (2015, May). National Center for Health Statistics. cdc.gov; ryan, C.L., Bauman, K. (2016, March). educational attainment in the United States: 2015. U.S. Census Bureau. census. gov; Swift, a., ander, S. (2016, July). Most americans foresee death of cash in their lifetime. Gallup. gallup.com; endangered animals and plants of the U.S. (2016). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. fws.gov, © Leigh L. thompson.
Instructions: Listed below are 10 questions. Do not look up any information on these questions. For each, write down your best estimate of the answer. Next, put a lower and an upper bound around your estimate, such that you are 98 percent confident that your range surrounds the actual answer.
Answers: 1. 37.8, 2. $53,657, 3. 6.2%, 4. $4,301, 5. 32.5%, 6. 62%, 7. 1604, 8. 134, 9. $482,130,000, 10. $94.6 million
Question Your best estimate
Lower bound
Upper bound
1. The median age for the total U.S. population in 2015.
2. Median U.S. household income in 2015.
5. Percentage of the U.S. population less than 25 years of age holding at least a Bachelor’s degree in 2015.
6. Percentage of Americans in 2016 who believe the U.S. will become a cashless society in our lifetime.
7. Number of all endangered and/or threatened animals and plants in the United States in 2015.
9. Walmart 2015 revenue, which is one of the highest amongst Global 500 companies in the United States.
10. Highest paid U.S. CEO in 2016 (including salary, option awards, and restricted stock), Dara Khosrowshahi from Expedia.
8. Number of Global 500 companies in the U.S. as of 2015.
4. U.S. Federal Government spending (Fiscal year 2016 on $ per capita on health care).
3. Percentage of the U.S. population under 5 years old in 2015.
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 166 10/25/16 1:09 PM
Chapter 7 • Team Decision Making: Pitfalls and Solutions 167
cOnFirmatiOn Bias
The confirmation bias is the tendency for people to consider evidence that supports their position, hypothesis, or desires and disregard or discount (equally valid) evidence that refutes their beliefs. Even upon the receipt of unsupportive data, people who have fallen prey to the confirmation bias will maintain, and in some cases increase, their resolve. Further, both decided and undecided individuals show a strong tendency to selectively expose themselves to confirmatory information.10 Tunnel vision can often augment confirmation bias. For example, in studies of new product development, pro- totypes that have become focal tend to be judged overly favorably and are chosen for launch with unwarranted enthusiasm, even among experienced executives.11 (As a dem- onstration of the confirmation bias, take the test in Exhibit 7-3.) Regulatory focus affects the incidence of the confirmation bias in groups. A prevention focus, such as security, leads to greater bias (e.g., discounting contradictory information) when pursu- ing an individual goal than does adopting a promotion focus.12
10Galdi, S., Gawronski, B., Arcuri, L., & Friese, M. (2012). Selective exposure in decided and undecided indi- viduals: Differential relations to automatic associations and conscious beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5(8), 559–569. 11Posavac, S. S., Kardes, F. R., & Brakus, J. J. (2010). Focus induced tunnel vision in managerial judgment and decision making: The peril and the antidote. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 102–111. 12Sassenberg, K., Landkammer, F., & Jacoby, J. (2014). The influence of regulatory focus and group vs. indi- vidual goals on the evaluation bias in the context of group decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 153–164.
Exhibit 7-3 Card Test
Imagine that the following four cards are placed in front of you and are printed with the follow- ing symbols on one side:
Card 1 Card 2 Card 3 Card 4
e K 4 7
Now, imagine you are told that a letter appears on one side of each card and a number on the other. Your task is to judge the validity of the following rule, which refers only to these four cards: “If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side.” Your task is to turn over only those card(s) that have to be turned over for the correctness of the rule to be judged. Which card(s) do you want to turn over? (Stop here and decide which card(s) to turn over before reading on.)
Averaging over a large number of investigations, 89 percent of people select E, which is a logically correct choice because an odd number on the other side would disconfirm the rule.a However, 62 percent also choose to turn over the 4, which is not logically informative because neither a vowel nor a consonant on the other side would falsify the rule. Only 25 percent of people elect to turn over the 7, which is a logically informative choice because a vowel behind the 7 would falsify the rule. Only 16 percent elect to turn over K, which would not be an informative choice.
Thus, people display two types of logical errors in the task. First, they often turn over the 4, an example of the confirmation bias. However, even more striking is the failure to take the step of attempting to disconfirm what they believe is true—in other words, turning over the 7.b
Based on a Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1994). a rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review, 101, 608–631; b Wason, r. C., & Johnson-Laird, p. N. (1972). Psychology of reasoning: Structure and content. Cambridge, Ma: harvard University press, © Leigh L. thompson.
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 167 10/25/16 1:09 PM
168 Part 2 • Team Performance
decisiOn Fatigue
Making decisions, especially complex organizational decisions, requires a great deal of mental resources. Not surprisingly, the mere act of making decisions produces fatigue. However, unlike physical exertion, most decision makers are not consciously aware that they are depleted after making several decisions. Consequently, they become organiza- tionally dangerous in terms of spending more money, refusing to make trade-offs, mak- ing harsh decisions, or avoiding decisions altogether. For example, one investigation examined how judges made more than 1,000 parole decisions and found that after controlling for ethnic background, crime, length of current sentence, and so on, those parole decisions were related to the time of day that the judge heard the case. While 70 percent of cases were granted parole in the morning before the judges were mentally fatigued, only 10 percent were granted parole later in the day.13 The interpretation was that judges are more fatigued later in the day and make harsher decisions.
INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP DECISION MAKING
demOnstraBle versus nOn-demOnstraBle tasks
A demonstrable task is a task that has an obvious, correct answer. Many management and executive education courses challenge businesspeople with simulations in which they find themselves stranded in inhospitable environments—arctic tundra, scorched desert, and treacherous jungles—and together they must plan and enact strategies to ensure their survival.14 Some organizations actually place people in such situations. Popular television shows are based on “survival,” and some teams excel at adventure sports—but in the management laboratory and classroom, teammates are simply asked to rank (in order of importance) the usefulness of several objects (e.g., flashlight, canteen of water, and knives). The team’s rank order can be benchmarked against that of an expert and against the individual rankings made by each member of the team.
grOups Out-perFOrm individuals
In demonstrable tasks, the performance of teams is inevitably better than the simple, arithmetic average of the group. Recall the team performance equation, wherein actual productivity (AP) of a team = potential productivity (PP)+ synergy (S)- performance threats (T). In this case, the arithmetic average of the team represents the potential productivity of the group. If the actual productivity of the team exceeds this, it suggests that the group has experienced a synergistic process (i.e., working together has allowed the group to outperform how they could have performed by simply aggregating their own decisions). If the actual productivity of the team is worse, it suggests that the group process is flawed. However, the team leader is justified in asking whether the team’s performance exceeds that of the best member of the team. Perhaps team decision mak- ing is best served by putting the trust of the group into one knowledgeable and
13Danziger, S., Levav, J., & Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2011, April 26). Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(17), 6889–6892. 14One such simulation is Desert Survival, available from Human Synergistics International, 39819 Plymouth Road, C8020, Plymouth, MI 48170–8020, USA.
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 168 10/25/16 1:09 PM
Chapter 7 • Team Decision Making: Pitfalls and Solutions 169
competent group member. One investigation studied individual versus group decision making in 222 project teams, ranging in size from three to eight members.15 In most instances, groups outperformed their most proficient group member 97 percent of the time.
Groups perform better than individuals on a wide range of demonstrable problems. For example, groups of three, four, or five people perform better than the best individual in letters-to-numbers problems (e.g., “A + D = ?”)16, and groups outperform individu- als on estimation problems.17 Groups perform at the level of the second-best individual or group member on world knowledge problems, such as vocabulary, analogies, and ranking items for usefulness. Groups who use a structured approach for making deci- sions perform better than those without structure.18
grOup tO individual transFer
People who have experience solving demonstrable problems in a group are able to transfer their performance to individual tasks,19 and people who anticipate group dis- cussion are more accurate.20 Groups outperform individuals because of a process known as group-to-individual transfer, in which group members become more accu- rate during the group interaction.21
However, groups are much more overconfident than are individuals, regardless of their actual accuracy. For example, in one investigation, groups were asked to make stock price predictions. The actual accuracy of the group was 47 percent, but their confidence level was 65 percent.22 Three days before the disintegration of the space shuttle Columbia in 2003, NASA officials met to discuss ways to monitor and minimize the amount of
15Michaelsen, L. K., Watson, W. E., & Black, R. H. (1989). A realistic test of individual versus group consensus decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(5), 834–839. 16Laughlin, P., Hatch, E., Silver, J., & 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; Laughlin, P. R., Bonner, B. L., & Miner, A. G. (2002). Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 605–620; Laughlin, P., Zander, M., Knievel, E., & Tan, T. (2003). Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to- numbers problems: Informative equations and effective strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 684–694. 17Laughlin, P., Gonzalez, C., & Sommer, D. (2003). Quantity estimations by groups and individuals: Effects of known domain boundaries. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 7(1), 55–63; Laughlin, P., Bonner, B., Miner, A., & Carnevale, P. (1999). Frames of references in quantity estimations by groups and individuals. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80(2), 103–117; Laughlin, P. R., Carey, H. R., & Kerr, N. L. (2008). Group-to-individual problem-solving transfer. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11(3), 319–330. 18Whitte, E. H. (2007). Toward a group facilitation technique for project teams. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(3), 299–309; Bonner, B. L., Sillito, S., & Baumann, M. (2007). Collective estimation: Accuracy, expertise, and extroversion as sources of intra-group influence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 121–133. 19Laughlin, P. R., Carey, H. R., & Kerr, N. L. (2008). Group-to-individual problem-solving transfer. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11(3), 319–330. 20Roch, S. R. (2007). Why convene rater teams: An investigation of the benefits of anticipated discussion, consensus, and rater motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104(1), 14–29. 21Schultze, T., Mojzisch, A., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2012). Why groups perform better than individuals at quan- titative judgment tasks: Group-to-individual transfer as an alternative to differential weighting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(1), 24–36. 22Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3(4), 552–564.
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 169 10/25/16 1:09 PM
170 Part 2 • Team Performance
falling debris during liftoff (one probable cause of Columbia’s breakdown) but concluded that repair work in flight—a possible solution—would be too costly, creating “more damage than what [they] were trying to repair.”23 Groups also are more likely to exac- erbate some of the shortcomings displayed by individuals, namely, groups are more likely than individuals to (faultily) neglect case-specific information and ignore base-rate infor- mation.24 However, when group members search for information relevant to a problem, the accurate group members are more influential and performance improves.25
minOrities versus majOrities
With respect to demonstrable problem solving, minorities and majorities refer to how many people in the group are initially aware of the correct solution. Initially correct minorities are more likely than initially correct majorities to demonstrate correct solutions to the rest of the group, particularly when the group goal is focused on learning.26
grOup decisiOn rules
Given the pervasiveness of group decision making, teams need a method by which to combine individuals’ decisions to yield a group decision.27 The objective of decision rules may differ, such as finding the alternative the greatest number of team members prefers, the alternative the fewest members object to, or the choice that maximizes team welfare. In an extensive test of the success of several types of decision rules, majority and plurality rules did quite well, performing at levels comparable to much more resource- demanding rules, such as individual judgment averaging rule (see Exhibit 7-4).28 Thus, groups are well served in using majority or plurality voting in truth-seeking group deci- sions. Yet, they often avoid majority rule when given a choice. For example, groups tend to choose the alternative that is acceptable to all group members, even when a majority of members prefer a different alternative.29
The most common decision rule is majority rule, which teams might use often as a decision heuristic because of its ease and familiarity.30 However, despite its democratic appeal, majority rule presents several problems in the attainment of consensus. First,
23Associated Press. (2003, February 14). Before Columbia, NASA mulled space repairs. 24Hinsz, 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. 25Bonner, B.L., & Bolinger, A.R. (2013). Separating the confident from the correct: Leveraging member knowl- edge in groups to improve decision making and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 214–221. 26Aramovich, N. P., & Larson, J. R. (2013). Strategic demonstration of problem solutions by groups: The effects of member preferences, confidence, and learning goals. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(1), 36–52. 27For a review, see Laughlin, P. R. (2011). Social choice theory, social decision scheme theory, and group decision-making. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(1), 63–79. 28Hastie, R., & Kameda, T. (2005). The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions. Psychological Review, 112(2), 494–508. 29Ohtsubo, Y., & Miler, C. E. (2008). Test of a level of aspiration model of group decision making: Non- obvious group preference reversal due to an irrelevant alternative. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(1), 105–115. 30Hastie, R., Penrod, S., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; Ordeshook, P. (1986). Game theory and political theory: An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 170 10/25/16 1:09 PM
Chapter 7 • Team Decision Making: Pitfalls and Solutions 171
Group Decision Rule Description
Individual Cognitive Effort
Social (Group) Effort
Average winner Each member estimates the value of each alternative, and the group computes each alternative’s mean estimated value and chooses the alternative with the highest mean.
High High
Median winner Each member estimates the value of each alternative, and the group computes each alternative’s median estimated value and chooses the alternative with the highest median.
High High
Davis’ weighted average winner
Each member estimates the value of each alternative, and the group assigns a weighted average value to each alternative and chooses the alternative with the highest weighted average rule.
High High
Borda rank winner Each member ranks all alternatives by esti- mated value, and the group assigns a Borda rank score to each location (the sum of indi- vidual ranks for each alternative) and chooses the alternative with the lowest (most favor- able) score.
High High
Condorcet majority rule
All pairwise elections are held (e.g., 45 for 10 candidates), and the alternative that wins all elections is the Condorcet winner (it is pos- sible for there to be no unique, overall winner).
Low High
Majority/ plurality rule
Each member assigns one vote to the alter- native with the highest estimated value, and the alternative receiving the most votes is chosen.
Low Low
Best member rule Member who has achieved the highest individual accuracy in estimating alternative values is selected, and this member’s first choice becomes the group’s choice.
High Medium
Random member rule On each trial, one member is selected at random, and this member’s first choice becomes the group’s choice.
Low Low
Group satisficing rule
On each trial, alternatives are considered one at a time in a random order; the first alterna- tive for which all members’ value estimates exceed aspiration thresholds is chosen by the group.
Medium Medium
Exhibit 7-4 Group Decision Rules
From “the robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions” by reid hastie, tatsuya Kameda in Psychological Review, 112(2), 494–508, (c) 2005 american psychological association.
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 171 10/25/16 1:09 PM
172 Part 2 • Team Performance
majority rule ignores members’ strength of preference for alternatives. The vote of a person who feels strongly about an issue counts only as much as the vote of a person who is virtually indifferent. Consequently, majority rule may not promote creative trade-offs among issues.31 Majority rule also might encourage the formation of coalitions or subgroups within a team. Although unanimous decision making is time consuming, it encourages team members to consider creative alternatives to satisfy the interests of all members. Teams required to reach consensus have greater accuracy than those that are not.32
reFusal tO make decisiOns
Sometimes, people refuse to make decisions and reject all options and delay choice. According to the motivated information processing in groups model, epistemic motivation and social motivation both affect the likelihood that groups will refuse to make decisions.33 When epistemic motivation is low, groups make decisions quickly; when epistemic motivation is high, they often refuse to make decisions. When groups have a proself (as opposed to prosocial) motivation, they have longer discussions and engage in more forcing behavior.34
GROUPTHINK
Groupthink occurs when team members place consensus above all other priorities— including using good judgment—when the consensus reflects poor judgment or improper or immoral actions. For examples of groupthink fiascos in the corporate world, see Exhibit 7-5. The desire to agree can become so dominant that it can override the realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action.35 The causes of groupthink might stem from group pressures to conform or a sincere desire to incorporate and reflect the views of all team members. Such pressure may also come from management if the direc- tive is to reach a decision that all can agree to.36 Conformity pressures can lead decision makers to censor their misgivings, ignore outside information, feel too confident, and adopt an attitude of invulnerability.
Three key symptoms of groupthink take root and blossom in groups that succumb to pressures of reaching unanimity:
• Overestimation of the group: Members of the group regard themselves as invul- nerable and at the same time, morally correct. This can lead decision makers to believe they are exempt from standards.
32Roch, “Why convene rater teams.”
31Mannix, E., Thompson, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (1989). Negotiation in small groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 508–517; Thompson, L., Mannix, E., & Bazerman, M. (1988). Group negotiation: Effects of decision rule, agenda, and aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 86–95; Castore, C. H., & Murnighan, J. K. (1978). Determinants of support for group decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 75–92.
33DeDreu, C.K.W., Nijstad, B.A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(1), 22–49. 34Nijstad, B.A., & Oltmanns, J. (2012). Motivated information processing and group decision refusal. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(5), 637–651. 35Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 36Ibid.
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 172 10/25/16 1:09 PM
Chapter 7 • Team Decision Making: Pitfalls and Solutions 173
• Enron’s board of directors was well informed about (and could therefore have prevented) the risky accounting practices, conflicts of interest, and hiding of debt that led to the company’s downfall; likewise, Arthur Andersen (Enron’s accounting firm) did nothing to halt the company’s high-risk practices.a, b
• The BP oil spill. Employees at BP knew about the dangers and admitted that there were many warning signs. Additionally, bonuses were calculated on the amount of “downtime” for repairs.c
• The Volkswagen scandal. The company installed technology that was not sufficient to comply with emissions standards for smog-forming pollutants, particularly in the United States. The decision to do this goes back a decade when the company’s supervisory board decided to push diesel in the United States.d
• General Motors waiting more than a decade to recall 2.6 million cars because of defective igni- tion switches. The company decided that saving 57 cents per switch was more important than the safety of customers.e
• The anti-poaching suits where in 2013, tech giants Lucasfilm, Pixar and Intuit paid $20 million, and in 2015, Google, Apple, Intel and Adobe paid $415 million for depressing employees’ mobility and therefore their salaries.f
• Johnson & Johnson. J & J knew that talcum powder was associated with ovarian cancer, but supressed evidence.g
Exhibit 7-5 Instances of Groupthink in the Corporate World Based on aJanis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: a psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment (p. 130). New York: the Free press, a Division of Simon & Schuster. b Levine, D. (2004, February 5). the wheels of Washington / groupthink and Iraq. San Francisco Gate. www.sfgate.com. c Byrne, J. a. (2002a, July 29). No excuses for enron’s board. Businessweek, 3793, 50–51. d Byrne, J. a. (2002b, august 12). Fall from grace. Businessweek, 3795, 51–56. e Corrigan, t (2010, august 27). So many warnings, so little action ahead of Bp’s Deepwater disaster. telegraph. telegraph.co.uk.f Davenport, C. & hakim, D. (2016, January 4). U.S. sues Volkswagen in diesel emissions scan-da © Leigh L. thompson
• Closed-mindedness: Members of the group engage in collective rationalization, often accompanied by stereotyping out-group members.
• Pressures toward uniformity: There is a strong intolerance in a groupthink situ- ation for diversity of opinion. Dissenters are subject to enormous social pressure, which often leads group members to suppress their reservations.
Deficits arising from groupthink can lead to many shortcomings in the decision- making process. Consider, for example, the following lapses that often accompany groupthink:
• Incomplete survey of alternatives • Incomplete survey of objectives • Failure to reexamine alternatives • Failure to examine preferred choices • Selection bias
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 173 10/25/16 1:09 PM
174 Part 2 • Team Performance
• Poor information search • Failure to create contingency plans
Each of these behaviors thwarts rational decision making.
learning FrOm HistOry
Consider two decisions made by the same U.S. presidential cabinet—the Kennedy administration. President John F. Kennedy’s cabinet was responsible for the Bay of Pigs operation in 1961 and the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. The Bay of Pigs was a military operation concocted by the United States in an attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro, the leader of Cuba. The Bay of Pigs is often seen as one of the worst foreign policy mistakes in U.S. history. The operation was regarded as a disaster of epic proportions, resulting in the loss of lives and the disruption of foreign policy. It also is puzzling because the invasion in retrospect, seemed to have been poorly planned and poorly implemented, yet it was led by people whose individual talents seemed to make them eminently quali- fied to carry out an operation of that magnitude. In contrast, Kennedy’s response to the Cuban Missile Crisis was regarded as a great international policy success. These examples from the same organizational context and team make an important point: Even smart and highly motivated people can make disastrous decisions under certain conditions. Kennedy’s cabinet fell prey to groupthink in the Bay of Pigs decision but not in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
A number of detailed historical analyses have been performed comparing these two historical examples, as well as several others.37 Some sharp differences distinguish groupthink from vigilant decision making.
Exhibit 7-6 summarizes three kinds of critical evidence: (1) factors that might lead to groupthink; (2) factors that might promote sound decision making; and (3) factors that do not seem to induce groupthink. Leader behavior that is associated with too much concern for political ramifications or the analysis of alternatives in terms of their political repercussions is a key determinant of groupthink. Similarly, when groups are overly concerned with their political image, they might not make sound decisions.
In terms of preventive conditions, the behavior of the team has a greater impact on the development of groupthink than does leader behavior. Effective group decision making can be achieved through task orientation, flexibility, less centralization, norms of openness, encouraging dissent, focusing on shared goals, and realizing that trade-offs are necessary.
reducing grOuptHink
Most of the groupthink phenomena (e.g., closed-mindedness) occur in a far wider range of settings than originally believed, and empirical evidence is mixed.38 In this section,
37Kramer, R. M. (1999). Social uncertainty and collective paranoia in knowledge communities: Thinking and acting in the shadow of doubt. In L. Thompson, J. Levine, & D. Messick (Eds.), Social cognition in organiza- tions: The management of knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Peterson, R. S., Owens, P. D., Tetlock, P. E., Fan, E. T., & Martorana, P. (1998). Group dynamics in top management teams: Groupthink, vigilance, and alternative models of organizational failure and success. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 272–305. 38Baron, R. (2005). So right it’s wrong: Groupthink and the ubiquitous nature of polarized group decision making. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 219–253.
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 174 10/25/16 1:09 PM
Chapter 7 • Team Decision Making: Pitfalls and Solutions 175
Conditions Leader Behavior and Cognition Team Behavior and Cognition
Precipitous conditions (likely to lead to groupthink)
• Narrow, defective appraisal of options
• Analysis of options in terms of political repercussions
• Concern about image and reputation
• Loss-avoidance strategy
• Rigidity • Conformity • View roles in political terms (pro-
tecting political capital and status) • Large team size • Team members feel sense of
social identification with team • Group interaction and discus-
sion must produce or reveal an emerging or dominant group norm
• Low self-efficacy, in which group members lack confidence in their ability to reach a satisfactory resolution
• Perceived threat to social identity
Preventative conditions (likely to engender effective decision making)
• Being explicit and direct about policy preferences allows the team to know immediately where the leader stands
• Task orientation • Intellectual flexibility • Less consciousness of crisis • Less pessimism • Less corruption (i.e., more
concerned with observing correct rules and procedures)
• Less centralization • Openness and candidness • Adjustment to failing policies in
timely fashion • Genuine commitment to solving
problems • Encouraging dissent • Acting decisively in emergencies • Attuned to changes in
environment • Focus on shared goals • Realization that trade-offs are
necessary • Ability to improvise solutions to
unexpected events
Inconclusive conditions (unlikely to make much of a difference)
• Strong, opinionated leadership
• Risk taking • Cohesion • Internal debate
Based on tetlock, p. e., peterson, r., McGuire, C., Chang, S., & Feld, p. (1992). assessing political group dynamics: the test of the groupthink model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 403–425; Baron, r. (2005). So right it’s wrong: Groupthink and the ubiquitous nature of polarized group decision making. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 219–253, © Leigh L. thompson.
Exhibit 7-6 Precipitating and Preventative Conditions for the Development of Groupthink
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 175 10/25/16 1:09 PM
176 Part 2 • Team Performance
helpless and that further argument was fruitless, so I, too, stopped pressing my case.”43 Although the Challenger disaster happened in large part because of poor understanding about how to interpret statistical data, the key point of adopting different perspectives is to create a mechanism that will instigate thinking more carefully about problems, which could prompt these groups to reconsider evidence.
DEvIL’S ADvOCATE By the time upper management is wedded to a particular plan or point of view, they are often impervious to evidence that is questionable or even down- right contradictory. To make matters worse, subordinates often don’t want to challenge management’s beliefs. Accordingly, some teams institute a devil’s advocate to disagree with the dominant proposal and ask questions. Teams that anticipate having to refute counterarguments are less likely to engage in confirmatory information processing as compared to teams that anticipate having to give reasons for their decision.44 Winston Churchill knew how to combat groupthink and yes-men. Worried that his larger- than-life image would deter subordinates from bringing him the truth, he instituted a unit outside his chain of command, called the “statistical office,” whose key job was to bring him the bleakest, most gut-wrenching facts. Similarly, authors of the book How Companies Lie suggest that teams have “counterpointers,” whose chief function is to ask the rudest pos- sible questions.45
Genuine dissent is superior to contrived dissent or no dissent at all in terms of stimulating original ideas, considering opposing positions, and changing atti- tudes.46 A deviant is a person in a group who expresses a different opinion. The presence of a deviant in a group reduces group confidence, increases elaboration, and improves decision quality; however it also decreases group cohesion and task satisfaction.47
STRUCTURED DISCUSSION The goal of structured discussion principles is to delay solu- tion selection and to increase the problem-solving phase. This prevents premature clo- sure on a solution and extends problem analysis and evaluation. For example, teams might be given guidelines that emphasize continued solicitations of solutions, protection from criticism, keeping the discussion problem centered, and listing all solutions before
42Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1998). A social identity maintenance model of groupthink. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2–3), 210–235.
43From Ethical decisions—Morton Thiokol and the space shut-tle Challenger disaster by Roger M. Boisjoly, © 1987 Roger M. Boisjoly. 44Mojzisch, A., Schulz-Hardt, S., Kerschreiter, R., & Frey, D. (2008). Combined effects of knowledge about others’ opinions and anticipation of group discussion on confirmatory information search. Small Group Research, 39(2), 203–223. 45Schroth, R. J., & Elliott, A. L. (2002). How companies lie: Why Enron is just the tip of the iceberg. New York: Crown Business. 46Schulz-Hardt, S., Jochims, M., & Frey, D. (2002). Productive conflict in group decision making: Genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 563–586; Nemeth, C., Connell, J., Rogers, J., & Brown, K. (2001). Improving decision making by means of dissent. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(1), 48–58; Nemeth, C., Brown, K., & Rogers, J. (2001). Devil’s advocate versus authentic dissent: Simulating quantity and quality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 707–720. 47Rijnbout, J.S., & McKimmie, B.M. (2012). Deviance in organizational group decision-making: The role of information processing, confidence, and elaboration. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(6), 813–828.
we identify some specific steps leaders can take to prevent groupthink. Prevention is predicated on two broad goals: the stimulation of constructive, intellectual conflict, and the reduction of concerns about how the group is viewed by others—a type of confor- mity pressure.
TEAM SIZE Larger teams are more likely to fall prey to groupthink.39 People grow more intimidated and hesitant as team size increases. Teams with more than 10 members may feel less personal responsibility for team outcomes.
FACE-SAvING MECHANISM FOR TEAMS A small team that has the respect and support of their organization would seem to be in an ideal position to make effective decisions. Yet often, they fail to do so. Many teams are afraid of being blamed for poor decisions— even decisions for which it would have been impossible to predict the outcome. Often, face-saving concerns prevent people from changing course, even when the current course is clearly doubtful. Teams that are given an excuse for poor performance before knowing the outcome of their decision are less likely to succumb to groupthink than teams that do not have an excuse.40
THE RISK TECHNIQUE The risk technique is a structured discussion situation designed to reduce group members’ fears about making decisions.41 The discussion is structured so that team members talk about the dangers or risks involved in a decision and delay discussion about potential gains. Members then discuss controls or mechanisms for dealing with the risks or dangers. The goal is to create an atmosphere in which team members can express doubts and raise criticisms without fear of rejection or hostility from the team. One way is to have a facilitator play the role of devil’s advocate for a particular decision. The mere expression of doubt by one person might liberate others to raise doubts and concerns. A second method might be to have members privately convey their concerns or doubts and then post this information in an unidentifiable manner.
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIvES In this technique, team members assume the perspective of other constituencies with a stake in the decision.42 In 1986, the space shuttle Challenger exploded after liftoff due to a major malfunction regarding the booster rockets and in particular, O-ring failure. Roger Boisjoly, an engineer who tried to halt the flight in 1986 because he was aware of the likely trouble, said later, “I received cold stares . . . with looks as if to say, ‘Go away and don’t bother us with the facts.’ No one in management wanted to discuss the facts; they just would not respond verbally to . . . me. I felt totally
39McCauley, C. (1998). Groupthink dynamics in Janis’s theory of groupthink: Backward and forward. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2–3), 142–162. 40Turner, M. E., Probasco, P., Pratkanis, A. R., & Leve, C. (1992). Threat, cohesion, and group effectiveness: Testing a social identity maintenance perspective on groupthink. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 781–796. 41Maier, N. R. F. (1952). Principles of human relations, applications to management. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 176 10/25/16 1:09 PM
Chapter 7 • Team Decision Making: Pitfalls and Solutions 177
helpless and that further argument was fruitless, so I, too, stopped pressing my case.”43 Although the Challenger disaster happened in large part because of poor understanding about how to interpret statistical data, the key point of adopting different perspectives is to create a mechanism that will instigate thinking more carefully about problems, which could prompt these groups to reconsider evidence.
DEvIL’S ADvOCATE By the time upper management is wedded to a particular plan or point of view, they are often impervious to evidence that is questionable or even down- right contradictory. To make matters worse, subordinates often don’t want to challenge management’s beliefs. Accordingly, some teams institute a devil’s advocate to disagree with the dominant proposal and ask questions. Teams that anticipate having to refute counterarguments are less likely to engage in confirmatory information processing as compared to teams that anticipate having to give reasons for their decision.44 Winston Churchill knew how to combat groupthink and yes-men. Worried that his larger- than-life image would deter subordinates from bringing him the truth, he instituted a unit outside his chain of command, called the “statistical office,” whose key job was to bring him the bleakest, most gut-wrenching facts. Similarly, authors of the book How Companies Lie suggest that teams have “counterpointers,” whose chief function is to ask the rudest pos- sible questions.45
Genuine dissent is superior to contrived dissent or no dissent at all in terms of stimulating original ideas, considering opposing positions, and changing atti- tudes.46 A deviant is a person in a group who expresses a different opinion. The presence of a deviant in a group reduces group confidence, increases elaboration, and improves decision quality; however it also decreases group cohesion and task satisfaction.47
STRUCTURED DISCUSSION The goal of structured discussion principles is to delay solu- tion selection and to increase the problem-solving phase. This prevents premature clo- sure on a solution and extends problem analysis and evaluation. For example, teams might be given guidelines that emphasize continued solicitations of solutions, protection from criticism, keeping the discussion problem centered, and listing all solutions before
42Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1998). A social identity maintenance model of groupthink. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2–3), 210–235.
43From Ethical decisions—Morton Thiokol and the space shut-tle Challenger disaster by Roger M. Boisjoly, © 1987 Roger M. Boisjoly. 44Mojzisch, A., Schulz-Hardt, S., Kerschreiter, R., & Frey, D. (2008). Combined effects of knowledge about others’ opinions and anticipation of group discussion on confirmatory information search. Small Group Research, 39(2), 203–223. 45Schroth, R. J., & Elliott, A. L. (2002). How companies lie: Why Enron is just the tip of the iceberg. New York: Crown Business. 46Schulz-Hardt, S., Jochims, M., & Frey, D. (2002). Productive conflict in group decision making: Genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 563–586; Nemeth, C., Connell, J., Rogers, J., & Brown, K. (2001). Improving decision making by means of dissent. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(1), 48–58; Nemeth, C., Brown, K., & Rogers, J. (2001). Devil’s advocate versus authentic dissent: Simulating quantity and quality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 707–720. 47Rijnbout, J.S., & McKimmie, B.M. (2012). Deviance in organizational group decision-making: The role of information processing, confidence, and elaboration. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(6), 813–828.
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 177 10/25/16 1:09 PM
178 Part 2 • Team Performance
evaluating them.48 During such discussion, decision makers should be concrete and direct because psychological distance and abstraction increase conformity.49
PROTECT ALTERNATIvE vIEWPOINTS Although teams can generate high-quality decision alternatives, they frequently fail to adopt them as preferred solutions.50 Most problems that teams face are not simple, eureka-type decisions in which the correct answer is obvious when it is put on the table. Rather, team members must convince others about the correctness of their views. This is difficult when conformity pressure exists and when team members have committed publicly to a particular course of action. For these rea- sons, it can be useful to instruct members to record all alternatives suggested during each meeting.
SECOND SOLUTION This technique requires teams to identify a second solution or decision recommendation as an alternative to their first choice. This enhances the prob- lem-solving and idea-generation phases, as well as performance quality.51
TIME PRESSURE Time pressure leads to more risky decision making.52 Time pressure acts as a stressor on teams, and stress impairs the effectiveness of team decision mak- ing.53 Moral principles are more likely to guide decisions for the distant future than for the immediate future, whereas difficulty, cost, and situational pressures are more likely to be important in near-future decisions. Managers are more likely to compromise their principles in decisions regarding near-future actions compared with distant-future actions.54
ESCALATION OF COMMITMENT
Coca-Cola’s decision to introduce New Coke in 1985 was eventually recognized as a mis- take and reversed. Do such clear failures prompt teams to revisit their decision-making process and improve upon it? Not necessarily. In fact, under some conditions, teams persist with a losing course of action, even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. This is known as the escalation of commitment phenomenon.
48Maier, Principles of human relations, applications to management. 49Ledgerwood, A., & Callahan, S. P. (2012). The social side of abstraction psychological distance enhances conformity to group norms. Psychological Science, 23(8), 907–913. 50Janis, Victims of groupthink (2nd ed.), p. 172; Turner, Probasco, Pratkanis, & Leve, “Threat, cohesion, and group effectiveness,” p. 176. 51Hoffman, L. R., & Maier, N. R. F. (1966). An experimental reexamination of the similarity-attraction hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 145–152. 52Young, D. L., Goodie, A. S., Hall, D. B., & Wu, E. (2012). Decision making under time pressure, modeled in a prospect theory framework. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(2), 179–188. 53Morgan, B. B., & Bowers, C. A. (1995). Teamwork stress: Implications for team decision making. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 262–290). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 54Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5–18.
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 178 10/25/16 1:09 PM
Chapter 7 • Team Decision Making: Pitfalls and Solutions 179
Consider the following decision situations.
• Despite the fact that Apple and Android dominated the handheld smartphone business, Microsoft decided to test the waters and joined forces with Nokia, devel- oping a Windows phone on Nokia’s Lumia handsets. After underwhelming reviews, Microsoft could have ended the relationship, but instead it bought Nokia outright.55
• Although the greeting card market declined to $5.4 billion in 2012 and is expected to drop to $4.3 billion by 2018, Hallmark continued to build products that were not profitable.56
• Google Glass, developed in Google’s secretive Google X laboratory, offered the wearable computer prototype for $1500 to only several thousand “explorers” through an application process. Yet, the product’s imperfections were widely acknowledged within the company even before its launch with users reporting software bugs and privacy concerns. Nearly four years after its launch, Google discontinued the product.57
In each of these situations, individuals and teams committed additional resources to what eventually proved to be a failing course of action. Usually, the situation does not initially appear to be unattractive. The situation becomes an escalation dilemma when the people involved would make a different decision if they had not been involved up until that point or when other objective people would not choose that course of action. In escalation situations, a decision is made to commit additional resources to “turn the situation around.” The bigger the investment and the more severe the possible loss, the more prone people are to try to turn things around.
The escalation of commitment process is illustrated in Exhibit 7-7. In the first stage of the escalation of commitment, a decision-making team is confronted with questionable or negative outcomes (e.g., a price drop, decreasing market share, poor performance evaluations, or a malfunction). This external event prompts a reexamina- tion of the team’s current course of action, in which the utility of continuing is weighed against the utility of withdrawing or changing course. This decision determines the team’s commitment to its current course of action. If commitment is low, the team may withdraw from the project and assume its losses. If commitment is high, however, the team will continue commitment and continue to cycle through the decision stages. Four key processes are involved in the escalation of commitment cycle: project-related deter- minants, psychological determinants, social determinants, and structural determinants.58
55Klingebiel, R. (2013, September 3). The right deal for Nokia, but the wrong deal for Microsoft? What the $7.1bn deal really means. The Drum. thedrum.com 56Morris, F. (2015, July 8). To survive, the greeting card industry will have to get creative. National Public Radio. npr.org; Franzen, C. (2013, September 4). Sorry for your loss: Hallmark struggles to update its card empire. The Verge. theverge.com 57Bilton, N. (2015, February 4). Why Google Glass broke. The New York Times. nytimes.com; 12 worst American product flops. (2015, April 15). Market Watch. marketwatch.com 58Ross, J., & Staw, B. M. (1993, August). Organizational escalation and exit: Lessons from the Shoreham nuclear power plant. Academy of Management Journal, 36(4), 701–732.
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 179 10/25/16 1:09 PM
180 Part 2 • Team Performance
prOject determinants
Project determinants are the objective features of the situation. Upon receiving negative feedback, team members ask whether the perceived setback is permanent or temporary (e.g., is reduced market share a meaningful trend or a simple perturbation in a noisy system?). If it is perceived to be temporary, there may appear to be little reason to reverse course. Then, when considering whether to increase investment in the project or com- mit more time and energy, the team is essentially asking whether it wishes to escalate its commitment. Of course, this may often be the right choice, but it should be clear that such decisions also make it harder for the team to terminate that course of action if results continue to be poor.
psycHOlOgical determinants
Psychological determinants refer to the cognitive and motivational factors that propel people to continue with a chosen course of action. When managers or teams learn that the outcome of a project may be negative, they should ask themselves the following questions regarding their own involvement in the process:
WHAT ARE THE PERSONAL REWARDS FOR ME IN THIS PROJECT? In many cases, the pro- cess of the project itself, rather than the outcome of the project, becomes the reason for continuing the project. This leads to a self-perpetuating reinforcement trap, wherein the rewards for continuing are not aligned with organizational objectives. Ironically, people who have high, rather than low, self-esteem are more likely to become victimized by psychological forces—people with high self-esteem have much more invested in their ego than those with low self-esteem.
Exhibit 7-7 Escalation of Commitment
Based on ross, J., & Staw, B. M. (1993). Organizational escalation and exit: Lessons from the Shoreham Nuclear power plant. Academy of Management Journal, 36(4), 701–732, © Leigh L. thompson.
Questionable or Negative Outcomes
Reexamination of Current Course of Action
Perceived Utility of Current Course of Action
Perceived Utility of Withdrawal and/or Change
Commitment to Current Course of Action
Low
Withdrawal and Assumption of Losses
High
Continued Failure
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 180 10/25/16 1:09 PM
Chapter 7 • Team Decision Making: Pitfalls and Solutions 181
ARE MY EGO AND THE TEAM’S REPUTATION ON THE LINE? “If I pull out of this project, would I feel stupid? Do I worry that other people would judge me to be stupid?” Ego protection often becomes a higher priority than the success of the project. When managers feel person- ally responsible for a decision, monetary allocations to the project increase at a much higher rate than when managers do not feel responsible for the initial decision.59
When managers personally oversee a project, they attempt to ensure that the project has every chance of success (e.g., by allocating more resources to it). After all, that is their job. A manager who works on a project from beginning to end is going to know more about it and may be in a better position to judge it. Furthermore, personal commitment is essential for the success of many projects. While it is certainly good to nurture projects so that they have their best chance of survival, it is nearly impossible for most managers to be completely objective. It is important to have clear, unbiased criteria by which to evaluate the success of a project.
sOcial determinants
Most people want others to approve of them, accept them, and respect them. Conse- quently, they engage in actions and behaviors that they think will please most of the people most of the time, perhaps at the expense of doing the right thing, which may not be popular.
The need for approval and liking may be heightened especially among groups composed of friends. Indeed, groups of longtime friends are more likely to continue to invest in a losing course of action (41 percent) than groups composed of unacquainted persons (16 percent) when groups do not have buy-in from relevant organizational authorities. In contrast, when they are respected by their organization, groups of friends are extremely deft at extracting themselves from failing courses of action.60 The greater the group’s sense of social identity, the more likely the group is to escalate commitment to an unreasonable course of action. For example, teams in a city council simulation, faced with an important budget allocation decision regarding a playground project, wore either team name tags (high social identity), or personal name tags (low social identity).61 Groups that were stronger in social identity showed greater escalation of commitment to the ill-fated playground project.
structural determinants
A project can itself become institutionalized, removing it from critical evaluation. It becomes impossible for teams to consider removal or extinction of the project. Political support can also keep alive a project that should be terminated.
59Staw, B. H. (1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 16(1), 27–44. 60Thompson, L., Kray, L., & Lind, A. (1998). Cohesion and respect: An examination of group decision making in social and escalation dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34(3), 289–311. 61Dietz-Uhler, B. (1996). The escalation of commitment in political decision making groups: A social identity approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 611–629.
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 181 10/25/16 1:09 PM
182 Part 2 • Team Performance
minimizing escalatiOn OF cOmmitment tO a lOsing cOurse OF actiOn
Most teams do not realize that they are in an escalation dilemma until it is too late. How can a team best exit an escalation dilemma?62
SET LIMITS Ideally, a team should determine at the outset what criteria and perfor- mance standards justify continued investment in the project or program in question.
AvOID THE BYSTANDER EFFECT In many situations, especially ambiguous ones, people are not sure how to behave and do nothing because they don’t want to appear foolish. This dynamic explains the bystander effect, or the tendency to not take action when others are around.63
AvOID TUNNEL vISION Get several perspectives on the problem.
RECOGNIZE SUNK COSTS Sunk costs are previously invested resources, such as money and time that cannot be recovered. If making the initial decision today, would you make the investment currently under consideration (as a continuing investment), or would you choose another course of action? If the decision is not one that you would choose anew, you might want to start thinking about how to terminate the project and move to the next one. In 2012, the Washington Redskins paid the highest price in NFL history to draft a player, trading several years-worth of first-round draft pics to be able to select Robert Griffin III, the Heisman Trophy winning quarterback from Baylor University. To justify the investment, Griffin would have needed to perform at the level of three-time Super Bowl champion, Tom Brady of the New England Patriots. A stellar first season ended because of a knee injury and the next two seasons resulted in lackluster field performance.64
AvOID BAD MOOD Unpleasant emotional states are often implicated in poor decision making.65 Negative affect (such as bad mood, anger, and embarrassment) leads to nonoptimal courses of action—holding out the hope for some highly positive but risky outcome. When people are upset, they tend to choose high-risk, high-payoff options.66
EXTERNAL REvIEW In some cases, it is necessary to remove or replace the original deci- sion makers from deliberations precisely because they are biased.
62Sleesman, D. J., Conlon, D. E., McNamara, G., & Miles, J. E. (2012). Cleaning up the big muddy: A meta-ana- lytic review of the determinants of escalation of commitment. Academy of Management Journal. 55(3), 541–562. 63Latone, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 64Leonhardt, D. (2014, September 15). Robert Griffin III and the sunk cost fallacy. The New York Times. nytimes. com 65Baumeister, R. F., & Scher, S. J. (1988). Self-defeating behavior patterns among normal individuals. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 104, 3–22. 66Leith, K. P., & Baumeister, R. F. (1996). Why do bad moods increase self-defeating behavior? Emotion, risk-taking, and self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1250–1267.
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 182 10/25/16 1:09 PM
Chapter 7 • Team Decision Making: Pitfalls and Solutions 183
ABILENE PARADOX
The Abilene Paradox results from group members’ desire to avoid conflict and reach consensus at all costs.67 The Abilene Paradox is a form of pluralistic ignorance: Group members adopt a position because they feel other members desire it; team members don’t challenge one another because they want to avoid conflict or achieve consensus.
Jerry Harvey’s story of the Road to Abilene illustrates the dilemma faced by an extended family who pile into a steamy car on a 104-degree West Texas afternoon, in search of ice cream at the other end of a long 50 sun-baked miles across a flat and dust-blown landscape.68 Initially, the family appears enthusiastic, as they willingly leave the fans, cold drinks, and games behind in their home. But after the sunbaked trip to the ice cream shoppe, the flavors on hand are bland – vanilla, a weak chocolate – and neither as good as remembered. Silence descends as the ice cream is eaten. Hours later, after the arduous return trip across the desert, they arrive back home. No one says anything until someone breaks the silence. “Great trip, right?”. “Honestly, no,” barks an annoyed family member, adding that she felt pressured into the trip. “What?!” says somebody else. “I went along with it because it seemed like everyone else wanted to go. Who’d want to go 50 miles for ice cream in that heat?” In other words, the family had voluntarily taken a 100-mile round trip for ice cream on a 104-degree day, though no one actually wanted to go, because they thought that’s what the other people in the group wanted to do.
It may seem strange to think that intelligent people who are in private agreement might somehow fail to realize the commonality of their beliefs and end up in Abilene. However, it is easy to see how this can happen if members fail to communicate their beliefs to each other.
Quandaries like the Abilene Paradox are easy to fall into. Strategies to avoid the sit- uation include: playing devil’s advocate, careful questioning, and a commitment on the part of all team members to voice their opinions as well as respectfully listen to others.
What factors lead to problems like the Abilene Paradox? In general, if individual team members are intimidated or feel that their efforts will not be worthwhile, then they are less likely to voice or defend their viewpoints. This is called self-limiting behavior. According to a survey of 569 managers, there are six key causes of self-limiting behavior in teams:69
• The presence of an expert: If the group perceives that one of their members holds exceptional expertise or experience in the topic under discussion, individuals will self-limit their input.
• A strong argument: If the group has spent a lot of time in circular discussions and idea fatigue has taken hold, a group member who presents a compelling and rea- sonable solution, even if it is not the optimal resolution, may find that their argu- ment is met with agreement because it allows the group to move on with business.
• Lack of self-confidence: When team members are unsure or uncertain about their contributions, they will self-limit.
• Trivial decision: When group members don’t see how the decision impacts them- selves or something important, they will self-limit.
67Harvey, J. (1974). The Abilene Paradox: The management of agreement. Organizational Dynamics, 3(1), 63–80.
69Based on Mulvey, P. W., Veiga, J. F., & Elsass, P. M. (1996). When teammates raise a white flag. Academy of Management Executive, 10(1), 40–49.
68Harvey, J. (1974). The Abilene Paradox: The management of agreement. Organizational Dynam-ics, 3(1), 63–80.
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 183 10/25/16 1:09 PM
184 Part 2 • Team Performance
• Conformity: Roger Boisjoly, chief engineer on the tragic 1986 Challenger space shuttle accident, felt incredible pressure from the NASA management team to conform to their desire to launch.
• A faulty decision-making climate: When team members are easily frustrated and believe that others are dispassionate, involved, or apathetic, they are likely to self-limit.
HOw tO avOid tHe aBilene paradOx70
CONFRONT THE ISSUE IN A TEAM SETTING The most straightforward approach for avoid- ing an ill-fated decision is to meet with organization members who are in positions of power with regard to the decision and to discuss options to continue as well as options to opt out. For example:
I asked to convene this meeting in order to share some of my thoughts regarding our work on project X. At the start of the project I did not feel this way, but with more thought, I have come to think that our current course of action is not work- ing. My anxiety about this situation has grown, and I felt it necessary to share these thoughts with the group in order that we not mislead one another into a false sense of mutual agreement. Without an honest discussion, we might continue to work on a solution that none of us really believes in. That is a poor use of our company time and resources. I would venture to say that others on the team may feel the same way about the current solution, but I don’t want to speak for them. Could we discuss where we all stand on this issue?
CONDUCT A PRIvATE vOTE Dissenting opinions are easier to express privately—dis- tribute blank cards and ask team members to privately write their opinions. Guarantee them anonymity and then share the overall outcomes with the team.
MINIMIZE STATUS DIFFERENCES High-status members are often at the center of communication, and lower status members are likely to feel pressures to conform more quickly. Although this situation can be difficult to avoid, reassurances by senior mem- bers about the importance of frank and honest discussion reinforced by the elimination of status symbols, such as dress, meeting place, and title, may be helpful. Former chair- men of the Federal Reserve Bank, Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan understood how minimizing status differences would lessen the group’s pressure to conform to their opinions. When meeting with their advisory committee, they would poll the committee members first, asking their opinions before revealing their own opinions and preferred action. Similarly, Franklin Delano Roosevelt refused to offer his viewpoint at the outset of a meeting with his staff; instead, he gave them the impression that he agreed with their opinion, even if his view did not match theirs. And, at the security software com- pany Cloudfare, Matthew Prince and his cofounders decided that no employee gets a hierarchical job title, such as “manager,” “executive,” or “VP.” Instead everyone is called by what they do: “engineer,” “designer,” and so on.71
70Based on Harvey, “Abilene paradox,” p. 186; Mulvey, Veiga, & Elsass, “When teammates raise a white flag,” p. 188. 71Sunstein, C.R., Hastie, R. (2015, January 13). How to defeat groupthink: Five solutions. Fortune. fortune.com
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 184 10/25/16 1:09 PM
Chapter 7 • Team Decision Making: Pitfalls and Solutions 185
UTILIZE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD When team members use the scientific method, they let the evidence make the decision, not their own beliefs.
PROvIDE A FORMAL FORUM FOR CONTROvERSIAL vIEWS This may be achieved by segmenting the discussion into pros and cons. Debate must be legitimized. Members should not have to worry about whether it is appropriate to bring up contrary views; it should be expected and encouraged.
TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR FAILURE It is important to create a climate in which teams can make mistakes, own up to them, and then move on without fear of recrimination. At Etsy, not only do engineers send email messages to other colleagues telling them the mistakes they made, so that others don’t make the same mistake, they also give an annual three-armed sweater award to the employee who’s made the most significant error that others can learn from.72 Similarly, at Grey Advertising Global, the “Heroic Failure Award” is given to an employee whose idea was considered a monumental failure.73
GROUP POLARIZATION
Consider the case of an engineer deciding whether or not to change jobs.74 This employee is currently earning a good salary at a solid electronics company. The employee has a great pension with the company and the job is assured for life, however, the salary will not increase much before the employee retires. While attending a conference, the employee was offered another job with a startup company with an uncertain future. The new job would pay more and has the possibility of partnership if the company can thrive and beat out competitors. If you were advising this engineer, what is the lowest probability of success that the startup would need for you to advise the employee to leave their current job for the new opportunity?
Most people independently evaluating the problem state that the new company would need to have nearly a two-thirds probability of success before advising the engineer to leave their current job and accept a new position.75 What do you think hap- pens when the same people discuss the engineer’s situation and are instructed to reach consensus?
The group advises the engineer to take the new job, even if it only has slightly bet- ter than a 50–50 chance of success. In other words, groups show a risky shift. After a group discussion, people with a slight preference for one job candidate will advocate for that person more strongly.76 In a field investigation that analyzed the decisions by federal district court judges, in the 1,500 cases where judges sat alone, they took an extreme
72Nisen. M. (2015, September 18). Why Etsy engineers send company-wide emails confessing mistakes they made. quartz. qz.com 73Moran, G. (2014, April 4). Fostering greater creativity by celebrating failure. Fast company. fastcompany.com 74Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1961). Aspects of judgment and decision making: Interrelationships and change with age. Behavioral Science, 6, 23–31 75Stoner, J. A. F. (1961). A comparison of individual and group decisions involving risk. Thesis, Massachusetts Insti- tute of Technology. 76Main, E. C., & Walker, T. G. (1973). Choice shifts and extreme behavior: Judicial review in the federal courts. Journal of Social Psychology. 91(2), 215–221.
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 185 10/25/16 1:09 PM
186 Part 2 • Team Performance
course of action only 30 percent of the time, but when sitting in groups of three, extreme decision making doubled to 65 percent.77
Now consider a situation in which a company is deciding the highest odds of a drug contraindication that could be tolerated on the release of a new medicine. In this case, individual advisers are cautious, but when the same people are in a group, they collectively insist on even lower odds. Thus, they exhibit a cautious shift. In 2015, after listening to a day of emotional testimony from dozens of patients, a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel insisted on adding stronger label warnings on a popular type of antibiotics called fluoroquinolones because of mounting evidence of very nega- tive side effects. Even though this class of powerful antibiotics has been available for nearly three decades, the panel voted 21-0 for stronger label warnings on all types of fluoroquinolones.78
How can teams be more risky and more cautious than individuals? Teams are not inherently more risky or cautious than individuals; rather they are more extreme than individuals. Group polarization is the tendency for group discussion to intensify group opinion, producing more extreme judgments than might be obtained by pooling the individuals’ views separately (see Exhibit 7-8).
Group polarization is not simply a case of social compliance or a bandwagon effect. The same individuals display the polarization effect when queried privately after group discussion. This means that people really believe the group’s decision; they have conformed inwardly. The polarization effect does not happen in nominal groups. The polarization effect grows stronger with time, meaning that the same person who was in a group discussion two weeks earlier will be even more extreme in his or her judgment.
77Ibid. 78Burton, T.M. (2015, November 5). FDA panel seeks tougher antibiotic labels. The Wall Street Journal. wsj.com
5 71 3 9 104 6 82
P1 P2 P3
P4
P5 P6 P7 P8
Cautious shiftRisky shift
Suppose Group 1 includes 5 people: Person 1(P1) (who chose 1), P2 (who chose 2), P3 (who chose 3), and P4 and P5 (who both chose 5). The average of choices would be (1 + 2 + 3 + 5 + 5)/5, or 3.2. The most likely outcome for Group 1 would be a Risky Shift due to its mean being less than 5.
If Group 2 has 5 people: P4, P5, P6, P7, and P8, their average would be (5 + 5 + 7 + 8 + 9)/5 or 6.8. The most likely outcome for Group 2 would be a Cautious Shift since its mean is higher than 5.
Exhibit 7-8 Group Polarization
Based on Forsyth, D. r. (1983). Group dynamics (2nd ed.). pacific Grove, Ca: Brooks/Cole; rao, V. r., & Steckel, J. h. (1991, June). a polarization model for describing group preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 108–118, © Leigh L. thompson.
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 186 10/25/16 1:09 PM
Chapter 7 • Team Decision Making: Pitfalls and Solutions 187
There are two psychological explanations for group polarization: the need to be right and the need to be liked.
tHe need tO Be rigHt
People are information dependent—that is, they often lack information that another member has. Consequently, individuals look to the team to provide information that they do not know. However, it can lead to problems when people treat others’ opinions as facts and fail to question their validity. The need to be right, therefore, is the ten- dency to look to the group to define what reality is—and the more people who hold a particular opinion, the more right an answer appears to be. While this information- seeking tendency would seem to contradict to the common information effect that we discussed in the previous chapter, the two processes are not inconsistent. The common information effect (and all of its undesirable consequences) is driven by a biased search for information. Conformity, or the adoption of group-level beliefs, is strongest when individuals feel unsure about their own position. Informational influence is likely to be stronger when people make private responses and communicate with the majority indirectly.79
tHe need tO Be liked
Most people have a fundamental need to be accepted and approved by others. One of the most straightforward ways to gain immediate acceptance in a group is to express attitudes consistent with those of the group members. Stated another way, most people like others who conform to their own beliefs. This means that people in groups will become more extreme in the direction of the group’s general opinion because attitudes that are sympathetic toward the group are most likely to be positively rewarded. The need to be liked refers to the tendency for people to agree with a group so that they can feel more like a part of that group. Statistical minority group members are much more preoccupied with their group membership and less happy than majority mem- bers.80 Normative influence, or the need to be liked, is stronger when people make public responses and are face-to-face with a majority.81
Simply stated, people want to make the right decision and they want to be approved by their team. Take the case concerning the engineer. Most people are positively inclined when they agree to recommend that she seriously consider a job change. However, they have different reasons for why she should change jobs. Someone in the group may feel that the engineer should leave the secure job because it does not represent a sufficient challenge; others might think that she should leave the company because she should increase her standard of living. Thus, people believe that the engineer should consider a move, but they have different (yet complementary) reasons supporting their beliefs. This is the rational type of conformity we discussed earlier. At the same time, members of the team want to be accepted—part of the need-to-be-liked process.
79Bond, R. (2005). Group size and conformity. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8(4), 331–354. 80Lucken, M., & Simon, B. (2005). Cognitive and affective experiences of minority and majority members: The role of group size, status, and power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 396–413. 81Bond, “Group size and conformity.”
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 187 10/25/16 1:09 PM
188 Part 2 • Team Performance
cOnFOrmity pressure
The group polarization effect is related to conformity pressure. Conformity occurs when people bring their behavior into alignment with a group’s expectations and beliefs. For a clear and surprising demonstration of the power of conformity pressure, see Exhibit 7-9.
Conformity is greater when the judgment or opinion issue is difficult and when people are uncertain. People are especially likely to conform if they face an other- wise unanimous group consensus.82 Conformity is greater when people value and
82Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous major- ity. Psychological Monographs, 70(9), 1–70. Wilder, D. A., & Allen, V. L. (1977). Veridical social support, extreme social support, and conformity. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 8, 33–41.
83Back, K. W. (1951). Influence through social communication. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 46, 9–23.
Suppose that you are meeting with your team. The question facing your team is a simple one: Which of the three lines in the right panel of the figures given below is equal in length
to the line in the left panel? The team leader seeks a group consensus. She begins by asking the colleague sitting to your left for his opinion. To your shock, your colleague chooses line 1; then, each of the other four team members selects line 1, even though line 2 is clearly correct. You begin to wonder whether you are losing your mind. Finally, it’s your turn to decide. What do you do?
Most people who read this example find it nearly impossible to imagine that they would choose line 1, even if everyone else had. Yet 76 percent make an erroneous, conforming judgment (e.g., choose line 1) on at least one question; on average, people conform one-third of the time when others give the obviously incorrect answer.
Standard Line Comparison Lines
1 2 3
Exhibit 7-9 Conformity Pressure
Source: Based on asch, S. e. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: a minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(9), Whole No. 416, © Leigh L. thompson.
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 188 10/25/16 1:09 PM
Chapter 7 • Team Decision Making: Pitfalls and Solutions 189
cOnFOrmity pressure
The group polarization effect is related to conformity pressure. Conformity occurs when people bring their behavior into alignment with a group’s expectations and beliefs. For a clear and surprising demonstration of the power of conformity pressure, see Exhibit 7-9.
Conformity is greater when the judgment or opinion issue is difficult and when people are uncertain. People are especially likely to conform if they face an other- wise unanimous group consensus.82 Conformity is greater when people value and
82Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous major- ity. Psychological Monographs, 70(9), 1–70. Wilder, D. A., & Allen, V. L. (1977). Veridical social support, extreme social support, and conformity. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 8, 33–41.
83Back, K. W. (1951). Influence through social communication. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 46, 9–23.
admire their team—rejection from a desirable group is very threatening.83 When people are aware that another member of their team advocated an inferior solution to a problem, they are less likely to intervene if they are motivated to be compatible than if they are motivated to be accurate.84 People are more willing to take a stand when they feel confident about their expertise, have high social status,85 are strongly committed to their initial view,86 and do not like or respect the people trying to influence them.87
Coupled with the need to be liked is fear of being ostracized from one’s team. There is good reason for concern because individuals who deviate from their team’s opinion are more harshly evaluated than are those who conform.88 A group may reject a deviant person even when they are not under pressure to reach complete consensus.89 Apparently, holding a different opinion is enough to trigger dislike even when it does not directly block the group’s goals. For this reason, people are more likely to conform to the majority when they respond publicly,90 anticipate future interaction with other group members,91 are less confident,92 find the question under consideration to be ambiguous or difficult,93 and are interdependent concerning rewards.94 Ostracized team members experience a variety of deleterious effects; they don’t like or trust their team, and this might ultimately harm group functioning.95 Most managers dramatically underestimate the conformity pressures that operate in groups. Therefore, managers should anticipate conformity pressures in groups, understand what drives them (i.e., the need to be liked and the desire to be right), and then put into place group structures that will not allow conformity pressures to endanger the quality of group decision making.
84Quinn, A., & Schlenker, B. (2002). Can accountability produce independence? Goals as determinants of the impact of accountability and conformity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(4), 472–483. 85Harvey, O. J., & Consalvi, C. (1960). Status and conformity to pressure in informal groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 182–187. 86Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influence upon indi- vidual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629–636. 87Hogg, M. A. (1987). Social identity and group cohesiveness. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 89–116). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. 88Levine, J. M. (1989). Reaction to opinion deviance in small groups. In P. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 187–231). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates. 89Miller, C. E., Jackson, P., Mueller, J., & Schersching, C. (1987). Some social psychological effects of group decision rules. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 325–332. 90Main & Walker, “Choice shifts and extreme behavior.” 91Lewis, S. A., Langan, C. J., & Hollander, E. P. (1972). Expectation of future interaction and the choice of less desirable alternatives in conformity. Sociometry, 35, 440–447. 92Allen, V. L. (1965). Situational factors in conformity. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.
94Deutsch & Gerard, “A study of normative and informational social influence upon individual judgment.” 95Jones, E. E., Carter-Sowell, A. R., Kelly, J. R., & Williams, K. D. (2009). “I’m out of the loop”: Ostracism through information exclusion. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(2), 157–174.
93Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. New York: Academic Press.
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 189 10/25/16 1:09 PM
190 Part 2 • Team Performance
UNETHICAL DECISION MAKING
Financier Bernie Madoff defrauded thousands of people by committing fraud, theft, and money laundering in a huge Ponzi scheme. At the time of his arrest, he claimed to man- age $65 billion of investors’ money, but in reality, there was just $1 billion.96 Thousands of people were affected and lost their entire life savings.
Unethical decision making shares many of the same dynamics involved in the other concepts we have discussed in this chapter, such as groupthink. Groupthink can lead to a culture of unethical behavior within a company.97 Groups lie more than indi- viduals when deception is guaranteed to result in financial profit.98 And, groups are more strategic than individuals in that they will adopt whatever course of action—decep- tion or honesty—serves their financial interests.99 Teams, however, are concerned about ethics and value group morality more than competence or sociability.100 And, dishon- esty is punished more often by groups than by individuals.101 Certain conditions may act as enabling conditions for unethical behavior.
ratiOnal expectatiOns mOdel
Undergirding virtually all economic theory and practice is the rational expectations model. According to this model, people are fundamentally motivated to maximize their own utility, which has become equivalent to maximizing self-interest. So entrenched is this model in modern business analysis that to make any other assumption about human behavior is irrational, illogical, and flawed. A study of 126 teams revealed that teams that held a utilitarian orientation were more likely to make unethical decisions and engage in unethical behaviors, particularly when the team members had a high degree of psychological safety.102 A poll of 500 financial workers in the United States and the United Kingdom revealed that 24 percent would engage in unethical and illegal behavior if it could help people be more successful in their industry; 16 percent even said that they would commit insider trading if they knew they could get away with it.103
96Teather, D. (2009, June 30). Madoff case: Damned by judge and victims, fraudster will die behind bars: 150-year prison sentence for financier who cheated investors of $65B in one of Wall Street’s biggest frauds. The Guardian, p. 2. 97Sims, R. R. (1992). Linking groupthink to unethical behavior in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(9), 651–662. 98Cohen, T. R., Gunia, B. C., Kim-Jun, S. Y., & Murnighan, J. K. (2009). Do groups lie more than individu- als? Honesty & deception as a function of strategic self-interest. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1321–1324. 99Ibid. 100Leach, C. W., Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of ingroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 234–249. 101Keck, S. (2014). Group reactions to dishonesty. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124(1), 1–10. 102Pearsall, M. J., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2011). Thick as thieves: The effects of ethical orientation and psychological safety on unethical team behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2) 401–411. 103Dominguez, R. (2012, July 12). Survey of senior executives in Britain and U.S. found 24 percent consider unethical or illegal conduct needed for success in the financial world. Daily News. nydailynews.com
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 190 10/25/16 1:09 PM
Chapter 7 • Team Decision Making: Pitfalls and Solutions 191
The norm of self-interest is so pervasive that people often “invent” self-interested explanations about why they perform non-self-serving (or altruistic) acts, such as giving money to charity.104 Even more disconcerting, people who take business courses are sig- nificantly more likely to engage in questionable and potentially unethical behaviors—for example, failing to return money that they find in the street, behaving competitively in a prisoner’s dilemma game, and so on—than people who don’t take business courses.105
False cOnsensus
The false consensus effect is the tendency for people to believe that others share their own views, when, in fact, they do not. For example, people overestimate the degree to which others share their own views about ethical matters.106 This is particularly true for people who occupy central positions in their organizational network. For this reason, a major driver of unethical behavior is the belief that “everyone else is doing it.”
vicariOus licensing
Paradoxically, people are more likely to express prejudiced and immoral attitudes when their group members’ past behavior has established nonprejudiced credentials. For example, participants who had the opportunity to view a group’s nonprejudiced hiring decision were more likely to reject an African American man for a job, presumably because they believed that they had established an initial foundation of morality.107
desensitizatiOn
Another problem concerns desensitization of behavior. When someone first crosses the line of appropriate behavior, that person may experience a range of negative feelings and emotions. After the line is crossed however, the individual is desensitized, and the normal system of internal checks and balances is turned off. See exhibit 7-10 for an example of desensitization of behavior.
The question, of course, is how to remedy or, ideally, prevent this situation. Con- sider the five strategies below:
ACCOUNTABILITY Accountability is the implicit or explicit expectation that one may be called on to justify one’s beliefs, feelings, and actions to others.108 Accountability implies that people who do not provide a satisfactory justification for their actions will suffer negative consequences. To the extent that groups feel accountable for their behav- ior, they are more likely to behave ethically. For example, group members are more likely
105Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. T. (1993). Does studying economics prohibit cooperation? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(2), 159–171. 106Flynn, F. J., & Wiltermuth, S. S. (2010). Who’s with me? False consensus, brokerage, and ethical decision making in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1074–1089. 107Kouchaki, M. (2011). Vicarious moral licensing: The influence of others’ past moral actions on moral behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(4), 702–715. 108Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255–275.
104Miller, D. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54(12), 1053–1060.
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 191 10/25/16 1:09 PM
192 Part 2 • Team Performance
to compensate for the ethical transgression of an in-group member when they are observed by others. In contrast, an absence of accountability can lead to unethical deci- sion making. For example, the World Bank is not subject to auditing reviews by any one country. Without such agency oversight, the internal workings and policies of the World Bank have become increasingly corrupt. Individual accountability at the World Bank is loosely monitored, and the only real insights about the bank’s finances and decision ethics often come from internal whistleblowers.109
The following are considerations regarding accountability in organizational deci- sion making:110
109Behar, R. (2012, June 27). World Bank mired in dysfunction: Mess awaits new head. Forbes. forbes.com 110From “Accounting for the effects of accountability” by Jennifer S. Lerner and Philip E. Tetlock in Psycho- logical Bulletin, © 1999 American Psychological Association.
In the spring of 2014, the city of Flint, Michigan changed the source of its water from Detroit’s system, which draws from Lake Huron, to the Flint River. Originally done at the request of a state-appointed emergency financial manager, the change was done to save the city of Flint $12 million annually. By the fall of 2014, the local General Motors plant stopped using the river water due to concerns that the chemicals found in the water were 19 times more corrosive than Lake Huron and would corrode car engines. Over the next year, the people of Flint began noticing skin rashes, hives, and a burning sensation on their skin after they showered. Many residents complained of the smell and taste of the water and how it often made them have nau- sea and diarrhea. The city heard of the complaints and issued several boil orders and increased the amount of chlorine in the water supply. Even after researchers tested the Flint River water supply and found lead levels in the city water exceeded 100 parts per billion, well above the EPA’s allowed levels of 15 parts per billion, the city’s emergency manager and mayor still didn’t take any action to change the water back to Detroit’s supply. Despite mounting evidence of poisons in the water supply, Flint Mayor Dayne Walling dismissed ideas of upgrading the city water treatment plant facilities or installing an industrial grade carbon water filter saying the changes ‘probably weren’t necessary’ due to future plans to put in a pipeline to source water directly from Lake Huron. The city emergency manager Jerry Ambrose regularly cited the sav- ings the city got from using the Flint River supply, but didn’t mention why that windfall had not been passed along to the city’s residents, many living below the poverty line and barely able to pay for their bills for the city’s unusable water and unable to afford bottled water or tap filters. In Flint, Mr. Ambrose’s and Mayor Walling’s lack of concern for the citizens and unethical decision-making show their desensitization to the health issues raised by citizens, researchers, and healthcare professionals and unnecessarily exposed thousands of people to the irreversible negative effects of lead poisoning.
Exhibit 7-10 Desensitization of Behavior Based on Gottesdiener, L. (2015, april 3). Flint, Mich., residents find state water control hard to swal- low. Al Jazeera. america.aljazeera.com; Gilman, a. (2015, September 25). researchers: Lead levels up after Flint switches to cheaper water supply. Al Jazeera. america.aljazeera.com, © Leigh L. thompson.
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 192 10/25/16 1:09 PM
Chapter 7 • Team Decision Making: Pitfalls and Solutions 193
• Accountability to an audience with known versus unknown views: People who know what conclusion the ultimate audience wants to hear often conform. For example, financial-aid agents who do not know their audience’s preferences match awards to needs effectively; agents who know their audience’s preferences tell them what they want to hear (not what will actually meet their needs).111
• Pre-decision versus post-decision accountability: After people irrevocably commit themselves to a decision, they attempt to justify their decisions. For example, peo- ple form less complex thoughts and hold more rigid and defensive views when they are accountable and express their attitudes.112
• Outcome accountability versus process accountability: Accountability for outcomes leads to greater escalation behavior, whereas accountability for process increases decision-making effectiveness.113
• Legitimate versus illegitimate accountability: If accountability is perceived as ille- gitimate—for example, intrusive and insulting—any beneficial effects of account- ability may fail or backfire.114
CONTEMPLATION Contemplation is morally-oriented conversation in the face of deci- sion making. In one study, people were tempted to lie. Those who engaged in contem- plation, or morally-oriented conversation, told the truth, but those who engaged in self-interested conversation or simply made an immediate choice, lied.115
ELIMINATE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Conflicts of interest occur when a person is not incentivized to act in accordance with the best interests of the organization. Consider how compensation committees make CEO pay decisions. People adjust for known con- flicts of interest, but they are not able to adjust for lavish versus modest advice given to them.116
CREATE CULTURES OF INTEGRITY The culture of a team emerges as a result of design factors in the organization and the team. Even in the most tightly controlled, bureau- cratic organizations, it is impossible to monitor the actions of every employee. This is where the cultural code is supposed to guide every team member to make the right decisions without supervision. For example, group members comply with group norms of morality because they anticipate gaining respect when enacting the group’s moral
111Adelberg, S., & Batson, C. D. (1978). Accountability and helping: When needs exceed resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 343–350. 112Tetlock, P. E., Skitka, L., & Boettger, R. (1989). Social and cognitive strategies for coping with account- ability: Conformity, complexity and bolstering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 632–640. 113Doney, P. M., & Armstrong, G. M. (1996). Effects of accountability on symbolic information search and information analysis by organizational buyers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24, 57–65. 114Lerner & Tetlock, “Accounting for the effects of accountability.” 115Gunia, B. C, Wang, L., Huang, L., Juwein, L., & Murnighan, J. K. (2012). Contemplation and conversation: Subtle influences on moral decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 13–33. 116Bonner, B.L., & Cadman, B.D. (2014). Group judgment and advice-taking: The social context underlying CEO compensation decisions. Group Dynamics: Theory Research and Practice, 18(4), 302–317.
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 193 10/25/16 1:09 PM
194 Part 2 • Team Performance
values.117 In some cases however, employees may engage in unethical behaviors because they believe that it will benefit their organization. Field studies of employees who identify strongly with their organization indicate that they are more likely to engage in unethical behavior that benefits their organization when they believe that the benefit will be reciprocated.118
According to the trickle-down model of ethical decision making, leaders play a prominent role in influencing employees’ propensity to be ethical and helpful.119 Indeed, there is a direct, negative relationship between leadership and ethical behavior: The more ethical the leadership, the less unethical and less deviant the teams’ behavior.120 Failure to discipline transgressions in teams can be just as damaging as the failure to reward excellent behavior. Business cultures that lack the ability to take swift and decisive action run the risk of unethical behavior by default.
Hypocrisy occurs when people fail to act in accordance with their stated values. The hypocrisy-by-association effect occurs when an employee fails to practice what an organization preaches.121 Employees of an organization are seen as morally obligated to uphold the values their organization promotes. Since 2013, Wells Fargo Bank has surveyed employees to decipher their confidence in the firm and to measure employee satisfaction through what is known as the “happy to grumpy ratio.” The belief is that if employees refer the bank’s products to friends and family and rate higher on the hap- piness scale, they are likely to act more ethically.122
FUTURE SELF-ORIENTATION People who feel continuity with their future selves are more likely to behave in ethically responsible ways as compared to people who lack continuity with their future selves. For example, people who did not feel a connection to themselves in the future were more likely to lie, make false promises, and cheat.123
117Pagliaro, S., Ellemers, N., & Baretto, M. (2011). Sharing moral values: Anticipated ingroup respect as determinant of adherence to morality-based (but not competence-based) group norms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(8), 1117–1129. 118Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Unethical behavior in the name of the company: The moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro- organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 769–780. 119Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117–134. 120Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. (2009). How low does ethical lead- ership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 1–13. 121Effron, D. A., Lucas, B. J., & O’Connor, K. (2015). Hypocrisy by association: When organizational mem- bership increases condemnation for wrongdoing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 130, 147–159. 122Glazer, E., & Rexrode, C. (2015, February 1). As regulators focus on culture, Wall Street struggles to define it. The Wall Street Journal. wsj.com 123Hershfield, H. E., Cohen, T. R., & Thompson, L. (2012). Short horizons and tempting situations: Lack of continuity to our future selves leads to unethical decision making and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(2), 298–310.
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 194 10/25/16 1:09 PM
Chapter 7 • Team Decision Making: Pitfalls and Solutions 195
Chapter Capstone
Teams make important decisions and some of them will not be good ones, despite the very best of intentions. It is unrealistic to suggest that poor decision making, or for that matter even disastrous decision making, is avoidable. The key message harkens back to a point we made early in Chapter 1, which is to create an organization that can optimally learn from failure. Learning from failure is difficult when people suffer—especially innocent ones. The key for decision-making teams within
organizations is to develop and use decision- making procedures, such as veto policies and preestablished criteria to guide decision mak- ing. All these decisions involve a certain level of risk but that risk can be minimized. There is a clear difference between principled risk taking and unethical risk taking. Creating cultures of integrity involves ethical leader- ship from the top down and making sure that incentives for behavior do not encourage or reward unethical behavior.
M07_THOM4204_06_SE_C07.indd 195 10/25/16 1:09 PM
196
Among the numerous leadership principles, or “articles of faith,” that Amazon. com founder and CEO Jeff Bezos created when the online retailer sold only books, was an instruction to “disagree and commit.” Practically, this meant tearing into colleagues’ ideas with blunt feedback. Each year, Amazon recruiters identify thousands of job prospects who are screened by “bar raisers”—stars in the Amazon culture. The company links performance to the success of their assigned projects. The leadership principles emphasize continuing feedback as well as competition among employees to correct problems or suggest improvements. An emboldened junior employee co-invented Amazon’s drone-by-delivery service; and a lower-level operations executive developed an idea to get goods to urban customers in an hour or less—Amazon’s Prime Now service. “We always want to arrive at the right answer,” one company executive said. “It would certainly be much easier and socially cohesive to just compromise and not debate, but that may lead to the wrong decision.”1
Unlike Amazon, many organizations are not comfortable with conflict. Not surprisingly, conflict within teams and between teams is one of the top concerns of team management.2 Many teams either actively avoid conflict and risk making “trips to Abilene” (as discussed in Chapter 7) or engage in personal, rather than principled, conflict. Some team leaders pride themselves on the fact that they never have conflict in their teams and these leaders do their teams a great disservice.
Differences in interests, perceptions, information, and preferences cannot be avoided espe- cially in teams that work closely together for extended periods of time. Improperly managed conflict may lead to hostility, performance deficits and in extreme cases, the dissolution of the team. Under some circumstances, conflict can benefit teamwork. Engineers at Apple accus- tomed to working on their own projects in a silo, often find the peer-vetted reviews of their work disruptive. During the peer review, team members present their work to the team and receive both positive and negative feedback. This process can lead to conflict, but at the end of the day,
1From Inside Amazon: Wrestling big ideas in a bruising workplace by Jodi Kantor, © August 15, 2015 The New York Times. 2Thompson, L. (2016). Leading high impact teams. Team leadership survey from the Kellogg School of Management Executive Program. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Managing Team Conflict8
C H
A P
T E
R
M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 196 10/25/16 3:09 PM
Chapter 8 • Managing Team Conflict 197
team members agreed that this type of team conflict ensured that work didn’t progress too far without checks and balances and ultimately resulted in a better product.3
Conflict can have positive consequences, such as enhancing creativity or fostering integrative solutions that reflect many points of view. Alternatively, conflict can thwart a team’s effectiveness and performance.
In this chapter, we distinguish different types of conflict in teams. We describe dif- ferent styles and methods of conflict resolution. We discuss minority versus majority conflict in teams. We focus on specific interventions that teams and their leaders can take to proactively manage conflict.
RELATIONSHIP, TASK & PROCESS CONFLICT
There are three distinct types of conflict: relationship, task, and process conflict (see Exhibit 8-1).4
Relationship ConfliCt
Relationship conflict is personal, defensive, and resentful. Also known as A-type con- flict, emotional conflict, or affective conflict,5 it is rooted in anger, personal friction, personality clashes, ego, and tension. This is the type of conflict that most team leaders and team members try to avoid. Relationship conflict is more depleting and exhausting than other types of conflict.6 Consider when two top executives at Common Form Inc., held different views about when a product should launch. After weeks of tension, the conversation got heated and more confrontational, and the product launch was even further delayed.
Relationship conflict is not always expressed via open shouting matches. In fact, some people go to great lengths to avoid the overt expression of conflict. For example, Argyris describes a case in which lower-level managers identified a number of serious production and marketing problems in their company.7 They told the middle manag- ers, and after the middle managers were convinced that the situation described by the lower managers actually was true, they began to release some of the bad news, but they did so carefully, in measured doses. They managed their communications carefully to make certain they were “covered” if upper management became upset. The result was
3England, L. (2015). What Apple employees really think about the company’s internal corporate culture. Business Insider. businessinsider.com 4Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282; 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; Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. K. (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; Peterson, R. S. (1997). A directive leadership style in group decision making can be both virtue and vice: Evidence from elite and experimental groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1107–1121. 5Guetzkow, H., & Gyr, J. (1954). An analysis of conflict in decision-making groups. Human Relations, 7, 367–381. 6Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Exhausting or exhilarating? Conflict as threat to interests, relationships and identities. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 48(2), 530–537. 7Argyris, C. (1977b). Organizational learning and management information systems. Harvard Business Review, 55(5), 115–125.
M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 197 10/25/16 3:09 PM
198 Part 2 • Team Performance
Type of Conflict Definition Example of Items Used to Assess/ Measure This Type of Conflict
Relationship conflict (also known as emo- tional conflict, A-type conflict, or affective conflict)
Involves disagreements based on personal and social issues that are not related to work
How often do people get angry while working in your team? How much relationship tension is there in your team?
Task conflict (also known as cognitive conflict or C-type conflict)
Involves disagreements about the work that is being done in a group
To what extent are there differences of opinion in your team? How much conflict is there about the work you do in your team? How often do people in your team dis- agree about opinions regarding the work to be done? How frequently are there conflicts about ideas in your team?
Process conflict Centers on task strategy and delegation of duties and resources
How often do members of your team disagree about who should do what? How frequently do members of your team disagree about the way to complete a team task? How much disagreement about the del- egation of tasks exists within your team?
Exhibit 8-1 Three Types of Conflict
Based on Jehn, K. A. (1995, June). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282; 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; Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Tro- chim, W. M. K. (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; Peterson, R. S. (1997). A directive leadership style in group decision making can be both virtue and vice: Evidence from elite and experimental groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1107–1121, © Leigh L. Thompson.
that top management was never fully apprised of the problems—rather, they received a strangely edited view of the problem. Therefore, top management continued to speak glowingly about the product, in part to ensure that it would get the financial backing it needed from within the company. Lower-level managers became confused and eventu- ally depressed because they could not understand why top management continued to support the product. Their reaction was to reduce the frequency of their memos and the intensity of the alarm they expressed, while simultaneously turning the problem over to middle management.
Relationship conflict is more likely to occur when teams experience abusive supervision.8 Some people are motivated to search for information regarding whether
8Farh, C.I.C., Chen, Z. (2014). Beyond the individual victim: Multilevel consequences of abusive supervision in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1074–1095.
M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 198 10/25/16 3:09 PM
Chapter 8 • Managing Team Conflict 199
other team members have threatened or harmed them. People who are high in motiva- tion to acquire relationship-threatening information (MARTI), make more sinister attributions about their coworkers, are more likely to exclude prospective group mem- bers from joining their group, and plan to reject them if they do become members.9 Examples of the types of statements that people high in MARTI endorse include the following: “I like working in groups and have often worked with other people in a group setting. However, I am always interested to know whether others in the group have said unkind or unfair things about me without me knowing about it” and “I want to know whether co-workers have said harmful things about me to other people in or outside the group.”10
task ConfliCt
Task conflict, or cognitive conflict, is largely depersonalized; also known as C-type conflict, it consists of argumentation about the merits of ideas, plans, and projects. Known as “radical candor” or “front-stabbing,” task conflict does not attack the per- son but rather focuses on ideas by asking employees to debate and talk.11 People who strongly identify with their group are more likely to speak up and show dissent when they perceive harm to the group’s welfare.12 For example, while at Google, Sheryl Sand- berg told a fellow Google executive that she sounded unintelligent by saying “um” too much in an important meeting.13 In some situations, task conflict can be effective in stimulating creativity because it encourages people to rethink problems and arrive at outcomes with which everyone can live. For example, when the majority is confronted by the differing opinions of minorities, they are prompted to think about why the minori- ties disagree and in so doing, generate more novel ideas.14 Further, people who engage in task-related communication cooperate more in mixed-motive situations because talking about the task activates thoughts and norms related to fairness and trust.15
pRoCess ConfliCt
Process conflict centers on disagreements that team members have about how to approach a task and specifically, who should do what. Process conflict often involves disagreements among team members as to how to achieve a goal. Process conflict ran high when Pebble, the company that developed the smartwatch, joined forces with Apple to develop an application for iPhone users. The team disagreed about deadlines
9Marr, J. C., Thau, S., Aquino, K., & Barclay, L. J. (2012). Do I want to know? How the motivation to acquire relationship-threatening information in groups contributes to paranoid thought, suspicion behavior, and social rejection. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(2), 285–297. 10From “Do I want to know? How the motiva-tion to acquire relationship-threatening information in groups contributes to paranoid thought, suspicion behavior, and social rejection” by Jennifer Carson Marr, Stefan Thau, Karl Aquino , Laurie J. Barclay in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, © 2012 Elsevier. 11Feintzeig, R. (2015, December 30). ‘Nice’ is a four-letter word at companies practicing radical candor. Wall Street Journal. wsj.com; Shellenbarger, S. (2014, December 14). To fight, or not to fight? Wall Street Journal. wsj.com 12Packer, D. J., & Chasteen, A. L. (2010). Loyal deviance: Testing the normative conflict model of dissent in social groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(1), 5–18. 13Feintzeig (2015, December 30). “‘Nice’ is a four-letter word at companies practicing radical candor.” 14Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1985). Innovation and socialization in small groups. In S. Moscovici, G. Mugny, & E. van Avermaet (Eds.), Perspectives on minority influence (pp. 143–169). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; Nemeth, C. J. (1995). Dissent as driving cognition, attitudes, and judgments. Social Cognition, 13, 273–291. 15Cohen, T. R., Wildschut, T., & Insko, C. A. (2010). How communication increases interpersonal cooperation in mixed-motive situations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(1), 39–50.
M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 199 10/25/16 3:09 PM
200 Part 2 • Team Performance
for testing the application and review processes, and the result was almost a 6-month delayed launch.16
impaCt on peRfoRmanCe
How does the nature of conflict affect team performance? A 2012 meta-analysis revealed a negative relationship between relationship conflict and team outcomes.17 However, there was not a significant negative relationship between task conflict and group perfor- mance, suggesting that task conflict was not detrimental to team performance. A study of 145 organizational teams revealed that task conflict predicted better group perfor- mance; but relationship conflict was associated with worse performance.18
Certain conditions enable task conflict to improve team performance. Specifically, there are three conditions under which greater task conflict can enhance team produc- tivity: task complexity, information processing capability, and appropriate expression.19 Stated succinctly, the often negative relationship between task conflict and team perfor- mance can be positive when: (1) tasks are sufficiently complex; (2) the team members can process information; and (3) conflict is expressed in an appropriate manner when it emerges. Moreover, a study of 232 employees in a health care organization revealed that mild task conflict engendered more information acquisition, however more frequent, intense task conflict hindered information acquisition.20 When team members engage in mild task conflict, they are more active, energized, interested, and excited, all of which lead to greater job satisfaction.
Relationship conflict interferes with the effort people put into a task because mem- bers are preoccupied with reducing threats, increasing power, and attempting to build cohesion rather than working on the task. The anxiety produced by interpersonal ani- mosity may inhibit cognitive functioning21 and distract team members from the task, causing them to work less effectively and produce suboptimal products.22 Relationship conflict is detrimental to both performance and satisfaction (two major indices of team productivity) because emotionality reduces team effectiveness.23 Relationship conflict
16Mark Gurman, M. (2015, June 3). Pebble blames Apple for delayed iOS Pebble Time app as first backers receive watches. 9to5Mac. 9to5mac.com; Kelly, H. (2015, September 23). Pebble launches round, thin smartwatch. CNN Money. money.cnn.com 17De Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390. 18Chun, J.S., & Choi, J.N. (2014). Members’ needs, intragroup conflict, and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 437–450. 19Bradley, B.H., Anderson, H.J., Baur, J.E., & Klotz, A.C. (2015). When conflict helps: Integrating evidence for beneficial conflict in groups and teams under three perspectives. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 19(4), 243–272. 20Todorova, G., Bear, J.B., & Weingart, L.R. (2014). Can conflict be energizing? A study of task conflict, positive emotions, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 451–467. 21Roseman, I., Wiest, C., & Swartz, T. (1994). Phenomenology, behaviors, and goals differentiate emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 206–221. 22Wilson, D. C., Butler, R. J., Cray, D., Hickson, D. J., & Mallory, G. R. (1986). Breaking the bounds of organization in strategic decision making. Human Relations, 39, 309–332. 23Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530–557.
M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 200 10/25/16 3:09 PM
Chapter 8 • Managing Team Conflict 201
increases rigidity in terms of people holding onto suboptimal preferences, leading to poor decisions.24 In addition, relationship conflict negatively interferes with a team’s abil- ity to process information.25 A field study of task and relationship conflict in work teams in Taiwan and Indonesia revealed that relationship conflict exacerbated the negative relationship between task conflict and team performance.26 When it comes to team sat- isfaction, relationship conflict is more disruptive for teams than is task conflict.27 Indeed, relationship conflict is more interpersonal, emotional, and likely to be directed at others.
Some investigations have studied the time course of conflict in teams. Groups that have high levels of trust among their members during the early stages of group develop- ment are buffered from experiencing future relationship conflict (see Exhibit 8-2). When groups receive negative performance feedback early on, both relationship and task conflict
• Risk tolerance of group. • Number of similarities among group members. • Alignment of group interests. • Group members take actions that demonstrate
authentic concern for each other. • Individual members demonstrate competence in
carrying out their tasks and fulfill their promises. • Group members behave consistently. • Conversations are can did and frequent.
Factors that A�ect Intragroup Trust
When low-trust groups receive negative performance feedback early on, the lack of trust for individual group members can increase thereby increasing both relationship and task conflict.
When teams experience conflict and are in a low-trust group, this can lead to the group reducing individual autonomy and loosen task interdependencies within the team.
Low Intragroup Trust
Groups who have high levels of trust among their members during the early stages of group development are buffered from experiencing future relationship conflict.
High Intragroup Trust
Task Conflict
R el
at io
ns hi
p C
on fli
ct
Low
Lo w
High
H ig
h
Medium
M ed
iu m
Low In tra
group Trust
High Intragroup Trust
Exhibit 8-2 Trust Tempers Negative Conflict
Based on Peterson, R. S., & Behfar, K. J. (2003). The dynamic relationship between performance feedback, trust, and conflict in groups: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92, 102–112; Hurley, R. (2006). The decision to trust. Harvard Business Review, 84(9), 55–62, © Leigh L. Thompson.
24De Wit, F.R.C., Jehn, K.A., & Scheepers, D. (2013). Task conflict, information processing, and decision- making: The damaging effect of relationship conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 177–189. 25De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003a). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749. 26Shaw, J. D., Zhu, J., Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shih, H.-A., & Susanto, E. (2011). A contingency model of conflict and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 391–400. 27De Dreu & Weingart (2003a). “Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis.”
M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 201 10/25/16 3:09 PM
202 Part 2 • Team Performance
increase.28 Increased team conflict also leads teams to unintentionally restructure them- selves inefficiently. When teams experience conflict, they have lower trust, which leads them to reduce individual autonomy and loosen task interdependencies in the team.29
peRsonality & ConfliCt
One investigation examined three “dark personality” traits—manipulativeness, narcis- sism, and secondary psychopathy. Teams whose members were higher in secondary psychopathy were more likely to have poor conflict resolution strategies which led to lower task performance.30 Conversely, when team members are high in openness or emotional stability, task conflict has a positive impact on performance. However, when team members are low in openness or emotional stability, task conflict has a negative impact on performance.31
team identifiCation
Task and relationship conflict tend to be positively correlated: task conflict often can be associated with relationship conflict and vice-versa in a team. To the extent that team members have a high level of team identification however, task conflict can be de-coupled from relationship conflict.32
poweR & ConfliCt
Team power refers to the control of resources that enables a team to influence others in the organization. Process conflict is higher in high-power teams, as compared to low-power teams, thus rendering teams higher in power to underperform relative to teams lower in power.33 The type of conflict behavior (constructive vs. destructive) in teams depends on the power of the team, as well as the likelihood that power determines victory and defeat. In one investigation, teams who were low in power became more constructive when power would not determine victory and the threat of defeat was low, as compared to high-power teams.34 However, when power determines victory and defeat, powerless groups tend to behave more unconstructively.
28Peterson, R. S., & Behfar, K. (2003). The dynamic relationship between performance feedback, trust, and conflict in groups: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92, 102–112. 29Langfred, C. W. (2007). The downside of self-management: A longitudinal study of the effects of conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 885–900. 30O’Neill, T. A., & Allen, N. J. (2014). Team task conflict resolution: An examination of its linkages to team personality composition and team effectiveness outcomes. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 18(2), 159. 31Bradley, B., Klotz, A., Postlethwaite, B., & Brown, K. (2013). Ready to rumble: How team personality composition and task conflict interact to improve performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 385–392. 32Schaeffner, M., Huettermann, H., Gebert, D., Boerner, S., Kearney, E., & Song, L. J. (2015). Swim or sink together: The potential of collective team identification and team member alignment for separating task and relationship conflicts. Group & Organization Management, 40(4), 467–499. 33Greer, 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. 34Kamans, E., Otten, S., Gordijn, E. H., & Spears, R. (2010). How groups contest depends on group power and the likelihood that power determines victory and defeat. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(6), 715–724.
M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 202 10/25/16 3:09 PM
Chapter 8 • Managing Team Conflict 203
oRganizational Climate and ConfliCt
Teams that lack uniformity in their organizational climate have higher levels of task con- flict as well as lower communication quality than teams that establish uniform climate patterns (in which team members share similar perceptions of organizational support).35
global CultuRe and ConfliCt
Differences exist among global cultures about conflict. Compared to East Asians, Americans exhibit an optimistic bias about relationship conflict.36 When it comes to task conflict, both Americans and East Asians believe in addressing conflict proactively, but European Americans don’t think that it is necessary to address relationship conflict to get good performance. Americans are more likely than East Asians to join a talented group that is known to have high relationship conflict.
Linguistic-related challenges in multicultural teams increase the likelihood of relationship conflict.37 For this reason, talking about the conflict actually may do more harm than good. With regard to cultural beliefs, Americans are considered to be largely individualistic as compared to Asians, who are considered to be collectivistic.38 When a norm of collectivism is manipulated (imposed on a group), members with concordant attitudes are evaluated more positively than those with dissenting attitudes; but when a norm of individualism is imposed, dissenters are more highly valued.39
Given the differences in cultural styles of expressing conflict, teams are well served to discuss differences and in some cases, provide training. For example, when Sonu Shivdasani, the CEO of luxury resort chain Soneva, bought a hotel management com- pany in Thailand, he found that the Thai business culture required some adjustments from his Western business norms. Thai people place such importance on respecting authority that Shivdasani’s personal assistant would crouch on her knees when entering his office so that her head would be below his. The CEO offended some of his manag- ers by speaking in a manner perceived as blunt in a culture where raising one’s voice typically leads to greater silence from the listener. So, the company developed its own “Soneva” language of 200–300 words to transcend vast cultural differences. For example, all employees are referred to as “hosts” in order to give them a sense of familial owner- ship. With the new language, traditionally reluctant employees began to speak out more. “In a discussion, even when they are two or three layers below the most senior person, they will be quite happy to make their points, and they’ll feel empowered to make state- ments that may be in disagreement,” Shivdasani said.40
35González-Romá, V., & Hernández, A. (2014). Climate uniformity: Its influence on team communication quality, task conflict, and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1042. 36Sanchez-Burks, J., Neuman, E., Ybarra, O., Kopelman, S., Goh, K., & Park, H. (2008). Cultural folk wisdom about relationship conflict. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 1(1), 55–78. 37Von Glinow, M. A., Shapiro, D. L., & Brett, J. M. (2004). Can we talk, and should we? Managing emotional conflict in multicultural teams. Academy of Management Review, 29(4), 578–592. 38Brett, J. M. (2007). Negotiating globally: How to negotiate deals, resolve disputes, and make decisions across cultural boundaries. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 39Hornsey, M. J., Jetten, J., McAuliffe, B. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2006). The impact of individualist and collectivist group norms on evaluations of dissenting group members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 57–68. 40From Language can be key to results by Sonia Kolesnikov-Jessop, © The New York Times.
M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 203 10/25/16 3:09 PM
204 Part 2 • Team Performance
TYPES OF CONFLICT
pRopoRtional and peRCeptual ConfliCt
Proportional conflict occurs when team members have different ideas about the amount and type of conflict that exists in their group. In any team, for example, there may be differing actual levels of relationship, task, and process conflict, and the relative levels of such conflicts are crucial aspects for team leaders to understand because they affect task performance.41 Proportional conflict composition describes the relation- ship among the three types of conflict (task, relationship, and process) as the level of each type of conflict proportional to the other two and to the overall level of conflict within the group, rather than as an absolute level or amount of any one type. For example, a team that experiences a moderate amount of constructive task conflict and no other conflict (no relationship or process conflict) will have a different experience than will members of another group with not only the same amount of task con- flict but also a high proportional level of relationship conflict.42 In the former group, members should experience less stress, less distraction, and less anger, which are fre- quent consequences of relationship conflict43 as compared to members of the group containing more moderate levels of task and relationship conflict. Indeed, teams with a high proportion of task conflict experience a higher level of team member commit- ment, cohesiveness, individual performance, group performance, and member satis- faction. In contrast, a high proportion of relationship conflict is related negatively to member commitment, cohesiveness, individual performance, group performance, and member satisfaction.
Perceptual conflict refers to the extent to which there is agreement or a lack thereof, in terms of whether team members perceive conflict. Perceptual conflict composition is the degree to which each person in a team perceives levels of conflict differently from other team members.44 Specifically, each member’s perceptions of conflict are compared to all other members’ perceptions of the group. For example: Two team members in an eight-person team perceive arguments in the group pertain- ing to the task, while the other six members do not detect such conflict.45 These two members have a larger perceptual conflict composition score than those members who believe that there is no task conflict. A study of 51 workgroups revealed that differences in the perceptions of conflict decreased team performance and creativity in teams.46
41Jehn, K., & Chatman, J. A. (2000). Reconceptualizing conflict: Proportional and relational conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1), 51–69. 42Ibid.
44Jehn, K., & Chatman, J. A. (2000). Reconceptualizing conflict: Proportional and relational conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1), 51–69. 45Ibid. 46Jehn, K. A., Rispens, S., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2010). The effects of conflict asymmetry on work group and individual outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 596–616.
43Amason, A. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 123–148; Jehn, K. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value based intragroup conflict. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 223–238; Jehn, “Multimethod examination of intragroup conflict,” p. 202.
M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 204 10/25/16 3:09 PM
Chapter 8 • Managing Team Conflict 205
ConfliCt states vs. ConfliCt pRoCesses
Conflict states are distinguishable from conflict processes.47 Conflict states are shared perceptions among members of the team about the intensity of disagreement about either tasks (i.e., goals, ideas, and performance strategies) or relationships (i.e. personality clashes, interpersonal styles). Conversely, conflict processes are members’ interactions aimed at working through task and interpersonal disagreements. Most notably, states and processes affect team outcomes, but the processes teams use to manage their differences explain more variance in outcomes. In terms of key processes, collectivistic conflict pro- cess (i.e., concern for the team as a whole) is positively related to better performance and more positive affective outcomes. Conversely, individualistic processes (i.e., concern for individuals) are negatively related to both performance and affective team outcomes.48
ConfliCt Contagion
Conflict contagion refers to how interpersonal, dyadic conflict can spread to others. Conflict contagion can lead to conflict escalation.49
distRibutive vs. pRoCeduRal ConfliCt
Sometimes, people engage in conflict about the distribution of scarce resources, such as salaries and support staff. In other instances, people are involved in conflict con- cerning procedures. People often become so preoccupied with concerns about dis- tributive and procedural fairness that they monitor others and gather and process information in their organization. For example, employees who regard their organi- zation to be market-focused tend to gather information about distributive fairness; conversely, employees who regard their organization to be bureaucratic tend to gather information about procedural justice.50 Prospective group members use procedural allocation criteria as one basis for choosing groups and show a strong preference for equality-based groups.51
equity, equality and need
There are at least three different ways of allocating scarce resources. The equity method (or contribution-based distribution) prescribes that benefits (and costs) should be pro- portional to team members’ contributions.52 The equality method (or blind justice)
47DeChurch, 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. 48Ibid. 49Jehn, K., 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. 50Long, C. P., Bendersky, C., & Morrill, C. (2011). Fairness monitoring: Linking managerial controls and fairness judgments in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 1045–1068. 51Poepsel, D. L., & Schroeder, D. A. (2013). Joining groups: How resources are to be divided matters. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 17(3), 180. 52Adams, S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.
M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 205 10/25/16 3:09 PM
206 Part 2 • Team Performance
prescribes that all team members should suffer or benefit equally, regardless of input.53 The need method (or welfare-based justice) prescribes that benefits (and costs) should be proportional to members’ needs.54
Groups that emphasize productivity favor equity rules, but there is little evidence that equity actually facilitates productivity in groups. Equity facilitates productivity in groups whose members have an independent (i.e., self-interested) self-construal as opposed to an interdependent construal.55 Another problem is that some people often feel more entitled than others do. For example, team members who contribute less prefer to divide resources equally, whereas those who contribute more prefer the equity rule.56 In groups contain- ing members with different power or status levels, those with low power want equality, whereas those with high power desire equity.57 In short, most people feel entitled to more resources than others believe that they merit. Oftentimes, this is driven by egocentric valuations of one’s own contributions to a joint task. For example, in one investigation, team members were asked to complete several questionnaires.58 These took either 45 or 90 minutes. The questionnaires were constructed such that for each duration some par- ticipants completed six questionnaires, whereas others completed only three. When asked to allocate monetary rewards, participants emphasized the dimension that favored them in the allocation procedure (those who worked longer emphasized time; questionnaire completion was emphasized by those who worked on more questionnaires). Most people, however, are not aware that their own perceptions of fairness are egocentrically biased.
There is no objectively correct method of justice. In fact, teams often have several different methods in operation at any one time. For example, consider a study group in a semester-long course. Team members may assign work on a joint project on the basis of equity, such that people with greater experience and skills in a certain subject area are expected to bring more knowledge to the task (e.g., the finance major might be expected to read the financial report individually, perform all the calculations, and develop a spreadsheet by himself or herself). In terms of reserving study group rooms and bringing snacks for group meetings, the group might use an equality method, such that each week a different group member is expected to supply drinks and cookies and reserve a room. This group occasionally might invoke a need-based justice system when, for example, a study group member misses three group meetings in preparation for a wedding. The rest of the group may agree to cover his or her work so that the teammate can prepare for the wedding. The question of how to reduce self-serving, or egoistic, judgments of entitlements in teams is vexing. While it would seem that perspective tak- ing may minimize egocentric judgments, people who are encouraged to consider the perspectives of others increase their egoistic (selfish) behavior, such that they actually
55Goncalo, J. A., & Kim, S. H. (2010). Distributive justice beliefs and group idea generation: Does a belief in equity facilitate productivity? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(5), 836–840. 56Allison, S., & Messick, D. (1990). Social decision heuristics and the use of shared resources. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3, 195–204. 57Komorita, S., & Chertkoff, J. (1973). A bargaining theory of coalition formation. Psychological Review, 80, 149– 162; Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. 58Van Avermaet, E. (1975). Equity: A theoretical and experimental analysis. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.
54Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137–149.
53Messick, D. (1993). Equality as a decision heuristic. In B. A. Mellers & J. Baron (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on justice (pp. 11–31). New York: Cambridge University Press.
M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 206 10/25/16 3:09 PM
Chapter 8 • Managing Team Conflict 207
take more available resources.59 Perhaps even more surprising is that groups do not like members who are unselfish. When groups perceive members to be contributing too much toward the provision of a good, but then use little of that good, they are targets of expulsion from the group.60 Apparently, such group members are seen as establishing an undesirable behavior standard.
minoRity and majoRity ConfliCt
Sometimes, conflicts involve subgroups within a given team, involving a majority and a minority. There are two ways in which majorities and minorities influence their teams. One method is through direct influence, such as when they entice other team members to adopt their position. Another method is via indirect influence, in which people in the majority privately agree with the minority.61 When people change their attitudes and behaviors as a result of direct influence or pressure, it is referred to as compliance (early and direct adoption of a position); in contrast, when people change their attitudes and behavior as a result of their own thinking about a subject, it is known as conversion (pri- vate acceptance). Conversion also can occur at a latent level and have a delayed impact, such as when change occurs later, known as the sleeper effect.62 Conversion is a more stable form of attitude change because a person changes inwardly, not just outwardly, to please others. Minorities induce conversion, whereas majorities induce compliance.
Minorities who are perceived as experts serve as a catalyst by increasing the quality of majority members’ cognitions and whether the majority makes more accurate private judgments.63 Minorities in groups are beneficial because they stimulate greater thought about issues.64 When minorities in a group express a differing opinion, the general level of cognitive activity in the group increases and group members engage in more message scrutiny.65 Minority opinions do not simply get groups to focus on a given message; they stimulate much broader thinking about the issue in general and open the doors to considering multiple perspectives, perhaps only one of which might represent the minority’s view.66 Minorities are able to shift norms about helping behavior in a group
59Epley, N., Caruso, E. M., & Bazerman, M. (2006). When perspective taking increases taking: Reactive egoism in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 872–889. 60Parks, C. D., & Stone, A. B. (2010). The desire to expel unselfish members from the group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(2), 303–310. 61Mugny, G. (1982). The power of minorities. London: Academic Press; Nemeth, C., & Wachtler, J. (1974). Creating perceptions of consistency and confidence: A necessary condition for minority influence. Sociometry, 37, 529–540. 62Moscovici, S., Mugny, G., & Papastamou, S. (1981). Sleeper effect and/or minority effect? Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 1, 199–221. 63Sinaceur, M., Thomas-Hunt, M. C., Neale, M. A., O’Neill, O. A., & Haag, C. (2010). Accuracy and perceived expert status in group decisions: When minority members make majority members more accurate privately. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 423–437. 64Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23–32; Perez, J. A., & Mugny, G. (1996). The conflict elaboration theory of social influence. In E. H. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Small group processes and interpersonal relations (Vol. 2, pp. 191–210). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 65Moscovici, S. (1980). Towards a theory of conversion behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 209–239). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 66Nemeth, “Differential contributions,” p. 217; Nemeth, C. J. (1997). Managing innovation: When less is more. California Management Review, 40, 59–74.
M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 207 10/25/16 3:09 PM
208 Part 2 • Team Performance
68Nemeth, C., & Rogers, J. (1996). Dissent and the search for information. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 67–76. 69Nemeth, C., Mayseless, O., Sherman, J., & Brown, Y. (1990). Improving recall by exposure to consistent dissent. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 429–437. 70Butera, F., Mugny, G., Legrenzi, P., & Perez, J. A. (1996). Majority and minority influence: Task representation and inductive reasoning. British Journal of Social Psychology, 67, 123–136. 71Nemeth, C., & Wachtler, J. (1983). Creative problem solving as a result of majority vs. minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 45–55. 72Gruenfeld, D. H. (1995). Status, ideology, and integrative complexity on the U.S. Supreme Court: Rethinking the politics of political decision making. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 68(1), 5–20. 73Nemeth, C. J, & Kwan, J. L. (1985). Originality of word associations as a function of majority vs. minority influence processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 277–282; Nemeth, C., Rogers, J., & Brown, K. (2001). Improving decision making by means of dissent. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 48–58. 74Gruenfeld, D. H., Thomas-Hunt, M. C., & Kim, P. (1998). Cognitive flexibility, communication strategy, and integrative complexity in groups: Public versus private reactions to majority and minority status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 202–226. 75Van Dyne, L., & Saavedra, R. (1996). A naturalistic minority influence experiment: Effects on divergent thinking, conflict and originality in work groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 151–167. 76Nemeth, C. J. (1976). A comparison between majority and minority influence. Invited Address. International Congress for Psychology. Joint Meeting of SESP and EAESP, Paris; Nemeth, “Differential contributions,” p. 217. 77Nemeth & Rogers, “Dissent and the search for information.” 78Nemeth & Kwan, “Originality of word associations,” p. 217. 79Perez, J. A., & Mugny, G. (1987). Paradoxical effects of categorization in minority influence: When being an out-group is an advantage. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 157–169.
through modeling and advocating.67 Indeed, people who have been exposed to minor- ity dissent search for more information about all sides of an issue,68 remember more information,69 deploy more effective performance strategies,70 detect solutions that are elusive to others,71 think in more complex ways,72 and are more creative.73 The authors of U.S. Supreme Court majority opinions tend to concern themselves with specifying all imaginable contingencies under which the law should and should not apply to ensure the longevity of their precedent. In contrast, the authors of minority U.S. Supreme Court opinions often focus on arguments that eventually could facilitate the precedent’s over- ruling. People who are exposed to members who hold a minority view experience an increase in their own levels of integrative thought; in contrast, people exposed to majority opinions or unanimous groups actually experience a decrease in integrative thinking.74 Teams make better decisions when a minority viewpoint is present and expressed.75
In addition to instigating greater message scrutiny and cognitive activity, statisti- cal minorities stimulate divergent thinking.76 While majorities induce thoughts that are convergent in the sense of focusing on one solution to the exclusion of all others, minorities induce divergent thinking by considering several perspectives.77 In this sense, minorities are more likely than majorities to have more original thoughts. For example, their associations to words under dispute are more original than majority groups.78
Even when a minority is wrong about a given issue, its presence adds value to a group by stimulating divergent thinking, increasing creative ideas, generating more ideas, and arriving at better solutions. However, minorities certainly are not always suc- cessful in terms of stimulating conversion. Indeed, people in groups may want to actively dissociate from the minority subgroup so as to avoid ridicule and rejection.79 When
67Grant, A. M., & Patil, S. V. (2012). Challenging the norm of self-interest: Minority influence and transitions to helping norms in work units. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 547–568.
M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 208 10/25/16 3:09 PM
Chapter 8 • Managing Team Conflict 209
80Mugny, Power of minorities, p. 216; Crano, W. D. (2000). Social influence: Effects of leniency on majority and minority-induced focal and indirect attitude change. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 15, 89–121. 81Baron, R., & Bellman, S. (2007). No guts, no glory: Courage, harassment and minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 101–124. 82McLeod, P., Baron, R., Marti, M., & Yoon, K. (1997). The eyes have it: Minority influence in face-to-face and computer mediated group discussion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 706–718.
group members actively avoid minority members, their attitudes about related topics might change.80
In some cases, minorities might be harassed or pressured by the majority. In fact, a “harassed” minority is actually more persuasive than a nonharassed minority on both direct and indirect measures of influence.81 The reason why harassed minorities are viewed more positively is rooted in the courage hypothesis—people who persist in the face of hardship and ridicule are viewed as particularly sincere, confident, and coura- geous, given that they are willing to risk social censure. The braver the members of the minority appear to be, the greater their impact. And, if harassed minorities persist in public (rather than in private), they are even more admired and persuasive.82
woRk–family ConfliCt
Some teams struggle because team members experience a conflict between work and team obligations and commitment to their own family. Work–family conflict (WFC) might be expressed at the individual level, such as when a person feels stress about their own work–family situation or at the level of the team. WFC is stronger for people who are demographically dissimilar to their team in terms of gender and number of depen- dents.83 WFC at the work group level leads to WFC at the individual level. When team members feel that they have social support from the team, however, WFC is reduced.
oRganizational CultuRe ConfliCt
Leaders’ conflict management behaviors give rise to three distinct cultures in organiza- tions: collaborative, dominating, and avoidant. An investigation of 92 branches of a large bank revealed that conflict cultures affect branch viability (i.e., cohesion, potency, and burnout) and branch performance (i.e., creativity and customer service).84
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
Next, we present models for resolving conflict.
ConfliCt modes
According to Thomas, people can take at least five courses of action when they find themselves involved in conflict.85 The five choices differ depending upon the extent to which people are concerned for themselves and the other party (see Exhibit 8-3).
83Bhave, D. P., Kramer, A., & Glomb, T. M. (2010). Work-family conflict in work groups: Social information processing, support, and demographic dissimilarity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 145–158. 84Gelfand, M., Leslie, L., Keller, K., & Dreu, C.K.W. (2012). Conflict cultures in organizations: How leaders shape conflict cultures and their organizational-level consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1131–1147. 85Thomas, K, W, (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Reflection and update. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3), 265–274.
M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 209 10/25/16 3:09 PM
210 Part 2 • Team Performance
Let’s use the model to analyze a conflict that occurred at Columbia Sportswear company (see Exhibit 8-4). Before Neal Boyle (husband and father) died, his wife and son were engaged in a long-standing stalemate in which they did not engage or interact very much. When Neal died, Tim and his mother, Gert, competed, each intimidating the other. However when they focused on a higher-order goal, cut their salaries, and rebuilt the com- pany, they were engaged in collaboration. When the question of off-shoring came up, Gert capitulated to Tim and accommodated his desires. It is fortunate for the company that Tim and Gert moved from avoidance to collaboration at a critical stage in their company’s life.
Concern for the other person (empathy)
C o
nc er
n fo
r O
ne se
lf (s
el f-
in te
re st
; se
lf- pr
es er
va tio
n) Avoidance (stalemate)
Compromise
Collaboration (win-win)
Accommodation (capitulation)
Competition (intimidation)
Exhibit 8-3 Conflict Modes
Based on Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Reflec tions and update. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 265–274, © Leigh L. Thompson.
Outdoor retailer Columbia Sportswear, Inc. founders Tim Boyle and his mother, Gert, had spent more than three decades arguing about the best ways to run their company. In 1970, after the sudden death of Neal Boyle—Tim’s father and Gert’s husband—the two had to scramble in an attempt to save the small company. Shortly before he died, Neal had taken out a $150,000 small business loan using the family home as collateral, thereby tying the family’s survival directly to the company. The first year was a disaster. Sales shrank 25 percent and many core employees quit. Tim and Gert admitted that, because of their inexperience, they quickly made many bad business decisions. Business was bad in the first years of the company and continued to decline. Mother and son even tried to sell the company for $1,400 (Columbia reported revenues of $1.7 billion in 2011), but balked when the potential buyer came up with a list of additional demands. Tensions mounted between mother and son, but by collaborating, working long hours, and agreeing to cut their salaries significantly, they slowly rebuilt the company. However, as Columbia grew, Tim and Gert again butted heads. When Tim pushed to expand the company and arranged deals with mass-market retailers such as J. C. Penney & Co., Gert opposed him. Having been a part of the company from its beginnings, spending time in the sewing shop, stitching together some of Columbia’s first fishing vests, Gert feared that big retailers would pressure the company in undesirable ways. Tim, however, was never good at explaining the reasoning behind his decision making to his mother. During the 1980s, Tim insisted on moving manufacturing offshore to cut assembly costs, but his mother resisted. She personally knew many of the company’s seamstresses and didn’t want to see them lose their jobs. The two finally compromised and agreed to enlist the help of advisers to mediate the dispute (something they continued to do
M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 210 10/25/16 3:09 PM
Chapter 8 • Managing Team Conflict 211
86De Dreu, C. K.W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003b). A contingency theory of task conflict and performance in groups and organizational teams. In M. A. West, D. Tjosvold, & K. G. Smith (Eds.), International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons LTD.
ContingenCy theoRy of task ConfliCt and peRfoRmanCe in teams
A contingency perspective views team performance as a function of the type of task conflict, the conflict management approach, and the nature of the task performed by the group.86 As can be seen in Exhibit 8-5, the amount of conflict is a direct determinant of team performance and individual well-being (i.e., individual satisfaction).
Team Performance
Task Conflict
Type of Conflict Conflict Management Approach
• Collaborate (high concern for self and others)
• Content • Routine
• Process • Complex
• Ill-defined • Contend
(high concern for self)
• Avoidance
Uncertainty About Task
Individual Health and Well-being
Exhibit 8-5 Conflict and Team Performance
Based on De Dreu, C.K.W., Weingart, L.R. (2003b). A contingency theory of task conflict and performance in groups and organizational teams. In M.A. West, D. Tjosvold, K.G. Smith (Eds.), International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, © Leigh L. Thompson.
with numerous future disputes). Gert eventually accommodated Tim’s wishes and agreed to move production to Asia. The mother and son team carved out separate areas of authority and avoided frequent contact. Specifically, Tim focused on driving “Columbia’s strategy and expanding the company globally; Gert became the company’s ambassador, hosting company tours” and starring in Columbia’s marketing ads as “one tough mother.” Their differing responsibilities, and the fact that they moved their offices to opposite sides of the company headquarters, reduced the potential for conflict. The two learned how to work together, and separately, for the benefit of the company. The company achieved record sales of $2.1 billion in 2014 and shares rose 25 percent in 2015. That year the company launched a global advertising campaign “Tested Tough,” which featured 91-year-old Gert—still the company chairman and still coming to work every day as she has for 50 years.
Exhibit 8-4 Columbia Sportswear Company
Based on Steen, M. (2011, Autumn). Columbia sportswear: An American success story. Family Business Magazine. familybusinessmagazine.com; Anders, G. (2005, October 10). When mom is chairwoman and son is CEO, tension reigns. Wall Street Journal, p. B1; Valdiva, S. (2015, November 12). Businessperson of the year: Tim Boyle, CEO, Columbia Sportswear. Fortune. fortune.com, © Leigh L. Thompson.
M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 211 10/25/16 3:09 PM
212 Part 2 • Team Performance
In the model, the type of conflict might be either the content of the task or the process of the task (similar to task conflict and process conflict, as described earlier). Task-content conflicts are disagreements among team members’ ideas and opinions about the task being performed, including debates about facts or opinions. In contrast, task-process conflicts are conflicts about logistical and delegation issues, such as how to proceed and allocate work.
Individual well-being exerts a powerful effect on how people deal with conflict. For example, people who endure levels of high stress activate hormones that result in a number of negative physiological outcomes, including headaches and increased cardiovascular response.87 Several investigations—one involving more than 3,000 employees—reveal a positive and significant correlation between conflict at work and physical health problems.88
investment model of ConfliCt
Rubult’s EVLN model of conflict in close relationships argues that people can take one of four approaches when confronted with conflict: exit, voice, loyalty, or neglect.89 Exit refers to formally separating, or moving out of a relationship and in many cases ending all contact. Loyalty occurs when people passively wait and hope that things will improve. Voice involves discussing problems, investing in mutually agreeable solutions, and a willingness to change. For example, a manager says, “I need to talk to you about something that is bothering me . . . ” or “I feel uncomfortable about the status of the current project, and I suspect you might feel the same way, and I hope to clarify . . . ” Neglect happens when people ignore the other party and are passive. To the extent that people are satisfied with their relationship, they are more likely to use voice and loyalty (versus exit or neglect). When people are highly invested, they are more likely to use voice and loyalty. Team-level commitment moderates the relationship between organizational-level commitment and the use of EVLN, such that greater commitment increases the use of voice.
A longitudinal investigation of 38 workers revealed two additional destructive options: imagined exit and brutal neglect.90 In some teams, members might engage in open hostility or attack one another. Exhibit 8-6 (Conflict Choices) represents an application of Rusbult’s conflict model to people in business teams. In this model, people’s behavior in conflict is depicted in terms of two key dimensions: active versus passive behavior and constructive versus destructive action. When people are passive and destructive, they engage in avoidance. This means ignoring the other party or not engaging in a potentially clarifying discussion.
87Pennebaker, J. W. (1982). The psychology of physical symptoms. New York: Springer-Verlag. 88Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 356–367. 89Rusbult, C.E., Zembrodt, I.M., & Gunn, L.K. (1982). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: Responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6): 1230–1242. 90Grima, F., & Glaymann, D. (2012). A revisited analysis of the Exit-Voice-Loyalty-Neglect model: Contributions of a longitudinal and conceptually extended approach. M@n@gement, 15(1), 1–41.
M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 212 10/25/16 3:09 PM
Chapter 8 • Managing Team Conflict 213
91Grynbaum, M.M., & Craig, S. (2015, July 29). Cuomo and de Blasio end the silence, but not the feud. The New York Times. nytimes.com; Scott, E. (2015, July 3). Bill de Blasio, Andrew Cuomo fight enters spotlight. CNN. cnn.com 92From “When the boss is a screamer” by Sue Shellenbarger in Wall Street Journal, © August 15, 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Let’s use the model to examine a business conflict. After nearly a month of careful avoidance of one another at parades and political party functions (neglect), New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio finally reached out via a telephone call to air their mutual concerns (engage). The conversation was the first interaction between the two politicians since de Blasio lambasted the governor’s lack of support for affordable housing in New York City (attack). The discord between the two politicians had been the negative backdrop to a large number of tussles between City Hall and the state government in Albany; staff members on both sides were relieved when the two men made efforts to communicate.91
When a person actively undermines the other person and recruits resources to block and thwart them, this is known as attack. For example, Andrew Cornell, CEO of Cornell Iron Works in Mountaintop, Pennsylvania, aims to not become a boss known for tirades. Although he sometimes feels like yelling when employees don’t or can’t meet his expectations, Mr. Cornell bites his tongue. “Yelling is a vestige of a past time, and I always regret it,” he says.92
D es
tr uc
tiv e
Passive Active
C o
ns tr
uc tiv
e
Ignore or avoid the other person; Do not engage in clarifying discussion
Tolerate the relationship, rationalize behaviors, hoping it will resolve itself
AVOID
ENGAGERATIONALIZE
ATTACK
Be proactive; Talk about the conflict and commit to strategies to make the relationship better
Actively undermine the other person; recruit resources to block and thwart them
Exhibit 8-6 Conflict Choices
Based on Impact of Exchange Variables on Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect: An Integrative Model of Responses to Declining Job Satisfaction Author(s): Caryl E. Rusbult, Dan Farrell, Glen Rogers, Arch G. Mainous III Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Sep., 1988), pp. 599–627 Published by: Academy of Management, © Leigh L. Thompson.
M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 213 10/25/16 3:09 PM
214 Part 2 • Team Performance
wageman and donnenfeld’s ConfliCt inteRvention model
Wageman and Donnenfeld distinguish four kinds of interventions that team leaders and managers can use to improve the quality of conflict resolution processes:93
• Team (re)Design: Deliberate changes in the structure (e.g., environment and tasks) in which teams do their work. Interventions might include increasing the amount of task interdependence that a team has in accomplishing a given work product. Team design usually involves very specific, structural changes to a group, which might include how the goal is defined, who is on the team, the nature and amount of resources allocated to the team, team rewards, and norms of conduct.
• Task process coaching: Coaching that helps the team perform better via changes in effort, strategy, and talent. Task process coaching is different from conflict process coaching in that task process coaching is aimed exclusively at improving motiva- tion, strategy, and talent but not conflict per se. Task process coaching may include developing team members’ skills, improving the communication system, and so on.
• Conflict process coaching: Direct intervention in a team to improve the quality of conflict in the team.94 Interventions might include trust-building exercises, struc- tured debate, and appointing a devil’s advocate.
• Changing the individual: Individual-level training with the goal of making specific team members more tolerant, thoughtful, and capable when they disagree with others.95 This might include behavioral training in negotiation.
Wageman and Donnenfeld propose four guiding principles for enhancing teams with respect to conflict:96
Principle 1: Of all the strategies listed above, Team (re)Design has the largest effects. For this reason, Wageman and Donnenfeld suggest starting at this point of inter- vention.97 An effective team design addresses the root causes of most team conflicts. One important aspect of team design is the stated goal of the team.
Teams that agree on a common goal or shared vision are more successful than those that don’t or can’t. When 33 Chilean miners were trapped one-half mile beneath the ground, they survived by creating a leadership structure focused on one goal: surviving until they could be rescued. For 69 days, the miners maintained a leadership structure by choos- ing a leader and delegating tasks. The miners followed a strict schedule of daily tasks such as exercise and cleaning up the very informal living area. Every decision was voted upon.98
96Wageman, R., & Donnenfeld, A. (2007). Intervening in intra-team conflict. In K. M. Behfar & L. L. Thompson (Eds.), Conflict in organizational groups: new directions in theory and practice. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
94Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management Review, 30, 269–287. 95Lewicki, R. J., Weiss, S. E., & Lewin, D. (1992). Models of conflict, negotiation, and third party intervention: A review and synthesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 209–252.
97Ibid. 98Moffett, M. (2010, August 25). Trapped miners kept focus, shared tuna. Wall Street Journal. wsj.com
93Based on Wageman, R., & Donnenfeld, A. (2007). Intervening in intra-team conflict. In K. M. Behfar & L. L. Thompson (Eds.), Conflict in organizational groups: new directions in theory and practice. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, © Leigh L. Thompson.
M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 214 10/25/16 3:09 PM
Chapter 8 • Managing Team Conflict 215
Common goals do not imply homogeneous thinking, but they do require everyone to share a vision. Consider the two advertising executives who launched ZinePak, a company that packages CDs, glossy magazines, interviews, and merchandise that appeal to what they call “superfans.” Co-founder Kim Kaupe and Brittany Hodak shared a vision for growth, saying they would rather own “10% of a hundred million-dollar pie, than own 100% of a 5-million-dollar pie.” They also had to share the vision of control- ling 51% of their company after they appeared on Shark Tank.99
Principle 2: After the team is well designed, the team leader should use the strategy of coaching the team. Coaching the team can work only if the team is well designed. Coaching that focuses on the key performance drivers reinforces the team design. After taking over as Ford’s CEO in 2006, Alan Mulally instituted a weekly meeting, called the Business Plan Meeting (BPR) where managers presented a report on his/her areas, coded in green, yellow or red, to show whether business was on target. At the first BPR, all of Ford’s managers coded their business unit reports as green. Mr. Mulally used the meet- ings as coaching opportunities by supporting leaders who helped one another rather than focusing solely on problems within their business unit. In one meeting, the team clapped when a manager put a red flag on his own program.100
Principle 3: Coaching about conflict might engender resistance relative to dis- cussions about motivation, strategy, or leveraging talent in the team. In some cases, coaching about conflict and relationships might even backfire.101 Yet, it often can be effective for a team to develop strategies for dealing with potential future conflict pro- actively. Indeed, groups that develop norms regarding how they will manage conflict are more effective than those that do not develop norms.102 And, groups that develop collaborative conflict norms make more effective group decisions than do groups that use contending or avoidance styles. Conflict norms also carry over to affect other team activities, such as decision making that doesn’t necessarily involve conflict. Furthermore, friends are better at applying effective conflict management strategies to suit the task at hand than are teams of strangers whose conflict management approaches are less sophisticated.103
One type of intervention is structured debate. Most people, even seasoned man- agers and executives, feel uncomfortable about conflict. However, it is much easier to deal with conflict by creating a time and place for it to occur, rather than expecting it to naturally erupt. Furthermore, discussing the potential for conflict before it erupts is a lot more effective than trying to deal with it after the fact. At Southwest Airlines, leaders wanted to change a culture of “artificial harmony” among employees. So, the airline began promoting middle managers to executive positions based on that man- ager’s ability to spark positive conflict among their team members. In addition, the newly
100Stallard, M.L. (2014, January 22). 7 practices of Alan Mulally that helped Ford pass competitors. Fox Business. foxbusiness.com; Boudette, N.E., Rogers, C., & Lublin, J.S. (2014, April 21). Mulally’s legacy: Setting Ford on a stronger course. The Wall Street Journal. wsj.com 101Kaplan, R. E. (1979). The conspicuous absence of evidence that process consultation enhances task performance. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 15, 346–360. 102Kuhn, 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. 103Shah & Jehn, “Do friends perform better than acquaintances?” p. 205.
99Fenn, D. (2015, April 27). After landing $725,000 on ‘Shark Tank,’ 2 young founders tell all. Inc Magazine. inc.com; Inc Magazine (producer). (2015). Partners need to share a vision. inc.com
M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 215 10/25/16 3:09 PM
216 Part 2 • Team Performance
minted managers attended a five-week training program to help them learn to embrace and foster rigorous internal debates.104
With regard to conflict coaching, it is important to focus on content rather than style. In other words, focus on the substance, not the delivery. The most successful proj- ect teams are those that rise above style issues and focus on content.105 The focus on content, rather than style, is similar to the prescriptive advice of “separating the people from the problem.”106
Principle 4: Changing individuals will have its greatest impact only after the team design and team processes are addressed. People have a better chance of changing when the team design is optimal and the core team processes are positive, thereby serving to reinforce individual behavior.
inteRests, Rights, and poweR model of disputing
According to the interests, rights, and power model, team members tend to use one of the following three methods to resolve disputes: interests-based arguments, rights-based arguments, or power-based arguments. A rights-based argument focuses on apply- ing some standard of fairness, precedent, contract, or law. A power-based approach is characterized by the use of force, intimidation, rank, or power. Avoidance is yet another option for team members. Collaborative styles of conflict management, such as constructive controversy, are more beneficial for team performance.107 An interest- based approach focuses on satisfying both parties’ core interests; when people set aside questions of right and wrong, they can sometimes craft terms that meet their most important interests but usually not all of them.
As an example of the difference between collaborating (interests) and contend- ing (i.e., rights- or power-based approaches) in teams, consider a team in which there has been a serious, long-standing conflict concerning the nature of the assignments given to team members. Some assignments are clearly regarded as more attractive and career-enhancing than others. However, for the organization to be successful, all assign- ments must be covered by the team. One of the members, Larry, begins a meeting by stating, “I am not at all happy with how the assignments for the project are handled. I consistently have to do the least attractive part of the project, and it is a lot of work. I want to be excused from that part of the project in the future.” Three team members might respond in the following ways, depending on which approach they take to the conflict at hand:
• Collaborative (interests-based) response: “Larry, I’ve sensed that this is of great concern to you. We’d all like to hear more about your own views about this and
106Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. 107DeDreu, C.K.W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003b). A contingency theory of task conflict and performance in groups and organizational teams. In M. A. West, D. Tjosvold, & K. G. Smith (Eds.), International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons LTD.
104Lublin, J.S. (2014, February 14). The high cost of avoiding conflict at work. The Wall Street Journal. wsj.com 105Behfar, K., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. K, “The critical role of conflict resolution in teams,” p. 202.
M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 216 10/25/16 3:09 PM
Chapter 8 • Managing Team Conflict 217
what your proposals are. I will be honest in saying that I am not sure anything can change, at least for now, but I think that it is important that we all have a chance to understand exactly how each one of us perceives the workload and assignments on the project at this point.”
• Contending (rights-based) response: “Look, Larry, you agreed to cover that part of the project when we first took on the challenge four years ago. As a matter of fact, I believe that I have an email from you indicating that you would agree to do that part of the work. As far as I am concerned, this is strictly a matter of precedent and what people have agreed to do. I am sure that our supervisor would reach the same conclusion as I would if she saw the email I am referring to.”
• Contending (power-based) response: “I think you are completely out of line, Larry. It is not helping our team effort to have people such as yourself acting like prima donnas and demanding special treatment. We all have important things to do to meet the project goals. I am tired of having to walk on eggshells around this issue, and I don’t think that discussing unrealistic and selfish goals is a good use of our team time. We could simply follow a principle of rank in our team but that would be bad for you. I am ready to continue our democratic process, but only on the condition that you start working with us as a team.”
The power-based team member in this example is using several techniques designed to threaten and intimidate. First, there are numerous unflattering character attacks—Larry is labeled as “out of line,” “demanding,” a “prima donna,” and “unreal- istic and selfish.” This comment also contains some thinly disguised threats: If Larry does not shut up, this team member intends to notify a superior. The rights-based team member, by focusing on the past, effectively says, “We cannot have this discussion.” The interests-based team member clearly states that there might not be any room for move- ment, but she is open to discussion. In this way, the interests-based response models the double-loop style of communication.108 Most people, when faced with sensitive and important issues, find it far easier to launch into rights- or power-based argu- ments. However, nearly any rights- or power-based argument can be converted into an interests-based response without forcing team members to capitulate to others.
108Argyris, C. (1977a). Double loop learning. Harvard Business Review, 55(5), 115–125.
Chapter Capstone
Conflict in teams is inevitable. However, it does not have to result in decreased produc- tivity. Managed effectively, conflict can be key to leveraging differences of interest to arrive at creative solutions. Many people however, instinctively respond to conflict in a defensive
fashion, and this emotional type of conflict can threaten productivity. To the greatest extent possible, team members should depersonal- ize conflict. The most effective teams share several common practices when it comes to conflict and conflict management. They
M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 217 10/25/16 3:09 PM
218 Part 2 • Team Performance
realize that conflict is an inevitable aspect of high-performance teamwork. Second, they deal with conflict proactively, meaning that they develop procedures and practices to deal with it before it emerges. Groups that improve or maintain top performance over time share three conflict resolution best practices:
(1) they focus on the content of their interac- tions, rather than the delivery style (i.e., tone); (2) they explicitly discuss reasons behind work assignment decisions; and (3) they assign work to members who have the task expertise rather than by other means, such as volunteerism or convenience.109
109Behfar, Peterson, Mannix, & Trochim, “The critical role of conflict resolution in teams.”
M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 218 10/25/16 3:09 PM
219
Nick Hughes’ development team at Vodafone partnered with Safaricom (Kenya’s largest cellphone provider) to figure out how people could wire money to their families in rural areas without relying on bank accounts, credit cards, paper money, or even credit history. The development team worked with two key facts: 75 percent of Kenyans do not have a bank account, but 80 percent have a cellphone. The company brainstormed and created a network of kiosks throughout the country in fruit stands, spice shops and barber shops, where currency is converted to virtual currency in seconds. The key challenge about how to increase the speed of transaction time was met by having customers simply type in a mobile number, the amount to be paid, and hit a send button. What happened next surprised even Hughes’ development team. Instead of simply sending money to family members and repaying bank loans, customers also used the service to pay for business-to-business trading, as an overnight safe, as a secure way to hold money while traveling from one place to another, and as a way of repaying loans for others in return for cash.1
1Consultative Group to Assist the Poor. (Producer). (2016). Nick Hughes. cgap.org ; Stahl, L. (2015, November 22). The future of money. 60 Minutes. cbsnews.com; Introducing fortune’s change the world list: Companies that are doing well by doing good. (2015, August 20). Fortune. fortune.com
Creativity and Innovation in Teams9
C H
A P
T E
R
Creativity requires departure from tradition and the established way of conducting busi- ness. There is good reason to believe that innovation and insight pay off. For every dollar companies spend on research & development, they realize on average, $7.25 in new product sales.2 In 2013, R&D in the United States totaled $456.1 billion, as compared to $435.3 billion in 2012 and $427.8 billion in 2011. In 2008—just before the onset of the main economic effects of the national and international financial crisis and the Great Recession—U.S. R&D totaled $407 billion. Inflation-adjusted growth in total U.S. R&D averaged only 0.8 percent annually during the five-year period 2008–13 and was behind the 1.2 percent annual average for the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP).3
2Cooper, R. G. (2012). Winning at new products: Creating value through innovation. Basic Books: New York. 3Boroush, M. (2015, September). U.S. R&D Increased in 2013, well ahead of the pace of gross domestic product. National Science Foundation. nsf.gov
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 219 10/25/16 2:52 PM
220 Part 2 • Team Performance
game” clause in his contract, which secured him the right to play in “pick-up games” whenever he wished. Jordan did not always play because it was contracted for him to do so; rather his love of the game guided him. Evaluation, surveillance, and even offering rewards to people can undermine creativity.10
Creative people work very hard. For example, creative scientists typically work 70 to 80 hours per week. It typically takes people at least 10 years to develop expertise in their domain, no matter what it is—chess, tennis, astrophysics, or management. Skilled chess players undergo years of study before they become “masters.”11 And, no one composes outstanding music without at least 10 years of intensive musical preparation.12 This all adds up to about 10,000 hours of focused practice. Basically, if you have been working hard for years at something, think in terms of decades before you become truly great!
Creative combinations of people can be more effective than trying to select creative people because creativity is more a function of the right idea at the right time than a chronic disposition. For this reason, companies should select people who are passionate and skilled in what they do and then bring together those people with others who are similar (in the sense of being passionate) but different (in terms of ways of thinking). For example, when MIT offered Solve, a cross-disciplinary program addressing the world’s most pressing challenges in health care, education, energy and environment, infrastructure, and the economy, it convened scientists and thinkers from across the world. Jason Pontin, editor-in-chief and publisher of MIT Technology Review, said, “Solve doesn’t pretend that MIT has all the solutions to the world’s most pressing problems, but MIT can convene on its campus some of the smartest people working on those problems. We can help participants see what they share, eliminate frictions where that is possible, and perhaps, spur breakthroughs with new approaches.”13
CREATIVITY VERSUS INNOVATION
Most people think that creative ideas are wild ideas; on the contrary, creativity or ideation is the production of novel and useful ideas—the ability to form new concepts using existing knowledge; innovation is the realization of novel and useful ideas in the form of products and services.14
Convergent versus Divergent thinking
Two key skills are involved in creative thinking: divergent thinking and convergent thinking.15 Convergent thinking is thinking that precedes toward a single best answer. For example, the expected value of a 70 percent chance of earning $1,000 is obtained
7Muoio, A. (1997, August). They have a better idea . . . do you? Fast Company, 10, 73–79. 8Bechtoldt, M. N., De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & Choi, H.-S. (2009). Motivated information processing, social tuning, and group creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 622–637. 9Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39–58.
10Ibid. 11DeGroot, A. (1966). Perception and memory versus thought: Some old ideas and recent findings. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Problem solving: Research, method, and theory (pp. 19–50). New York: John Wiley & Sons. 12Weisberg, R. W. (1986). Creativity, genius and other myths. New York: Freeman. 13From A week of celebration and inspiration—Boston-style by Jessica Fujimori, © September 25, 2015 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 14Thompson, L. L., & Choi, H. S. (Eds.). (2006). Creativity and innovation in organizational teams. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Eribaum Erbium Associates. 15Guilford, J. P. (1959). Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill; Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intel- ligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
In an analysis of 65 sales teams spanning 35 branches, team creativity predicted team financial performance: The most creative teams were those that utilized team knowledge. The positive relationship between team knowledge utilization and team creativity was stronger when the team leader had a systematic cognitive style and when teams were exposed to high environmental uncertainty.4
In the scientific world, creative breakthroughs often result from intense team collabo- rations. For example, in physics, the discovery of the “God particle” or Higgs boson, was the equivalent of Columbus discovering America, and the great majority of the research was conducted by teams of people.5 However, just because the task facing a team calls for creativity, there is no guarantee that the team members will be creative. In fact, many factors inhibit idea exchange in groups.6 Many people believe that teams are more creative than individuals. However, there is no empirical support for this; in fact, the opposite is true!
In this chapter, we examine whether creativity stems from nature or nurture. We dis- tinguish creativity from innovation and examine convergent versus divergent thinking, and radical versus incremental innovation. Brainstorming, brainwriting, speedstorming, and electronic brainstorming are examined. We provide data indicating that teams are less creative than individuals and examine four key threats to team creativity, including: social loafing, conformity, production blocking, and performance matching. Finally, we examine some best practices to enhance team creativity, ranging from motivational methods, such as quantity (versus quality) goals; cognitive methods, such as explicit rules; facilitator-led methods, including scheduling brief breaks; and finally, organiza- tional approaches, such as team diversity and membership change.
NATURE VS. NURTURE
Creativity is highly correlated with intelligence, motivation, ambition, persistence, com- mitment, determination, education, and curiosity. Creative people are passionate about specific things. Perhaps this is why when Professor Joseph Campbell selected postdoc- toral students for his laboratory at Sarah Lawrence College, he did not want people who earned straight A’s or B’s. He searched for the student who made both A’s and F’s because he believed that these people are not just smart—they let their passions rule them.7 People who are motivated to understand the world—high in epistemic motiva- tion—are more creative.8 According to Teresa Amabile, the most important aspect of creativity is loving what you do.9 As a case in point, Michael Jordan, who by the mid- 1990s, was the most financially successful basketball player in history, had a “love of the
4Sung, S. Y., & Choi, J. N. (2012). Effects of team knowledge management on the creativity and financial performance of organizational teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(1), 4–13. 5Sample, I. (2012, July 4). Higgs boson: It’s unofficial! CERN scientists discover missing particle. The Guardian. guardian.co.uk; Diep, F. (2012, July 6). Higgs boson: So who is getting the Nobel? The Christian Science Monitor. csmonitor.com 6Thompson, L. (2014). Creative Conspiracy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 220 10/25/16 2:52 PM
Chapter 9 • Creativity and Innovation in Teams 221
game” clause in his contract, which secured him the right to play in “pick-up games” whenever he wished. Jordan did not always play because it was contracted for him to do so; rather his love of the game guided him. Evaluation, surveillance, and even offering rewards to people can undermine creativity.10
Creative people work very hard. For example, creative scientists typically work 70 to 80 hours per week. It typically takes people at least 10 years to develop expertise in their domain, no matter what it is—chess, tennis, astrophysics, or management. Skilled chess players undergo years of study before they become “masters.”11 And, no one composes outstanding music without at least 10 years of intensive musical preparation.12 This all adds up to about 10,000 hours of focused practice. Basically, if you have been working hard for years at something, think in terms of decades before you become truly great!
Creative combinations of people can be more effective than trying to select creative people because creativity is more a function of the right idea at the right time than a chronic disposition. For this reason, companies should select people who are passionate and skilled in what they do and then bring together those people with others who are similar (in the sense of being passionate) but different (in terms of ways of thinking). For example, when MIT offered Solve, a cross-disciplinary program addressing the world’s most pressing challenges in health care, education, energy and environment, infrastructure, and the economy, it convened scientists and thinkers from across the world. Jason Pontin, editor-in-chief and publisher of MIT Technology Review, said, “Solve doesn’t pretend that MIT has all the solutions to the world’s most pressing problems, but MIT can convene on its campus some of the smartest people working on those problems. We can help participants see what they share, eliminate frictions where that is possible, and perhaps, spur breakthroughs with new approaches.”13
CREATIVITY VERSUS INNOVATION
Most people think that creative ideas are wild ideas; on the contrary, creativity or ideation is the production of novel and useful ideas—the ability to form new concepts using existing knowledge; innovation is the realization of novel and useful ideas in the form of products and services.14
Convergent versus Divergent thinking
Two key skills are involved in creative thinking: divergent thinking and convergent thinking.15 Convergent thinking is thinking that precedes toward a single best answer. For example, the expected value of a 70 percent chance of earning $1,000 is obtained
7Muoio, A. (1997, August). They have a better idea . . . do you? Fast Company, 10, 73–79. 8Bechtoldt, M. N., De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & Choi, H.-S. (2009). Motivated information processing, social tuning, and group creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 622–637. 9Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39–58.
10Ibid. 11DeGroot, A. (1966). Perception and memory versus thought: Some old ideas and recent findings. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Problem solving: Research, method, and theory (pp. 19–50). New York: John Wiley & Sons. 12Weisberg, R. W. (1986). Creativity, genius and other myths. New York: Freeman. 13From A week of celebration and inspiration—Boston-style by Jessica Fujimori, © September 25, 2015 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 14Thompson, L. L., & Choi, H. S. (Eds.). (2006). Creativity and innovation in organizational teams. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Eribaum Erbium Associates. 15Guilford, J. P. (1959). Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill; Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intel- ligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 221 10/25/16 2:52 PM
222 Part 2 • Team Performance
by multiplying $1,000 by 0.7 to reach $700. Conversely, divergent thinking does not require a single, correct answer; rather, divergent thinking moves outward from the problem in many directions and involves thinking without boundaries.
After a team has generated ideas in a divergent fashion, they eventually need to select an idea to develop. This is where convergent thinking is necessary. In convergent thinking, a team or person evaluates the various ideas presented as to their feasibility, practicality, and overall merit. For example, in one financial institution, top executives select a dozen high-potential managers from across the company to be “idea champi- ons.” These idea champions train employees to sharpen their idea inputs, sort and rank ideas, and give feedback to contributors. Submitted ideas are divided among the cham- pions, who use standardized criteria to sort and select those ideas with the greatest potential for impact and achievability. The champions each are paired with a senior manager, and each pair brings their small portfolio of high business value ideas and creates plans for testing, prototyping, and driving the idea forward (or a quick failure) with the help of the original idea submitter.16
Task conflict stimulates divergent thinking in teams.17 For example, teams in which a single member proposes unusual or even incorrect solutions outperform teams in which no such “deviance” occurs. Teams instructed to “debate” are more creative than teams instructed to “brainstorm.”18 Furthermore, these performance advantages gener- alize to subsequent, unrelated tasks, even when the vocal, cognitively deviant member is not present.19 A study of 71 IT project teams revealed that task conflict had a curvi- linear effect on creativity, with creativity highest at moderate levels of task conflict.20
People working independently excel at divergent thinking because there are no cogni- tive or social pressures to constrain their thought. In contrast, teams are much less profi- cient at divergent thinking. To avoid social censure, people conform to the norms of the team. Divergent thinking is somewhat like Janusian thinking, referring to the Roman deity Janus, who had two faces looking in opposite directions. Janusian thinking refers to the ability to cope with (and even welcome) conflicting ideas, paradoxes, ambiguity, and doubt. Teams that use paradoxical frames—mental templates that encourage people to recognize and embrace contradictions—are more creative than those who don’t use frames.21
There are several ways to stimulate divergent thinking, including asking open-ended questions. At Chicago’s Second City, comedy shows are built in a 10- to 12-week process of generating ideas for sketches, incorporating audience feedback, and determining the best
16Ashkenas, R. (2015, February 2). Don’t ask for new ideas if you’re not ready to act on them. Harvard Busi- ness Review. hbr.org 17Nemeth, C. J., & Ormiston, M. (2007). Creative idea generation: Harmony versus stimulation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(3), 524–535; Nemeth, C. J., Personnaz, M., Personnaz, B., & Goncalo, J. A. (2004). The liberating role of conflict in-group creativity: A study in two countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(4), 365–374; Nemeth, C. J., & Nemeth-Brown, B. (2003). Better than individuals? The potential benefits of dissent and diversity for group creativity. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 63–84). New York: Oxford University Press. 18Nemeth & Ormiston, “Creative idea generation,” p. 227. 19Smith, C. M., Tindale, R. S., & Dugoni, B. L. (1996). Minority and majority influence in freely interacting groups: Qualitative vs. quantitative differences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35 (1), 137–149. 20Farh, J. L, Lee, C., & Farh, I. C. (2010). Task conflict and team creativity: A question of how much and when. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1173–1180. 21Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 229–240.
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 222 10/25/16 2:52 PM
Chapter 9 • Creativity and Innovation in Teams 223
sequence for the show. Shooting ideas down outright is not allowed, but affirming ideas and building upon them is encouraged. To suspend judgment, the actors use an exercise known as “point and untell,”22 where someone will walk around the room pointing at dif- ferent objects and someone else is charged with saying anything but what the object actu- ally is.23 Impossibilities also can stimulate divergent thinking. For example, challenging participants to think of ideas that are impossible to execute (e.g., living on the moon travel- ing by satellite) and then identifying conditions that may lead to the idea’s fruition.
Even though the scientific evidence is clear, most people strongly believe that teams are more creative than individuals when, in fact, they aren’t. Teams are better than groups at convergent thinking, but they are worse at divergent thinking.
raDiCal versus inCremental innovation
Creativity occurs along a continuum from incremental innovation to radical innovation.24 Two indices: feasibility and value give rise to different types of creativity, that fall into four quadrants: foolishness, disruptive, radical, and breakthrough (see Exhibit 9-1). To become part of an innovation, ideas ultimately must achieve some minimum level of value and feasibility. Ideas on the radical continuum are valuable, but lack feasibility and thus, leaders need to protect such ideas through skunkworks or other havens until they become viable.
Creative synthesis is a process in which innovation occurs through a process of radical innovation by emphasizing affirmation rather than negation and integrates their
22From The Second City Way Of Better Brainstorming by Denis Wilson, © 29 June 2012 Fast Company. 23Wilson, D. (2012, June 29). The Second City way of better brainstorming. Fast Company. fastcompany.com 24Ettlie, J. E., Bridges, W. P., & O’Keefe, R. D. (1984). Organization strategy and structural differences for radical versus incremental innovation. Management Science, 30(6), 682–695.
Exhibit 9-1 Continuums of Creative Ideas based on Feasibility and Value
Based on Litchfield, R. C., Gilson, L. L., & Gilson, P. W. (2015). Defining Creative Ideas To-ward a More Nuanced Approach. Group & Organization Management, 1059601115574945, © Leigh L. Thompson.
Breakthrough
Radical
Disruptive
Foolishness
Management needs present orientation; make business case
Management needs future orientation & protect idea via skunkworks or a safe haven
Management needs present orientation and find a champion
Management needs future orientation; and boundary testing
High Feasibility
High Value
Low Value
Low Feasibility
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 223 10/25/16 2:52 PM
224 Part 2 • Team Performance
different perspectives.25 In a complementary fashion, disruptive ideas are feasible but not deemed valuable. This means that the leader needs to find a champion to promote the idea’s value.
Teams developing radical innovations face greater uncertainty and risk of failure than do teams facing incremental innovation. Teams’ ability to shift goal orientations to meet acute “shocks” that disrupt regular team activities requires leadership and a reflexive team process.26
Creative realism
In Finke’s model of creativity, there are two dimensions: creativity and structural con- nectedness, or usefulness (see Exhibit 9-2).27 With regard to creativity, ideas can be either conservative or creative. Teams should strive to achieve creative ideas (i.e., highly original and novel ideas) as opposed to conservative, traditional ideas.
The other dimension is structural connectedness. Ideas that work with exist- ing products and services are high in structural connectedness; ideas that cannot work with existing products and services are low in structural connectedness. Structural
25Chen, J., & Adamson, C. (2015). Innovation: Integration of random variation and creative synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 40(3), 461–464. 26Alexander, L., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2014). Teams in pursuit of radical innovation: A goal orientation perspective. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 423–438. 27Finke, R. A. (1995). Creative realism. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 303–326). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Exhibit 9-2 Four General, Conceptual Domains Into Which New Ideas Can Be Classified
Smith, Steven M., Thomas B.Ward, and Ronald A. Finke, eds., The Creative Cognition Approach, figure: “Four general, conceptual domains into which new ideas can be classified”, © 1995 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, by permission of The MIT Press
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 224 10/25/16 2:52 PM
Chapter 9 • Creativity and Innovation in Teams 225
connectedness distinguishes ideas that are realistic (connected to current ideas and knowledge) from ideas that are idealistic (disconnected from current knowledge). If ideas are not connected to current ideas and knowledge, they probably are not implementable.
The most desirable ideas are those in the upper-left quadrant. This domain is called creative realism because these ideas are highly imaginative and highly connected to current structures and ideas. An excellent example of creative realism was Thomas Edison’s development of the electric light system. Many of Edison’s inventions devel- oped through continuity with earlier inventions (see Exhibit 9-3).28
As for the other quadrants, conservative realism represents ideas that are highly traditional and highly connected to current knowledge and practices. This creates little ambiguity and little uncertainty. Conservative idealism is an extension of a common idea that is unrealistic to begin with. These ideas exhibit little or no imagination and are not connected to existing knowledge. Creative idealism represents highly original, yet highly unrealistic ideas.
How can teams maximize the probability of generating ideas that eventually will lead to novel and useful products and services? The key is to actively encourage team members to generate ideas in all of the quadrants. David Kelley, former CEO of IDEO, believes that enlightened trial and error beats the planning of the lone genius.29 According to the IDEO philosophy, people should fail early and fail often.30
28Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. San Francisco, CA: Freeman. 29Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2001). The art of innovation: Lessons in creativity from IDEO, America’s leading design firm. New York: Currency Books. 30Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: Harper Collins.
After Thomas Edison invented the incandescent light bulb, his next project was to develop an entire system whereby the invention could be made commercially successful. At the time, there were two in-place lighting systems (neither developed by Edison): gas lights and electrical arc lights. Gas lights could be controlled directly for brightness; gas fuel was produced offsite and sent through buried gas mains. Arc lighting was produced by an electrical spark between carbon rods; it was very hot and produced fumes. The generating plant was located directly by the user. Edison’s electric lighting system was based on the principles of gas lighting. Edison wrote in his workbooks that he completely imitated the gas system, replacing the gas with electricity. In Edison’s electric system, the source of power was remote from the user, and the wires that brought the power were underground. Furthermore, the individual lights were turned on and off by the user. The light bulb in Edison’s system was called a burner and was designed to produce the same amount of light as a gas burner.
Exhibit 9-3 Analogy in Edison’s Development of an Electric Lighting System
Based on Basalla, G. (1988). The evolution of technology. New York: Cambridge University Press; Weisberg, R. W. (1997). Case studies of creative thinking: Reproduction versus restructuring in the real world. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 53–72). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, © Leigh L. Thompson.
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 225 10/25/16 2:52 PM
226 Part 2 • Team Performance
FluenCy, Flexibility, anD originality
One common way of evaluating the creativity of a team’s ideas is via three indices: flu- ency, flexibility, and originality.31
• Fluency: how many ideas a person (or team) generates • Flexibility: how many types of ideas a person (or team) generates • Originality: the ability to generate unusual solutions and unique answers to
problems32
As a way of thinking about these three indices of creativity, do the following exer- cise: See how many uses you can think of for a cardboard box. (Give yourself about 10 minutes to do this.)
Now let’s score your creativity (or your team’s creativity) on the cardboard box challenge. Suppose Geoff generated three ideas: using the box as a cage for a hamster, a container for a turtle, and a kennel for a dog. Geoff receives three points for fluency of ideas because these are three different ideas, but only one point for flexibility because the ideas are of the same category (i.e., a home for animals). Suppose Avi generates these unusual ideas for a cardboard box: placing it on an altar, using it as a telephone (e.g., two boxes and some string), and trading it as currency.33 Avi would get a score of three points for fluency (the same as Geoff) and three points for flexibility because there are three separate categories of ideas for use, one involving religion, another communica- tion, and yet another entirely different idea concerning economics. Think of flexibility as a kind of mental gymnastics—the ability to entertain different types of ideas, all in a short amount of time. Most people, and in particular, most teams tend to get stuck in one of two types of categories of thought. This is a kind of cognitive arthritis. To be sure, some of Avi’s ideas clearly do not meet the requirements for structural connectedness, but as we will see, Avi and his team are in a much better position to set the stage for creative realism than is Geoff.
It is easy to see how flexibility, or thinking about different categories of use, influ- ences originality. Thus, one simple key for enhancing creativity is simply to think about different categories, which can act as “primes” or “catalysts” for more ideas. By generat- ing different categories of use for a cardboard box (containers, shelter, building material, therapy, fashion, politics, weaponry, communication, etc.), a person’s score on these three dimensions could increase dramatically. This exercise often can help teams escape from a narrow perspective on a problem and open up new opportunities for creative solutions. For example, teams generate more diverse ideas when they are exposed to ideas from a wide range of categories.34
Originality refers to creativity on the conservative–creative continuum in Exhibit 9-2. A given idea is considered “original,” if less than 5 percent of a given
31From “The nature of human intelligence” by J. P. Guilford in Personality, © 1967 McGraw-Hill. 32Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Connolly, T., & Wynne, B. E. (1996). Process structuring in electronic brain- storming. Information Systems Research, 7(2), 268–277. 33Kurtzberg, T. (2000). Creative styles and teamwork: Effects of coordination and conflict on group outcomes (Doctoral dissertation). Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. 34Nijstad, B. A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (2003). Production blocking and idea generation: Does blocking interfere with cognitive processes? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(6), 531–548.
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 226 10/25/16 2:52 PM
Chapter 9 • Creativity and Innovation in Teams 227
population thinks of it. Thus, if there are 100 people in a company, an originality point is given to a given idea only if five or fewer people think of it.
There is a strong correlation among the three measures of fluency, flexibility, and originality. The people who get the highest scores on originality also get high scores on flexibility and fluency. According to Guilford, flexibility is the most important.35 This contradicts most business notions of creativity, in which diversity of ideas often is not rewarded and quantity is viewed as poor quality.
exploration versus exploitation
Companies oscillate between exploration and exploitation.36 Exploration refers to activities such as search, variation, risk taking, experimentation, play, flexibility, discovery, and innovation. The question that the team at startup Liquid Light contemplated was how to turn carbon dioxide—the gas pollutant largely responsible for global warming— into a consumer product. The team found that a relatively pure source of carbon dioxide was spewing out of factories and power stations, and they were able to use it to create glues, soda bottles, and skin care ingredients inexpensively.37
Exploration often can come from getting out of one’s usual domain and exploring a new area of study. For example, evolutionary biologist Andrew Parker applied designs from his walks through the Australian outback to solve problems in engineering, materi- als science, and medicine. In one investigation, the iridescence in butterflies and anti- reflective coatings in moth eyes led to the development of brighter cellular phone screens and an anticounterfeiting technique.38
Autonomy and freedom are key for creativity. Leaders who provide their teams a great deal of autonomy are more creative.39 At Ohio-based Hyland, creator of OnBase, employees generate new ideas, share them on the company’s Innovation Portal, and then vote.40 Exploitation refers to the refinement, choice, production, efficiency, selection, implementation, and execution of an idea. Teams that engage in exploration to the exclusion of exploitation are likely to find that they suffer the costs of experimentation without gaining many of its benefits and will exhibit too many underdeveloped new ideas and too little distinctive competence. Teams and organizations that engage in exploitation to the exclusion of exploration may find themselves trapped in old ways of thinking. There needs to be a balance between the two activities. For people who are high in learning orientation (dispositionally inclined to learn), team learning behavior and exploration bolster creativity.41 Despite the seemingly contradictory tasks of explo- ration (creativity) and exploitation (standardization), they can be complementary.
35Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. 36March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. 37Derbyshire, D. (2015, December 8). Liquid light finds use for polluting CO2 gas. The Guardian. guardian.com 38Mueller, T. (2009, April). Biomimetrics: Design by nature. National Geographic. nationalgeographic.com 39Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work envi- ronment for creativity: Perceived leader support. Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 5–32. 402015 Fortune 100 best companies to work for. (2015, October 15). Fortune. fortune.com; Best places to work for Generation X (2015, April 4). Crain’s Chicago Business. chicagobusiness.com 41Hirst, G., Knippenberg, D. V., & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal ori- entation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 280–293.
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 227 10/25/16 2:52 PM
228 Part 2 • Team Performance
For example, 90 service technician teams of a large multinational corporation found that standardization leads to greater customer satisfaction, but greater creativity leads to better team performance.42
BRAINSTORMING VERSUS BRAINWRITING
brainstorming
Alex Osborn, an advertising executive in the 1950s, believed that one of the main hin- drances to organizational creativity was the premature evaluation of ideas. Osborn was convinced that two heads were better than one when it came to generating ideas, but only if people could be trained to defer judgment of their own and others’ ideas during the idea generation process. Therefore, Osborn developed the most widespread strategy used by organizations to encourage creative thought in teams: brainstorming.
In an influential book, Applied Imagination, Osborn suggested that brainstorming could dramatically increase the quality and quantity of ideas produced by group mem- bers.43 In short, Osborn believed that the group product could be greater than the sum of the individual parts if certain conditions were met. Hence, Osborn developed rules to govern the conduct of brainstorming. Contrary to corporate lore that brain- storming sessions are wild and crazy free-for-alls where anything goes, Osborn’s rules were specific and simple: (1) criticism is ruled out, (2) freewheeling is welcome, (3) quantity is desired, and (4) combination and improvement of ideas are encouraged (see Exhibit 9-4).
42Gilson, L. L., Mathieu, J. E., Shalley, C. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (2005). Creativity and standardization: Comple- mentary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 521–531. 43Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination (rev. ed.). New York: Scribner; Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagina- tion (3rd rev. ed.). New York: Scribner.
Expressiveness: Group members should express any idea that comes to mind, no matter how strange, weird, or fanciful. Group members are encouraged not to be constrained or timid. They should freewheel whenever possible.
Nonevaluation: Do not criticize ideas. Group members should not evaluate any of the ideas in any way during the generation phase; all ideas should be considered valuable.
Quantity: Group members should generate as many ideas as possible. Groups should strive for quantity, as the more ideas, the better. Quantity of ideas increases the probability of finding excellent solutions.
Building: Because all of the ideas belong to the group, members should try to modify and extend the ideas suggested by other mem- bers whenever possible.
Exhibit 9-4 Rules for Brainstorming
Based on Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination (rev. ed.). New York: Scribner, © Leigh L. Thompson.
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 228 10/25/16 2:52 PM
Chapter 9 • Creativity and Innovation in Teams 229
Brainstorming caught on like wildfire in corporations and is a technique that has remained very popular.44 The goal of brainstorming is to maximize the quantity and quality of ideas. Osborn aptly noted that quantity is a good predictor of quality. A team is more likely to discover a really good idea if it has a lot of ideas to choose from. But, there is more to brainstorming than mere quantity. Osborn believed that the ideas gen- erated by one person in a team could stimulate ideas in other people in a synergistic fashion, also known as cognitive stimulation.
Osborn believed, as did others, that the four rules enhanced motivation among team members by stimulating them to higher levels of productivity via establishment of a benchmark or via competitive rivalry to see who could generate the most ideas. Osborn also thought that the social reinforcement of fellow members increased motivation. Finally, Osborn believed in a priming effect, namely that members would make mutual associations upon hearing the ideas presented by others.
brainstorming versus nominal group
Osborn claimed that a team who adopted these four rules could generate twice as many ideas as a similar number of people working independently. No scientific evidence sup- ported this. Consequently, the question that organizational psychologists and manage- ment theorists asked of the brainstorming technique was, “Is it effective?” Controlled, scientific studies supported Osborn’s intuition. Brainstorming instructions enhance the generation of ideas within a team in comparison to teams working without those instructions.45
However, Osborn’s most controversial claim was that group brainstorming would be more effective—“twice as productive,” in his words—than individual brainstorming, in which group members work independently.46 The research evidence testing this assertion has found that the opposite is true (see Exhibit 9-5). In a typical investigation,
44Kayser, T. A. (1995). Mining group gold: How to cash in on the collaborative genius of work teams. Chicago, IL: Irwin. 45Parnes, S. J., & Meadow, A. (1959). Effect of “brainstorming” instructions on creative problem-solving by trained and untrained subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 50(4), 171–176. 46Osborn, Applied imagination (rev. ed.), p. 230.
Face-to-Face Brainstorming
Group
Same Number of People Working Independently (Solitary Brainstorming)
Quantity: The number of ideas generated
28 74.5
Quality: Percentage of “good ideas” as judged by independent experts who did not know whose ideas they were evaluating
8.9% 12.7%
Exhibit 9-5 Performance Data of Brainstorming and Solitary Groups
Based on Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward a solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497–509, © Leigh L. Thompson.
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 229 10/25/16 2:52 PM
230 Part 2 • Team Performance
the performance of a real group is compared to a control group consisting of the same number of people who work alone and never interact. The control group is called a nominal group because they are a group in number only. Nearly all controlled inves- tigations have found that group brainstorming is less efficient than solitary brainstorm- ing in both laboratory and organizational settings.47 Solitary brainstorming is much more productive than group brainstorming in terms of quality and quantity of ideas.48
In fact, virtually all of the empirical studies on group brainstorming are strongly (not just mildly) negative in regard to its effectiveness compared with solitary brain- storming.49 Thus, more than 50 years of research about brainstorming has found that brainstorming is significantly worse in terms of fostering creativity than having the same number of people work independently on a given task.
These results have been replicated several hundred times with a variety of teams brainstorming about all kinds of things. “It appears particularly difficult to justify brain- storming techniques in terms of any performance outcomes, and the long-lived popu- larity of brainstorming techniques is unequivocally and substantially misguided.”50 While nominal groups outperform real groups when it comes to idea generation, nomi- nal groups do not outperform real groups when it comes to idea selection.51
Thus, official rules of brainstorming when followed enhance team performance, but brainstorming teams still generate fewer ideas than similar numbers of solitary brainstormers (nominal groups). Despite the empirical evidence attesting to the inef- fectiveness of brainstorming, teams engaged in brainstorming suffer from an illusion of productivity.52 In short, they believe that they are more creative, when in fact they aren’t.
brainwriting
Brainwriting is not brainstorming. Brainwriting is the simultaneous generation of written ideas. Brainwriting works like this: At key intervals during a brainstorming
47Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward a solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497–509; Jablin, F. M. (1981). Cultivating imagination: Factors that enhance and inhibit creativity in brainstorming groups. Human Communication Research, 7(3), 245–258; Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic inte- gration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 3–23; Paulus, P. B., & Dzindolet, M. T. (1993). Social influence processes in-group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 575–586; Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., & Ortega, A. H. (1995). Performance and perceptions of brainstormers in an organizational setting. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 249–265; Taylor, D. W., Berry, P. C., & Block, C. H. (1958). Does group participa- tion when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly, 3, 23–47. 48Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). Productivity is not enough: A comparison of interactive and nominal groups on idea generation and selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 244–251; McGlynn, R. P., McGurk, D., Effland, V. S., Johll, N. L., & Harding, D. J. (2004). Brainstorming and task per- formance in-groups constrained by evidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93, 1, 75–90; Diehl & Stroebe, “Productivity loss in brainstorming groups,” p. 232; Mullen, Johnson, & Salas, “Productivity loss in brainstorming groups,” p. 232. 49Diehl & Stroebe, “Productivity loss in brainstorming groups,” p. 232; Mullen, Johnson, & Salas, “Productiv- ity loss in brainstorming groups,” p. 232. 50From “Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: A Meta-Analytic Integration” by Brian Mullen, Craig Johnson & Eduardo Salas in Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Volume 12, Issue 1, © 1991 Taylor and Francis UK. 51Rietzschel, Nijstad, & Stroebe, “Productivity is not enough,” p. 232. 52Paulus, P. B., Dzindolet, M. T., Poletes, G., & Camacho, L. M. (1993, February). Perception of performance in-group brainstorming: The illusion of group productivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(1), 78–89; McGlynn, McGurk, Effland, Johll, & Harding, “Brainstorming and task performance,” p. 232.
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 230 10/25/16 2:52 PM
Chapter 9 • Creativity and Innovation in Teams 231
session, group members cease all talking and all interaction and write their ideas silently and independently.53
Writing ideas instead of speaking them eliminates the problem of production blocking because group members do not have to “wait their turn” to generate ideas. It also might reduce conformity because the written format eliminates the need for public speaking and typically is more anonymous than verbal brainstorming. The written ideas subsequently can be shared by the group in a round-robin fashion and summarized on a blackboard or flip chart. Investigations of brainstorming groups of four people revealed that brainwriting followed by round-robin exchange, eliminated production blocking and social loafing as compared with standard brainwriting.54
Many groups may not welcome the idea of brainwriting, claiming that it ruins the flow of the group process, but the data are incontrovertible: Brainwriting groups con- sistently generate more and better ideas than groups that follow their instincts. Alternat- ing between team ideation and individual ideation is desirable because it allows teams to circumvent production blocking (coordination problems), and it also sets the stage for divergent thinking. This two-step technique requires a considerable number of con- ditions to be in place for optimal productivity in group brainstorming. Each member needs to take time out for solitary meditations. Similar benefits can be accomplished through preliminary writing sessions, quotas or deadlines, brief breaks, and the use of specific, simple, and subdivided problems. Thus, by working together, then alone, and then together, teams are more likely to achieve the best in creative thinking.55
Even if brainwriting is not used, at the very least, all talking should be stopped periodically to allow members to think silently; the more pauses and silences that occur during brainstorming, the higher the quality of the ideas. Giving members brief breaks, even if they don’t write anything down, also can help.56 Indeed, periods of incubation in which group members reflect on ideas can generate additional ideas.57
speeDstorming
Speedstorming is somewhat like brainstorming and speed dating that involves pairwise brainstorming in a round-robin fashion. Speedstorming pairs have an explicit purpose, time limits, and one-on-one encounters. One investigation examined speedstorming in nanoscience collaborations and found it more efficient and effective than group brain- storming and ideas developed are more technically specialized.58
53Geschka, H., Schaude, G. R., & Schlicksupp, H. (1973, August). Modern techniques for solving problems. Chemical Engineering, 91–97; Paulus, P. B. (1998). Developing consensus about groupthink after all these years. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2–3), 362–374; Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H. (2000). Idea generation in-groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 76–87. 54Paulus & Yang, “Idea generation in-groups,” p. 244. 55Osborn, Applied imagination (3rd ed.), p. 230. 56Horn, E. M. (1993). The influence of modality order and break period on a brainstorming task. (Unpublished honors thesis). University of Texas at Arlington. 57Dugosh, Paulus, Roland, & Yang, “Cognitive stimulation in brainstorming.” 58Hey, J., Joyce, C. K., Jennings, K. E., Kalil, T., & Grossman, J. (2009). Putting the discipline in interdisciplin- ary: Using speedstorming to teach and initiate creative collaboration in nanoscience. Journal of Nanoscience Education, 1(1), 75–85.; Joyce, C. K., Jennings, K. E., Hey, J., Grossman, J. C., & Kalil, T. (2010). Getting down to business: Using speedstorming to initiate creative cross-disciplinary collaboration. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(1), 57–67.
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 231 10/25/16 2:52 PM
232 Part 2 • Team Performance
eleCtroniC brainstorming
Electronic brainstorming (EBS) uses computers and other forms of information technology to allow members to interact and exchange ideas. In a typical EBS session, members are seated at a table that contains computers or other technology. A large screen projects all ideas generated by members. EBS also can occur among people not physically in the same location, and ideas can appear on a common website. The ideas that are generated using EBS are anonymous and thus, tend to be expressed more freely and in greater quantity.
EBS is used as part of a regular organizational meeting process. It gives organiza- tions the opportunity to gather ideas efficiently, organize those ideas, and subsequently make decisions. It speeds up the meeting at which it is used, increases productivity, and allows the focus to remain on the ideas rather than on the people who spawn them. When members run out of ideas, they access the ideas produced by the team.
In EBS, people usually are not identified by their contributions. Typically, partici- pants can view subsets of ideas generated by other team members on part of the screen at any time by using a keystroke. Ideas are projected on a large common screen or individual screens, and people are asked to evaluate them. The team eventually might vote on the most preferred ideas. A facilitator guides both the idea generation and the decision processes.59
Fortune magazine annually holds electronic brainstorming sessions, such as Brain- storm E, which brought together people in energy, technology, and sustainability industries and challenged the group to explore disruptive technologies and new business models.60 EBS addresses many of the shortcomings of traditional brainstorming. For example, one company used traditional brainstorming to develop one-year and five-year plans.61 The committee composed of five members, spent two days trying to develop a mission state- ment. In the end, the statement was unacceptable to several key people in the company. When the same team used EBS, they developed a mission statement in two hours. Then they developed further objectives, goals, and strategies, and the plan was accepted by the board with no changes. However, EBS does not guarantee effectiveness: In one investiga- tion, meetings held by 11 groups that used group decision support systems had lower fluency.62 For an overview of advantages and disadvantages, see Exhibit 9-6.
One investigation compared EBS with brainwriting and found that EBS is more effective for idea generation because of the pooling approach (in which members see one another’s ideas);63 however, if extra effort is required to see other members’ ideas, the relative benefits of EBS disappears.
59Jessup, L. M., & Valacich, J. S. (Eds.). (1993). Group support systems. New York: Macmillan; Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., Briggs, R. O., & Mittleman, D. D. (1995). Electronic meeting systems: Ten years of lessons learned. In D. Coleman & R. Khanna (Eds.), Groupware: Technology and applications (pp. 149–193). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 60Fortune Brainstorm: E. (2016, January 27). (Web log post.) Fortune. fortuneconferences.com 61Dennis, Nunamaker, Paranka, & Vogel, “A new role for computers in strategic management.” 62Jackson, M. H., & Poole, M. S. (2003). Idea generation in naturally-occurring contexts: Complex appropria- tion of a simple procedure. Human Communication Research, 29(4), 560–591. 63Michinov, N. (2012). Is electronic brainstorming or brainwriting the best way to improve creative perfor- mance in-groups? An overlooked comparison of two idea-generation techniques. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(S1), E222–E243.
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 232 10/25/16 2:52 PM
Chapter 9 • Creativity and Innovation in Teams 233
THREATS TO TEAM CREATIVITY
Why are individuals more creative than teams? Four major problems stifle the effective- ness of team brainstorming.
soCial loaFing
As noted in chapter 5, social loafing is the tendency for people to not work as hard (either mentally or physically) in a group as they would alone. Indeed, as the number of team members increases, each person is more likely to free ride.64 It is as if members say to themselves, “I don’t need to work really hard when thinking of ideas, because everyone else is working, too.”65 Most people believe that groups are more creative than individuals, but they also believe that groups generate fewer ideas per member as the num- ber of people working together increases. Moreover, these low-performance expecta- tions create a self-fulfilling prophesy, resulting in lower performance.66 Moreover, when team members perceive their own contributions to be unidentifiable and dispensable, they are likely to loaf.67 Contrary to intuition, the degree to which a brainstorming topic is regarded as “enjoyable” does not affect persistence.68
64Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681–706; Shepperd, J. A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 67–81. 65Leigh L. Thompson 66Jones, E. E., & Lambertus, J. D. (2014). Expecting less from groups: A new perspective on shortcomings in idea generation groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 18(3), 237. 67Bouchard, T. J. (1972). Training, motivation, and personality as determinants of the effectiveness of brain- storming groups and individuals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(4), 324–331; Diehl & Stroebe, “Productivity loss in brainstorming groups,” p. 232; Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1982). Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6), 1214–1229; Shepperd, “Produc- tivity loss in performance groups,” p. 233. 68Nijstad, B. A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (1999). Persistence of brainstorming groups: How do people know when to stop? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 165–185.
Advantages Disadvantages
Parallel Entry of Ideas: all members of the team generate ideas simultaneously Anonymity: people can express themselves without having to worry about criticism Size: EBS can handle large teams Proximity: distance-challenged groups can meet synchronously Equality: nobody can dominate a meeting Organizational Memory: all ideas are recorded Refinement & Evaluation: software tools can mine the database
Loss of Social Interaction: EBS may promote antisocial behavior Lack of Recognition: EBS members who generate ideas don’t receive credit
Exhibit 9-6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Electronic Brainstorming
Leigh L. Thompson
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 233 10/25/16 2:52 PM
234 Part 2 • Team Performance
ConFormity
People identify with groups and will sometimes engage in bizarre behaviors to gain acceptance by the group.69 People on a team may be somewhat apprehensive about expressing their ideas because they are concerned about others judging and evaluating them.70 This is the need to be liked, which we discussed in Chapter 7 (decision making). Most people desire to be viewed positively by others.71 This concern for “what others will think of me” may inhibit idea generation in teams.72 Conformity can occur even when group members are concerned that others in the group will be critical of their suggestions, despite instructions designed to minimize such concerns.73 Conformity generally decreases creative idea generation. For example, people make more conven- tional and clichéd responses to word associations when they are in a group than when they are alone. However, when people score low on the creative personality scale,74 conformity pressure, in terms of adhering to an individualist norm, can actually increase creativity.75
proDuCtion bloCking
A person who works alone on a problem can enjoy an uninterrupted flow of thought. Participants in a face-to-face brainstorming group however, not only must think of ideas but also listen to others’ ideas. Moreover, they have to wait for their turn to speak and remember to use conventional floor-taking and floor-yielding signals. Production blocking occurs when group members cannot express their ideas because others are presenting their ideas. It is cognitively difficult to maintain a train of thought or remember ideas generated while others are talking.76 Research on multitasking unambiguously reveals that trying to do two or more things makes people less productive.77 Members of teams may be prevented from generating new ideas during a team discussion because they are distracted by hearing the contributions of other members while waiting for their turn to participate. During the waiting period, members might listen to others’ contributions and in the process, forget to rehearse the ideas they want to mention. Consequently, people
69Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. New York: Academic Press. 70Mullen, Johnson, & Salas, “Productivity loss in brainstorming groups,” p. 232. 71Leary, M. (1995). Self-presentation: Impression management and behavior. Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark. 72Camacho, L. M., & Paulus, P. B. (1995). The role of social anxiousness in-group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1071–1080. 73Collaros, P. A., & Anderson, L. R. (1969). Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(2, Pt. 1), 159–163; Diehl & Stroebe, “Productivity loss in brainstorming groups,” p. 232; Harari, O., & Graham, W. K. (1975). Tasks and task consequences as factors in individual and group brainstorming. Journal of Social Psychology, 95(1), 61–65. 74Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1398. 75Goncalo, J. A., & Duguid, M. M. (2012). Follow the crowd in a new direction: When conformity pressure facilitates group creativity (and when it does not). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(1), 14–23. 76Diehl & Stroebe, “Productivity loss in brainstorming groups,” p. 232. 77Pashler, H. (2000). Task switching and multitask performance. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: Control of mental processes (pp. 227–308). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 234 10/25/16 2:52 PM
Chapter 9 • Creativity and Innovation in Teams 235
may forget their ideas or decide not to present them during the waiting period.78 Further- more, the inability to express ideas or get floor time might be frustrating and depress motivation. While Osborn theorized that groups could “build on” the ideas suggested by others, there is no evidence for any stimulating impact of unique or rare ideas in brain- storming.79 Production blocking interferes with idea generation in two distinct ways: (1) it disrupts the organization of idea generation when delays are relatively long and (2) it reduces the flexibility of idea generation when delays are unpredictable.80
perFormanCe matChing
The performance of people working within a group tends to converge over time. Social comparison processes may lead team members to converge their performance levels into one another.81 For example at CDW, salespeople working in the same physical location in the building report monthly sales figures more similar to one another than those working in other buildings and areas.82 There is a pervasive tendency for the lowest performers in a group to dampen the team average. Indeed, people working in brainstorming groups tend to match their performance to that of the least productive members, also known as downward norm setting.83 Performance matching is most likely to occur when there are no strong internal or external incentives for high perfor- mance in teams.84 For example, the initial performance level of the two lowest- performing members predicts the performance of a group of four toward the end of the session.85 This performance level may set the benchmark for a team, in that it is seen as an appropriate or typical level of performance. Because groups start their brainstorming by performing at a relatively low level, high performers might feel like “deviants.” As a result, they might move their performance in the direction of the low-group standard. For example, participants in interactive dyads or groups of four tend to be more similar in their rate of idea generation than noninteracting groups.86 Unfortunately, the least productive members of the team often are more influential in determining overall team performance than the high performers. When teams compete against another team however, they do not fall victim to performance matching.87
78Diehl & Stroebe, “Productivity loss in brainstorming groups,” p. 232.; Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 392–403; Stroebe, W., & Diehl, M. (1994). Why are groups less effective than their members? On productivity losses in idea generating groups. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 271–301. 79Connolly, T., Routhieaux, R. L., & Schneider, S. K. (1993). On the effectiveness of group brainstorming: Test of one underlying cognitive mechanism. Small Group Research, 24, 490–503. 80From “Production blocking and idea generation: Does blocking interfere with cognitive processes?” by Bernard A. Nijstad, Wolfgang Stroebe, and Hein F.M. Lodewijkx in Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39 (2003) 531–548, © Elsevier. 81Jackson, J. M., & Harkins, S. G. (1985). Equity in effort: An explanation of the social loafing effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1199–1206. 82This observation was shared by a manager in the company. 83Camacho & Paulus, “Role of social anxiousness,” p. 234; Paulus & Dzindolet, “Social influence processes,” p. 232. 84Shepperd, “Productivity loss in performance groups,” p. 233. 85Paulus & Dzindolet, “Social influence processes,” p. 232. 86Camacho & Paulus, “Role of social anxiousness,” p. 234; Paulus & Dzindolet, “Social influence processes,” p. 232. 87Munkes, J., & Diehl, M. (2003). Matching or competition? Performance comparison processes in an idea generation task. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 305–320.
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 235 10/25/16 2:52 PM
236 Part 2 • Team Performance
what goes on During a typiCal group brainstorming session?
What exactly could we expect to observe in a typical team brainstorming session? People in brainstorming groups often:88
• Fail to follow or abide by the rules of brainstorming. • Experience inhibitions, anxiety, and self-presentational concerns. • Suffer decreased production, with the majority of the ideas suggested in the first
few minutes. • Participate in nonproductive social rituals, such as telling stories, repeating ideas,
and giving positive feedback (a natural pattern of conversation that works well at social events but that kills creativity).
• Set their performance benchmarks too low. • Conform in terms of ideas. • Conform in terms of rate of idea generation.
Most disturbing is that most people on brainstorming teams have no idea that this occurs, and interactive brainstorming teams feel quite confident about their productivity. Thus, the group suffers from a faulty performance illusion. In fact, the illusion of per- formance is so self-serving that people often take credit for the ideas generated by others.89
BEST PRACTICES FOR ENHANCING TEAM CREATIVITY
Fortunately, there are actions that team leaders can take to ward off the typical problems that brainstorming produces.90
motivational methoDs
QUANTITY GOALS Brainstorming groups often underperform because they don’t have relevant goals or benchmarks. Information about other members’ activity levels may increase performance as long as the benchmark is not too discrepant.91 Providing brain- stormers with high performance standards greatly increases the number of ideas gener- ated.92 Even when members work independently and announce how many ideas they generate every five minutes, the number of ideas generated by the team is enhanced.93 Similarly, a facilitator periodically can call brainstormers’ attention to a graph on a computer screen indicating how the team’s performance compares with that of other teams, a challenge that significantly enhances the number of ideas generated by the
88Leigh L. Thompson 89Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. (1992). The illusion of group effectivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(5), 643–650. 90Thompson, L. (2003). Improving the creativity of organizational work groups. Academy of Management Execu- tive, 17(1), 96–109. 91Seta, J. J. (1982). The impact of comparison processes on coactors’ task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 281–291. 92Paulus & Dzindolet, “Social influence processes,” p. 232. 93Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., Putman, V. L., Leggett, K. L., & Roland, E. J. (1996). Social influence process in computer brainstorming. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 3–14.
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 236 10/25/16 2:52 PM
Chapter 9 • Creativity and Innovation in Teams 237
group.94 Forewarning teams that they will see a display of all ideas at the end of the session increases the number of unique ideas generated.95 Exposure to a high number of ideas increases creativity.96 It is desirable to set goals for quantity, but it is undesirable to set actual production goals. Some teams are focused on reaching certain desirable goals (promotion focused); whereas other teams are focused on preventing disastrous or disappointing outcomes (prevention focused). Teams who have a promotion focus are more innovative.97
COMPETITION Competition can occur on an individual level (between people in a given team) or a team level (between competing teams). People working on a task perform better when they are paired with a partner who is slightly better (versus slightly worse or the same).98 When power positions in the team are unstable and perhaps lead to competition for power, low-power individuals are more creative than high-power persons.99 Low-to-intermediate competition produces the greatest amount of creativity in groups that do not change members.100 The company, InnoCentive leverages com- petition using social networking, cloud computing, and crowdsourcing. Specifically, a problem from a real client is posted, such as General Fusion’s difficult attempt to create a seal for its fusion energy creation system that must withstand incredible pressures and sun-like temperatures. The winner of the engineering challenge, titled “Method for sealing anvil under repetitive impacts against molten metal,” earned a $20,000 prize.101 Another investigation revealed that groups who combine a collectivistic (versus indi- vidualistic) value orientation with an individualistic self-construal are more creative.102 Yet another investigation examined how goal faultlines, hypothetical dividing lines created within a group on the basis of different performance goals, affect creative idea generation. Groups with goal faultlines are more creative than those with specific dif- ficult goals or do-your-best goals.103
94Shepherd, M. M., Briggs, R. O., Reinig, B. A., Yen, J., & Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. (1995–1996). Invoking social comparison to improve electronic brainstorming: Beyond anonymity. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12, 155–170. 95Roy, M. C., Gauvin, S., & Limayem, M. (1996). Electronic group brainstorming: The role of feedback on productivity. Small Group Research, 27, 215–247. 96Dugosh, K. L., & Paulus, P. B. (2005). Cognitive and social comparison processes in brainstorming. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 313–320. 97Rietzschel, E. F. (2011). Collective regulatory focus predicts specific aspects of team innovation. Group Pro- cesses & Intergroup Relations, 14(3), 337–345. 98Seta, “The impact of comparison processes on coactors’ task performance.” 99Sligte, D. J., de Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2011). Power, stability of power, and creativity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5), 891–897. 100Baer, M., & Brown, G. (2012). Blind in one eye: How psychological ownership of ideas affects the types of suggestions people adopt. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(1), 60–71. 101From “Crowdsourcing is the new outsourcing for scientists” by Tony Wanless in Entrepreneur, © May 11, 2015 Financial post. 102Bechtoldt, M. N., Choi, H. S., & Nijstad, B. A. (2012). Individuals in mind, mates by heart: Individualistic self-construal and collective value orientation as predictors of group creativity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 838–844. 103Ellis, A. P., Mai, K. M., & Christian, J. S. (2013). Examining the asymmetrical effects of goal faultlines in- groups: A categorization-elaboration approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 948.
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 237 10/25/16 2:52 PM
238 Part 2 • Team Performance
REGULATORY FIT In one investigation, members of groups were given either a promo- tion focus or a prevention focus and then were given an “eager” strategy or a “vigilant” strategy for performing a brainstorming ask. Groups experiencing non-fit (promotion+ vigilant; prevention+eager) worked longer and generated more unique ideas than did groups experiencing goal fit (promotion + eager; prevention + vigilant)104 Another investigation found that the impact of open-system team culture and team creative performance was enhanced when teams had a promotion (versus prevention focus).105
ACCOUNTABILITY Team members who feel individually accountable for their ideas are more productive than teams in which it is not possible to discern who contributed what. People who have high organizational commitment are less likely to breach psychological contracts (tacit expectations and norms), resulting in more innovation.106
ENERGIZING MOODS Energizing moods, which often accompany positive affect, increase creativity. In contrast, deactivating moods decrease creativity. For example, the creativity of a large, high-technology firm was studied before, during, and after a major downsizing.107 Clearly, downsizings engender negative mood and in this case, were accompanied by decreases in project team creativity. In an investigation of 222 employees in seven compa- nies, positive affect was associated with greater creativity.108 With regard to stress, there is a curvilinear relationship between evaluative stress and creativity, such that low-evaluative contexts increase creativity, but highly evaluative contexts decrease creativity.109
Cognitive methoDs
CATEGORIES In one investigation, members generated abstract categories before they brainstormed. Category generation hindered the group ideation process.110 When groups engage in sequential category generation (i.e., brainstorming one category at a time), their productivity increased. Groups that focus on a small set of categories at the outset of a brainstorming session generate more ideas and explore more categories than do groups whose members have their own category focus.111 George Harrison of the
104Levine, J. M., Alexander, K. M., Wright, A. G., & Higgins, E. T. (2015). Group brainstorming: When regula- tory nonfit enhances performance. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(2), 257–271. 105Shin, Y., Kim, M., Choi, J. N., & Lee, S. H. (2015). Does team culture matter? Roles of team culture and collective regulatory focus in team task and creative performance. Group & Organization Management, 41(2), 232–265. 106Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). The effects of organizational embeddedness on development of social capital and human capital. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 696–712. 107Amabile, T. M., & Conti, R. (1999). Changes in the work environment for creativity during downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 630–640. 108Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administra- tive Science Quarterly, 50, 367–403. 109Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. (2010). The relationship between stressors and creativity: A meta- analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 201–212. 110Deuja, A., Kohn, N. W., Paulus, P. B., & Korde, R. M. (2014). Taking a broad perspective before brainstorm- ing. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 18(3), 222. 111Baruah, J., & Paulus, P. B. (2011). Category assignment and relatedness in the group ideation process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1070–1077.
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 238 10/25/16 2:52 PM
Chapter 9 • Creativity and Innovation in Teams 239
Beatles used a type of category to write songs: He’d pick up a book at random, open it, and write a song about whatever words first struck him. In one such exercise, Harrison saw the words, “gently weeps.” The song that he then sat down and wrote, “While My Guitar Gently Weeps,” is considered one of his best songs.112
EXPLICIT RULES Teams that follow Osborn’s four rules of brainstorming are more effec- tive than those that don’t.113 For example at IDEO, seven rules govern every brainstorming session: defer judgment, encourage wild ideas, build on the ideas of others, stay focused on the topic, one conversation at a time, be visual, and go for quantity.114 Val Wright Consult- ing has its own seven rules when it comes to brainstorming: no more than 10 people; don’t include the ego invite; never split into breakout discussions; provide a thought-provoking prelude; require everyone’s physical presence; set the right time horizon so employees know if the brainstorming session is for this quarter, or for a future product not even developed; and book double the time and finish early.115 One investigation examined how constraints allow groups to accomplish elastic coordination in a modern dance creative project.116
Paulus and his colleagues scientifically examined the effects of four additional brainstorming rules:117
• Stay focused on the task. • Do not tell stories or explain ideas. • When no one is suggesting ideas, restate the problem and encourage each other
to generate ideas. • Encourage those who are not talking to make a contribution.
In one investigation, either a trained experimenter or someone selected from the group enforced the rules.118 A 40 percent increase in the number of ideas generated using the new rules was reported. These groups generated ideas at a level comparable to that of nominal groups. The benefits of the additional rules also increase the effi- ciency of ideas, meaning that members are more parsimonious (i.e., use fewer words) to express a given idea.
Rules are effective in enhancing creativity, but priming creativity may have unin- tended negative consequences. People who are primed to “think creatively” are more likely to behave dishonestly than those who are not primed.119
112From Why Your Creativity Needs Boundaries to Thrive by Jane Porter, © Jan 08 2014 Fast Company. 113Parnes, S. J., & Meadow, A. (1959). Effect of “brainstorming” instructions on creative problem-solving by trained and untrained subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 50(4), 171–176; Osborn, Applied imagination (rev. ed.), p. 230. 114Dominguez, P. (2008, June 16). IDEO’s 7 rules of brainstorming. Green Business Innovators. greenbusinessin- novators.com 115From The Surprising Truth About the Perfect Brainstorm by Val Wright, © Fed 27, 2015 Inc. 116Harrison, S. H., & Rouse, E. D. (2014). Let’s dance! Elastic coordination in creative group work: A qualita- tive study of modern dancers. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1256–1283. 117From “Effects of task instructions and brief breaks on brainstorming” by Paul B. Paulus, Toshihiko Nakui, Vincent R. Brown and Vicky L. Putman in Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10(3), 206–219, © 2006 American Psychological Association 118Oxley, N. L., Dzindolet, M. T., & Paulus, P. B. (1996). The effects of facilitators on the performance of brainstorming groups. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11(4), 633–646. 119Gino, F., & Ariely, D. (2012). The dark side of creativity: Original thinkers can be more dishonest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 445.
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 239 10/25/16 2:52 PM
240 Part 2 • Team Performance
FEEDBACK People who actively seek feedback are proactive. A study of 456 employees from four organizations revealed that people who sought feedback—either directly or by monitoring the environment—were considered to be more creative.120 Similarly, people who seek help from others in their teams and organization are more creative than those who don’t actively seek help.121 However, because help seekers became indebted to others after receiving help, they tended to give more help to others and thus hindered their own creativity.
One way of getting feedback is to observe. For example, toy manufacturer Fisher- Price’s PlayLab gets feedback by spelunking, which in the toy world refers to simply watching children play. At PlayLab, infants and toddlers play with phone apps and other electronic toys. Observations about the play patterns and interest level of the kids regarding various products are passed along to toy designers and marketers.122
ANALOGIES Analogical reasoning is the act of applying one concept or idea from a particular domain to another domain. Consider, for example, Johannes Kepler’s applica- tion of concepts from light to the development of the orbital motion of planets theory.123 Similarly, chemist Friedrich Kekulé discovered the closed hexagonal structure of the benzene ring by imagining a snake biting its own tail. Teams at Apple visited a candy factory to study the nuances of jelly bean making and used the jelly bean idea as an analogy for the Apple iMac contained in a translucent blue shell.124
New ideas are often old ideas wrapped in new clothing. Finding innovative solu- tions by analogy requires: (1) in-depth understanding of the problem and (2) searching for something else that already has solved the problem.125 In one demo, business execu- tives were challenged to think about how to engage in their weight-training program while on business travel. It is not practical to travel with 50-pound dumbbells, but think- ing about how water contains weight, leads to an analogy of a fillable water mattress. Water weights are small and compact, and they can be filled with tap water from hotel bathrooms. Following is another analogy: When a team of NASA scientists needed to fix the distorted lenses in the Hubble telescope in orbit, one of the experts mentioned that small inversely distorted mirrors would adjust the images. However, they were impossible to fit into the hard-to-reach space inside the telescope. Engineer Jim Crocker noticed the European-style showerhead mounted on adjustable rods in a German hotel and thought to extend the mirrors into the telescope by mounting them on similar folding arms.
The following is another use of analogy: A manufacturer of potato chips faced a frequently encountered problem—potato chips took up too much shelf space when they
120Smith, C. M., Bushouse, E., & Lord, J. (2010). Individual and group performance on insight problems: The effects of experimentally induced fixation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(1), 91–99. 121Mueller, J. S., & Kamdar, D. (2011). Why seeking help from teammates is a blessing and a curse: A theory of help seeking and individual creativity in team contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 263–276. 122LaPorte, N. (2012, July 7). Where apps become child’s play. New York Times. nytimes.com 123Gentner, D., Brem, S., Ferguson, R., & Wolff, P. (1997). Analogy and creativity in the works of Johannes Kepler. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 403–459). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 124Burrows, P. (2006, September 25). The man behind Apple’s design magic. Businessweek, 4002, 26–33. 125Markman, A. B., & Wood, K. L. (Eds.). (2009). Tools for innovation: The science behind the practical methods that drive innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 240 10/25/16 2:52 PM
Chapter 9 • Creativity and Innovation in Teams 241
were packed loosely, but they crumbled when packed in smaller packages. The manu- facturer found a solution by using a direct analogy: Dried leaves are highly similar to potato chips. They crumble very easily, and they are bulky. Pressed leaves are flat. Could potato chips be shipped flat? As it turned out, they could not. The team, however, real- ized that leaves are not pressed when they are dry, but when they are moist. So they packed potato chips in stacks, moist enough not to crumble, but dry enough to be nearly flat. The result was Pringles.126 Speedo’s Fast Skin Shark Suit, a full body swimsuit with a fabric surface modeled after shark skin, used testing techniques reserved for Formula One race cars and jet planes.127 When Dyson company founder James Dyson visited a local sawmill, he associated the mechanical analogy of an industrial funnel-shaped dust collector and invented one of the best-selling vacuums in the world.128
The most dramatic impacts of new technologies often come from industries other than the ones in which they first emerged. For example, the steam engine, developed in the mining industry, revolutionized the railroad and shipping industries. Hargadon and Sutton outline four critical steps in the knowledge brokering cycle: (1) capturing good ideas, (2) keeping ideas alive, (3) imagining new uses for old ideas, and (4) putting prom- ising concepts to the test.129
EPISODIC MEMORY When people imagine a future event or recollect the details of a recent event, they are more creative. By imagining details of future events or recollecting details of recent events, people show more divergent thinking as compared to people not instructed to do so.130
FaCilitator-leD methoDs
A trained facilitator can better follow rules of brainstorming (which are often unwittingly violated), help create an organizational memory and keep teams on track. Indeed, trained facilitators can bring the level of team performance up to that of nominal groups.131 Furthermore, this investment produces long-term benefits. Teams that are given several sessions in which they are guided by facilitators into productive idea generation patterns demonstrate high levels of productivity in subsequent sessions without the facilita- tors.132 Apparently, teams can become accustomed to sharing ideas without extensive social interaction or “filler” talk. Rapid Results uses trained facilitators to solve global challenges with a tight deadline of 100 days. In 2014, the goal was to end homelessness in 25 communities across the United States. Teams in each city participated in
126Russo, F. (2006, January 16). The hidden secrets of the creative mind. Time, 167(3), 89–90. 127Designed for Speedo: Olympic swimming’s secret. (2012, July 30). CNN.com, business.blogs.cnn.com 128Bodell, L. (2012, July 17) Work skills you’ll need to survive the “conceptual age.” CNN Wire. news.blogs. cnn.com 129Hargadon, A. B., & Sutton, R. I. (2000, May/June). Building an innovation factory. Harvard Business Review, 78(3), 157–166. 130Madore, K. P., Addis, D. R., & Schacter, D. L. (2015). Creativity and memory effects of an episodic-specificity induction on divergent thinking. Psychological Science, 26(9), 1461–1468. 131Oxley, Dzindolet, & Paulus, “The effects of facilitators on the performance of brainstorming groups.” 132Paulus, P. B., Putman, V. L., Coskun, H., Leggett, K. L., & Roland, E. J. (1996). Training groups for effective brainstorming. Presented at the fourth annual Advanced Concepts Conference on Work Teams–Team Imple- mentation Issues, Dallas.
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 241 10/25/16 2:52 PM
242 Part 2 • Team Performance
a two-day brainstorming session that focused on restructuring and reimagining their local housing systems and has resulted in 31,000 veterans escaping homelessness.133 As this case study illustrates, trained facilitators who successfully eliminate filler talk achieve the highest levels of productivity when the most ideas are allowed to be shared.134
BRIEF BREAKS Teams that take a short break (2 to 5 minutes in length) halfway through a 20- or 30-minute brainstorming session increase their productivity following the break compared to teams that brainstorm continuously without a break.135 Breaks also allow brainstorming groups to overcome mental blocks through the process of incubation. Breaks can stimulate a different approach to a problem. In one investigation, individuals and three-person groups attempted to solve sets of rebus puzzles; following incubation (taking a break from the problem), groups improved their performance.136
BACKGROUND NOISE A moderate level of background noise improves creativity more than does silence. Why? Background noise prompts people to focus. People who are exposed to moderate levels of noise need to work harder to process their thoughts, which increases focus and persistence.137
NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE A much better method of group brainstorming is to pre- pare by having a prior session of solitary writing, known as the nominal group tech- nique.138 The nominal group technique, or NGT, is a variation of the standard brainwriting technique139 and involves an initial session of brainwriting prior to interac- tive teamwork. Thus, NGT separates the idea generation phase from the idea evaluation phase. To use the NGT, it is useful to have a facilitator, but it is not necessary. The facili- tator introduces a problem on the board or on a flip chart. After members understand the topic or issue, they silently write ideas for 10 to 15 minutes. Members state their ideas in a round-robin fashion, and each idea is given an identification number. Once ideas are all listed, the team discusses each item, focusing on clarification. Following this, members privately rank the five solutions or ideas they most prefer. The leader- facilitator collects the cards and averages the rating to yield a group decision.
133Kanis, B. (2015, July 15). 100,000 homes campaign provides housing to 31,000 chronically homeless vet- erans. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. blogs.va.gov; Kanis, B.(2015, July 15). Washington: 100,000 homes campaign provides housing to 31,000 chronically homeless. Veterans National Center on Homelessness Among Veterans. endveteranhomelessness.org 134Dugosh, K. L., Paulus, P. B., Roland, E. J., & Yang, H.-C. (2000). Cognitive stimulation in brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 722–735. 135Mitchell, C. K. (1998). The effects of break task on performance during the second session of brainstorming. (Master’s thesis). University of Texas at Arlington. 136Smith, C. M., Bushouse, E., & Lord, J. (2010). Individual and group performance on insight problems: The effects of experimentally induced fixation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(1), 91–99. 137Mehta, R., Zhu, R., & Cheema, A. (2012). Is noise always bad? Exploring the effects of ambient noise on creative cognition. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 784–799. 138Delbecq, A. L., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1971). A group process model for identification and program planning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 7, 466–492. 139Geschka, H., Schaude, G.R., & Schlicksupp, H. “Modern techniques for solving problems,” p. 244; Van de Ven, A. H., & Delbecq, A. L. (1974). The effectiveness of nominal, Delphi, and interacting group decision making processes. Academy of Management Journal, 17(4), 605–621.
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 242 10/25/16 2:52 PM
Chapter 9 • Creativity and Innovation in Teams 243
It is worth noting that the NGT was compared with an interactive brainstorming process and overwhelmingly outperformed the standard brainstorming group.140 Also, nominal groups that perform in the same room generate more ideas than those in sepa- rate rooms.141 The advantage of the NGT is that it maximizes information gain, ensures a democratic representation of all members’ ideas (i.e., avoids the lumpy participation effect), and avoids production blocking. Yet members still have an opportunity for face- to-face discussion of issues. Although it might seem that the NGT would run the risk of generating redundant ideas, they are no more common per number of total ideas than in real face-to-face groups. There are some disadvantages of the NGT; it is less sponta- neous and might require a separate meeting for each topic.
One variant of the NGT is the rotating nominal group technique, in which mem- bers write down their ideas on individual sheets of paper or note cards. The meeting facili- tator (or a group member) collects the note cards, shuffles them, and redistributes them randomly to members, who read the cards aloud or discuss their contents in small groups. This variation creates greater acceptance of others’ ideas because the ideas are semi- anonymous; it also prevents individual members from championing only their own ideas.
DELPHI TECHNIQUE Another variant of the NGT is the Delphi technique.142 In this technique, group members do not interact face-to-face at any point. This technique is ideally suited for groups whose members are geographically dispersed (making meetings difficult to attend) and for teams whose members experience such great conflict that it is difficult to meet about sensitive issues. This technique requires a leader or facilitator who is trusted by the team members. The entire process proceeds through question- naires, followed by feedback that can be computerized. The leader distributes a topic or question to members and asks for responses from each team member. The leader then aggregates the responses, sends them back to the team, and solicits feedback. The pro- cess is repeated until there is resolution on the issue in question. The Delphi technique avoids production blocking. Because members respond independently, conformity pres- sures and evaluation apprehension are limited. One problem associated with this tech- nique, which is not associated with regular brainstorming or nominal brainstorming, is that it can be quite time consuming. Sessions can last several days, even weeks.
STEPLADDER TECHNIQUE The stepladder technique, a variant of the membership change technique, is a decision-making approach in which members are added one by one to a team.143 The first step involves the creation of a two-person subgroup (the core), which begins preliminary discussion of the group’s task. After a fixed interval, another member joins the core group and presents his or her ideas concerning the task. The three-person group then discusses the task in a preliminary manner. The process continues until all members have systematically joined the core group. When this
140Gustafson, D. H., Shukla, R. K., Delbecq, A. L., & Walster, G. W. (1973). A comparative study of differences in subjective likelihood estimates made by individuals, interacting groups, Delphi groups, and nominal groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9(2), 280–291. 141Mullen, Johnson, & Salas, “Productivity loss in brainstorming groups,” p. 232. 142Helmer, O. (1966). Social technology. New York: Basic Books; Helmer, O. (1967). Analysis of the future: The Delphi method. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation. 143Rogelberg, S. G., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Lowe, C. A. (1992). The stepladder technique: An alternative group structure facilitating effective group decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(5), 730–737.
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 243 10/25/16 2:52 PM
244 Part 2 • Team Performance
Indeed, diverse teams were more creative than homogenous teams when they engaged in perspective-taking, but not when they weren’t instructed to take others’ perspectives.153
FLUID MEMBERSHIP People enter and exit groups. Although maintaining consistent membership increases comfort and the perception of creativity, it does not lead to better creativity.154 Teams that experience membership change (i.e., an entry of a new member and an exit of an old member) generate not only more ideas (high fluency) but also more diverse ones (higher flexibility) than do groups who remain intact.155 Teams that stay together, without any change in membership, develop a sort of cogni- tive arthritis—they get stuck in a rut when it comes to idea generation. There is a negative relationship between repeat collaboration and creativity.156 In contrast, teams that experience a change in membership are exposed naturally to more ideas due to a greater diversity in task-relevant skills and information. When a group expe- riences a membership change, they are in a unique position to look at themselves more thoughtfully. The presence of a newcomer can motivate old-timers to revisit their task strategy and develop improved methods for performing group tasks.157 This effect is known as creative abrasion, wherein people who lack a previous collabora- tion are more likely to generate ideas.158 Successful new product development (NPD) teams have: (1) higher project complexity; (2) cross-functionality; (3) temporary mem- bership; (4) fluid team boundaries; and (5) embeddedness in organizational structures.159
ORGANIZATIONAL NETWORKS The extent to which teams and their leaders have weak ties across organizational units and boundaries can promote creativity.160 In an inves- tigation of product development in project teams, teams that had fluid team boundar- ies allowing cross-team networking, were more creative than those with tight boundaries.161 When teams have fluid group boundaries, team members are forced to make new connections across traditional boundaries. In this way, team members trade the depth and intensity of “strong ties” for a larger number of “weak ties.”
151Harvey, S. (2013). A different perspective: The multiple effects of deep level diversity on group creativity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5), 822–832.
153Hoever, 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. 154Nemeth & Ormiston, “Creative idea generation,” p. 227. 155Choi, H. S., & Thompson, L. (2005). Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98(2), 121–132. 156Guimerá, R., Uzzi, B., Spiro J., & Amaral, L. A. (2005). Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science, 308(5722), 697–702. 157Choi & Thompson, “Old wine in a new bottle,” p. 248; Ziller, R. C. (1965). Toward a theory of open and closed groups. Psychological Bulletin, 64(3), 164–182. 158Skilton, P. F., & Dooley, K. J. (2010). The effects of repeat collaboration on creative abrasion. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 118–134. 159Edmondson, 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. 160Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 89–107. 161Edmondson & Nembhard, “Product development and learning in teams.”
occurs, the group arrives at a final solution. Each member must have sufficient time to think about the problem before entering into the core group. More importantly, the entering members must present their preliminary solutions before hearing the core group’s preliminary solutions. A final decision cannot be reached until the group has formed in its entirety. Self-pacing stepladder groups produce significantly higher-quality group decisions than conventional groups.144 Members with the best individual deci- sions exert more influence in stepladder groups than in free interaction groups.
leaDer anD organizational methoDs
DIVERSITY The impact of diversity on creative idea generation is complex. Teams with heterogeneous members generate more arguments,145 apply a greater number of strate- gies,146 detect more novel solutions,147 and are better at integrating multiple perspec- tives148 than teams without conflicting perspectives. A field study of 39 research teams within a global Fortune 100 Science & Technology company revealed that diverse teams, containing a breadth of research and business unit experience, were more effective when there was a knowledge-sharing climate in the team and when the leader also had breadth.149 Another field study revealed that teams with greater cognitive diversity were more creative than teams with less cognitive diversity, but only when they had high self- efficacy—that is, when they believed in their ability to be creative.150 Deep-level diversity within a team, however, hampers creativity, particularly when the team must converge on a single output.151 Another study of 176 employees working in 34 research and development teams in four countries revealed that functional background diversity com- bined with shared “knowledge of who knows what” (KWKW) benefits the creativity of people with high creative self-efficacy.152 Perspective-taking is key for diverse teams:
144Rogelberg, S. G., & O’Connor, M. S. (1998). Extending the stepladder technique: An examination of self- paced stepladder groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2(2), 82–91. 145Smith, Tindale, & Dugoni, “Minority and majority influence in freely interacting groups.” 146Nemeth, C. J., & Wachtler, J. (1983). Creative problem solving as a result of majority vs. minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13(1), 45–55. 147Nemeth, C. J., & Kwan, J. L. (1987). Minority influence, divergent thinking and detection of correct solu- tions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17(9), 788–799. 148Gruenfeld, D. H. (1994). Status and integrative complexity in decision-making groups: Evidence from the United States Supreme Court and a laboratory experiment. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 55(2-B), 630; Gruenfeld, D. H. (1995). Status, ideology and integrative complexity on the U.S. Supreme Court: Rethinking the politics of political decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 5–20; Peterson, R. S., & Nemeth, C. J. (1996). Focus versus flexibility: Majority and minority influence can both improve performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(1), 14–23. 149Griffith, T. L., & Sawyer, J. E. (2010). Multilevel knowledge and team performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(7), 1003–1031. 150Shin, S. J., Kim, T.-Y, Lee, J.-Y., & Bian, L. (2012). Cognitive team diversity and individual team member creativity: A cross-level interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 197–212.
152Richter, A. W., Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Baer, M. (2012). Creative self-efficacy and individual creativity in team contexts: Cross-level interactions with team informational resources. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 97(6), 1282.
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 244 10/25/16 2:52 PM
Chapter 9 • Creativity and Innovation in Teams 245
Indeed, diverse teams were more creative than homogenous teams when they engaged in perspective-taking, but not when they weren’t instructed to take others’ perspectives.153
FLUID MEMBERSHIP People enter and exit groups. Although maintaining consistent membership increases comfort and the perception of creativity, it does not lead to better creativity.154 Teams that experience membership change (i.e., an entry of a new member and an exit of an old member) generate not only more ideas (high fluency) but also more diverse ones (higher flexibility) than do groups who remain intact.155 Teams that stay together, without any change in membership, develop a sort of cogni- tive arthritis—they get stuck in a rut when it comes to idea generation. There is a negative relationship between repeat collaboration and creativity.156 In contrast, teams that experience a change in membership are exposed naturally to more ideas due to a greater diversity in task-relevant skills and information. When a group expe- riences a membership change, they are in a unique position to look at themselves more thoughtfully. The presence of a newcomer can motivate old-timers to revisit their task strategy and develop improved methods for performing group tasks.157 This effect is known as creative abrasion, wherein people who lack a previous collabora- tion are more likely to generate ideas.158 Successful new product development (NPD) teams have: (1) higher project complexity; (2) cross-functionality; (3) temporary mem- bership; (4) fluid team boundaries; and (5) embeddedness in organizational structures.159
ORGANIZATIONAL NETWORKS The extent to which teams and their leaders have weak ties across organizational units and boundaries can promote creativity.160 In an inves- tigation of product development in project teams, teams that had fluid team boundar- ies allowing cross-team networking, were more creative than those with tight boundaries.161 When teams have fluid group boundaries, team members are forced to make new connections across traditional boundaries. In this way, team members trade the depth and intensity of “strong ties” for a larger number of “weak ties.”
151Harvey, S. (2013). A different perspective: The multiple effects of deep level diversity on group creativity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5), 822–832.
153Hoever, 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. 154Nemeth & Ormiston, “Creative idea generation,” p. 227. 155Choi, H. S., & Thompson, L. (2005). Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98(2), 121–132. 156Guimerá, R., Uzzi, B., Spiro J., & Amaral, L. A. (2005). Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science, 308(5722), 697–702. 157Choi & Thompson, “Old wine in a new bottle,” p. 248; Ziller, R. C. (1965). Toward a theory of open and closed groups. Psychological Bulletin, 64(3), 164–182. 158Skilton, P. F., & Dooley, K. J. (2010). The effects of repeat collaboration on creative abrasion. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 118–134. 159Edmondson, 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. 160Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 89–107. 161Edmondson & Nembhard, “Product development and learning in teams.”
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 245 10/25/16 2:52 PM
246 Part 2 • Team Performance
An investigation of 214 employees working in 30 teams revealed that team leader “betweenness centrality” in their team as well as among their peer leaders enhances creativity beyond their employees’ own internal and external ties. Moreover, leaders’ and employees’ internal and external ties interact to predict radical creativity. At BMW, all the major departments work together in a hub-and-spoke office con- figuration in which a middle core stimulates exchange of creative ideas among functions. With this design, everyone learns and gains insight into different departments.162
Networking also means spending time with customers and clients. A large meta-analysis of team-level antecedents of creativity revealed that organizational sup- port for innovation, vision, task orientation, and external communication were associ- ated with the highest levels of creativity.163 And, respectful engagement among organizational members facilitates relational information processing, leading to creative behaviors.164
EMPOWERMENT Teams that are empowered—particularly by their leaders—are more intrinsically motivated and more creatively engaged.165 Conversely, bureaucracy, par- ticularly centralization and formalization, constrains creative expression.166 For exam- ple, when Toyota saw rival car companies catching up to them on quality, fuel efficiency, and styling, they empowered their internal teams. Toyota’s chief designer, Tokuo Fuku- ichi, realized that the company’s design process had too many filters and too many people weighing in on the final design. The new framework for vehicle development encouraged parts sharing across vehicle designs during the simultaneous development of multiple models; costs were reduced by 30 percent.167 Organizations that use power heterarchies, in which power actively shifts among team members to align member capabilities with situational demands are more creative than teams that don’t shift power.168
162Steep, M. (2014, September 3). How to create innovation cultures that keep working. Forbes. forbes.com 163Hulsheger, 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. 164Carmeli, A., Dutton, J. E., & Hardin, A. E. (2015). Respect as an engine for new ideas: Linking respectful engagement, relational information processing and creativity among employees and teams. Human Relations, 62(6), 1021–1044. 165Zhang, X., & Bartol, K.M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 53(1), 107–128. 166Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., Chen, C.-H, & Sacramento, C. A. (2011). How does bureaucracy impact individual creativity? A cross-level investigation of team contextual influences on goal orientation-creativity relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 624–641. 167Kim, C. (2012, April 9). Toyota aims to spice up cars with new development methods. Reuters. reuters.com 168Aime, F., Humphrey, S., DeRue, D. S., & Paul, J. B. (2014). The riddle of heterarchy: Power transitions in cross-functional teams. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 327–352.
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 246 10/25/16 2:52 PM
Chapter 9 • Creativity and Innovation in Teams 247
Chapter Capstone
Many of our intuitions about creativity are incorrect. We see this most clearly in the case of face-to-face brainstorming. The process of generating novel and useful ideas is often blocked in teams. There is no evidence that conventional brainstorming teams can exceed the performance of people working alone. The various inhibitory social and cognitive factors in teams simply outweigh the potential positive effects of social and cognitive stimulation.169
Why then, with all of its faults, is face- to-face group brainstorming so pervasive in companies? Part of the reason is that people falsely believe it is effective. Most managers severely underestimate the process loss in teams—that is, the inhibitory cognitive and
social factors such as social loafing, produc- tion blocking, coordination loss, task irrel- evant behaviors, and filler talk—because they lack a relevant benchmark.
We don’t suggest that companies and teams abandon brainstorming. Rather, we suggest that they develop hybrid methods for creative work that capitalize on individu- als’ strengths and combine those with team strengths. For example, one manager told us that the simple act of asking team members to submit items before their weekly group meeting resulted in a tenfold increase in volume of ideas and higher quality of ideas. With some simple changes, the productivity of teams can increase dramatically.
169Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., Brown, V., Dzindolet, M. T., Roland, E. J., Leggett, K. L., Putman, V. L., & Coskun, H. (1998, June). Group and electronic brainstorming: Understanding production losses and gains in idea generating groups. Paper presented at Learning in Organizations Conference, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
M09_THOM4204_06_SE_C09.indd 247 10/25/16 2:52 PM
M01A_THOM4204_06_SE_P01.indd 2 10/24/16 9:28 PM
This page intentionally left blank
P A
R T
Teams in OrganizationsI I I
M10A_THOM4204_06_SE_P03.indd 249 10/24/16 8:33 PM
M01A_THOM4204_06_SE_P01.indd 2 10/24/16 9:28 PM
This page intentionally left blank
251
Apple’s secret research unit, the VR/AR (virtual reality/augmented reality) team is composed of about 100 experts, including former employees of Microsoft, Faceshift, Metaio, Emotient, and camera companies such as Lytro. The VR/AR team is separated from the rest of the company and works on exciting, under- the-radar projects such as VR headsets similar to Oculus Rift and Microsoft HoloLens. The team works under the pressure of Apple’s design rigor and work norms, and the corporate culture of secrecy means that the company keeps project subgroups and their activities under wraps from both the public eye and fellow Apple employees. To avoid redundancy, confusion and conflicts, projects are assigned to subgroups by a centralized management group that facilitates oversight of all project deliverables and preserves product secrecy. The VR/AR team experiences higher levels of internal competition within their own subgroup and significant ambiguity regarding the final products in which their projects will be used.1
1Bradshaw, T. (2016, January 29). Apple builds a secret team to kick-start virtual reality effort. Financial Times. ft.com; Eadicicco, L. (2014, June 27). Here’s why secrecy is so important at Apple. Business Insider. busines- sinsider.com
Subgroups and Multi-Teams10
C h
a p
t e
r
In most companies, several teams operate side by side. They can be transparent or secret. They can be formal or informal. They can be permanent or short-lived. They may inter- act with other groups or keep their distance. Moreover, people may be members of several different teams at any one time. The different teams have incentives to cooperate with one another, yet they often have competing incentives, timelines, and goals. Teams need to work collaboratively with other groups inside their organizations, but they often act in a territorial fashion, making cross-team collaboration difficult. Multi-team systems (MTSs) are popular but have special challenges.2
In this chapter, we begin by examining intergroup relations and then focus on subgroups or factions within a given team. We explore faultlines in subgroups and how best to deal with them. Then, we focus on team boundaries and discuss how teams might be overbounded (too insular) or underbounded (not sufficiently defined), and we
2Shuffler, M. L., Jiménez-Rodríguez, M., & Kramer, W. S. (2015). The science of multi-team systems: A review and future research agenda. Small Group Research, 46(6), 659–699.
M10B_THOM4204_06_SE_C10.indd 251 10/25/16 2:43 PM
252 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
explore how team boundedness affects the team’s relationship with the environment and ultimately, how successful the team is. We then discuss teams in matrix organiza- tions that contain different functional and business units. We explore cross-functional teams and multi-team systems, and we consider several structural solutions for increas- ing integration among teams. Finally, we suggest methods by which leaders and manag- ers can improve interteam relations.
INTERGROUP RELATIONS
In-Groups and out-Groups
Team members categorize themselves and others in terms of in-groups and out-groups, both within a given team (in the case of subgroups) or between teams (in the case of multiple teams). In short: “Are you one of us or one of them?” People consider in-groups to be people who are like themselves or who belong to the same groups; out-groups are people who are not in their group or who are members of competitor groups. There are several implications of in-group and out-group categorizations.
socIal comparIson
Consider a situation in which you are a member of a team that has little organizational support within your company. Your team competes with two other groups in your organization. One is a disadvantaged group (they don’t have a lot of organizational sup- port and resources), and the other is an advantaged group (they have much organizational support and many resources).3 The performance of the disadvantaged team changes over time, so that it becomes either equal, worse, or better than your team’s performance. How would you feel? Social comparison theory predicts that when a comparable team in your organization performs similarly to or better than your team, the identity of your team is threatened.4 Under such conditions, your team might be likely to discriminate against (i.e., hurt) other disadvantaged teams that perform similarly to or better than your own team. Conversely, your team is most helpful and supportive of other teams whose per- formance deteriorates over time—because such groups provide positive social compari- son for your group (i.e., they make your team look good). In contrast, the “advantaged” out-group is not as much of a threat to your team (because it is not easily comparable). Thus, teams are more likely to harm and discriminate against disadvantaged groups when their performance increases—thus threatening one’s own team’s performance.5
Social comparison also occurs when people act on behalf of their team. For exam- ple, people work harder when they are outperformed by an out-group member instead of an in-group member.6 Similarly, people work harder when their individual
3Rothgerber, H., & Worchel, S. (1997). The view from below: Intergroup relations from the perspective of the disadvantaged group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1191–1205. 4Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608–630. 5Rothgerber & Worchel, “The view from below.” 6Lount, R. B., & Phillips, K. W. (2007). Working harder with the out-group: The impact of social category diversity on motivation gains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(2), 214–224.
M10B_THOM4204_06_SE_C10.indd 252 10/25/16 2:43 PM
Chapter 10 • Subgroups and Multi-Teams 253
performance is compared to a lower-status out-group member instead of a higher-status one.7 Low-status out-group members are especially threatening for people’s self-esteem.
team rIvalry
Companies often try to create (healthy) rivalry between different groups and depart- ments within the organization. When Charles Schwab wanted a poorly producing mill to produce more steel, he created a competition between the day shift and the night shift. As the day shift was ending, he asked how many heats they had produced that day and then wrote the number “6” on the floor with chalk for the night shift to see. The next morning, the “6” was replaced by the night shift with a “7.” This competition went on until, eventually, a 10 was written.8 Similarly, at The Muse, a career resource company, each team’s monthly and quarterly goals are made public. When one team closes a deal, its members celebrate by playing a “walk-up” song to the scoreboard.9
What is the effect of competition on team rivalry? First, the degree of competi- tion between rival teams depends on how close they are in terms of competitiveness on the key dimension. For example, people become more competitive and less willing to maximize overall company gains when they and their rivals are highly ranked (e.g., number 2 or number 3) than when they are not (e.g., number 202 or number 203).10 The degree of competition between rivals also increases when other meaningful standards are introduced, such as the bottom of a ranking scale or a qualitative threshold in the middle of a scale. To the extent that people feel that a group is a norm or benchmark of comparison, they accord that group higher status and power.11 When groups feel powerless relative to others, they are more likely to experience anger and fear.12
Vicarious retribution occurs when people who are not harmed directly by a rival group nonetheless seek retribution against members of that out-group, who were not the original perpetrators of the initial attack on the in-group.13 The more highly identi- fied people are with their in-group, the more they engage in vicarious retribution. The desire to talk about power is greater among members of disadvantaged rather than
7Pettit, N. C., & Lount, R. B., Jr. (2010). Looking down and ramping up: The impact of status differences on effort in intergroup settings. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(1), 9–20. 8Giang, V. (2013, July 19). How Charles Schwab got his workers to produce more steel. Business Insider. busi- nessinsider.com 9 Freeman, D. (2015, January 29). How to create a culture of healthy competition. Inc. inc.com 10Garcia, S. M., Tor, A., & Gonzales, R. (2006). Ranks and rivals: A theory of competition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(7), 970–982. 11Bruckmueller, S., & Abele, A. E. (2010). Comparison focus in intergroup comparisons: Who we compare to whom influences who we see as powerful and agentic. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(10), 1424–1435. 12Kamans, E., Otten, S., & Gordin, E. H. (2011). Power and threat in intergroup conflict: How emotional and behavioral responses depend on amount and content of threat. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(3), 293–310. 13Stenstrom, D. M., Lickel, B., Denson, T. F., & Miller, N. (2008). The roles of in-group identification and out-group entitativity in intergroup retribution. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(11), 1570–1582.
M10B_THOM4204_06_SE_C10.indd 253 10/25/16 2:43 PM
254 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
advantaged groups.14 And highly identified members of disadvantaged groups want to talk about power more, whereas members of advantaged groups generally prefer to talk about commonalities between groups.
In-Group BIas
In-group bias is the tendency to favor one’s own group at the expense of outgroups. Intergroup empathy bias is the tendency to empathize less with out-group members relative to in-group members and also to feel pleasure in response to their pain (schaden- freude) and pain in response to their pleasure (gluckschmerz).15 Intergroup empathy bias occurs even if the outgroup is no longer a competitive threat.
transGressIon credIt
People forgive serious transgressions by in-group leaders but not by other group members or out-group leaders. This double standard was revealed in an investigation of captains and players in sports competitions. Transgressive captains of in-group teams were evalu- ated more favorably than captains from out-group teams and in-group members.16
SUBGROUPS
Subgroups are teams within teams. Subgroups can be formal or informal, but they typi- cally are formed according to the natural group preferences of individuals.17 Two spe- cific criteria define subgroups: (1) a subset of members of the same work team whose membership and task are formally recognized by the organization; and (2) a subset of members of the same team are characterized by a form or degree of interdependence that is unique when compared to that of other members.18 For example, a subgroup (within a team) exists if a set of members interacts differently with each other than with other team members because they share a cultural value, scarce resource or knowledge frame that is unique from that shared by other members. In July 2015, the Japanese business publication, Nikkei acquired the London-based Financial Times. On the busi- ness side, both papers had much in common: Both were well established in the financial world and both desired to “scoop” rivals on economic and corporate news. However, Nikkei’s history of past company acquisitions and the cultural differences that quickly divided newsrooms had the London newsroom of the Financial Times worried. In antic- ipation of the possible changes the merger could bring, the British journalists working
14Saguy, T., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2008). Beyond contact: Intergroup contact in the context of power relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 432–445. 15Cikara, M., Bruneau, E., Van Bavel, J. J., & Saxe, R. (2014). Their pain gives us pleasure: How intergroup dynamics shape empathic failures and counter-empathic responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 110–125. 16Abrams, D., Randsley de Moura, G., & Travaglino, G. A. (2013). A double standard when group members behave badly: Transgression credit to in-group leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(5), 799.
18From “A theory of subgroups in work teams” by Andrew M. Carton and Jonathon N. Cummings in Academy of Management Review 37(3), 441–470, pp.442, © 2012 Academy of Management.
17Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 325–340.
M10B_THOM4204_06_SE_C10.indd 254 10/25/16 2:43 PM
Chapter 10 • Subgroups and Multi-Teams 255
for the Financial Times formed their own subgroup within the new organization to support their editorial independence, journalistic standards for an open reporting style, and expectations for work–life balance.19
sIze
People typically prefer subgroups composed of two to three members and rarely choose to team with groups of more than six members.20 Thus, most subgroups have between two and six members.
IdentIty, resource, and KnowledGe subGroups
Subgroups are characterized by three key factors: identity, resources, and knowledge21 (see Exhibit 10-1). Identity-based subgroups share important values and social char- acteristics. Members of identity-based subgroups affiliate with others who share the same sense of identity and in this way, they provide members of that same subgroup with a sense of distinctiveness.22 Members of identity-based subgroups may experience identity threat when another prominent subgroup undermines their ability to express
19Geoghegan, I. (2015, July 24). Nikkei and the FT: A meeting of minds or culture clash? Reuters. reuters.com; Parsons, S. (2016, January). People issues: The results of M&A’s in the UK. The Magazine of the British Chamber of Commerce in Japan. bccjacumen.com 20Levine, J. M., Moreland, R. L., & Ryan, C. S. (1997). Group socialization and intergroup relations. In C. Sedikides, J. Schopler, C. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior. Mahwah, NJ.: Erlbaum. 21Carton, A. M., & Cummings, J. N. (2012). A theory of subgroups in work teams. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 441–470. 22Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482.
Exhibit 10-1 Identity, Resource and Knowledge-based subgroups
Based on Carton, a. M., & Cummings, J. N. (2012). a theory of subgroups in work teams. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 441–470, © Leigh L. thompson.
Type of subgroup Examples of subgroup type Characteristics of
inter-subgroup processes
Identity-based subgroup
Resource-based subgroup
Knowledge-based subgroup
• Cliques • Values homophilies • Relational subgroups • Social subgroups
• Coalitions • Factions • Alliances • Blocs
• Cohorts • Informational subgroups • Clusters • Task-related subgroups
Inter-subgroup processes are characterized by social idenity (e.g., threat to the identities of the team’s subgroups and fragmentation of the team’s identity).
Inter-subgroup processes are characterized by social dominance (e.g., asymmetric perceptions of fairness and centralization of power in the team).
Inter-subgroup processes are characterized by information processing (e.g. consideration of alternative sources of knowledge and the convergence of mental models).
M10B_THOM4204_06_SE_C10.indd 255 10/25/16 2:43 PM
256 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
their distinctiveness. In some cases, members of identity-based subgroups may not read- ily perceive how they are related to the larger team. The publication of Sheryl Sandberg’s book, Lean In, sparked groups of women to form Lean In Circles. These clusters of women gather on a regular basis to encourage one another and provide mentoring sup- port through work challenges such as asking for a promotion, starting a new career, or negotiating a job offer. With more than 14,000 Lean In Circles worldwide, members of Lean In circles have formed a unique identity.23
Resource-based subgroups control access to desired resources including power, information, authority, and status. Competition for scarce, desired resources can lead to egocentric perceptions of fairness. For example, when the law firm Weil Gotshal made dramatic staff cuts, partners made pitches behind the backs of colleagues with ties to a client and formed subgroups within the firm to garner clients, work, resources, and power.24
Knowledge-based subgroups contain people who share unique information and technical languages and symbols. In an effort to innovate for the digital age of children’s play, Lego created an R&D Department called Future Lab located in an old building across a large plaza from the more traditional parts of the company. One former designer com- pares the lab which requires the swipe of a special ID card to access to working for the CIA with not even staffers’ spouses knowing what their partners spend their days doing.25
number of Groups
Another question concerns how many subgroups might be expected to form naturally within a given team. Work teams often have at least two subgroups and might have multiple subgroups. Because all members of subgroups have a common goal, multiple subgroups must coordinate with one another to accomplish the goal. A key question concerns whether teams perform better with a greater (versus lesser) number of subgroups. Teams are more adversely affected by two identity-based subgroups than by any other number. A larger number of knowledge-based subgroups is beneficial for performance.26
Impact on performance
Team members’ individual perceptions about the presence of subgroups within the team have a negative effect on their team performance which manifests itself by decreasing the team’s transactive memory system.27 With regard to performance, teams perform better when identity-based subgroups are imbalanced, such that majorities and minorities are present, but when knowledge-based subgroups are balanced.28
23Bonos, L. (2014, March 7). A year after ‘Lean In,’ these are Sheryl Sandberg’s truest believers. The Washington Post. washingtonpost.com; Wong, K. (2015, September 21). DOD Chief backs ‘Lean In’ circles to promote women in the military. The Hill. thehill.com 24Scheiber, N. (2015, August 18). Work policies may be kinder, but brutal competition isn’t. The New York Times. nytimes.com; Cahill, D. (2015, May 13). Law firms struggle with over-capacity and new competitors. The Global Legal Post. globallegalpost.com; Scheiber, N. (2013, July 21). The last days of big law. New Republic. newrepublic.com 25Ringen, J. (2015, January 8). How Lego became the Apple of toys. Fast Company. fastcompany.com 26Carton, A. M., & Cummings, J. N. (2013). The impact of subgroup type and subgroup configurational properties on work team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 732. 27Shen, Y., Gallivan, M. J., & Tang, X. (2016). The impact of perceived subgroup formation on transactive memory systems and performance in distributed teams. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 12(1), 44–66. 28Carton, A. M., & Cummings, J. N. (2013). The impact of subgroup type and subgroup configurational properties on work team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 732.
M10B_THOM4204_06_SE_C10.indd 256 10/25/16 2:43 PM
Chapter 10 • Subgroups and Multi-Teams 257
faultlInes
Faultlines are subgroups or coalitions within teams that emerge typically along various demographic lines. For example, if the members of a group fall into two distinct, non- overlapping subgroups based on demographic characteristics, such as young Hispanic women and old Caucasian men, a strong faultline is present.29 Groups with strong faultlines are more likely to identify not with their group as a whole, but rather with subgroups inside the team.30 And groups with faultlines often do not collaborate with other subgroups, instead preferring to share knowledge only within their subgroup.
DETECTING & MEASURING FAULTLINES There are a variety of ways to measure faultlines in field and organizational settings.31 To properly determine a faultline measure, research- ers should consider four factors: (1) whether more than two subgroups are possible; (2) whether all demographic attributes are categorical (e.g., sex and race) versus numerical (e.g., age and tenure); (3) which team member belongs to which subgroup and the size of the subgroup; and (4) whether a group can have more than 10 members.32
SUBGROUP POLARIZATION Opinion polarization is one implication of faultlines. One theory of faultlines argues that in teams with strong faultlines, subgroup polarization occurs because members interact with similar others.33 Another view of faultlines argues that members fail to bridge faultlines because they share demographic attributes with several subgroups and demographically crisscrossing actors can prevent polarization.34
DORMANT VERSUS ACTIVATED Faultlines may be dormant or activated, such that dor- mant faultlines might not automatically lead to conflict. Indeed, groups with activated faultlines are more likely to form coalitions, experience conflict, and have lower satisfac- tion and lower group performance than groups with dormant faultlines.35
GOALS Teams in which reward structures are faultlined with diversity perform worse than do teams in which reward structures cut across differences between group
29Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325–340. 30Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, K. (2005). Interactions within groups and subgroups: The effects of demographic faultlines. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 645–659. 31From “Faultlines and Subgroups: A Meta-Review and Measurement Guide” by Bertolt Meyer, Andreas Glenz, Mirko Antino, Ramón Rico, and Vicente González-Romá in Small Group Research Vol. 45(6) 633– 670 pp.653, © 2014 SAGE Publications. 32Meyer, B., Glenz, A., Antino, M., Rico, R., & González-Romá, V. (2014). Faultlines and subgroups: A meta- review and measurement guide. Small Group Research, 45(6), 633–670. 33Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 325–340. 34Mäs, M., Flache, A., Takács, K., & Jehn, K. A. (2013). In the short term we divide, in the long term we unite: Demographic crisscrossing and the effects of faultlines on subgroup polarization. Organization Science, 24(3), 716–736. 35Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. (2010). The faultline activation process and the effects of activated faultlines on collation formation, conflict, and group outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(1), 24–42.
M10B_THOM4204_06_SE_C10.indd 257 10/25/16 2:43 PM
258 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
members or focus on a shared, superordinate identity.36 Indeed, teams with gender and educational faultlines perform better when they share superordinate goals, especially when their roles are crosscut (as opposed to aligned).37 The negative relationship between group faultlines and performance can be reversed or minimized when groups in the organization are aligned with respect to their results orientation. Faultlines hinder performance however, when organizational groups are misaligned with respect to their results orientation.38
EFFECTS ON PERFORMANCE It would appear that faultlines would negatively affect group performance. For example, a study of 30 major league baseball teams revealed that group-level faultlines were associated negatively with group performance, and inter- nally focused conflict exacerbated the negative effects, but externally focused conflict mitigated it.39 A study of student teams revealed that faultlines heightened conflict and impaired decision process quality.40 The impact of faultlines on performance however, depends on the number and balance of subgroups. Specifically, a study of publicly traded Chinese information technology companies revealed that top management team (TMT) faultline strength was positively related to a company’s short-term performance when both the number and the balance of subgroups was high; and positively related to innovation activities when the number of subgroups was high, but the balance of subgroups was low.41
MANAGING FAULTLINES Although faultlines can emerge in many groups, managers can reduce or thwart the problems of faultlines by taking certain steps. An in-depth inves- tigation of a global telecom team revealed that faultlines were present, specifically between male engineers and female marketers.42 The investigation examined four lead- ership styles: task orientation, relationship orientation, task orientation switching to relationship orientation, and relationship orientation switching to task orientation.43 When strong faultlines are present, the temptation is to move to relationship orientation (e.g., meetings and socializing). However, this leadership style increases the likelihood
36Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S., van Knippenberg, D., Ilgen, D. R., & van Kleef, G. A. (2008). Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intragroup differences, and per- formance of diverse work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 1204–1222. 37Rico, R. S.-M., & Miriam, A., Antino, M., & Lau, D. (2012). Bridging team faultlines by combining task role assignment and goal structure strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 407–420. 38Bezrukova, K., Thatcher, S. M. B., Jehn, K. A., & Spell, C. S. (2012). The effects of alignments: Examining group faultlines, organizational cultures, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 77–92. 39Bezrukova, K., Spell, C.S., Caldwell, D., & Burger, J.M. (2016, January). A multilevel perspective on faultlines: Differentiating the effects between group- and organizational-level faultlines. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 86–107. 40Chiu, Y. T., & Staples, D. S. (2013). Reducing faultlines in geographically dispersed teams self-disclosure and task elaboration. Small Group Research, 44(5), 498–531. 41Xie, X. Y., Wang, W. L., & Qi, Z. J. (2015). The effects of TMT faultline configuration on a firm’s short-term performance and innovation activities. Journal of Management & Organization, 21(05), 558–572. 42Gratton, L., Voigt, A., & Erickson, T. J. (2007). Bridging faultlines in diverse teams. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(4), 22. 43Gratton, L., Voigt, A., & Erickson, T. (2011). Bridging faultlines in diverse teams. IEEE Engineering Manage- ment Review, 1(39), 80–90.
M10B_THOM4204_06_SE_C10.indd 258 10/25/16 2:43 PM
Chapter 10 • Subgroups and Multi-Teams 259
that faultlines will strengthen because socializing makes differences more apparent. To increase collaboration and knowledge sharing across faultlines, leaders need to adjust their leadership style.
To effectively manage faultlines, leaders should take four actions:44 (1) Diagnose the probability of faultlines emerging and emphasize task-oriented leadership early in the project. (2) Focus on task orientation when a team is newly formed. By creating energy around the task, collaboration is strengthened. (3) Know when to make the switch. For the team to be effective for the duration of the project, the leader needs to switch from task to relationship orientation by offering support. (4) Switch to relationship build- ing at the right time. When tensions are mounting, leaders can introduce social activities and discuss tensions. In one investigation, members who engaged in self-disclosure via weblogs and task elaboration were able to repair damage caused by faultlines.45
status
Status systems in teams develop very quickly, often within minutes after most teams are formed.46 Team members form expectations about each person’s probable contribu- tions to the achievement of the team’s goals.47 These expectations are based on personal characteristics that people purposely reveal to one another (real status characteristics such as intelligence, background, and education) or that are readily apparent (pseudostatus char- acteristics such as sex, age, race, demeanor, size, musculature, and facial expression).48
GROUP STATUS In organizations, high-status groups are perceived to possess agency; whereas low-status groups are perceived to lack agentic characteristics.49 Low-status groups show in-group favoritism to compensate for their low status and actively compete to gain higher status. Specifically, members of low-status groups engage in compensatory favoritism (by allocating resources to their own groups) and competitive favoritism (by competing with out-groups).50
STATUS HIERARCHY The mere presence of status hierarchies within a group may hinder performance. A study of low-status players in the National Basketball Association across a six-year period revealed that status inequality was negatively related to individual performance as well as physical health.51 People who don’t feel respected by their team
45Chiu, Y. T., & Staples, D. S. (2013). Reducing faultlines in geographically dispersed teams: self-disclosure and task elaboration. Small Group Research, 44(5), 498–531.
44From “BRIDGING FAULT LINES IN DIVERSE TEAMS” by Lynda Gratton, Andreas Voigt and Tamara Erick- son in MIT Sloan management Review Summer, Vol. 48 No. 4, © 2007 Massachusetts institute of Technology.
46Barchas, P. R., & Fisek, M. H. (1984). Hierarchical differentiation in newly formed groups of rhesus and humans. In P. R. Barchas (Ed.), Essays toward a sociophysiological perspective (pp. 23–33). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. 47Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 479–508. 48Mazur, A. (1985). A biosocial model of status in face-to-face groups. Social Forces, 64, 377–402. 49Nier, J. A., Bajaj, P., McLean, M. C., & Schwartz, E. (2013). Group status, perceptions of agency, and the cor- respondence bias: Attributional processes in the formation of stereotypes about high and low status groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16, 476–487 50Rubin, M., Badea, C., & Jetten, J. (2014). Low status groups show in-group favoritism to compensate for their low status and compete for higher status. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(5) 563–576. 51Christie, A. M., & Barling, J. (2010). Beyond status: Relating status inequality to performance and health in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 920–934.
M10B_THOM4204_06_SE_C10.indd 259 10/25/16 2:43 PM
260 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
are not as loyal to their team and not as committed.52 Conversely, respected members of “devalued” groups (organizational groups that have low status and prestige) are the most likely to donate their time to their team and work to improve its image, rather than their personal image.53 In contrast, disrespected members of prestigious groups invest in-group activity only if they might improve their personal image. In cases of mild and moderate conflict with out-group members, those who have respect for others engage in more positive action.54
STATUS COMPETITION Status hierarchies are seen as more mutable than are power hierarchies, and consequently, low-status group members are motivated to compete with others to advance their status in the hierarchy.55 Status competition can emerge as certain members attempt to compete with the leader or for the leader’s attention and approval. People with a promotion-focus are more likely to compete for status in groups; and people who are primed with power actually achieve greater status in groups.56
Although it would seem that most team members would compete for status, peo- ple often opt for lower status positions. For example, when people believe that they provide less value to the group, they prefer a lower status rank.57 And, when people interact with confident, powerful people, they defer to the confident person’s opinions even when they are wrong.58
PERCEPTIONS OF STATUS Most people overestimate their status in groups, and as a consequence, they are liked less by others and paid less for their work.59 Status enhancers are socially punished because people think that they are disruptive to the group’s process. Accurate perceptions of one’s own status are so important in groups that following an experience of injustice by a third party (i.e., when a group member is unjustly treated by an outsider), the victim’s membership status in the group can be affirmed by punishing the offender. Specifically, by punishing outsiders, group members communicate to the victim that he or she is valuable and worthwhile to the group and is worth protecting.60
52Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2002). The impact of respect versus neglect of self-identities on identification and group loyalty. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(5), 629–639. 53Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., Ellemers, N., & Doosje, B. (2002). Intragroup and intergroup evaluation effects on group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 744–753. 54Laham, S. M., Tam, T., Lalijee, M., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2010). Respect for persons in the intergroup context: Self–other overlap and intergroup emotions as mediators of the impact of respect on action tenden- cies. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(3), 301–317. 55Hays, N. A., & Bendersky, C. (2015). Not all inequality is created equal: Effects of status versus power hier- archies on competition for upward mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(6), 867. 56Kilduff, G. J., & Galinsky, A. D. (2013). From the ephemeral to the enduring: How approach-oriented mind- sets lead to greater status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(5), 816. 57Anderson, C., Willer, R., Kilduff, R., Gavin, J. & Brown, C. E. (2012). The origins of deference: When do people prefer lower status? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 1077–1088. 58Locke, C. C., & Anderson, C. (2015). The downside of looking like a leader: Power, nonverbal confidence, and participative decision-making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 58, 42–47. 59Anderson, C., Ames, D., & Gosling, S. (2008). Punishing hubris: The perils of overestimating one’s status in a group. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(1), 90–101. 60Okimoto, T. G., & Wenzel, M. (2011). Third-party punishment and symbolic intragroup status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(4), 709–718.
M10B_THOM4204_06_SE_C10.indd 260 10/25/16 2:43 PM
Chapter 10 • Subgroups and Multi-Teams 261
EFFECTS ON JUDGMENT & INFORMATION PROCESSING To be sure, prototypical members of groups feel secure about their membership, whereas peripheral representatives have a less certain position. However, it is precisely because peripheral representatives are uncertain, that they are more attentive and responsive to information in the environment. For example, peripheral representatives bring and recall more information, exhibit greater sensitivity to emotional expressions, and are better negotiators than are prototypical group members.61
deference
Deference occurs when a group member “gives in” or trusts another group member to make a judgment or take a resource. Two factors affect whether a given team member defers to another member: task contributions and social affinity (similar to identity). A study of 55 multidisciplinary research teams comprising 619 scientists revealed that when members defer based on social affinity, research productivity declines; but when deference is driven by task contributions, productivity increases.62
IntraGroup devIance
How do group members react when their own group engages in a behavior that they find deviant or dislikeable? Team members may disidentify with their group, but only if the immediate context does not provide an opportunity to derogate or judge the deviant. When people have an opportunity to judge the deviant, they recover their initial in-group identification.63 One type of deviance is high performance. High performers in groups are likely to be targets of victimization by group members, who feel envious of them; when threatened members identify with their group, they feel less envious.64
TEAM BOUNDARIES
An identifiable boundary exists between a team and the other parts of the organiza- tion. Team boundaries differentiate one work group from another and affect knowledge transfer and the distribution of resources. In some cases, boundaries are well defined, but in other cases, boundaries are ambiguous.
underbounded versus overbounded teams
If the boundary becomes too open or indistinct, the team risks becoming overwhelmed and losing its identity. If the boundary is too exclusive, the team might become isolated and lose touch with suppliers, managers, peers, or customers.65 Thus, teams can be
61Van Kleef, G. A., Steinel, W., & Homan, A. C. (2013). On being peripheral and paying attention: Prototypical- ity and information processing in intergroup conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(1), 63. 62Joshi, A., & Knight, A. P. (2015). Who defers to whom and why? Dual pathways linking demographic dif- ferences and dyadic deference to team effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 59–84. 63Cameira, M., & Ribeiro, T. A. (2014). Reactions to intragroup deviance: Does disidentification have a role? Journal of Social Psychology, 154(3), 233–250. 64Kim, E., & Glomb, T. M. (2014). Victimization of high performers: The roles of envy and work group iden- tification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 619. 65Alderfer, C. P. (1977). Group and intergroup relations. In J. R. Hackman & J. L. Suttle (Eds.), Improving life at work (pp. 227–296). Palisades, CA: Goodyear.
M10B_THOM4204_06_SE_C10.indd 261 10/25/16 2:43 PM
262 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
underbounded—having many external ties but an inability to coalesce and motivate members to pull together—or overbounded—having high internal loyalty and a com- plex set of internal dynamics but an inability to integrate with others when needed. There is a trade-off between internal cohesion and external ties—more cohesive teams are less likely to engage in external initiatives.66
foundInG teams
The development of all organizations begins with a single founding team. When these organizations disband, they create a large amount of employment volatility through job creation and destruction. In one investigation of 830 entrepreneurs of founding teams, two factors strongly affected the composition of these entrepreneurs’ founding teams: homophily and network constraints based on strong ties.67 Specifically, homophily or similarity was a key determinant of team composition. The existence of strong ties (such as marriage and long-term friendship) were also key.
InformInG, paradInG, and probInG teams
An in-depth investigation of five consulting teams revealed three distinct strategies toward the team’s environment: informing, parading, and probing.68
INFORMING TEAMS are for the most part, largely sequestered from the environment.69 This may be a deliberate choice by the manager or leader; other times, the team may be ostracized by the organization. Managers often want to isolate their teams for security reasons (e.g., the Los Alamos team that developed the atomic bomb) or intellectual reasons (e.g., the Xerox PARC team, which developed the personal computer). The greatest threat to the effectiveness of informing teams is dissociation from the organiza- tion. Informing teams may fail to develop a viable product or service because they are out of touch with the rest of the organization and industry, or they may have a great product but lack the support they need for success. Xerox PARC was an example wherein a team used its insulation to its advantage in developing groundbreaking technology. However, the team members were unsuccessful in selling their ideas to their own management because virtually no parading or probing had been done. Therefore, Xerox did not obtain the benefits of its own special research group.
Informing teams not only have to sequester themselves from others in the company so they can focus on the work that needs to be done, they also need to insulate themselves from outsiders who have strategic reasons to learn their secrets. Competitors often want access to information so they can decipher long-range business plans. Information technol- ogy has made insulation much more challenging. One company went to extreme lengths
66Alderfer, C. P. (1976). Boundary relations and organizational diagnosis. In M. Meltzer & F. Wickert (Eds.), Humanizing organizational behavior (pp. 142–175). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas; Sherif, M. (1966). In com- mon predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and cooperation. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. 67Ruef, M., Aldrich, H. E., & Carter, N. M. (2003). The structure of organizational founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 68, 195–222. 68Ancona, D. G. (1990). Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization. Academy of Manage- ment journal, 33(2), 334–365. 69Ibid.
M10B_THOM4204_06_SE_C10.indd 262 10/25/16 2:43 PM
Chapter 10 • Subgroups and Multi-Teams 263
to preserve their project plans.70 They scheduled a particularly important strategic planning conference and checked into the hotel. The conference room number and the name of their company were listed on the hotel’s daily agenda sign, but no one showed up. At the appointed hour, without fanfare, they boarded a chartered bus designated for a nonexistent “tour group.” From there, they traveled to an unannounced locale and began their meeting far from the eyes of outsiders who wanted to infiltrate the meeting.
PARADING TEAMS concentrate on their internal processes and simply inform others what they are doing. More often than not, the parading team has little outside contact; it makes decisions about how to serve its customers from within. The team members let others outside the team know what they are doing after they have already made decisions.
PROBING TEAMS actively promote their objectives, products, services, and culture within their organization. Their objective is to garner support from organizational authorities and receive recognition. They actively tailor their communication to suit the needs, interests, and objectives of the organization. For example at Squarespace, a web- site design firm, all offices even the corner ones, have glass doors from floor to ceiling to emphasize transparency. And at NeueHouse, a community for innovators in film, design, fashion, branding, architecture and the arts, conference rooms were replaced with an amphitheater-style meeting area to encourage casual meetings among creatives and to provide a central spot for all members to gather.71 In Ancona’s study, probing teams were rated as the highest performers among teams, although member satisfaction and cohesiveness suffered.72
X-teams
X-teams are highly externally oriented, and their members reach out across the orga- nization to forge dense networks.73 X-teams enable rapid execution using a three-phase process: exploration, exploitation, and exportation.74
EXPLORATION During exploration, X-team members try to understand their task from a novel vantage point, generating as many insights and ideas as possible.
EXPLOITATION During exploitation, X-teams settle upon one product they wish to create, using rapid prototyping to move from possibilities to reality.
EXPORTATION Finally, during exportation, they find ways to move their product and their knowledge and excitement into the broader organization and market. X-teams may find themselves crossing what might be considered competitive organizational borders to achieve a shared goal. For example, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) gathered
70Kaltenheuser, S. (2002, July 1). Working the crowd. Across the Board 39(4), 50–55. 71Winfre, G. (2016, February 18). 7 creative office designs to get you inspired. Inc. inc.com 72Ancona, “Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization.” 73Ancona, D. G., & Bresman, H. (2007). X-teams: How to build teams that lead, innovate and succeed. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing. 74Ancona, D. G., Backman, E., & Bresman, H. (2009, September 1). X-Teams break new ground. Financial Post, p. FP9.
M10B_THOM4204_06_SE_C10.indd 263 10/25/16 2:43 PM
264 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
X-teams from public and private firms to form a partnership whose goal was to translate Alzheimer’s data faster and more successfully. The Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP) venture brings the NIH, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, four pharmaceuti- cal companies (AbbVie, Biogen Idec, GlaxoSmithKline, and Lilly), and four non profit groups (Alzheimer’s Association, Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, Geoffrey Beene Foundation and US Against Alzheimer’s) together to collect and release all data on an open-source knowledge portal. The X-teams work collectively to analyze molecu- lar and clinical data from more than 2,000 postmortem brain samples.75
X-team behaviors involve selecting team members based on their networks, pri- oritizing external outreach as the modus operandi, and utilizing established internal processes to facilitate external work. Other X-team behaviors consist of working with management leadership for project commitment, resources, and support; setting goals and measurable results for exploration, exploitation, and exportation activities; and ensuring the team focuses on scouting, ambassadorship, and task coordination.76
TEAMS IN MATRIX ORGANIZATIONS
Most organizations contain multiple teams, which often serve different functions and often are associated with different business units and geographies. Cross-business unit collaboration is central to the creation of value in large organizations.
cross-functIonal teams
One challenge of collaboration in cross-functional teams is understanding the contribu- tions of diverse experts. Knowledge specialization can produce both positive and negative outcomes. Unique expertise can lead to feelings of ostracism or being out of the loop, as compared to group members with shared expertise.77 Another study of collaboration in the field of systems biology cancer research discovered that scientists make diverse contributions compatible by coordinating through consultation, counter- projection, and alignment.78
multI-team systems
Multi-team systems (MTS) are two or more teams that interface directly and interde- pendently in response to environmental contingencies toward the accomplishment of shared goals.79 Thus, the teams pursue different proximal goals, but they share at least one goal. The effectiveness of cross-team processes is important for MTS
75Vaughn, P. (2015, March 4). NIH-led effort launches Big Data portal for Alzheimer’s drug discovery. National Institute on Aging. nih.gov 76Ancona, D. G., Bresman, H., & Caldwell, D. (2009). Six steps to leading high-performing X-teams. Organi- zational Dynamics, 38(3), 217–224. 77Jones, E. E., & Kelly, J. R. (2013). The psychological costs of knowledge specialization in-groups: Unique expertise leaves you out of the loop. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(2), 174–182. 78Bruns, H. (2013). Working alone together: Coordination in collaboration across domains of expertise. Acad- emy of Management Journal,56, 62–83. 79Mathieu, J. E., Marks, M. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). Multi-team systems. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 289–313). London: Sage.
M10B_THOM4204_06_SE_C10.indd 264 10/25/16 2:43 PM
Chapter 10 • Subgroups and Multi-Teams 265
effectiveness.80 An investigation of six organizations examined how business leaders create valuable collaborations. Overall, a business unit–centric process led by multibusi- ness teams of general managers led to better collaborations than a corporate-centric process.81
Effective coordination in traditional teams however, does not always transfer to multi-team systems. An investigation of three highly specialized six-person teams revealed that coordination across team boundaries at the component team level was detrimental to performance.82 Further, coordinated actions enacted by boundary spanners and system leadership improved performance only when their actions were centered on the component team most critical to addressing the task demands.
Multi-team systems are hindered by inconsistencies that exist between them regarding the definition of shared problems (mental models). For this reason, frame-of-reference training enhances team coordination and overall performance by reducing representational gaps, or differences in task understanding and task perceptions that make it difficult for team members to relate to one another, drive conflict, and coordinate activity. Representational gaps are the root cause of much conflict and hinder creativity in cross-functional teams.83
In one investigation, some team members left their own team to temporarily join another group. Even though this type of boundary spanning often increases cognitive growth, teams may exhibit a cognitive territoriality in response to the presence of others. For example, old-timers in teams use a greater number of their own ideas after newcomers arrive than before. Moreover after they return, itinerant members are perceived as highly involved, but they are also perceived as more argumentative than they were before leaving, and although they produce more unique ideas than indigenous members, their contribu- tions to the team project are perceived as less valuable. As a result, itinerant group members have less direct influence after their boundary-spanning stint than they did prior to it.84
InteGratIon between teams
Often times, teams need to connect with one another. For example, industrial design and engineering teams at Apple integrate and design features such as the speaktenna in tandem. In the case of the speaktenna, Apple engineers did everything within their con- trol to fit the maximum amount of technology possible into the tight aluminum chassis of the MacBook. After looking at what the speakers and antenna had in common—a need for a cavity and the space to resonate—and the team’s reluctance to sacrifice either
80Marks, M. A., DeChurch, L. A., Mathieu, J. E., Panzer, F. J., & Alonso, A. (2005). Teamwork in multi-team systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 964–971. 81Martin, J. A., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2010). Rewiring: Cross-business unit collaborations in multibusiness organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 265–301. 82Davison, R. B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Barnes, C. M., Sleesman, D. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2012). Coordinated action in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 808. 83Firth, B. M., Hollenbeck, J. R., Miles, J. E., Ilgen, D. R., & Barnes, C. M. (2015). Same page, different books: extending representational gaps theory to enhance performance in multiteam systems. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 813–835. 84Gruenfeld, D. H., & Fan, E. T. (1999). What newcomers see and what old-timers say: Discontinuities in knowledge exchange. In L. Thompson, J. Levine, & D. Messick (Eds.), Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
M10B_THOM4204_06_SE_C10.indd 265 10/25/16 2:43 PM
266 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
feature to improve the functionality of the other, the answer was to make the speaker and antenna teams collaborate to create something new. The resulting feature—the speaktenna—was a marriage of both technologies, gold-plated speaker housings edged with a millimeter or so of black material, which were the antennas. “We ended up with a group of antenna engineers who know more about speakers than any other antenna engineers, and a group of speaker engineers who know more about antenna design than just about anyone else in the world.”85 Consider three types of integration between teams: liaison, overlapping membership, and cross-team integration teams.
LIAISON A liaison is formally a member of one team but sits in on meetings of another team to share and gather information. Consider the liaison function that Dr. Christo- pher Mason of Cornell University served in the study of bacteria on New York subways. Dr. Mason led the science team at Cornell and also worked with Robert Lee Hotz and the graphics teams at the Wall Street Journal. For 13 months, using Dr. Mason’s process and methods, the science team and the data reporters at The Wall Street Journal inde- pendently analyzed DNA datasets collected by Mason’s team. Each team had its own specific goals: Mason’s research team’s goal was to publish the first microbe metage- nome on a large city-scale in an academic journal; Hotz’s reporters’ goal was to publish for public consumption an interactive graphic that maps the bacteria found at each site. At the conclusion of the collaboration, both teams said that trusting each other helped them both achieve their goals.86
OVERLAPPING MEMBERSHIP Several people who are members of two or more groups simultaneously or in sequence are said to have overlapping memberships. For exam- ple, U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina serve on several overlapping Senate subcommittees together—most notably the sub- committees on Defense and on Homeland Security. Both senators are members of the Republican Party and also share membership on the larger umbrella committee that oversees the budget distributions for other subcommittees within the Senate.87
CROSS-TEAM INTEGRATING TEAMS A cross-team integrating team is composed of several members from other teams with integration needs, responsible for documenting and communicating changes and updates.
InteGratIon across multIple teams and components of a busIness unIt
Consider four types of integration structures for integrating multiple teams: management teams, representative integrating teams, individual integrating roles, and improvement teams.
MANAGEMENT TEAMS forge strategy and direction for multiple teams in a business unit and make resource trade-offs among teams that are consistent with strategy. For exam- ple, the management team at Whole Foods, Austin, Texas, headquarters changed the
85From Inside Apple’s perfectionism machine, © Mashable. 86Tsunemoto, R (2015, April 15). How bacteria in New York City’s subways brought scientists and journalists together. Storybench [Web log]. storybench.org 87Contacting the Congress. (2016, April 13). [Web log post]. contactingthecongress.org; Thad Cochran. (2016, April 13). Ballotpedia [Web log post]. ballotpedia.org
M10B_THOM4204_06_SE_C10.indd 266 10/25/16 2:43 PM
Chapter 10 • Subgroups and Multi-Teams 267
buying strategy for their 430+ stores in an effort to reduce costs and boost the com- pany’s overall clout with suppliers.88
REPRESENTATIVE INTEGRATING TEAMS are nonmanagement teams with authority to make decisions that affect the system or context in which embedded teams are com- posed of peers of team members.
INDIVIDUAL INTEGRATING ROLES occur because people in a specific function provide integration with more flexibility than a team. For example, a salesperson might pull together a team for a specific customer or project.
IMPROVEMENT TEAMS initiate changes in how parts of a business unit work together to improve business unit performance.
TEAMWORK IN REORGANIZATIONS & MERGERS
reorGanIzatIons
Reorganizations are a common occurrence within companies, and the key question is how do they affect team productivity. Many reorganizations focus on creating more information-sharing among previously siloed teams. For example, an in-depth case study was conducted within Disney Animation of team reorganization from a traditional functional structure to a working-group structure in which people served on multiple teams at any given time. The new structure was initially confusing but was ultimately highly productive and beneficial for innovation.89 How quickly do organizations recover from reorganizations? One investigation of TMTs (top management teams) revealed that those who held long organizational tenure but relatively short team tenure were associated with faster performance recovery in diversified organizations with extensive business unit interdependencies.90 Another study of teams in the airline industry revealed that TMTs who experienced high turnover in membership had a broader scope of environmental scanning, both within and across sectors.91
merGers
Mergers between groups are quite common, yet more than half result in negative con- sequences, such as stress, turnover, and productivity loss.92 Anticipated mergers between
88Brat, I. (2016, February 14). Whole Foods works to reduce costs and boost clout with suppliers. The Wall Street Journal. wsj.com 89Edmondson, Amy C., D L., Ager, E., Harburg, and Bartlett, N.(2015). Teaming at Disney Animation. Harvard Business School Case 615–023. 90Hoffman, J.J., Williams, R.J., Lamont, B.T., & Geiger, S.W. (2000). Managerial tenure and recovery following M-form reorganization in diversified firms. Journal of Business Research, 50(3), 287–296. 91Cho, T.S. (2006). The effects of executive turnover on top management team’s environmental scanning behavior after an environmental change. Journal of Business Research, 59(10-11), 1142–1150. 92Mottola, G. R., Bachman, B. A., Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1997). How groups merge: The effects of merger integration patterns on anticipated commitment to the merged organization. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1335–1358; Schweiger, D. M., & Walsh, J. P. (1990). Mergers and acquisitions: An interdis- ciplinary view. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 8, pp. 41–107). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
M10B_THOM4204_06_SE_C10.indd 267 10/25/16 2:43 PM
268 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
groups can be viewed as the ultimate threat to group distinctiveness in that pre-merger boundaries are undermined and group members must lose their pre-merger identity.93 For example, when Dow Chemical planned to merge with rival DuPont Co., the antici- pation of the merger produced great anxiety, among both employees and residents of Wilmington, Delaware, Dupont’s home of 213 years.94
A key factor that affects the success of mergers is organizational identification or the extent to which employees positively identify with the organization. The extent to which employees identify with the post-merger organization predicts turnover intention: People who feel deprived or dissatisfied are more likely to plan to leave.95 Moreover, pre-merger in-group identification reduces perceived status differences between groups and improves intergroup relations.96 Members of subordinate groups often find it more difficult to trans- fer their identification to the post-merger organization, as compared to those in the domi- nant group.97 And organizational authenticity (consistency between an organization’s espoused values and actual practices) affects the productivity of teams post merger.98
For low-status organizational groups, a merger with a high-status group might pro- vide opportunities to obtain higher status.99 Indeed, members of low-status groups are motivated to undermine boundaries with the high-status out-group to improve the status of their group.100 On the other hand, low-status groups resist mergers when the status differences remain salient between groups or when they expect not to be adequately represented in the merged group.101 High-status groups are accepting of mergers, except when they fear that mergers will undermine their group’s superior position.102 People who belong to high-status pre-merger groups are less likely to identify with their new group and more likely to show bias against their post-merger group.103 Not surprisingly,
93Terry, D. J., Carey, C. J., & Callan, V. J. (2001). Employee adjustment to an organizational merger. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(3), 267–280. 94Bunge, J. (2015, December 14). Dow-DuPont merger sows anxiety in 2 cities. The Wall Street Journal. wsj.com 95Cho, B., Lee, D., & Kim, K. (2014). How does relative deprivation influence employee intention to leave a merged company? The role of organizational identification. Human Resource Management, 53(3), 421–443. 96Joseph, J. (2014). Managing change after the merger: The value of pre-merger ingroup identities. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(3), 430–448. 97Lupina-Wegener, A., Drzensky, F., Ullrich, J., & Dick, R. (2014). Focusing on the bright tomorrow? A lon- gitudinal study of organizational identification and projected continuity in a corporate merger. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53(4), 752–772. 98Cording, M., Harrison, J.S., Hoskisson, R.E., & Jonsen, K. (2014). Walking the talks: A multistakeholder exploration of organizational authenticity. Employee productivity, and post-merger performance. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(1), 38–56. 99Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2002). The effects of status on subgroup relations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 203–218. 100Jetten, J., Spears, R., Hogg, M. A., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2000). Discrimination constrained and justified: The variable effects of group variability and in-group identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 329–356. 101Van Knippenberg, D., Van Knippenberg, B., Monden, L., & De Lima, F. (2002). Organizational identification after a merger: A social identity perspective. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 233–262. 102Terry, Carey, & Callan, “Employee adjustment to an organizational merger.” 103Boen, F., Vanbeselaere, N., & Wostyn, P. (2010). When the best become the rest: The interactive effect of pre-merger status and relative representation on post-merger identification and in-group bias. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(4), 461–475.
M10B_THOM4204_06_SE_C10.indd 268 10/25/16 2:43 PM
Chapter 10 • Subgroups and Multi-Teams 269
leaders play an important role in defining the relationship between the pre-merger groups. And as might be expected, group members prefer an in-group leader over an out-group one, and the in-group leader will favor the in-group.104 However, members of high-status groups do not show preference for an in-group leader.105 Leaders have four choices when it comes to balancing in-groups and out-groups: They can treat both groups equally, favor the in-group, favor the out-group, or behave in a complementary fashion by favoring one group over the other on particular dimensions.106 In-group leaders are evaluated more favorably and are more likely to engender a common identity in the merged group when they behave in an in-group favoring fashion or in a complementary fashion.107
IMPROVING INTERTEAM RELATIONSHIPS
perspectIve taKInG
It would seem that putting oneself in another’s shoes would increase understanding and lead to cooperation. The effects of perspective taking are not always positive however, and depend on the extent to which a person identifies with their in-group.108 Indeed, adopting the perspective of an out-group member can damage intergroup perceptions among members who are highly identified with their group, leading them to use a greater number of negative traits to describe the outgroup.
One solution is for in-group members to actively contemplate out-group mem- bers’ perspectives. For example, when people actively think about the perspective of an out-group member, the link between oneself and the out-group strengthens, resulting in the transfer of positive evaluations.109
superordInate IdentIty
Consider Exhibit 10-2, in which one sees progressively more and more inclusive ways to categorize oneself. At the very basic level, people might see themselves as individuals. At another level, people might see themselves as members of a particular team. At still another level, people might see themselves as members of a unit or functional area. A person’s chronic way of perceiving in-groups and out-groups affects their behavior. Simply stated: A person who identifies with the company is going to engage in more cooperative behavior when interacting with a person from a different group because his or her self-identity is defined at the company level. In contrast is a person who sees herself
104Duck, J. M., & Fielding, K. S. (1999). Leaders and subgroups: One of us or one of them? Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 2(3), 203–230. 105Jetten, J., Duck, J., Terry, D. J., & O’Brien, A. (2001). When groups merge: Low- and high-status groups’ responses to aligned leaders. Unpublished raw data, University of Exeter. 106Jetten, J., Duck, J., Terry, D. J., & O’Brien, A. (2002). Being attuned to intergroup differences in mergers: The role of aligned leaders for low-status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(9), 1194–1201. 107Ibid. 108Tarrant, M., Calitri, R., & Weston, D. (2012). Social identification structures the effects of perspective tak- ing. Psychological Science, 23(9), 973–978. 109Todd, A. R., & Burgmer, P. (2013). Perspective taking and automatic intergroup evaluation change: Testing an associative self-anchoring account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(5), 786.
M10B_THOM4204_06_SE_C10.indd 269 10/25/16 2:43 PM
270 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
primarily in terms of one’s team membership or individual identity. In one investigation, some people were told to think of themselves as individuals and others to think of them- selves as group members. The group orientation led to more generous, voluntary contri- butions of resources in a resource dilemma situation.110 People are more satisfied when conflict occurs at a superordinate level (i.e., involving the entire group) rather than at the intragroup level (involving competition between different subgroups within the team).111 In another investigation, people who focus on their relational self exhibit more in-group bias allocation than those who focus on their collective self; and superordinate categoriza- tion mediates this relationship.112
People’s perceptions of themselves and their groups can expand and contract. The more narrowly we define our groups, the more competitive and self-serving our behav- ior. Conversely, when we focus on the larger collective, we are more cooperative. The challenge for the team leader is to carefully balance “team spirit” with the competition that will arise naturally when the team sets itself apart from the rest of the company.
contact
The mere contact strategy is based on the principle that greater contact among mem- bers of different groups increases cooperation between members. Unfortunately, contact in and of itself does not lead to better intergroup relations, and in some cases it may
110Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 543–549. 111Duck & Fielding, “Leaders and subgroups.” 112Lee, S., Adair, W. L., Mannix, E. A., & Kim, J. (2012). The relational versus collective “We” and intergroup allocation: The role of nested group categorization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 1132–1138.
Exhibit 10-2 Levels of Identification in an Organization
ENTIRE ORGANIZATION
Region
Division
Functional Unit
Core Team
Self
Leigh L. thompson
M10B_THOM4204_06_SE_C10.indd 270 10/25/16 2:43 PM
Chapter 10 • Subgroups and Multi-Teams 271
even exacerbate negative relations between groups. For example, negative (as opposed to positive) experiences in intergroup contact deteriorate relationships;113 multicultural learning about out-group members amplifies negative attitudes in high-prejudice people;114 and there is little relationship between interdepartmental contact and conflict in organizations.115
Several conditions need to be in place before contact can have its desired effects of reducing prejudice:
• Social and institutional support: For contact to be effective, there should be a framework of social and institutional support. For example, when people are assigned to cross-cut team roles in which they are simultaneously members of more than one task group or team, in-group bias about both minority and majority groups decreases.116
• Acquaintance potential: A second condition for successful contact is that it be of sufficient frequency, duration, and closeness to permit the development of mean- ingful relationships among members of the groups concerned. Infrequent, short, and casual interaction will do little to foster more favorable attitudes and may even make them worse.117 One of the keys to successful contact is self-disclosure or the revealing of information about oneself.118 This type of close interaction will lead to the discovery of similarities and disconfirm negative stereotypes.
• Equal status: The third condition necessary for contact to be successful is that participants have equal status. Many stereotypes of out-groups comprise beliefs about the inferior ability of out-group members to perform various tasks. If the contact situation involves an unequal-status relationship between men and women for example, with women in the subordinate role (e.g., taking notes and acting as secretaries), stereotypes are likely to be reinforced rather than weakened.119 If, however, the group members work on equal footing, prejudiced beliefs become hard to sustain in the face of repeated experience of task competence by the out- group member.
• Shared goal: Groups that focus on superordinate goals—those that represent the greater good—are much more likely to cooperate with one another than when they focus on local goals.120 When members of different groups depend on one another
113Paolini, S. Hardwood, J., & Rubin, M. (2010). Negative intergroup contact makes group memberships salient: Explaining why intergroup conflict endures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(12), 1723–1738. 114Vorauer, J. D., & Sasaki, S. J. (2010). In need of liberation or constraint? How intergroup attitudes moderate the behavioral implications of intergroup ideologies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(1), 133–138. 115Brown, R. J., Condor, F., Mathew, A., Wade, G., & Williams, J. A. (1986). Explaining intergroup differentia- tion in an industrial organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 273–286. 116Bettencourt, B. A., & Dorr, N. (1998). Cooperative interaction and intergroup bias: Effects of numerical representation and cross-cut role assignment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(12), 1276–1293. 117Brewer, M. B., & Brown, R. J. (1998). Intergroup relations. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 554–594). New York: McGraw-Hill. 118Ensari, N., & Miller, N. (2002). The out-group must not be so bad after all: The effects of disclosure, typi- cality, and salience on intergroup bias. Journal of Personality of Social Psychology, 82(2), 313–329. 119Bradford, D. L., & Cohen, A. R. (1984). Managing for excellence. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 120Kramer, R. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1984). Effects of group identity on resource use in a simulated commons dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1044–1057.
M10B_THOM4204_06_SE_C10.indd 271 10/25/16 2:43 PM
272 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
for the achievement of a jointly desired objective, they have instrumental reasons to develop better relationships. People show less intergroup bias and greater will- ingness for contact when they categorize others using a superordinate identity.121 For example, PayPal partnered with several tech giants including Google, Micro- soft, Yahoo, and AOL to address mutual security concerns around phishing. The business partnership pooled their resources and developed DMARC technol- ogy to block malicious emails before they reach customers.122
• Cross-group friendships: Sometimes, it is not necessary for groups to have real contact with one another to improve intergroup relations. If group members know that another member of their own group has a friendship or relationship with a member of the out-group or a cross-group friendship, in-group members have less negative attitudes toward the out-group.123 It is not necessary that all members have cross-group friendships; merely knowing that one member of the group has such a relationship can go a long way toward reducing negative out-group atti- tudes. For example, when team members are given cross-cut role assignments in other groups, this decreases bias not only of dominant in-group members but also of the minority out-group members.124 Moreover, members of groups don’t even have to have prior interaction. Cross-group friendships not only lead to more intergroup interactions but also have the added benefit of reducing stress (as mea- sured by cortisol levels).125
A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory, including 713 independent samples from 515 studies, revealed that intergroup contact reduces prejudice.126 The contact hypothesis has received support in groups ranging from students at a multieth- nic high school to banking executives involved in corporate mergers.127 Contact helps people develop a common shared identity.
apoloGy
In some situations, the damage has been done and groups need to reestablish their relationship. It seems reasonable that collective apologies for intergroup harms would facilitate forgiveness and repair relationships, however, people don’t believe that
121Gómez, A., Dovidio, J. F., Huici, C., Gaertner, S. L., & Cuadrado, I. (2008). The other side of we: When out-group members express common identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1613–1626. 122Garling, C. (2012, January 29). Google teams with Facebook and Microsoft to phight phishing. Wired. wired.com; Hackett, R. (2015, February 19). Health companies flunked an email security survey—except Aetna. Why? Fortune. fortune.com 123Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowl- edge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 73–90. 124Bettencourt & Dorr, “Cooperative interaction and intergroup bias.” 125Page-Gould, E., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Tropp, L. (2008). With a little help from my cross-group friend: Reducing anxiety in intergroup contexts through cross-group friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 95, 1080–1094. 126Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. (2006, May). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. 127Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., & Bachman, B. A. (1996). Revisiting the contact hypothesis: The induction of a common ingroup identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(3 & 4), 271–290.
M10B_THOM4204_06_SE_C10.indd 272 10/25/16 2:43 PM
Chapter 10 • Subgroups and Multi-Teams 273
out-groups are able to truly experience remorse128 or have an ability to change. For example, university students who believed in group malleability (ability to change) were more forgiving of a rival university’s derogatory comments when offered an apology.129
When groups use an apology in the face of intergroup conflict, it reduces the desire for retribution and increases the likelihood of forgiveness, primarily because it reduces anger.130
assIstance and Help
When it comes to actually offering help, there are two kinds of help: autonomy- oriented help and defensive help. Defensive helping refers to extending help to an out-group member whose achievements jeopardize one’s own status. Members of high- status groups who perceive status relations with low-status groups as unstable seek to protect their in-group’s identity by providing dependency-oriented help to the low- status out-group.131 Low-status groups however, are more inclined to engage in giving help as a way to enhance their status by demonstrating their group’s knowledge.132 Indeed, when offering help does not allow a group to effectively demonstrate their knowledge, they don’t offer help.
affIrmatIon
Self-affirmation is the process of thinking about one’s values, accomplishments, and attributes.133 Affirming a positive aspect of the self decreases in-group bias and increases the willingness of people to acknowledge their group’s responsibility for wrongdoing against others and provide greater support for that group. Conversely, affirming one’s group (although similarly boosting feelings of pride) fails to increase the willingness to acknowledge and redress in-group wrongdoing.134 If out-groups threaten in-group members, then reducing the threat through a positive affirmation of the group might lead to more accepting behavior toward out-groups. In one investigation, athletes exhibited a group-serving bias which subsequently was eliminated with a group
128Wohl, M. J. A., Hornsey, M. J., & Bennett, S. H. (2012). Why group apologies succeed and fail: Intergroup forgiveness and the role of primary and secondary emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(2), 306–322. 129Wohl, M. J., Cohen-Chen, S., Halperin, E., Caouette, J., Hayes, N., & Hornsey, M. J. (2015). Belief in the malleability of groups strengthens the tenuous link between a collective apology and intergroup forgiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(5), 714–725. 130Leonard, D. J., Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2011). Emotional responses to intergroup apology mediate intergroup forgiveness and retribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1198–1206. 131Nadler, A., Harpaz-Gorodeisky, G., & Yael, B.-D. (2009). Defensive helping: Threat to group identity, ingroup identification, status stability, and common group identity as determinants of intergroup help-giving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(5), 823–834. 132van Leeuwen, E., Tauber, S., & Sassenberg, K. (2011). Knocking on the outgroup’s door: Seeking outgroup help under conditions of task or relational conflict. Basic and Applied Psychology, 33(3), 266–278. 133Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2006). The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 183–242). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 134Clancy, S., Effron, D., Halperin, E., Liberman, V., & Ross, L. (2011). Affirmation, acknowledgement of in- group responsibility, group-based guilt, and support for reparative measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 256–270.
M10B_THOM4204_06_SE_C10.indd 273 10/25/16 2:43 PM
274 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
affirmation.135 The affirmation technique works for fans, too: The most highly identi- fied sports fans tend to exhibit the greatest out-group bias, which is eliminated when they make a group affirmation.
Group-affirmation, however, exacerbates in-group bias.136 In contrast to self-affirmation, group-affirmation leads to greater in-group bias.
135Sherman, D. K., Kinias, Z., Major, B., Kim, H. S., & Prenovost, M. (2007). The group as a resource: Reduc- ing biased attributions for group success and failure via group affirmation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1100–1112. 136Ehrlich, G. A., & Gramzow, R. H. (2015). The politics of affirmation theory when group-affirmation leads to greater ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(8), 1110–1122.
Chapter Capstone
In this chapter, we discussed how in-groups and out-groups may form within a team or between teams. We examined subteams within a given team and then we turned the focus to multi-teams. Teams may be underbounded or overbounded; and their relationship vis-à-vis the larger organiza- tion might range from informing, parading,
to probing. We examined methods by which leaders can integrate across teams, including appointing liaisons, recruiting members with overlapping membership, and larger inte- grations. There are a variety of methods by which to improve interteam relations, includ- ing perspective-taking, regular contact, and affirmation.
M10B_THOM4204_06_SE_C10.indd 274 10/25/16 2:43 PM
275
Talent swaps are common at Dow Chemical, with 126 employees in 18 countries involved. For example, Giuliano Barolo worked on a business plan in Dow’s business process service center in Mumbai, while Swati Tribedy worked at Dow’s manufacturing plant in Mozzanica, Italy. Giuliano was doing Swati’s old job and she his, swapping jobs, apartments, and even each other’s desks. The swap benefits to employees are wide ranging, from building their professional networks, learning new company software, minimizing cultural stereotypes, and experiencing production challenges firsthand. At Dow, the job swaps usually last less than a year but involve less paperwork and expense than traditional expat assignments and are effective for career development, which in turn, attracts and retains talented employees.1
1 Mohn, T. (2015, May 18). Across borders, talent swaps help develop skills and careers. The New York Times. nytimes.com
Team Networking and Social Capital11
C h
a p
t e
r
In the case of job swaps, employees and team members interact with one another in the context of a broader organization. A team’s environment includes the organization to which the team belongs and the clients it serves. This chapter focuses on the team’s relationship with people outside of the team, who nevertheless affect the team’s ability to achieve its goals. Organizations call upon teams to span traditional boundaries both inside companies, where they might pro- vide a closer coupling between functional units, and outside companies, where they might provide links to customers, suppliers, or competitors.2
Leaders play an integral role in connecting a team with their external environment. Some leaders focus all their energy on the internal functioning of the team through one-on-one coaching; other leaders spend most of their efforts on promoting the team within the organiza- tion. Teams are dependent on their leaders and members to connect them with the right people in the organization for their needed resources, contacts, and opportunities. In this regard, we examine the external roles that team members adopt within organizations.
2 Clark, K. B., & Fujimoto, T. (1989). Overlapping problem solving in product development. In K. Ferdows (Ed.), Managing international manufacturing (pp. 127–152). North Holland: Amsterdam; von Hippel, E. A. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
M11_THOM4204_06_SE_C11.indd 275 10/25/16 2:54 PM
276 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
In this chapter, we distinguish teamwork from taskwork. We examine taskwork network structures that emerge as members and their teams navigate team and orga- nizational boundaries. We focus on how teams influence networks and how network structures of team members influence team processes and performance. We do an in-depth examination of two leaders and explore their network structures, focusing on boundary spanning. We conclude with an analysis of strategies for increasing social capital in the organization.
TASKWORK AND TEAMWORK
Taskwork vs. Teamwork
Teamwork and taskwork are related, but they are not the same thing.3 Teamwork, as we have discussed it in this book, is the process by which team members interact and relate to one another. In contrast, taskwork involves members’ interactions with tasks, tools, machines, and systems to accomplish a team’s mission.4 A taskwork network emerges as members are jointly involved. For example, a strong taskwork tie indicates that two members of a team share many tasks and tools together. A weaker taskwork tie indicates that two members of a team have fewer tasks or tools in common.
If the taskwork network reflects what the team members do together with regard to the mission, the teamwork network is how they actually interact to accomplish their mission. The taskwork network is based on the tasks members are jointly involved in; the teamwork network is how they interact to accomplish the mission. A teamwork network emerges as members make plans, coordinate, communicate, and assist one another.
Taskwork and Teamwork neTwork sTrucTures
Taskwork networks do not necessarily produce corresponding teamwork networks because members of teams have a great deal of latitude to decide how they will interact and communicate with one another. The relationship between taskwork networks and teamwork networks have implications for team functioning and performance. There are three general types of taskwork and teamwork network structures: simplex taskwork ties, simplex teamwork ties, and multiplex taskwork–teamwork ties.5
SIMPLEX TASKWORK TIES In this configuration, members share taskwork, but no team- work tie exists.
SIMPLEX TEAMWORK TIES In this configuration, members are involved with teamwork, but there is no corresponding taskwork tie.
3 Crawford, E. R., & Lepine, J. A. (2013). A configural theory of team processes: Accounting for the structure of taskwork and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 32–48. 4 Bowers, C. A., Braun, C. C., & Morgan, B. B. (1997). Team workload: Its meaning and measurement. Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications, (pp. 85–108). Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press. 5 Crawford, E. R., & Lepine, J. A. (2013). A configural theory of team processes: Accounting for the structure of taskwork and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 32–48.
M11_THOM4204_06_SE_C11.indd 276 10/25/16 2:54 PM
Chapter 11 • Team Networking and Social Capital 277
MULTIPLEX (BUNDLED) TIES In this configuration, members share overlapping taskwork and teamwork ties.
FacTors ThaT AFFecT NeTworks
At least three factors affect the taskwork–teamwork network structure: the level of inter- connectedness or closure; the relative centralization of hierarchy, status, position, and power; and the extent of specialization.6
CLOSURE Closure refers to how interconnected team members are. Higher intercon- nectedness means that members interact with one another regularly, usually through verbal discussion. At first blush, it would seem that greater interconnectedness among team members would be uniformly advantageous. There is a point however, at which greater interconnectedness (closure) adds little in terms of coordination, but instead imposes greater costs and constraints in terms of communication. Simply put: It takes time and effort to maintain a lot of close relationships, and this outlay can harm team effectiveness.
CENTRALIZATION Centralization within team networks refers to the extent to which most of the interaction and communication is centered around one or a few core mem- bers while more peripheral members are relatively disconnected. A centralized taskwork network can help team performance because it is an efficient method for channeling information among a team. For example, a core member of a team may be able to quickly diffuse best practices, reduce errors, and gain speedy approval. The key disadvantage of such centralized networks is that peripheral members may feel disenfranchised and are largely dependent on central members. Moreover, the central member may become overwhelmed. As team taskwork centralization increases, team performance will be greatest when teams engage in decentralized teamwork.
SPECIALIZATION Specialization refers to the degree to which team members have unique knowledge and expertise. A cross-functional team would be one example. The key challenge for teams that have highly specialized members is how to integrate the diverse knowledge so it is meaningful. Forming teamwork ties across subgroups requires that integrators and liaisons have communication skills. It is not a good use of time to have all members of the team attempt to act as liaisons. Instead, one member of each subgroup within the specialized (e.g., cross-functional) team can take on the responsi- bility of accessing and integrating knowledge.
EXTERNAL LEADERSHIP
In many cases, leaders in organizations are responsible for more than one team and may be responsible for multiple teams. External leaders are people who manage multiple teams or teams that are reconfigured. For example, the leadership team at SumAll social media data analysis decided that team members choose their own leaders. In turn, these leaders are accountable to the team they manage. The logic was that if a team leader
6 Ibid.
M11_THOM4204_06_SE_C11.indd 277 10/25/16 2:54 PM
278 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
couldn’t earn the respect and loyalty of the team, they shouldn’t be leading. Every three months, employees who wish to be a team leader opt in, ballots are cast in secret and a simple majority determines the leader of that team.7
General vs. diFFerenTial
General external leader behaviors (or average external leadership) are distinct from behaviors that are directed differently toward the teams that they lead (relative external leadership). An investigation of 101 teams, reporting to 25 external leaders revealed that both average and relative leadership related positively to team empowerment.8 However, relative external leadership has a significant positive influence on member job satisfaction, but average external leadership does not.9
EXTERNAL ROLES OF TEAM MEMBERS
Just as members spend time during the formation of a team to determine what role they will play and which members will have power, teams play out these same issues with other organizational entities.10 Identifying and understanding the roles that team mem- bers play vis-à-vis the inflow and outflow of information to the team is an important determinant of team productivity and performance. Often, roles are not formally assigned; rather, members of the group take on roles through an implicit process of team negotiation. Members quickly size up others’ abilities, and tasks are often delegated on the basis of demonstrated performance in these areas.
Exhibit 11-1 lists some of the most common and important roles in work groups.11 Not all of these roles are identifiable in all teams. An important role is that of external customer relations. An investigation of 403 senior leaders from 42 facilities operating in 16 countries revealed that there was a positive relationship between the senior leader- ship team’s customer orientation and employee customer orientation.12 Because the boundary-spanning role has been studied in detail and can significantly affect the course of individuals’ career paths within the organization,13 we discuss it in more detail.
7 Atkinson, D. (2015, July 21). Executives and managers should all be elected. Tech Crunch. techchunch.com 8 Luciano, M. M., Mathieu, J. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (2014). Leading multiple teams: Average and relative external leadership influences on team empowerment and effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 322. 9 Ibid. 10 Ancona, D. G. (1990). Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 334–365. 11 Ancona, “Outward bound,” p. 261; Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1987). Management issues facing new- product teams in high technology companies. In D. Lewin, D. Lipsky, & D. Sokel (Eds.), Advances in industrial and labor relations (Vol. 4, pp. 199–221). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1988). Beyond task and maintenance: Defining external functions in-groups. Groups and Organizational Studies, 13, 468–494; Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External process and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 634–665; Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3(3), 321–341. 12 Liao, H., & Subramony, M. (2008). Employee customer orientation in manufacturing organizations: Joint influences of customer proximity and senior leadership team. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 317–328. 13 Burt, R. S. (1999). Entrepreneurs, distrust, and third parties: A strategic look at the dark side of dense networks. In L. Thompson, J. Levine, & D. Messick (Eds.), Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
14 Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 217–230.
M11_THOM4204_06_SE_C11.indd 278 10/25/16 2:54 PM
Chapter 11 • Team Networking and Social Capital 279
couldn’t earn the respect and loyalty of the team, they shouldn’t be leading. Every three months, employees who wish to be a team leader opt in, ballots are cast in secret and a simple majority determines the leader of that team.7
General vs. diFFerenTial
General external leader behaviors (or average external leadership) are distinct from behaviors that are directed differently toward the teams that they lead (relative external leadership). An investigation of 101 teams, reporting to 25 external leaders revealed that both average and relative leadership related positively to team empowerment.8 However, relative external leadership has a significant positive influence on member job satisfaction, but average external leadership does not.9
EXTERNAL ROLES OF TEAM MEMBERS
Just as members spend time during the formation of a team to determine what role they will play and which members will have power, teams play out these same issues with other organizational entities.10 Identifying and understanding the roles that team mem- bers play vis-à-vis the inflow and outflow of information to the team is an important determinant of team productivity and performance. Often, roles are not formally assigned; rather, members of the group take on roles through an implicit process of team negotiation. Members quickly size up others’ abilities, and tasks are often delegated on the basis of demonstrated performance in these areas.
Exhibit 11-1 lists some of the most common and important roles in work groups.11 Not all of these roles are identifiable in all teams. An important role is that of external customer relations. An investigation of 403 senior leaders from 42 facilities operating in 16 countries revealed that there was a positive relationship between the senior leader- ship team’s customer orientation and employee customer orientation.12 Because the boundary-spanning role has been studied in detail and can significantly affect the course of individuals’ career paths within the organization,13 we discuss it in more detail.
7 Atkinson, D. (2015, July 21). Executives and managers should all be elected. Tech Crunch. techchunch.com 8 Luciano, M. M., Mathieu, J. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (2014). Leading multiple teams: Average and relative external leadership influences on team empowerment and effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 322. 9 Ibid. 10 Ancona, D. G. (1990). Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 334–365. 11 Ancona, “Outward bound,” p. 261; Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1987). Management issues facing new- product teams in high technology companies. In D. Lewin, D. Lipsky, & D. Sokel (Eds.), Advances in industrial and labor relations (Vol. 4, pp. 199–221). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1988). Beyond task and maintenance: Defining external functions in-groups. Groups and Organizational Studies, 13, 468–494; Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External process and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 634–665; Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3(3), 321–341. 12 Liao, H., & Subramony, M. (2008). Employee customer orientation in manufacturing organizations: Joint influences of customer proximity and senior leadership team. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 317–328. 13 Burt, R. S. (1999). Entrepreneurs, distrust, and third parties: A strategic look at the dark side of dense networks. In L. Thompson, J. Levine, & D. Messick (Eds.), Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
14 Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 217–230.
Exhibit 11-1 Common Roles in Work Groups
• the boundary spanner acts as a bridge between units or people in an organization who would not otherwise interact. Boundary spanners are exposed to more ideas than members who do not interact with other groups. Indeed, boundary spanners who spend time with different groups exhibit greater integrative complexity in their thinking (a form of creativity) than people who don’t engage in boundary spanning.a
• the bufferer protects the team from bad or disappointing news that might cause morale to suffer and volunteers to absorb pressure or criticism from others.
• the interpreter shapes the collective understanding of the team. this is important because in many cases, the messages that teams receive from others are ambigu- ous and open to interpretation.
• the advisor informs the team about which options they should consider and what approach they should take in dealing with changing events.
• the gatekeeper controls the flow of information to and from a team. • the lobbyist is an extremely critical role, especially for new-product groups. By pro-
viding meanings about what the team is doing and how successful it is to people outside the team, the lobbyist controls the interpretation of what the team is per- ceived to be doing. For example tom West, the leader of a team at IBM designing a computer, presented his computer differently to various groups.b By presenting it as “insurance” (i.e., we will have it in case the other one designed by another team in the company does not work) to top management, he was allowed to set up a team that competed with another team in the company. By presenting it as a “technical challenge” to engineers, he was able to attract the best ones. By not saying anything at all to external competitors, he protected his company.c
• the negotiator or mediator is empowered by the team to negotiate on behalf of the group. this person has extraordinary power in terms of garnering resources and defining options. this person may act as a mediator in cases where the team is in conflict with others.
• the spokesperson is the voice of the team. this position is determined in two ways: by the group members themselves (e.g., “talk to Bob if you want to find out what happened in Lois’s promotion decision”) and by the members of the external envi- ronment who have their choice in terms of contacting group members.
• the strategist, like the negotiator, plans how to approach management for resourc- es and deal with threats and other negative information.
• the coordinator arranges formal or informal communication with other people or units outside the team.
Based on aGruenfeld, D. h., & Fan, e. t. (1999). What newcomers see and what oldtimers say: Discontinuities in knowledge exchange. In L. thompson, J. Levine, & D. Messick (eds.), Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence erlbaum & associates; bancona, D. G. (1987). Groups in organizations: extending laboratory models. In C. hendrick (ed.), annual review of personality and social psychology: Group and intergroup processes (pp. 207–231). Beverly hills, Ca: Sage, © Leigh L. thompson.
Despite the benefits of boundary spanning for teams, boundary spanning can be stressful and challenging, requiring significant effort and time.14 Role overload occurs
M11_THOM4204_06_SE_C11.indd 279 10/25/16 2:54 PM
280 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
buffets and soups.20 Prior to and during its acquisition of Zoopa, Fresh Choice scru- pulously benchmarked and investigated Zoopa’s best practices. After the acquisition, however, the value of the knowledge and information about Zoopa’s best practices, which had become quite easy to obtain, were devalued. Similarly, managers at Xerox displayed very little interest in a new Internet technology that internal scientists at Xerox PARC had developed. However, several years later when an external company developed a similar technology, Xerox, which was considering acquiring the company, responded favorably to the idea and even sent its executives to investigate.21
Why? People are more likely to value knowledge that comes from an external rival or external network and devalue knowledge that comes from an internal member of the team.22 Even when the knowledge is identical, the source makes a big difference in whether a teammate feels threatened or intrigued by the information. People often hesi- tate to embrace the knowledge of network “insiders” because they fear that they will lose personal status if they use that knowledge. To minimize the potential loss of status and to save face, team members can attempt to self-affirm by reminding themselves about their personal accomplishments. When they do this, they are more likely to learn from and incorporate knowledge from insiders.23
Why do people overvalue knowledge from outsiders? Internal knowledge is more readily available and hence subject to greater scrutiny, whereas external knowledge is unique. Thus, managers venerate competitors, whose ideas they see from a distance, while they reject internal ideas that are visible close up, warts and all. They value external ideas, which are seen as final products, while they are critical about internal ideas that they see in their earliest, most unpolished state. And finally, they value scarce, external ideas that are protected by patents and are nearly impossible to acquire, while they reject the internal knowledge that is so easily accessible to them.
Organizational incentives often punish managers by reducing their status when they learn from insiders24 and reward them when they learn from outsiders. Managers conducting a performance evaluation rewarded external learners more than they rewarded internal learners.25 Specifically, executives participated in a simulation in which they were a manager of a large hotel chain and were asked to evaluate the per- formance of two individuals who were described as hotel managers within their chain. The two managers had achieved identical performance, but while one manager had learned from insiders within the chain, the other manager had learned from a competi- tor chain. The executives rated the external learner as more creative and competent, giving him more status, and they were more likely to promote him and reward him with a higher bonus, compared with the internal learner.
The relationship between knowledge messengers and receivers affects knowledge valuation. Rather than a rational perspective in which managers (receivers) are expected to cull the best knowledge from their environments, or a random process in which
18 Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324; Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the not invented here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R&D project groups. R&D Management, 121, 7–19. 19 Menon, T., & Pfeffer, J. (2003 April). Valuing internal vs. external knowledge: Explaining the preference for outsiders. [Special issue on managing knowledge in organization: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge] Management Science, 49(4), 497–513.
20Menon, T., Thompson, L., & Choi, H. S. (2006). Tainted knowledge vs. tempting knowledge: People avoid knowledge from internal rivals and seek knowledge from external rivals. Management Science, 52(8), 1129–1144.
22Ibid. 23Ibid. 24Blau, P. M. (1955). The dynamics of bureaucracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 25Menon, Thompson, & Choi, “Tainted knowledge vs. tempting knowledge.”
when a person has too much work to do in the time available.15 A study of the impact of individual boundary spanning on role overload and team viability revealed that carry- ing out boundary-spanning efforts is taxing for team members, but high levels of bound- ary spanning within the team can mitigate personal costs and improve team viability.16
ORGANIZATIONAL NETWORKS
The shift away from top-down management and bureaucratic structures means that team members are increasingly in control of their own movement within the organiza- tion. This can bring opportunity for the team, the organization, and its members, but only if this task is handled optimally. The heart of this task involves relationship man- agement. In this section, we describe the key issues that managers should know when building the relationship between their team and the organization.
sharinG knowledGe
In an ideal organizational environment, there is clear and consistent knowledge sharing among the different functional and geographic units. Knowledge-sharing quickly dis- perses innovation, reduces unnecessary duplication of effort, and facilitates the imple- mentation of best practices. Knowledge sharing among different functional and geographically dispersed units however, does not occur as frequently as it should. An investigation of 219 work teams revealed that two factors—social capital and extrinsic incentives—encourage knowledge sharing.17
insider vs. ouTsider knowledGe valuaTion
Members of research groups are often subject to the not-invented-here (NIH) syndrome, in which they overvalue knowledge that comes from in-group members.18 However, whereas the NIH syndrome applies in some organizations, managers in other organizations confer enormous authority to consultants and carefully monitor the ideas put forth by their competitors in the marketplace—all the while ignoring insiders and their ideas. Managers, particularly those in competitive situations, place greater value on knowledge that comes from the outside (e.g., competitors and consultants) versus the same knowledge that might come from inside (e.g., colleagues and an internal task force).19 Consider the acquisition of Zoopa by Fresh Choice. At least up until 1997, Fresh Choice and Zoopa were competitors, both offering quick, cafeteria-style salad
15 Beehr, T. A., Walsh, J., & Taber, B. (1976), Relationship of stress to individually and organizationally valued states—Higher order needs as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(1), 41–49. 16 Marrone, J. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Carson, J. B. (2007). A multilevel investigation of the antecedents and consequences to team member boundary spanning. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1423–1439. 17 Hu, L., & Randel, A. E. (2014). Knowledge sharing in teams: Social capital, extrinsic incentives, and team innovation. Group & Organization Management, 39(2), 213–243.
M11_THOM4204_06_SE_C11.indd 280 10/25/16 2:54 PM
Chapter 11 • Team Networking and Social Capital 281
buffets and soups.20 Prior to and during its acquisition of Zoopa, Fresh Choice scru- pulously benchmarked and investigated Zoopa’s best practices. After the acquisition, however, the value of the knowledge and information about Zoopa’s best practices, which had become quite easy to obtain, were devalued. Similarly, managers at Xerox displayed very little interest in a new Internet technology that internal scientists at Xerox PARC had developed. However, several years later when an external company developed a similar technology, Xerox, which was considering acquiring the company, responded favorably to the idea and even sent its executives to investigate.21
Why? People are more likely to value knowledge that comes from an external rival or external network and devalue knowledge that comes from an internal member of the team.22 Even when the knowledge is identical, the source makes a big difference in whether a teammate feels threatened or intrigued by the information. People often hesi- tate to embrace the knowledge of network “insiders” because they fear that they will lose personal status if they use that knowledge. To minimize the potential loss of status and to save face, team members can attempt to self-affirm by reminding themselves about their personal accomplishments. When they do this, they are more likely to learn from and incorporate knowledge from insiders.23
Why do people overvalue knowledge from outsiders? Internal knowledge is more readily available and hence subject to greater scrutiny, whereas external knowledge is unique. Thus, managers venerate competitors, whose ideas they see from a distance, while they reject internal ideas that are visible close up, warts and all. They value external ideas, which are seen as final products, while they are critical about internal ideas that they see in their earliest, most unpolished state. And finally, they value scarce, external ideas that are protected by patents and are nearly impossible to acquire, while they reject the internal knowledge that is so easily accessible to them.
Organizational incentives often punish managers by reducing their status when they learn from insiders24 and reward them when they learn from outsiders. Managers conducting a performance evaluation rewarded external learners more than they rewarded internal learners.25 Specifically, executives participated in a simulation in which they were a manager of a large hotel chain and were asked to evaluate the per- formance of two individuals who were described as hotel managers within their chain. The two managers had achieved identical performance, but while one manager had learned from insiders within the chain, the other manager had learned from a competi- tor chain. The executives rated the external learner as more creative and competent, giving him more status, and they were more likely to promote him and reward him with a higher bonus, compared with the internal learner.
The relationship between knowledge messengers and receivers affects knowledge valuation. Rather than a rational perspective in which managers (receivers) are expected to cull the best knowledge from their environments, or a random process in which
18 Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324; Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the not invented here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R&D project groups. R&D Management, 121, 7–19. 19 Menon, T., & Pfeffer, J. (2003 April). Valuing internal vs. external knowledge: Explaining the preference for outsiders. [Special issue on managing knowledge in organization: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge] Management Science, 49(4), 497–513.
20Menon, T., Thompson, L., & Choi, H. S. (2006). Tainted knowledge vs. tempting knowledge: People avoid knowledge from internal rivals and seek knowledge from external rivals. Management Science, 52(8), 1129–1144.
22Ibid. 23Ibid. 24Blau, P. M. (1955). The dynamics of bureaucracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 25Menon, Thompson, & Choi, “Tainted knowledge vs. tempting knowledge.”
21Dizikes, P. (2002) Xerox PARC: On the Money Trail. ABC News. abcnews.go.com
M11_THOM4204_06_SE_C11.indd 281 10/25/16 2:54 PM
282 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
managers (receivers) accept knowledge in the more arbitrary “garbage can model,”26 the relational perspective describes how the social relationship between knowledge mes- sengers and receivers affects how a piece of knowledge comes to be evaluated. Specifi- cally, people pay attention to how “threatening” the information is, resulting one of six relational types: colleagues, deviants, rivals, advisers, enemies, and intruders.27
human capiTal and social capiTal
Why is it that some people or teams are singled out and win more approval from senior management than other people or teams? The typical explanation centers upon human capital: Inequalities result from differences in individual ability. People who are more intelligent, educated, and experienced rise to the top of their organization; those who are less qualified do not.
However, there is another explanation that accounts for the existence of inequality. Social capital is the value managers add to their teams and organizations through their ties to other people.28 Social capital refers to the resources available through social networks and elite institutional ties—such as club memberships—that people can use to enhance their positions. Social capital is the value that comes from knowing who, when, and how to coordinate through various contacts. While human capital refers to individual ability, social capital refers to opportunity created through relationships. Managers with more social capital get higher returns on their human capital because they are positioned to identify and develop more rewarding opportunities.29 Certain managers are connected to certain others, trust certain others, feel obligated to support certain others, and are dependent on exchange and reciprocity with certain others, above and beyond those in their immediate functional unit.
To understand the value of social capital within the organization and how it affects team performance, it is necessary to consider the broader organizational environment. Organizational charts are rather crude depictions that reveal the chain of command and report relationships. As many managers can attest however, the way that work gets done and information gets spread within an organization is a far cry from published organi- zational charts. Instead, informal systems of connections and relationships, developed over time, guide the flow of information between people and teams. Let’s explore these informal networks in detail.
Exhibit 11-2 is a somewhat crude depiction of two social networks in an organiza- tion. The dots represent people. The lines that connect the dots are the communica- tion networks between people in the organization—simply, who trusts whom. To be sure, members of a given department or functional unit are more interconnected than are members of completely different functional units. However, even within particular departments, there is a high variation in communication. Moreover, there is high varia- tion among organizational members in terms of who reaches beyond the walls of the functional teams and communicates with others.
26 Menon, T., & Blount, S. (2003). The messenger bias: A relational model of knowledge valuation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 137–186; Cohen, M. D., March, J. P., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1–25. 27Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 461–484. 28Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120. 29Burt, R. S. (1992). The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
M11_THOM4204_06_SE_C11.indd 282 10/25/16 2:54 PM
Chapter 11 • Team Networking and Social Capital 283
Perceived networks may predict performance more than actual networks.30 The accuracy of perceived advice networks is related to increased power in organizations.31 People who have an astute knowledge about network links are in a position of power. First, this information provides a good assessment of who is powerful in the organization. Sec- ond, this information can be used to identify where the coalitions are in an organization, their size, and their sources of support. Third, an accurate assessment of the network can expose the weaknesses in other groups by exposing holes, gaps, and lack of support.
Consider the two different panels in Exhibit 11-2. Panel A depicts the network (or communication) structure of a manager, Gregory, who has a network of relatively
30Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. (1994). Bringing the individual back in: A structural analysis of the internal market for reputation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), 87–108. 31Krackhardt, D. (1990). Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and power in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), 342–369.
Exhibit 11-2 Social Networks of Two Managers within the Same Company
Based on Burt, r.S. (1999). entrepreneurs, distrust, and third parties: a strategic look at the dark side of dense networks. In L. thompson, J. Levine, & D. Messick (eds.), Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence erlbaum & associates ; Uzzi, B. & Dunlap, S..(2005, December). how to build your network. Harvard Business Review. hbr.org., © Leigh L. thompson.
• Close-knit • Self-contained • Closed-loop network • Clique network • Echo chamber
Panel A
• Structurally unique • Less dense; more varied • Open-loop network • Boundary-spanning • Connector of echo chamber
Panel B
Gregory
1
2
3 4
5
Berta
1
2
3
4
5
M11_THOM4204_06_SE_C11.indd 283 10/25/16 2:54 PM
284 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
close colleagues—most likely from the same functional unit. This type of close-knit, self-contained network is a clique network and is reminiscent of the traditional family unit. In the clique network, groups of people, all of whom know one another quite well, share largely redundant communication structures. At the extreme, members of clique networks are aware only of others with whom they have direct contact.
When we contrast Gregory’s communication network to Berta’s in Panel B, we notice some striking differences. First, Berta’s network is much less tightly knit than is Gregory’s network. Second, Berta’s network spans what appears to be more functional units than does Gregory’s network. In a sense, Berta knows more people who don’t know each other. Third, Berta’s network is structurally more unique than is Gregory’s network. Simply stated, Gregory’s network is highly similar to the networks of all the other people in his clique. In contrast, Berta’s network does not look like anyone else’s, in terms of the connections she has. Before reading further, how do you think that these differing network structures affect the performance of the team, the individuals involved, and the larger organization?
Boundary spanninG
Individuals (and teams) who span organizational divides and integrate the knowledge and best practices from different areas of the organization (who otherwise have little incentive to do so) are extremely valuable for the organization. These people, known as boundary spanners, bridge the functional gaps, or the structural holes, that exist in organizations. Structural holes separate nonredundant social contacts in the organization. A person who bridges or spans a structural hole fills a unique spot in the organizational network: bring- ing together people, knowledge, and information that would otherwise not be connected. This of course, is critical for maximizing diversity of ideas and setting the stage for creative thinking in the organization—not to mention avoiding duplication of effort and speeding along organizational innovations to relevant units. Teams whose members have access to different social networks, independent of their individual knowledge and skills, may be more likely to learn through relationships than teams whose members’ social ties are redundant.32 The value of a boundary spanner is the ability to capitalize on the social structure of the organization that, as we have seen, is structurally imperfect.
When we again compare the networks of Gregory and Berta, we see that Greg- ory has a network that spans one structural hole (i.e., the relatively weak connection between a cluster reached through contacts 1, 2, and 3 versus the other cluster that is reached through contacts 4 and 5). In contrast, Berta preserves the connections with both clusters in Gregory’s network but expands the network to a more diverse set of contacts. Berta’s network, adding three new clusters of people, spans 10 structural holes.
The structural holes that exist between people, functional units, and teams rep- resent opportunities for teams and their leaders. Boundary spanners broker the flow of information between people on opposite ends of a structural hole and control the nature of projects that bring people together on opposite ends of the structural hole. In interlocking teams, the functional teams are networked to other teams in different func- tions via a supervisor who coordinates activities. In this way, the structure of a network is a competitive advantage for certain people and certain teams in the organization.
32Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1379.
M11_THOM4204_06_SE_C11.indd 284 10/25/16 2:54 PM
Chapter 11 • Team Networking and Social Capital 285
Managers with contact networks rich in structural holes are the people who know about, have a hand in, and exercise more control over rewarding opportunities. They have broader access to information because of their diverse contacts. They are more aware of new opportunities and have easier access to these opportunities than do their peers—even their peers of equivalent or greater human capital. For this reason, they also are more likely to be discussed as suitable candidates for inclusion in new opportunities. They are also likely to have sharpened and displayed their capabilities because they have more control over the substance of their work defined by relationships with subordi- nates, superiors, and colleagues. A study of 64 software development teams revealed that boundary spanning, buffering, and boundary reinforcement were positively related to team performance and psychological safety.33
Boundary looseninG versus Boundary TiGhTeninG
Boundary-loosening activities focus team members outside the team and organization; boundary-tightening activities focus inward. Boundary-tightening and boundary- loosening activities are both important for team and organizational effectiveness and are synergistic. A team’s boundary activities are related to team innovation.34 An investiga- tion of 196 team members and their 60 team leaders and unit managers in a high-tech company revealed that inter-team goal interdependence (the extent to which a team perceives that its goals and/or feedback it has received are congruent with the organization’s goals) and team functional heterogeneity (the diversity of organizational roles embodied in the team) are associated with boundary-loosening activities that ultimately lead to greater team innovation.
cliques versus enTrepreneur neTworks
In Exhibit 11-2, Gregory is in a tightly constructed, dense clique network. In contrast, Berta’s network is much less dense and more varied. Members of clique networks con- sider one another to be their closest contacts, and because they focus their efforts at pri- marily internal communications, they are often sequestered from the larger organization. The loyalty and cohesiveness of inner circles can be both comforting to those situated securely in them and intimidating to those who stumble into them without a real ally.
Berta’s entrepreneur network is a less tightly knit group, with contacts in a variety of disparate organizational areas. In fact, Berta does not appear to be housed in any particular network. On the surface, it might seem that Gregory would feel more secure, nestled in his cohesive group, and hence, be more successful. Berta however, is a boundary spanner, a link between different subgroups and functional units that would not be connected without her. Berta occupies a unique position in her network as she singlehandedly bridges these separate groups. In this sense, Berta is an information broker because she alone is at the critical junction between these networks and serves the important role of brokering information. The people in Berta’s functional group are more dependent on Berta for information than Gregory’s group is on Gregory. In a very crude sense, Gregory is an organizational clone—expendable—at least on a
33Faraj, S., & Yan, A. (2009). Boundary work in knowledge teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 604–617. 34Somech, A., & Khalaili, A. (2014). Team boundary activity: Its mediating role in the relationship between structural conditions and team innovation. Group & Organization Management, 39(3), 274–299.
M11_THOM4204_06_SE_C11.indd 285 10/25/16 2:54 PM
286 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
sociostructural level. In contrast, Berta is a critical player; remove her and the organiza- tion may suffer serious consequences and lost opportunities. Berta serves an important team and organizational function by garnering information that would otherwise be unavailable to the team or the organization.
Gregory is in a highly cohesive group, which can be advantageous when it comes to managing the internal team environment. Gregory does not really learn anything new by interacting with the members of his group. In contrast, because Berta’s contacts do not know one another and therefore, cannot apply social pressure on each other—as they can in clique networks—Berta is potentially privy to a greater amount of accurate and nonredundant information. Berta’s position as a structural hole spanner is an indicator that people on either side of the hole circulate in different flows of information. The structural hole between two clusters (or teams) does not mean that people in the two clusters are unaware of one another. Rather, people are so focused on their own activi- ties that they have little time to attend to the activities of people in the other cluster.
In comparing Gregory’s and Berta’s networks, the information benefits in Berta’s network are enhanced in several important ways that go a long way toward furthering individual, team, and organizational goals—which are critical measures of performance. From Berta’s view, more benefit is reaped because more contacts are included in the network. The diversity of contacts enhances the quality of benefits because each cluster of contacts is an independent source of information. One cluster (e.g., a team), no matter how numerous its members, is only one source of information because people con- nected to one another know about the same things at approximately the same time. Because nonredundant contacts are linked only through the leader at the center of the network, the leader is assured of being the first to see new opportunities created by the need of one team that could be served by skills in another team. Berta has the opportu- nity of bringing together otherwise disconnected individuals. Furthermore, having more diverse contacts means that the manager is more likely to be among the people discussed as suitable candidates for inclusion in new opportunities. Because people communicate through Berta, she can adjust her image with each contact. Berta is able to monitor information more effectively than is possible with typical bureaucratic control; she is highly mobile relative to bureaucracy. For a summary of the advantages and disadvan- tages of cliques and boundary-spanning networks, see Exhibit 11-3.
In comparison with others who are equal in human capital, boundary spanners enjoy more organizational success. Managers with larger networks of disconnected contacts get promoted earlier than comparable managers with smaller networks of more intercon- nected contacts.35 In an investigation of 3,000 senior managers in a high-technology company with more than 100,000 employees, those promoted early had more social capi- tal—as determined by their social network analysis.36 The CEO’s compensation is pre- dicted positively by the social capital of the chairman of the compensation committee and the CEO’s social capital relative to the chairman’s.37 The success of Broadway musical
35Burt, The Social Structure of Competition, p. 267; Podolny, J. M., & Baron, J. N. (1997). Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review, 62(5), 673–693; Sparrowe, R. T., & Popielarz, P. A. (1995). Weak ties and structural holes: The effects of network structure on careers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Vancouver, BC. 36Burt, The Social Structure of Competition. 37Belliveau, M. A., O’Reilly, III, C. A., & Wade, J. B. (1996). Social capital at the top: The effects of social similarity and status on CEO compensation. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1568–1593.
M11_THOM4204_06_SE_C11.indd 286 10/25/16 2:54 PM
Chapter 11 • Team Networking and Social Capital 287
teams from 1945 through 1989 revealed that the “small world” (connected quality) of creative artists directly affected the financial and artistic success of the show as well as the percentage of hits, flops and raves.38 Similarly, the success of scientific teams in social psychology, ecology, and astronomy is also directly predicted by the structure of the cre- ative collaboration network of the scientists in these communities.39
However, a study of 525 companies that went public revealed that their boards were best when composed of a majority of the original top management team (TMT) members, rather than independent outsiders.40 Board members possess valuable tacit knowledge of the company; outsiders should provide resources for the TMTs to execute strategies, rather than monitor them.
The network structure of team members affects how much information they share in common with others in a team. For this reason, boundary spanners are more cogni- tively central (i.e., aware of what other people know) than are non-boundary spanners. This awareness affects their ability to influence the team. The more information team members share with others, the more cognitively central they are in the team. Also, cognitively central members acquire pivotal power in a team and exert more influence on consensus than members who are not cognitively central.41 Thus, those who are connected are more influential.
Team social capiTal
Team social capital is the configuration of team members’ social relationships within a group and in the social structure of the broader organization.42 Although
38Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American Journal of Sociology, 111, 447–504. 39Guimerà, R., Uzzi, B., Spiro, J., & Nunes Amaral, L. A. (2005). Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science, 308(5722), 697–702. 40Kroll, M., Walters, B. A., & Le, S. A. (2007). The impact of board composition and top management team ownership structure on post-IPO performance in young entrepreneurial firms. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1198–1216. 41Kameda, T., Ohtsubo, Y., & Takezawa, M. (1997). Centrality in sociocognitive networks and social influence: An illustration in a group decision-making context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 296–309. 42Oh, H., Chung, M.-H., & Labianca, G. (2004). Group social capital and group effectiveness: The role of informal socializing ties. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 860–875.
Clique Network Boundary-Spanning Network
Advantages High cohesion Loyalty and support Increased efficiency of decision making
Leverages diversity Capitalizes on opportunity Greater innovation Earlier promotions Higher salaries
Disadvantages Redundant communication Biased communication Groupthink Dispensable members
Greater conflict, both task and relationship Power struggles
Exhibit 11-3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Clique and Boundary-Spanning Networks
Leigh L. thompson.
M11_THOM4204_06_SE_C11.indd 287 10/25/16 2:54 PM
288 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
members who were personal friends. The friendship network is critical for acceptance of i-deals, but the advice network is negatively related.52
Trust ties involve both an affective (emotional) and a cognitive (task) perspective. The affective aspect is based on principles of social exchange. The cognitive perspective is based on reliability. Trust does not have a direct effect on performance.53 Strong, dense ties, such as guanxi networks in China however, strongly increase retention and commitments in teams and organizations.54 Third parties play a key role in enhancing managers’ reputations for trustworthiness among their peers.55 The dilemma is that large, open networks provide access to new knowledge, but such networks impair knowledge sharing because of lack of trust and reciprocity. However, a study of 705 consultants revealed that motivation and ability can overcome such threats.56
Advice (or Instrumental) ties represent instrumental rather than expressive rela- tionships. Advice ties represent the exchange of expertise and information necessary to complete one’s task. Unlike the voluntary nature of friendship and trust ties, advice ties may be dictated by the demands of the team task. Although both friendship and advice ties are severely decimated in the aftermath of a layoff, advice networks regenerate more quickly than friendship networks.57 Advice seekers on teams weigh the costs of obtaining knowledge with the expected value of the knowledge itself.58 Offering advice (even unsolicited) is one way of expanding your network. Tools such as Slack, HipChat, and Internet Relay Chat are online communities where peers can communicate and talk about issues that are important to them and receive instant feedback.59
Personality and education affect network relationships. In particular, the personal- ity construct of neuroticism (i.e., how much people worry) predicts their centrality in their social networks. People who are highly educated and do not worry (i.e., are low in neuroticism) are high in advice and friendship centrality.60 Team members who have similar values to their teammates also have more central advice and friendship networks.
50Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. R. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12–24. 51Rousseau, D. M. (2005). I-deals: Idiosyncratic deals employees bargain for themselves. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
52Lai, L., Rousseau, D. M., & Chang, K. T. T. (2009). Idiosyncratic deals: Coworkers as interested third parties. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 547–556. 53Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 445–455. 54Hom, P. W., & Xiao, Z. (2011). Embedding social networks: How guanxi ties reinforce Chinese employees’ retention. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 188–202. 55Wong, S.-S., & Boh, W.-F. (2010) Leveraging the ties of others to build a reputation for trustworthiness among peers. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 129–148. 56Reinholt, M., Pedersen, T., & Foss, N. J. (2011). Why a central network position isn’t enough: The role of motivation and ability for knowledge sharing in employee networks. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1277–1297. 57Shah, P. P. (2000). Network destruction: The structural implications of downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 101–112. 58Nebus, J. (2006). Building collegial information networks: A theory of advice network generation. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 615–637. 59Kneece, R. (2015, April 29). 5 tips to create effective internal communications with your team. Fast Company. fastcompany.com 60Klein, K. J., Lim, B., Saltz, J. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2004). How do they get there? An examination of the antecedents of centrality in team networks. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 952–963.
boundary-spanning activities can benefit team performance, pursuing social relation- ships outside one’s team might decrease the group’s internal cohesiveness,43 which in turn, can have a negative effect on performance.44 Some teams have greater social capital “liquidity” because their members have positions in the overall social structure of the organization. For example, rapid access to information and political support is greater for teams whose members socialize during their free time with organization’s upper management. In an investigation of work-related ties that extend into social realms outside of work, the optimal configuration was a moderate level of internal closure within the group and a large number of “bridging” relationships to other groups’ leaders.45 It is actually counterproductive for a team when all of the members socialize informally outside of the organization. It is better for the team members to socialize outside of the team and outside of work. Such ties are particularly critical because the shift in focus from work to social interaction invites a shift in the types of resources that are transferred among members. A meta-analysis of 37 studies of teams in real organizations indicated that teams with densely configured interpersonal ties attain their goals better and are more committed to staying together.46 In another investigation involving 51 teams work- ing in two wood composite plants, external coordination (extra-team relationships) had a significant, positive impact on team performance.47
Friendship, TrusT, and advice Ties
People in teams bond along three specific types of ties: friendship, trust, and advice.48 Friendship ties are close interpersonal ties between people, characterized by positive, amicable relationships.49 Friendship ties are voluntary and often communal in nature, such that people provide for one another without expectation of reciprocation of ben- efits.50 Friendship facilitates performance because of consensus and information sharing but hinders performance when people focus more on social aspects than getting the work done. Idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) are personalized employment arrangements negotiated between individual workers and employees and intended to be of mutual benefit.51 In a study of 20 R&D groups, acceptance of i-deals was greater for group
43Keller, R. T. (1978). Dimensions of management systems and performance in continuous process organizations. Human Relations, 31, 119–129. 44Beal, 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, 989–1004. 45Oh, Chung, & Labianca, “Group social capital and group effectiveness.” 46Balkundi, P., & Harrison, D. A. (2006). Ties, leaders, and time in teams: Strong inference and network structure’s effects on team viability and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 305–325. 47Michael, J. H., Barsness, Z., Lawson, L., & Balkundi, P. (2004). Focus please: Team coordination and performance at wood manufacturers. Forest Products Journal, 54(12), 250–255. 48Shah, P. P., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The social structure of diverse groups: Integrating social categorization and network perspectives. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 5, 113–133. 49Jehn, K., & Shah, P. (1997). Interpersonal relationships and task performance: An examination of mediating processes in friendship and acquaintance groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 775–790; Rawlins, W. K. (1983). Negotiating close friendship: The dialectic of conjunctive freedoms. Human Communication Research, 9, 255–266.
M11_THOM4204_06_SE_C11.indd 288 10/25/16 2:54 PM
Chapter 11 • Team Networking and Social Capital 289
members who were personal friends. The friendship network is critical for acceptance of i-deals, but the advice network is negatively related.52
Trust ties involve both an affective (emotional) and a cognitive (task) perspective. The affective aspect is based on principles of social exchange. The cognitive perspective is based on reliability. Trust does not have a direct effect on performance.53 Strong, dense ties, such as guanxi networks in China however, strongly increase retention and commitments in teams and organizations.54 Third parties play a key role in enhancing managers’ reputations for trustworthiness among their peers.55 The dilemma is that large, open networks provide access to new knowledge, but such networks impair knowledge sharing because of lack of trust and reciprocity. However, a study of 705 consultants revealed that motivation and ability can overcome such threats.56
Advice (or Instrumental) ties represent instrumental rather than expressive rela- tionships. Advice ties represent the exchange of expertise and information necessary to complete one’s task. Unlike the voluntary nature of friendship and trust ties, advice ties may be dictated by the demands of the team task. Although both friendship and advice ties are severely decimated in the aftermath of a layoff, advice networks regenerate more quickly than friendship networks.57 Advice seekers on teams weigh the costs of obtaining knowledge with the expected value of the knowledge itself.58 Offering advice (even unsolicited) is one way of expanding your network. Tools such as Slack, HipChat, and Internet Relay Chat are online communities where peers can communicate and talk about issues that are important to them and receive instant feedback.59
Personality and education affect network relationships. In particular, the personal- ity construct of neuroticism (i.e., how much people worry) predicts their centrality in their social networks. People who are highly educated and do not worry (i.e., are low in neuroticism) are high in advice and friendship centrality.60 Team members who have similar values to their teammates also have more central advice and friendship networks.
50Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. R. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12–24. 51Rousseau, D. M. (2005). I-deals: Idiosyncratic deals employees bargain for themselves. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
52Lai, L., Rousseau, D. M., & Chang, K. T. T. (2009). Idiosyncratic deals: Coworkers as interested third parties. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 547–556. 53Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 445–455. 54Hom, P. W., & Xiao, Z. (2011). Embedding social networks: How guanxi ties reinforce Chinese employees’ retention. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 188–202. 55Wong, S.-S., & Boh, W.-F. (2010) Leveraging the ties of others to build a reputation for trustworthiness among peers. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 129–148. 56Reinholt, M., Pedersen, T., & Foss, N. J. (2011). Why a central network position isn’t enough: The role of motivation and ability for knowledge sharing in employee networks. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1277–1297. 57Shah, P. P. (2000). Network destruction: The structural implications of downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 101–112. 58Nebus, J. (2006). Building collegial information networks: A theory of advice network generation. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 615–637. 59Kneece, R. (2015, April 29). 5 tips to create effective internal communications with your team. Fast Company. fastcompany.com 60Klein, K. J., Lim, B., Saltz, J. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2004). How do they get there? An examination of the antecedents of centrality in team networks. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 952–963.
M11_THOM4204_06_SE_C11.indd 289 10/25/16 2:54 PM
290 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
Advice, friendship, and trust ties are not mutually exclusive. For example, friends can be trusted and approached for advice. An investigation of 35 groups of MBA stu- dents revealed that high-performing strong-relationship groups (groups with numerous, intense internal friendship ties) engaged in greater constructive controversy than low- performing strong-relationship groups.61 These results suggest that successful, strong- relationship teams use processes that capitalize on the positive affective interchanges among members and minimize the negative consequences of group cohesion.
While much research has focused on the relationship between positive relations among group members (e.g., friendship and trust), the question about how negative ties affect performance is equally intriguing. Just as a financial ledger records financial assets and liabilities, the social ledger is a theoretical account of social assets, derived from positive relationships, and social liabilities, derived from negative relationships.62 While all relationships have some negative attributes, a negative relationship represents an enduring, recurring set of negative judgments, feelings, and behavioral intentions toward another person. Typically, negative relationships make up only 1 to 8 percent of the total number of relationships in an organization.63 Four interplaying characteristics determine the extent to which negative relationships hurt team and organizational effectiveness: relationship strength, reciprocity, cognition, and social distance.64
• Relationship strength refers to the intensity of dislike. As intensity increases, people may find it increasingly difficult to focus on interdependent goals.
• Reciprocity refers to whether an individual is the object or source of dislike or if dislike is reciprocated. Negative outcomes exist when dislike is reciprocal and even unreciprocated.
• Cognition refers to whether the person knows the other person dislikes him or her. Awareness of the negative relationship will cause more discomfort and may exacerbate reciprocation.
• Social distance refers to whether the negative tie is direct or indirect. If someone is directly involved in a negative relationship, the social liabilities are larger than when someone is indirectly involved in a negative relationship (e.g., a friend of someone who is intensely disliked by their superior).
leadership Ties
If leaders fail to manage the relationship between the team and the external environment effectively, the team may be regarded as ineffective, regardless of its actual productivity. However by placing constraints and barriers upon the team’s ability to control and gain access to resources, such as education, knowledge, and economic resources, team effec- tiveness may be hindered. Thus, the network structure of team leaders is important for
61Shah, P. P., Dirks, K. T., & Chervany, N. (2006). The multiple pathways of high performing groups: The interaction of social networks and group processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(3), 299–317. 62Labianca, G., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Exploring the social ledger: Negative relationships and negative asymmetry in social networks in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 596–614. 63Kane, G., & Labianca, G. (2005). Accounting for clergy’s social ledgers: Mixed blessings associated with direct and indirect negative ties in a religious organization. Paper presented at the Intra-Organizational Network (ION) Conference, Atlanta, GA. 64Labianca & Brass, “Exploring the social ledger.”
65Balkundi & Harrison, “Ties, leaders, and time in teams.” 66Krackhardt, D. (1996). Social networks and the liability of newness for managers. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (pp. 159–173). New York: Wiley. 67Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2004). How to lead a self-managing team. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(4), 65–71. 68Druskat, 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. 69Balkundi, P., Barsness, Z., & Michael, J. (2009). Unlocking the influence of leadership network structures on team conflict and viability. Small Group Research, 40(3), 301–322.
M11_THOM4204_06_SE_C11.indd 290 10/25/16 2:54 PM
Chapter 11 • Team Networking and Social Capital 291
team performance. Teams with leaders who are central in their teams’ intragroup net- works and teams that are central in their intergroup network perform better.65 According to the leader centrality–performance hypothesis, team leaders from whom subordi- nates seek advice or friendship tend to have relatively comprehensive views of the social structures of their teams. Such a perspective helps them make better decisions. Central leaders occupy structurally advantageous positions in their social networks and often act as gatekeepers and regulators of resource flow.66 In a study of 300 self- managing teams at a large manufacturing plant of a Fortune 500 corporation, leaders who contrib- uted most to their team’s success excelled at managing the boundary between the team and the larger organization.67 This boundary-management behavior involved four key skills: relating, scouting, persuading, and empowering (see Exhibit 11-4).68 Teams with more prestigious formal leaders (i.e., leaders whom a high proportion of subordinates sought out for advice) experienced lower levels of conflict and had higher levels of team viability.69 In contrast, leaders who had advice ties with subordinates (who did not have advice ties with each other) had elevated levels of team conflict and lower levels of team
Advice, friendship, and trust ties are not mutually exclusive. For example, friends can be trusted and approached for advice. An investigation of 35 groups of MBA stu- dents revealed that high-performing strong-relationship groups (groups with numerous, intense internal friendship ties) engaged in greater constructive controversy than low- performing strong-relationship groups.61 These results suggest that successful, strong- relationship teams use processes that capitalize on the positive affective interchanges among members and minimize the negative consequences of group cohesion.
While much research has focused on the relationship between positive relations among group members (e.g., friendship and trust), the question about how negative ties affect performance is equally intriguing. Just as a financial ledger records financial assets and liabilities, the social ledger is a theoretical account of social assets, derived from positive relationships, and social liabilities, derived from negative relationships.62 While all relationships have some negative attributes, a negative relationship represents an enduring, recurring set of negative judgments, feelings, and behavioral intentions toward another person. Typically, negative relationships make up only 1 to 8 percent of the total number of relationships in an organization.63 Four interplaying characteristics determine the extent to which negative relationships hurt team and organizational effectiveness: relationship strength, reciprocity, cognition, and social distance.64
• Relationship strength refers to the intensity of dislike. As intensity increases, people may find it increasingly difficult to focus on interdependent goals.
• Reciprocity refers to whether an individual is the object or source of dislike or if dislike is reciprocated. Negative outcomes exist when dislike is reciprocal and even unreciprocated.
• Cognition refers to whether the person knows the other person dislikes him or her. Awareness of the negative relationship will cause more discomfort and may exacerbate reciprocation.
• Social distance refers to whether the negative tie is direct or indirect. If someone is directly involved in a negative relationship, the social liabilities are larger than when someone is indirectly involved in a negative relationship (e.g., a friend of someone who is intensely disliked by their superior).
leadership Ties
If leaders fail to manage the relationship between the team and the external environment effectively, the team may be regarded as ineffective, regardless of its actual productivity. However by placing constraints and barriers upon the team’s ability to control and gain access to resources, such as education, knowledge, and economic resources, team effec- tiveness may be hindered. Thus, the network structure of team leaders is important for
61Shah, P. P., Dirks, K. T., & Chervany, N. (2006). The multiple pathways of high performing groups: The interaction of social networks and group processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(3), 299–317. 62Labianca, G., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Exploring the social ledger: Negative relationships and negative asymmetry in social networks in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 596–614. 63Kane, G., & Labianca, G. (2005). Accounting for clergy’s social ledgers: Mixed blessings associated with direct and indirect negative ties in a religious organization. Paper presented at the Intra-Organizational Network (ION) Conference, Atlanta, GA. 64Labianca & Brass, “Exploring the social ledger.”
65Balkundi & Harrison, “Ties, leaders, and time in teams.” 66Krackhardt, D. (1996). Social networks and the liability of newness for managers. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (pp. 159–173). New York: Wiley. 67Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2004). How to lead a self-managing team. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(4), 65–71. 68Druskat, 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. 69Balkundi, P., Barsness, Z., & Michael, J. (2009). Unlocking the influence of leadership network structures on team conflict and viability. Small Group Research, 40(3), 301–322.
Exhibit 11-4 Team Effectiveness
“Managing from the boundary: the effective leadership of self-managing work teams” from academy of Management Journal by Vanessa Urch Druskat; Jane V. Wheeler, 46(4), 435–457. Copyright (c) 2003 by Vanessa Urch Druskat; Jane V. Wheeler. reprinted by permission of Academy of Management Review.
Relating
Being socially and politically aware
Organization- focused behavior
Scouting
Seeking information from managers, peers, and specialists
Persuading
Obtaining external support
Empowering
Building team trust
Caring for team members
Diagnosing member behavior
Investigating problems system- atically
Influencing the team
Delegating authority
Exercising flexibility regarding team decisions
Coaching
Team- focused behavior
Team E�ectiveness
Organization/Team Boundary
M11_THOM4204_06_SE_C11.indd 291 10/25/16 2:54 PM
292 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
viability. Coworkers tend to place more trust in fellow coworkers who are trusted by the team’s formal leaders than in those who are less trusted by the leader.70
INCREASING YOUR SOCIAL CAPITAL
How can managers best expand their network and link their team within the organiza- tion? Strategic network expansion involves connecting to people and teams in such a way that the manager (and the team) fills a structural hole. To see the difference between typical network expansion and strategic network expansion, see Exhibit 11-5.
We advocate a team-based view of structural positioning within the organization. That is, teams are more likely to achieve their goals and stay in touch with the needs of
70Lau, D. C., & Liden, R. C. (2008). Antecedents of coworker trust: Leaders’ blessings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1130–1138.
Exhibit 11-5 Strategic Network Expansion
“how to Build Your Network” from harvard Business review by Brian Uzzi, Shannon Dunlap. Copyright (c) December 2005 by harvard Business review. reprinted by permission of Harvard Business Publishing (HBP).
You
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
You
You You
Typical Network Expansion
• Large network of redundant contacts
• Communication fatigue
Strategic Network Expansion
• Large network of nonredundant contacts
• Less communication fatigue
You
M11_THOM4204_06_SE_C11.indd 292 10/25/16 2:54 PM
Chapter 11 • Team Networking and Social Capital 293
the organization if they have connections with others within the organization. Thus, the structural positioning of an entrepreneurial, as opposed to clique, network has benefits for individual team members, the team, and the organization.
From the point of view of the employee, organizational benefits are maximized in a large network of nonredundant contacts, meaning that it is better to know a lot of people who don’t know one another. The opportunity is there because most people are too busy to keep in touch directly. Furthermore, people in organizations display a type of functional ethnocentrism, believing that their own functional area is of key impor- tance and that the other units do not matter as much. Entrepreneurs such as Berta, take advantage of functional ethnocentrism and act as critical go-betweens to bring individuals, teams, and units together in ways that are profitable to themselves and the organization.
analyze your social neTwork
Organizational actors who hold an accurate perception of their own social network are more effective than those who hold inaccurate perceptions.71 People’s perceptions of their organizational networks are not necessarily independent perceptions. An investiga- tion of teams in public and private organizations revealed that team members’ percep- tions of organizational support are similar to those of coworkers with whom they seek advice and those who hold equivalent positions in the organizational network.72
Everyone cannot be a boundary spanner or information broker. Managers who are aware of their information brokers are more effective in using their own networks. (As an exercise, follow the three-step guide in Exhibit 11-6.) Just because you know who the brokers are in your network does not automatically entitle you to rely on them. Some people have been able to rely on networks by putting forth a meaningful goal or mission. With the generational shift of millennials changing jobs more often than in previous decades, firms such as McKinsey & Co. and Ernst & Young maintain relation- ships with employees offering incentives such as in-person networking events, infor- mational webinars, and access to firm research.73
idenTiFy sTrucTural holes
Structural holes are the gaps that are created when members of cliques (closed net- works) do not connect. The challenge is to identify those gaps and find a way to bridge them. When a manager identifies structural holes, he or she recognizes and overcomes the clique network system. Clique networks contain a number of disadvantages for the organization and the team. People in clique networks fall prey to the homogeneity bias. For example, men in clique networks include significantly fewer women among their contacts.74 This situation can stifle creativity, propagate prejudice, and hinder the ben- efits of diversity.
71Krackhardt, “Assessing the political landscape.” 72Zagenczyk, T. J., Scott, K. D., Gibney, R., Murrell, A. J., & Bennett-Thatcher, J. (2010). Social influence and perceived organizational support: A social networks analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111(2), 127–138. 73Gellman, L. (2016, February 21). Companies tap alumni for new business and new workers. The Wall Street Journal. wsj.com 74Burt, The social structure of competition.
M11_THOM4204_06_SE_C11.indd 293 10/25/16 2:54 PM
294 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
expand The size oF The neTwork
Expanding the size of the network does not mean increasing the size of the team but rather, increasing the number of people with whom the manager and the team come into contact. Speed interviewing is an example of maximizing contacts. Companies can’t evaluate finance candidates over weeks or months because other companies will hire them first. In one survey, 100 executives reported spending an average of 60 min- utes when interviewing staff-level candidates and 103 minutes for management-level job candidates. The face-to-face interview was almost inevitably followed by a much shorter phone interview.75 In our simulations of people who have experienced job threat, such as loss of employment, those with higher self-rated socioeconomic status report having broader and more expansive networks than those with lower socioeco- nomic status.76
75Montesanto, A. (2012). Making a good first impression is crucial in a job interview. BC Jobs. bcjobs.com 76Smith, E., Menon, T., and Thompson, L. (2012). Status differences in the cognitive activation of social networks. Organization Science, 23(1), 67–82.
Exhibit 11-6 Six Degrees of Separation Worksheet
Based on Uzzi, B., & Dunlap, S. (2005). how to build your network. Harvard Business Review, 83(12), 53–60, © Leigh L. thompson.
Six Degrees of Separation Worksheet
Step 2: Who introduced you to this contact? Step 3: To whom did you
introduce this contact?
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Step 1: List some of your most important business contacts:
You are an Information Broker to these contacts in your network
Information Brokers in your network
M11_THOM4204_06_SE_C11.indd 294 10/25/16 2:54 PM
Chapter 11 • Team Networking and Social Capital 295
diversiFy neTworks
The homogeneity bias pulls people toward developing cliques of like-minded people. It may be more comfortable in the short run, but it will have long-term negative conse- quences for the individual, the team, and the organization. A better alternative is to develop a diversified network, which means crossing organizational boundaries and functional areas. People who have a close friend in an ethnically different group are more likely to perceive an association of the friend’s ethnicity with the self and have positive expectations about the out-group.77
According to Uzzi, the optimal composition of ties at the network level is achieved when a network has an integrated mix of embedded (social ties) as well as arm’s length (nonsocial, purely business) ties.78 Embedded ties and arm’s length ties offer comple- mentary benefits when combined, just as the overall value of a portfolio increases when it is composed of complementary assets that offset each other’s inherent weaknesses and strengths. Networks dominated by one type of tie produce fewer benefits, which partly accounts for the negative effects of overly embedded (e.g., “old-boy”) networks, or overly disembedded exchange networks (e.g., whipsawing of suppliers by large manu- facturers).79 A study of 375 managers over an 8-month period revealed that the more embedded managers perceived themselves to be, the more likely they were to show declines in social capital development over time, and declines in social capital behaviors were directly related to declines in human capital development.80 Moreover, another investigation of the strategic and operational effectiveness of 96 self-managing teams in a large multinational organization revealed that a combination of autonomy and external knowledge allowed teams to capture the benefits while offsetting their risks. Specifically, teams with high levels of autonomy and external knowledge delivered more strategically and operationally effective projects than did teams with high autonomy but low external knowledge or high external knowledge but low autonomy. However, the complementar- ity between autonomy and external knowledge depended on what the teams were doing and what they knew: When content knowledge was scarce (e.g., country knowledge), autonomy and knowledge improved strategic and operational effectiveness but not when content knowledge was common (e.g., technical knowledge).81
Organizational demography refers to the composition of teams in terms of their proportion of majority and minority members.82 (see Exhibit 11-7). The major- ity is an identity group that typically has enjoyed access to power and authority in the organization. The minority represents an identity group that has been marginalized from a position of power and authority. The model distinguishes three types of team
77Page-Gould, E., Mendes, W. B., & Major, B. (2010). Intergroup contact facilitates physiological recovery following stressful intergroup interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(5), 854–858. 78Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 35–67. 79Ibid. 80Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). The effects of organizational embeddedness on development of social capital and human capital. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 696–712. 81Haas, M. R. (2010). The double-edged swords of autonomy and external knowledge: Analyzing team effectiveness in a multinational organization. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 989–1008. 82Joshi, A. (2006). The influence of organizational demography on the external networking behavior of teams. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 583–595.
M11_THOM4204_06_SE_C11.indd 295 10/25/16 2:54 PM
296 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
demographics: homogeneous majority teams, homogeneous minority teams, and diverse teams. Homogeneous majority teams are predominantly composed of people belonging to a high-status majority identity group. Homogeneous minority teams are composed of members belonging to a single-identity group that is not that of the larger organiza- tion. Diverse or heterogeneous teams represent both majority and minority members equally. According to the model, homophilous ties may limit the extent to which team members have access to diverse perspectives in homogeneous majority teams. As orga- nizations move toward pluralistic settings, these teams may lose support and informa- tion from minority peers. In terms of homogenous minority teams, lack of networking opportunities with peers and upper management can be detrimental; such teams need to devise strategies to compensate for the numerical scarcity of minority members. Diverse teams can gain centrality in external networks through homophilous interactions of its majority team members. To maximally use the benefits of their external networks, diverse teams need to focus on building trust and cooperation internally in monolithic and pluralistic settings.
Build hierarchical neTworks
In bureaucratic organizations, boundary spanners need to network not only laterally but also hierarchically. Coca-Cola practices “reverse mentoring,” in which high-potential millennial employees share their perspectives, ideas, and knowledge with more seasoned
Exhibit 11-7 External Team Networking in the Context of Organizational Demography
“the influence of organizational demography on the external networking behavior of teams” from academy of Management review by a. Joshi, 31(3), 583–595, pp. 588. Copyright (c) 2006 by a. Joshi. reprinted by permission of Academy of Management Review.
Team composition Homophily of external networks
Centrality in networks Implications for teams
Organizational demography
Positive relationship between homophily and
centrality declines between monolithic and
pluralistic stages and tends to nonsignificance as
organizations approach the multicultural stage
Homogeneous majority teams
Homogeneous minority teams
Diverse teams
Aggregate homophily declines as organizations
move toward multiculturalism
Aggregate homophily increases as organizations evolve from monolithic to pluralistic stages and then declines as organizations
progress toward multiculturalism
Aggregate homophily increases as organizations evolve from monolithic to pluralistic stages and then declines as organizations
progress toward multiculturalism
Negative relationship between homophily and
centrality declines between monolithic and
pluralistic stages and tends to nonsignificance as
organizations approach the multicultural stage
Positive relationship between homophily and centrality strengthens
between monolithic and pluralistic stages and tends
to nonsignificance as organizations approach the
multicultural stage
Actively develop networks with minority groups to gain access to diverse perspectives and ideas
Develop networks outside the organization with
professional associations and internally with caucus
groups
Focus inwardly to increase communication and trust to
utilize the benefits of external networks
M11_THOM4204_06_SE_C11.indd 296 10/25/16 2:54 PM
Chapter 11 • Team Networking and Social Capital 297
managers. Employees use LinkedIn to develop a new idea, assemble a team, and pitch ideas to the executive team. If the team’s idea is endorsed, they are allowed three months to network with other departments and leaders to develop the idea.83
recoGnize Gender scripTs in neTworks
Quite often, business opportunities are conducted in the context of social relation- ships.84 Many social relationships are common and therefore highly scripted or routin- ized, such as conducting a business meeting on the golf course. These scripts are significant because they define the conditions under which networks are most effec- tive.85 For this reason, it is difficult to form close relationships across gender lines if they are built through socializing activities such as playing golf, going to the theater, or evening dinner gatherings because these practices often have a different meaning between men and women than they do between persons of the same gender.86 One study investigated why women scientists with human capital equal to, or better than, their male counterparts do not do as well in graduate school and are thereafter disad- vantaged by a lack of contacts to the resources and tacit information important for identifying, developing, and following through on leading-edge research projects.87 The differential performance of women followed from their disadvantaged position in a social structure of relations, not their human capital endowments. By actively managing social networks, key barriers to the advancement of women in science can be overcome.
repuTaTion manaGemenT
People readily communicate reputational information about others (via gossip), and recipients use this information to interact selectively with those who are viewed as “cooperative” and ostracize those who are viewed as “selfish.”88 Reputations may persist over time, despite efforts to change them. Moreover, just as people develop reputations and make impressions on others in the organization within the first few months of their arrival, so do teams. Often, teams want to get down to work and not waste time with how they are perceived by others. On the basis people’s initial impression of a team, a negative or positive escalating cycle of team reputation and team performance begins. Teams that do not overcome a negative initial evaluation may be perceived as
83Jenkins, R. (2015, January 6). Six millennial retention strategies to adopt in 2015. [Web log post]. blog. hrcloud.com 84Uzzi, “Social structure and competition in interfirm networks.” 85Uzzi, B., & Gillespie, J. J. (1999). Access and governance benefits of social relationships and networks: The case of collateral, availability, and bank spreads. In H. Rosenblum (Ed.), Business access to capital and credit. Washington, DC: Federal Reserve Bank. 86Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., & Uzzi, B. (1999). Social capital and career dynamics in hard science: Gender, networks, and advancement. New York: Cambridge University Press. 87Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., & Uzzi, B. (2000). Athena unbound: The advancement of women in science and technology. New York: Cambridge University Press. 88Feinberg, M., Willer, R., & Schultz, M. (2014). Gossip and ostracism promote cooperation in-groups. Psychological Science, 25(3), 656–664.
M11_THOM4204_06_SE_C11.indd 297 10/25/16 2:54 PM
298 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
failures—even if they eventually achieve their goals. “The inability to influence top management early on can be devastating to a team. In short, labeling creates self- fulfilling prophecies.”89 Obtaining support from the environment is critical if a team is to enter a positive escalation cycle.90
89From “The classics and the contemporary: A new blend of small group theory” by D. G. Ancona, In J. K. Murnighan (Ed.) in Social psychology in organizations: Advances in theory and research, © 1993 Prentice Hall. 90Ibid.
Chapter Capstone
A traditional view of teamwork focuses on human capital or the team members’ tal- ents and abilities. A more accurate view of teams in organizations focuses both on teamwork and on taskwork. Depending upon how members interact and commu- nicate with regard to the task at hand, they may simply share a taskwork tie, a teamwork tie or a multiplex (bundled tie). Team net- works differ in terms of three key aspects: the level of interconnectedness among members (closure), the centralization of
relationships, and how specialized members are. Sharing knowledge within and across team boundaries is essential for successful team performance. A bias toward outsider- versus insider-information, however, may lead teams to devalue internal knowledge. Boundary spanning within the organization is critical for teams to be successful. Teams and members should begin by analyzing their own network structures and identi- fying structural holes or gaps between rel- evant teams in the organization.
M11_THOM4204_06_SE_C11.indd 298 10/25/16 2:54 PM
299
ATM manufacturer Diebold has an atypical C-Suite of executives, and CEO Andy Mattes cannot pop into many of his managers’ offices to confer over coffee in the company’s Canton, Ohio headquarters. This is because Mattes replaced 60 percent of Diebold’s top executives with experts who live in all corners of the United States. To turn around the company that recently had weathered an internal bribery scandal and the effects of slipping sales and profits, Mattes knew he had to expand Diebold’s services and software business so that he could offer banks more products than just ATM hardware. Mattes needed software experts, but those with the talent didn’t want to relocate to the small city of Canton. To solve this problem, Mattes dropped the company’s rule that executives had to live and work on site and instead lured top experts by offering them full-time virtual executive positions. By doing this, the company has a “who’s who of the technology industry”: Diebold’s chief strategist lives and works from 2,100 miles away in San Jose, California, the chief marketing officer lives in Boston, and the head of software works from his home office in Dallas, Texas. Most Diebold executives who work virtually spend a couple days per month in Canton and spend the rest of their time traveling to meet with customers and scattered staff members. Mattes talks daily to his direct reports by Skype and visits with them face-to-face either when they are traveling and can cross paths or during their visits to headquarters. Says Mattes, “As long as they live near an airport, where they work isn’t nearly as important as what they can contribute.”1
1 From “Diebold’s new executive suite” by Carol Hymowitz in Bloomberg Businessweek, © August 7, 2015 Bloomberg.
Virtual Teamwork12 C
h a
p t
e r
Because team members cannot always be in the same place at the same time, teams of managers armed with laptops, virtual meeting software, email, voice mail, videoconfer- encing, interactive databases, and frequent-flyer memberships are charged with conducting business in the global arena. Virtual teams are expected to harness the knowledge of company employees efficiently regardless of their location, thereby enabling organizations to respond faster to increased competition. Information technology brings together teams of people who
M12_THOM4204_06_SE_C12.indd 299 10/25/16 2:59 PM
300 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
otherwise would not be able to interact. Information technology offers the potential to improve information access and information-processing capability as well as the ability for members to participate without regard to temporal and spatial impediments.
However, not all virtual teamwork proceeds seamlessly. Distance is a formidable obstacle despite information technology and jet travel. Remote offices fight for influence with corporate headquarters. Telephone conferences find distant members struggling to get onto the same page, literally and figuratively. Group members at sites separated by even a few kilometers begin to talk in the language of “us” and “them.”2 Thus, there is considerable debate among managers as to whether technology fosters or hinders teamwork in the workplace at the global and even local level.
This chapter examines virtual teams and the impact of information technology on teamwork. We first describe a simple model of social interaction called the place–time model. Using this framework, we evaluate how various modes of communication affect team interaction. The model focuses on where teams work (same or different physical location) and the time they work (synchronously or asynchronously). Then we examine how information technology affects human behavior and identify considerations that managers must wrestle with when attempting to bring together groups of people who are not in the same place. We move to a discussion about virtual and hybrid teams, mak- ing the point that whenever teams must work together in a non-face-to-face fashion, this constitutes a virtual team. We describe strategies to help virtual teams do their work better.
PLACE–TIME MODEL OF SOCIAL INTERACTION
The place–time model considers teams in terms of their geographic location (together versus separated) and temporal relationship (interacting in real time versus asynchro- nously). For any team meeting, there are four possibilities as depicted in the place–time model in Exhibit 12-1. As might be suspected, communication and teamwork unfold differently face-to-face than they do via electronic media.
Richness is the potential information-carrying capacity of the communication medium. Face-to-face communication is relatively “rich,” and formal written messages,
2Armstrong, D. J., & Cole, P. (1995). Managing distances and differences in geographically distributed work groups. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace (pp. 187–215). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Same place Different place
Same time Face-to-face Telephone Videoconference Skype
Different time Facebook Single-text editing Dropbox Shift work
Text message E-mail Voice mail
Exhibit 12-1 Place–Time Model of Interaction
Leigh L. thompson
M12_THOM4204_06_SE_C12.indd 300 10/25/16 2:59 PM
Chapter 12 • Virtual Teamwork 301
such as memos, are relatively “lean.”3 Face-to-face communication conveys the richest information because it allows the simultaneous observation of several cues including body language, facial expression, and tone of voice, providing people with a greater awareness of context. In contrast, formal, numerical documentation conveys the least rich information providing few clues about the context. Groups are often constrained in their choice of communication medium.
Face-to-Face communication
Face-to-face contact is crucial in the initiation of relationships and collaborations. People are more cooperative when interacting face-to-face than via other forms of communica- tion. Without face-to-face communication, relationships between business people are often strained and contentious.
Face-to-face meetings are ideal when teams must wrestle with complex problems. For example, researchers need regular face-to-face contact to be confident that they accurately understand each other’s work, particularly if it involves innovative ideas. Confidence decays over time as researchers communicate through telephone and computer conferences; face-to-face contact is required to renew trust in their mutual comprehension.4 Face-to- face team meetings are particularly important when a group forms, when commitments to key decisions are needed, and when major conflicts must be resolved.5 Work groups form more slowly and perhaps never fully, when they don’t have face-to-face contact.6
In most companies, the incidence and frequency of face-to-face communication is almost perfectly predicted by how closely people are located to one another. Employ- ees who work in the same office or on the same floor communicate much more frequently than those on different floors or in different buildings. The likelihood of communication literally comes down to feet—even a few steps can have a huge impact. For example, communication frequency between R&D researchers drops off logarithmi- cally after only 5 to 10 meters of distance between offices.7 In a study of molecular biologists, critical techniques for producing monoclonal antibodies were not reported in journals but were passed from scientist to scientist at the lab bench.8 People in adjacent offices communicate twice as often as those in other offices on the same floor including via email and telephone.9 A study of 207 U.S. companies in 11 industries revealed that company performance increased as the proportion of top management
3Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. Research in Organization Behavior, 6, 191–223; Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 355–366. 4DeMeyer, A. (1991). Tech talk: How managers are stimulating global R&D communication. Sloan Management Review, 32(3), 49–58; DeMeyer, A. (1993). Internationalizing R&D improves a firm’s technical learning. Research-Technical Management, 36(4), 42–49. 5DeMeyer, “Tech talk”; Sproull, L., & Keisler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 6DeMeyer, “Tech talk”; Galegher, I., Kraut, R.E., Edido, C. (1990). Intellectual teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 7Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing the flow of technology: Technology transfer and the dissemination of technological information within the R&D organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 8MacKenzie, M., Cambrosio, A., & Keating, P. (1988). The commercial application of a scientific discovery: The case of the hybridoma technique. Research and Policy, 17(3), 155–170. 9Galegher, Kraut, & Egido, Intellectual teamwork, p. 350.
M12_THOM4204_06_SE_C12.indd 301 10/25/16 2:59 PM
302 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
teams with offices in the same location increased.10 Physical distance also affects how members feel about their teams: People are more likely to assume that the behavior of a group is driven by common goals for physically distant groups, presumably because common goals would be the only means by which they are united.11
What information do people derive from face-to-face contact that makes it so impor- tant for interaction and productivity? First, face-to-face communication is easier and there- fore, more likely to occur than other forms of communication. Simply stated, most people need a reason to walk up the stairs or make a phone call. They underestimate how much information they get from chance encounters, which never happen in any mode but face- to-face. Second, people primarily rely on nonverbal signals to help them conduct social interactions. One estimate is 93 percent of the meaning of messages is contained in the nonverbal part of communication, such as voice intonation.12 For example, it is possible to predict which executives will win a business competition solely on the basis of the nonverbal social signals that they send (e.g., tone of voice, gesticulation, and proximity to others).13 Studies of “thin slices” of behavior reveal that when people form an impression of someone or make judgments of others’ likeability, personality, sexual orientation, performance as teachers, socioeconomic status, psychopathology, and a host of other things, they do so within mere seconds.14 Moreover, the judgments that people make in these microseconds predict their evaluations of that person weeks and even months later.
Perhaps this is why business executives endure the inconveniences of travel across thousands of miles and several time zones so that they can have face-to-face contact with others, even if it is only for a short period. The emphasis on the human factor is not just old-fashioned business superstition. Important behavioral, cognitive, and emotional processes are set into motion when people meet face-to-face. Unless people are specially trained however, they don’t know what exactly it is about face-to-face interaction that facilitates teamwork—they just know that things go more smoothly.
Face-to-face interaction allows people to develop rapport—the feeling of being “in sync” or “on the same wavelength” with another person. Rapport is a powerful deter- minant of trust. The degree of rapport determines the efficiency and the quality of progress toward goal achievement and whether the goal is ever achieved.15
10Cannella, A. A., Park, J. H., & Lee, H. O. (2008). Top management team functional background diversity and firm performance examining the roles of team member collocation and environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 768–784. 11Henderson, M. D. (2009). Psychological distance and group judgments: The effect of physical distance on beliefs about common goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(10), 1330–1341. 12Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 13Pentland, A. (2010, January–February). We can measure the power of charisma. Harvard Business Review, 88(1), 34–35. 14Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(2), 256–274; Johnson, K. L., Gill, S., Reichman, V., & Tassinary, L. G. (2007). Swagger, sway, and sexuality: Judging sexual orientation from body motion and morphology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3), 321–334; Kraus, M. W., & Keltner, D. (2009). Signs of socioeconomic status: A thin-slicing approach. Psychological Science, 20(1), 99–106; Fowler, K. A, Lilienfeld, S. O., & Patrick, C. J. (2009). Detecting psychopathy from thin slices of behavior. Psychological Assessment, 21(1), 68–78; Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1993). Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 431–441. 15Tickle-Degnen, L., & Rosenthal, R. (1987). Group rapport and nonverbal behavior. In Review of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 113–136). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
M12_THOM4204_06_SE_C12.indd 302 10/25/16 2:59 PM
Chapter 12 • Virtual Teamwork 303
Nonverbal behavior (body orientation, gesture, eye contact, and nodding) and paraverbal behavior (speech fluency, use of “uh-huhs,” etc.) are key to building rapport. When our conversation partner sits at a greater distance, with an indirect body orienta- tion, backward lean, crossed arms, and low eye contact, we feel less rapport than when the same person sits with a forward lean, an open body posture, nods, and maintains steady eye contact. Nonverbal and paraverbal cues affect the way people work and the quality of their work as a team.
Face-to-face communication however, is not the best modality for all teamwork. As a clear case in point, we saw in our discussion of creativity and brainstorming (see Chapter 9) that face-to-face brainstorming is less productive compared with other, less rich forms of interaction.
Same time, DiFFerent Place
In the same-time, different-place mode, people communicate in real time but are not physically in the same place. The most common means is via cell phone. In telephone conversations, people lack facial cues; but in videoconferencing, they see social cues, such as pauses, mutual gaze, and posture. Yet at the same time, electronic interaction such as brainstorming in groups, increases team productivity.
NR Marketing Group runs both traditional and virtual offices, with its employees working all over the United States. Team members meet at a retreat and then are encour- aged to maintain the social connections they forged there. In “virtual water cooler” style, employees launched a group texting thread to share jokes, news, and funny stories. The team also gathers in a virtual Google Hangout each week to discuss both work and life issues.16 In a direct comparison of face-to-face (FTF) versus computer-mediated communication (CMC) groups, group identity (i.e., cohesion and “we-feeling”) was con- sistently lower in CMC groups, especially when they underwent membership change (i.e., reorganization).17 Similarly, in a comparison of FTF, desktop videoconference, and text-based chat teamwork, the constructive interaction score (e.g., supportive and instruc- tive communication versus aggressive behavior) was higher in FTF groups than in video- conference and chat teams.18 Teams working in richer communication media however, did not achieve higher task performance than those communicating through less rich media.
What are the major ways in which physically distant group members suffer because of their geographic separation? There are several effects of physical separation of the team, some of which might not be immediately obvious.
LOSS OF INFORMAL COMMUNICATION Virtual distance refers to the feelings of separa- tion engendered by communicating by email, text, audioconferencing, and so on.19 Probably the effect felt most is the inability to chat informally in the hall, inside offices,
16O’Hara, C. (2014, September 11). What new team leaders should do first. Harvard Business Review. hbr.com 17Bouas, K. S., & Arrow, H. (1996). The development of group identity in computer and face-to-face groups with membership change. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 4, 153–178. 18Hambley, L. A., O’Neil, T. A., & Kline, T. J. B. (2007). Virtual team leadership: The effects of leadership style and communication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 103(1), 1–20. 19Lojeski, K.S., & Reilly, R.R. (2008). Transforming leadership and innovation in the globally integrated enterprise. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
M12_THOM4204_06_SE_C12.indd 303 10/25/16 2:59 PM
304 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
and by the water cooler. The impromptu and casual conversations that employees have in the lounge or by the coffee machine are often where the most difficult problems are solved and important interpersonal issues are addressed. Beyond a very short distance, people miss the spontaneous exchanges that occur outside of formal meetings. Remote group members feel excluded from key conversations that occur over lunch and in the hall. Spontaneous communication plays a pivotal role in mitigating conflict in distrib- uted teams.20 Not surprisingly, distributed teams experience more relationship and task conflict than do co-located teams. Companies often try to be creative about virtual teamwork. At Dell, virtual team members can join hundreds of “Chatter Groups” depending on recreational interests and political bent. Each group has developed its own virtual traditions and culture. For example, every holiday season, the Human Resources group puts on a #HRLove shout-out, in which the HR team publicly lauds and honors other team members with the hashtag, HRLove.21
DISCONNECTED FEEDBACK Another negative impact of physical separation is feedback; greater distance tends to block the corrective feedback loops provided by chance encounters. One manager contrasted how employees who worked in his home office related to his decisions compared with employees 15 kilometers away.22 Engineers in the home office would drop by and catch him in the hall or at lunch. “I heard you were planning to change project X,” they would say. “Let me tell you why that would be stupid.”23 The manager would listen to their points, clarify some details, and all would part better informed. In contrast, employees at the remote site would greet his weekly visits with formally prepared objections, which took much longer to discuss and rarely were resolved as completely as the more informal hallway discussions. In short, groups working remotely do not get the coincidental chances to detect and correct problems on a casual basis. Geographic sites promote an informal, spontaneous group identity, reinforced by close physical proximity and the dense communication it promotes. Those working in an office all tend to have friends in nearby companies or groups, hear the same industry rumors, and share similar beliefs about technological trends. Thus, any distance—whether it is 12 miles or 12,000 miles—is problematic in this regard.
LOSS OF INFORMAL MODELING Another impact of information technology is the loss of informal modeling and observational learning. Casual observation is invaluable for monitoring and mentoring performance, especially for one-on-one team coaching. The inability of remote employees to observe successful project managers is a barrier to effective coaching of task and interpersonal skills.
OUT-OF-THE-LOOP EMPLOYEES Distant employees tend to be left out of discussions or forgotten altogether. In a sense, they are out of sight, out of mind. The default behavior is to ignore the person on the speakerphone. This is especially magnified when the person or group on the phone has less status.
20Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organizational Science, 16(3), 290–307. 21Harrison-Barnhill, M. (2015, October 26). Dell’s tools for a successful virtual team. Remote.co. remote.co 22Armstrong & Cole, “Managing distances and differences in geographically distributed workgroups.” 23Leigh L. Thompson
M12_THOM4204_06_SE_C12.indd 304 10/25/16 2:59 PM
Chapter 12 • Virtual Teamwork 305
Time differences amplify the effects of physical distance. Distributed group members face the challenge of finding each other at the same time when they live in different time zones. Time differences sometimes highlight cultural differences; however, teams can try to overcome these cultural barriers. Company teams, one based in the United States and one based in Italy, celebrated a project milestone in their weekly videoconference by sharing foods on the video screen. U.S. team members sent images of bagels and coffee at 9 a.m. Eastern standard time; Italian team members sent images of champagne and cookies at 3 p.m. in their time zone.
Conflicts are expressed, recognized, and addressed more quickly if group members work in close proximity. A manager can spot a problem, nip it in the bud, and solve the problem quickly. In geographically separated groups, issues are more likely to just get dropped and go unresolved, contributing to a slow buildup in aggravation. People complain to their coworkers, reinforcing local perceptions of events, but do not complain to the distant leaders until feelings reach extremely high levels.
Although there are many disadvantages of working at a distance, it is not always a liability for teams. The formality of a scheduled phone meeting compels each party to prepare for the meeting and to address the issues more efficiently. In addition, distance can reduce micromanagement. Some managers hinder their employees’ performance by monitoring them too closely and demanding frequent updates. Edmondson provides four tactics to help people reframe their purpose on their team:24
1. Tell yourself that the project is different from anything you’ve done before and it presents a challenging and exciting opportunity to try out a new approach and learn.
2. See yourself as vitally important to a successful outcome and to achieve the goal, you need the willing participation of others.
3. Tell yourself that others are vitally important to a successful outcome and might bring key pieces of the puzzle that you don’t anticipate.
4. Communicate with others on the team as you would if the above three statements were true.
DiFFerent time, Same Place
In the different-time, same-place mode, team members interact asynchronously but share the same work space. An example might be shift workers who pick up the task left for them by the previous shift or collaborators working on the same electronic document. After one partner finishes working on the document, it goes to the other partner, who further edits and develops it.
Although people might not realize it, they rely a lot on their physical environment for important information and cues. People use other team members as information stor- age, retrieval, and processing devices. The same is true for the physical environment. A Post-it note on the back of a chair or a report placed in a certain bin can symbolize an entire procedural system (e.g., how to make a three-way conference call). Just as people become information dependent on other people, they can also become information dependent on aspects of the physical environment in order to do their work. At the extreme, this type of dependence can be a limitation for groups that find it
24From “Framing for Learning: Lessons in Successful Technology Implementation” by Amy C. Edmondson in California Management Review, Vol. 45 No. 2, Winter, © The Regents of the University of California.
M12_THOM4204_06_SE_C12.indd 305 10/25/16 2:59 PM
306 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
impossible to work outside the idiosyncratic confines of their work space. Information and work space dependence can have negative impacts on the productivity and motivation of a team. For example during site visits at one company, software development teams observed and interacted with their distant colleagues in their colleagues’ context, thus gaining a deeper understanding of their behavior within the physical context of the work.25 As they interacted, teams reviewed their collaborative practices, which further facilitated trust. After team members returned to their home site, some of the new collaborative practices carried over to their work with other distant colleagues.
The productivity of any team, and organizational effectiveness in general, is a joint function of the technical and the social system.26 The structure of a group, both internally and externally, and the technology the group works with are products of an active adaptation process, in which the technology is shaped by the organization or its subunits, as well as being a factor in shaping the organization. For example, consider the introduction of a new technology, CT scanners, in two hospitals.27 The introduction of the CT scanners increased uncertainty and upset the distribution of expertise and the division of labor in both hospital units.
DiFFerent Place, DiFFerent time
In the different-place, different-time mode, people communicate asynchronously in different places. About 39 percent of full-time employees work remotely, and 15 percent of those work solely from home. To keep in touch, remote employees at Automattic use chat apps and an internal blog called P2 to keep a blog record. Asynchronously distrib- uted team members at software company Help Scout assign a senior team members to serve as orientation guides for new employees, contacting them every few days to answer questions, share unwritten work rules, and give them a run-down about who to contact for what work needs they might have.28
SKIM EFFECT The skim effect is the tendency for most people to skim email messages and respond to only one element.29
EGOCENTRISM People’s ability to convey in writing their desired meaning is much worse than they think, as is their ability to decipher other people’s messages. When
25Hinds, P. (2010, January). Situated knowing who: Why site visits matter in global work. Technology and Social Behavior colloquium, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. 26Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1973). Towards a social ecology: Contextual appreciation of the future in the present. New York: Plenum Press. 27Barley, S. R. (1996). Technicians in the workplace: Ethnographic evidence for bringing work into organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 404–441. 28Mann, A. (2015, May 20). Owning your personal engagement as a remote worker. Gallup. gallup.com; Cloudpeeps Team (2015, September 8). Top 10 companies winning at remote work cultures and their secrets [Web log post]. blog.cloudpeeps.com 29Boiarsky, C. (2015, July). The impact of emailing and texting on effective written communication: Changes in reading patterns, convergence of subgenres, confusion between social and business communication. In Professional Communication Conference (IPCC), 2015 IEEE International (pp. 1–6). IEEE; Franssila, H., Okkonen,J., & Savolainen, R. (2014). Email intensity, productivity and control in the knowledge worker’s performance on the desktop. In proceedings of the 18th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Media Business, Management,Content & Services, 19–22. New York: ACM Press, dl.acm.org
M12_THOM4204_06_SE_C12.indd 306 10/25/16 2:59 PM
Chapter 12 • Virtual Teamwork 307
asked to communicate tones such as sarcasm and sincerity via email, people believe that they convey the correct tone, when in fact their messages often are misunderstood. People perform at chance level in terms of their ability detect a serious versus sarcastic tone in an email.30 This is true also for detecting sadness and anger, and it does not matter how well people know each other; friends do not perform more accurately in detecting meaning of emails than do stranger pairs.
LOST IN TRANSLATION Communicating via email strips the message “of the paralinguistic and nonverbal cues that enable us to communicate these sorts of subtle emotions and tones.”31 People are still able to send and receive emotional messages in text through the process of emotional contagion. In one investigation, a team member textually communicated anger or happiness in a virtual team and either typed a “ resolute” or “flexible” message.32 The task facing the virtual team involved a negotia- tion with a performance-based reward. Even when the communication was only text based, emotional contagion occurred. What was particularly problematic was when the emotion did not match the behavior. Thus, a happy tone combined with a resolute message or an angry tone combined with flexibility led to greater negative emotion in the team.
The problem of conveying mood and tone via email communication is a challenge for teams. Because it is easy to send a message and social norms are not present when sending email, people often take more risks. Furthermore, there is virtually no competi- tion to attain and hold the floor, so people are at liberty to send frequent and long messages. Some people receive several hundred electronic messages each day, but vol- ume is no excuse for responding in a sloppy fashion. Responding with misspellings and hastily written text can lead the recipient to form a negative dispositional impres- sion of the sender, even if there is a perfectly valid reason for the typos. A study exam- ined how technical language violation (i.e., spelling and grammatical errors) as well as deviations from etiquette norms (i.e., short messages lacking a conversational tone) negatively affected the recipients’ impressions of the email senders’ conscientious- ness.33 Unfortunately, when the sender was from a different culture, even perfectly valid extenuating circumstances did not deter receivers from forming negative impressions.
EMAIL AND PRODUCTIVITY The purpose of email and other types of computer-mediated communication is to increase productivity and efficiency. But does it work? Email remains the most pervasive form of business communication. In 2014, more than 108.7 billion emails—many unnecessary—were sent and received per day. By 2018, business
30Kruger, 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. 31From “Talking tech: How email can set the stage for big misunderstandings” by Lee Gomes in The Wall Street Journal © 22 June 2016 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. 32Cheshin, A., Rafaeli, A., & Bos, N. D. (2011). Anger and happiness in virtual teams: Emotional influences of text and behavior on others’ affect in the absence of non-verbal cues. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(1), 2–16. 33Vignovic, J. A., & Thompson, L. F. (2010). Computer-mediated cross-cultural collaboration: Attributing communication errors to the person versus the situation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95,(2),265–276.
M12_THOM4204_06_SE_C12.indd 307 10/25/16 2:59 PM
308 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
email will account for an estimated 139.4 billion emails sent and received per day.34 In another investigation, 13 information technology employees agreed to completely ignore emails for five days. Those who continued to read email had elevated heart rates more constantly, while the “vacationers” had more natural, variable heart rates. The email vacationers were less stressed and felt more productive.35 Electric parts distributor Van Meter launched a 10-year study to measure employee engagement and policy implementation to improve the work–life balance for their 400-plus employees. Integral to the effort are email “boundary” policies with no company emails or phone calls before 7:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. Based on the positive results of the policy, all employee email is shut down while they are on vacation. Lee Mallon, managing director of IT consulting firm Rarely Impossible, announced that his company was ceasing use of email internally. Employees were relieved. “My team communicates much better; now issues get solved right away,” said Mallon, who estimates that his company has saved about 20 percent of its workday time by eliminating email.36
COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY AND HEALTH Excessive use of information technology might lead to psychological and somatic problems. A study of 4,100 people in Sweden revealed that those who never turn off their smartphones and computers are prone to sleeping disorders, depression, and mental illness.37 And, medical professionals attribute excessive preoccupation with information technology devices to an alarming increase in accidents of children age 5 and under; in short, parents are no longer monitoring their children because they are checking their email.38 Another study found a relationship between people’s stress levels and the number of times the smartphone was checked for messages. Participants reporting the highest amount of stress experienced phantom vibrations from their phones, when in fact there had been no message alerts. The study established the existence of a new stress cycle associated with their digital connectivity— devices that originally had benefited people by managing their workload began to exert a different pressure to keep abreast of their expanded virtual lives. The more stressed people became, the more compulsively they checked their digital device.39
COHESION AND TRUST Taking a call or checking email while in face-to-face conversation with another person erodes trust and leads to lower perceived professionalism.40 The mere sight of technology might plummet people into negative moods. In one study, people engaged in a 10-minute conversation with another person about an interesting event in their lives. When a mobile phone was placed on the table between them (but
34Radicati, S. (2014). Email statistics report, 2014–2018. Palo Alto, CA: The Radicati Group, Inc. radicati.com 35Mark, G., Voida, S., & Cardello, A. V. (2012, May). A pace not dictated by electrons: An empirical study of work without email. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Austin, TX, 555–564. 36From The end of the inbox: Companies that banned email by Renuka Rayasam, © 25 March 2015 BBC News. 37Thomée, S. (2012). ICT use and mental health in young adults. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Gothenburg, Sweden. 38Worthen, B. (2012, September 29). The perils of texting while parenting. The Wall Street Journal. online. wsj.com 39Turn off your smart phone to beat stress. (2012, December 1). The British Psychological Society. bps.org.uk 40Krishnan, A., Kurtzberg, T.R., & Naquin, C.E. (2014). The curse of the smartphone: Electronic multitasking in negotiations. Negotiation Journal, 30(2), 191–208.
M12_THOM4204_06_SE_C12.indd 308 10/25/16 2:59 PM
Chapter 12 • Virtual Teamwork 309
not actually used), people felt less close, less connected, and had less rewarding conversations than when a spiral notebook was on the table.41
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Information technology has extremely powerful effects on social behavior.42 Many peo- ple are surprised at how they behave when communicating virtually. What are the key things to expect when interacting with teammates via information technology?
reDuceD StatuS DiFFerenceS: the Weak Get StronG eFFect
In face-to-face interactions, people do not contribute to conversation equally. One per- son or one clique usually dominates the discussion. People with higher status tend to talk more, even if they are not experts about the subject. Not surprisingly, managers speak more than subordinates, and men speak more than women.
An odd thing happens however, on the way to the information technology forum: Traditional static cues are missing and dynamic cues have distinctly less impact. Traditional, static cues, such as position and title, are not as obvious on email. It often is impossible to tell whether you are communicating with a president or clerk. In most networks, when people send email the only signs of position and personal attributes are names and addresses. Addresses often are shortened and might be difficult to comprehend. Even when they can be deciphered, addresses identify the organization but likely not the sender’s subunit, job title, social importance, or level in the organization. Dynamic status cues such as dress, mannerisms, age, and gender are also missing in email. The absence of such cues has a dramatic effect on social behavior: Status differences are reduced. This means that high-status members (e.g., leaders) are less likely to dominate discussions in computer-mediated conversation (CMC) groups than in face-to-face (FTF) groups;43 and a dominant member is less likely to emerge in CMC groups than in FTF groups.44
Instead, decision making occurs on the basis of task expertise, rather than status.45 People who are in weak positions in face-to-face encounters become more powerful because status cues are harder to discern in non-face-to-face interactions.46 In this sense, email acts as an equalizer because it is difficult for high-status people to dominate discus- sions. For example, when a group of executives meet face-to-face, the men in these groups
41Lin, H. L. (2012, September 4). How your cell phone hurts your relationships. Scientific American. scientificamerican.com 42Keisler, S., & Sproull, L. (1992). Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 96–123. 43Dubrovsky, V. J., Keisler, 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. 44Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in-group decision making: Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. Human Communication Research, 13(2), 225–252. 45Eveland, J. D., & Bikson, T. K. (1989). Workgroup structures and computer support: A field experiment. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp. 46Sproull & Kiesler, Connections.
M12_THOM4204_06_SE_C12.indd 309 10/25/16 2:59 PM
310 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
are five times more likely than the women to make the first decision proposal. When the same groups meet via computer, women make the first proposal as often as do men.47
equalization oF ParticiPation
The greater anonymity associated with virtual interaction reduces inhibitions and increases the likelihood that all members will contribute to the discussion.48 When interacting via email, people respond more openly and conform less to social norms and other people. They focus more on the content of the task and less on the direction of high-status opinion leaders. Computer-mediated communication is more democratic and less hierarchical with bad news conveyed upward to superiors with less delay.49 CMC however, does not appear to reduce gender differences. Specifically, one study examined whether disguising individual and gender identity during group interaction would lead to more equal participation of men and women and the disappearance of gender differences (compared with face-to-face groups).50 Surprisingly, gender differ- ences in dominance were greatest when people were unable to individuate each other. At the same time, there is less awareness of the needs of the group or its members.51 With more rudeness and less inhibition, conflicts in CMC are sharper and escalate more quickly. Consensus about complex, nontechnical issues are more difficult to reach.52
increaSeD time to make DeciSionS
CMC groups have more difficulty reaching consensus than FTF groups.53 The difficulty may be attributable in part to the diversity of opinions generated in CMC interaction. CMC groups take 4 to 10 times longer to reach a decision than face-to-face groups, with the greater differential occurring under no time constraints.54 It takes longer to write than it does to speak; hence, communicating via information technology is slower. It takes four times as long for a three-person group to make a decision in a real-time computer conference as in a face-to-face meeting.55 It takes as much as 10 times as long
47McGuire, T. W., Kiesler, S., & Siegel, J. (1987). Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(5), 917–930. 48McGuire, Kiesler, & Siegel, “Group and computer-mediated discussion effects”; Siegel, Dubrovsky, Keisler, & McGuire, “Group processes in computer-mediated communication”; Weisband, S. P. (1992). Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 352–380. 49Sproull & Kiesler, Connections. 50Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2002). Behavior online: Does anonymous computer communication reduce gender inequality? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(8), 1073–1083. 51McGrath, J. E. (1990). Time matters in-groups. In Galegher, Kraut & Egido, Intellectual teamwork. 52Hiltz, Johnson, & Turoff, “Experiments in-group decision making.” 53Dubrovsky, Keisler, & Sethna, “The equalization phenomenon”; Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in-group decision making: Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. Human Communication Research, 13(2), 225–252; Siegel, Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & McGuire, “Group processes in computer-mediated communication.” 54Dubrovsky, Keisler, & Sethna, “The equalization phenomenon”; Siegel, Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & McGuire, “Group processes in computer-mediated communication.” 55Siegel, Dubrovsky, Keisler, & McGuire, “Group processes,” p. 358.
M12_THOM4204_06_SE_C12.indd 310 10/25/16 2:59 PM
Chapter 12 • Virtual Teamwork 311
in a four-person computer-conference group that lacks time restrictions.56 This is especially true when the technology is new.
inFormation SuPPreSSion
Members of FTF teams engage in more communication than CMC teams.57 The lower frequency of communication in CMC groups is known as information suppression.58 CMC groups may compensate for information suppression by sending more task-oriented messages as a proportion of their total messages,59 generating more diverse opinions or decision recommendations,60 and having information more readily accessible. In one investigation, 64 four-person teams worked for three hours on a computer simulation interacting either face-to-face or via a computer-mediated network. Members of FTF teams were better informed and made recommendations that were more predictive of the correct team decision, but leaders of CMC teams were better at differentiating team members on the quality of their decisions (i.e., greater accountability).
riSk takinG
People intuitively perform cost-benefit analyses when considering different courses of action and consequently do not treat gains commensurately with losses. However, electronic interaction affects risk-taking behavior. Consider the following choices:
A. Return of $20,000 over 2 years. B. Fifty percent chance of gaining $40,000; 50 percent of gaining nothing.
Option A is the safer investment; option B is riskier. However, these two options are mathematically identical meaning that in an objective sense, people should not favor one option over the other. When posed with these choices, most managers are risk averse, meaning that they select the option that has the sure payoff as opposed to holding out for the chance to win big (or, equally as likely, not win at all). However, consider what happens when the following choice is proposed:
D. Sure loss of $20,000 over 2 years. E. Fifty percent chance of losing $40,000; 50 percent of losing nothing.
Most managers are risk seeking and choose option D. Why? According to the framing effect, people are risk averse for gains and risk seeking for losses.61 This can
56Dubrovsky, Keisler, & Sethna, “The equalization phenomenon.”
58Hollingshead, A. B. (1996b). Information suppression and status persistence in-group decision making: The effects of communication media. Human Communication Research, 23, 193–219; Hollingshead, A. B. (1996a). The rank-order effect in-group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(3), 181–193.
57For a review, see Hedlund, J., Ilgen, D. R., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1998). Decision accuracy in computer- mediated versus face-to-face decision making teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(1), 30–47.
59Hiltz, Johnson, & Turoff, “Experiments in-group decision making,” p. 358; Siegel, Dubrovsky, Keisler, & McGuire, “Group processes,” p. 358. 60Dubrovsky, Keisler, & Sethna, “Equalization phenomenon,” p. 358; Weisband, “Group discussion,” p. 358. 61Based on Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk, Econometrica, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Mar., 1979), pp. 263–292, The Econometric Society (c) John Wiley and Sons, © Leigh L. Thompson.
M12_THOM4204_06_SE_C12.indd 311 10/25/16 2:59 PM
312 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
lead to self-contradictory, quirky behavior. By manipulating the reference point, a person’s fiscal policy choices can change.
We saw in Chapter 7 that groups tend to make riskier decisions than do individuals in the same situation. Paradoxically, groups that make decisions via electronic communication are risk seeking for both gains and losses.62 CMC groups make riskier decisions and exhibit greater polarization of judgment than FTF groups.63 For example, in FTF groups, members’ decision recommendations tended to conform to the prior recommendations of other members. In CMC groups, the last decision recommenda- tions were as divergent from the group’s final decision as were the first.64 Furthermore, executives are just as confident about their decisions whether they are made through electronic communication or FTF communication.
DiSinhibition anD the neGativity eFFect
When social context cues are missing or weak, people feel distant from others and some- what anonymous. They are less concerned about making a good appearance and humor tends to fall apart or to be misinterpreted. Additionally, the expression of negative emotion is no longer minimized because factors that keep people from acting out negative emotions are not in place when they communicate via information technology. In the absence of social norms that prescribe the expression of positive emotion, people are more likely to express negative emotion. CMC lowers inhibition and thus leads to greater expression of personal opinions, including the use of personal insults and profanity—the flaming effect.65 When people communicate via email, they are more likely to confront others negatively. Conventional behavior, such as politeness rituals and acknowledgment of others’ views, decreases; rude, impulsive behavior, such as flaming, increases. People are eight times more likely to flame in electronic discussions than in face-to-face discussions.66
taSk PerFormance anD DeciSion quality
Are people more effective when they communicate via information technology? Studies analyzing the quality of group decisions have found either no differences between the two communication modes or differences in favor of FTF groups.67 When the decision outcomes depend heavily on information exchange, FTF groups have an advantage over CMC groups, but when other factors contribute to decision quality, CMC groups may be better able to compensate for less information exchange.68
62McGuire, Keisler, & Siegel, “Group and computer-mediated discussion,” p. 358. 63McGuire, Keisler, & Siegel, “Group and computer-mediated discussion,” p. 358; Siegel, Dubrovsky, Keisler, & McGuire, “Group processes,” p. 358; Weisband, “Group discussion,” p. 358. 64Weisband, “Group discussion,” p. 358. 65Dubrovsky, 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; Weisband, “Group discussion,” p. 358 Siegel, Dubrovsky, Keisler, & McGuire, “Group processes,” p. 358 66Dubrovsky, Keisler, & Sethna, “Equalization phenomenon.” 67For a review, see Hedlund, Ilgen, & Hollenbeck, “Decision accuracy in computer mediated versus face-to- face decision making teams.” 68Ibid.
M12_THOM4204_06_SE_C12.indd 312 10/25/16 2:59 PM
Chapter 12 • Virtual Teamwork 313
truSt anD raPPort
When people interact face-to-face, trust forms quickly, even on the basis of minimal similarity. The formation of trust among virtual team members however, is more difficult. One study examined the factors related to the development of trust among members of new product development teams.69 Some of the teams were co-located; others worked virtually. The formation of trust for virtual team members depended on their predisposi- tion to trust, suggesting that an individual member’s propensity to trust has more influ- ence on the group’s level of trust in virtual groups than in co-located teams. Members of virtual groups often are made aware of one another’s level of education, experience, and background before beginning a project, allowing the group to proactively assess each member’s competence before their virtual group interactions. When a team’s relationship is purely virtual, the basis for trust is mainly based on a valuation of each member’s cogni- tive abilities. Conversely, the means to assess affective dimensions of trust, such as benevo- lence and integrity, are more difficult to ascertain in virtual groups. For projects with a high degree of interdependence and when supporting the organizational, social, and psychological context of the project is important, assigning partners with a high propen- sity to trust, both in cognitive and affective dimensions, is beneficial for co-located teams.
VIRTUAL, HYBRID, AND TRADITIONAL TEAMS
Three factors distinguish virtual, hybrid and traditional teams: physical distance, technology support, and the percentage of time group members spend apart.70 As can be seen in Exhibit 12-2, traditional teams are physically close, spend much time together, and typically require low tech support for their teamwork. Purely virtual teams spend the majority of their time apart, with both their physical distances and their need for tech support varied. Hybrid teams represent the largest percentage of teams with more variation in their physical distance, time spent apart, and tech support.
Both virtual and hybrid teams might meet through conference calls, videocon- ferences, email, or other communications tools, such as application sharing. Teams might include employees only, or they might include outsiders, such as a customer’s employees. Virtual teams work well for global companies, but they also can benefit small companies operating from a single location, especially if decision makers are often at job sites or on the road. They can be short-lived or permanent, such as operational teams that run their companies virtually.
Prevalence
In our survey of team leaders, the majority of teams were hybrid (58 percent), followed by traditional (34 percent) and then purely virtual teams (8 percent).71 In 2015, 37
69Yakovleva, M., Reilly, R. R., & Werko, R. (2010). Why do we trust? Moving beyond individual to dyadic perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), pp. 79–91. 70Griffith, T. L., Mannix, E. A., & Neale, M. A. (2002). Conflict and virtual teams. In S. G. Cohen & C. B. Gibson (Eds.), Creating conditions for effective virtual teams. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 71Thompson, L. (2015). Constructive Collaboration Program. Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University.
M12_THOM4204_06_SE_C12.indd 313 10/25/16 2:59 PM
314 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
percent of U.S. workers telecommuted from home about two days per month; 9 percent of workers telecommuted more than 10 workdays in a typical month.72
aDvantaGeS
A key question is whether virtual (and hybrid) teams offer advantages over traditional teams. Because virtual teams combine the best talents of people in companies, they allow better use of human resources. Moreover, because of their virtual nature, they can provide team members with a level of empowerment that more traditional teams do not enjoy. 73
72Jones, J. (2015, August 19). In U.S., telecommuting for work climbs to 37%. Gallup. gallup.com 73Wageman, R. (2003). Virtual processes: Implications for coaching the virtual team. In R. Peterson & E. A. Mannix (Eds.), Leading and managing people in the dynamic organization (pp. 65–86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Exhibit 12-2 Traditional, Hybrid, and Virtual Teams
Based on Griffith, t. L., Mannix, e. a., & Neale, M.a. (2002). Conflict and virtual teams. In S.G. Cohen & C.B. Gibson (eds.), Creating conditions for effective virtual teams. San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass, © Leigh L. thompson.
Physical Distance (close to far)
Level of Tech Support
(low to high)
Traditional
Hybrid
% of Time Apart on Task
Pure Virtual
0
M12_THOM4204_06_SE_C12.indd 314 10/25/16 2:59 PM
Chapter 12 • Virtual Teamwork 315
What about productivity? In 2015, 58 percent of Americans surveyed believed that remote workers were just as productive as those who work in a business office, and 16 percent believed that telecommuters were more productive those who work in an office.74 Additionally, those who do not work in a conventional office report that they actually work longer hours and are happier employees.75
If a company needs virtual teams, the biggest challenge for productivity is coordination of effort: how to get people to work together compatibly and productively, even though face-to-face contact is limited and communication is confined to phone, videoconference, and email.
iDentiFication
Group identity is particularly important in virtual teams because it provides a method to enhance cohesion in the absence of face-to-face interaction. For these reasons, lead- ers of virtual teams should seek to build group identity early in the formation of virtual teams.76
leaDerShiP
Leading a virtual team requires a different set of skills from leading a traditional team. Instead of casual face-to-face discussions around the water cooler and real-time adjustments, virtual team leaders must be more proactive.77 Virtual teams might not benefit from autocratic, hierarchical leadership the way some traditional teams might. One investigation found that shared team leadership (as opposed to hierarchical lead- ership) was more strongly related to effective performance in a virtual team.78 Simi- larly, another investigation found that transformational (as opposed to transactional) leadership led to greater feedback positivity when groups used instant-messaging (but not in a “virtual world” condition). Greater feedback positivity was associated with discussion satisfaction, cohesion, efficacy, and time on task, but increased feedback positivity had negative effects on decision quality.79 An investigation about how per- sonality affects leadership emergence in virtual teams revealed that agreeableness and conscientiousness were positively related to task- and person-leadership emer- gence, respectively.80
74Jones, “In U.S., telecommuting for work climbs to 37%.” 75Clark, J. (2010, February 4). Employees with flex time put in more hours. Discovery News. news.discovery.com 76Fiol, C.M., O’Connor, E.J. (2005). Identification in face-to-face, hybrid, and virtual teams: Untangling the contradictions. Organization Science, 16(1), 19–32. 77Zander, L., Zettinig, P. & Mäkelä, K. (2013) Leading global virtual teams to success. Organizational Dynamics. 42(3), 228–237. 78Hoch, 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. 79Kahi, S.S., Huang, R., & Jestice, R.J. (2012). Interaction effect of leadership and communication media on feedback positivity in virtual teams. Group Organization Management, 37(6), 716–751. 80Cogliser, C.C., Gardner, W.L., Gavin, M.B., & Broberg, J.C. (2012). Big five personality factors and leader emergence in virtual teams: Relationships with team trustworthiness, member performance contributions, and team performance. Group & Organization Management 37(6), 752–784.
M12_THOM4204_06_SE_C12.indd 315 10/25/16 2:59 PM
316 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
attention anD Problem-SolvinG
A key challenge for any team is how much attention to devote to a problem or challenge. An investigation of online knowledge sharing among knowledge providers and problems in a global engineering firm revealed that attention allocation was driven by features of the knowledge provider–problem match, which effectively shifted the discussion from knowledge provider–seeker match.81
conFlict
Virtual teams, just like traditional teams, experience conflict. Conflict at an early stage can later influence conflict in the group. A longitudinal study compared three types of groups: face-to-face (FTF), videoconference (VC), and computer-mediated (CMC) groups working on a complex team task for one month. Task conflict at the early states of teamwork pre- dicted relationship conflict at later stages of teamwork in FTF and VC groups but not in CMC groups.82 Apparently, the “leaner” communication in CMC groups benefited teams by preventing task conflict from escalating into relationship conflict. These results should not be interpreted that leaders and managers of virtual (CMC) teams have nothing to worry about. Indeed, an investigation of a large software company revealed that virtual teams had greater process conflict than did the co-located teams.83 Another investigation revealed that low- and high-hybrid teams were virtually indistinguishable in terms of task and relationship conflict, but high-hybrid teams reported considerably greater procedural con- flict than did low-hybrid teams.84
GeoGraPhic FaultlineS
In geographically dispersed teams, locations might activate faultlines that split a group into subgroups that impair team functioning. A study of 45 teams in 10 different countries revealed that geographic faultlines increased conflict and reduced trust.85 The study compared three configurations of geographic dispersion in six-person teams: fully dispersed teams (in which each person was in a unique location), partly dispersed teams (composed of three subgroups of two co-located people each), and partly dispersed teams composed of two subgroups of three co-located people each). The faultlines were more aggravated when teams were divided into two equally sized subgroups of co-located members and when the subgroups were homogenous in nationality. While it might seem paradoxical that team members would experience more conflict and less trust
81Haas, M.R., Criscuolo, P., & George, G. (2014). Which problems to solve? Online knowledge sharing and attention allocation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 649–657. 82Martínez-Moreno, E., Thompson, L. F., Zornoza, A., & González-Navarro, P. (2012). Investigating face- to-face and virtual teamwork over time: When does early task conflict trigger relationship conflict? Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 16(3), 159–171. 83Griffith, T. L., Mannix, E. A., & Neale, M. A. (2002). Conflict and virtual teams. In S. G. Cohen & C. B. Gibson (Eds.), Creating conditions for effective virtual teams. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 84Griffith, T.L., Mannix, E.A., & Neale, M.A. (2003). Conflict and virtual teams. In C.B. Gibson & S.G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for team effectiveness (pp. 335–352). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 85Polzer, J.T., Crisp, C.B., Jarvenpaa, S.L., & Kim, J.W. (2006). Extending the faultline model to geographically dispersed teams: How co-located subgroups can impair group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 679–692.
M12_THOM4204_06_SE_C12.indd 316 10/25/16 2:59 PM
Chapter 12 • Virtual Teamwork 317
when their teammates were of the same nationality, it was reasoned that homogeneous subgroups experience more rivalry.
ENHANCING VIRTUAL TEAMWORK
There are a variety of methods for enhancing the performance of virtual teamwork. Some of the strategies involve improvements in technology. Other strategies involve specific behaviors of the people involved (see Exhibit 12-3 for a description of the interventions managers can make in virtual teams during the four stages of forming, storming, norming, and performing). We first explore structural solutions and then focus on interpersonal solutions.
team Formation
When managers of several large companies were asked whether talent or location should drive the formation of teams, the conclusion was that location challenges could be overcome more easily than talent shortages.86 It is important to make the boundaries clear: 90 percent of team members have disagreeing lists when asked to identify who is on their team.87 Just because someone is not physically present does not mean that they cannot feel they are part of larger mission or purpose. Companies should immerse vir- tual employees in the organization’s culture.88 For example, at Automattic Inc., 230 employees in more than 100 cities work remotely from home. Job applicants work on a trial project for a few weeks to make sure that the candidate is a good fit for the company culture, and after they are hired, all new employees work in customer service for three weeks to create a shared and unifying employee experience.89
technoloGy
A variety of technologies support virtual teams, but the key is to not let the technology drive the entire virtual team. A key barrier to effective virtual teamwork is user adoption and technological and organizational challenges. The company, Under Armour abol- ished nearly all in-person meetings among its far-flung workforce, and instead adopted a workplace communications tool, Slack, in which users sign into “channels,” and con- versations proceed in real time. Team members who stray off topic are “raccooned” or directed to other channels where specific breakout conversations can take place. Com- pany meetings take place in an elastic virtual room.90
86Mulhern, F. (March 5, 2012). Engaging virtual employees: Innovative approaches to fostering community. The Forum. performanceforum.org 87Hackman, J.R., Wageman, R., Nunes, D.A., & Burruss, J.A. (2008). Senior leadership teams: What it takes to make them great. Boston, MA : Harvard Business School Publishing. 88Mulhern, “Engaging virtual employees.” 89Silverman, R.E. (2012, September 4). Step into the office-less company. The Wall Street Journal. wsj.com; Snow, S. (2014, September 11). How Matt’s machine works. Fast Company. fastcompany.com 90Heffernan, V., & Graham, J. (2016, February 25). Meet is murder. The New York Times Magazine. nytimes. com; Greenfield, R. (2015, January 15). Why creative teams are loving Talko. Fast Company. fastcompany.com
M12_THOM4204_06_SE_C12.indd 317 10/25/16 2:59 PM
318 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
Asynchronous technology can create a tendency to “show and tell,” in which people engage in monologues. Avoid the monologue trap by inviting interaction and input from others. Ask particular people for input, rather than just saying, “What do you all think?” One investigation of 47 technical and administration work teams in a multinational energy com- pany revealed that larger teams were more likely to use technology to dominate one another rather than to collaborate.91 Moreover, such appropriation was negatively related to team outcomes. Additionally, teams with more sophisticated knowledge about technology were the most likely to dominate via appropriation. There is etiquette to consider when planning a virtual meeting. A checklist to help plan virtual meetings can be found in Exhibit 12-4.
ShareD mental moDelS
Virtual teams are influenced by the type of technology used to communicate the development of shared mental models. Regardless of how teams communicate, whether by face-to-face meetings or via information technology, the team members need to have a common understanding about the task and how they will coordinate work.92 Networking and social capital also influence mental models. A study of virtual teams in high-tech orga- nizations revealed that social capital, in particular boundary spanning and knowledge of social networks, was associated with greater knowledge sharing among professionals.93
91DeSanctis, G., Poole, M. S., & Dickson, G. W. (2000). Teams and technology: Interactions over time. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 3, 1–27. 92Maynard, M.T., & Gilson, L.L. (2014). The role of shared mental model development in understanding virtual team effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 39(1), 3–32 93Karavidas, M., Lim, N. K., & Katsikas, S. L. (2005, August). The effect of computers on older adult users. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(5), 697–711.
Forming Storming Norming Performing
• Realistic virtual project team previews.
• Coaching from experienced team members.
• Develop a shared under- standing and sense of team identity.
• Develop a clear mission.
• Acquire senior management support.
• Face-to-face team- building sessions.
• Training on conflict resolution.
• Encourage conflict- ing employees to work together to find common ground.
• Shuttle diplomacy and mediation to create compromise solutions.
• Create customized templates or team charters specifying task requirements.
• Set individual account- abilities, completion dates, and schedules.
• Establish procedures for sharing information.
• Distinguish task, social, and contextual informa- tion; design procedures appropriate for each.
• Assign a team coach with skills for managing virtually.
• Ensure that departmental and company culture sup- ports virtual teamwork.
• Provide spon- sor support and resources for team to perform.
Exhibit 12-3 Managerial Interventions during Virtual Project Team Life Cycle
“Managing the life cycle of virtual teams” from the academy of Management executive by Stacie a. Furst, Martha reeves, Benson rosen and richard S. Blackburn, 18(2), 6–20., pp. 15, table 3 Manage- rial interventions During Virtual project team Life Cycle. Copyright (c) 2004 by Stacie a. Furst, Martha reeves, Benson rosen and richard S. Blackburn. reprinted by the permission of the academy of Management executive.
M12_THOM4204_06_SE_C12.indd 318 10/25/16 2:59 PM
Chapter 12 • Virtual Teamwork 319
bounDary objectS
Boundary objects are documents and a shared vocabulary that allow people from different teams, organizations, and cultures to build a shared understanding. Boundary objects include tools, documents, models, discourse, and language, as well as processes, routines, and procedures. In this regard, boundary objects are similar to the transactive memory system discussed in Chapter 6. Boundary objects will be interpreted differently by the different communities, and it is the acknowledgment and discussion of these differences that enable a shared understanding to be formed. For example, a field study of a Jamaican-Indian virtual team using software and project management tools as boundary objects revealed that under some circumstances, boundary objects facilitated collaboration, but at other times led to greater conflict. Specifically, when boundary objects were used during transitions that involved definitional control and redistribution of power and authority, knowledge sharing was hindered and negative stereotyping increased. Conversely, when boundary objects were used in relation to timelines and project meetings, morale was high and teams developed a shared identity.94
94Barrett, M., & Oborn, E. (2010). Boundary object use in cross-cultural software development teams. Human Relations, 63(8),1199–1221.
Before the Meeting During the Meeting After the Meeting
• Limit the number of partici- pants and know who they will be in name and in title.
• Plan the meeting agenda and assign ownership responsibili- ties to each agenda item.
• Identify the technology to be used for the meeting and if necessary, reach out to IT to troubleshoot.
• Practice running the technol- ogy, make a test call, establish camera pre sets, check room lighting and sound issues.
• Determine meeting room protocols and team norms in advance.
• Send out related session mate- rials in advance of meeting.
• Create a participant map and track decision points made.
• Encourage meeting attendees to introduce themselves and iden- tify each other by name when speaking.
• Walk through the meeting agenda and establish the meeting timeframe.
• Periodically pause the meeting to summarize key points, ask for feedback or questions, check on technology, and meeting progress.
• Provide reminders to participants to speak clearly and direct their comments to the microphone.
• Pause 5 seconds after a mute button is used to ensure private conversations are “off-line.”
• In a timely manner, distribute meeting notes and action item summary.
• Contact meeting participants to ensure communi- cations were clear and to receive candid feedback.
• If necessary, schedule any follow-up meetings.
• Execute any action items agreed to during meeting.
Exhibit 12-4 The Virtual Meeting Checklist
Based on Dinnocenzo, D. (2006). How to lead from a distance: Building bridges in the virtual workplace (pp. 32–33). Dallas, tX: Walk the talk; Virtual Meeting Best practice Checklist. [Chart and checklist of virtual meeting best practices, august 14, 2012]. Luminosity Global Consulting Group, LLC. luminosityglobal.com , © Leigh L. thompson.
M12_THOM4204_06_SE_C12.indd 319 10/25/16 2:59 PM
320 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
Throughout the conversation, summarize progress and decisions and refer to the goal of the meeting. A study of 115 teams in 20 subsidiaries of a multinational organization revealed that responsiveness and knowledge management increased learning within the team and led to better performance and interpersonal relations.95
initial Face-to-Face exPerience
Bringing together team members for short, face-to-face experiences is often used by companies who want to lay a groundwork of trust and communication for later virtual teamwork. It is much easier for people to work together if they have met face-to-face. Face-to-face contact humanizes people and creates expectations for team members to use in their subsequent long-distance work together. A study of 208 senior business students revealed that compared to the members who met face-to-face for an introduc- tory meeting, those who met only electronically lagged significantly behind in terms of trust and collaboration.96 The introductory face-to-face meeting plays a large role in the development of trust and collaboration, especially when the context is competitive. The small marketing firm PR 20/20 landed tech giant HubSpot as a client through an initial face-to-face meeting at a conference after which PR 20/20 CEO Paul Roetzer followed up with in-person meetings.97
Schmoozing refers to contact between people that has the psychological effect of establishing a relationship with someone. Also referred to as a virtual handshake,98 this exchange of some basic personal information significantly expedites the operation of vir- tual teams. There are a variety of non-face-to-face schmoozing strategies, such as exchang- ing pictures or biographical information or engaging in a simple get-acquainted email exchange. Schmoozing increases liking and rapport and results in more profitable business deals than when people just get down to business.99 Perhaps the most attractive aspect of schmoozing is its relatively low cost and efficiency. Merely exchanging a few short emails can lead to better business relations. However, people should not expect others to schmooze naturally—at least at the outset of a business relationship. In fact, team members working remotely have a tendency to be highly task focused. A field study of 43 teams, 22 co- located, and 21 distributed from a large multinational company, revealed that virtual teams reported more task and interpersonal conflict than did co-located teams. However, the teams that engaged in spontaneous communication developed a stronger sense of shared group identity and mitigated conflict.100 In this study, spontaneous communication, such as schmoozing, referred to informal, unplanned interactions among team members.
In virtual teams, reputations are quickly formed and often create a self-fulfilling prophecy. The first 30 days are very important. One of the best ways to get a reputation
95Zellmer-Bruhn, M., & Gibson, C. (2006). Multinational organizational context: Implications for team learning and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 501–518. 96Hill, N. S., Bartol, K. M., Tesluk, P. E., & Langa, G. A. (2009). Organizational context and face-to-face interaction: Influence on the development of trust and collaborative behaviors in computer-mediated groups. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Process, 109, 187–201. 97Duncan, K. (2014, October 27). 3 Benefits of meeting face-to-face. Entrepreneur. entrepreneur.com 98Teten, D., & Allen, S. (2005). The virtual handshake. New York: AMACOM. 99Moore, D., Kurtzberg, T., Thompson, L., & Morris, M. (1999). Long and short routes to success in electronically-mediated negotiations: Group affiliations and good vibrations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77(1), 22–43. 100Hinds & Mortensen, “Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams.”
M12_THOM4204_06_SE_C12.indd 320 10/25/16 2:59 PM
Chapter 12 • Virtual Teamwork 321
for being a “good” virtual team member is to be reliable. To be thought of as reliable, team members need to deliver what they promise. Many people overpromise and underdeliver; a far better approach is to undercommit and overdeliver. Consider three steps for building your own reliability capital: (1) Keep a written list of all the agreements, promises, and commitments you make. Check it frequently. (2) Ask your team to tell you one thing you can do to be more reliable in their eyes, and then do it. (3) Be available to support and respond to team members. When you are not available, follow up as soon as possible.101
objective SelF-aWareneSS
One senior vice president always puts a mirror in front of her/him during a conference call. The mirror allows this person to see how he/she looks to others. In one investigation, North Americans who were in front of a mirror were more self-critical and were less likely to cheat than were those not in front of a mirror.102
inteGrity
Virtual teamwork creates situations ripe for self-interested behavior, hidden agendas, and confusion. Without daily face-to-face opportunities to discuss situations and share concerns, people might start to question the integrity of some team members. It is important to demonstrate your integrity in your virtual team interactions. Consider these four steps to demonstrate integrity to your virtual team: (1) Be truthful and forthright without being obnoxious. This means providing others with honest feedback. (2) Avoid sarcasm, joking, and teasing in your distance interactions. Jokes can be misinterpreted and set the stage for evasive conversations. (3) Maintain confidences; don’t spread gossip or share confidential information. Tell people your standards. (4) Handle sensitive material appropriately.103
cave anD commonS Flexibility
Team members sometimes need to do individual (solo) work, and sometimes they need to interact directly with others. The cave-and-commons design allows teams to regulate their level of individual and group interaction. In general, members should go to their caves when status differences exist, people are being too polite and debate is needed, participation is uneven, and the work to be done is clear. Group members should find the commons when the group first forms, the overarching goal is not clear, trust is low, uncertainty is high, a crisis erupts, conflict needs to be resolved, and to give and receive feedback. Indeed, an investigation of performance appraisals revealed that people receiving feedback were most negative about electronic feedback versus feedback received on paper or via face-to-face.104
101From How to lead from a distance: Building bridges in the virtual workplace by Debra Dinnocenzo (pp. 21), © 2006 The Walk The Talk Company. 102Heine, S.J., Takemoto, T., Moskalenko, S., Lasaleta, J., & Henrich, J. (2008). Mirrors in the head: Cultural variation in objective self-awareness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7), 879–887. 103From How to lead from a distance: Building bridges in the virtual workplace by Debra Dinnocenzo (pp. 22), © 2006 The Walk The Talk Company. 104Kurtzberg, T.R., Naquin, C.E., & Belkin, L.Y. (2005). Electronic performance appraisals: The effects of e-mail communication on peer ratings in actual and simulated environments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98(2), 216–226; Kurtzberg, T.R., Belkin, L.Y., & Naquin, C.E. (2006). The effect of e-mail on attitudes towards performance feedback. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 14(1), 4–21.
M12_THOM4204_06_SE_C12.indd 321 10/25/16 2:59 PM
322 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
coachinG the virtual team
According to Wageman, process loss or threats to performance can take different forms for virtual teams from those of traditional teams.105 Wageman’s model of coaching the virtual team focuses on motivation, knowledge, and coordination interventions at three key time periods: team launch, natural breakpoints, and at the end of a performance period.106 The launch of a virtual team should outline a goal and give a motivating purpose to shape the virtual team members’ motivations. In addition, the team should have a set of clear boundaries so that all members know who is on the team and why.
Both physical distance and asynchronous methods of communication may dampen employee effort. Withdrawal of effort by one member of the team however unintentional, might well lead to the withdrawal of effort by other members. Team members might make “untested attributions” about the level of commitment others have to the team, assuming that a given member’s (apparently) low effort reflects a low level of motivation. This with- drawal can spread to other members and affect the motivational norms of the group.
Members of virtual teams may have considerably less knowledge about the other members’ task-relevant knowledge and skills than do traditional teams. Leaders will know why certain members were selected for the virtual team, but members might not. Consider two types of information in teams: tacit knowledge and codified knowledge.107 Tacit knowledge is hard to articulate and acquired through experience.108 In contrast, codified knowledge refers to knowledge that is transmittable in formal, symbolic language. For example, data from multiple hospitals learning to use a new technology revealed that when team performance relied on tacit knowledge, performance was more varied. Team members were unable to describe to other hospital sites precisely what they did to get the technology to work.
As a best practice, never conclude a virtual meeting without discussing the future. Think at least three months out, get commitments about what every team member will do, and schedule expectations regarding when they will deliver. Summarize the plan and follow up with an email or posting to which people can refer.
105Wageman, “Virtual processes.” 106Wageman, “Virtual processes.” 107Edmondson, A., Winslow, A., Bohmer, R., & Pisano, G. (2003). Learning how and learning what: Effects of tacit and codified knowledge on performance improvement following technology adoption. Decision Sciences, 34(2), 197–223. 108Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Chapter Capstone
Teams have been dealing with place and time issues for several decades. The traditional approach was to relocate employees; newer solutions are more varied, creative, often cheaper, and less permanent. Information
technology can increase the productivity of teams, and a skilled manager knows when to use information technology, anticipates which obstacles are likely to crop up when using it, and understands how to address those obstacles.
M12_THOM4204_06_SE_C12.indd 322 10/25/16 2:59 PM
323
India has a population of 1.2 billion people, but only 3 percent of the people pay taxes, and tax collections amount to about 17 percent of the gross domestic product. In comparison, U.S. and U.K. collections make up 25 percent and 33 percent of their country’s GDP, respectively. Although a large number of India’s people are too poor to owe any taxes on their earnings, many of those who could and should pay taxes evade compliance because of the lack of government enforcement systems. In an effort to increase tax compliance, commissioner Sanjeev Jaiswal of Thane, India, introduced public embarrassment as a method for collecting taxes from delinquents. City tax officials, holding a flag with Thane’s coat of arms are preceded by four or five professional drummers and a couple of security officers. The drummers play the same raucous beats as wedding or birthday party processions outside the home of delinquents. Across the city, property tax revenue has increased by 20 percent. For five years, Prahul Sawant, a real-estate developer, ignored government orders to pay his overdue taxes. When the tax drum line showed up outside his house demanding payment however, Mr. Sawant wrote a check to the city for the $945 he owed to settle his tax arrears. “When you get a notice, you’re the only one aware of it,” said Mr. Jaiswal. “A drum band downstairs from your house changes that. Few things are as important to people as their reputation.”1
In this chapter, we explore key challenges of multicultural teamwork. We define what culture is and how to analyze cultural values that explain many behaviors. We describe the concept of cultural intelligence and explore how it is measured and how to improve it. We review research about multicultural teamwork and multicultural collaboration. Finally, we consider the options that members of multicultural teams have when it comes to how to collaborate.
1From If You Don’t Pay These Taxes, Expect a Troupe of Drummers at Your Door by Gabriele Parussini, © April 17, 2016 The wall street Journal.
Multicultural Teams13 C
h a
p t
e r
M13_THOM4204_06_SE_C13.indd 323 10/25/16 3:10 PM
324 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
CHALLENGES OF CROSS-CULTURAL TEAMWORK
Multicultural teams and multinational teams have become a fact of life. Research from both academic institutions and the private sector reveals that ethnic diversity helps companies deliver superior business results. For example, a 10 percent increase in gender and ethnic/racial diversity on management teams results in 5.6 percent increase on earnings before interest and taxes.2 In multicultural teams, people must work closely and competently with people from different geographic and national cultures.
Multinational teaMs
One survey of employees at multinational corporations reported that 64 percent were involved in a global work team, and this group reported that on average, 52 percent of team members were based outside the company’s home country.3
stereotypes versus prototypes
Given the ubiquity of multicultural teams, it is not surprising that companies and man- agers invest in learning about different cultures and global teamwork. A common method might be to pick up books titled, “Japanese-U.S. Business Negotiations: A Cross- Cultural Study” or “Negotiating Agreement and Disagreement In Japanese: Connective Expressions and Turn Construction.” The risk we take however, when we attempt to embark on a crash course of learning about a single culture is the risk of stereotyping. A stereotype is a generalized (usually faulty) belief that everyone from a given culture is the same. In this book, we do not rely on stereotypes to examine culture. Instead, it is more useful to focus on prototypes or central tendencies within a culture. Unlike stereotypes, proto- types recognize that there are variations among cultures. For example, in the United States, 9 percent of Americans ages 14 to 34 have started a business. Conversely, in Germany, business startups and entrepreneurialism are scarce, and only 2% of Germans in that age group have started a business. For example, Christian Brandhorst, a young German man is an outlier because he has started two companies since graduating from university.4
When we look at culture through the lens of prototypes, people from a given culture actually might be more similar to a typical person from a different culture. For example, 27-year-old tech-blogger Ryoma Machida lives in Japan with his wife in a small house in a densely populated neighborhood. He studied international business at a university in New Zealand, is an Airbnb host, launched a startup, and has a photo of Apple founder, Steve Jobs taped to his refrigerator. To be sure, Machida better identifies with San Francisco’s entrepreneurial ethos than with the ultraconservative Japanese culture in which he lives, and to bridge cultures, Machida organizes informal get- togethers between his Airbnb guests and Japanese friends.5
2Gallardo, C.H. (2015, June 22). London’s diversity is one of the strongest attributes of its tech ecosystem. The Guardian. theguardian.com 3Cultural differences: Inevitability in a global economy (2015). The Economist Intelligence Unit. futurehrtrends. eiu.com 4Geiger, F. (2015, March 4). The giant hole in Germany’s economy: Startups. The Wall Street Journal. wsj.com 5Corbett, S. (2015, February 18). Meet the unlikely Airbnb hosts of Japan. The New York Times. nytimes.com
M13_THOM4204_06_SE_C13.indd 324 10/25/16 3:10 PM
Chapter 13 • Multicultural Teams 325
CULTURAL VALUES
Defining Culture
Culture is the personality of a group. Culture is the unique character of a group, includ- ing the group’s assumptions, values, beliefs, norms, ideologies, and the structure of its social, political, economic, and religious institutions.6
iCeberg MoDel
According to the iceberg model of culture (see Exhibit 13-1), when we meet someone from a different culture, we don’t see their values, beliefs, and assumptions, rather, we see their behavior and appearance. In order to understand their values, assumptions, and beliefs, it is necessary to take the time to understand that person.7 For example, Lazlo Bock, senior vice president of People Operations at Google, was very concerned that Google interviewers overestimate their interviewing skills, especially in interviews with global candidates. “Interviews are too often an exercise in confirmation bias, in which interviewers, without realizing it, are looking for data to affirm the snap judgment they’ve already made.” To combat this bias and have a better chance to understand the interviewee beyond just their surface appearances and behaviors, Google uses a hiring committee of several employees to interview and vet applicants.8
HofsteDe’s MoDel
According to Hofstede, people from various cultures differ in terms of two key dimen- sions: individualism-collectivism, and small–large power distance. Power distance reflects the tendency to see a large distance between those in the upper part of a social
6Brett, J. M. (2014). Negotiating globally: How to negotiate deals, resolve disputes, and make decisions across cultural boundaries (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass. 7French, W.L., & Bell, C.H. (1923). Organization development behavioral science in interventions for organization improvement. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. 8From How Google Thinks About Hiring, Management And Culture by Randy Komisar, © Oct 7, 2015 Techcrunch
Exhibit 13-1 Culture as an Iceberg Based on French, W. L., & Bell, C. h. (1923). Organization development: Behavioral science in interventions for organization improvement (p. 18). New Jersey: prentice-hall, © Leigh L. thompson.
Values, Beliefs, and Norms
Assumptions
Behavior, Artifacts, and Institutions
M13_THOM4204_06_SE_C13.indd 325 10/25/16 3:10 PM
326 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
or organizational structure and those in the lower part. Individualism reflects the ten- dency to see oneself as autonomous and self-reliant versus connected to others and their welfare. Specifically, Hofstede examined 73 countries in terms of power distance and individualism-collectivism.9 Exhibit 13-2 reveals where different countries are posi- tioned in terms of individualism and power distance. Note that individualism and low- power distance are related; and collectivism and high-power distance tend to covary: Countries high in collectivism also tend to be high in power distance. The most col- lectivist, high-power countries include Guatemala, Panama, and Ecuador. The most individualistic, low-power distance countries include Great Britain, the United States, and Australia.
INDIVIDUALISM VERSUS COLLECTIVISM Individualism refers to the extent to which people define themselves by their own traits and attributes and give priority to their per- sonal goals. For people from individualistic cultures, the pursuit of happiness and regard for personal welfare is paramount. The focus is on the individual as a distinctive level of analysis. For example, Aubrey McClendon cofounder of Chesapeake Energy, often expressed individualistic values in interviews: “If I wanted to always do the most popular thing, then I’d be a follower”10 and “I’ve always been comfortable thinking things through and doing it, more or less, my way.” When making business decisions, McClendon prioritized his personal goals, rather than the best interests of his company.11
Conversely, collectivism focuses on how people define themselves in relation to others and how they seek to further group goals. For people in collectivist cultures, the focus is on the social group or unit. The fundamental unit of analysis is not the individual, in possession of his or her unalienable rights; rather, the focus is on the social group. People from individualistic cultures are more likely to use I, me, and mine pronouns; people from collectivistic cultures are more likely to use plural pronouns, such as we, us, and ours.
Most modern Western and democratic societies and their organizations place ulti- mate value on the individual, which creates an intrinsic and inherently irresolvable tension between the individual and the group and the individual and the organization.12 In contrast, Eastern and Asian societies have a synergistic view of the person and the group. One study examined American and Singaporean perceptions of leaders and their teams.13 In comparing cultural differences in how leaders are viewed, Americans (indi- vidualistic culture) represented leaders standing ahead of their groups. Conversely, Asians represented leaders standing behind their groups. Moreover, Singaporeans evaluated their leaders (in the back) more favorably than did the Americans, whose leaders were
9Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2012, January). Hofstede’s fifth dimension: New evidence from the World Values Survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(1), 3–14.
11Quote by Aubrey McClendon.
10From “The Incredible Rise and Final Hours of Fracking King Aubrey McClendon” by Bryan Gruley, Joe Carroll, and Asjylyn Loder in Bloomberg Businessweek, © March 10, 2016 Bloomberg L.P.
12Drechsler, W. (1995). Collectivism. In H. Drechsler, W. Hillinge, & F. Neumann (Eds.), Society and state: The lexicon of politics (9th ed., pp. 458–459). Munich, Germany: Franz Vahlen. 13Menon, T., Sim, J., Fu, J. H.-Y, Chiu, C.-Y, & Hong, Y.-Y. (2010). Blazing the trail versus trailing the group: Culture and perceptions of the leader’s position. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(1), 51–61.
M13_THOM4204_06_SE_C13.indd 326 10/25/16 3:10 PM
Chapter 13 • Multicultural Teams 327
Exhibit 13-2 Position of Countries on Power Distance and Individualism “Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind” from (3rd ed) Chicago: McGraw-hill, p. 103 FIGUre 4.1 power Distance Versus Individualism by Geert hofstede, Gert Jan hofstede, Michael Minkov . Copyright (c) 2010 by hofstede, et al. reprinted by permission of McGraw-hill education.
Guatemala
Panama Venezuela
Ecuador
ColombiaPakistan
Peru TaiwanTrinidad
Costa Rica Indonesia
El S alva
dor
Vietnam
Singap ore
Afric a W
China,
Bangladesh
S Korea
Thailand Chile
Hong Kong Slovenia
Africa E Portugal
Greece Uruguay
Bulgaria Mexico
Croatia
Romania
Serbia
Malaysia
Philippines
Arab ctrs RussiaBrazil
Turkey
Iran Jamaica
Argentina
Israel Austria
Japan Morocco India
Suriname
Slovakia
Poland
Czech Rep.
Spain
Malta
Switzerland Fr S Africa
Lithuania Estonia,
Luxembourg
Finland
Germany Norway
Latvia Sweden
Canada QuebecDenmark
Ireland
Switzerland Ge
New Zealand
Netherlands
Great Britain Australia
United States
30
small largePower Distance (PDI)
50 70 90 11010 95
85
75
65
55
45
35
25
C ol
le ct
iv is
t In
di vi
du al
is m
(I D
V )
In di
vi du
al is
t
15
5
Canada total Hungary
Italy Belgium NI
Belgium Fr France
M13_THOM4204_06_SE_C13.indd 327 10/25/16 3:10 PM
328 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
in the front. Similarly, the founder of the Japanese car company, Toyota, said, “Each person fulfilling his or her duties to the utmost can generate great power when gathered together, and a chain of such power can generate a ring of power.” The founding prin- ciples of Toyota breathe collectivism.14
Individual, relational, and collective selves. Broadly speaking, people’s self-concepts consist of three fundamental representations: the individual self (similar to individual- ism), the relational self, and the collective self.15 The individual self is realized by dif- ferentiation from others, reliance on interpersonal comparison processes, and is associated with the motive of protecting or enhancing the person psychologically.16 The relational self is achieved by assimilating with significant others (i.e., relationship part- ners, parents, friends, siblings, etc.) and is based on personalized bonds of attachment. People who are high in relational identity engage in more prosocial behaviors with workgroup members, even from different groups.17 The collective self is achieved by inclusion in large, social groups, and contrasting the group to which one belongs with relevant out-groups. These three self-representations coexist within the same person, however at any given time, one or more of these self-identities might seem relevant. Exhibit 13-3 is one example of how personal, social, and collective identities are measured.
Independent versus Interdependent Self-Orientation. Consider two types of relational focus when it comes to teamwork: independent and interdependent.18 This distinc- tion also is known as egocentric versus sociocentric19 or individualism versus collectiv- ism.20 People with an independent outlook focus on the extent to which they are autonomous and unique; in contrast, people with an interdependent outlook focus on the extent to which they are embedded within a larger social network.
Consider how independent versus interdependent construals affect behavior in multicultural teams. In one simple task, people were given a sheet of paper and asked to write 20 statements about themselves, each beginning with “I am.”21 People who are
14Quote by Kiichiro Toyoda,Founder of Toyota Motor Corporation. 15Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83. 16Brewer and Gardner, Who is this “we”?; Markus, H. R. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63–78. 17Vos, M., & van der Zee, K. (2011). Prosocial behavior in diverse workgroups: How relational identity orientation shapes cooperation and helping. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(3), 363–379. 18Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Lee, A. Y. (1999). “I” value freedom, but “we” value relationships: Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgment. Psychological Science, 10(4), 321–326. 19Schweder, R. A., & Bourne, E. J. (1984). Does the concept of the person vary cross-culturally? In Schweder, R. A., & LeVine, R. A. (1984). Culture theory: Essays on mind, self and emotion (p. 158–159). Cambridge University Press. 20Triandis, H. C. (1989). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In J. J. Berman (Ed.), Cross- cultural perspectives: Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 37, pp. 41–133). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 21Gabriel, S., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Are there his and hers types of interdependence? The implications of gender differences in collective versus relational interdependence for affect, behavior, and cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 642–655.
M13_THOM4204_06_SE_C13.indd 328 10/25/16 3:10 PM
Chapter 13 • Multicultural Teams 329
Instructions: For each of the statements below, indicate how characteristic or true it is for yourself.
1. Not important to my sense of who I am. 2. Slightly important to my sense of who I am. 3. Somewhat important to my sense of who I am. 4. Very important to my sense of who I am. 5. Extremely important to my sense of who I am.
_____ 1. My moral standards and personal values. _____ 2. Being popular. _____ 3. Being a part of the many generations of my family. _____ 4. My imagination and dreams. _____ 5. The ways other people react to what I say and do. _____ 6. My race and ethnic background. _____ 7. My personal goals and hopes for the future. _____ 8. My physical appearance. _____ 9. My religion or faith. _____ 10. My feelings and emotions. _____ 11. The reputation I have. _____ 12. Places where I live or where I was raised. _____ 13. My thoughts and ideas. _____ 14. My attractiveness to other people. _____ 15. How I deal with fears and anxieties. _____ 16. Being a unique person, distinct from others. _____ 17. Knowing that I continue to be essentially the same person even though life involves
many changes. _____ 18. My gestures and mannerisms, the impression I make on others. _____ 19. My feeling of belonging to my community. _____ 20. My self-knowledge, such as knowing what kind of person I really am. _____ 21. My social behavior, such as the way I act when meeting people. _____ 22. My feeling of pride in my country, being proud to be a citizen. _____ 23. My personal self-evaluation, the private opinion I have of myself. _____ 24. My allegiance on political issues or my political activities. _____ 25. My language, such as my regional accent and a second language that I know.
Exhibit 13-3 Aspects of Identity Questionnaire
Note: To score your personal identity, average items: 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 23 To score your social identity, average items: 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 18, 21 To score your collective identity: average items: 3, 6, 9, 12, 19, 22, 24, 25
“Identity orientations: personal, social, and collective aspects of identity” from paper presented at the meeting of the american psychological association, Los angeles, Ca by Cheek, J. M., tropp, L. r., Chen, L. C., & Underwood, M. K. Copyright © 1994 Cheek, J. M., tropp, L. r., Chen, L. C., & Underwood, M. K. reprinted by permission of Jonathan M. Cheek.
independent in their relational orientation tend to write statements that describe their inner values, attributes, and appearance (e.g., ambitious, creative, and muscular). Conversely, people who are interdependent tend to write statements that describe themselves in relation to others and their social roles (e.g., father, son, and community member).
M13_THOM4204_06_SE_C13.indd 329 10/25/16 3:10 PM
330 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
Whether team members view themselves as independent or interdependent influ- ences the motivations they have and how they achieve their goals.22 Our cultural values influence our world outlook. Most North Americans value independence and autonomy, show a great disdain for conformity, and seek to be unique. In contrast, Asians value interdependence and collectivity, show a disdain for uniqueness, and seek conformity.23 Even within a culture however, there is variation in individualism versus collectivism. For example within the United States, people in the Deep South are more collectivistic and those in the Mountain West and Great Plains are more individualistic.24
Perhaps even more striking is the fact that interdependence and independence can be activated within one person at any given time. For example in one investigation, some people were instructed to read a paragraph containing primarily independent pronouns (e.g., I, me, and mine); in contrast, other people read identical paragraphs that contained collective pronouns (e.g., we, us, and ours); then, motivations and behaviors were exam- ined.25 European Americans who read collectivist pronouns (we, us, and ours) shifted toward collectivist values and judgments.
POWER DISTANCE People from low power distance cultures typically espouse egalitar- ian values and believe that status layers, while they exist, are permeable. Conversely, people from high power distance cultures typically hold hierarchical values and believe that status layers are not readily permeable. Thus, egalitarianism versus hierarchy refers to how the different status layers in a society or organization relate to one another. In egalitarian cultures, status layers exist, but they are permeable; in hierarchical cultures, status layers are not easily permeated. In egalitarian cultures, members of high- and low-status groups communicate frequently and do not go to great lengths to perpetuate differences. The status levels in egalitarian cultures are inherently permeable—meaning that if a person works hard enough, he or she can advance in an organization. For example, in companies such as Southwest Airlines, it is possible to permeate status layers. Colleen Barrett first worked as a secretary with Herb Kelleher, a founder of Southwest Airlines, but she eventually served as president of the airline until her retire- ment in 2008. Jim Ziemer was a freight elevator operator at Harley-Davidson Motorcycles who worked his way up to become CEO of the company in 2005.26
In hierarchical cultures and organizations, status differences are not easily permeated. As a consequence, members of different classes or status levels do not communicate fre- quently, and there is a deep sense of obligation among those at the highest levels to provide for and protect those at the lowest-status levels, who in turn put their trust in the high- status members of their organization. For example, Kazuo Inamori believes that his highest
22Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253; Morris, M. W., Podolny, J. M., & Ariel, S. (2000). Missing relations: Incorporating relational constructs into models of culture. In P. C. Earley & H. Singh (Eds.), Innovations in international and cross-cultural management (pp. 52–90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 23Kim, H., & Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 785–800. 24Vandello, J. A., & Cohen, D. (1999). Patterns of individualism and collectivism across the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2), 279–292. 25Gardner, Gabriel, & Lee, “ ‘I’ value freedom, but ‘we’ value relationships.” 26Grant, A. (2015, December 19). The one question you should ask about every new job. The New York Times. nytimes.com; Arnoult, S. (2015, February 28). Colleen Barret talks Herb, go-go boots and service with a smile. Runway Girl Network. [Weblog post]. runwaygirlnetwork.com
M13_THOM4204_06_SE_C13.indd 330 10/25/16 3:10 PM
Chapter 13 • Multicultural Teams 331
purpose and obligation to his company, Kyocera, is focusing on the happiness, both mate- rial and intellectual, of his employees. While this philosophy might not excite Kyocera’s shareholders, Inamori feels obligated to protect his employees from investor pressure and believes that happy employees have a direct effect on increased productivity and earnings for all. “If you want eggs, take care of the hen,” said Inamori. Investors “want to get the highest returns possible” but, “at times company management has to say no to sharehold- ers’ selfish requests.”27 Another CEO who said he feels obligated to be ultimately respon- sible for the actions of his subordinates is Toyota President Ako Toyoda. Following one employee scandal, Toyoda took the blame, saying, “To me, executives and staff who are my direct reports are like my children . . . It’s the responsibility of a parent to protect his chil- dren, and if a child causes problems, it’s also a parent’s responsibility to apologize.”28
Dignity, faCe anD Honor Cultures
A related but different model of culture is based on a tripartite model of three cultural prototypes: face, dignity, and honor.29 These cultural values represent people’s self-views and are highly correlated with particular geographic regions. Face, honor, and dignity all refer to how people define and regard their self-worth, or how they define themselves and their relationships in social and team environments (see Exhibit 13-4).
28From Toyota’s Top Female Executive Arrested In Japan On Drug Charges by Scott Neuman, © June 19, 2015 NPR.
27From The Buddhist Priest Who Became a Billionaire Snubbing Investors by Takako Taniguchi, © November 5, 2015 Bloomberg L.P.
29Brett, “Negotiating globally.”
Exhibit 13-4 Dimensions of Culture
Based on Brett, J.M. (2014). Negotiating globally: How to negotiate deals, resolve disputes, and make decisions across cultural boundaries (3rd ed.). San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass ; aslani, S., ramirez-Marin, J., Brett, J., Yao, J.J., Semnani-azad, Z., Zhang, Z.-X., tinsley,C., Weingart, L., adair, W. (2016). Dignity, face, and honor cultures: a study of negotiation strategy and outcomes in three cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior. advance online publication. doi: 10.1002/job.2095; tinsley, C.h., turan, N., aslani, S., Weingart, L.r. (2011). the interplay between culturally and situationally-based mental models of intercultural dispute resolution: West meets Middle east. International Negotiation, 16(3), 481–510, © Leigh L. thompson.
Cultural Prototype
Face
Dignity
Honor
East Asia, including China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan
Europe, North America, Australia, & New Zealand
Middle East, South Asia, North Africa, and Latin America
Self-worth is socially-conferred
Self-worth is self-determined
Self-worth is socially-claimed
• Face-saving • Face-giving • Desire to maintain
group harmony
• Direct confrontation • Open information-sharing • Rational • Analytical • Friendly exchange of
information
• Expression of emotions • Confrontational
Primary Geographic Location
Description Teamwork Behaviors
& Expectations
M13_THOM4204_06_SE_C13.indd 331 10/25/16 3:10 PM
332 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
FACE People in high face cultures seek to maintain group harmony and not insult oth- ers. People from face cultures agree with statements such as “People should be very humble to maintain good relationships” and “People should control their behavior in front of others.”30 In multicultural groups, people from face cultures do not immediately trust others, the way that people from dignity cultures do. Rather, they build trust slowly, over time. Com- munication in face cultures is highly context dependent, meaning that people do not bluntly make requests and demands, but rather signal information subtly, so as to help others save face. For example, when Japanese professors, Ryo Sahashi and Satoru Mori met for a business dinner in Tokyo, they left the middle seat between them empty at the booth. In Japanese culture, the middle seat is reserved for the most senior person.31
DIGNITY People in high dignity cultures speak their mind and expect others to speak their minds. They make decisions on the basis of facts and information. People from dignity cultures endorse statements such as, “People should stand up for what they believe in even when others disagree” and “How much a person respects himself is far more important than how much others respect him.”32 In multicultural groups, people from dignity cultures ask pointed questions and willingly exchange information. Their tendency is to trust others, even without a long history. One study examined how Anglo Americans versus Asian Americans make judgments about their own moral status.33 It was reasoned that because Americans represented a dignity culture, whereas Asians represented a face culture (i.e., saving face), this would affect judgments of morality. Asians felt the greatest concern about their own morality when thinking about how others would judge them; conversely, Anglos were primarily concerned about their own behaviors, not about third-party perceptions.
HONOR People in honor cultures also express their ideas and often take matters into their own hands and relative to people from face and dignity cultures, they are more emotionally expressive. People from honor cultures endorse statements such as “People must always be ready to defend their honor” and “If a person gets insulted and they don’t respond, they will look weak.”34 In multicultural teams, people from honor cultures might be perceived as overly argumentative and even emotional. For example, a Gallup sur- vey revealed Latin American countries dominated the top spots on the list of most emotional countries in the world. Nearly 6 in 10 residents in countries such as Bolivia, El Salvador, and Ecuador reported experiencing high positive or negative emotions in a given day. Latin American countries however, were not the only ones on the list. people from honor cultures in the Philippines, Iraq, and Cambodia also ranked high on Gallup’s “Most Emotional” list. One diplomat from the Philippines explained,
30Based on Brett, J. (2016). Cultural survey report. Kellogg School of Management; Brett, J. M. (2014). Negotiating globally: How to negotiate deals, resolve disputes, and make decisions across cultural boundaries (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass, © Leigh L. Thompson. 31By Sally Herships, S. (2015, August 11). Etiquette and rituals rule in Japan’s business culture. Marketplace. marketplace.com 32Bssed on Brett, J. (2016). Cultural survey report. Kellogg School of Management; Brett, J. M. (2014). Negotiating globally: How to negotiate deals, resolve disputes, and make decisions across cultural boundaries (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass, © Leigh L. Thompson. 33Kim, Y.-H., & Cohen, D. (2010). Information, perspective, and judgments about the self in face and dignity cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(4), 537–550. 34Brett, “Negotiating globally.”
M13_THOM4204_06_SE_C13.indd 332 10/25/16 3:10 PM
Chapter 13 • Multicultural Teams 333
“The focus we [Filipinos] place on interpersonal relationships impels us not only to experience emotions more intensely but also to be more open in their expression.”35
tigHt versus loose Cultures
A key cultural distinction is that between tight and loose cultures. Tight–loose refers to the degree to which cultural institutions control people’s behavior and how much vari- ability there is in people’s behaviors in a given culture. Dignity cultures are generally loose cultures; meaning that there is a wide variation in what is considered normative or appropriate behavior. Norms are flexible and there is less monitoring of behavior by team members. However some cultures are tighter, meaning that there is less variability in terms of what is considered to be acceptable behavior. Relatively speaking, the United States is a loose culture but East Asia is a tight culture.36 The implications for multicultural teams are quite significant: It is relatively easier for a member of a tight culture to enter and work in a loose culture because the culture is more forgiving; when people from a loose culture enter a tight culture however, they might unwittingly make cultural mistakes. In a country as conservative and tight-cultured as Japan, Airbnb hosts say they deliberately keep quiet about their involvement with the online bed and break- fast site, concerned that their neighbors might have one bad interaction with a foreigner—more noise than is acceptable, leaving shoes where they are not permitted, a trampled flowerbed—that might lead to problems with their landlord or the police. One Airbnb host described a conflict with his condo-owners association when a busi- nesswoman from Europe was spotted, to everyone’s horror, charging her cellphone in the building’s lobby.37
CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE
Just as people are believed to have intellectual intelligence and motivational intelligence, people vary in terms of their cultural intelligence. Cultural intelligence enhances the likelihood that teams on global assignments will engage actively in four key states of learning: experience, reflection, conceptualization, and experimentation.38
CQ MoDel
Cultural intelligence is a person’s ability to adapt effectively to new cultural contexts.39 Early and Mosakowski introduced the measure of cultural intelligence in terms of three
35From Latin Americans Lead World in Emotions by Jon Clifton, © AUGUST 27, 2015 Gallup. 36Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., & Aycan, Z. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332(6033), 1100–1104. 37Corbett, S. (2015, February 18). Meet the unlikely Airbnb hosts of Japan. The New York Times. nytimes.com 38Ng, K., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2009). From experience to experiential learning: Cultural intelligence as a learning capability for global leader development. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(4), 511–526. 39Earley, C. P. (2002). Redefining interactions across cultures and organizations: Moving forward with cultural intelligence. In B. M. Staw & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 24, pp. 271–299). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
M13_THOM4204_06_SE_C13.indd 333 10/25/16 3:10 PM
334 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
key dimensions: cognitive CQ, physical (behavioral) CQ, and emotional/motivational CQ.40 An investigation of leadership emergence in multicultural teams revealed that people who scored high on cultural intelligence (as well as global identity and openness to cultural diversity) were significantly more likely to emerge as leaders of MBA student teams than were other team members.41
FOUR-FACTOR MODEL A four-factor model of cultural intelligence includes metacogni- tive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral CQ42 (see Exhibit 13-5). Metacognitive CQ focuses on planning and awareness. Cognitive CQ focuses on general and specific cul- tural knowledge. Motivational CQ reflects motivation to adjust to different cultures. Behavioral CQ focuses on both verbal and nonverbal behaviors. One study examined the four-factor model of cultural intelligence on the development of shared values in culturally homogenous versus culturally heterogeneous teams.43 Behavioral and meta- cognitive CQ had a positive effect on shared values in culturally heterogeneous teams; but motivational and metacognitive CQ had a negative effect on shared values in culturally homogenous teams.
CQ & PERFORMANCE A study of motivational cultural intelligence among real estate agents across 26 U.S. real estate firms revealed that an individual’s motivational cultural intelligence was positively related to the number of housing transactions occurring between people of different cultural origins.44 Similarly, a study of the assessment and selection of potential professionals for international assignments revealed that emo- tional intelligence is related to overall cross-cultural adjustments.45 Moreover, teams with higher levels of CQ gradually exhibit higher rates of performance improvement over the life of the team, and CQ moderates the relationship between cultural diversity and team performance, such that the more diverse a team is, the more important CQ becomes for successful performance.46
40Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2004). Cultural intelligence. Harvard Business Review, 82(10), 139-146. 41Lisak, A., & Erez, M. (2015). Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics. Journal of World Business, 50(1), 3–14. 42Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., Ng, K. Y., Rockstuhl, T., Tan, M. L., & Koh, C. (2012). Sub-dimensions of the four factor model of cultural intelligence: Expanding the conceptualization and measurement of cultural intelligence. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(4), 295–313. 43Adair, 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. 44Chen, X.-P., Liu, D., & Portnoy, R. (2012, January). A multilevel investigation of motivational cultural intelligence, organizational diversity climate, and cultural sales: Evidence from U.S. real estate firms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 93–106. 45Gabel-Shemueli, R., & Dolan, S. (2011). Do emotions matter? The role of emotional intelligence competences in cross-cultural adjustment for international assignment. Management Research: The Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 9(3), 207–229. 46Moon, T. (2013). The effects of cultural intelligence on performance in multicultural teams. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(12), 2414–2425.
M13_THOM4204_06_SE_C13.indd 334 10/25/16 3:10 PM
Chapter 13 • Multicultural Teams 335
Cultural MetaCognition
Cultural metacognition is a key dimension of cultural intelligence.47 Cultural metacognition refers to an individual’s level of conscious cultural awareness and execu- tive processing during cross-cultural interactions.48 Managers and leaders high in cul- tural metacognition are more likely to develop trusting relationships with people from
47Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford University Press. 48Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Conceptualization of cultural intelligence: Definition, distinctiveness, and nomological network. Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications, 3–15. New York: Routledge.
Factor Sub-Dimension Example Items
Metacognitive CQ • Planning • Awareness • Checking
• I develop action plans before interacting with people from a different culture.
• I am aware of how my culture influences my interactions with people from different cultures.
• I adjust my understanding of a culture while I interact with people from that culture.
Cognitive CQ • Culture-General Knowledge
• Context-Specific Knowledge
• I can describe the different cultural value frameworks that explain behaviors around the world.
• I can describe the ways that leadership styles differ across cultural settings.
Motivational CQ • Intrinsic Interest • Extrinsic Interest • Self-Efficacy to Adjust
• I truly enjoy interacting with people from different cultures.
• I value the status I would gain from living or working in a different culture.
• I am confident that I can persist in coping with living conditions in different cultures.
Behavioral CQ • Verbal Behavior • Non-verbal Behavior • Speech Acts
• I change my use of pause and silence to suit different cultural situations.
• I modify how close or far apart I stand when interacting with people from different cultures.
• I modify the way I disagree with others to fit the cultural setting.
Exhibit 13-5 Assessing Cultural Intelligence “Sub-Dimensions of the Four Factor Model of Cultural Intelligence: expanding the Conceptualiza- tion and Measurement of Cultural Intelligence” from Social and personality psychology Compass by Linn Van Dyne, Soon ang, Kok Yee Ng, thomas rockstuhl, Mei Ling tan, Christine Koh, 6/4 : 295–313. Copyright (c) 2012 by Linn Van Dyne. reprinted by permission of Cultural Intelligence Center.
Example items from the 11-Dimension Expanded CQ Scale (The E-CQS)
M13_THOM4204_06_SE_C13.indd 335 10/25/16 3:10 PM
336 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
different cultures.49 Conversely, managers lower in metacognitive cultural intelligence shared fewer new ideas with members of different cultures than they did with members of their own culture. A study of 37 multicultural teams showed that when team members had high cultural metacognition, fusion teamwork and creativity were more likely.50
fusion teaMwork
The fusion principle of coexistence facilitates the ability of global teams to extract informa- tion and make decisions as compared to letting the dominant culture dictate the work ways or compromising.51 For example, American businesswomen Lin Shi worked in Hong Kong for more than a decade. During that time, she and her work teams learned ways to create trust by fusing cultures. When she realized that Asian managers typically do not give direct feedback during meetings, Lin Shi began to call on people during meetings, but also worked to create trust by not scolding those giving feedback as other managers might. As a result, people began to speak up in meetings, thus opening up communication channels.52 Con- sider another example of cultural fusion by IKEA in India. The Swedish homegoods retailer wanted to sell its furniture and housewares to India’s growing middle class, but its plans to move forward came to an abrupt halt when the Indian government made a trade contin- gency before IKEA could obtain permits to start building their stores. The contingency required that at least 30 percent of the value of IKEA’s inventory must be manufactured in India. The problem was that IKEA adheres to European Union criteria for environmental safety standards, and labor practices in India did not meet IKEA’s standards. IKEA’s multinational resource team however, found local suppliers willing to experiment creatively using locally sourced, indigenous resources, such as mango bark, bamboo, coconut fiber, jute, and sugar cane to develop chairs and chopping boards for the retailer.53
MultiCultural engageMent
One aspect of cultural intelligence is the psychological mindset or approach that people take when they are immersed in a multicultural environment. Multicultural engagement refers to the extent to which people adapt to and learn new cultures. An investigation of MBA students revealed that students high in multicultural engagement received more job offers upon graduating, even when controlling for key personality and demographic variables.54 In addition, students high in multicultural engagement showed increased integrative complexity, which explained their job market success.
49R. Y. J., Morris, M. W, & Mor, S. (2012). Collaborating across cultures: Cultural metacognition and affect- based trust in creative collaboration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(1), 116–131. 50Crotty, S. K., & Brett, J. M. (2012). Fusing creativity: Cultural metacognition and teamwork in multicultural teams. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 5(2), 210–234. 51Janssens, M., & Brett, J. M. (2006). Cultural intelligence in global teams: A fusion model of collaboration. Group & Organization Management, 31, 124–153. 52Sheng, E. (2016, January 12). How to manage cultural differences in cultural teams. Fast Company. fastcompany.com 53Rana, P. (2016, February 24). IKEA’s India bet hits thicket of rules: Foreign retailers must acquire products locally; red tape, few labor laws. The Wall Street Journal. wsj.com 54Maddux, W. W., Bivolaru, E., Hafenbrack, A. C., Tadmor, C. T., & Galinsky, A. D. (2014, July). Expanding opportunities by opening your mind: Multicultural engagement predicts job market success through longitudinal increases in integrative complexity. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(5), 608–615.
M13_THOM4204_06_SE_C13.indd 336 10/25/16 3:10 PM
Chapter 13 • Multicultural Teams 337
work ways
Work ways describe a culture’s signature pattern of workplace beliefs, mental models, and practices that embody that culture’s ideas about what is good, true, and efficient within the domain of work.55 Cultural differences are amplified rather than diminished in work contexts.56 Consider the highly male-dominated work ways of Silicon Valley tech businesses. In 2016, four multicultural, multiracial, female engineers stood before a crowd of peers and accepted an award on behalf of Slack for “fastest-rising startup of the year.” Engineers Megan Anctil, Erica Baker, Duretti Hirpa, and their coworker, Kiné Camara, told the crowd at TechCrunch’s awards show, “We have 9 percent of women of color in engineering at Slack, 4 of whom are up in here tonight in formation, and we’re the fastest-growing enterprise software startup of all time.”57 Forty-three percent of the company’s managers are women, whereas at competitor companies such as Twit- ter, only 13 percent of the staff are women.58
MULTICULTURAL TEAMWORK
Creative innovation
In our discussion about diversity, we noted that diverse teams might experience more conflict, but they also produce more creative ideas. According to the foreign experience model of creative innovations, three dimensions of managers’ global work experiences predict their organization’s creative innovations: breadth, depth, and cultural distance.59 A longitudinal study of 11 years of fashion collections at the world’s top fashion houses revealed that the foreign professional experiences of creative directors predicted the creativity ratings of their fashion collections. Most notably, the results were curvilinear for all three dimensions: moderate levels of breadth and cultural distance were associated with the highest levels of creative innovations; whereas cultural depth had a decreasing positive effect that never became negative. Stated another way: Cultural depth is the most critical dimension for achieving creative innovations.
In some instances, cultural diversity in a team can suppress team creativity through negative social processes that might hinder knowledge sharing and integration among team members. Two factors might be effective in moderating the potential negative impact of cultural diversity on team creativity: information technology and the task environment.60 Specifically, information technology can have a drastic impact on the functioning of virtual teams and in particular, performance depends on accessibility
55Sanchez-Burks, J., & Lee, F. (2007). Cultural psychology of workways. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of Cultural Psychology. New York: Guilford Press. 56Sanchez-Burks, J. (2002). Protestant relational ideology and (in) attention to relational cues in work settings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 919–929.
58Peck, E. (2016, February 10). This is what diversity in tech should look like. Huffington Post. huffingtonpost. com
57From Slack Wins Fastest Rising Startup at the 9th Annual Crunchies, © Feb 9, 2016 TechCrunch
59Godart, F. C., Maddux, W. W., Shipilov, A. V., & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). Fashion with a foreign flair: Professional experiences abroad facilitate the creative innovations of organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 195–220. 60Leung, K., & Wang, J. (2015). Social processes and team creativity in multicultural teams: A socio-technical framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(7), 1008–1025.
M13_THOM4204_06_SE_C13.indd 337 10/25/16 3:10 PM
338 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
(ease and convenience of use) and richness (how much social presence is provided, much like the place-time model). With regard to the task, there are three key consider- ations: task interdependence (how much team members rely upon one another for information, material, and expertise), task complexity (less structure, less routine, and more ambiguity), and task intellectiveness (extent to which the task has a clear, demon- strable answer). The extent to which the task is more intellective, the negative effects of cultural identity are reduced.61
relationsHip orientation
Self-managing multicultural teams do not rely on leaders and might even be leaderless. A longitudinal study of multicultural MBA teams found that teams with a high average level of relationship orientation performed better than teams with a low average level of relationship orientation. Moreover, a moderate degree of variance in relationship orientation among team members produced even better team performance than a low or high degree of variance.62
networks
The social network ties that team members have outside of their team affect the degree of cognitive variation within their team; teams in which members have heterogeneous ties should be more creative. A study of 82 long-term MBA project teams revealed that to the extent that team members had weak (rather than strong) outside ties with cultur- ally heterogeneous people facilitated creativity and ultimately creative performance.63 Moreover, a longitudinal study of 91 self-managing teams comprising 60 nationalities, revealed that dense task networks enhanced team potency, and centralized task networks facilitated team performance.64 And, the more culturally diverse a team, the more network density positively affected team potency and the more network centralization was required for optimal team performance.
egalitarian values
We noted earlier that a critical aspect of cultural values is a distinction between hierarchy versus egalitarianism. One investigation examined whether cross-national variation in egalitarianism predicts talent levels and organizational performance.65 Because egalitari- anism influences policymaking in institutions and social interactions, the effects on talent were measurable. Specifically, a study of soccer teams revealed that egalitarian countries
61Ibid. 62Moon, T. (2013). The effects of cultural intelligence on performance in multicultural teams. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(12), 2414–2425. 63Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2014). A social composition view of team creativity: The role of member nationality-heterogeneous ties outside of the team. Organization Science, 25(5), 1434–1452. 64Tröster, C., Mehra, A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2014). Structuring for team success: The interactive effects of network structure and cultural diversity on team potency and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124(2), 245–255. 65Swaab, R., Galinsky, A. (2014). Egalitarianism makes organizations stronger: Cross-national variation in institutional and psychological equality predicts talent levels and the performance of national teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 129, 80–92.
M13_THOM4204_06_SE_C13.indd 338 10/25/16 3:10 PM
Chapter 13 • Multicultural Teams 339
had higher talent levels and better performance, holding constant a number of country- level variables.66 In fact, countries with greater institutional equality had better perform- ing national teams because they psychologically endorsed egalitarian values. The causal sequence is: institutional equality S psychological equality S top talent S performance. Moreover, psychological equality measured at Time 1 predicted the performance of national soccer teams more than a decade later.
status perCeptions
Recall the Managerial Grid that revealed that leaders can either be high or low in task focus and high or low in relationship focus, leading to evaluations by others expressed in terms of competence and warmth.67 Competence and warmth map onto two key types of leadership: task (high competence) and relational (high warmth). One’s own cultural values influence whether one uses competence or warmth to attain status and to judge the status of others. Individualistic cultural orientation influences people’s tendency to view high status people as competent, as opposed to warm.68 Conversely, the more collective people are, the more they view high status people as warm.69 Consider the different leadership styles of Marry Barra at General Motors versus Christopher Cabrera of Xactly. Barra embodies the traits of a relational leader and takes a consensus approach to seeking input before making a tough decision.70 Conversely, Xactly CEO Christopher Cabrera constantly prods employees by stating that the skills needed to take the company from zero to $20 million are far different from the skills needed to take it from $100 million to $200 million, part of what he calls “moving the ball forward.” Cabrera notes that early in his career he had a tendency to get involved with issues between colleagues and soon realized that he was becoming part of the problem. For this reason, he takes interest in the “annoyance threshold” of potential hires, which ideally is pretty high to keep the focus on the task at hand.71
eMotional Display
We noted earlier that people who ascribe to the honor culture are more comfortable with using emotional displays. Cultural value orientation affects norms regarding appro- priate emotional displays and how people interpret the emotional displays of others. A study of emotional displays revealed that display norms prescribed a greater expression of positive emotions and the suppression of negative emotions in multicultural versus
66Swaab, R. I., & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). Egalitarianism makes organizations stronger: Cross-national variation in institutional and psychological equality predicts talent levels and the performance of national teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 129, 80–92. 67Blake, R.R., & Mouton, J.S. (1964). The Managerial Grid. Houston, TX: Gulf. 68Torelli, C. J., Leslie, L. M., Stoner, J. L., & Puente, R. (2014). Cultural determinants of status: Implications for workplace evaluations and behaviors. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123(1), 34–48. 69Ibid. 70Engelmeier, S. (2014, January 22). Did Mary Barra’s inclusive leadership style propel her to the top? Industry Week. industryweek.com 71Bryant, A. (2016, January 9). Christopher Cabrera of Xactly: Learning to stay above the drama. The New York Times. nytimes.com
M13_THOM4204_06_SE_C13.indd 339 10/25/16 3:10 PM
340 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
culturally homogenous teams, and national identity influenced norms for culturally homogenous, but not multicultural teams.72
MULTICULTURAL COLLABORATION
Multicultural collaborations are temporary assignments that are not embedded in a given organizational context but nevertheless involve completing a task or mission, such as building a house or making a film.73 Temporary collaborations face many of the challenges as teams, but they often lack the mechanisms and infrastructure that formal organizations provide. A study of multicultural humanitarian homebuilding collaborations revealed four key challenges that multicultural collaborations encounter: (1) adjustment processes are critical for coping with the absence of organizational embeddedness; (2) collaborations use internal and external strategies for adjustment; (3) cultural differences affect the ability to adjust; and (4) over-adjustment is detrimental to the process.74
etHnoCentrisM
Perhaps the greatest threat to effective multicultural collaboration is ethnocentrism, or the rigidly held beliefs that one’s own culture or country is better than or superior to others.75 These beliefs often can erupt in insult and conflict. For example, the Chinese branch of a large European-based multinational pharmaceutical company saved money by submitting proposals for the approval of new medicines in English to the Chinese government. The law required that all proposals be written in Chinese, but translating the proposals to Chinese would be expensive, requiring new computers and software. The Chinese government did not complain about receiving the proposals in English until the company replaced one of its top China executives, who had established excel- lent relations with the government, without notifying anyone. The Chinese became offended and mandated all future submissions be written in Chinese. The company did not take into account the importance of long-standing relationships in Chinese culture.76
Cultural relativisM
The opposite of ethnocentrism is cultural relativism, or the principle that people should be understood by others in terms of their own culture.77 Dan Chou, an American investment banker working in Hong Kong, traveled to India on business and had a
72Glikson, E., & Erez, M. (2013). Emotion display norms in virtual teams. Journal of Personnel Psychology, Special Issue: The Role of Norms in Virtual Work, 12(1), 22–32. 73From “Collaboration for the common good: An examination of challenges and adjustment processes in multicultural collaborations” by Rebekah Dibble and Cristina Gibson in Journal of Organizational Behavior 34(6), 764-790, © 17 JUN 2013 John Wiley & Sons. 74Ibid. 75LeVine, R.A., & Campbell, D.T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. 76Goodman, N.R. (2015, September 29). Training for cultural competence. Association for Talent Development. td.org 77Herskovits, M. J., & Herskovits, F. (1974). Cultural relativism; perspectives in cultural pluralism. American Journal of Sociology, 79(5), 1326–1330.
M13_THOM4204_06_SE_C13.indd 340 10/25/16 3:10 PM
Chapter 13 • Multicultural Teams 341
painful life lesson in cultural relativism. Chou needed a large presentation uploaded and printed within a few hours for a meeting, and his India team assured him that it could be done on time. But when he went to pick up the presentation, it was not complete. Months later, when discussing the incident with the India team members, Chou learned that they perceived his straightforward request as a lack of respect for their workload, that they were nothing but a handy print shop for a pushy American wielding perceived power.78
MANAGING MULTICULTURAL TEAMS
By definition, multicultural teams are diverse. When teams contain members of different cultures, it is important to be proactive about how best to manage the team so as to prevent misunderstanding and conflict. Unfortunately, simply embracing the concept of diversity does not guarantee success. For this reason, it might be necessary to imple- ment a highly articulated diversity curricula that includes strategic advantage, recruit- ment, retention, and community partnership to allow managers and their teams to set the stage for effective multicultural teamwork. For example, the Intel Corporation takes diversity so seriously that it established a $300 million fund to improve the diversity of the company workforce, long populated in the majority by white and Asian men.79
CHange anD aDaptation
When members of different cultures interact, a mutual adaptation process takes place. Knowledge about cultural differences allows people to know what to expect when they interact with members of different cultural groups. Indeed, team members who are high in cognitive complexity (i.e., think analytically and deeply about things) and have a shared cognition about the social diversity of their team are better able to overcome the barriers to global teamwork.80 In addition, team members who have knowledge about cultural norms are able to reduce uncertainty in ambiguous and novel situations. More- over, people who are high in need for closure (NFC) have a strong desire to get clear answers so as to reduce uncertainty. For this reason, people who are high in NFC are more likely to rely on dominant cultural norms when they are in a foreign country and deciding how to interact with others.81
Some people might be either unwilling or incapable of making changes and adap- tations necessary for effective cross-cultural teamwork. Cultural inertia refers to a resistance to cultural change, unless change is occurring already. Groups high in cultural inertia resist change because of perceived pressures from outside forces.82 Change itself
78Sheng, E. (2016, January 12). How to manage cultural differences in global teams. Fast Company. fastcompany .com 79Wingfield, N. (2015, January 6). Intel allocates $300 million for workplace diversity. The New York Times. nytimes.com 80Magnus, E. B. (2011, April). The conceptualization of social complexity in global teams. Nordic Psychology, 63(1), 35–50. 81Chao, M. M., Zhang, Z.-X, & Chiu, C.-Y. (2010). Adherence to perceived norms across cultural boundaries: The role of need for cognitive closure and in-group identification. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(1), 69–89. 82Zarate, M. A., Shaw, M., Marquez, J. A., & Biagas, D. (2011). Cultural inertia: The effects of cultural change on intergroup relations and the self-concept. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 634–645.
M13_THOM4204_06_SE_C13.indd 341 10/25/16 3:10 PM
342 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
is perceived differently in teams as a function of how well the team matches the current dominant culture. Cultural inertia is higher when people do not identify with a given cultural group, hold low esteem for that group, and perceive that the culture is not changing.
transaCtive MeMory systeMs
Teams that have a developed transactive memory (knowledge about who knows what) of their team are more effective than teams that are low in transactive memory. A study of 60 global virtual supply teams from a large multinational organization found that transactive memory systems and preparation activities were critical for team effective- ness.83 Members who allocated a greater percentage of their time to the team initially led to a positive influence on preparation but led to a negative influence as interdepen- dence was reduced.
language barriers
Perhaps the most immediately striking problem facing multicultural teams is language and language barriers. Language barriers not only hinder the transmission of knowledge and expertise, they erode the ability of team members to build trust and cohesion. An investigation of senior managers in 15 multinational teams revealed that surface-level language diversity creates the perception of deep-level diversity.84 Specifically, team members’ cognitive and emotional reactions to language barriers caused them to view others as less trustworthy. Practically, this means that leaders need to manage team members’ negative reactions to language barriers so as to build, rather than erode, trust. Japanese written communication is often indirect or flowery, with single sentences bur- ied in a page of prose. The style was a bad fit for the dawn of texting, which depends on concise or truncated messages. So, Shigetaka Kurita, a developer with Japan’s largest cellular carrier MTT DoCoMo, developed a system of communication based on the visual shorthand of manga—a style of comic graphics with which most Japanese people are familiar. The unspoken but widely known conventions of manga allowed Kurita to turn tiny dot matrixes into instantly recognizable visual declarations. Emojis became a wildly popular text supplement in Japan and grew more complex as smartphone tech- nology progressed. Eventually, they became a worldwide phenomenon.85
CULTURAL CHANGE
Cultural awareness of one’s own and others’ values is the first step toward becoming an effective member and leader of a multicultural team. Deciding how much one wants to adapt and how much others are expected to adapt is a key issue. According to
83Maynard, T., Mathieu, J., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. L. (2012). Something(s) old and something(s) new: Modeling drivers of global virtual team effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 342–365. 84Tenzer, H., Pudelko, M., & Harzing, A. W. (2013). The impact of language barriers on trust formation in multinational teams. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5), 508–535. 85Alt, M. (2015, May 6). How emoji got to the White House. The New Yorker. newyorker.com
M13_THOM4204_06_SE_C13.indd 342 10/25/16 3:10 PM
Chapter 13 • Multicultural Teams 343
the acculturation framework, people have four choices when it comes to adapting in a multicultural context.86
integration
Integration is a type of acculturation whereby each member of the multicultural team maintains their own culture, while also maintaining contact with the other culture. In other words, group members maintain their own cultural identity and values, but also show a great receptivity to other cultural groups. When Nancy Ruddy, cofounder of architectural firm CetraRuddy worked in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on a large business hotel project, she was familiar with Saudi customs governing the behavior of women, such as wearing head coverings, and restaurants that segregate women and children from the men. Even then, she had to make adjustments. Many business meetings took place in a modern, 23-story office building, which had no women’s restroom because of the lack of women in the workforce. And, because women are not allowed to walk unaccompa- nied on public streets, when Ruddy had to use the facilities, one of her male colleagues had to walk with her back to the hotel. A compromise was soon reached however, and one of the private bathrooms in the office building was reserved just for her. Addition- ally, Ruddy had to gain the trust of Saudi businessmen, who have great respect for expertise but are not used to that expertise coming from a woman. As she displayed her knowledge, the rules relaxed, and eventually some men called her by name and even made direct eye contact.87
assiMilation
Assimilation occurs when a person does not maintain his or her culture but rather, absorbs the other culture. When Human Resources executive Ron Thomas took a posi- tion in Saudi Arabia for a multinational company, he found the only way to become culturally fluent was to become completely immersed in the country’s lifestyle and work culture. That meant more than observing the cultural restrictions about movie theaters, alcohol and socializing with women. To become part of the culture, he accepted dinner invitations and coffee meetups gleaned from networking with Middle Eastern business- men. He learned to accept without questioning items such as biometric palm scanners that even top executives commonly use to “clock in.” And he learned to never begin a conversation with starters such as “In New York, we did this . . . ” to avoid alienating others.88
separation
Separation occurs when a person maintains their own culture and distances from the other culture. For example, Bo Andersson, the Swedish-born chief executive of Russia’s largest auto maker, AvtoVAZ, brought Western business acumen and a Swedish military
86Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. Padilla (Ed.) Acculturation: Theory, models and findings (pp. 9–25). Boulder, Westview. 87Sharkey, J. (2015, February 2). Businesswomen navigate traditions in Saudi Arabia. The New York Times. nytimes.com 88From “Confessions of an Expat HR Leader in the Middle East” by Ron Thomas in The HR Observer , © MARCH 5, 2014 Informa.
M13_THOM4204_06_SE_C13.indd 343 10/25/16 3:10 PM
344 Part 3 • Teams in Organizations
style into a Russian company, but he quickly ran into problems when state-led capital- ism blurred the distinctions between business and politics. When he renegotiated sup- plier contracts and laid off thousands of workers, he angered not only those in the one-industry city of Togliatti, but soon attracted the ire of Moscow. Ultimately, Anders- son was pushed out of the company, barely two years after his initial assignment.89
Marginalization
Marginalization occurs when group members neither maintain their own culture nor do they attempt to assimilate into the other culture.
89Chow, J., Marson, J. (2016, April 11). Renault tries to fix Russian misadventure. The Wall Street Journal. wsj. com
Chapter Capstone
Managers do not have to be on a global assignment to be part of a multicultural team. Multicultural teamwork is not simply learning a new culture and understanding language, instead, multicultural teamwork involves three key aspects: understanding one’s own cultural values and assumptions, understanding the values and assumptions of the other team members, and devising a method by which to engage in effective teamwork and taskwork. A key threat to the
effectiveness of multicultural teamwork is ethnocentrism, which is a rigidly held belief that one’s own cultural values are more important than are those of others. Self- managing multicultural teams represent special challenges because by definition, they are often leaderless. This means that team members need to take a proactive role in terms of overcoming language barriers and building shared mental models.
M13_THOM4204_06_SE_C13.indd 344 10/25/16 3:10 PM
345
Perhaps nothing stirs up more emotion in the workplace than salary, benefits, and rewards. The move to self-managing teams begs the question about reward and compensation in teams because hierarchical pay plans centered on individuals may not make sense in the context of teams and may in fact, be detrimental.1 If pay plans reward the individual, but the corporate message is teams, then teamwork may be undermined.
Variable performance among team members means differentiated pay. Even though teams may be perfectly capable of allocating pay or rewards to individuals in the team, sometimes superstars are not rewarded unless other teammates forgo part of their own profit sharing. Even if a compensation system can be set up that appropriately rewards team effort, some team members may be unwilling to determine their coworkers’ pay. Team members feel more comfortable when performance criteria are based on objective standards.
TYPES OF TEAM PAY
Pay is a communication device. Consider four types of team pay or reward: incentive pay, rec- ognition, profit sharing, and gainsharing (see Exhibit Appendix 1-1). These four systems for rewarding employees should not be viewed as competing approaches, but rather as compatible systems that accomplish different, important objectives.
According to Payscale’s 2015 Compensation Best Practices Report, 61 percent of respon- dents cited compensation as the biggest impact of their decision to take a new job.2 People tend to behave according to the way they are evaluated and paid. Therefore, if the organization values teamwork, team members ultimately must be recognized and compensated for teaming. Most important, employees must understand how the incentive system works in their company. And in general, the simpler, the better. For example, burying incentives and recognition for team membership in the company’s basic compensation package can dampen the intended motivating effect on individuals. Second, an incentive system should be comprehensive enough that people feel fairly treated. Employees compare their pay with that of others. In 2015, thousands of Google employees posted their salary details with one another through a shared spreadsheet housed on Google’s internal network in a bid to ensure fair pay. As many as 5 percent of employees shared their salary information to address pay gaps between persons performing similar jobs.3
1Lawler, E. E., Worley, C. G., & Creelman, D. (2011). Management reset: Organizing for sustainable effectiveness. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass; Lawler, E. E. (2000). Rewarding excellence: Pay strategies for the new economy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 22015 Compensation Best Practices. (2015). Payscale Research Report. resources.payscale.com 3Owen, J. (2015, July 21). Google employees are comparing their salary details in a bid to be fairly paid. Independent. independent.co.uk
Rewarding Teamwork1 A
p p
e n
d ix
Z01_THOM4204_06_SE_APP1.indd 345 10/25/16 3:04 PM
346 Appendix 1 • Rewarding Teamwork
Type Description/Types Advantages/ Applications Disadvantages
Incentive pay A team of employees receives money based on increased perfor- mance against predetermined targets
• Can combine a focus on individual and team performance
• Team can be given opportunity to allocate
• Employees averse to thinking of themselves as team members
• Risky if base pay is reduced
• Guided by upper management and corporate initiative
Recognition One-time award for a limited number of employees or groups for performing well beyond expectations or for completing a project, program, or product
• Easy to implement • Distributed at the
local (team) level • Introduced easily,
quickly, and inex- pensively without layers of approval
• Comparatively simple
• Employees con- cerned they won’t be recognized for own contributions
• Risky if base pay is reduced
• Carry less front- end motivation
Profit sharing A share of corporate profits is distributed in cash on a current basis to all employ- ees (driven by finan- cial factors)
• Serves commu- nication purpose by signaling that rewards are in balance across the organization
• Informs and edu- cates employees about financial well-being of the organization
• May be too far removed from workers’ con- trol to affect performance
Gainsharing A percentage of the value of increased productivity is given to workers under a prearranged for- mula (driven by operational factors [e.g., quality, pro- ductivity, customer satisfaction])
• Geared toward production- oriented workers
• Add-on to com- pensation, easily accepted by employees
• May be too far removed from workers’ con- trol to affect performance
Exhibit Appendix 1-1 Team-Based Pay
Leigh L. Thompson
Z01_THOM4204_06_SE_APP1.indd 346 10/25/16 3:04 PM
Appendix 1 • Rewarding Teamwork 347
IncentIve Pay
In terms of salary and pay, base pay is how companies determine an individual’s base salary. This is an integration of internal equity (based on job evaluation) and external equity (based on market data). The second aspect in pay is variable pay. One type of variable pay is incentive pay. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, incentive and supplemental pay for private companies surveyed averaged 2.8 percent of the total compensation package of employees.4 As employees move up the organizational chart, the proportion of variable pay increases, along with their amount of control over job tasks. The cutthroat cooperation effect refers to the fact that it is more difficult for teams to move from competitive to cooperative reward structures than vice versa.5 Indeed, teams with a history of competitive reward structures performed worse than teams with a history of cooperative reward structures.6
Incentive systems should combine individual performance and team performance to reflect the degree to which a job calls for individual work and teamwork. “Without team goals, you may find that one of your employees refuses to help out a fellow col- league. That type of behavior is counterproductive to business growth and needs to be nipped in the bud. The best way to encourage teamwork is to pay the entire team when they hit team goals.”7
For example, a bonus pool may be created based on the performance of the entire team. The bonus pool can be divided among the individuals who are members of the team based on how well the individuals performed. Outcome interdependence refers to how much an individual’s own outcomes depend on the performance of others. One factor that influences the effectiveness of outcome interdependence is regulatory focus.8 Promotion-focused people are concerned with progress and achievement; whereas prevention-focused people are concerned with security and vigilance. In one investigation, prevention-focused teams working for team, rather than individual rewards were more engaged, better coordinated, and had better performance; promotion-focused teams were not influenced by outcome interdependence.9
A balance of reward systems can operate in tandem. One system provides bonuses to teams based on their performance; the second rewards individuals based on how well they have performed. These systems can be based on separate budgets so that they do not compete. Hybrid rewards lead to higher levels of team performance than do individual and shared rewards.10 The reason why hybrid rewards are more effective
4Employer costs for employee compensation: September 2015 (2015, December 9). Bureau of Labor Statistics. bls.gov 5Johnson, M. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Ilgen, D. R., Jundt, D., & Meyer, C. J. (2006). Cutthroat cooperation: Asymmetrical adaptation to changes in team reward structures. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 103–119. 6Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Conlon, D. E., Humphrey, S. E., & Moon, H. (2009). Cutthroat cooperation: The effects of team role decisions on adaption to alternative reward structures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 108, 131–142. 7From “Performance Based Pay” by Michael Alter in Inc Magazine, © Jan 25, 2008 Inc. 8Beersma, B., Homan, A. C., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. (2013). Outcome interdependence shapes the effects of prevention focus on team processes and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(2), 194–203. 9Ibid. 10Pearsall, M. J., Christian, M. S., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2010). Motivating interdependent teams: Individual rewards, shared rewards, or something in between? Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 183–191.
Z01_THOM4204_06_SE_APP1.indd 347 10/25/16 3:04 PM
348 Appendix 1 • Rewarding Teamwork
is because of improvements in information allocation and reductions in social loafing (free riding).
A critical question is whether to reward behavior or to reward results. Traditional thinking may lead managers to link team performance to their results. Goals such as cost reduction are easy to quantify but for other areas, it is much more difficult. So, many managers reward competencies rather than results: For example, does the person participate? Does the person empower others? Does the person listen in a team envi- ronment? Although team incentives offer significant advantages, there are some poten- tial drawbacks. Incentives may create unintended behavior. When other team members are perceived as free riders, some team members might feel resentful when rewards are allocated based on equality. Moreover, team rewards may not foster cooperation in teams.11 Team rewards may foster competition between teams, leading to suboptimiza- tion of the organizational goals.12
RecognItIon
Recognition, rewards, spot cash awards, or “celebrations of success” reward contribu- tions after the fact, when performance is known. The idea behind team recognition is that money is not everything. There are infinite sources of nonmonetary recognition— plaques, trophies, small gifts, vacations, and dinners with company officers. The most important feature of any of these is to give the gift respectfully, personally, and sincerely. First and foremost, this means that people and teams are singled out—if everyone gets the same recognition, it doesn’t work. Recognitions such as “employee of the month programs” don’t work because eventually, everyone is going to receive the award.13 Moreover, the reward should be chosen with the people in mind. Not everyone likes sporting events or ballet, for example. It is important to clearly tie the recognition to team performance; it will lose its effect if the organization waits two months to reward the team. (For some general guidelines for implementing recognition awards, consult Exhibit Appendix 1-2) Recognition might improve certain outcomes, but not others. For example in an investigation of 88 project managers and their direct supervisors, recognition improved team effectiveness, but not team efficiency.14
In companies with team environments where people’s identities are incorporated into teams, employees may feel a greater need for recognition.15 Former CEO of Camp- bell’s, Doug Conant, wrote 10 to 20 handwritten thank-you notes every day—a total of 30,000 thank-you notes over the course of his tenure.16
CASH AND NONCASH Spot awards (also known as lightning bolts) can either be cash or noncash. Noncash awards, which are the most common, are given out for a job well
11Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 145–180. 12Mohrman, S. A., Lawler, E. E., & Mohrman, A. M. (1992). Applying employee involvement in schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4), 347–360. 13Nelson, B. (2012). 1501 ways to reward employees. New York: Workman Publishing. 14Unger-Aviram, E., Zwikael, O., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2013). Revisiting goals, feedback, recognition, and performance success: The case of project teams. Group & Organization Management, 20(10), 1–31. 15Gross, S. E. (2000). Team-based pay. In L. A. Berger & D. R. Berger (Eds.), The compensation handbook: A state- of-the-art guide to compensation strategy and design (4th ed., pp. 261–273). New York: McGraw-Hill. 16Kaplan, J. (2015, August 8). This CEO was so obsessed with thank you notes, he sent 30,000 during his career. LinkedIn. linkedin.com
Z01_THOM4204_06_SE_APP1.indd 348 10/25/16 3:04 PM
Appendix 1 • Rewarding Teamwork 349
To have maximum possible impact, recognition awards should have the following features:
Purpose/objective The program should clearly recognize what has been accomplished by the team and how that effort is linked to the company’s values.
Eligibility Companies must clearly determine whether teams or individuals will be recognized and how frequently employees are eligible for awards.
Program award levels Use a few levels to recognize different accomplishments and dif- ferent degrees of contributions: (a) application noncash awards (up to $250); (b) awards for significant financial contribution ($250 to $2,500) for team members whose efforts significantly exceed expectations, support the unit’s efforts, and produce measurable results; (c) awards for “extraordinary financial results” ($2,500 to $10,000) for team members whose efforts have exceptional bottom-line impact.
Benefit implications Recognition awards are not considered benefit bearing.
Funding Recognition programs are typically funded out of the expense bud- get of the business unit and department and are often stated as a percentage of the payroll.
Types of awards Noncash versus cash.
Nomination procedures For appreciation awards the nomination procedures should be as simple as possible; for companywide rewards, nomination proce- dures may be much more elaborate with peers, customers, and supervisors all having opportunity for input.
Timing All awards should be given as close to the event as possible to rein- force the actions that led to the event.
Award presentation This should be a positive experience, that makes the winner(s) feel proud; comments should be personalized and refer to details of the achievement; the connection between the accomplishment and the company’s business strategy should be made clear; never present the award in passing; publicize the award (e.g., via memo, e-mail, bulletin board, or newsletter).
Program evaluation Annually, a rewards and recognition committee should be char- tered to evaluate the program in terms of its effectiveness.
Exhibit Appendix 1-2 Implementing Recognition Awards: A Guide
Based on Gross, S. e. (2008). Team-based pay. in L. A. Berger & d. R. Berger (eds.), The compensation handbook: A state-of-the-art guide to compensation strategy and design (5th ed.). new York: McGraw-Hill; Gross, S. e. (1995). Compensation for teams: How to design and implement team-based reward programs. new York: AMACOM, © Leigh L. Thompson.
Z01_THOM4204_06_SE_APP1.indd 349 10/25/16 3:04 PM
350 Appendix 1 • Rewarding Teamwork
done and are usually of nominal value. Cash awards can be far more substantial, although usually they are small bonuses. At Squaremouth, all employees receive a raise to match the previous year’s rise in market prices (0.8% in 2015). To make up for some staff a not getting a larger increase in pay however, employees are given periodic spot bonuses such as Apple watches, a $200 “beer” bonus, and a paid day off for their birth- day. Michele Heisler, a physician at Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, receives an annual bonus contingent upon high quality-of-care patient ratings on her work.17
There is an infinite variety of noncash rewards that companies can give to teams to recognize contributions, ranging from thank-you notes to time off to all-expenses- paid trips for two to exotic places. Some 89 percent of organizations have recognition programs in place to motivate and engage their workforce, and 67 percent of organi- zations offer between three and six different incentive programs.18 PwC’s rewards and recognition program, Marquee has several avenues through which everyone from fellow team members, managers, and even the CEO, can nominate an employee for a bonus in appreciation for outstanding effort and results. Such rewards often rein- force the company image and strengthen the connection between the employer and the employee. Symantec’s Applause Awards program allows employees to reward team members with applause certificates with values from $25 to $1,000. Google, Zappos, NBC, and Southwest Airlines created peer-recognition programs in which team members nominate employees to receive a cash bonus.19 To be effective, recog- nition needs to be clearly focused on the team whose achievements are being cele- brated, rather than on a general self-congratulatory party for the entire unit or organization.
An especially thorny issue is whether recognition awards to teams should recog- nize all team members equally. Managers often think they’re giving their team quality recognition, but it is meaningless because of a lack of respect. Perhaps one employee has a great relationship with her manager and asks for a day off. When the manager tells her she’s too valuable to take any time off, she is demoralized. Another employee with a poor relationship with his boss sees a $1,000 bonus as a ploy and asks, “What is my manager trying to get out of me now?”20 Similarly, giving team members tickets to an evening event in reward for putting in long hours on a project may be deflating to team members with families.
For these reasons, many believe that teams should be given a role in distributing recognition awards—letting the team decide which members get how much. This prac- tice is consistent with the idea of self-managing teams: autonomy and self-management (see Exhibit Appendix 1-3).
17Cohen, P. (2015, May 25). One-time bonuses and perks muscle out pay raises for workers. The New York Times. nytimes.com 18Employee recognition programs continue upward trend to achieve organizational goals. (2015, May). World at Work. worldatwork.org 19Stern, G.M. (2012, January 26). A digital pat on the back from the boss: What’s it worth. CNN Money. management.fortune.cnn.com; Benefits and Perks. (2016, January 12). [Symantec Corporate Website]. http:// www.symantec.com; Recognition and Rewards. (2016, January 12). [PWC Corporate Website]. http://www.pwc. com; Kaplan, “This CEO was so obsessed with thank you notes, he sent 30,000 during his career.” 20From Cheap Ways to Motivate Your Team by Kara Ohngren Prior, © APRIL 30, 2009 Entrepreneur Media Inc.
Z01_THOM4204_06_SE_APP1.indd 350 10/25/16 3:04 PM
Appendix 1 • Rewarding Teamwork 351
Based on Millennial employees crave recognition, employer reward programs miss the mark. (2015, August 5). [press release]. multivu.com; Hayden, J. (2012, March 28). The 9 elements of highly effective employee praise. Inc. inc.com; nelson, B. (2012). 1501 ways to reward employees. new York; Workman publishing, © Leigh L. Thompson.
1. Take a few minutes each day to reflect on whose performance you’ve noticed. Send those individuals thank-you notes.
2. Manage by wandering around. Get out of your office to see, meet, and speak with employees about work they are doing.
3. When you read your mail, look for positive items to share with others or at all-department meetings.
4. Greet individual employees by name and with eye contact. Take a few minutes to see how they are doing. Be sincere.
5. Make an effort to meet with employees you don’t see or speak with very often. Take a break together, have coffee or an off-site lunch.
6. Act on good news. Catch people doing something right and thank them for it. 7. Take time to listen when employees need to talk. Be responsive to people, not just to prob-
lems. 8. Take time at the beginning or end of meetings to share positive news such as letters from
customers or ask if there is any praise from one team member to another. 9. Remember the 4:1 rule. Every time you criticize or correct someone, plan or praise or thank
that same person at least four times. 10. Think of mistakes as opportunities for learning. Help employees learn from their mistakes;
don’t criticize employees for making mistakes—especially in front of others. 11. Be quick to thank and compliment others and slow to criticize and judge them. 12. Spread positive gossip. Tell others what you are pleased about and who is responsible. 13. Post the employee’s achievement publicly. 14. Post a message on the company’s social media site. 15. Send an email to other team members with updates about how the team’s hard work is pay-
ing off. 16. Make sure that the praise matches the action. Don’t overpraise or it will lose its meaning. 17. Think about someone who does not get noticed often and tell them that their work matters
and is critical to the company’s success. 18. Praise your teammates while they are working toward a goal, not after they have achieved it.
Exhibit Appendix 1-3 Recognition Techniques
Two types of incentive pay systems that are not designed specifically for teams but are popular in participative management companies and are consistent with many team- based approaches are profit sharing and gainsharing. They can be tailored for teams.
PRofIt ShaRIng
Many companies use profit sharing schemes wherein a portion of the bottom-line economic profit is given to employees. In the typical profit sharing plan, profit sharing bonuses are put into retirement plans. This makes it more difficult to clearly relate rewards to controllable performance. Thus, most profit sharing plans have little impact on the motivation and behavior of employees.21
21Lawler, Rewarding excellence.
Z01_THOM4204_06_SE_APP1.indd 351 10/25/16 3:04 PM
352 Appendix 1 • Rewarding Teamwork
Profit sharing plans serve an important communication purpose by signaling to everyone that rewards are in balance across the organization. Second, they inform and educate employees about the financial health of the organization. Finally, profit sharing makes the labor costs of an organization variable, thus adjusting them to the organiza- tion’s ability to pay.22
gaInShaRIng
Gainsharing involves a measurement of productivity combined with the calculation of a bonus and is designed to offer employees a mutual share of any increases in total organizational productivity. In gainsharing plans, an organization uses a formula to share financial gains with all employees in a single plant or location. The organization establishes a historical base period of performance and uses this to determine whether gains in performance have occurred. Typically, only controllable costs are measured for the purpose of computing gain. Unless a major change takes place in the company’s products or technology, the historical base stays the same during the entire history of the plan. Thus, the organization’s performance is always compared with the time period before it started the gainsharing plan. When the organization’s performance is better than it was in the base period, the plan funds a bonus pool. When its performance falls short, no bonus pool is created; when performance is met or exceeded, the typical plan pays about half of the bonus pool to employees and the rest is kept by the company. Payments are usually made on a monthly basis, with all employees receiving the same percentage of their regular base pay.
Gainsharing enhances coordination and information sharing among teams, insti- gates attitude change, raises performance standards, and enhances idea generation and flexibility. Gainsharing plans are more than just pay incentive plans; they are a way of managing and a technology for organizational development.23 For gainsharing to work successfully, it should be developed in collaboration with the people it will affect. It is important that employees understand the formula and how to influence it, that the standards seem credible, that bonuses be timely, and that some mechanism exists for change. A company needs a participative management system because the plan requires employees to take ownership of the success of the company.24
Profit-sharing plans are typically less effective than gainsharing plans in influencing employee motivation and changing culture than are gainsharing plans.25 This lack of effectiveness is largely attributable to the disconnection between individual performance and corporate profits—even with high-level involvement. This depends on how salient profit sharing benefits are made to the workers. Consider the company that boldly posts its stock value for all employees to view in public areas—people see the value literally.
22Weitzman, M. (1984). The share economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 23Martocchio, J. (2012) Strategic compensation: A human resource management approach (7th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 24Blinder, A. S. (1990). Pay, participation, and productivity. Brookings Review, 8(1), 33–38. 25Ibid.
Z01_THOM4204_06_SE_APP1.indd 352 10/25/16 3:04 PM
Appendix 1 • Rewarding Teamwork 353
TEAM PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
Performance appraisals are a source of feedback, a basis for personal development, and a determination of pay. The rise of teams presents special challenges for performance appraisal. It is difficult for a supervisor to conduct a traditional performance appraisal of an individual who is serving at least part-time on a team. When the individual is part of a self-managed, self-directing, or self-governing team, it is virtually impossible, because supervisors are rarely close enough to the teams to evaluate them. The Catch- 22 is that if they were, they might hinder the performance of the team. The overarching purpose of a measurement system should be to help a team, rather than to employ top management to gauge its progress.26 Moreover, a truly empowered team should play a lead role in designing its own measurement system.
A change in traditional performance appraisals, precipitated by the rise of teams, affects what is measured in performance reviews. In many traditional control-oriented organizations, the major determinant of employees’ pay is the type of work they do or their seniority. The major alternative is competency-based pay. Companies are increasingly recognizing that dynamic factors, such as competencies and skills, may be a better way to measure success than static measures, such as experience and education.
Job-baSed Pay
Job-based pay is determined by a job evaluation system, which frequently takes a point factor approach to evaluating jobs.27 The point factor approach begins with a written job description that is scored in terms of duties. The point scores are then translated into salary levels. A key advantage of job-based pay systems is that organizations can determine what other companies are paying and can assess whether they are paying more or less than their competitors. Another advantage of job evaluation systems is that they allow for centralized control of an organization’s pay system.
SkIll-baSed Pay
To design a skill-based pay system, a company must identify the tasks that need to be performed in the organization. Next, the organization identifies skills that are needed for those tasks to be performed and develops tests or measures to determine whether a person has learned these skills. For this reason, it is important to specify the skills that an individual can learn in a company. Employees need to be told what they can learn given their position in the organization and how learning skills will affect their pay. People are typically paid only for the skills that they have and are willing to use. Many skill-based plans give people pay increases when they learn a new skill. One system of skill-based pay is a technical ladder, in which individuals are paid for the depth of skill they have in a particular technical specialty. The goal of skill-based pay systems is to manage candidate attraction and employee retention in jobs that require specialization.
26Meyer, C. (1994, May–June). How the right measures help teams excel. Harvard Business Review, pp. 95–103. 27Lawler, Rewarding excellence.
Z01_THOM4204_06_SE_APP1.indd 353 10/25/16 3:04 PM
354 Appendix 1 • Rewarding Teamwork
comPetency-baSed Pay
Competency-based pay differs from skill-based pay in that employees prove they can use their skills. After all, it is possible for people to attain skills (e.g., training and mentoring programs) but never use them—or be ineffective when using them. It is important for orga- nizations to focus on demonstrated competencies, rather than accumulated accreditations.
Competency-based pay is regarded as a much more sensible and ultimately prof- itable approach to use in a team-based organization. Competency-based pay systems promote flexibility in employees: When employees can perform multiple tasks, orga- nizations gain tremendous flexibility in using their workforce. This of course, is the concept of cross-training. In addition to the benefits of cross-training, individuals who have several skills have an advantage in terms of developing an accurate perspective on organizational problems and challenges. When employees have an overview of the entire company, they are more committed. When they are broadly knowledgeable about the operations of an organization, they can increase their self-management, coordinate with others, use organizational resources, and communicate more effectively.
Competency-based pay systems however, are not perfect. An organization using a competency-based pay system typically commits to giving everyone the opportunity to learn multiple skills and then to demonstrate them; thus, the organization has to make a large investment in training and evaluation. There is a trade-off between getting the work done and skill acquisition and demonstration.
360-DEGREE EVALUATIONS
With the increasing use of teams, peer review is becoming more common and more neces- sary in organizations. Popularly known as 360-degree or multi-rater feedback, the peer review procedure involves getting feedback about an employee from all perspectives: top (supervisors), bottom (subordinates), lateral (coworkers, suppliers, and end-user customers or clients) (see Exhibit Appendix 1-4). Typically, several people (ideally 5 to 10) participate in the evaluation, compared with a traditional review in which only one person, usually a supervisor, provides feedback. SkillSurvey, Inc. developed a program that applies the 360-degree performance review concept to employee recruitment. For example, in its employment search for nurses, each reference provided by the nurse applicants was sent an email asking them to anonymously complete a survey about their former coworker. The performance review results were combined and considered during the hiring process.28 In a 360-degree program, the highest paid should be the highest ranked when the results are plotted on a graph. Anonymity is the key to building a nonbiased feedback system, espe- cially for peers and subordinates. Otherwise, the entire system is compromised.
A big disadvantage of the top–down performance review is evaluation bias. The multiple data points and aggregate responses provided by 360-degree feedback make the bias of a single person less of a problem. A second major disadvantage of single- source evaluation is that it is easy to dismiss the information. Reginald Bull, Chief Human Resource officer of LG Electronics, decided to reveal the facts of his own 360-degree evaluation to ease integration into two Korean companies. On his first day on the job, he displayed summary scores from his most recent 360-degree review, which
28Maurer, R. (2015, December 16). Assessment technology revitalizes reference checks. Society for Human Resource Management. shrm.org
Z01_THOM4204_06_SE_APP1.indd 354 10/25/16 3:04 PM
Appendix 1 • Rewarding Teamwork 355
ranked him “average” for the operational phase of projects because, “Once the factories turn on, I get bored.”29
In theory, the 360-degree process provides a multifaceted view of the team member, but putting it into practice can be difficult: If the number of feedback sources is limited, raters are not guaranteed anonymity and may fear retaliation. The system is subject to abuse if members make side deals to rate one another favorably. Despite its difficulties, however, 360-degree or multi-rater feedback usually is regarded to be a fairer assessment of performance than is top–down review.
Although team members are often best qualified to rate one another, this approach has some weaknesses. Team members unpopular for reasons other than performance can suffer. Team members do not always grasp the big picture in terms of organizational goals. As raters, peers can suffer from evaluation biases.
develoPIng a 360-degRee PRogRam
There is no standard method for 360-degree implementation. Some companies admin- ister and develop the whole system. Some allow outside consultants to prepare and analyze feedback to ensure anonymity. To develop a 360-degree evaluation system, con- sider the steps outlined in Exhibit Appendix 1-5.30
29From “Transparency Pays Off In 360-Degree Reviews” by Joann S. Lublin in The Wall Street Journal, © Dec. 8, 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. 30Lepsinger, R., & Lucia, A. (2009). The Art and Science of 360 Degree Feedback. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; Hoffman, R. (1995, April). Ten reasons you should be using 360-degree feedback. HR Magazine, 40(4), 82–85; Milliman, J. F., Zawacki, R. F., Norman, C., Powell, L., & Kirksey, J. (1994, November). Companies evaluate employees from all perspectives. Personnel Journal, 73(11), 99–103.
Exhibit Appendix 1-4 360-Degree or Multi-rater Feedback
“Society for Human resource Management” from Society for Human Resource Management by C. J. novak. Copyright (c) by C. J. novak. Reprinted by permission of Society for Human Resource Management.
Employee Other Team Members’
Ratings
Suppliers’ Ratings
Subordinates’ Ratings
Superiors’ Ratings
Customers’ Ratings
Z01_THOM4204_06_SE_APP1.indd 355 10/25/16 3:04 PM
356 Appendix 1 • Rewarding Teamwork
The following questions should be considered before implementing 360-degree evaluation programs:
• Should other evaluation systems be utilized in addition to 360-degree feedback? • Should the organization consider hiring an outside consultant? • Should the organization purchase a generic program or create a customized evaluation? • Should the evaluation be computer-based or consist of a paper-and-pencil form? • How many raters should be involved? (Ideally, 5 to 10; fewer than 5 provides limited viewpoints,
and more than 10 consumes time and adds unnecessary complexity.) • Who should be involved in the rating? • Who should choose the raters? • How are terms like peer, supervisor, and subordinate defined by the organization? • How many questions or items should be incorporated into the evaluation? • Should the feedback remain anonymous? • How should employees be educated on the use of constructive criticism and the characteristics
of 360-degree feedback?
Exhibit Appendix 1-5 Things to Think about before Developing a 360-Degree Program in Your Company
Based on Lepsinger, R., & Lucia, A. (2009). The art and science of 360-degree feedback. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; Hoffman, R. (1995, April). Ten reasons you should be using 360-degree feedback. HR Magazine, 40(4), 82–85; Milliman, J. F., Zawacki, R. F., norman, C., powell, L., & Kirksey, J. (1994, november). Companies evaluate employees from all perspectives. Personnel Journal, 73(11), 99–103, © Leigh L. Thompson.
The practices put into place to address the issues in Exhibit Appendix 1-5 will be different for every organization. Duplicating systems used by world-class companies is not necessarily the best approach. Each organization should develop the 360-degree sys- tem that will optimize effectiveness within its organizational design. Companies should first use a pilot 360-degree program that is not tied to compensation and is not public. In the beginning stages, only the employee sees all of the feedback; gradually, the super- visor is brought into the loop. Eventually, it is important to tie employee compensation to the 360-degree evaluation.
If people other than management are involved in the appraisal process, then they must be trained on the legal issues involved with discrimination law, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and other relevant legislation (see Exhibit Appendix 1-6). While the use of multiple raters has become more popular as many firms move toward team- based management systems, gender and race affect performance reviews, with evalu- ations more positive for subordinates whose managers share their social demographic. Ingrained expectations about what types of people perform better also subtly influ- ence the process.31 The team diagnostic survey (TDS) identifies conditions that increase the likelihood that teams will perform well.32 The TDS can be used on a
31Pfeffer, J. (2009, July 23). Managers and employees alike sense the truth: Workplace appraisals aren’t working. Businessweek. bloomberg.com 32Wageman, R., Hackman, J. R., & Lehman, E. V. (2005). The team diagnostic survey: Development of an instrument. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(4), 373–398.
Z01_THOM4204_06_SE_APP1.indd 356 10/25/16 3:04 PM
Appendix 1 • Rewarding Teamwork 357
360-degree or peer-feedback format. It assesses the effectiveness of team task pro- cesses, the quality of members’ work relationships, and team members’ motivation and satisfaction. The TDS is organized into eight parts: (1) boundaries, interdepen- dency, and stability of the team; (2) purpose of the team; (3) size, effectiveness, diver- sity, skills, decision autonomy, behavior, and brand image of the team; (4) overall satisfaction with rewards for team performance, access to task necessary information, technical advice, training, and material resources; (5) effectiveness and coaching abili- ties of the team leader as well the support/feedback from other members; (6) team commitment, innovation, and knowledge sharing; (7) personal satisfaction with team relationships; and (8) learning opportunities and sense of well-being fostered by team membership.
Based on Bernardin, H. J., & Cascio, W. F. (1988). performance appraisal and the law. in R. S. Schuler, S. A. Youngblood, & V. L. Huber (eds.), Readings in personnel and human resource management (3rd ed., p. 239). St. paul, Mn: West; Aswathappa, K. (2007). Human resource and personnel management. new delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill education; Chavan, S. K. (2011). Legal issues associated with performance appraisal. Management Paradise. managementparadise.com; Baskin, M. (2002, May). Legal guidelines for associations for conducting employee evaluations and performance. ASAE: The Center for Association Leadership. asaecenter.org, © Leigh L. Thompson.
1. The important duties and tasks of a particular job should be identified and clearly specified. Specific, job-related criteria should be weighted to reflect its relative importance and objec- tively verifiable. If an employee’s performance appraisal is to consider behaviors other than productivity goals, the rater should be given ample time to observe employee work behaviors on the job.
2. Rating an employee on personal traits such as loyalty, drive, attitude, or dependability is subjective and such criteria should be avoided.
3. Specific performance standards should be formally communicated to employees in advance of the appraisal period.
4. The appraisal process should be the same for all employees within a specific job function. 5. All raters should be provided instructions about how to give systematic, unbiased appraisals,
consistently evaluate performance, and prevent discrimination. 6. Two or more raters should review each employee independently. The required documenta-
tion of appraisals should be consistent for all raters. 7. Performance and behavioral documentation should be prepared by raters in advance of
presenting individual employees with performance appraisal results. 8. All employees should be permitted to review their appraisal results and a formal system of
appeal should be available for appraisal disagreements. 9. A regular schedule for job evaluations should be established and at least one performance
appraisal should be done per fiscal year. 10. Written records of all appraisal contents should be kept in a secure location and all
documentation, especially specific behavioral examples leading to the termination of an employee should be maintained by Human Resources.
Exhibit Appendix 1-6 Prescriptions for Legally Defensible Appraisal Systems
Z01_THOM4204_06_SE_APP1.indd 357 10/25/16 3:04 PM
358 Appendix 1 • Rewarding Teamwork
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
An organization that wants to institute some kind of variable team-based pay structure needs to follow a step-by-step approach. Before that however the organization needs to adhere to some basic guiding principles.33
PRIncIPle 1: goalS Should coveR aReaS that team membeRS can affect dIRectly
Compensation won’t motivate employees unless there is a direct line of sight between performance and results.34 In an investigation of 912 employees in 194 workgroups from 45 companies, individual pay for performance (PFP) was positively related to employees’ performance-reward expectancy. Under high levels of contingent reward leadership and profit sharing, this resulted in better job performance.35
PRIncIPle 2: balance the mIx of IndIvIdual and team-baSed Pay
For many teams, a thoughtful balance of individual and group incentives may be most appropriate. A general rule is to balance this proportionally with the amount of indi- vidual and team-based work an employee is expected to do or the percentage of control and responsibility the individual and the team have. It is also important to consider whether feedback should be at the individual or group level. This is because it is possible that individuals might be performing well, but their group is not, or vice versa. The extent to which a person is identified with his or her team is critical when individual and group feedback is discrepant. For example, when a person receives negative feed- back, but the group’s feedback is positive, those who are highly identified with their team are less discouraged than those who are less identified with their team.36
PRIncIPle 3: conSult the team membeRS Who WIll be affected
The programs with the greatest likelihood of success are those that have input from all levels of the organization, including members of the team, teams that support or inter- face with the team, those who will administer the plan, management, and customers. For example, the mutual investment EOR (employee-organization relationship) approach in which employers expect high levels of employee contributions and offer extensive inducements is associated with greater team innovation.37
33Gross, S. E. (2008). Team-based pay. In L. A. Berger & D. R. Berger (Eds.), The compensation handbook: A state- of-the-art guide to compensation strategy and design (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. 34Lawler, Rewarding excellence; Murphy, K. J. (1999). Executive compensation. Handbook of labor economics, 3, 2485–2563. 35Han, J. H., Bartol, K. M., & Kim, S. (2015). Tightening up the performance–pay linkage: Roles of contingent reward leadership and profit-sharing in the cross-level influence of individual pay-for-performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 417. 36Rabinovich, A., & Morton, T. (2012). Sizing fish and ponds: The joint effects of individual and group-based feedback. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 244–249. 37Jia, L., Shaw, J. D., Tsui, A. S., & Park, T. Y. (2014). A social–structural perspective on employee–organization relationships and team creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3), 869–891.
Z01_THOM4204_06_SE_APP1.indd 358 10/25/16 3:04 PM
Appendix 1 • Rewarding Teamwork 359
PRIncIPle 4: avoId oRganIzatIonal myoPIa
Many programs fail, not because they are inherently flawed, but rather because they create problems with other teams, groups, and units within the organization. Managers often are myopic about their own team issues; good leaders are able to ask the question about how the particular team compensation system fits into the larger organization. Another aspect of organizational myopia is the extent to which people are future- focused. Indeed, people who have future-oriented work expectations have greater job satisfaction and lower turnover intentions.38
PRIncIPle 5: deteRmIne elIgIbIlIty (Who QualIfIeS foR the Plan)
Every member of the team should be eligible for the plan, and the plan should indicate when someone becomes eligible or loses eligibility. (Another complication concerns full- and part-time membership.)
PRIncIPle 6: deteRmIne eQuIty method
There are two basic variations: same dollar amount (wherein each team or each member is given the same amount of pay) and same percentage amount (wherein each team or each member is given the same percentage of pay).
PRIncIPle 7: QuantIfy the cRIteRIa uSed to deteRmIne Payout
There are two main ways to measure team results: financial and operational. Financial measures tend to be “bigger,” encompassing profit and loss (measured either compa- nywide or in terms of the team’s contribution) or revenue. Operational measures are typically productivity based (e.g., cycle time). There are several drawbacks to financial measures that primarily stem from the inability of team members to control the corpo- rate-level decisions that will affect their microfinances. Operational measures are more firmly within the team’s grasp.
PRIncIPle 8: deteRmIne hoW taRget levelS of PeRfoRmance aRe eStablIShed and uPdated
Goals can be based on either past performance or projected performance, with advan- tages and disadvantages to each. The most immediate advantage of the historical approach is that people can readily accept it. Many managers however, like to set stretch goals. One popular compromise is raising the bar, in which the baseline is increased and employees are given a one-time payment to compensate them for lost incentive opportunity. Conflict about the amount of the payout however, is likely to result. The rolling average method sets the baseline against which performance is measured as an average of some relevant period of time.
38Chen, G., Ployhart, R. E., Thomas, H. C., Anderson, N., & Bliese, P. D. (2011). The power of momentum: A new model of dynamic relationships between job satisfaction change and turnover intentions. Academy of Management, 54(1), 159–181.
Z01_THOM4204_06_SE_APP1.indd 359 10/25/16 3:04 PM
360 Appendix 1 • Rewarding Teamwork
PRIncIPle 9: develoP a budget foR the Plan
All plans should pay for themselves, with the exception of safety plans.
PRIncIPle 10: deteRmIne tImIng of meaSuRementS and PaymentS
Shorter measurement periods and faster payouts motivate employees more and— particularly when pay is at risk—are fairer. However, the disadvantages with a short- turnaround system include administrative overhead and manipulation of results.
PRIncIPle 11: communIcate WIth thoSe Involved
It is important for companies to be completely straightforward about what counts and how things are going. Indeed, people invest more resources on tasks on which they receive high-quality feedback.39 In terms of feedback quality, two things are important: timing and specificity.
PRIncIPle 12: Plan foR the futuRe
As teaming becomes more developed and the organization experiences shifts in culture or focus, a new mix of rewards needs to be defined to keep the organization in alignment.
39Northcraft, G., Schmidt, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2011). Feedback and the rationing of time and effort among competing tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 1076–1086.
Z01_THOM4204_06_SE_APP1.indd 360 10/25/16 3:04 PM
361
A meeting is a gathering where people speak up, say nothing, and then all disagree.
—Thomas Kayser, “Mining Group Gold,” 1990
The work of teams largely proceeds through meetings. Whether they are regularly scheduled or called out of need, effective meeting management is necessary for success. People spend a lot of time in meetings. A study of CEOs and time usage revealed that they spent roughly 18 hours of a 55-hour workweek in meetings, while senior executives averaged 28 hours per week of meeting time and middle managers 21 hours.1 In addition to scheduled meetings, managers are involved in unscheduled and non–job-related meetings.
Perhaps meetings would not be a bad thing if they were economical and effective. One survey found that 73 percent of workers admitted to doing nonrelated work in meetings, while 39 percent admitted to dozing off at least once, and 91 percent of average meeting goers admit- ted to daydreaming during meetings. Another survey reported that most U.S. employees attend an average of 62 meetings a month, with half of those meetings considered a waste of time. Work professionals lose as many as 31 hours per month to unproductive meetings and for U.S. businesses, the salary cost of unnecessary meetings is estimated to be $37 billion.2 Companies are so overburdened with meetings that experts say it’s a wonder any work gets done. Meeting expert Thomas Kayser summed it up this way: “A meeting is an interaction where the unwill- ing, selected from the uninformed, led by the unsuitable, to discuss the unnecessary, are required to write a report about the unimportant.” 3
Meetings also trigger stress. Studies at the Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute found that small-group dynamics such as those in jury deliberations, cocktail parties, bargaining ses- sions, and board meetings can temporarily alter the expression of a person’s IQ. Scientists in the study used an MRI scan to study how the human brain processes information about social status in small groups and how a group’s perception of an individual’s social status affects that individual’s cognitive task performance. Dr. Read Montague, director of the study said, “You
1Shellenbarger, S. (2014, October 15). New office flashpoint: Who gets the conference room? The Wall Street Journal. wsj.com
3From Mining group gold: How to cash in on the collaborative brain power of a group by T. A. Kayser El Segundo, CA: Serif Publishing, (c) 1990 Thomas A. Kayser.
2You waste a lot of time at work. (2016, March). Atlassian [Web log infographic]. atlassian.com/ time-wasting-at-work-infographic
Managing Meetings2 A
p p
e n
d ix
Z02_THOM4204_06_SE_APP2.indd 361 10/25/16 3:06 PM
362 Appendix 2 • Managing Meetings
may joke about how committee meetings make you feel brain dead, but our findings suggest that they may make you act brain dead as well.”4
It is possible to engage employees at meetings. When employees are allowed to have a voice at meetings and the time is managed, they are more engaged.5 At baby food manufacturer Plum Organics’ weekly meeting, employees color in coloring books, talk, and decompress to stay engaged in their new product development. At Genera Games, employees hold their meetings on the basketball court shooting hoops. Weary of rehash- ing issues or decisions, security software company Brivo instituted a “no rehash” rule by raising the “no rehash” ping-pong paddle.6
THE 4P MEETING MANAGEMENT MODEL
The 4P model is a method for designing and implementing effective meetings.7 It has four key steps (see Exhibit A2-1):(1) specify why the meeting is being held and what decisions need to be made, (2) invite the appropriate people, (3) carefully plan the meet- ing agenda and format, and (4) establish ground rules and norms for the conduct of the meeting and meeting management processes.
Skilled meeting managers do not just sit at the head of the table and call upon people to speak in a round-robin fashion. Nor do they run a “talk show” by simply airing ideas, conflicts, and concerns. Skilled meeting managers do not write down everything that is said; rather they call out and punctuate key themes. Skilled meeting managers do not orally paraphrase members’ ideas; rather they record them visually. Skilled meeting managers do not try to induce dominant members to yield the floor by saying, “Keep it short” or “We need to hear from everyone”; rather they use brainwriting at select times. They do not organize the meeting by who is there; rather by what is to be done. Accord- ing to Tropman, it is better to organize meeting by content: announcements should come first, then decisions, followed by discussion time, in that order.8 A checklist for the meeting planner organizes discussion around five key planning questions:9
1. Why meet? (define your purpose and choose your channel) 2. Who to include? (select and analyze the participants) 3. What to discuss? (orchestrate roles and set the agenda) 4. How to record ideas? (plan for graphic facilitation) 5. Where to meet? (plan for technology and logistics)
Recording the comments in the meeting is a critical aspect of successful meeting management and presents a variety of different ways to organize information.
4From “Implicit signals in small group settings and their impact on the expression of cognitive capacity and associated brain responses” by Kenneth T. Kishida, Dongni Yang, Karen Hunter Quartz, Steven R. Quartz, P. Read Montague in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 367(1589), 704–716, (c) 23 January 2012 Royal Society UK. 5Allen, J. A., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2013). Manager-led group meetings a context for promoting employee engagement. Group & Organization Management, 38(5), 543–569. 6Vozza, S. (2015, July 28). How 12 Companies make meetings memorable, effective, and short. Fast Company. fastcompany.com 7From Developing management skills by Whetten, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (2nd ed.), © 1991 HarperCollins. 8Tropman, J. E. (2007). Conducting effective meetings—A short guide for meeting managers and meeting participants. In D. Whetten, & K. Cameron (Eds.), Developing management skills (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 9From Guide to Meetings, Prentice-Hall guides to advanced business communication by Mary M. Munter and Michael Netzley, © 2002 Pearson Education.
Z02_THOM4204_06_SE_APP2.indd 362 10/25/16 3:06 PM
Appendix 2 • Managing Meetings 363
Exhibit Appendix 2-1 The 4P Meeting Management Model
Based on Whetten, d.A., & Cameron, K.S. (1991). developing management skills (2nd ed.). new York: HarperCollins; Armour, S. (1997, december 8). Business’ black hole. USA Today, p.1A; Tropman, J.e. (2003). Making meetings work: Achieving high quality group decisions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; O’Brien, p., davis-Ali, S. (2015). How to run meetings that aren’t a waste of time. USA Today. usatoday.com; Zetlin, M. (2016, January 20). it’s official: Half of your meetings are a waste of time. Inc. inc.com, (c) Leigh L. Thompson.
Key Skills Questions to Ask
• A complex problem needs to be resolved using the expertise of several people.
• Team members’ commitment to a decision or to each other needs to be enhanced.
• Information needs to be shared simultaneously among several key people.
• Don’t let one or two dominant team members control the discussion. Invite ideas from quiet attendees by asking non-participators their thoughts on meeting topics or by conducting a brainwriting session.
• By more equally involving all participants, gain more “buy-in” from all team members and enhance team cohesion.
• The size of the team should be compatible with the task. • A balance between people with strong task orientations
and those with strong interpersonal skills is desirable.
• Eliminate distractions from technology as these tools prevent meeting participants from fully participating in the meeting at hand.
• Provide for adequate physical space, etc. • Establish priorities by sequencing agenda items and
allotting time limits to each item. • Prepare and distribute the agenda before or at the
beginning of the meeting. • Organize the agenda by content, not by who is there.
Use a three-step approach: announcements, decisions, and discussion.
• Think about your visual aids: visual aids are 43 percent more persuasive than no visuals.
• Choose the most appropriate decision-making structure (e.g. brainstorming and nominal group technique).
• If people agreed to complete certain projects at the conclusion of the last meeting, begin the following meeting with a progress report on those assignments. This technique will make attendees aware they are answerable for what they promised to complete.
• At the beginning, restate the overall purpose of the meeting and review the agenda and time constraints.
• Make note of the ground rules, such as how decisions will be made (e.g., raised hands or secret ballot).
• Use techniques to ensure equal participation from members.
• Conclude the meeting by summarizing key decisions, reviewing assignments, and determining objectives for the next meeting.
• What is the purpose of the meeting? • Is the purpose clear to participants? • Is a meeting the most appropriate means of
accomplishing the goal? • Are key people available to attend the meeting? • Is the cost of the meeting in proportion to what will be
accomplished?
• Is the size of the meeting appropriate given the problem of coordination costs?
• What diversity of skills and backgrounds is important to have in the meeting?
• Has an agenda been created? • Has the agenda for the meeting been distributed to
members prior to the meeting? • Have members been forewarned if they will be asked
to report? • Has the physical arrangement been considered (e.g.,
whiteboards, smartscreens, and flipcharts)? • Has key information been put into proper information
displays? • Has a note-taker been assigned?
• If this is the first meeting of a team, has an icebreaker been included?
• Does the icebreaker get people involved in a behavioral or emotional way (at a minimum, a handshake or high- five)?
• Have the ground rules been determined and shared with members in advance of the meeting?
Purpose
Participants
Plan
Process
Z02_THOM4204_06_SE_APP2.indd 363 10/25/16 3:06 PM
364 Appendix 2 • Managing Meetings
Thelma Talk-a-Lot “I just have to say this”
Sam Stall “Let’s not rush into this”
Don Domineering Talks 75 percent of the time about his own ideas
Nick Negative Explains that someone has to be the devil’s advocate
Ted Theorizer “It’s really complex”
Nancy Nuts-‘n’-Bolts Always comes up with an impossible example to deal with
Jim Just-a-Little-Bit-More Information-on-This-Topic-Please
“I don’t feel we should decide until we know more”
Herman Hypochondriacal Is convinced that any path makes vulnerabilities increase
Yolanda You’re-Not-Going-to Believe-What-Happened-to-Me
Uses immediate, personal events rather than over- arching views to analyze problems
Exhibit Appendix 2-2 Typical Group Members
Based on Tropman, J. e. (2003). Making meetings work: Achieving high quality group decisions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, © Leigh L. Thompson.
DEALING WITH PROBLEM PEOPLE IN MEETINGS
There is no surefire way to deal with “problem people.” As a general principle, having structure helps. It also can be helpful to give group members a list of desirable and unde- sirable role descriptions prior to the meeting. Exhibit Appendix 2-2 is a humorous list of typical group members. Although stated in jest, each description has a ring of truth to it.
Advice for Meeting Attendees
The burden of effective meeting management does not rest solely on the shoulders of the leader. Group members need to engage in the following proactive strategies:10
• Determine whether you need to attend the meeting. Don’t attend merely because you have been invited. If you have doubts about whether the meeting’s agenda applies to you, discuss with the leader why he or she feels your presence is important.
• Prepare. Acquaint yourself with the agenda and prepare any reports or informa- tion that will facilitate others’ understanding of the issues. Come prepared with questions that will help you understand the issues.
• Be on time. Stragglers not only waste the time of other participants by delaying the meeting or requiring summaries of what has happened but also hinder effective team building and hurt morale. Software company TINYpulse helps employees remember to attend the company’s daily staff meeting by scheduling it an odd time: 8:48. Cvent Vice President Darrell Gehrt implemented the policy that anyone who arrived to a meeting late must sing for the group.11
10Whetton & Cameron. (1991). Developing management skills. 11Vozza, S. (2015, July 28). How 12 companies make meetings memorable, effective, and short. Fast Company. fastcompany.com
Z02_THOM4204_06_SE_APP2.indd 364 10/25/16 3:06 PM
Appendix 2 • Managing Meetings 365
• Ask for clarification of points that are unclear or ambiguous. Most of the time, you will find that others in the room have the same question but are too timid to speak out.
• When giving information, be precise and to the point. Don’t bore everyone with anecdotes and details that add little to your point.
• Listen. Keep eye contact with the speaker and try to ascertain the underlying ideas behind the comments. Be sensitive to the effect your nonverbal behavior, such as slouching, doodling, or reading has on speakers.
• Be supportive of other group members. Acknowledge and build on the comments of others (e.g., “As Jane was saying . . . ”).
• Ensure equitable participation. Take the lead in involving others so that every- one’s talents are used. This is especially important if you know that some par- ticipants’ points of view are not being included in the discussion. This can be accomplished by encouraging those who rarely participate (e.g., “Jim, your unit worked on something like this last year. What was your experience like?”).
• Make disagreements principle based. If it is necessary to disagree with or chal- lenge the comments of others, follow the guidelines for collaborative conflict man- agement (e.g., base your comments on commonly held principles or values; for instance: “That’s an interesting idea, Bill, but how does it square with the presi- dent’s emphasis on cost-cutting?”).
• Act and react in a way that will enhance the group performance. In other words, leave your personal agendas at the door and work toward the goals of the group.
COMMON PROBLEMS AND MEETING MISTAKES
overcoMMitMent
Symptoms: Many people agree to perform tasks and accomplish goals that they cannot possibly do in the time allowed. In some cases, this problem is attributable to the pres- sures placed on managers to accomplish goals and say “yes.” However, in many more instances, the overcommitment problem stems from a fundamental inability to estimate how long it will take to accomplish a task.12 In addition, people tend to make commit- ments in advance because their confidence in their ability to finish is higher when they are further away from the task.13 Most people make subjective mental estimates of how long it will take to accomplish a task, such as writing a report, collecting information, or interviewing a recruit, by imagining the scenario and then estimating a timeline based upon the running of the scenario. People’s mental simulations however, fail to take into account the process losses that will inevitably thwart their efforts. For example, when they expect to spend two weeks writing a report, they fail to anticipate that their printer might break down or that they might have to spend a day offsite. Consequently, most managers are consistently behind schedule.
12Lovallo, D., & Kahneman, D. (2003, July). Delusions of success: How optimism undermines executives’ decisions. Harvard Business Review, 81(7), 56–63. 13Gilovich, T., Kerr, M., & Medvec, V. H. (1993). The effect of temporal perspective on subjective confidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 552–560.
Z02_THOM4204_06_SE_APP2.indd 365 10/25/16 3:06 PM
366 Appendix 2 • Managing Meetings
In many cases, managers and executives are asked to commit themselves to per- form tasks and events at some time in the distant future. For example, a team leader might be asked to enroll in a three-day course next year, travel abroad to interview other team members, or attend a conference. Many people agree to these future invitations, but when the time approaches, regret that they have to do what they promised.14 People fail to adequately weigh the importance of their future opportunities and time con- straints, so they commit to things in the future that they most likely would decline to do in the present.
Treatment: The easiest way to deal with the overcommitment problem is to simply double (or triple) the amount of time projected to accomplish a task. For example, pub- lishers typically add six months to an author’s projected completion time for a manu- script. Another way of combatting the bias is to break the task down into its different elements and then estimate the time necessary to complete each part—people are more accurate at estimating the time necessary to accomplish smaller tasks. When someone asks you to do something, such as write a report, travel, or make a presentation, imag- ine that you are being asked to do this the next week, or even the next day. If you are disinclined, it might not be a good idea to take it on.
AnAlysis PArAlysis
Symptoms: Teams often are uncomfortable making decisions. This is particularly true when the decision matter is complex and value laden. Under such conditions, teams will do nearly anything to avoid making decisions. The manager faces an avoidance– avoidance conflict: Making a decision is difficult, but not making a decision makes one appear indecisive. One way of avoiding decision making but not appearing to be indecisive is to request additional information. This makes people feel as though they are making progress, but actually the additional information might not be diagnostic or useful. It is merely gathered so that the team members can better cognitively justify their decision. In theory, the amount of information relevant to any decision situation is boundless; however at some point, decisions must be made. Decision avoidance is a particular concern when teams make negative decisions, such as downsizing.
Consider, for example, the following scenario:
A businessman contemplates buying a certain piece of property. He considers the outcome of the next presidential election relevant to the attractiveness of the pur- chase. So, to clarify the matter for himself, he asks whether he would buy if he knew that the Republican candidate were going to win, and decides that he would do so. Similarly, he considers whether he would buy if he knew that the Demo- cratic candidate were going to win, and again, finds that he would do so. Seeing that he would buy in either event, he decides that he should buy, even though he does not know which event occurs.15
14Loewenstein, J., & Prelic, D. (1991). Negative time preference. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 81(2), 347–352. 15From The Foundations of Statistics by Leonard J. Savage, pp.21 © 1972 Courier Corporation.
Z02_THOM4204_06_SE_APP2.indd 366 10/25/16 3:06 PM
Appendix 2 • Managing Meetings 367
The preceding rationale is known as the sure-thing principle. It would seem irrational or somewhat silly, if the businessperson in this case were to delay purchase until after the election or to pay money to find out the election results ahead of time. Yet in orga- nizations, decision makers often pursue noninstrumental information—information that appears relevant, but if available, would have no impact on choice. The problem does not end there. Once they pursue such information, people then use it to make their decision. Consequently, the pursuit of information that would have had no impact on choice leads people to make choices they otherwise would not have made.16
Treatment: Keeping a clear log that details the history of the decision. For example, a team member might say, “You know, this issue was first brought up two years ago, and it was agreed that a competitive analysis was necessary. This competitive analysis was performed, and I brought you the results the following spring. Then, it was sug- gested that a task force be formed. We did this and came to some conclusions in a report circulated last fall. We agreed at that time that we would make a decision at this meeting. I realize that more information is always better, but I am beginning to wonder whether the costs of continuing to search for information are a way of avoiding a deci- sion.”17 This strategy is especially important in teams where membership changes (and hence, organizational memory is lost) and in teams that must make tough decisions (e.g., employment terminations).
reinventing the Wheel
Symptoms: Many teams face decisions that they make on a repeated basis. For example, merit review decisions, hiring decisions, admission decisions, funding decisions, and so on all are decisions that must be made repeatedly. Teams, however, often exhibit a memory loss of sorts about how they made previous decisions. As a result, they spend valuable time arguing with one another about past decisions, and memories prove to be fallible. The failed memory problem most is likely to afflict teams that have not created a sufficient organizational memory. The failed memory problem also haunts teams that experience turnover. Under these situations, team members who take notes or have some kind of record have an enormous advantage.
Treatment: The key here is to make the process explicit and then to have it recorded in some fashion so that it can be retrieved later. The problem is that most people trust their memories when they are discussing the issue or making the decision; consequently, they don’t bother to write down what they believe will be burned into their memory.
TIPS FOR MEETING FACILITATORS
do your hoMeWork
Find out as much as you can about the group, the company, and the individual mem- bers before the meeting. Ideally, interview the members of the group individually either by phone, in person, or via a short questionnaire to determine their views about the issues to be addressed in the meeting and their major concerns about the ability of the meeting to accomplish these objectives. Of course, you should guarantee each person that you will not reveal the particulars about what they have said. If you plan to provide
16Bastardi, A., & Shafir, E. (1998). On the pursuit and misuse of useless information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 19–32. 17Leigh L. Thompson
Z02_THOM4204_06_SE_APP2.indd 367 10/25/16 3:06 PM
368 Appendix 2 • Managing Meetings
a summary overview, tell each person that. This is your first meeting with each team member, and trust is a key issue in getting the information that you need and securing your future relationship with the group. At the very least, get biographies of the group members and ask them how long they’ve been with the organization, their role in the team, and so on.
PlAn the PhysicAl environMent
Most people seriously underestimate the effect that the physical environment can have on the nature of interaction. It is useful to ask for floor plans and diagrams. Send the desired diagram to the meeting coordinator several weeks in advance and create explicit diagrams of where chairs and tables should be. It is usually too late to move furniture by the time you arrive for the meeting; people will want to talk to you, not rearrange the room. Your key materials for the meeting should include a room large enough for people to sit comfortably; movable chairs; conference table seating for small groups; half-rounds, or full-rounds for larger groups; a Post-it pad of paper or note cards for each member and a pencil or pen; two or three flip charts; and a whiteboard or a chalk- board. It is useful to also have projector smart screen. If you don’t know the group, ask for name badges or nameplates that are computer printed. Usually, it is impossible to read handwriting on nametags unless you are standing only two feet away, and you will probably be about 15 to 20 feet away.
exPlAin Who you Are And Why you Are there
You might be viewed as an outsider, or interloper to the group. This creates tension. You should immediately state that you are there to facilitate the process and to help the group make the best use of their time and that you do not have a particular stake in the substantive issues. In most cases, you should be clear about who asked you to come in. Above all, don’t assume that the reasons for hiring a meeting facilitator have been communicated accurately to the group. Even if a memo was sent out, it might not have been read. Some people may feel strongly opposed to an outside facilitator. Tell the group who you are but don’t try to impress them. You can also “normalize” the situation by giving them statistics that support the idea that making the best use of meetings is of quintessential importance and that even the best organizations are not experts at meeting management. The objective is to give them confidence that you are qualified to do this job. Often, the group will feel somewhat defensive that they need to hire someone to manage their meetings.
knoW the PersonAlities
If the group members do not know one another well, it is useful for everyone to intro- duce themselves. If the group members do know one another well, having members talk about themselves is boring for other people. In this case, a useful technique is the next-in-line strategy, in which members introduce others in the group. For example, each person introduces the person to their left. This is more interesting for group members because they hear, perhaps for the first time, how they are viewed by others. This also serves as an icebreaker because members often are flattered at the admira- tion given to them by others. (Often, people sit by others whom they like, so having someone introduce the person sitting next to them ensures a favorable introduction.)
Z02_THOM4204_06_SE_APP2.indd 368 10/25/16 3:06 PM
Appendix 2 • Managing Meetings 369
Another technique I like is to use the statement, “Tell us something about yourself that is not obvious.” When I use this technique in meetings and classes, the class is always surprised and intrigued by what they learn about people with whom they have worked for years.
estAblish ground rules
It is imperative to let the group know that you will be using and enforcing meeting ground rules. You might want to acknowledge that the ground rules may seem some- what silly or reminiscent of their school days but that companies that use these ground rules are more effective. If you have the time, it is best to have the group suggest some ground rules, so that they “own” them. If you don’t have the time, you can write some rules quickly on a smart screen or flip chart and briefly walk through it with the mem- bers. An example list of ground rules is presented in Exhibit Appendix 2-3. You might not want to use all of these, but they give you a starting point from which members can add their own rules (or modify the ones on the list).
The most difficult challenge facing the facilitator is enforcing the ground rules. They will get broken, and the temptation will be to excuse or ignore rule-breaking behavior. It is imperative however, to demonstrate that you will enforce the ground rules. You actually should do this early on in the meeting (e.g., “Pat, I need to remind you that we agreed to not mention personal names when talking about the peer review,” or “Stan, your five minutes are up”). Enlist group members to enforce ground rules, too.
creAte An AgendA
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg sends meeting materials in advance so the meeting time can be used for discussion, and the meeting chairperson states the purpose and goal for the meeting when everyone sits down for the session. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos requires managers to write a memo with a detailed summary of their thoughts before every face-to-face discussion. Expect to be challenged on the agenda either directly (e.g., “If you don’t mind, I want to bring up x, y, and z”) or indirectly (e.g., “Don’t you think
Based on Tropman, J. e. (2003). Making meetings work: Achieving high quality group decisions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, © Leigh L. Thompson.
Exhibit Appendix 2-3 Meeting Ground Rules
• Everyone stays for duration of meeting.
• Form an agenda and stick to it.
• Form a time line and stick to it.
• No “new business.”
• No semantic/philosophical discussions.
• No “let’s call for more information” (decision avoidance).
• No evaluation of ideas until evaluation period.
• No more reports.
Z02_THOM4204_06_SE_APP2.indd 369 10/25/16 3:06 PM
370 Appendix 2 • Managing Meetings
we should talk about x, y, and z before we do this?”). The best way of handling this is to create a post-discussion agenda and explain that there might be time for these issues after the scheduled meeting.
use huMor
Meetings don’t have to be dour and serious. One investigation examined behavioral patterns of humor and laugher in real teams during 54 organizational team meetings.18 Humor patterns (joke followed by laughter, and then another joke) triggered positive communication, new solutions, and better performance both immediately and two years later.
closing the Meeting
It is important to bring the meeting to a close in a way that gives the members a sense of what has been accomplished and decided, what steps need to be taken before the next meeting, and what the goal of the next meeting will be (which should be scheduled with everyone present). Finally, you should close in a way that allows each member to “briefly and deeply” reflect on the meeting. Each one of the agenda items should be recapped, and homework or follow-up should be assigned to individual members. A summary of decision and action items should be distributed as soon as possible to the group. I like to spend the last 5 to 10 minutes going around and having each person say the one thing that happened today that they “did not expect” (otherwise everyone will state the obvious, such as, “We got a lot done” or “The time passed quickly”).
solicit feedbAck
This step is important especially if you have not worked with the group before. Dis- tribute to each participant a short questionnaire that asks the following questions:19 (1) What in this meeting went well and should be kept? (2) What in this meeting did not go so well and should be eliminated? (3) What in this meeting did not happen and should be included? If you will be working with the group again, aggregate the list of responses and circulate it among group members.
18Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Allen, J. A. (2014). How fun are your meetings? Investigating the relationship between humor patterns in team interactions and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1278. 19Leigh L. Thompson
Z02_THOM4204_06_SE_APP2.indd 370 10/25/16 3:06 PM
371
Most students enrolled in MBA programs must work in groups to complete important projects and requirements en route to obtaining their degrees. Some students work with the same group throughout their program; other students work with several groups each semester. This is a guide for helping these groups to be as effective as possible.
VERY EARLY ON
In the beginning when the group is forming, it is helpful to do some kind of structured exercise that moves beyond superficial conversation. For this reason, it is helpful to have a somewhat structured but fun exercise that moves people beyond superficial pleasantries and encourages them to talk about their expectations for the team, work styles, and so on.
DURING THE FIRST WEEK
A host of tensions and dilemmas can threaten the effectiveness of any study group. We suggest the team meet and complete a “team charter.”1 We also suggest that groups that will work together for long periods discuss the following issues in the first week or two:
Team Goals
• Learning: “Are we here to learn and to help others learn or are we here to get a good grade?” There is not a right answer to this question, but differing goals in the group can hurt performance.
• Standards: “Is perfectionism more important than being on time, or vice versa?” • Performance: “Are we a high-pass (dean’s list) group or a pass (survival) group?”
ThouGhT QuesTions
• What happens if the project leader has lower standards than some other members about writing a paper or report?
• What happens if one group member is not very skilled at some topic area (i.e., how do you use that member’s input on group projects and incorporate ideas that do not appear to be adding value)?
1Kellogg School of Management (producer). (2015). Is your team slacking? [video]. Available from www.kellogg .northwestern.edu
Creating Effective Study Groups3
A p
p e
n d
ix
Z03_THOM4204_06_SE_APP3.indd 371 10/25/16 3:08 PM
372 Appendix 3 • Creating Effective Study Groups
Person–Task maPPinG
• Is it best to capitalize on the existing strengths of team members or to play to people’s weaknesses?
• Suppose your team has a quantitative guru. Do you want to assign the “quant jock” to do all the math and econometrics problems or use this as an opportunity to let other team members learn?
addiTional QuesTions
• Member skills: Do you want to use your study group meeting time to bring all group members up to speed, or should those who need help get it on their own time?
• Person–task focus: Are people the group’s first priority, or is working the first priority?
• Structure: Should the team meeting be structured (e.g., agenda, timekeeper, and assigned roles) or should it be free form?
• Interloper: Are other people (outside the group) allowed to attend group meetings and have access to group notes, outlines, homework, and so on, or is group work considered confidential?
• Communication standards: Are group members expected to adapt to the most advanced methods of communication, or does group work happen at the lowest common denominator?
• Project leader pacing: There would seem to be an advantage for group mem- bers who volunteer early on for group projects because commitments and pres- sures build up later in the semester. How will the group meeting process adapt to increasing workloads?
AFTER THE GROUP IS WELL UNDERWAY
After the group is well underway, it is a good idea to take stock of how the group is working together. Another useful idea is to do some version of a peer-feedback perfor- mance review, wherein individuals receive confidential feedback and ratings about how they are viewed by other team members. This can often be completely computerized.
ON A REGULAR BASIS
It is important that study groups revisit the team charter. Are the expectations being met? What issues and topics that are not in the charter should be talked about? What issues in the charter do not seem relevant?
TIPS FOR LONG-TERM STUDY GROUPS
Consider the actual advice from MBA students who were enrolled in an intensive two- year program. Their study groups were assigned to them and maintained throughout the two-year program. During the time they worked together, members were asked for
Z03_THOM4204_06_SE_APP3.indd 372 10/25/16 3:08 PM
Appendix 3 • Creating Effective Study Groups 373
their input about what did and what did not work in their study groups in regard to maximizing learning and using time effectively. Exhibit Appendix 3-1 summarizes the students’ responses.
• An agenda should be distributed before each group meeting date so everyone can prepare properly.
• Decide upon the agenda for the next meeting before adjourning the current meeting.
• Define who is expected to do what for each project.
• A written outline or “straw man” is needed to focus the group discussion on any particular project.
• Several alternatives should be evaluated during the outline stage before selecting which alternative will be taken for any project.
• Each major group project has a project leader responsible for doing most of the writing (in some cases, all of the writing). Other group members provide input early in the project and after a draft has been written. Assignments can be done in parallel by using this method, which helps to meet deadlines.
• Some groups summarize class readings for the project leader during the weeks that they are busy completing the project.
• The workload is not divided equally on every project. Over a two-year period, everyone will get the chance to contribute.
• Rotate responsibilities with each module or semester. For example, one person in the group may be the agenda captain for an entire module. The agenda captain organizes the meeting agendas and runs the meetings for that entire module. Rotating responsibilities every week wastes time deciding who does what.
• Try to meet on the same day and time each week. This makes it easier to plan travel schedules in advance.
• At the end of each major assignment, review the effectiveness of the process used to fulfill re- quirements. Adjust the process to improve effectiveness.
• Improve communication within the group by using email and standardized software.
• Focus on the goals of the meeting first, then socialize.
• Maintain a sense of humor.
Exhibit Appendix 3-1 Advice for Long-Term Study Groups Based on Taken from compiled lists from the executive Masters program, Kellogg School of Management, northwestern University, evanston, iL. Lists compiled by R. Weeks (1996) and K. Murnighan (1998), © Leigh L. Thompson..
Z03_THOM4204_06_SE_APP3.indd 373 10/25/16 3:08 PM
374
REFERENCES
100 best companies to work for, 2011. (2011, February 7). CNNMoney. money.cnn.com.
Aarts, H., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Hassin, R. R. (2004). Goal contagion: Perceiving is for pursuing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 23–37.
Abele, S., & Diehl, M. (2008). Finding teammates who are not prone to sucker and free-rider effects: The Protestant Work Ethic as a modera- tor of motivation losses in group performance. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 11, 39–54.
Abrams, D. A., De Moura, G. R., Marques, J. M., & Hutchison, P. (2008). Innovation credit: When can leaders oppose their group’s norms? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(3), 662–678.
Adams, S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.
Adelberg, S., & Batson, C. D. (1978). Accountabil- ity and helping: When needs exceed resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 343–350.
Albright, M. (2010, February 23). Man vs. Walmart in blueberry battle: Fight for cheap berries brings clarity on policy from HQ. St. Petersburg Times, p. A1.
Alderfer, C. P. (1976). Boundary relations and organizational diagnosis. In M. Meltzer & F. Wickert (Eds.), Humanizing organizational behavior (pp. 142–175). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Alderfer, C. P. (1977). Group and intergroup rela- tions. In J. R. Hackman & J. L. Suttle (Eds.), Improving life at work (pp. 227–296). Palisades, CA: Goodyear.
Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary span- ning roles and organization structure. Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 217–230.
Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing the flow of technology: Technology transfer and the dissemination of tech- nological information within the R&D organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Allen, V. L. (1965). Situational factors in conformity. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.
Allison, S., & Messick, D. (1990). Social decision heuristics and the use of shared resources. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3, 195–204.
Alter, M. (2008, January 1). Performance based pay. Inc. Magazine. inc.com.
Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39–58.
Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367–403.
Amabile, T. M., & Conti, R. (1999). Changes in the work environment for creativity during down- sizing. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 630–640.
Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 5–32.
Amason, A. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on stra- tegic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 123–148.
Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of inter- personal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(2), 256–274.
Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1993). Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 431–441.
Ancona, D. G. (1987). Groups in organizations: Extending laboratory models. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Annual review of personality and social psychology: Group and intergroup processes (pp. 207–231). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 374 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 375
one’s status in a group. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(1), 90–101.
Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The ex- perience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1362–1377.
Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 511–536.
Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009). Why do dom- inant personalities attain influence in face-to- face groups? The competence- signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 491–503.
Anderson, C., Willer, R., Kilduff, R., Gavin, J., & Brown, C. E. (2012). The origins of deference: When do people prefer lower status? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 1077–1088.
Andeweg, R. B., & Van Den Berg, S. B. (2003). Linking birth order to political leadership: The impact of parents or sibling interaction? Political Psychology, 24(3), 605–623.
Angermeier, I., Dunford, B. D., Boss, A. D., & Boss, R. W. (2009, March/April). The impact of participative management perceptions on customer service, medical errors, burnout, and turnover intentions. Journal of Healthcare Management, 54(2), 127–141.
Anthony, S. D. (2012, September). The new cor- porate garage. Harvard Business Review, 90(9), 44–53. hbr.com.
Antonioni, D. (1994). The effects of feedback accountability on upward appraisal ratings. Personnel Psychology, 47, 349–356.
Argote, L. (1989). Agreement about norms and work-unit effectiveness: Evidence from the field. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10(2), 131–140.
Argote, L., Insko, C. A., Yovetich, N., & Romero, A. A. (1995). Group learning curves: The effects of turnover and task complexity on group per- formance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 512–529.
Argote, L., & Kane, A. (2003). Learning from direct and indirect organizations: The effects of experience content, timing, and distribution. In
Ancona, D. G. (1990). Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 334–365.
Ancona, D. G. (1993). The classics and the con- temporary: A new blend of small group theory. In J. K. Murnighan (Ed.), Social psychology in organizations: Advances in theory and research (p. 233). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ancona, D. G., Backman, E., & Bresman, H. (2009, September 1). X-Teams break new ground. Financial Post, p. FP9.
Ancona, D. G., & Bresman, H. (2007). X-teams: How to build teams that lead, innovate and suc- ceed. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Ancona, D. G., Bresman, H., & Caldwell, D. (2009). Six steps to leading high-performing x-teams. Organizational Dynamics, 38(3), 217–224.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1987). Manage- ment issues facing new-product teams in high technology companies. In D. Lewin, D. Lipsky, & D. Sokel (Eds.), Advances in industrial and labor relations (Vol. 4, pp. 199–221). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1988). Beyond task and maintenance: Defining external functions in groups. Groups and Organizational Studies, 13, 468–494.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External process and perfor- mance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 634–665[EH1].
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992a). Demog- raphy and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3(3), 321–341.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992b). Bridging the boundary: External process and perfor- mance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634–665
Ancona, D. G., & Nadler, D. A. (1989). Top hats and executive tales: Designing the senior team. Senior Management Review, 31(1), 19–28.
Anders, G. (2005, October 10). When mom is chair- woman and son is CEO, tension reigns. Wall Street Journal, p. B1.
Anderson, C., Ames, D., & Gosling, S. (2008). Punishing hubris: The perils of overestimating
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 375 10/24/16 9:03 PM
376 References
Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 32, 370–398.
Associated Press. (2003, February 14). Before Columbia, NASA Mulled Space Repairs. cnn.com.
Aswathappa, K. (2007). Human resource and person- nel management. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Education.
Austen, I. (2011, October 11). Blackberry points to equipment failure. The New York Times, p. B6.
Back, K. W. (1951). Influence through social com- munication. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 46, 9–23.
Baer, M., & Brown, G. (2012). Blind in one eye: How psychological ownership of ideas affects the types of suggestions people adopt. Orga- nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(1), 60–71.
Balderrama, A. (2012, June 18). The worst team- building experience you’ve ever had. Career Builder. careerbuilder.com.
Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 461–484.
Bales, R.F, Strodtbeck, F.L., Mills, T.M., & Rosen- borough, M.E. (1951). Channels of commu- nication in small groups. American Sociological Review, 16, 461–468.
Balkundi, P., Barsness, Z., & Michael, J. (2009). Unlocking the influence of leadership network structures on team conflict and viability. Small Group Research, 40(3), 301–322.
Balkundi, P., & Harrison, D. A. (2006). Ties, lead- ers, and time in teams: Strong inference and network structure’s effects on team viability and performance. Academy of Management Jour- nal, 49(1), 305–325.
Ball, A. (2012, February 9). Finding success with virtual workforces. Sodexo USA. sodexousa. com.
Ballinger, G. A., Lehman, D. W., & Schoorman, F. D. (2010). Leader-member exchange and turnover before and after succession events. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro- cesses, 113(1), 25–36.
Bamberger, P., & Biron, M. (2007). Group norms and excessive absenteeism: The role of peer
P. Paulus & B. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing knowledge in organization: An in- tegrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49(4), 571–582.
Argyris, C. (1977a). Double loop learning. Harvard Business Review, 55(5), 115–125.
Argyris, C. (1977b). Organizational learning and management information systems. Harvard Business Review, 55(5), 115–125.
Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational: The hid- den forces that shape our decisions. New York: HarperCollins.
Ariely, D. (2009, March 4). Massive bonuses might actually cause poor performance. New York Times. nytimes.com.
Armour, S. (1997, December 8). Business’ black hole. USA Today, p. 1A.
Armstrong, D. J., & Cole, P. (1995). Managing dis- tances and differences in geographically distrib- uted work groups. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace (pp. 187–215). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Arnold, D. W., & Greenberg, C. I. (1980). Deviate rejection within differentially manned groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43(4), 419–424.
Arrow, H. (1998). Standing out and fitting in: Composition effects on newcomer socialization. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 1, 59–80.
Arrow, H., & Burns, K. (2004). Self-organizing culture: How norms emerge in small groups. In M. Schaller & C. S. Crandall (Eds.), The psychological foundations of culture. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Arrow, H., & Crosson, S. (2003). Musical chairs: Membership dynamics in self-organized group formation. Small Group Research, 34(5), 523–556.
Arrow, H., & McGrath, J. E. (1995). Membership dynamics in groups at work: A theoretical framework. Research in organizational behavior, 17, 373–411.
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unani- mous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(9), Whole No. 416.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 376 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 377
Research on managing groups and teams. Green- wich, CT: JAI Press.
Barsness, Z., Tenbrunsel, A., Michael, J., & Lawson, L. (2002). Why am I here? The in- fluence of group and relational attributes on member-initiated team selection. In M. A. Neale, E. Mannix, & H. Sondak (Eds.), Toward phenomenology of groups and group membership (Vol. 4, pp. 141–171). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bartel, C., & Saavedra, R. (2000). The collective construction of work group moods. Administra- tive Science Quarterly, 45, 197–231.
Baruah, J., & Paulus, P. B. (2011). Category assign- ment and relatedness in the group ideation process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1070–1077.
Basalla, G. (1988). The evolution of technology. New York: Cambridge University Press
Bashshur, M. R., Hernandez, A., & Gonzalez-Roma, V. (2011). When managers and their teams dis- agree: A longitudinal look at the consequences of differences in perceptions of organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 558–573.
Baskin, M. (2002, May). Legal guidelines for as- sociations for conducting employee evaluations and performance. ASAE: The Center for Associa- tion Leadership. asaecenter.org.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of lead- ership: Theory, research, & management applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Bastardi, A., & Shafir, E. (1998). On the pursuit and misuse of useless information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 19–32.
Baumeister, R. F., & Scher, S. J. (1988). Self- defeating behavior patterns among normal in- dividuals. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 3–22.
Baumeister, R. F., & Steinhilber, A. (1984). Para- doxical effects of supportive audiences on performance under pressure: The home field disadvantage in sports championships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(1), 85–93.
Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Lemery, C. R., & Mullett, J. (1987). Motor mimicry as primitive empathy. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 317–338). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
referent others. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 179–196.
Barchas, P. R., & Fisek, M. H. (1984). Hierarchical differentiation in newly formed groups of Rhesus and humans. In P. R. Barchas (Ed.), Essays toward a sociophysiological perspective (pp. 23–33). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Barley, S. R. (1996). Technicians in the workplace: Ethnographic evidence for bringing work into organization studies. Administrative Science Quar- terly, 41(3), 404–441.
Barnes, C., Hollenbeck, J., Wagner, D., DeRue, S., Nahrgang, J., & Schwind, K. (2008). Harmful help: The costs of backing-up behavior in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 529–539.
Baron, R. (2005). So right it’s wrong: Groupthink and the ubiquitous nature of polarized group decision making. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 219–253.
Baron, R., & Bellman, S. (2007). No guts, no glory: Courage, harassment and minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 101–124.
Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2002). The impact of respect versus neglect of self-identities on indentification and group loyalty. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(5), 629–639.
Barrett, M., & Oborn, E. (2010). Boundary object use in cross-cultural software development teams. Human Relations, 63(8), 1199–1221.
Barrett, F. J. (2012, February 4). What Charlie Parker and Thomas Edison knew: Jam sessions make new ideas happen. Fast Company. fast- company.com.
Barrick, M. R., Bradley, B. H., Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Colbert, A. E. (2007). The moderating role of top management team interdependence: Implications for real teams and working groups. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 544–577.
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, 377–391.
Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional con- tagion and its influences on group behavior. Adminsi- tartive Science Quarterly, 47(4), 644–675.
Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (1998). Group emotion: A view from the top and bottom. In D. Gruenfeld, B. Mannix, & M. Neale (Eds.),
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 377 10/24/16 9:03 PM
378 References
similarity and status on CEO compensation. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1568–1593.
Belsky, G. (2012, June 11). How much does the big boss really matter? Time. time.com.
Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 41–49.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders. New York: Harper & Row.
Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. Z., & Zelditch, M. (1977). Status characteristics and social interac- tion. New York: Elsevier.
Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 479–508.
Berman, S. L., Down, J., & Hill, C. W. H. (2002). Tacit knowledge as a source of competitive ad- vantage in the National Basketball Association. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 13–31.
Bernardin, H. J., & Cascio, W. F. (1988). Perfor- mance appraisal and the law. In R. S. Schuler, S. A. Youngblood, & V. L. Huber (Eds.), Read- ing in Personnel and Human Resource Managment (3rd ed., p. 239). St. Paul, MN: West.
Bernieri, F., Reznick, J. S., & Rosenthal, R. (1988). Synchrony, pseudosynchrony, and dissyn- chrony: Measuring the entrainment process in mother-infant dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 243–253.
Best Small Businesses to Work for 2011. (2011). Entrepreneur Magazine. entrepreneur.com.
Bettencourt, B. A., Brewer, M. B., Croak, M. R., & Miller, N. (1992). Cooperation and the re- duction of intergroup bias: The role of reward structure and social orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(4), 301–319.
Bettencourt, B. A., & Dorr, N. (1998). Coopera- tive interaction and intergroup bias: Effects of numerical representation and cross-cut role assignment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(12), 1276–1293.
Bettenhausen, K., & Murnighan, J. K. (1985). The emergence of norms in competitive decision- making groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 350–372.
Bezrukova, K., Thatcher, S. M. B., Jehn, K. A., & Spell, C. S. (2012). The effects of alignments: Examining group faultlines, organizational cultures, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 77–92.
Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. A. (2012). Judgment in managerial decision making (8th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of con- struct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989–1004.
Bechky, B. A., & Okhuysen, G. A. (2011). Expect- ing the unexpected? How SWAT officers and film crews handle surprises. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 54(2), 239–261.
Bechtoldt, M. N., De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & Choi, H.-S. (2009). Motivated information processing, social tuning, and group creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 622–637.
Becker, A. L. (2012, May 28). Checklists, teamwork minimizing mistakes in medicine, The Connecti- cut Mirror. ctmirror.org.
Beckmann, J., Groepel, P., and Ehrlenspiel, F. (2012, September 3). Preventing motor skill failure through hemisphere-specific priming: Cases from choking under pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General [online].
Beehr, T. A., Walsh, J., & Taber, B. (1976), Rela- tionship of stress to individually and organiza- tionally valued states—Higher order needs as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(1), 41–49.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., & Spector, B. (1990). The critical path to corporate renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Conlon, D. E., Humphrey, S. E., & Moon, H. (2009). Cut- throat cooperation: The effects of team role decisions on adaption to alternative reward structures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 108, 131–142.
Behar, R. (2012, June 27). World Bank mired in dysfunction: Mess awaits new head. Forbes. forbes.com.
Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict manage- ment strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 170–188.
Belliveau, M. A., O’Reilly, C. A., III, & Wade, J. B. (1996). Social capital: The effects of social
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 378 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 379
Boisjoly, R. M. (1987, December 13–18). Ethical decisions—Morton Thiokol and the space shuttle Challenger disaster (p. 7). Speech presented at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Winter Annual Meeting, Boston, MA.
Bond, C. F., & Anderson, E. L. (1987). The reluc- tance to transmit bad news: Private discomfort or public display? Journal of Experimental Psychol- ogy, 23, 176–187.
Bond, R. (2005). Group size and conformity. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8(4), 331–354.
Bonner, B. L., & Baumann, M. R. (2012). Lever- aging member expertise to improve knowl- edge transfer and demonstrability in groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(2), 337–350.
Bonner, B. L., Sillito, S., & Baumann, M. (2007). Collective estimation: Accuracy, expertise, and extroversion as sources of intra-group influ- ence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 121–133.
Boone, C., Olffen, W., Van Witteloostuijn, A., & Brabander, B. (2004). The genesis of top man- agement team diversity: Selective turnover among top management teams in Dutch newspaper publishing, 1970–1994. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 633–656.
Bouas, K. S., & Arrow, H. (1996). The develop- ment of group identity in computer and face to face groups with membership change. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 4, 153–178.
Bouchard, T. J. (1972). Training, motivation, and personality as determinants of the effective- ness of brainstorming groups and individuals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(4), 324–331.
Bowen, D. D., Lewicki, R. J., Hall, D. T., & Hall, F. S. (1997). Experiences in management and organi- zational behavior (4th ed.). New York: John Wiley Sons.
Bradford, D. L., & Cohen, A. R. (1984). Managing for excellence. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., Ellemers, N., & Doosje, B. (2002). Intragroup and intergroup evaluation effects on group behavior. Personal- ity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 744–753.
Brauer, M., Er-rafiy. A., Kawakami, K., & Phills, C. E. (2012). Describing a group in positive terms reduces prejudice less effectively than describing
Bhave, D. P., Kramer, A., & Glomb, T. M. (2010). Work-family conflict in work groups: Social information processing, support, and demo- graphic dissimilarity. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 95(1), 145–158.
Binder, J., Zagefka, H., Brown, R., Funke, F., Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., et al. (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the con- tact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 843–856.
Biron, L. (2012, June 12). Immersive training hasn’t reached the Holodeck. Defense News. defensenews.com.
Bjerke, J. (2012, May 25). Success factors enhances workforce solutions. Recruiter.com. recruiter.com
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.
Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., & Salomon, K. (1999). Social “facilitation” as challenge and threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 68–77.
Blau, P. M. (1955). The dynamics of bureaucracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Blinder, A. S. (1990). Pay, participation, and pro- ductivity. Brookings Review, 8(1), 33–38.
Bloomfield, R., Libby, R., & Nelson, M. W. (1996). Communication of confidence as a determinant of group judgment accuracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(3), 287–300.
BMW’s Dream Factory. (2006, October 16). Business Week. Businessweek.com.
Bodell, L. (2012, July 17). Work skills you’ll need to survive the “conceptual age.” CNN Wire. news.blogs.cnn.com/tag/the-cnn-wire/
Boen, F., Vanbeselaere, N., & Wostyn, P. (2010). When the best become the rest: The interactive effect of premerger status and relative repre- sentation on postmerger identification and in- group bias. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(4), 461–475.
Bohrnstedt, G. W., & Fisher, G. A. (1986). The effects of recalled childhood and adolescent relationships compared to current role perfor- mances on young adults’ affective functioning. Social Psychology Quarterly, 49(1), 19–32.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 379 10/24/16 9:03 PM
380 References
perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci- sion Processes, 97, 117–134.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge, UK: Cam- bridge University Press.
Brown, R. (1986). Social psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Brown, R. J., Condor, F., Mathew, A., Wade, G., & Williams, J. A. (1986). Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 273–286.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires in- novation. New York: Harper Collins.
Bruckmueller, S., & Abele, A. E. (2010). Compari- son focus in intergroup comparisons: Who we compare to whom influences who we see as powerful and agentic. Personality and Social Psy- chology Bulletin, 36(10), 1424–1435.
Bruneau, E. G., & Saxe, R. (2012). The power of being heard: The benefits of ‘perspective- giving’ in the context of intergroup conflict. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 855–866.
Brunell, A. B., Gentry,W. A., Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Kuhnert, K. W., & DeMarree, K. G. (2008). Leader emergence: The case of the narcissistic leader. Personality and Social Psychol- ogy Bulletin, 34(12), 1663–1676.
Bryant, A. (2012, April 7). The phones are out, but the robot is in. New York Times. nytimes.com.
Buchanan, L. (2012, June). You’ll never work alone. Inc.. inc.com.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012, June 7). Employer costs for employee compensation: March 2012. bls.gov.
Burkitt, L. (2010, January 7). Need to build a com- munity? Learn from Threadless. Forbes. forbes. com.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Burris, E. R., Rodgers, M. S., Mannix, E. A., Hen- dron, M. G., & Oldroyd, J. B. (2009). Playing fa- vorites: The influence of leaders inner circle on group processes and performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(9), 1244–1257.
Burrows, P. (2006, September 25). The man be- hind Apple’s design magic. Business Week, 4002, 26–33.
it in positive and negative terms. Journal of Experi- mental Social Psychology, 48(3), 757–761.
Brawley, L. R., Carron, A. V., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1988). Exploring the relationship between cohe- sion and group resistance to disruption. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(2), 199–213.
Brehmer, B., & Hagafors, R. (1986). Use of experts in complex decision making: A paradigm for the study of staff work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 181–195.
Brett, J. M. (2007). Negotiating globally: How to negotiate deals, resolve disputes, and make decisions across cultural boundaries. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brewer, M. B. (1979). Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324.
Brewer, M. B., & Brown, R. J. (1998). Intergroup re- lations. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 554–594). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83–93.
Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1986). Choice be- havior in social dilemmas: Effects of social iden- tity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 543–549.
Brewer, M. B., & Roccas, S. (2001). Individual values, social identity, and optimal distinctive- ness. In C. Sedikidess & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Individual self, relational self, collective self (pp. 219–237). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Brickner, M. A., Harkins, S. G., & Ostrom, T. M. (1986). Effects of personal involvement: Thought-provoking implications for social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 51(4), 763–770.
Brooks, D. (2009, October 27). The fatal conceit. New York Times, p. A31.
Brown, E. R., Diekman, A. B., & Schneider, M. C. (2011). A change will do us good: Threats diminish typical preferences for male leaders. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(7), 930–941.
Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 380 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 381
Camacho, L. M., & Paulus, P. B. (1995). The role of social anxiousness in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1071–1080.
Camerer, C. F., Loewenstein, G., & Weber, M. (1989). The curse of knowledge in economic settings: An experimental analysis. Journal of Po- litical Economy, 97, 1232–1254.
Campbell, D. T. (1965). Ethnocentric and other altruistic motives. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 283–311). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Cannella, A. A., Park, J. H., & Lee, H. O. (2008). Top management team functional background diversity and firm performance examining the roles of team member collocation and envi- ronmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 768–784.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. A. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J. Castellan (Ed.), Indi- vidual and group decision making (pp. 221–246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Converse, S. A. (1991). Toward an integra- tion of training theory and technique. Human Factors, 33(3), 281–292.
Caporael, L. R., Dawes, R. M., Orbell, J. M., & van de Kragt, A. J. C. (1989). Selfishness examined: Cooperation in the absence of egoistic incen- tives. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 683–739.
Carey, B. (2012, November 12). Academic “Dream Team” helped Obama’s effort. The New York Times. nytimes.com.
Carnevale, P. J., Pruitt, D., & Seilheimmer, S. (1981). Looking and competing: Accountability and visual access in integrative bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 111–120.
Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1988). Group cohesion and individual adher- ence to physical activity. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(2), 127–138.
Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A.(2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Acad- emy of Management Journal, 50, 1217–1234.
Carton, A. M., & Cummings, J. N. (2012). A theory of subgroups in work teams. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 441–470.
Burt, R. S. (1992a). Structural holes: The social struc- ture of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burt, R. S. (1992b). The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burt, R. S. (1999). Entrepreneurs, distrust, and third parties: A strategic look at the dark side of dense networks. In L. Thompson, J. Levine, & D. Messick (Eds.), Shared cognition in organiza- tions: The management of knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Bushe, G. R. (1984). Quality circles in quality of work life projects: Problems and prospects for increasing employee participation. Cana- dian Journal of Community Mental Health, 3(2), 101–113.
Business owners and executives weigh in with ideas for creating a diverse workplace. (2012, June 25). Vegas Inc. vegasinc.com.
Bussey, J. (2012, August 2). Chick-Fil-A leaps into controversy. The Wall Street Journal, p. B1.
Bussgang, J. (2011, July 15). Start-ups should eliminate job titles. CNN Money. finance. fortune.cnn.com.
Butera, F., Mugny, G., Legrenzi, P., & Perez, J. A. (1996). Majority and minority influence: Task representation and inductive reasoning. British Journal of Social Psychology, 67, 123–136.
Buzanowski, J. G. (2009, February 5). Generals reflect on importance of diversity. Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs. af.mil.
Byrne, J. A. (2002a, July 29). No excuses for Enron’s board. Businessweek, 3793, 50–51.
Byrne, J. A. (2002b, August 12). Fall from grace. Businessweek, 3795, 51–56.
Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. (2010). The relationship between stressors and cre- ativity: A meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 201–212.
Cadiz, D., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffith, T. L. (2009). Developing and validating field measurement scales for absorptive capacity and experienced community of practice. Educational and psycho- logical measurement, 20(1), 1–23.
Cain, D., Loewenstein, G., & Moore, D. (2005). The dirt on coming clean: Perverse effects of disclosing conflicts of interest. Journal of Legal Studies, 34, 1–25.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 381 10/24/16 9:03 PM
382 References
Chen, G. (2005). Newcomer adaptation in teams: Multilevel antecedents and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 101–116.
Chen, G., Donahue, L. M., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Training undergraduates to work in organizational teams. Academy of Management: Learning and Education, 3(1), 27–40.
Chen, G., & Klimoksi, R. J. (2003). The impact of expectations on newcomer performance in teams as mediated by work characteristics, social exchanges, and empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 591–607.
Chen, G., Ployhart, R. E., Thomas, H. C., Ander- son, N., & Bliese, P. D. (2011). The power of momentum: A new model of dynamic rela- tionships between job satisfaction change and turnover intentions. Academy of Management, 54(1), 159–181.
Chen, G., Sharma, P. N., Edinger, S. K., Shapiro, D. L., & Farh, J.-L. (2011). Motivating and de- motivating forces in teams: Cross-level influ- ences of empowering leadership and relation- ship conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 541–557.
Chen, X.-P., Liu, D., & Portnoy, R. (2012, January). A multilevel investigation of motivational cul- tural intelligence, organizational diversity cli- mate, and cultural sales: Evidence from U.S. real estate firms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 93–106.
Cheng, G. H. L., Fielding, K. S., Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2009). Reactions to procedural dis- crimination in an intergroup context: The role of group membership of the authority. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(4), 463–478.
Cheng, G. H. L., Fielding, K. S., & Terry, D. J. (2011). Responses of group members to pro- cedural discrimination: The role of ingroup prototypicality. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(4), 461–476.
Cheshin, A., Rafaeli, A., & Bos, N. D. (2011). Anger and happiness in virtual teams: Emotional influences of text and behavior on others’ affect in the absence of non-verbal cues. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(1), 2–16.
Choi, H. S., & Thompson, L. (2005). Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98(2), 121–132.
Caruso, E., Epley, N., & Bazerman, M. (2006). The costs and benefits of undoing egocentric responsibility assessments in groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 857–871.
Castelli, L., Tomelleri, S., & Zogmaister, C. (2008). Implicit ingroup metafavoritism: Subtle prefer- ence for ingroup members displaying ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(6), 807–818.
Castore, C. H., & Murnighan, J. K. (1978). Determi- nants of support for group decisions. Organiza- tional Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 75–92.
Center for Creative Leadership. (2011, June 22). Boundary spanning leadership. The Moscow Times. themoscowtimes.com.
CEO charged with harassment after employee sui- cides. (2012, July 5). The Week. theweek.co.uk.
Cha, S. E., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). When values backfire: Leadership, attribution, and disenchantment in a values-driven organiza- tion. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 57–78.
Chao, M. M., Zhang, Z.-X., & Chiu, C.-Y. (2010). Adherence to perceived norms across cultural boundaries: The role of need for cognitive clo- sure and ingroup identification. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(1), 69–89.
Chatman, J. A., Boisnier, A., Spataro, S., Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. (2008). Being distinctive ver- sus being conspicuous: The effects of numeric status and sex-stereotyped tasks on individual performance in groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107(2), 141–160.
Chatman, J. A., Polzer, J. T., Barsade, S. G., & Neale, M. A. (1998). Being different yet feeling simi- lar: The influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 749–80.
Chavan, S. K. (2011). Legal issues associated with performance appraisal. Management Paradise. managementparadise.com.
Checknita, J. (2012, April). Top creative ways to motivate and engage employees without spend- ing a dime. Hr.com. hr.com.
Cheek, J. M., Tropp, L. R., Chen, L. C., & Under- wood, M. K. (1994). Identity orientations: Personal, social, and collective aspects of identity. Paper pre- sented at the meeting of the American Psycho- logical Association, Los Angeles, CA.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 382 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 383
Clients. (2012). Success Factors. successfactors.com.
Clifford, S. (2011, August 7). Would you like a smile with that? New York Times, p. BU1.
Clifford, S. (2012, May 15). J. C. Penney posts big loss as 3 retailers gain. New York Times. nytimes. com.
Cohen, M. D., March, J. P., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1–25.
Cohen, T. R., Gunia, B. C., Kim-Jun, S. Y., & Murnighan, J. K. (2009). Do groups lie more than individuals? Honesty & deception as a function of strategic self-interest. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1321–1324.
Cohen, T. R., Wildschut, T., & Insko, C. A. (2010). How communication increases interpersonal cooperation in mixed-motive situations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(1), 39–50.
Colbert, A. E., Kristof-Brown, A. L. Bradley, B. H., & Barrick, M. R. (2008). CEO transformational leadership: The role of goal importance con- gruence in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 81–96.
Cole, M., Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2008). Affective mechanisms linking dysfunctional behavior to performance in work teams: A moderated mediation study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 945–958.
Cole, R. E. (1982). Diffusion of participating work structures in Japan, Sweden and the United States. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Change in organizations (pp. 166–225). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.
Collaros, P. A., & Anderson, L. R. (1969). Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of mem- bers of brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(2, Pt. 1), 159–163.
Collins, E. G., & Guetzkow, H. (1964). A social psychology of group processes for decision making. New York: John Wiley Sons.
Conger, J. (1989). The art of empowering others. Academy of Management Executive, 3(1), 17–24.
Connolly, T., Routhieaux, R. L., & Schneider, S. K. (1993). On the effectiveness of group
Christensen, C., Larson, J. R., Jr., Abbott, A., Ardolino, A., Franz, T., & Pfeiffer, C. (2000). Decision-making of clinical teams: Commu- nication patterns and diagnostic error. Medical Decision Making, 20, 45–50.
Christie, A. M., & Barling, J. (2010). Beyond sta- tus: Relating status inequality to performance and health in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 920–934.
Chua, R. Y. J., Morris, M. W, & Mor, S. (2012). Collaborating across cultures: Cultural meta- cognition and affect-based trust in creative col- laboration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(1), 116–131.
Cialdini, R. B. (1989). Indirect tactics of image man- agement: Beyond basking. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Cini, M., Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1993). Group staffing levels and responses to prospec- tive and new members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 723–734.
Clancy, S., Effron, D., Halperin, E., Liberman, V., & Ross, L. (2011). Affirmation, acknowledge- ment of in group responsibility, group-based guilt, and support for reparative measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 256–270.
Clark, J. (2010, February 4). Employees with flex time put in more hours. Discovery News. news. discovery.com.
Clark, K. B., & Fujimoto, T. (1989). Overlapping problem solving in product development. In K. Ferdows (Ed.), Managing international manufacturing (pp. 127–152). North Holland: Amsterdam.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. R. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relation- ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12–24.
Clawson, D. (2003). The next upsurge: Labor and the new social movements. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Uni- versity Press.
Clawson, J. C. (2003). Level 3 leadership: Getting below the surface (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Clawson, J. C. (2011). Level 3 leadership: Getting below the surface (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 383 10/24/16 9:03 PM
384 References
Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 791–808.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience (p. 74). New York: Harper Collins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Good business: Leadership, flow, and the making of meaning. New York: Viking Press.
Cummings, T. G., & Mohrman, S. A. (1987). Self- designing organizations: Towards implement- ing quality-of-work-life innovations. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 1, pp. 275–310). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behav- ior and organization design. Research in Organi- zation Behavior, 6, 191–223.
Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for infor- mation systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 355–366.
Dahlin, K., Weingart, L., & Hinds, P. (2005). Team diversity and information use. Academy of Man- agement Journal, 48(6), 1107–1123.
Damast, A. (2012, December 20). A pay gap for female MBAs has reemerged. Businessweek. businessweek.com.
Danziger, S., Levav, J., & Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2011, April 26). Extraneous factors in judicial deci- sions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(17), 6889–6892.
Davenport, C. & Hakim, D. (2016, January 4). U.S. sues Volkswagen in diesel emissions scandal. The New York Times. nytimes.com.
David, B., & Turner, J. C. (1996). Studies in self- categorization and minority conversion: Is being a member of the out-group an advantage? British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 179–199.
Davies, P. G., Spencer, S. J., & Steele, C. M. (2005). Clearing the air: Identity safety moderates the effects of stereotype threat on women’s leader- ship aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 276–287.
Davis, J. (1969). Group performance. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
brainstorming: Test of one underlying cognitive mechanism. Small Group Research, 24, 490–503.
Conway, L. G., & Schaller, M. (2005). When authorities’ commands backfire: Attributions about consensus effects on deviant decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 311–326.
Cooper, R. G. (2012). Winning at new products: Creating value through innovation. Basic Books: New York.
Corrigan, T (2010, August 27). So many warnings, so little action ahead of BP’s Deepwater disaster. Telegraph. Telegraph.co.uk.
Cottrell, C., Neuberg, S., & Li, N. (2007). What do people desire in others? A sociofunctional per- spective on the importance of different valued characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 208–231.
Couch, A. (2012, August 4). Olympics 2012: Michael Phelps reveals playlist for gold- winning finale. The Hollywood Reporter. holly- woodreporter.com.
Coy, P. (2012, July 16). Charging up isn’t easy, even for GE. Bloomberg Business Week, 4288, 28–30.
Crano, W. D. (2000). Social influence: Effects of leniency on majority and minority-induced focal and indirect attitude change. Revue Inter- nationale de Psychologie Sociale, 15, 89–121.
Crawford, M. T., & Salaman, L. (2012). Entitativ- ity, identity, and the fulfillment of psychological needs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), 726–730.
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608–630.
Cronin, M. A. (2004). The effect of respect on interde- pendent work. Doctoral thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. (2007a). The dif- ferential effects of trust and respect on team conflict. In K. Behfar & L. Thompson (Eds.), Conflict in organizational groups: New directions in theory and practice. Chicago, IL: NU Press.
Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. (2007b). Repre- sentational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 761–773.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 384 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 385
Research, method, and theory (pp. 19–50). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
De Jong, B. A., & Dirks, K. T. (2012). Beyond shared perceptions of trust and monitoring in teams: Implications of asymmetry and dissen- sus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 391–406.
De Jong, B. A., & Elfring, T. (2010). How does trust affect the performance of ongoing teams? The mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 535–549.
De la Merced, M. J. (2012, May 21). As Facebook’s stock struggles, fingers start pointing. New York Times. nytimes.com.
Delbecq, A. L., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1971). A group process model for identification and program planning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 7, 466–492.
DeMeyer, A. (1991). Tech talk: How managers are stimulating global R&D communication. Sloan Management Review, 32(3), 49–58.
DeMeyer, A. (1993). Internationalizing R&D improves a firm’s technical learning. Research- Technical Management, 36(4), 42–49.
Denning, S. (2012, August 1). Transformational leadership in agile manufacturing: Wikispeed. Forbes. forbes.com.
Dennis, A. R., Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., Paranka, D., & Vogel, D. R. A. (1990). A new role for comput- ers in strategic management. Journal of Business Strategy, 11(5), 38–42.
Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Connolly, T., & Wynne, B. E. (1996). Process structuring in electronic brainstorming. Information Systems Research, 7(2), 268–277.
Derks, B., van Laar, C., & Ellemers, N. (2009). Working for the self or working for the group: How self versus group affirmation affects col- lective behavior in low-status groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(1), 183–202.
DeRue, D. S., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M. D., Ilgen, D. R., & Jundt, D. K. (2008). How dif- ferent team downsizing approaches influence team-level adaptation and performance. Acad- emy of Management Journal, 51(1), 182–196.
DeSanctis, G., Poole, M. S., & Dickson, G. W. (2000). Teams and technology: Interactions over time. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 3, 1–27.
Dawes, R., Orbell, J., & van de Kragt, A. (1988). Not me or thee but we: The importance of group identity in eliciting cooperation in di- lemma situations. Acta Psychologica, 68, 83–97.
DeChurch, L. A., & Marks, M. A. (2006). Lead- ership in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 311–329.
DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective team- work: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 95(1), 32–53.
De Cremer, D. (2002). Respect and cooperation in social dilemmas: The importance of feel- ing included. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(10), 1335–1341.
De Cremer, D., Brockner, J., Fishman, A., van Dijke, M., van Olffen, W., & Mayer, D. M. (2010). When do procedural fairness and out- come fairness interact to influence employee’s work attitudes and behaviors : The moder- ating effect of uncertainty. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 291–304.
De Cremer, D., & van Dijk, E. (2002). Reactions to group success and failure as a function of identi- fication levels: A test of the goal- transformation hypothesis in social dilemmas. Journal of Experi- mental Social Psychology, 38, 435–442.
De Cremer, D., & Van Vugt, M. (1999). Social identification effects in social dilemmas: A transformation of motives. Journal of Experimen- tal Social Psychology, 29, 871–893.
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information pro- cessing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 628–638.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003a). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749.
DeDreu, C.K.W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003b). A contingency theory of task conflict and perfor- mance in groups and organizational teams. In M. A. West, D. Tjosvold, & K. G. Smith (Eds.), International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working. Chichester, UK: Wiley & Sons LTD.
DeGroot, A. (1966). Perception and memory ver- sus thought: Some old ideas and recent find- ings. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Problem solving:
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 385 10/24/16 9:03 PM
386 References
Dietz-Uhler, B. (1996). The escalation of com- mitment in political decision making groups: A social identity approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 611–629.
Dinnocenzo, D. (2006). How to lead from a distance: Building bridges in the virtual workplace. Dallas, TX: Walk the Talk.
Dion, K. (2000). Group cohesion: From “field of forces” to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 7–26.
Dion, K. L., & Evans, C. R. (1992). On cohesive- ness: Reply to Keyton and other critics of the construct. Small Group Research, 23(2), 242–250.
Diep, F. (2012, July 6). Higgs boson: So who is getting the Nobel? The Christian Science Monitor. csmonitor.com.
Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 445–455.
Dominguez, P. (2008, June 16). IDEO’s 7 rules of brainstorming. Green Business Innovators. green- businessinnovators.com.
Dominguez, R. (2012, July 12). Survey of senior executives in Britain and U.S. found 24 percent consider unethical or illegal conduct needed for success in the financial world. Daily News. nydailynews.com.
Doney, P. M., & Armstrong, G. M. (1996). Effects of accountability on symbolic information search and information analysis by organiza- tional buyers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24, 57–65.
Doosje, B., Spears, R., & Koomen, W. (1995). When bad isn’t all bad: Strategic use of sample information in generalization and stereotyp- ing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 642–655.
Drach-Zahavy, A., & Erez, M. (2002). Challenge versus threat effects on the goal-performance relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 667–682.
Drechsler, W. (1995). Collectivism. In H. Drechsler, W. Hillinge, & F. Neumann (Eds.), Society and state: The lexicon of politics (9th ed., pp. 458–459). Munich, Germany: Franz Vahlen.
Drolet, A., Larrick, R., & Morris, M. W. (1998). Thinking of others: How perspective-taking changes negotiators’ aspirations and fairness
Designed for Speedo: Olympic swimming’s secret. (2012, July 30). CNN.com. business.blogs.cnn. com.
Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137–149.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influence upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629–636.
Deutschman, A. (2009, September 18). How authentic leaders “Walk the walk.” Businessweek. businessweek.com.
Devadas, R., & Argote, L. (1995, May). Collective learning and forgetting: The effects of turnover and group structure. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
DeVoe, S. E., & Iyengar, S. S. (2010). Medium of exchange matters: What’s fair for goods is unfair for money. Psychological Science, 21(2), 159–162.
DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Mead, N. L., & Vohs, K. D. (2011). How leaders self-regulate their task performance: Evidence that power pro- motes diligence, depletion, and disdain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(1), 47–65.
Deiglmayr, A., & Spada, H. (2010). Collaborative problem-solving with distributed information: The role of inferences from interdependent in- formation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(3), 361–378.
de Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta- analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390.
De Zavala, A. G., Cichocka, A., Eidelson, R., & Jayawickreme, N. (2009). Collective narcissism and its social consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1074–1096.
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward a solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 53(3), 497–509.
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 392–403.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 386 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 387
Duncan, H. (2012, January 14). Humiliation of the French: After lecturing Britain on its finances, France is stripped of its gold-plated AAA credit rating. Daily Mail. dailymail.co.uk.
Durham, C., Knight, D., & Locke, E. A. (1997). Effects of leader role, team-set goal difficulty, efficacy, and tactics on team effectiveness. Orga- nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72(2), 203–231.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, trans- actional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing men and women. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569–591.
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A metanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A metanalysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 685–710.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congru- ity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 190(3), 573–598.
Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22.
Earley, C., & Mosakowski, E. (2004). Cultural intelligence. Harvard Business Review, 82(10), 139–146.
Earley, C. P. (2002). Redefining interactions across cultures and organizations: Moving forward with cultural intelligence. In B. M. Staw & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 24, pp. 271–299). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.
Edmondson, A. (2003). Framing for learning: Les- sons in successful technology implementation. California Management Review, 45(2), 34–54.
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.
Edmondson, A., Winslow, A., Bohmer, R., & Pi- sano, G. (2003). Learning how and learning what: Effects of tacit and codified knowledge on
perceptions as a function of negotiator rela- tionships. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20(1), 23–31.
Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 46(4), 435–457.
Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2004). How to lead a self-managing team. MIT Sloan Manage- ment Review, 45(4), 65–71.
DuBois, S. (2011). Why automakers are adopting pay for performance. CNN Money. manage- ment.fortune.com.
Dubrovsky, V. J., Keisler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face deci- sion-making groups. Human-Computer Interac- tion, 6(2), 119–146.
Duck, J. M., & Fielding, K. S. (1999). Leaders and subgroups: One of us or one of them? Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 2(3), 203–230.
Duclos, S. E., Laird, J. D., Schneider, E., Sexter, M., Stern, L., & Van Lighten, O. (1989). Categorical vs. dimensional effects of facial expressions on emotional experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 100–108.
Dugosh, K. L., & Paulus, P. B. (2005). Cognitive and social comparison processes in brain- storming. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol- ogy, 41, 313–320.
Dugosh, K. L., Paulus, P. B., Roland, E. J., & Yang, H.-C. (2000). Cognitive stimulation in brain- storming. Journal of Personality of Social Psychol- ogy, 79(5), 722–735.
Duguid, M. (2011). Female tokens in high-prestige work groups: Catalysts or inhibitors of group diversification? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(1), 104–115.
Duguid, M., Loyd, D. L., & Tolbert, P. S. (2012, March–April). Dimensions of status: How cat- egorical, numeric, and work group status in- teract to affect preference for demographically similar others: A value threat approach. Orga- nization Science, 23(2), 386–401.
Dumont, T. M, Tranmer, B. I., Horgan, M. A., & Rughani, A. I. (2012). Trends in neurosurgical complication rates at teaching vs. nonteach- ing hospitals following duty-hour restrictions. Neurosurgery, 71(5), 1041.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 387 10/24/16 9:03 PM
388 References
Reactive egoism in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 872–889.
Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2010). Differentiated leader-member exchange: The buffering role of justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1104–1120.
Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., & Uzzi, B. (1999). Social capital and career dynamics in hard science: Gender, networks, and advancement. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., & Uzzi, B. (2000). Athena unbound: The advancement of women in science and technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Eveland, J. D., & Bikson, T. K. (1989). Workgroup structures and computer support: A field experiment. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp.
Fan, E. T., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (1998). When needs outweigh desires: The effects of resource in- terdependence and reward interdependence on group problem solving. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20(1), 45–56.
Faraj, S., & Sproull, L. (2000). Coordinating exper- tise in software development teams. Manage- ment Science, 46(12), 1554–1568.
Faraj, S., & Yan, A. (2009). Boundary work in knowledge teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 604–617.
Farh, C. I., Seo, M. G., & Tesluk, P. E. (2012). Emo- tional intelligence, teamwork effectiveness, and job performance: The moderating role of job con- text. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 890–900.
Farh, J.-L., Lee, C., & Farh, I. C. (2010). Task con- flict and team creativity: A question of how much and when. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1173–1180.
Faulmuller, N., Kerschreiter, R., Mojzisch, A., & Schultz-Hardt, S. (2010). Beyond group-level explanations for the failure of groups to solve hidden profiles: The individual preference effect revisited. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(5), 653–671.
Fearon, T. (2012, May). Oi, you, I’ve a job for you! Credit Management, 32–33. icm.org.uk.
Feldman, D. C. (1977). The role of initiation activi- ties in socialization. Human Relations, 30, 977–990.
Fielkow, B. (2014, April 22). With GM’s massive recall, is corporate culture to blame? NBC News. Nbcnews.com.
performance improvement following technol- ogy adoption. Decision Sciences, 34(2), 197–223.
Edmonson, A. (2003). Speaking up in the operat- ing room: How team leaders promote learn- ing in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1419–1452.
Edwards, B., Day, E., Arthur, W., & Bell, S. (2006). Relationships among team ability composition, team mental models, and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 727–736.
Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamer, F., Neves, P., Becker, T. E., Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., & Steiger-Mueller, M. (2010). Leader- member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1085–1103.
Eisenberger, R., & Selbst, M. (1994). Does reward increase or decrease creativity? Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 49, 520–528.
Ellis, A. (2006). System breakdown: The role of mental models and transactive memory in the relationships between acute stress and team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 576–589.
Elmer-DeWitt, P. (2012, May 3). With 8.8% mar- ket share, Apple has 73% of cell phone profits. CNN Money. cnnmoney.com.
Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1973). Towards a social ecology: Contextual appreciation of the future in the present. New York: Plenum Press.
Employee engagement: A leading indicator of financial performance. (2012). Gallup. gallup. com.
Endangered animals and plants of the U.S. (2016). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. fws.gov.
Ensari, N., & Miller, N. (2002). The out-group must not be so bad after all: The effects of dis- closure, typicality, and salience on intergroup bias. Journal of Personality of Social Psychology, 82(2), 313–329.
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of the role of im- plicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 659–676.
Epley, N., Caruso, E. M., & Bazerman, M. (2006). When perspective taking increases taking:
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 388 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 389
Foschi, M., Sigerson, K., & Lembesis, M. (1995). Assessing job applicants: The relative effects of gender, academic record, and decision type. Small Group Research, 26(3), 328–352.
Foushee, H. C., Lauber, J. K., Baetge, M. M., & Comb, D. B. (1986). Crew factors in flight opera- tions: III. The operational significance of exposure to short-haul air transport operations (NASA TM 88322). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Re- search Center.
Fowler, K. A., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Patrick, C. J. (2009). Detecting psychopathy from thin slices of behavior. Psychological Assessment, 21(1), 68–78.
Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. T. (1993). Does studying economics prohibit coop- eration? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(2), 159–171.
Freedman, J. L., Cunningham, J. A., & Krismer, K. (1992). Inferred values and the reverse in- centive effect in induced compliance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 357–368.
French, W. L., & Bell, C. H. (1923). Organization Development: Behavioral Science in Interventions for Organization Improvement (p. 18). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1968). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright & A. F. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics (pp. 259–270). New York: Harper & Row.
Fried, J. (2012, May 31). Workplace experiments: A month to yourself. 37Signals. 37signals.com.
Friedlander, F. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organiza- tional behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Frost, P. (2012, May 30). Patients, prep work cru- cial in move of Children’s Hospital. The Chicago Tribune. articles.chicagotribune.com.
Fuegen, K., & Biernat, M. (2002). Reexamining the effects of solo status for women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(7), 913–925.
Furnham, A. (1990a). The Protestant work ethic. New York: Routledge.
Furst, S., Reeves, M., Rosen, B., & Blackburn, R. (2004). Managing the life cycle of virtual teams. Academy of Management Executive, 18(2), 6–20.
Finke, R. A. (1995). Creative realism. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 303–326). Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight does not equal foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experi- mental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor- mance, 1, 288–299.
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3(4), 552–564.
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: Nego- tiating agreement without giving in. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Fitzgerald, G. (2012, February 29). Massive secu- rity drill for London Olympics. Sky News Online. news.sky.com.
Flegenheimer, M. (2011, September 5). Using pre- tend patients to train for real crises. New York Times. nytimes.com.
Flippen, A. R., Hornstein, H. A., Siegal, W. E., & Weitzman, E. A. (1996). A comparison of simi- larity and interdependence as triggers for in- group formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(9), 882–893.
Florida, R. (2012, July 12). Your start-up life: Why serving is the new leading. Huffington Post. huff- ingtonpost.com.
Flynn, F. J., & Ames, D. R. (2006). What’s good for the goose may not be as good for the gander: The benefits of self-monitoring for men and women in task groups and dyadic conflicts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 272–281.
Flynn, F. J., & Wiltermuth, S. S. (2010). Who’s with me? False consensus, brokerage, and ethical decision making in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1074–1089.
Forsyth, D. (1990). Group dynamics (2nd ed., p. 286). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Forsyth, D. R. (1983). Group dynamics (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Foschi, M., Lai, L., & Sigerson, K. (1994). Gen- der and double standards in the assessment of job applicants. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 326–339.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 389 10/24/16 9:03 PM
390 References
management. Organizational Dynamics, 21(1), 33–46.
Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Lee, A. Y. (1999). “I” value freedom, but “we” value relationships: Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differ- ences in judgment. Psychological Science, 10(4), 321–326.
Garling, C. (2012, January 29). Google teams with Facebook and Microsoft to phight phishing. Wired. wired.com/wiredenterprise.
Gauron, E. F., & Rawlings, E. I. (1975). A proce- dure for orienting new members to group psy- chotherapy. Small Group Behavior, 6, 293–307.
Gelles, D., (2015). At Aetna, a C.E.O.’s manage- ment by mantra. The New York Times. nytimes. com.
Gentner, D., Brem, S., Ferguson, R., & Wolff, P. (1997). Analogy and creativity in the works of Johannes Kepler. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 403–459). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Gentner, D., & Gentner, D. R. (1983). Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. (2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 393–408.
George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and be- havior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 107–116.
George, J. M. (1996). Group affective tone. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 77–93). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Gersick, C. J. C. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group de- velopment. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9–41.
Gertner, J. (2012, August 4). The world’s 50 most innovative companies: Starbucks. Fast Company. fastcompany.com.
Geschka, H., Schaude, G. R., & Schlicksupp, H. (1973, August). Modern techniques for solving problems. Chemical Engineering, 91–97.
Gabel-Shemueli, R., & Dolan, S., (2011). Do emotions matter? The role of emotional intel- ligence competences in cross-cultural adjust- ment for international assignment. Management Research: The Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 9(3), 207–229.
Gabrenya, W. K., Latané, B., & Wang, Y. (1983). Social loafing in cross-cultural perspective: Chinese on Taiwan. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 14(3), 368–384.
Gabriel, S., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Are there “his” and “hers” types of interdependence? The implications of gender differences in collective versus relational interdependence for affect, be- havior, and cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 642–655.
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., & Bachman, B. A. (1996). Revisiting the contact hypothesis: The induction of a common ingroup identity. Inter- national Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(3 & 4), 271–290.
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Rust, M. C., Nier, J. A., Banker, B. S., Ward, C. M., Mottola, G. R., & Houlette, M. (1999). Reducing intergroup bias: Elements of intergroup cooperation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 388–402.
Galdi, S., Gawronski, B., Arcuri, L., & Friese, M. (2012). Selective exposure in decided and un- decided individuals: Differential relations to automatic associations and conscious beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5(8), 559–569.
Galegher, J., Kraut, R. E., & Egido, C. (Eds.). (1990). Intellectual teamwork: Social and techno- logical foundations of cooperative work. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gallupe, R. B., Dennis, A. R., Cooper, W. H., Valacich, J. S., Bastianutti, L. M., & Nuna- maker, J. F., Jr. (1992). Electronic brainstorming and group size. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 350–369.
Gannon, D. (2011, July 19). How to reward great ideas. Inc. inc.com.
Garcia, S. M., Tor, A., & Gonzales, R. (2006). Ranks and rivals: A theory of competition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(7), 970–982.
Gardner, W. L. (1992). Lessons in organiza- tional dramaturgy: The art of impression
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 390 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 391
of team effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 521–531.
Gino, F., Argote, L., Miron-Spektor, E., & Todorova, G. (2010). First, you get your feet wet: The ef- fects of learning from direct and indirect experi- ence on team creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111(2), 102–115.
Gino, F., & Moore, D. (2007). Effects of task diffi- culty on use of advice. Journal of Behavioral Deci- sion Making, 20(1), 21–35.
Glasford, D., Dovidio, J., & Pratto, F. (2009). I continue to feel so good about us: In-group identification and the use of social identity— enhancing strategies to reduce intragroup dis- sonance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(4), 415–427.
Glickman, A. S., Zimmer, S., Montero, R. C., Guerette, P. J., Campbell, W. J., Morgan, B. B., Jr., & Salas, E. (1987). The evolution of teamwork skills: An empirical assessment with implications for training (US Naval Training Systems Center Technical Reports, No. 87-016). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Systems Center.
Go, Team! When one No. 2 isn’t enough. (2005, Winter). Business Week “Small Business.” Cover story.
Gold, M., & Yanof, D. S. (1985). Mothers, daugh- ters, and girlfriends. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 654–659.
Gomes, L. (2006, June 27). Talking tech: How email can set the stage for big misunderstand- ings. Wall Street Journal, p. B3.
Gómez, A., Dovidio, J. F., Huici, C., Gaertner, S. L., & Cuadrado, I. (2008). The other side of we: When outgroup members express common identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1613–1626.
Gómez, A., Seyle, D. C., Huici, C., & Swann, W. B. (2009). Can self-verification strivings fully tran- scend the self-other barrier? Seeking verifica- tion of ingroup identities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1021–1044.
Goncalo, G. A., & Duguid, M. D. (2008). Hidden consequences of the group-serving bias: Casual attributions and the quality of group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci- sion Processes, 107, 219–233.
Goncalo, J. A., & Kim, S. H. (2010). Distributive justice beliefs and group idea generation: Does
Giacolone, R. A., & Riordan, C. A. (1990). Effect of self-presentation on perceptions and recog- nition in an organization. Journal of Psychology, 124, 25–38.
Gibb, J. R. (1951). Dynamics of participative groups. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado.
Gibson, C. B., & Vermuelen, F. (2003). A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learn- ing behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 202–239.
Gibson, C. B., Cooper, C. D., & Conger, J. A. (2009). Do you see what we see? The complex effects of perceptual distance between leaders and teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 62–76.
Giessner, S. R., & Schubert, T. W. (2007). High in the hierarchy: How vertical location and judg- ments of leaders’ power are interrelated. Orga- nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104(1), 30–44.
Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1993). The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 959–974.
Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1997). The impact of information on small group choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 132–140.
Gilad, C., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel study of leader- ship, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 331–346.
Gillespie, D. F., & Birnbaum-More, P. H. (1980). Status concordance, coordination and success in interdisciplinary research teams. Human Re- lations, 33(1), 41–56.
Gilovich, T. (1987). Second hand information and social judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23(1), 59–74.
Gilovich, T., Kerr, M., & Medvec, V. H. (1993). The effect of temporal perspective on subjec- tive confidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 552–560.
Gilovich, T., Savitsky, K., & Medvec, V. H. (1998). The illusion of transparency: Biased assess- ments of others’ ability to read one’s emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 332–346.
Gilson, L. L., Mathieu, J. E., Shalley, C. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (2005). Creativity and standard- ization: Complementary or conflicting drivers
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 391 10/24/16 9:03 PM
392 References
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(2), 538–542.
Gratton, L. (2012, June 19). Working to- gether . . . when apart. The Wall Street Journal. online.wsj.com.
Green, J. (2012). Corporations want Obama’s win- ning formula. Businessweek. businessweek.com.
Greenberg, J. (1988). Equity and workplace status: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561–568.
Greenberg, J. (1996). Managing behavior in organiza- tions (p. 189). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. (2008). Behavior in Organizations (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Greene, C. N. (1989). Cohesion and productivity in work groups. Small Group Behavior, 20, 70–86.
Greenstein, H. (2012, June 19). Build a culture that celebrates mistakes. Inc. inc.com.
Greer, L. L., Caruso, H. M., & Jehn, K. A. (2011). The bigger they are, the harder they fall: Link- ing team power, team conflict, and perfor- mance. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci- sion Processes, 116(1). 116–128.
Griffin, D. W., & Ross, L. (1991). Subjective con- strual, social inference, and human misun- derstanding. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 319– 359). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., & Mason, C. M. (2010). Leader vision and the development of adaptive and proactive performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 174–182.
Griffith, T. L., Mannix, E. A., & Neale, M. A. (2002). Conflict and virtual teams. In S. G. Cohen & C. B. Gibson (Eds.), Creating condi- tions for effective virtual teams. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Griffith, T. L., & Sawyer, J. E. (2010). Multilevel knowledge and team performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(7), 1003–1031.
Groom, B. (2012, July 2). Expansion: Chief execu- tives express caution about pace of growth in the sector. Financial Times. ft.com.
Gross, S. E. (1995). Compensation for teams: How to design and implement team-based reward programs (p. 129). New York: AMACOM.
a belief in equity facilitate productivity? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(5), 836–840.
Goncalo, J. A., Polman, E., & Maslach, C. (2010). Can confidence come too soon? Collective effi- cacy, conflict and group performance over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro- cesses, 113(1), 13–24.
Goodman, J. (2012, October 15). Empowered women hold the key to a business’s success. Fast Company. fastcompany.com.
Goodman, J. S., Wood, R. E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Feedback specificity, information process- ing, and transfer of training. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 253–267.
Goodman, P. S., & Garber, S. (1988). Absenteeism and accidents in a dangerous environment: Empirical analysis of underground coal mines. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(1), 81–86.
Goodman, P. S., & Leyden, D. P. (1991). Famil- iarity and group productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(4), 578–586.
Graen, G. (1976). Role making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Graen, G., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psy- chology of dyadic organizing. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 175–208). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Graffin, S. D., Wade, J. B., Porac, J. F., & McNamee, R. C. (2008). The impact of CEO status diffu- sion on the economic outcomes of other senior managers. Organization Science, 19(3), 457–474.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1379.
Grant, A. M., Campbell, E. M., Chen, G., Cottone, K., Lapedis, D., & Lee, K. (2007). Impact and the art of motivation maintenance: The effects of contact with beneficiaries on persistence behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 53–67.
Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hoffman, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage: The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 528–550.
Grant, F., & Hogg, M. A. (2012). Self- uncertainty, so- cial identity prominence and group identification.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 392 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 393
Gruenfeld, D. H., Thomas-Hunt, M. C., & Kim, P. (1998). Cognitive flexibility, communication strategy, and integrative complexity in groups: Public versus private reactions to majority and minority status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 202–226.
Guetzkow, H., & Gyr, J. (1954). An analysis of conflict in decision-making groups. Human Relations, 7, 367–381.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psycholo- gist, 5(9), 444–454.
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelli- gence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Guimerá, R., Uzzi, B., Spiro J., & Amaral, L. A. N. (2005). Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team per- formance. Science, 308(5722), 697—702.
Guinote, A., Judd, C. M., & Brauer, M. (2002). Effects of power on perceived and objective group variability: Evidence that more powerful groups are more variable. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 708–721.
Gunia, B. C, Wang, L., Huang, L., Juwein, L., & Murnighan, J. K. (2012). Contemplation and conversation: Subtle influences on moral de- cision making. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 13–33.
Gustafson, D. H., Shukla, R. K., Delbecq, A. L., & Walster, G. W. (1973). A comparative study of differences in subjective likelihood estimates made by individuals, interacting groups, Delphi groups, and nominal groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 280–291.
Guzzo, R. A., Salas, E., & Associates. (1995). Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Guzzo, R. A., Yost. P. R., Campbell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 87–106.
Hackman, J. R. (1983). Designing work for indi- viduals and for groups. In J. R. Hackman (Ed.), Perspectives on behavior in organizations (pp. 242– 256). McGraw-Hill, New York.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gross, S. E. (2000). Team-based pay. In L. A. Berger & D. R. Berger (Eds.), The compensation handbook: A state-of-the-art guide to compensation strategy and design (4th ed., pp. 261–273). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gross, S. E. (2008). Team-based pay. In L. A. Berger & D. R. Berger (Eds.), The compensation handbook: A state-of-the-art guide to compensation strategy and design (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gruenfeld, D. H. (1994). Status and integrative complexity in decision-making groups: Evi- dence from the United States Supreme Court and a laboratory experiment. Dissertation Ab- stracts International, Section B: The Sciences & En- gineering, 55(2-B), 630.
Gruenfeld, D. H. (1995). Status, ideology and inte- grative complexity on the U.S. Supreme Court: Rethinking the politics of political decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 68(1), 5–20.
Gruenfeld, D. H. (1997, May). Integrating across teams: Formal structural solutions. Presenta- tion at Kellogg School of Management, North- western University, Evanston, IL.
Gruenfeld, D. H. (1998). Personal communication. Gruenfeld, D. H., & Fan, E. T. (1999). What new-
comers see and what old-timers say: Disconti- nuities in knowledge exchange. In L. Thomp- son, J. Levine, & D. Messick (Eds.), Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Gruenfeld, D. H., Keltner, D. J., & Anderson, C. (2003). The effects of power on those who pos- sess it: An interpersonal perspective on social cognition. In G. Bodenhausen & A. Lambert (Eds.), Foundations of social cognition: A festschrift in honor of Robert S. Wyer, Jr.. Mahwah, NJ: Law- rence Erlbaum Associates.
Gruenfeld, D. H., Mannix, E. A., Williams, K. Y., & Neale, M. A. (1996). Group composition and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(1), 1–15.
Gruenfeld, D. H., Martorana, P., & Fan, E. T. (2000). What do groups learn from their world- liest members? Direct and indirect influence in dynamic teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 45–59.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 393 10/24/16 9:03 PM
394 References
leadership style and communication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes. Or- ganizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 103(1), 1–20.
Hanks, M., & Eckland, B. K. (1978). Adult volun- tary association and adolescent socialization. Sociological Quarterly, 19(3), 481–490.
Harari, O., & Graham, W. K. (1975). Tasks and task consequences as factors in individual and group brainstorming. Journal of Social Psychology, 95(1), 61–65.
Hargadon, A. B. (1998). Firms as knowledge brokers: Lessons in pursuing continuous in- novation. California Management Review, 40(3), 209–227.
Hargadon, A. B., & Sutton, R. I. (2000, May/June). Building an innovation factory. Harvard Business Review, 78(3), 157–166.
Harkins, S. G., & Jackson, J. M. (1985). The role of evaluation in eliminating social loafing. Person- ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 457–465.
Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1982). Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6), 1214–1229.
Harkins, S. G., & Szymanski, K. (1987). Social loaf- ing and social facilitation: New wine in old bottles. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Harvey, J. (1974). The Abilene Paradox: The man- agement of agreement. Organizational Dynamics, 3(1), 63–80.
Harvey, O. J., & Consalvi, C. (1960). Status and conformity to pressure in informal groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 182–187.
Haslam, S. A., McGarty, C., Brown, P. M., Eggins, R. A., Morrison, B. E., & Reynolds, K. J. (1998). Inspecting the emperor’s clothes: Evidence that random selection of leaders can enhance group performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2(3), 168–184.
Haas, M. R. (2010). The double-edged swords of autonomy and external knowledge: Analyzing team effectiveness in a multinational organi- zation. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 989–1008.
Hastie, R., & Kameda, T. (2005). The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions. Psychologi- cal Review, 112(2), 494–508.
Hackman, J. R. (1990). Introduction: Work teams in organizations: An oriented framework. In J. Hackman (Ed.), Groups that work and those that don’t. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Hackman, J. R., Brousseau, K. R., & Weiss, J. A. (1976). The interaction of task design and group performance strategies in determining group effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 350–365.
Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process and group per- formance effectiveness. A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 45–99). New York: Academic Press.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work re- design. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2004). When and how team leaders matter. Research in Organiza- tional Behavior, 26, 37–74.
Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management Re- view, 30(2), 269–287.
Haggerty, R. (2012, June 9). Children’s Memorial Hospital officially closes after all patients in new facility. The Chicago Tribune. articles.chica- gotribune.com.
Hains, S. C., Hogg, M. A., & Duck, J. M. (1997). Self-categorization and leadership: Effects of group prototypicality and leader stereotypi- cality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(10), 1087–1099.
Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Exhausting or exhilarating? Conflict as threat to interests, relationships and identities. Jour- nal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 48(2), 530–537.
Hall, F. (1997). Effective delegation. In D. D. Brown, R. J. Lewicki, D. T. Hall, & F. S. Hall (Eds.), Ex- periences in management and organizational behavior (4th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hall, C. (2012, November 11). The best ideas often come from the inside. Dallas Morning News. dal- lasnews.com.
Hambley, L. A., O’Neil, T. A., & Kline, T. J. B. (2007). Virtual team leadership: The effects of
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 394 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 395
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(10), 1330–1341.
Henry, K. B., Arrow, H., & Carini, B. (1999). A tri- partite model of group identification: Theory and measurement. Small Group Research, 30(5), 558–581.
Hershfield, H. E., Cohen, T. R., & Thompson, L. (2012). Short horizons and tempting situations: Lack of continuity to our future selves leads to unethical decision making and behavior. Orga- nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(2), 298–310.
Hertel, G., Kerr, N. L., & Messe, L. A. (2000). Motivation gains in performance groups: para- digmatic and theoretical developments on the köhler effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 580–601.
Higgins, E. T. (1999). “Saying is believing” effects: When sharing reality about something biases knowledge and evaluations. In L. Thompson, J. M. Levine, & D. M. Messick (Eds.), Shared cogni- tion in organizations: The management of knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Higgins, T., & McCann, D. (1984). Social encod- ing and subsequent attitudes, impressions, and memory: “Context-driven” and motivational aspects of processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(1), 26–39.
Hill, M. (1982). Group versus individual perfor- mance: Are N + 1 heads better than one? Psy- chological Bulletin, 91, 517–539.
Hill, N. S., Bartol, K. M., Tesluk, P. E., & Langa, G. A. (2009). Organizational context and face-to- face interaction: Influence on the development of trust and collaborative behaviors in com- puter-mediated groups. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Process, 109, 187–201.
Hill, S. (1995). The social organization of boards of directors. British Journal of Sociology, 46(2), 245–278.
Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Ex- periments in group decision making: Commu- nication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. Human Com- munication Research, 13(2), 225–252.
Hinds, P. (2010, January). Situated knowing who: Why site visits matter in global work. Technology and Social Behavior colloquium, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Hastie, R., Penrod, S., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni- versity Press.
Hastorf, A. H., & Cantril, H. (1954). They saw a game: A case study. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 49, 129–134.
Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Supervisors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695–702.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.
Hausmann, L., Levine, J., & Higgins, E. (2008). Communication and group perception: Ex- tending the “saying is believing” effect. Group Pro-cesses and Intergroup Relations, 11(4), 539–554.
Heath, C. (1999). On the social psychology of agency relationships: Lay theories of motiva- tion overemphasize extrinsic rewards. Organi- zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(1), 25–62.
Heath, D., & Heath, C. (2009, February). The curse of incentives. Fast Company, 132, 48–49.
Hecht, T. D., Allen, N. J., Klammer, J. D., & Kelly, E. C. (2002). Group beliefs, ability and perfor- mance: The potency of group potency. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 6(2), 143–152.
Hedlund, J., Ilgen, D. R., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1998). Decision accuracy in computer- mediated ver- sus face-to-face decision making teams. Orga- nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(1), 30–47.
Heilman, M. E., & Haynes, M. C. (2005). No credit where credit is due: Attributional rationaliza- tion of women’s success in male-female teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 905–916.
Helmer, O. (1966). Social technology. New York: Basic Books.
Helmer, O. (1967). Analysis of the future: The Delphi method. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.
Hempel, J. (2006, August 7). Big blue brainstorm. Business Week, 70.
Henderson, M. D. (2009). Psychological distance and group judgments: The effect of physi- cal distance on beliefs about common goals.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 395 10/24/16 9:03 PM
396 References
Hohler, B. (2011, October 12). Inside the collapse. Boston Globe. bostonglobe.com.
Hogan, R., Raskin, R., & Fazzini, D. (1990). The dark side of charisma. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 343–354). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.
Hogg, M. A. (1987). Social identity and group cohesiveness. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J.
Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. Wetherell (Eds.), Redis- covering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 89–116). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity. London/New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf/New York University Press.
Hogg, M. A., Meehan, C., & Farquharson, J. (2010). The solace of radicalism: Self-uncer- tainty and group identification in the face of threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1061–1066.
Hollander, E. P. (1964). Leaders, groups, and influence. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hollander, E. P. (1986). On the central role of lead- ership processes. International Review of Applied Psychology, 35, 39–52.
Hollenbeck, J. R., Aleksander, P. J., Ellis, S. E., Humphrey, A. S, Garza, & Ilgen, D. R. (2011). Asymmetry in structural adaptation: The differ- ential impact of centralizing versus decentral- izing team decision-making structures. Orga- nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114(1), 64–74.
Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Hedlund, J. (1998). Extending the multilevel theory of team decision making: Effects of feedback and experience in hierarchi- cal teams. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 269–282.
Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Sego, D. J., Hedlund, J., Major, D. A., & Phillips, J. (1995). Multilevel theory of team decision making: Decision performance in teams incorporating distrib- uted expertise. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 292–316.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1996a). The rank-order effect in group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(3), 181–193.
Hinds, P., Carley, K. M., Krackhardt, D., & Wholey, D. (2000). Choosing workgroup members: The balance of similarity, competence, and familiar- ity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making Processes, 81(2), 226–251.
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., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understand- ing conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communica- tion. Organization Science, 16(3), 290–307.
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 Experi- mental Social Psychology, 44(1), 116–126.
Hirschfeld, R., Jordan, M., Field, H., Giles, W., & Armenakis, A. (2006). Becoming team players: Team members’ mastery of teamwork knowl- edge as a predictor of team task proficiency and observed teamwork effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 467–474.
Hirst, G., Knippenberg, D. V., & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee creativ- ity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 280–293.
Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., Chen, C.-H., & Sacramento, C. A. (2011). How does bureau- cracy impact individual creativity? A cross-level investigation of team contextual influences on goal orientation-creativity relationships. Acad- emy of Management Journal, 54(3), 624–641.
Hoffman, L. R., & Maier, N. R. F. (1966). An ex- perimental reexamination of the similarity- attraction hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 145–152.
Hoffman, R. (1995, April). Ten reasons you should be using 360-degree feedback. HR Magazine, 40(4), 82–85.
Hofmann, D. A., & Jones, L. M. (2005). Leader- ship, collective personality, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 509–522.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind (3rd Ed). Chicago: McGraw Hill.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 396 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 397
newcomers arouse more resistance than old- timers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(7), 1036–1048.
Horowitz, J. (2012, October 31). Gov. Chris Chris- tie, an Obama critic, praises the President amid N.J. storm damage. Washington Post. washing- tonpost.com.
Horton, J. (2010, February 24). Why Apolo Ohno keeps yawning. Yahoo! News. yahoo.com.
Houlette, M., Sawyer, J. E., & Muzzy, E. L. (2002, January). Convergent versus cross-cut diversity structure and group decision performance. Poster presented at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology meeting, Savannah, Georgia.
Howells, L. T., & Becker, S. W. (1962). Seating ar- rangements and leadership emergence. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, 148–150.
Hoyt, C. L., Burnette, J. L., & Innella, A. N. (2012). I can do that: The impact of implicit theories on leadership role model effectiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(2), 257–268.
Huber, V. L., Neale, M. A., & Northcraft, G. B. (1987). Judgment by heuristics: Effects of ratee and rater characteristics and performance standards on performance-related judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro- cesses, 40, 149–169.
Huff, C. (2006, September 11). Recognition that resonates. Workforce Management,85(17), 25–29.
Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2011). When the whole is more than the sum of its parts: Group moti- vation gains in the wild. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2), 455–459.
Huguet, P., Charbonnier, E., & Monteil, J. (1999). Productivity loss in performance groups: Peo- ple who see themselves as average do not en- gage in social loafing. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3(2), 118–131.
Hulsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis span- ning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128–1145.
Humphrey, S., Morgeson, F., & Mannor, M. (2009). Developing a theory of the strategic core of teams: A role composition model of team perfor- mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 48–61.
Hurley, R. (2006). The decision to trust. Harvard Business Review, 84(9), 55–62.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1996b). Information suppres- sion and status persistence in group decision making: The effects of communication media. Human Communication Research, 23, 193–219.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1998). Group and individual training. Small Group Research, 29(2), 254–280.
Hollingshead, A. B. (2000). Perceptions of exper- tise and transactive memory in work relation- ships. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3(3), 257–267.
Hom, P. W., & Xiao, Z. (2011). Embedding social networks: How guanxi ties reinforce Chinese employees’ retention. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 188–202.
Homan, A. C., Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A., & Koning, L. (2010). Believing shapes seeing: The impact of diversity beliefs on the construal of group composition. Group Processes & Intergroup Rela- tions, 13(4), 477–493.
Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S., van Knippenberg, D., Ilgen, D. R., & van Kleef, G. A. (2008). Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intragroup differences, and performance of diverse work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 1204–1222.
Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G., & De Dreu, C. (2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, informa- tion elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1189–1199.
Homans, G. (1950). The human group. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Horn, E. M. (1993). The influence of modality order and break period on a brainstorming task. Unpub- lished honors thesis, University of Texas at Arlington.
Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2002). The effects of status on subgroup relations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 203–218.
Hornsey, M. J., Jetten, J., McAuliffe, B. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2006). The impact of individualist and collectivist group norms on evaluations of dis- senting group members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 57–68.
Hornsey, T., Grice, J., Jetten, N., Paulsen, V., & Callan, V. (2007). Group-directed criti- cisms and recommendations for change: Why
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 397 10/24/16 9:03 PM
398 References
Isikoff, M. (2011, June 15). Gingrich’s wife at center of presidential campaign turmoil. NBC News. nbcnews.com.
Ito, R. (2012, October). The love bot. Pacific Stan- dard. psmag.com.
Jablin, F. M. (1981). Cultivating imagination: Factors that enhance and inhibit creativity in brainstorming groups. Human Communication Research, 7(3), 245–258.
Jackson, J. M., & Harkins, S. G. (1985). Equity in effort: An explanation of the social loafing ef- fect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49,(5), 1199–1206.
Jackson, M. H., & Poole, M. S. (2003). Idea genera- tion in naturally-occurring contexts: Complex appropriation of a simple procedure. Human Communication Research, 29, 560–591.
Jackson, S. E. (1992). Team composition in or- ganizational settings: Issues in managing an increasingly diverse work force. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Group pro- cess and productivity (pp. 138–173). Newbury Park: Sage.
Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin, K. (1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual dis- similarities and group heterogeneity as corre- lates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 675–689.
Jacobs, R. C., & Campbell, D. T. (1961). The per- petuation of an arbitrary tradition through several generations of a laboratory microcul- ture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 649–658.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commit- ment (p. 130). New York: The Free Press, a Divi- sion of Simon & Schuster.
Jans, L., Postmes, T., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2011). The induction of shared identity: The positive role of individual distinctiveness for groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(8), 1130–1141.
Janssens, M., & Brett, J. M. (2006). Cultural intel- ligence in global teams: A fusion model of col- laboration. Group & Organization Management, 31,(1), 124–153.
Huseman, R. C., & Driver, R. W. (1979). Group- think: Implications for small group decision making in business. In R. Huseman & A. Carroll (Eds.), Readings in Organizational Behavior (pp. 100–110). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hutchison, P., Jetten, J., & Gutierrez, R. (2011). Deviant but desirable: Group variability and evaluation of atypical group members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1155–1161.
Hütter, M., & Diehl, M. (2011). Motivation losses in teamwork: The effects of team diversity and equity sensitivity on reactions to free-riding. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(6), 845–856.
Hutton aftermath: A violation of business ethics or downright fraud? (1985, July). ABA Banking Journal; Computers and operations section, p. 30.
Ickes, W. (1983). A basic paradigm for the study of unstructured dyadic interaction. In H. Reis (Issue Ed.), New Directions for Methodology of So- cial and Behavioral Science: Naturalistic approaches to studying social interaction (pp. 5–21). San Fran- cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ickes, W., & Turner, M. (1983). On the social ad- vantages of having an older, opposite-sex sib- ling: Birth order influences in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 210–222.
Ilgen, D. R., & Feldman, J. M. (1983). Performance appraisal: A process focus. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 141–197). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ilies, R., Wagner, D., & Morgeson, F. (2007). Ex- plaining affective linkages in teams: Individual differences in susceptibility to contagion and individualism-collectivism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1140–1148.
Indiviglio, D., & Goldfarb, J. (2011, December 16). A congressional conflict of interest. New York Times, p. B2.
Inman, M. L., & Baron, R. S. (1996). Influence of prototypes on perceptions of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 727–739.
Insko, C., Pinkley, R., Hoyle, R., Dalton, B., Hong, G., Slim, R., Landry, P., Holton, B., Ruffin, P., & Thibaut, J. (1987). Individual versus group dis- continuity: The role of a consensus rule. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23,(3), 250–267.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 398 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 399
justified: The variable effects of group variabil- ity and ingroup identification. Journal of Experi- mental Social Psychology, 36, (4), 329–356.
Johnson, A., & Winslow, R. (2008, June 30). Drug makers say FDA safety focus is slowing new- medicine pipeline. Wall Street Journal, p. A1.
Johnson, D. (2012, February 16). How much do use- less meetings cost? Money Watch. cbsnews.com.
Johnson, K. L., Gill, S., Reichman, V., & Tassinary, L. G. (2007). Swagger, sway, and sexuality: Judging sexual orientation from body motion and morphology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3), 321–334.
Johnson, M., Hollenbeck, J., Humphrey, S., Ilgen, D., Jundt, D., & Meyer, C. (2006). Cutthroat co- operation: Asymmetrical adaptation to changes in team reward structures. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 49(1), 103–119.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1980). Mental models in cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 4(1), 71–115.
Johnston, E. (2011, July). Workplace violence: Wisconsin Supreme Court. Center for Resolution, LLC. cfrmediation.com.
Jones, E. E., Carter-Sowell, A. R., Kelly, J. R., & Williams, K. D. (2009). “I’m out of the loop”: Ostracism through information exclusion. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(2), 157–174.
Jones, E. E., & Kelly, J. R. (2010). “Why am I out of the loop?” Attributions influence responses to information exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(9), 1186–1201.
Jones, E. E., Stires, L. K., Shaver, K. G., & Harris, V. A. (1968). Evaluation of an ingratiator by tar- get persons and bystanders. Journal of Personality, 36(3), 349–385.
Jordan, M. H., Field, H. S., & Armenakis, A. A. (2002). The relationship of group process variables and team performance: A team-level analysis in a field setting. Small Group Research, 33(1), 121–150.
Jordan, P. J., & Lawrence, S. A. (2009). Emotional intelligence in teams: Development and initial validation of the short version of the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S). Journal of Management & Organization, 15, (4), 452–469.
Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2002). Emotional in- telligence and conflict resolution: Implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(1), 62–79.
James, E. H. & Wooten, L.P. (2009). Leading teams in crisis situations: From chaos to extraordinary performance. Effective Executive 12(5), 14–19.
Jehn, K. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An in- vestigation of advantages and disadvantages of valuebased intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 223–238.
Jehn, K., & Chatman, J. A. (2000). Reconceptual- izing conflict: Proportional and relational con- flict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1), 51–69.
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 collation formation, conflict, and group outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(1), 24–42.
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of intra- group 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, conflict and perfor- mance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741–763.
Jehn, K. A., Rispens, S., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2010). The effects of conflict asymmetry on work group and individual outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 596–616.
Jehn, K., & Shah, P. (1997). Interpersonal relation- ships and task performance: An examination of mediating processes in friendship and acquain- tance groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 72, (4), 775–790.
Jessup, L. M., & Valacich, J. S., (Eds.). (1993). Group support systems. New York: Macmillan.
Jetten, J., Duck, J., Terry, D. J., & O’Brien, A. (2002). Being attuned to intergroup differences in mergers: The role of aligned leaders for low- status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(9), 1194–1201.
Jetten, J., Spears, R., Hogg, M. A., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2000). Discrimination constrained and
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 399 10/24/16 9:03 PM
400 References
Kameda, T., & Tamura, R. (2007). “To eat or not to be eaten?” Collective risk-monitoring in groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(2), 168–179.
Kane, A., & Argote, L. (2002). Social identity and knowledge transfer between groups. Paper pre- sented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Denver, CO.
Kane, A., Argote, L., & Levine, J. (2005). Knowl- edge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowl- edge quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96(1), 56–71.
Kane, G., & Labianca, G. (2005). Accounting for cler- gy’s social ledgers: Mixed blessings associated with di- rect and indirect negative ties in a religious organiza- tion. Paper presented at the Intra- Organizational Network (ION) Conference, Atlanta, GA.
Kane, S. (2012). Generation Y. about.com. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions
on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 465–490.
Kaplan, R. E. (1979). The conspicuous absence of evidence that process consultation enhances task performance. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 15, 346–360.
Karau, S., & Kelly, J. (1992). The effects of time scarcity and time abundance on group perfor- mance quality and interaction process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 542–571.
Karau, S., Markus, M., & Williams, K. (2000). On the elusive search for motivation gains in groups: Insights from the collective effort model. Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie, 31(4), 179–190.
Karau, S., Moneim, A., & Elsaid, M. (2009). In- dividual differences in beliefs about groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 13(1), 1–13.
Karau, S., & Williams, K. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integra- tion. Journal of Personality and Social Pyschology, 65, 681–706.
Karavidas, M., Lim, N. K., & Katsikas, S. L. (2005). The effect of computers on older adult users. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(5), 697–711.
Katradandjian, O., & Schabner, D. (2011, October). JetBlue flight pilot pleaded for help during tar- mac ordeal. ABC News. abcnews.go.com.
Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2004). Managing emo- tions during team problem solving: Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution. Human Per- formance, 17(2), 195–218.
Joshi, A. (2006). The influence of organizational demography on the external networking be- havior of teams. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 583–595.
Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (1988). Out-group homo- geneity: Judgments of variability at the individ- ual and group levels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 778–788.
Judge, T. A., Klinger, R. L., & Simon, L. S. (2010). Time is on my side: Time, general mental ability, human capital, and extrinsic career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 92–107.
Jung, D. I., & Sosik, J. J. (2003). Group potency and collective efficacy: Examining their pre- dictive validity, level of analysis, and effects of performance feedback on future group per- formance. Group & Organization Management, 28(3), 366–391.
Jusko, J. (2012, December 17). Alcoa’s data-driven approach to employee engagement. Industry Week. industryweek.com.
Kaagan, S. S. (1999). Leadership games: Experiential learning for organizational development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.
Kaltenheuser, S. (2002, July 1). Working the crowd. Across the Board, 39(4), 50–55.
Kamans, E., Otten, S., & Gordin, E. H. (2011). Power and threat in intergroup conflict: How emotional and behavioral responses depend on amount and content of threat. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(3), 293–310.
Kamans, E., Otten, S., Gordijn, E. H., & Spears, R. (2010). How groups contest depends on group power and the likelihood that power de- termines victory and defeat. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(6), 715–724.
Kameda, T., Ohtsubo, Y., & Takezawa, M. (1997). Centrality in sociocognitive networks and so- cial influence: An illustration in a group deci- sion-making context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 296–309.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 400 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 401
Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2001). The art of innovation: Lessons in creativity from IDEO, America’s leading design firm. New York: Currency Books.
Kelly, J. B. (1991). Parent interaction after divorce: Comparison of mediated and adversarial di- vorce processes. Behavioral Sciences and Law, 9, 387–398.
Kelly, J. R. (1987). Mood and interaction. Doc- toral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Kelly, J. R. (2001). Mood and emotion in groups. In M. Hogg & S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell hand- book in social psychology (Vol. 3: Group processes, pp. 164–181). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. (2001). Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro- cesses, 86, 99–130.
Kelly, J. R., Futoran, G. C., & McGrath, J. E. (1990). Capacity and capability: Seven studies of entrainment of task performance rates. Small Group Research, 21(3), 283–314.
Kelly, J. R., & Karau, S. J. (1999). Group decision making: The effects of initial preferences and time pressure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(11), 1342–1354.
Kelly, J. R., & Loving, T. (2004). Time pressure and group performance: Exploring underly- ing processes in the Attentional Focus Model. Journal of Experiental Social Psychology, 40, 185–198.
Kelly, J. R., & McGrath, J. E. (1985). Effects of time limits and task types on task performance and interaction of four-person groups. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(2), 395–407.
Kempton, W. (1986). Two theories of home heat control. Cognitive Science, 10, 75–90.
Kempton, W. (1987). Two theories of home heat con- trol. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kenney, R. A., Schwartz-Kenney, B. M., & Blasco- vich, J. (1996). Implicit leadership theories: De- fining leaders described as worthy of influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(11), 1128–1143.
Kepner, T. (2009, February 9). Rodriguez admits to use of performance enhancers. New York Times, p. A1.
Katz, D., & Braly, K. (1933). Racial stereotypes of 100 college students. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 28, 280–290.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychol- ogy of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 81–104.
Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the not invented here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication pat- terns of 50 R&D project groups. R&D Manage- ment, 121, 7–19.
Kayser, T. A. (1995). Mining group gold: How to cash in on the collaborative genius of work teams. Chicago, IL: Irwin.
Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. (2009, June). When and how diversity benefits teams—the importance of team members’ need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 581–598.
Keisler, S., & Sproull, L. (1992). Group decision making and communication technology. Orga- nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 96–123.
Keller, R. T. (1978). Dimensions of manage- ment systems and performance in continuous process organizations. Human Relations, 31, 119–129.
Keller, R. T. (1986). Predictors of the performance of project groups in R&D organizations. Acad- emy of Management Journal, 29, 715–725.
Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for leader- ship: A longitudinal study of research and de- velopment project team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 202–210.
Kelley, H. H. (1962). The development of coopera- tion in the “minimal social situation.” Psycholog- ical monographs: General and applied, 76(19), 1–19.
Kelley, H. H. (1983). The situational origins of human tendencies: A further reason for the formal analysis of structures. Personality and So- cial Psychology Bulletin, 9(1), 8–36.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: John Wiley Sons.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 401 10/24/16 9:03 PM
402 References
Kim, H., & Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cul- tural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 785–800.
Kim, P. (1997). When what you know can hurt you: A study of experiential effects on group discus- sion and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 165–177.
Kim, S. (2011a, October 25). 7 companies offering health care benefits to part-time workers. ABC News. abcnews.com.
Kim, S. (2011b, November 29). Tech firm imple- ments employee ‘zero email’ policy. ABC News. abcnews.com.
Kim, Y.-H., & Cohen, D. (2010). Information, perspective, and judgments about the self in face and dignity cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(4), 537–550.
Kirkman, B., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond Self- Management: Antecedents and Consequences of Team Empowerment. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58–74
Kirsner, S. (2002, September). How to get bad news to the top. Fast Company, 56.
Kirsner, S. (2012). 12 tips for better meetings. Boston Globe. bostonglobe.com.
Kishida, K. T., Yang, D., Hunter Quartz, K., Quartz, S. R., & Montague, P. R. (2012). Implicit signals in small group settings and their impact on the expression of cognitive capacity and associated brain responses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 367(1589), 704–716.
Klar, Y. (2002). Way beyond compare: Nonselec- tive superiority and inferiority biases in judging randomly assigned group members relative to their peers. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol- ogy, 38, 331–351.
Klein, K. J., Knight, A. P., Ziegert, J. C., Lim, B. C., & Saltz, J. L. (2011). When team members’ val- ues differ: The moderating role of team leader- ship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114(1), 25–36.
Klein, K. J., Lim, B., Saltz, J. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2004). How do they get there? An examina- tion of the antecedents of centrality in team networks. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 952–963.
Kerr, N. L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social dilemma analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 819–828.
Kerr, N. L. (1989). Illusions of efficacy: The effects of group size on perceived efficacy in social di- lemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 287–313.
Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. (1981). Ringelmann re- visited: Alternative explanations for the social loafing effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 37, 224–231.
Kerr, N. L., Messé, L. M., Seok, D., Sambolec, E., Lount, R. M., & Park, E. S. (2007). Psychologi- cal mechanisms underlying the Köhler mo- tivation gain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(6), 828–841.
Kerr, N., Messé, L., Park, E., & Sambolec, E. (2005). Identifiablility, performance feedback and the Köhler effect. Group Processes and Inter- group Relations, 8(4), 375–390.
Kessler, T., & Hollbach, S. (2005). Group-based emotions as determinants of ingroup identifi- cation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(6), 677–685.
Keysar, B. (1998). Language users as problem solvers: Just what ambiguity problem do they solve? In S. R. Fussell & R. J. Kreuz (Eds.), Social and cognitive approaches to interpersonal communi- cation (pp. 175–200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Keysar, B., & Henly, A. (2002). Speakers’ over- estimation of their effectiveness. Psychological Science, 13(3), 207–212.
Kiddes, T. (1981). The soul of a new machines. Boston: Little Brown. cAncona, D. G. (1987). Groups in organizations: Extending laboratory models. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Annual review of personality and social psychology: Group and inter- group processes (pp. 207–231). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. (1994). Bringing the individual back in: A structural analysis of the internal market for reputation in organiza- tions. The Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), 87–108.
Kim, C. (2012, April 9). Toyota aims to spice up cars with new development methods. Reuters. reuters.com.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 402 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 403
Kramer, R. M. (1996). Divergent realities, conver- gent disappointments in the hierarchic relation: Trust and the intuitive auditor at work. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organiza- tions (pp. 216–245). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kramer, R. M. (1999). Social uncertainty and col- lective paranoia in knowledge communities: Thinking and acting in the shadow of doubt. In L. Thompson, J. Levine, & D. Messick (Eds.), Social cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kramer, R. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1984). Effects of group identity on resource use in a simulated commons dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1044–1057.
Krames, J. A. (2001). The Jack Welch Lexicon of leader- ship: Over 250 terms, concepts, strategies & initiatives of the legendary leader. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kraus, M. W., Chen, S., Lee, V. A., & Straus, L. D. (2010). Transference occurs across group boundaries. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol- ogy, 46(6), 1067–1073.
Kraus, M. W., & Keltner, D. (2009). Signs of so- cioeconomic status: A thin-slicing approach. Psychological Science, 20(1), 99–106.
Krauss, R. M., & Fussell, S. R. (1991). Perspective- taking in communication: Representations of others’ knowledge in reference. Social Cognition, 9, 2–24.
Krauss, R. M., & Fussell, S. R. (1996). Social psy- chological models of interpersonal commu- nication. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic prin- ciples (pp. 655–701). New York: Guilford.
Kravitz, D. A., & Martin, B. (1986). Ringelmann rediscovered: The original article. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 936–941.
Kresa, K. (1991). Aerospace leadership in a vortex of change. Financier, 15(1), 25–28.
Krizan, Z., & Windschitl, P. D. (2007). Team al- legiance can lead to both optimistic and pes- simistic predictions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 327–333.
Kroll, M., Walters, B. A., & Le, S. A. (2007). The impact of board composition and top manage- ment team ownership structure on post-IPO performance in young entrepreneurial firms. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1198–1216.
Kleingeld, A., van Mierlo, H., & Arends, L. (2011). The effect of goal setting on group perfor- mance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 96(6), 1289–1304.
Klimoski, R., & Inks, L. (1990, April). Account- ability forces in performance appraisal. Orga- nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45(2), 194–208.
Klimoski, R., & Jones, R. G. (1995). Staffing for ef- fective group decision making. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision mak- ing (pp. 9–45). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1997). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20(2), 403–437.
Klocke, U. (2009). “I Am the Best”: Effects of influ- ence tactics and power bases on powerhold- ers’ self-evaluation and target evaluation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(5), 619–637.
Knowles, M., & Gardner, W. (2008). Benefits of membership: The activation and amplification of group identities in response to social rejec- tion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(9), 1200–1213.
Kohn, A. (1993, September–October). Why incen- tive plans cannot work. Harvard Business Review, 71, 54–63.
Kolesnikov-Jessop, S. (2012, August 19). Lan- guage can be key to results. The New York Times. nytimes.com.
Komorita, S., & Chertkoff, J. (1973). A bargaining theory of coalition formation. Psychological Review, 80, 149–162.
Kouchaki, M. (2011). Vicarious moral licensing: The influence of others’ past moral actions on moral behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(4), 702–715.
Krackhardt, D. (1990). Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and power in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 342–369.
Krackhardt, D. (1996). Social networks and the lia- bility of newness for managers. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (pp. 159–173). New York: Wiley.
Kraiger, K., & Ford, J. K. (1985, February). A meta- analysis of ratee race effects in performance rat- ings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(1), 56–65.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 403 10/24/16 9:03 PM
404 References
Langfred, C. W. (2007). The downside of self- management: A longitudinal study of the effects of conflict on trust, autonomy, and task inter- dependence in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 885–900.
Langreth, R., & Cortez, M. F. (2011, June). Merck with AstraZeneca leads rivals-turned-allies in cancer. Bloomberg. bloomberg.com.
LaPorte, N. (2012, July 7). Where apps become child’s play. New York Times. nytimes.com.
Larson, C. E., Foster-Fishman, P. G., & Keys, C. B. (1994). Discussion of shared and unshared in- formation in decision-making groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 446–461.
Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, F. M. J. (1989). Teamwork: What must go right/what can go wrong. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Larson, J. R., Christensen, C., Franz, T. M., & Abbott, A. S. (1998). Diagnosing groups: The pooling, management, and impact of shared and unshared case information in team-based medical decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 93–108.
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., & Harmon, V. M. (2007). Recalling shared vs. unshared information mentioned during group discussion: Toward understand- ing differential repetition rates. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10(3), 311–322.
Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343–356.
Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 215–221.
Latone, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unrespon- sive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Lau, D. C., & Liden, R. C. (2008). Antecedents of coworker trust: Leaders’ blessings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1130–1138.
Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dy- namics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325–340.
Kuhn, T., & Poole, M. S. (2000). Do conflict man- agement styles affect group decision mak- ing? Evidence from a longitudinal field study. Human Communication Research, 26(4), 558–590.
Kurtzberg, T. (2000). Creative styles and teamwork: Effects of coordination and conflict on group outcomes (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Pro- quest Dissertations & Theses: Full Text (AAT 9974311).
LaBarre, P. (2012, March 5). When nobody (and everybody) is the boss. CNNMoney. manage- ment.fortune.cnn.com.
Labianca, G., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Exploring the social ledger: Negative relationships and negative asymmetry in social networks in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 596–614.
LaFasto, F. M. J., & Larson, C. E. (2001). When teams work best: 6,000 team members and leaders tell what it takes to succeed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Laham, S. M., Tam, T., Lalijee, M., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2010). Respect for persons in the intergroup context: Self-other overlap and intergroup emotions as mediators of the impact of respect on action tendencies. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(3), 301–317.
Lai, L., Rousseau, D. M., & Chang, K. T. T. (2009). Idiosyncratic deals: Coworkers as interested third parties. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 547–556.
Laird, S. (2012, August 11). Can employees be trusted to work from home. Mashable. mashable. com.
Lam, C. F., DeRue, D. S., Karam, E. P., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2011). The impact of feedback frequency on learning and task performance: Challenging the “more is better” assumption. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 116(8), 217–228.
Lam, C. K., Van der Vegt, G. S., Walter, F., & Huang, X. (2011). Harming high performers: A social comparison perspective on interper- sonal harming in work teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 588–601.
Landau, E. (2012, August 14). What we’ve done on Mars, and what’s next. CNN. cnn.com.
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.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 404 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 405
Lawler, E. E. (2000). Rewarding excellence: Pay strat- egies for the new economy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lawler, E. E., Worley, C. G., & Creelman, D. (2011). Management reset: Organizing for sustainable effec- tiveness. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
Leach, C. W., Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of ingroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 234–249.
Leary, M. (1995). Self-presentation: Impression man- agement and behavior. Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.
Ledford, G. E., & Heneman, H. G. III. (2011, June). Skill based pay. Article prepared for SIOP Sci- ence Series. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management.
Lee, A. (2008, September 8). How to build a brand. Fast Company. fastcompany.com.
Leith, K. P., & Baumeister, R. F. (1996). Why do bad moods increase self-defeating behavior? Emo- tion, risk-taking, and self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1250–1267.
Leonard, D. J., Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2011). Emotional responses to intergroup apology mediate intergroup forgiveness and retribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol- ogy, 47(6), 1198–1206.
LePine, J. (2005). Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: Effects of goal difficulty and team composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1153–1167.
LePine, J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Colquitt, J. A., & Ellis, A. (2002). Gender composition, situational strength, and team decision- making acccuracy: A criterion decomposition approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro- cesses, 88(1), 445–475.
Lepsinger, R., & Lucia, A. (2009). The art and science of 360 degree feedback. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255–275.
Letize, L., & Donovan, M. (1990, March). The su- pervisor’s changing role in high involvement
Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, K. (2005). Interactions within groups and subgroups: The effects of demographic faultlines. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 645–659.
Laughlin, P., Bonner, B., Miner, A., & Carnevale, P. (1999). Frames of references in quantity es- timations by groups and individuals. Organi- zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80(2), 103–117.
Laughlin, P., Gonzalez, C., & Sommer, D. (2003). Quantity estimations by groups and individu- als: Effects of known domain boundaries. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 7(1), 55–63.
Laughlin, P., Hatch, E., Silver, J., & Boh, L. (2006). Groups perform better than the best individu- als on letters-to-numbers problems: Effects of group size. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 90(4), 644–651.
Laughlin, P., Zander, M., Knievel, E., & Tan, T. (2003). Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Informative equations and effective strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 684–694.
Laughlin, P. R. (1980). Social combination pro- cesses of cooperative problem-solving groups on verbal interactive tasks. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Progress in social psychology (Vol. 1). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Laughlin, P. R. (2011). Social choice theory, social decision scheme theory, and group decision- making. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(1), 63–79.
Laughlin, P. R., Bonner, B. L., & Miner, A. G. (2002). Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro- cesses, 88, 605–620.
Laughlin, P. R., Carey, H. R., & Kerr, N. L. (2008). Group-to-individual problem-solving trans- fer. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11(3), 319–330.
Lawler, E. E. (1988). Choosing an involvement strategy. Academy of Management Executive, 11(3), 197–204.
Lawler, E. E. (1992). The ultimate advantage: Creating the high-involvement organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 405 10/24/16 9:03 PM
406 References
Lewis, K., Belliveau, M., Herndon, B., & Keller, J. (2007). Group cognition, membership change, and performance: Investigating the benefits and detriments of collective knowledge. Orga- nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(2), 159–178.
Lewis, S. A., Langan, C. J., & Hollander, E. P. (1972). Expectation of future interaction and the choice of less desirable alternatives in con- formity. Sociometry, 35, 440–447.
Li, N., Harris, T. B., Boswell, W. R., & Xie, Z. (2011). The role of organizational insiders’ developmen- tal feedback and proactive personality on new- comers’ performance: An interactionist perspec- tive. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1317–1327.
Liang, D. W., Moreland, R. L., & Argote, L. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(4), 384–393.
Liao, H., Chuang, A., & Joshi, A. (2008). Perceived deep-level dissimilarity: Personality antecedents and impact on overall job attitude, helping, work withdrawal, and turnover. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106, 106–124.
Liao, H., & Subramony, M. (2008). Employee cus- tomer orientation in manufacturing organiza- tions: Joint influences of customer proximity and senior leadership team. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 317–328.
Libby, R., Trotman, K. T., & Zimmer, I. (1987). Member variation, recognition of expertise, and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(1), 81–87.
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of fea- sibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5–18.
Lin, H. L. (2012, September 4). How your cell phone hurts your relationships. Scientific Ameri- can. scientificamerican.com.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychol- ogy of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
Linkner, J. (2011, June 16). Seven Steps to a Culture of Innovation. Inc. inc.com.
Linn, A. (2012, October 11). Meetings take a beat- ing in move to boost productivity. Lifeinc. on Today. lifeinc.today.com.
organizations. Journal for Quality and Participa- tion, 62–65.
Levin, D., Kurtzberg, T., Phillips, K., & Lount, R. (2010). The role of affect in knowledge transfer. Group Dynamics, 14(2), 123–142.
Levine, J. M. (1989). Reaction to opinion deviance in small groups. In P. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 187–231). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Levine, J. M., & Choi, H.-S. (2004). Impact of personnel turnover on team performance and cognition. In E. Salas & S. M. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive pro- cess and performance (pp. 153–176). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Levine, J. M., Choi, H.-S., & Moreland, R. L. (2003). Newcomer innovation in work teams. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group cre- ativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 202– 224). New York: Oxford University Press.
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1985). Innova- tion and socialization in small groups. In S. Moscovici, G. Mugny, & E. van Avermaet (Eds.), Perspectives on minority influence (pp. 143–169). Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1991). Culture and socialization in work groups. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 585–634). Washing- ton, DC: American Psychological Association.
Levine, J. M., Resnick, L. B., & Higgins, E. T. (1993). Social foundations of cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 585–612.
LeVine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocen- trism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes and group behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Levinson, H. (1980). Power, leadership, and the management of stress. Professional Psychology, 11, 497–508.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics (p. 264). Cam- bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lewicki, R. J., Weiss, S. E., & Lewin, D. (1992). Models of conflict, negotiation, and third party intervention: A review and synthesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 209–252.
Lewis, B. P., & Linder, D. E. (1997). Thinking about choking? Attentional processes and paradoxical performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(9), 937–944.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 406 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 407
Lount, R. B, & Phillips, K. W. (2007). Working harder with the out-group: The impact of social category diversity on motivation gains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro- cesses, 103(2), 214–224.
Lount, R. B., Park, E. S., Kerr, N. L., Messe, L. A., & Seok, D. (2008). Evaluation concerns and the Kohler effect: The impact of physical presence on motivation gains. Small Group Research, 39(6), 795–809.
Lount, R. M., Kerr, N. L., Messé, L. M., Seok, D., & Park, E. S. (2008). An examination of the sta- bility and persistence of the Köhler motivation gain effect. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12(4), 279–289.
Lovallo, D., & Kahneman, D. (July, 2003). Delu- sions of success: How optimism undermines executives’ decisions. Harvard Business Review, 81(7), 56–63.
Loyd, D. L., Phillips, K. W., Whitson, J., & Thomas- Hunt, M. C. (2010). How congruence between status speech style affects reactions to unique knowledge. Group Process and Intergroup Relations, 13(3), 379–395.
Lublin, J. S. (2011, December 8). Transparency pays off in 360-degree reviews. Wall Street Journal. wsj.com.
Lucken, M., & Simon, B. (2005). Cognitive and affective experiences of minority and majority members: The role of gorup size, status, and power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 396–413.
Maccoby, M. (2000, January/February). Under- standing the difference between management and leadership. Research Technology Management, 43(1), 57–59.
MacKenzie, M., Cambrosio, A., & Keating, P. (1988). The commercial application of a sci- entific discovery: The case of the hybridoma technique. Research and Policy, 17(3), 155–170.
MacMillan, D. (2012, July 23). Take the day off, and the next month too. Businessweek, 46.
Maier, N. R. F. (1952). Principles of human relations, applications to management. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Maier, N. R. F., Solem, A. R., & Maier A. A. (1975). The role-play technique: A handbook for management and leadership practice. LaJolla, CA: University Associates.
Linville, P. W., Fischer, G. W., & Salovey, P. (1989). Perceived distributions of the characteristics of in-group and out-group members: Empirical evidence and a computer simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 165–188.
Litchfield, R.C., Gilson, L.L., & Gilson, P.W. (2015). Defining creative ideas toward a more nuanced approach. Group & Organization Man- agement, 40(2), 238–265.
Littlepage, G., Robison, W., & Reddington, K. (1997). Effects of task experience and group experience on group performance, member ability, and recognition of expertise. Organi- zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 133–147.
Loersch, C., Aarts, H., Payne, B. K., & Jefferis, V. E. (2008). The influence of social groups on goal contagion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol- ogy, 44, 1555–1558.
Loewenstein, J., & Prelic, D. (1991). Negative time preference. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 81(2), 347–352.
Lojeski, K. S., & Reilly, R. R. (2008). Transforming leadership and innovation in the globally integrated enterprise. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Long, C. P., Bendersky, C., & Morrill, C. (2011). Fairness monitoring: Linking managerial controls and fairness judgments in organiza- tions. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 1045–1068.
Longnecker, C. O., Sims, H. P., & Gioia, D. A. (1987). Behind the mask: The politics of em- ployee appraisal. Academy of Management Excecu- tive, 1,(3), 183–193.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1993). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and per- formance. New York: Routledge.
Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering un- familiar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226–251.
Lount, R. B. (2010). The impact of positive mood on trust in interpersonal and intergroup inter- actions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 98(3), 420–433.
Lount, R. B., & Pettit, N. C. (2012). The social con- text of trust: The role of status. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 15–23.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 407 10/24/16 9:03 PM
408 References
Markman, A. B., & Wood, K. L. (Eds.). (2009). Tools for innovation: The science behind the practical methods that drive innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Marks, M. A., DeChurch, L. A., Mathieu, J. E., Panzer, F. J., & Alonso, A. (2005). Teamwork in multi-team systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 964–971.
Markus, H. R. (1977). Self-schemata and process- ing information about the self. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 35, 63–78.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991, April). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.
Marquez, J. (2008, September 22). Connecting a virtual workforce. Workforce Management, 87(15), 1, 23–25.
Marr, J. C., Thau, S., Aquino, K., & Barclay, L. J. (2012). Do I want to know? How the motiva- tion to acquire relationship-threatening in- formation in groups contributes to paranoid thought, suspicion behavior, and social rejec- tion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(2), 285–297.
Marrone, J. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Carson, J. B. (2007). A multilevel investigation of the antecedents and consequences to team member boundary spanning. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1423–1439.
Martin, J. A., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2010). Rewiring: Cross-business unit collaborations in multi- business organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 265–301.
Martiny, S. E., Kessler, T., & Vignoles, V. L. (2012). Shall I leave or shall we fight? Effects of threat- ened group-based self-esteem on identity man- agement strategies. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(1), 39–55.
Martocchio, J. (2012). Strategic compensation: A human resource management approach (7th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Mathieu, J. E., Marks, M. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). Multi-team systems. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Hand- book of industrial, work and organizational psychol- ogy (Vol. 2, pp. 289–313). London: Sage.
Mathieu, J. E., & Rapp, T. L. (2009). Laying the foundation for successful team performance
Main, E. C., & Walker, T. G. (1973). Choice shifts and extreme behavior: Judicial review in the federal courts. Journal of Social Psychology. 91(2), 215–221.
Maitner, A. T., Mackie, D. M., Claypool, H. M., & Crisp, R. J. (2010). Identity salience moder- ates processing of group-relevant information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 441–444.
Magnus, E. B. (2011, April). The conceptualiza- tion of social complexity in global teams. Nordic Psychology, 63(1), 35–50.
Makiney, J. D., & Levy, P. E. (1998). The influence of self-ratings versus peer ratings on supervi- sors’ performance judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74(3), 212–228.
Makuch, E. (2012, March 8). How amnesia fort- night saved Double Fine. Gamespot. gamespot. com.
Malachowski, D. (2012). Top 10 reasons to leave your job. Salary.com. salary.com/advice.
Malty, E. (2010, January 7). Boring meetings? Get out the water guns. Wall Street Journal, p. B5.
Manning, J. F., & Fullerton, T. D. (1988). Health and well-being in highly cohesive units of the U.S. Army. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 503–519.
Mannix, E., Thompson, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (1989). Negotiation in small groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 508–517.
Manz, C. C., Keating, D. E., & Donnellon, A. (1990). Preparing for an organizational change to employee self-management: The manage- ment transition. Organizational Dynamics, 19(2), 15–26.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
Mark, G., Voida, S., & Cardello, A. V. (2012, May). A pace not dictated by electrons: an empirical study of work without email. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Comput- ing Systems, Austin, TX, 555–564.
Markham, S. E., Dansereau, F., & Alutto, J. A. (1982). Group size and absenteeism rates: A longitudinal analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 25(4), 921–927.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 408 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 409
McGrath, J. E. (1990). Time matters in groups. In J. Galegher, R. E. Kraut, & C. Egido (Eds.), In- tellectual teamwork: Social and technological founda- tions of cooperative work. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
McGrath, J. E., Kelly, J. R., & Machatka, D. E. (1984). The social psychology of time: En- trainment of behavior in social and organiza- tional settings. Applied Social Psychology Annual, 5, 21–44.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McGuire, T., Keisler, S., & Siegel, J. (1987). Group and computer-mediated discussion effect in risk decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(5), 917–930.
McIntosh, D. N., Druckman, D., & Zajonc, R. B. (1994). Socially induced affect. In D. Druck- man & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Learning, remember- ing, believing: Enhancing human performance (pp. 251–276, 364–371). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
McLeod, P., Baron, R., Marti, M., & Yoon, K. (1997). The eyes have it: Minority influence in face to face and computer mediated group discussion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 706–718.
McQueeney, K. (2012, January 15). Where are you hiding, Mr. Sarkozy? President sends his PM to face cameras as downgraded credit rating throws France into turmoil. DailyMail. daily- mail.co.uk.
Mead, N. L., & Maner, J. K. (2012). On keep- ing your enemies close: Powerful leaders seek proximity to ingroup power threats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 576–591.
Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Mehta, R., Zhu, R., & Cheema, A. (2012). Is noise always bad? Exploring the effects of ambient noise on creative cognition. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 784–799.
Mehta, S. (2008, December 18). How to sell in China. CNN Money. money.cnn.com.
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administra- tive Science Quarterly, 30, 78–102.
Meindl, J. R., & Lerner, M. O. (1984). Exacerbation of extreme responses to an out-group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(1), 71–84.
trajectories: The roles of team charters and per- formance strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 90–103.
Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kukenberger, M. R., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. (2015). Team role experience and orientation a mea- sure and tests of construct validity. Group & Organization Management, 40(1), 6–34.
Mathieu, J., Gilson, L., & Ruddy, T. (2006). Em- powerment and team effectiveness: An empiri- cal test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 97–108.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. (2009). How low does ethi- cal leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci- sion Processes, 108(1), 1–13.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organiza- tional trust. Academy of Management Review, 20,(3),709–734.
Mazur, A. (1985). A biosocial model of status in face-to-face groups. Social Forces, 64, 377–402.
Maynard, T., Mathieu, J., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. L. (2012). Something(s) old and something(s) new: Modeling drivers of global virtual team effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 342–365.
McCallum, D., Harring, K., Gilmore, R., Drenan, S., Chase, J., Insko, C., & Thibaut, J. (1985). Competition and cooperation between groups and between individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 301–320.
McCauley, C. (1998). Groupthink dynamics in Ja- nis’s theory of groupthink: Backward and for- ward. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2–3), 142–162.
McGlynn, R. P., Harding, D. J., & Cottle, J. L. (2009). Individual–group discontinuity in group–individual interactions: Does size mat- ter? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(1), 129–143.
McGlynn, R. P., McGurk, D., Effland, V. S., Johll, N. L., & Harding, D. J. (2004). Brainstorming and task performance in groups constrained by evidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93(1), 75–90.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and per- formance. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 409 10/24/16 9:03 PM
410 References
Michalisin, M. D., Karau, S. J., & Tangpong, C. (2004). Top management team cohesion and superior industry returns: An empirical study of the resource-based view. Group and Organiza- tion Management, 29(1), 125–140.
Michel, J. G., & Hambrick, D. C. (1992). Diver- sification posture and top management team characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 9–37.
Milch, K. F., Weber, E. U., Appelt, K. C., Handgraaf, M. J., & Krantz, D. H. (2009). From individual preference construction to group decisions: Framing effects and group processes. Organi- zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 242–255.
Miles, R. P., & Osborne, T. (2001). The Warren Buffett CEO: Secrets of the Berkshire Hathaway managers. New York: John Wiley Sons.
Miller, L. (2011, January 25). Getting past “no” on your way to a social media “yes.” PR Daily Europe. prdaily.com.
Miller, C. (2012, October 30). Why Twitter’s C.E.O. demoted himself. New York Times. nytimes.com.
Miller, C. E., Jackson, P., Mueller, J., & Schersch- ing, C. (1987). Some social psychological effects of group decision rules. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 325–332.
Miller, D. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54(12), 1053–1060.
Miller, D. T., & Ratner, R. (1998). The disparity between the actual and assumed power of self- interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 74(1), 53–62.
Miller, J. W., & Maher, K. (2011, December 10). Sandusky accuser testifies McQueary tells of encounter in shower; Ex-Penn state officials face perjury trial. Wall Street Journal, p. A.3.
Milliman, J. F., Zawacki, R. F., Norman, C., Powell, L., & Kirksey, J. (1994, November). Companies evaluate employees from all perspectives. Per- sonnel Journal, 73(11), 99–103.
Minton-Eversole, T. (2012, July 13). Virtual teams used by most global organizations, survey says. Society for Human Resource Management. shrm.org.
Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: En- hancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 229–240.
Menon, T., & Blount, S. (2003). The Messenger bias: A relational model of knowledge valuation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 137–186.
Menon, T., & Pfeffer, J. (2003, April). Valuing inter- nal vs. external knowledge: Explaining the pref- erence for outsiders [Special issue on managing knowledge in organization: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge]. Management Science, 49(4), 497–513.
Menon, T., Sim, J., Fu, J. H.-Y, Chiu, C.-Y, & Hong, Y.-Y. (2010). Blazing the trail versus trailing the group: Culture and perceptions of the leader’s position. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(1), 51–61.
Menon, T., Thompson, L., & Choi H. (2006). Tainted knowledge vs. tempting knowledge: People avoid knowledge from internal rivals and seek knowledge from external rivals. Man- agement Science, 52(8), 1129–1144.
Merchant, N. (2010, June 14). Apple’s startup culture. Business Week. businessweek.com.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 535–546.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., DeChurch, L. A., Jimenez- Rodriquez, M., Wildman, J., Shuffler, M. (2011). A meta-analytic investigation of virtuality and in- formation sharing in teams. Organizational Behav- ior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 214–225.
Messick, D. (1993). Equality as a decision heuris- tic. In B. A. Mellers & J. Baron (Eds.), Psychologi- cal perspectives on justice (pp. 11–31). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Meyer, C. (1994, May–June). How the right mea- sures help teams excel. Harvard Business Review, 95–103.
Michael, J. H., Barsness, Z., Lawson, L., & Balkundi, P. (2004). Focus please: Team coor- dination and performance at wood manufac- turers. Forest Products Journal, 54(12), 250–255.
Michaels, S. W., Brommel, J. M., Brocato, R. M., Linkous, R. A., & Rowe, J. S. (1982). Social fa- cilitation in a natural setting. Replication in Social Psychology, 4(2), 21–24.
Michaelsen, L. K., Watson, W. E., & Black, R. H. (1989). A realistic test of individual versus group consensus decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(5), 834–839.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 410 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 411
individual-group relations. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 15, pp. 137–192). New York: Academic Press.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1989). Newcom- ers and oldtimers in small groups. In P. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 143–186). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1992). The com- position of small groups. In E. J. Lawler, B. Markovsky, C. Ridgeway, & H. A. Walker (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 9, pp. 237–280). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (2000). Socializa- tion in organizations and work groups. In M. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 69–112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (2002). Socializa- tion and trust in work groups. Group Processes and Interpersonal Relations, 5(3), 185–201.
Moreland, R. L., & McMinn, J. G. (1999). Gone but not forgotten: Loyalty and betrayal among ex-members of small groups. Personality and So- cial Psychology Bulletin, 25(12), 1476–1486.
Morgan, B. B., & Bowers, C. A. (1995). Teamwork stress: Implications for team decision making. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effective- ness and decision making in organizations (pp. 262– 290). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Morgeson, F. P. (2005). The external leadership of self-managing teams: Intervening in the con- text of novel and disruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 497–508.
Morris, M. W., Podolny, J. M., & Ariel, S. (2000). Missing relations: Incorporating relational con- structs into models of culture. In P. C. Earley & H. Singh (Eds.), Innovations in international and cross-cultural management (pp. 52–90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morrison, K. R., Fast, N. J., & Ybarra, O. (2009). Group status, perceptions of threat, and sup- port for social inequality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 204–210.
Moscovici, S. (1980). Towards a theory of conver- sion behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 209– 239). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Moscovici, S. (1985a). Innovation and minority in- fluence. In S. Moscovici, G. Mugny, & E. Van
Mitchell, C. K. (1998). The effects of break task on per- formance during the second session of brainstorming. Masters thesis, University of Texas at Arlington.
Moffett, M. (2010, August 25). Trapped miners kept focus, shared tuna. Wall Street Journal. wsj. com.
Mohammed, S., & Nadkarni, S. (2011). Temporal diversity and team performance: The moderat- ing role of team temporal leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 489–508.
Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., & Mohrman, A. M. (1995). Designing team-based organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mohrman, S. A., Lawler, E. E., & Mohrman, A. M. (1992). Applying employee involvement in schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analy- sis, 14(4), 347–360.
Mojzisch, A., Schulz-Hardt, S., Kerschreiter, R., & Frey, D. (2008). Combined effects of knowl- edge about others’ opinions and anticipation of group discussion on confirmatory information search. Small Group Research, 39(2), 203–223.
Montesanto, A. (2012). Making a good first im- pression is crucial in a job interview. BC Jobs. bcjobs.com.
Moons, W. G., Leonard, D. J., Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2009). I feel our pain: Antecedents and consequences of emotional self-stereo- typing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 760–769.
Moore, D., Kurtzberg, T., Thompson, L., & Morris, M. (1999). Long and short routes to success in electronically-mediated negotiations: Group affiliations and good vibrations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77(1), 22–43.
Moore, E. (2011, June). Face-to-face, not Face- book, still counts. The Financial Times, p. 12.
Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. (1996). Socially shared cognition at work. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Brower (Eds.), What’s social about social cognition? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. (1998). Training people to work in groups. In R. S. Tindale & Colleagues (Eds.), Theory and research on small groups. New York: Plenum Press.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1982). Social- ization in small groups: Temporal changes in
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 411 10/24/16 9:03 PM
412 References
Munter, M., & Netzley, M. (2011). Guide to meet- ings. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Muoio, A. (1997, August). They have a better idea . . . do you? Fast Company, 10, 73–79.
Nadler, A., Harpaz-Gorodeisky, G., & Yael, B.-D. (2009). Defensive helping: Threat to group identity, ingroup identification, status stability, and common group identity as determinants of intergroup help-giving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(5), 823–834.
Nadler, J., Thompson, L., & Van Boven, L. (2003). Learning negotiation skills: Four models of knowledge creation and transfer. Management Science, 49(4), 529–540.
Nagasundaram, M., & Dennis, A. R. (1993). When a group is not a group: The cognitive founda- tion of group idea generation. Small Group Re- search, 24(4), 463–489.
Nag, R., & Goia, D. A. (2012). From common to uncommon knowledge: Foundations of firm- specific use of knowledge as a resource. Acad- emy of Management Journal, 55, 421–457.
Nahavandi, A., & Aranda, E. (1994). Restructuring teams for the reengineered organization. Acad- emy of Management Review, 8(4), 58–68.
Nahrgang, J. D., Frederick, P. Morgeson, F. P., & Ilies, L.(2009). The development of leader– member exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance influence leader and member relationships over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 256–266.
Nayab, N. (2011, August 24). How employee empowerment has pushed companies ahead. Bright Hub. brighthub.com.
Naylor, J. C., & Briggs, G. E. (1965). Team-training effectiveness under various conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 223–229.
Nebus, J. (2006). Building collegial information networks: A theory of advice network gen- eration. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 615–637.
Nelson, B. (2012). 1501 ways to reward employees. New York: Workman.
Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. (2006). Mak- ing 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.
Avermaet (Eds.), Perspectives on minority influence (pp. 9–52). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Moscovici, S. (1985b). Social influence and con- formity. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 347–412). New York: Random House.
Moscovici, S., Mugny, G., & Papastamou, S. (1981). Sleeper effect and/or minority effect? Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 1, 199–221.
Mottola, G. R., Bachman, B. A., Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1997). How groups merge: The effects of merger integration patterns on anticipated commitment to the merged orga- nization. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1335–1358.
Mugny, G. (1982). The power of minorities. London: Academic Press.
Mueller, J. S. (2012). Why individuals in larger teams perform worse. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 111–124.
Mueller, J. S., Goncalo, J. A., & Kamdar, D. (2011). Recognizing creative leadership: Can creative idea expression negatively relate to perceptions of leadership potential? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2), 494–498.
Mueller, J. S., & Kamdar, D. (2011). Why seeking help from teammates is a blessing and a curse: A theory of help seeking and individual creativ- ity in team contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 263–276.
Mueller, T. (2009, April). Biomimetrics: Design by nature. National Geographic. nationalgeographic. com.
Mulhern, F. (2012, March 15). Engaging virtual employees: Innovative approaches to fostering community. The Forum. performanceforum.org.
Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Pro- ductivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta- analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psy- chology, 12, 3–23.
Mulvey, P. W., Veiga, J. F., & Elsass, P. M. (1996). When teammates raise a white flag. Academy of Management Executive, 10(1), 40–49.
Munkes, J., & Diehl, M. (2003). Matching or com- petition? Performance comparison processes in an idea generation task. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 305–320.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 412 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 413
influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13(1), 45–55.
Nemeth, C., Brown, K., & Rogers, J. (2001). Devil’s advocate versus authentic dissent: Simulating quantity and quality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 707–720.
Nemeth, C., Connell, J., Rogers, J., & Brown, K. (2001). Improving decision making by means of dissent. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(1), 48–58.
Nemeth, C., & Kwan, J. (1985). Originality of word associations as a function or majority vs. minority influence processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 277–282.
Nemeth, C., Mayseless, O., Sherman, J., & Brown, Y. (1990). Improving recall by exposure to con- sistent dissent. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 429–437.
Nemeth, C., Rogers, J., & Brown, K. (2001). Im- proving decision making by means of dissent. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 48–58.
Nemeth, C., & Rogers, J. (1996). Dissent and the search for information. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 67–76.
Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H., & Christiansen, N. D. (1999). The relationship between work-team personality composition and the job perfor- mance of teams. Groups and Organization Man- agement, 24, 28–45.
Neuman, G. A., & Wright, J. (1999). Team effec- tiveness: Beyond skills and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 376–389.
Newheiser, A.-K., Sawaoka, T., & Dovidio, J. F. (2012). Why do we punish groups? High en- titativity promotes moral suspicion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 931–936.
Newstrom, J., & Scannell, E. (1997). The big book of team building games. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ng, K., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2009). From experience to experiential learning: Cultural intelligence as a learning capability for global leader development. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(4), 511–526.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). The effects of organizational embeddedness on devel- opment of social capital and human capital. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 696–712.
Nicklin, J. M., Greenbaum, R., McNall, L. A., Folger, R., & Williams, K. J. (2011). The importance
Nemeth, C. J. (1976). A comparison between majority and minority influence. Invited Address. International Congress for Psychology. Joint Meeting of SESP and EAESP, Paris.
Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23–32.
Nemeth, C. J. (1994). The value of minority dissent. In A. Mucchi-Faina, A. Maass, & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Minority Influence: Nelson-Hall Series in Psychology (pp. 3–15). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Nemeth, C. J. (1995). Dissent as driving cognition, attitudes, and judgments. Social Cognition, 13, 273–291.
Nemeth, C. J. (1997). Managing innovation: When less is more. California Management Review, 40, 59–74.
Nemeth, C. J., & Kwan, J. L. (1985). Originality of word associations as a function of majority minority influence. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 277–282.
Nemeth, C. J., & Kwan, J. L. (1987). Minority influence, divergent thinking and detection of correct solutions. Journal of Applied Social Psy- chology, 17(9), 788–799.
Nemeth, C. J., & Nemeth-Brown, B. (2003). Better than individuals? The potential benefits of dis- sent and diversity for group creativity. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 63–84). New York: Oxford University Press.
Nemeth, C. J., & Ormiston, M. (2007). Creative idea generation: Harmony versus stimula- tion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(3), 524–535.
Nemeth, C. J., Personnaz, M., Personnaz, B., & Goncalo, J. A. (2004). The liberating role of conflict in group creativity: A study in two countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(4), 365–374.
Nemeth, C. J., & Rogers, J. (1996). Dissent and the search for information. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 67–76.
Nemeth, C. J., & Wachtler, J. (1974). Creating the perceptions of consistency and confidence: A necessary condition for minority influence. So- ciometry, 37(4), 529–540.
Nemeth, C. J., & Wachtler, J. (1983). Creative prob- lem solving as a result of majority vs. minority
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 413 10/24/16 9:03 PM
414 References
The role of informal socializing ties. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 860–875.
Ohngren, K. (2009, May 13). Cheap ways to moti- vate your team. Entrepreneur.com. entrepreneur. com.
Ohtsubo, Y., & Miler, C. E. (2008). Test of a Level of Aspiration model of group decision making: Non-obvious group preference reversal due to an irrelevant alternative. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(1), 105–115.
Okimoto, T. G., & Wenzel, M. (2011). Third-party punishment and symbolic intragroup status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(4), 709–718.
Olson, L. (2012, August 9). 10 Reasons working from home might not be for you. US News and World Report. money.usnews.co.
One year later. Inside Japan’s nuclear meltdown. (2012, February 28). National Public Radio; Fresh Air transcript.. npr.com.
Ordeshook, P. (1986). Game theory and political the- ory: An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Caldwell, D. F. (1985). The im- pact of normative social influence and cohe- siveness on task perceptions and attitudes: A social-information processing approach. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58, 193–206.
Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination (2nd ed.). New York: Scribner.
Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination (3rd rev. ed.). New York: Scribner.
Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination (3rd rev. ed.). New York: Scribner.
Oxley, N. L., Dzindolet, M. T., & Paulus, P. B. (1996). The effects of facilitators on the perfor- mance of brainstorming groups. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11(4), 633–646.
Packer, D. J., & Chasteen, A. L. (2010). Loyal devi- ance: Testing the normative conflict model of dissent in social groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(1), 5–18.
Page, S. (2012, December 23). Voter turnout higher in swing states than elsewhere. USA Today. usatoday.com.
Page-Gould, E., Mendes, W. B., & Major, B. (2010). Intergroup contact facilitates physio- logical recovery following stressful intergroup
of contextual variables when judging fairness: An examination of counterfactual thoughts and fairness theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114, 127–141.
Nieva, V. F., Myers, D., & Glickman, A. S. (1979, July). An exploratory investigation of the skill qualification testing system. U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, TR 390.
Nijstad, B. A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (1999). Persistence of brainstorming groups: How do people know when to stop? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 165–185.
Nijstad, B. A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (2003). Production blocking and idea genera- tion: Does blocking interfere with cognitive processes? Journal of Experimental Social Psychol- ogy, 39(6), 531–548.
Nilson, C. D. (2004). More team games for trainers. New York: McGraw Hill.
Nishii, L. H., & Mayer, D. (2009). Do inclusive leaders help the performance of diverse groups? The moderating role of leader-member ex- change in the diversity to group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1412–1426.
Noor, M., Brown, R., González, R., Manzi, J., & Lewis, C. A. (2008). On positive psychological outcomes: What helps groups with a history of conflict to forgive and reconcile with each other? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 819–832.
Northcraft, G., Schmidt, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2011). Feedback and the rationing of time and effort among competing tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 1076–1086.
Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., Briggs, R. O., & Mittleman, D. D. (1995). Electronic meeting systems: Ten years of lessons learned. In D. Coleman & R. Khanna (Eds.), Groupware: Technology and appli- cations (pp. 149–193). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1994). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review, 101, 608–631.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense. (2004). Personnel and readiness. Population representation in the military services. prhome.defense.gov.
Oh, H., Chung, M.-H., & Labianca, G. (2004). Group social capital and group effectiveness:
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 414 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 415
Paulus, P. B. (1998). Developing consensus about groupthink after all these years. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2–3), 362–374.
Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2003). Enhancing ideational creativity in groups: Lesson from re- search on brainstorming. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 110–136). New York: Oxford University Press.
Paulus, P. B., & Dzindolet, M. T. (1993). Social influ- ence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 575–586.
Paulus, P. B., Dzindolet, M. T., Poletes, G., & Camacho L. M. (1993, February). Perception of performance in group brainstorming: The illusion of group productivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(1), 78–89.
Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., Brown, V., Dzindolet, M. T., Roland, E. J., Leggett, K. L., Putman, V. L., & Coskun, H. (1998, June). Group and electronic brainstorming: understanding production losses and gains in idea generating groups. Paper presented at Learning in Organizations Conference, Carne- gie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., & Ortega, A. H. (1995). Performance and perceptions of brainstormers in an organizational setting. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 249–265.
Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., Putman, V. L., Leggett, K. L., & Roland, E. J. (1996). Social influence process in computer brainstorming. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 3–14.
Paulus, P. B., & Nakui, T. (2005). Facilitation of group brainstorming. In S. Schuman (Ed.), The IAF handbook of group facilitation (pp. 103–114). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Paulus, P. B., Nakui, T., Putman, V. L., & Brown, V. R. (2006). Effects of task instructions and brief breaks on brainstorming. Group Dynam- ics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10(3), 206–219.
Paulus, P. B., Putman, V. L., Coskun, H., Leggett, K. L., & Roland, E. J. (1996). Training groups for effective brainstorming. Presented at the Fourth Annual Advanced Concepts Conference on Work Teams–Team Implementation Issues, Dallas.
Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations.
interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psy- chology, 46(5), 854–858.
Page-Gould, E., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Tropp, L. (2008). With a little help from my cross-group friend: Reducing anxiety in intergroup contexts through crossgroup friendship. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 95, 1080–1094.
Paladino, M., & Castelli, L. (2008). On the im- mediate consequences of intergroup categori- zation: Activation of approach and avoidance motor behavior toward ingroup and outgroup members. Personality and Social Psychology Bul- letin, 34(6), 755–768.
Pagliaro, S., Ellemers, N., & Baretto, M. (2011). Shar- ing moral values: Anticipated ingroup respect as determinant of adherence to morality-based (but not competence-based) group norms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(8), 1117–1129.
Palmer, L. (1996, April 30). There’s no meetings like business meetings. Fast Company. fastcom- pany.com.
Paolini, S. Hardwood, J., & Rubin, M. (2010). Neg- ative intergroup contact makes group member- ships salient: Explaining why intergroup con- flict endures, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(12), 1723–1738.
Park, B., & Rothbart, M. (1982). Perception of outgroup homogeneity and levels of social cat- egorization: Memory for subordinate attitudes of ingroup and outgroup members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1050–1068.
Parks, C. D., & Cowlin, R. A. (1996). Acceptance of uncommon information into group discussion when that information is or is not demonstra- ble. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66(3), 307–315.
Parks, C. D., & Stone, A. B. (2010). The desire to expel unselfish members from the group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(2), 303–310.
Parnes, S. J., & Meadow, A. (1959). Effect of “brainstorming” instructions on creative prob- lem-solving by trained and untrained subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 50(4), 171–176.
Pashler, H. (2000). Task switching and multitask performance. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: Control of mental processes (pp. 227–308). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 415 10/24/16 9:03 PM
416 References
Perkins, D. V. (1982). Individual differences and task structure in the performance of a behavior setting: An experimental evaluation of Barker’s manning theory. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10(6), 617–634.
Perrow, C. (1984). Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies (p. 215). New York: Basic Books.
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Manage- ment Review, 28(1), 89–107.
Peterson, R. S. (1997). A directive leadership style in group decision making can be both virtue and vice: Evidence from elite and experimental groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1107–1121.
Peterson, R. S., & Behfar, K. (2003). The dynamic relationship between performance feedback, trust, and conflict in groups: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci- sion Processes, 92, 102–112.
Peterson, R. S., & Nemeth, C. J. (1996). Focus ver- sus flexibility: Majority and minority influence can both improve performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(1), 14–23.
Peterson, R. S., Owens, P. D., Tetlock, P. E., Fan, E. T., & Martorana, P. (1998). Group dynamics in top management teams: Groupthink, vigilance, and alternative models of organizational failure and success. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 272–305.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. (2006, May). A meta- analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783.
Pettit, N. C., & Lount, R. B., Jr. (2010). Looking down and ramping up: The impact of status differences on effort in intergroup settings. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(1), 9–20.
Pettit, N. C., & Lount, R. B. (2011). Through whose eyes? The impact of identification on judgments of group status. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(4), 533–547.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Kasmer, J. (1985). Effects of need for cognition on social loafing. Paper presented at the Midwestern Psychology Association Meeting, Chicago.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro- cesses, 82(1), 76–87.
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational and empowering leader be- haviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(2), 172–197.
Pearsall, M. J., Christian, M. S., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2010). Motivating interdependent teams: Individual re- wards, shared rewards, or something in between? Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 183–191.
Pearsall, M. J., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2011). Thick as thieves: The effects of ethical orientation and psychological safety on unethical team behav- ior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2) 401–411.
Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J., & Bell, B. S. (2010). Building the infrastructure: The effects of role identification behaviors on team cognition de- velopment and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 192–200.
Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J., & Stein, J. (2009). Cop- ing with challenge and hindrance stressors in teams: Behavioral, cognitive, and affective out- comes. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci- sion Processes, 109(1), 18–28.
Pearson, C.M. and Clari, J.A. (1998). Reframing crisis management. American Management Review, 23, 59–76 ;
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and perfor- mance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28.
Pennebaker, J. W. (1982). The psychology of physical symptoms. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Pentland, A. (2010, January–February). We can measure the power of charisma. Harvard Busi- ness Review, 88(1), 34–35.
Perez, J. A., & Mugny, G. (1987). Paradoxical effects of categorization in minority influence: When being an out-group is an advantage. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 157–169.
Perez, J. A., & Mugny, G. (1996). The conflict elaboration theory of social influence. In E. H. Witte, & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Small group processes and interpersonal relations (Vol. 2, pp. 191–210). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 416 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 417
information sharing: The effects of congru- ent ties. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(4), 497–510.
Pinto, I. R., Marques, J. M., Levine, J. M., & Abrams, D. (2010). Membership status and subjective group dynamics: Who triggers the Black Sheep Effect? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1), 107–119.
Podolny, J. M., & Baron, J. N. (1997). Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobil- ity in the workplace. American Sociological Review, 62(5), 673–693.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Pollack, A. (2012, June 19). Competitors form partnership to develop autism drugs. The New York Times, p. B2.
Polzer, J. T., Milton, L. P., & Swann, W. B. (2002). Capitalizing on diversity: Interpersonal congru- ence in small work groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 296–324.
Porter, C., Hollenbeck, J., Ilgen, D., Ellis, A., West, B., & Moon, H. (2003). Backing up behaviors in teams: The role of personality and legiti- macy of need. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 391–403.
Porter, C. O. L. H., Webb, J. W., & Gogus, C. I. (2010). When goal orientations collide: Ef- fects of learning and performance orientation on team adaptability in response to workload imbalance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 935–943.
Posavac, S. S., Kardes, F. R., & Brakus, J. J. (2010). Focus induced tunnel vision in managerial judgment and decision making: The peril and the antidote. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 102–111.
Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2002). Behavior online: Does anonymous computer communication reduce gender inequality? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(8), 1073–1083.
Poteat, V. P., & Spanierman, L. B. (2010). Do the ideological beliefs of peers predict the preju- diced attitudes of other individuals in the group? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(4), 495–514.
Prentice, D. A., Miller, D. T., & Lightdale, J. R. (1994). Asymmetries in attachments to groups
Petty, R. M., & Wicker, A. W. (1974). Degree of manning and degree of success of a group as de- terminants of members’ subjective experiences and their acceptance of a new group member. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4, 43.
Pfeffer, J. (1983). Organizational demography. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 299–359). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Pfeffer, J. (2009, July 23). Managers and employ- ees alike sense the truth: Workplace appraisals aren’t working. Businessweek, p. 24.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (2006). Evidence based management. Harvard Business Review, 84(1), 62–74.
Pfeiffer, J. W. (1974). A handbook of structured expe- riences for human relations training (Vols. 1–10). LaJolla, CA: University Associates.
Pfeiffer, J. W., & Jones, J. E. (1994). A handbook of structured experiences (Vols. 1–10). San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company.
Pieterse, A. N., van Knippenberg, D., & van Gin- kel, W. P. (2011). Diversity in goal orientation, team reflexivity, and team performance. Orga- nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114(2), 153–164.
Phelps, R. (1996, September). Cadbury trusts in teamwork. Management Today, p. 110.
Phillips, J. M. (1999). Antecedents of leader utili- zation of staff input in decision-making teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro- cesses, 77(3), 215–242.
Phillips, K., Liljenquist, K., & Neale, M. (2009). Is the pain worth the gain? The advantages and liabilities of agreeing with socially distinct new- comers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(3), 336–351.
Phillips, K. W. (2003). The effects of categorically based expectations on minority influence: The importance of congruence. Personality Sociology and Psychology Bulletin, 29, 3–13.
Phillips, K. W., & Loyd, D. (2006). When surface and deep-level diversity collide: The effects on dissenting group members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 143–160.
Phillips, K. W., Mannix, E. A., Neale, M. A., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2004). Diverse groups and
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 417 10/24/16 9:03 PM
418 References
Rawlins, W. K. (1983). Negotiating close friend- ship: The dialectic of conjunctive freedoms. Human Communication Research, 9, 255–266.
Reagans, R., Argote, L., & Brooks, D. (2005). Indi- vidual experience and experience working to- gether: Predicting learning rates from knowing who knows what and knowing how to work together. Management Science, 51(6), 869–881.
Reinholt, M., Pedersen, T., & Foss, N. J. (2011). Why a central network position isn’t enough: The role of motivation and ability for knowl- edge sharing in employee networks. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1277–1297.
Ren, Y., Carley, K., & Argote, L. (2006). The con- tingent effects of transactive memory: When is it more beneficial to know what others know? Management Science, 52(5), 671–682.
Richard, N. T., & Wright, S. C. (2010). Advantaged group members’ reactions to tokenism. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(5), 559–569.
Rico, R. S.-M., Miriam, A., Antino, M., & Lau, D. (2012). Bridging team faultlines by combining task role assignment and goal structure strate- gies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 407–420.
Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., Gaertner, S. L., McDon- ald, S. A., & Lamoreaux, M. J. (2010). Does a common ingroup identity reduce intergroup threat? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(3), 403–423.
Riess, M. (1982). Seating preferences as impres- sion management: A literature review and theo- retical integration. Communication, 11, 85–113.
Riess, M., & Rosenfeld, P. (1980). Seating pref- erences as nonverbal communication: A self- presentational analysis. Journal of Applied Com- munications Research, 8, 22–30.
Rietzschel, E. F. (2011). Collective regulatory focus predicts specific aspects of team innova- tion. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(3), 337–345.
Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). Productivity is not enough: A compari- son of interactive and nominal groups on idea generation and selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 244–251.
Ringelmann, M. (1913). Aménagement des fumiers et des purins. Paris: Librarie agricole de la Maison rustique.
and to their members: Distinguishing between common-identity and common-bond groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 484–493.
Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (1989). Deindi- viduation and the self-regulation of behavior. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed.), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Quinn, A., & Schlenker, B. (2002). Can account- ability produce independence? Goals as deter- minants of the impact of accountability and conformity. Personality and Social Psychology Bul- letin, 28(4), 472–483.
Rabinovich, A., & Morton, T. (2012). Sizing fish and ponds: The joint effects of individual and group-based feedback. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 244–249.
Ragins, B. R., & Sundstrom, E. (1989). Gender and power in organizations: A longitudinal perspec- tive. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 51–88.
Randall, K. R., Resick, C. J., & DeChurch, L. A. (2011). Building team adaptive capacity: The roles of sense-giving and team composition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 525–540.
Rapp, T. L., Gilson, L. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Ruddy, T. (2016). Leading empowered teams: An examination of the role of external team leaders and team coaches. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 109–123.
Rast, D. E., Gaffney, A. M., Hogg, M. A., & Crisp. R. J. (2012). Leadership under uncertainty: When leaders who are non-prototypical group members can gain support. Journal of Experimen- tal and Social Psychology, 48(3), 646–663.
Rao, R. D., & Argote, L. (2006). Organizational learning and forgetting: The effects of turnover and structure. European Management Review, 3, 77–85.
Rao, V. R., & Steckel, J. H. (1991, June). A polariza- tion model for describing group preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 108–118.
Raven, B. H. (1993). The bases of power: Origin and recent developments. Journal of Social Issues, 49(4), 227–251
Raven, B. H., & Rubin, J. Z. (1976). Social psychol- ogy: People in groups. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 418 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 419
Roseman, I., Wiest, C., & Swartz, T. (1994). Phe- nomenology, behaviors, and goals differentiate emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 67, 206–221.
Rosenberg, T. (2011, October 2). Deadlines get re- sults. The New York Times. nytimes.com.
Rosette, A. S. (2004). Unacknowledged privilege: Setting the stage for discrimination in organi- zational settings. In D. Nagao (Ed.), Best paper proceedings of the 64th annual meeting of the acad- emy (CD), ISSN 1543-8643. New Orleans, LA.
Rosette, A. S. (2006). Unearned privilege: Race, gender, and social inequality in US organiza- tion. In M. Karsten (Ed.), Gender, ethnicity, and race in the workplace (pp. 253–268). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Rosette, A. S., & Thompson, L. (2005). The cam- ouflage effect: Separating achieved status and unearned priviledge in organizations. In M. Neale, E. Mannix, & M. Thomas-Hunt (Eds.), Research on managing teams and groups (Vol. 7, pp. 259–281). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Ross. E. (2012, May 8). How to make your staff feel at home. Financial Review. afr.com.
Ross, J., & Staw, B. M. (1993, August). Organiza- tional escalation and exit: Lessons from the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. Academy of Management Journal, 36(4), 701–732.
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in exper- imental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173–220). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Ross, S. M., & Offermann, L. R. (1997). Transfor- mational leaders: Measurement of personal- ity attributes and work group performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(10), 1078–1086.
Rothgerber, H. (1997). External intergroup threat as an antecendent to perceptions of in-group and out-group homogeneity. Journal of Personal- ity and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1206–1212.
Rothgerber, H., & Worchel, S. (1997). The view from below: Intergroup relations from the per- spective of the disadvantaged group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1191–1205.
Rouse, W., & Morris, N. (1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the
Rink, F., & Ellemers, N. (2009). Temporary versus permanent group membership: How the future prospects of newcomers affect newcomer ac- ceptance and newcomer influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(6), 764–775.
Rink, F., & Ellemers, N. (2010). Benefiting from deep-level diversity: How congruence between knowledge and decision rules improves team decision making and team perceptions. Group Processes Intergroup Relations, 13(3), 345–359
Rivera, R. (2012, December 15). Social media strategy was crucial as transit agencies coped with hurricane. New York Times. nytimes.com.
Roberts, B. (2011, June). Your cheating heart. HR Magazine, 56(6), 55–56, 58, 60.
Roberts, J. (2015, September 3). Tech workers will get average of $5,770 under final anti-poaching settlement. Fortune. Fortune.com.
Robinson, R. J., & Keltner, D. (1996). Much ado about nothing? Revisionists and traditionalists choose an introductory English syllabus. Psy- chological Science, 7(1), 18–24.
Roccas, S., & Amit, A. (2011). Group heterogeneity and tolerance: The moderating role of conser- vation values. Journal of Experimental Social Psy- chology, 47(5), 898–907.
Roch, S. R. (2007). Why convene rater teams: An investigation of the benefits of anticipated dis- cussion, consensus, and rater motivation. Orga- nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104(1), 14–29.
Rogelberg, S. G., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Lowe, C. A. (1992). The stepladder technique: An al- ternative group structure facilitating effective group decision making. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 77(5), 730–737.
Rogelberg, S. G., & O’Connor, M. S. (1998). Ex- tending the stepladder technique: An exami- nation of self-paced stepladder groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2(2), 82–91.
Rohde, D. (2012, March 23). The Anti-Walmart: The secret sauce of Wegmans is people. The Atlantic. theatlantic.com.
Rojas-Burke, J. (2011, September 18). Online gam- ers enlisted by University of Washington de- liver big-time scientific results. The Oregonian. oregonlive.com.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 419 10/24/16 9:03 PM
420 References
Rutkowski, G. K., Gruder, C. L., & Romer, D. (1983). Group cohesiveness, social norms, and bystander intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(3), 545–552.
Ryan, C.L., Bauman, K. (2016, March). Educa- tional attainment in the United States: 2015. U.S. Census Bureau. census.gov.
Saavedra, R., & Kwun, S. K. (1993). Peer evalua- tion in self-managing work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(3), 450–462.
Sackett, P. R., DuBois, C. I. Z., & Wiggins-Noe, A. (1991). Tokenism in performance evalua- tion: The effects of work group representation on male-female and white-black differences in performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 76, 263–267.
Saguy, T., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2008). Beyond contact: Intergroup contact in the context of power relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 432–445.
Sample, I. (2012, July 4). Higgs boson: It’s unof- ficial! Cern scientists discover missing particle. The Guardian. guardian.co.uk.
Sanchez-Burkes, J., & Huy, Q. (2009). Emotional aperture and strategic change: The accurate recognition of collective emotions. Organiza- tion Science, 20(1), 22–34.
Sanchez-Burks, J. (2002). Protestant relational ideology and (in) attention to relational cues in work settings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 919–929.
Sanchez-Burks, J., & Lee, F. (2007). Cultural psy- chology of workways. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
Sanchez-Burks, J., Neuman, E., Ybarra, O., Kopel- man, S., Goh, K., & Park, H. (2008). Cultural folk wisdom about relationship conflict. Ne- gotiation and Conflict Management Research, 1(1), 55–78.
Sani, F., Todman, J., & Lunn, J. (2005). The fun- damentality of group principles, and perceived group entitativity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(6), 567–573.
Sauer, S. J. (2011). Taking the reins: The effects of new leader status and leadership style on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 574–587.
search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 359–363.
Rousseau, D. M. (2005). I-deals: Idiosyncratic deals employees bargain for themselves. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Cam- erer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: Across- discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.
Rousseau, D. M., & Tijoriwala, S. A. (1998). As- sessing psychological contracts: Issues, alter- natives, and measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 679–695.
Roy, M. C., Gauvin, S., & Limayem, M. (1996). Electronic group brainstorming: The role of feedback on productivity. Small Group Research, 27, 215–247.
Rubin, C. (2011, March 2). Study: Employees are unproductive half the day. Inc. inc.com.
Rubin, R. S., Munz, D. C., & Bommer, W. H. (2005). Leading from within: The effects of emotion recognition and personality on trans- formational leadership behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 845–858.
Ruder, M. K., & Gill, D. L. (1982). Immediate ef- fects of win-loss on perceptions of cohesion in intramural and intercollegiate volleyball teams. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4(3), 227–234.
Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter-stereotypical impression manage- ment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629–645.
Ruef, M., Aldrich, H. E., & Carter, N. M. (2003). The structure of organizational founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 68, 195–222.
Ruggiero, K. M., & Marx, D. M. (1999). Less pain and more to gain: Why high-status group members blame their failure on discrimina- tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 774–784.
Rusli, E. M., & Banjo, S. (2012, December 17). Facebook’s Wal-Mart gambit. Wall Street Jour- nal, p. B1.
Russo, F. (2006, January 16). The hidden secrets of the creative mind. Time, 167(3), 89–90.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 420 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 421
Schweder, R. A., & Bourne, E. J. (1982). Does the concept of the person vary cross-culturally? In A. Marsella and G. White (Eds.), Cultural con- ceptions of mental health and therapy. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.
Schweiger, D. M., & Walsh, J. P. (1990). Mergers and acquisitions: An interdisciplinary view. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 8, pp. 41–107). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., Paddock, E. L., & Judge, T. A. (2010). A daily investigation of the role of manager empathy on employee well-being. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro- cesses, 113(2), 127–140.
Sears, D. O., & Funk, C. L. (1990). The limited effect of economic self-interest on the political attitudes of the mass public. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19(3), 247–271.
Sears, D. O., & Funk, C. L. (1991). Graduate edu- cation in political psychology. Annual meeting of International Society of Political Psychol- ogy, Washington, DC. Political Psychology, 12(2), 345–362.
Sedekides, C., Campbell, W. K., Reeder, G. D., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). The self-serving bias in re- lational context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 378–386.
Sedikides, C., Insko, C. A., & Schopler J. (Eds.). (1998). Intergroup cognition and intergroup behav- ior. New Jersey: Erlbaum
See, K. E., Morrison, E. W., Rothman, N. B., & Soll, J. B. (2011). The detrimental effects of power on confidence, advice taking, and accu- racy. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 272–285.
Seeley, E. A., Gardner, W. L., Pennington, G., & Gabriel, S. (2003). Circle of friends or members of a group? Sex differences in relational and collective attachment to groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 251–263.
Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychologi- cal and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 96(5), 981–1003.
Seidman, D. (2012, June 26). Work in progress: Working in a self-governing office. Financial Times. financialtimes.com.
Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Savitsky, K., Van Boven, L., Epley, N., & Wight, W. (2005). The unpacking effect in allocations of responsibility for group tasks. Journal of Experi- mental Social Psychology, 41, 447–457.
Scandals in Sports. (2012, March). Sports Illustrated. si.com.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based trust as me- diators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 863–871.
Schein, E. H. (1988). Process consultation: Its role in organization development (Vol. 1). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Schmidle, S. (2011, August 8). Getting Bin Laden: what happened that night in Abbottabad. The New Yorker. newyorker.com.
Schoel, C., Bluemke, M., Mueller, P., & Stahlberg, D. (2011). When autocratic leaders become an option—Uncertainty and self-esteem predict
implicit leadership preferences. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 521–540.
Scholten, L., van Knippenberg, D., Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Motivated infor- mation processing and group decision making: Effects of process accountability on informa- tion processing and decision quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 539–552.
Schroth, R. J., & Elliott, A. L. (2002). How compa- nies lie: Why Enron is just the tip of the iceberg. New York: Crown Business.
Schultze, T., Mojzisch, A., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2012). Why groups perform better than indi- viduals at quantitative judgment tasks: Group- to-individual transfer as an alternative to dif- ferential weighting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(1), 24–36.
Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., Lüthgens, C., & Moscovici, S. (2000). Biased information search in group decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 655–669.
Schulz-Hardt, S., Jochims, M., & Frey, D. (2002). Productive conflict in group decision making: Genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 563–586.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 421 10/24/16 9:03 PM
422 References
from the experience. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1229–1259.
Shepherd, M. M., Briggs, R. O., Reinig, B. A., Yen, J., & Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. (1995–1996). Invok- ing social comparison to improve electronic brainstorming: Beyond anonymity. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12, 155–170.
Shepperd, J. A. (1993). Productivity loss in perfor- mance groups: A motivation analysis. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 113, 67–81.
Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms (p. 3). New York: Harper & Bros.
Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and cooperation. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2006). The psy- chology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.) Advances in experimental so- cial psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 183–242). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Sherman, D. K., & Kim, H. S. (2005). Is there an “I” in “team”? The role of the self in group- serving judgments. Journal of Personality and So- cial Psychology, 88, 108–120.
Sherman, D. K., Kinias, Z., Major, B., Kim, H. S., & Prenovost, M. (2007). The group as a resource: Reducing biased attributions for group success and failure via group affirmation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1100–1112.
Shilo, R. (2011, December 28). 8 essential business rules for those who don’t believe in rules. Fast Company. fastcompany.com.
Shin, S. J., Kim, T.-Y, Lee, J.-Y., & Bian, L. (2012). Cognitive team diversity and individual team member creativity: A cross-level interac- tion. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 197–212.
Shteynberg, G., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). Implicit coordination: Sharing goals with similar others intensifies goal pursuit. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1291–1294.
Shure, G. H., Rogers, M. S., Larsen, I. M., & Tas- son, J. (1962). Group planning and task effec- tiveness. Sociometry, 25(3), 263–282.
Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Keisler, S., & McGuire, T. (1986). Group processes in computer-me- diated communication. Organizational Behavior, 37, 157–187.
Sekaquaptewa, D., & Thompson, M. (2002). The differential effects of solo status on members of high and low-status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(5), 694–707.
Sergiovanni, T.J., Metzcus, R., Burden, L. (1969). Toward a particularistic approach to leadership style: Some finds. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 62–79.
Sessler, M. (2011, September 15). NFL releases details on fines, discipline. National Football League. nfl.com.
Seta, J. J. (1982). The impact of comparison processes on coactors’ task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 281–291.
Shah, P. P. (2000). Network destruction: The structural implications of downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 101–112.
Shah, P. P., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The social struc- ture of diverse groups: Integrating social cat- egorization and network perspectives. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 5, 113–133.
Shah, P. P., Dirks, K. T., & Chervany, N. (2006). The multiple pathways of high performing groups: The interaction of social networks and group processes. Journal of Organizational Behav- ior, 27(3), 299–317.
Shah, P. P., & Jehn, K. A. (1993). Do friends per- form better than acquaintances? The interac- tion of friendship, conflict, and task. Group De- cision and Negotiation, 2(2), 149–165.
Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychol- ogy of small group behavior (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shaw, J. D., Zhu, J., Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shih, H.-A., & Susanto, E. (2011). A contingency model of conflict and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 391–400.
Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1987, Spring). Group effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan Man- agement Review, 28(3), 25–31.
Shellenbarger, S. (2011, September 27). Better ideas through failure. Wall Street Journal. wsj.com.
Shellenbarger, S. (2012, May 15). Meet the meet- ing killers. New York Times. nytimes.com.
Shepard, D. A., Patzelt, H., & Wolfe, M. (2011). Moving forward from project failure: Negative emotions, affective commitment, and learning
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 422 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 423
Smith, B. (2012, November 19). Bonuses that are available to all motivate staff. The Globe and Mail. theglobeandmail.com.
Smith, C. M., Bushouse, E., & Lord, J. (2010). Individual and group performance on insight problems: The effects of experimentally in- duced fixation. Group Processes & Intergroup Re- lations, 13(1), 91–99.
Smith, C. M., Tindale, R. S., & Dugoni, B. L. (1996). Minority and majority influence in freely interacting groups: Qualitative vs. quan- titative differences. British Journal of Social Psy- chology, 35(1), 137–149.
Smith, E.B., Menon, T., and Thompson, L. (2012). Status differences in the cognitive activation of social networks. Organization Science, 23(1), 67–82
Smith, E. R., Seger, C., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Can emotions be truly group-level? Evidence regarding four conceptual criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 431–446.
Smith, E. R., Seger, C., & Mackie, D. M. (2009). Subtle activation of a social categorization trig- gers group-level emotions. Journal of Experimen- tal Social Psychology, 45(3), 460–467.
Smith, K., Smith, K., Olian, J., Sims, H., O’Bannon, D., & Scully, J. (1994). Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 412–438.
Snyder, M. (1984). When belief creates reality. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental so- cial psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 248–306). New York: Academic Press.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Popielarz, P. A. (1995). Weak ties and structural holes: The effects of network structure on careers. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Academy of Management, Vancouver, BC.
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychol- ogy, 3, 356–367.
Spector, R., & McCarthy, P. D. (2012). The Nord- strom way to customer service excellence: The hand- book for becoming the “Nordstrom” of your industry (2nd ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Siegman, A. W., & Reynolds, M. (1982). Inter- viewer-interviewee nonverbal communications: An interactional approach. In M. A. Davis (Ed.), Interaction rhythms: Periodicity in communication be- havior (pp. 249–278). New York: Human Sci- ences Press.
Silver-Greenberg, J. (2012, July 13). New fraud in- quiry as JPMorgan’s loss mounts. The New York Times. dealbook.nytimes.com.
Silver-Greenberg, J., & Schwark, N. D. (2012, May 14). Red flags said to go unheeded by bosses at JPMorgan. The New York Times. dealbook. nytimes.com.
Silverman, R. E. (2012a, February 14). Where’s the boss? Trapped in a meeting. Wall Street Journal. wsj.com.
Silverman, R. E. (2012b, August 8). My life as a telecommuting robot. Wall Street Journal, p. B1.
Simon, B., Pantaleo, G., & Mummendey, A. (1995). Unique individual or interchangeable group member? The accentuation of intragroup dif- ferences versus similarities as an indicator of the individual self versus the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 106–119.
Simonton, D. K. (1987). Why presidents succeed: A political psychology of leadership. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sims, R. R. (1992). Linking groupthink to unethi- cal behavior in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(9), 651–662.
Sinaceur, M., Thomas-Hunt, M. C., Neale, M. A., O’Neill, O. A., & Haag, C. (2010). Accuracy and perceived expert status in group decisions: When minority members make majority mem- bers more accurate privately. Personality and So- cial Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 423–437.
Skilton, P. F., & Dooley, K. J. (2010). The effects of repeat collaboration on creative abrasion. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 118–134.
Sleesman, D. J., Conlon, D. E., McNamara, G, & Miles, J. E. (2012). Cleaning up the big muddy: A meta-analytic review of the determinants of escalation of commitment. Academy of Manage- ment Journal. 55(3), 541–562.
Sligte, D. J., de Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2011). Power, stability of power, and creativ- ity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5), 891–897.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 423 10/24/16 9:03 PM
424 References
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of un- shared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discus- sion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467–1478.
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1987). Effects of informa- tion load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information in group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 81–93.
Staw, B. H. (1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 16(1), 27–44.
Stearns, D. P. (2012, May 2). Local musicians gladly pay to record. Philadelphia Inquirer, p. A02.
Steele, S. (1990). The content of our character: A new vision of race in America (pp. 111–125). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Steen, M. (2011, Autumn). Columbia sportswear: An American success story. Family Business Magazine. familybusinessmagazine.com.
Steinel, W., Utz, S., & Koning, L. (2010). The good, the bad and the ugly thing to do when shar- ing information: Revealing, concealing and lying depend on social motivation, distribution and importance of information. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 85–96.
Steiner, I. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.
Stenstrom, D. M., Lickel, B., Denson, T. F., & Miller, N. (2008). The Roles of ingroup identi- fication and outgroup entitativity in intergroup retribution. Personality and Social Psychology Bul- letin, 34(11), 1570–1582.
Stern, G. M. (2012, January 26). A digital pat on the back from the boss: What’s it worth? CNN Money. management.fortune.cnn.com.
Stevens, M. A., & Campion, M. J. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human re- source management. Journal of Management, 20, 503–530.
Stevens, R. H., & Ogunji, E. (2011, June). Prepar- ing business students for the multi-cultural work environment of the future: A teaching agenda. International Journal of Management, 28(3), 528–544.
Spoor, J. R., & Kelly, J. R. (2004). The evolutionary significance of affect in groups: Communica- tion and group bonding. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 7, 398–416.
Sproull, L., & Keisler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Srivastave, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and per- formance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1239–1251.
Staats, B. R., Milkman, K. L., & Fox, C. R. (2012). The team scaling fallacy: Underestimating the declining efficiency of larger teams. Organi- zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(2), 132–142.
Stachowski, A., Kaplan, S. A., & Waller, M. J. (2009). The benefits of flexible team interac- tion during crises. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1536–1543.
Stajkovic, A., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A. (2009). Col- lective efficacy, group potency, and group per- formance: Meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 814–828.
Stasser, G. (1988). Computer simulation as a re- search tool: The DISCUSS model of group decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24(5), 393–422.
Stasser, G. (1992). Information salience and the discovery of hidden profiles by decision- making groups: A “thought” experiment. Organiza- tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 156–181.
Stasser, G., & Stewart, D. D. (1992). Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solv- ing a problem versus making a judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 426–434.
Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D., & Wittenbaum, G. M. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 244–265.
Stasser, G., Taylor, L. A., & Hanna, C. (1989). Information sampling in structured and un- structured discussions of three- and six-person groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(1), 67–78.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 424 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 425
Summers, J. K., Humphrey, S. E., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). Team member change, flux in coordina- tion, and performance: Effects of strategic core roles, information transfer, and cognitive ability. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 314–338.
Sumner, W. (1906). Folkways. New York: Ginn.
Sundstrom, E. D., DeMeuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effective- ness. American Psychologist, 45(2), 120–133.
Sundstrom, E. D., Mcintyre, M., Halfhill, T., & Richards, H. (2000). Work groups: From the Hawthorne studies to work teams of the 1990s and beyond. Group Dynamics, 4, 44–67.
Sundstrom, E. D., & Sundstrom, M. G. (1986). Work places: The psychology of the physical envi- ronment in offices and factories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sung, S. Y., & Choi, J. N. (2012). Effects of team knowledge management on the creativity and financial performance of organizational teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro- cesses, 118(1), 4–13.
Svenson, O. (1981). Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers? Acta Psycholog- ica, 47, 143–148.
Swann, W. B., Jr., Gomez, A., Huici, C., Morales, J. F., & Hixon, J. G. (2010). Identity fusion and self-sacrifice: Arousal as a catalyst of pro-group fighting, dying, and helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(5), 824–841.
Swann, W. B., Jr., Gomez, A., Seyle, D. C., Mo- rales, J. F., & Huici, C. (2009). Identity fusion: The interplay of personal and social identities in extreme group behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 995–1011.
Swann, W. B., Jr., Milton, L. P., & Polzer, J. T. (2000). Should we create a niche or fall in line? Identity negotiation and small group effective- ness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(2), 238–250.
Swift, A., Ander, S. (2016, July). Most Americans foresee death of cash in their lifetime. Gallup. gallup.com.
Sy, T., Cote, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The con- tagious leader: Impact of the leader’s mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, (2), 295–305.
Stewart, D. D., Billings, R. S., & Stasser, G. (1998). Accountability and the discussion of unshared, critical information in decision making groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2(1), 18–23.
Stewart, G. L., Courtright, S. H., & Barrick, M. R. (2012). Peer-based control in self-managing teams: Linking rational and normative influ- ence with individual and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 435–447.
Stewart, G. I., & Manz, C. C. (1995). Leadership and self-managing work teams: A typology and integrative model. Human Relations, 48(7), 747–770.
Stewart, J. K. (2011, November 15). Slalom Con- sulting. Chicago Tribune. chicagotribune.com.
Stillman, J. (2012, April 25). Bosses are for slackers like Google. Gigaom. Gigaom.com.
Stockdale, C. B. (2011, December 27). The worst product flops of 2011. Yahoo Finance. finance. yahoo.com.
Stogdill, R. M. (1972). Group productivity, drive, and cohesiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8(1), 26–43.
Stokes, J. P. (1983). Components of group cohe- sion: Inter-member attraction, instrumental value, and risk taking. Small Group Behavior, 14, 163–173.
Stone, B. (2011, September 28). Amazon, the com- pany that ate the world. Businessweek. business- week.com.
Stoner, J. A. F. (1961). A comparison of individual and group decisions involving risk. Thesis, Massa- chusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, MA.
Stroebe, W., & Diehl, M. (1994). Why are groups less effective than their members? On produc- tivity losses in idea generating groups. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 271–301.
Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. (1992). The illusion of group effectivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(5), 643–650.
Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. (1996). Social compensation and the Kohler effect: To- ward a theoretical explanation of motivation gains in group productivity. In E. H. White, & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior, vol. 2: Small group processes and interpersonal relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 425 10/24/16 9:03 PM
426 References
Tetlock, P. E., Peterson, R., McGuire, C., Chang, S., & Feld, P. (1992). Assessing political group dynamics: The test of the groupthink model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 403–425.
Tetlock, P. E., Skitka, L., & Boettger, R. (1989). Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: Conformity, complexity and bolstering. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 57, 632–640.
Thatcher, S., Jehn, K., & Zanutto, E. (2003). Cracks in diversity research: The effects of di- versity faultlines on conflict and performance. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12, 217–241.
The Open Innovation Marketplace. (2012, Sep- tember 12). Innocentive. innocentive.com.
Thibaut, J., & Kelley, H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and conflict man- agement: Reflections and update. Journal of Or- ganizational Behavior, 13, 265–274.
Thomason, A. (2012, May 12). Employee reviews turned inside out. USA Today. usatoday.com.
Thomée, S. (2012). ICT use and mental health in young adults. Doctoral dissertation, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.
Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Thompson, L. (2003). Improving the creativity of organizational work groups. Academy of Man- agement Executive, 17(1), 96–109.
Thompson, L. (2013). Leading high impact teams. Team leadership survey from the Kellogg School of Management Executive Program. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Thompson, L. (2013). Creative conspiracy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Thompson, L. (2016). Leading high impact teams. Team leadership survey from the Kellogg School of Management Executive Program. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Thompson, L., Kray, L., & Lind, A. (1998). Co- hesion and respect: An examination of group decision making in social and escalation di- lemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34(3), 289–311.
Thompson, L., Loewenstein, J., & Gentner, D. (2000). Avoiding missed opportunities in
Sycara, K., & Lewis, M. (2004). Integrating intel- ligent agents into human teams. In E. Salas & S. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance. Washing- ton, DC: American Psychological Association.
Szalavitz, M. (2009, January 14). Study: A simple surgery checklist saves lives. Time. time.com.
Pilots and the cockpit: What we don’t understand. (2012, March 28). Talk of the nation; National Public Radio. npr.com.
Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. New York: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social iden- tity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Taylor, D. W., Berry, P. C., & Block, C. H. (1958). Does group participation when using brain- storming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly, 3, 23–47.
Taylor, D. W., & Faust, W. L. (1952). Twenty ques- tions: Efficiency of problem-solving as a func- tion of the size of the group. Journal of Experi- mental Social Psychology, 44, 360–363.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). Shop management. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion of well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210.
Teather, D. (2009, June 30). Madoff case: Damned by judge and victims, fraudster will die behind bars: 150-year prison sentence for financier who cheated investors of $65B in one of Wall Street”s biggest frauds. The Guardian, p. 2.
Terry, D. J., Carey, C. J., & Callan, V. J. (2001). Em- ployee adjustment to an organizational merger. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(3), 267–280.
Tesser, A., & Rosen, S. (1975). The reluctance to transmit bad news. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Ad- vances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8). New York: Academic Press.
Teten, D., & Allen, S. (2005). The virtual handshake. New York: AMACOM.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 426 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 427
Tucker, A. T., Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2007, June). Implementing new practices: An empirical study of organizational learning in hospital intensive care units. Management Sci- ence, 53(6), 894–907
Turn off your smart phone to beat stress. (2012, December 1). The British Psychological Society. bps. org.uk.
Turner, J. C. (1987). A self-categorization theory. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. Witherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 42–67). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
Turner, M. A., Fix, M., & Struyk, R. J. (1991). Opportunities denied, opportunities diminished: Racial discrimination in hiring. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1998). A social identity maintenance model of groupthink. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro- cesses, 73(2–3), 210–235.
Turner, M. E., Probasco, P., Pratkanis, A. R., & Leve, C. (1992). Threat, cohesion, and group effectiveness: Testing a social identity main- tenance perspective on groupthink. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 781–796.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Sci- ence, 211, 453–458.
Tykocinski, O., Pick, D., & Kedmi, D. (2002). Ret- roactive pessimism: A different kind of hind- sight bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 577–588.
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Tziner, A., & Eden, D. (1985). Effects of crew com- position on crew performance: Does the whole equal the sum of its parts? Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 70, 85–93.
Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Unethical behavior in the name of the company: The moderating effect of or- ganizational identification and positive reci- procity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 769–780.
Ungar, R. (2012, November 10). The fiscal cliff ex- plained. Forbes. forbes.com.
managerial life: Analogical training more pow- erful than individual case training. Organi- zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 60–75.
Thompson, L., Mannix, E., & Bazerman, M. (1988). Group negotiation: Effects of decision rule, agenda, and aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 86–95.
Thompson, L., & Rosette, A. (2004). Leading by analogy. In S. Chowdhury (Ed.), Financial times next generation business series. London: Prentice Hall.
Thompson, L., Valley, K. L., & Kramer, R. M. (1995). The bittersweet feeling of success: An examination of social perception in nego- tiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(6), 467–492.
Tickle-Degnen, L., & Rosenthal, R. (1987). Group rapport and nonverbal behavior. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: Vol. 9. Group processes and intergroup relations (pp. 113–136). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tindale, S., & Sheffey, S. (2002). Shared informa- tion, cognitive load, and group memory. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 5(1), 5–18.
Toma, C., & Butera, F. (2009). Hidden profiles and concealed information: Strategic information sharing and use in group decision making. Person- ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(6), 793–806.
Totterdell, P., Kellet, S., Teuchmann, K., & Briner, R. B. (1998). Evidence of mood linkage in work groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1504–1515.
Trends in employee recognition. (May, 2011). World at Work. worldatwork.org.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In J. J. Berman (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives: Nebraska sympo- sium on motivation (Vol. 37, pp. 41–133). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Tropman, J. E. (2003). Making meetings work: Achiev- ing high quality group decisions (2nd ed.). Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tropman, J. E. (2007). Conducting effective meetings—A short guide for meeting manag- ers and meeting participants. In D. Whetten & K. Cameron (Eds.), Developing management skills (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 427 10/24/16 9:03 PM
428 References
van Avermaet, E. (1975). Equity: A theoretical and experimental analysis. Doctoral dissertation, Uni- versity of California, Santa Barbara.
Van Bavel, J. J., Swencionis, J. K., O’Connor, R. C., & Cunningham, W. A. (2012). Motivated social memory: Belonging needs moderate the own- group bias in face recognition. Journal of Experi- mental Social Psychology, 48(3), 707–713.
Vandello, J.A., & Cohen, D. (1999). Patterns of in- dividualism and collectivism across the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2), 279-292.
van der Vegt, G., & Bunderson, S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identi- fication. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 532–547.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Delbecq, A. L. (1974). The effectiveness of nominal, Delphi, and interact- ing group decision making processes. Academy of Management Journal, 17(4), 605–621.
Van Dyne, L., & Saavedra, R. (1996). A naturalis- tic minority influence experiment: Effects on divergent thinking, conflict and originality in work groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 151–167.
van Ginkel, W. P., & Knippenberg, D. (2009). Knowledge about the distribution of informa- tion and group decision making: When and why does it work? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 218–229.
van Ginkel, W. P., Tindale, R. S., & van Knippen- berg, D. (2009). Team reflexivity, development of shared task representations, and the use of distributed information in group decision mak- ing. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Prac- tice, 13(4), 265–280.
van Ginkel, W. P., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Group information elaboration and group de- cision making: The role of shared task repre- sentations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105, 82–97.
van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Beersma, B., van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., & Damen, F. (2009). Searing sentiment or cold calculation? The effects of leader emotional displays on team performance depend on fol- lower epistemic motivation. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 52(3), 562–580.
United States Census Bureau. (2012, October 4). Census Bureau report shows steady increase in home- based workers since 1999. census.gov.
U.S. Census Bureau (2015). census.gov; Health, United States, 2014. (2015, May). National Center for Health Statistics. cdc.gov.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statis- tics. (2012, July 18). Usual weekly earnings sum- mary. bls.gov.
Upbin, B. (2012, September 4). Why Intuit is more innovative than your company. Forbes. forbes.com.
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2011). Real GDP adjusted by treating R&D as investment and real R&D investment. bea.gov.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2012, June 22). OFCCP enforcement statistics show increase in violations. ogesdw.dol.gov.
U.S. Small Business Administration. (2010). Cus- tomer service—An imperative. sba.gov.
U.S. Small Business Administration. (2012). Keep- ing customers satisfied. sba.gov.
Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embed- dedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 35–67.
Uzzi, B. (2012). LeadNet Demo. Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evan- ston, IL.
Uzzi, B., & Dunlap, S. (2005). How to build your network. Harvard Business Review, 83(12), 53–60.
Uzzi, B., & Gillespie, J. J. (1999). Access and gover- nance benefits of social relationships and net- works: The case of collateral, availability, and bank spreads. In H. Rosenblum (Ed.), Business access to capital and credit. Washington, DC: Fed- eral Reserve Bank.
Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American Journal of Sociology, 111, 447–504.
Vala, J., Drozda-Senkowska, E., Oberle, D., Lope, Z., & Silva, P. (2011). Group heterogeneity and social validation of everyday knowledge: The mediating role of perceived group participa- tion. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14(3), 347–362.
Valdiva, S. (2015, November 12). Businessperson of the year: Tim Boyle, CEO, Columbia Sports- wear. Fortune. fortune.com.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 428 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 429
Venkataramani, V., Green S. G., & Schleicher, D. J. (2010). Well-connected leaders: The impact of leaders’ social network ties on LMX and mem- bers’ work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1071–1084.
Verespej, M. A. (1990, December 3). When you put the team in charge. Industry Week, pp. 30–31.
Vignovic, J. A., & Thompson, L. F. (2010). Effects of cultural cues on perceptions formed during computer-mediated communication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 265–276.
Villarica, H. (2012). Study of the day: E-mail breaks at work reduce stress, improve produc- tivity. The Atlantic. theatlantic.com.
Virtual Meeting Best Practice Checklist.[Chart and checklist of virtual meeting best practices, August 14, 2012]. Luminosity Global Consulting Group, LLC. luminosityglobal.com.
Vogelstein, F. (2008, January 9). The untold story: How the iPhone blew up the wireless industry. Wired. wired.com.
Von Glinow, M. A., Shapiro, D. L., & Brett, J. M. (2004). Can we talk, and should we? Man- aging emotional conflict in multicultural teams. Academy of Management Review, 29(4), 578–592.
von Hippel, E. A. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vorauer, J. D., & Sasaki, S. J. (2010). In need of liberation or constraint? How intergroup at- titudes moderate the behavioral implications of intergroup ideologies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(1), 133–138.
Vorauer, J. D., & Sasaki, S. J. (2012). The pitfalls of empathy as a default intergroup interaction strategy: Distinct effects of tying to empathize with a lower status outgroup member who does versus not express distress. Journal of Experimen- tal and Social Psychology, 48(2), 519–524.
Vos, M., & van der Zee, K. (2011). Prosocial be- havior in diverse workgroups: How relational identity orientation shapes cooperation and helping. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(3), 363–379.
Wade, J. B., O’Reilly, C. A., III, & Pollock, T. G. (2006). Overpaid CEOs and underpaid man- agers: Fairness and executive compensation. Organization Science, 17(5), 527–544.
van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership ef- fectiveness: The moderating role of leader pro- totypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 25–37.
van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., Mon- den, L., & De Lima, F. (2002). Organizational identification after a merger: A social identity perspective. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 233–262.
van Lange, P. A. M., Klapwijk, A., & van Munster, L. (2011). How the shadow of the future might promote cooperation. Group Processes and Inter- group Relations, 14, 857–870.
van Leeuwen, E., Tauber, S., & Sassenberg, K. (2011). Knocking on the outgroup’s door: Seeking outgroup help under conditions of task or relational conflict. Basic and Applied Psy- chology, 33(3), 266–278.
Van Maanen, J. (1977). Experiencing organization: Notes on the meaning of careers and social- ization. In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Organizational careers: Some new perspectives (pp. 15–45). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
van Oostrum, J., & Rabbie, J. M. (1995). Intergroup competition and cooperation within autocratic and democratic management regimes. Small Group Research, 26(2), 269–295.
van Oudenhoven-van der Zee, K., Paulus, P., Vos, M., & Parthasarathy, N. (2009). The impact of group composition and attitudes towards di- versity on anticipated outcomes of diversity in groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(2), 257–280.
Van Quaquebeke, N., van Knippenberg, D., & Eckloff, T. (2011). Individual differences in the leader categorization to openness to influence relationship: The role of followers’ self-percep- tion and social comparison orientation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(5), 605–622.
Van Swol, L. M., Savadori, L., & Sniezek, J. A. (2003). Factors that may affect the difficulty of uncovering hidden profiles. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(3), 285–304.
van Zomeren, M., Leach, C. W., & Spears, R. (2010). Does group efficacy increase group identification? Resolving their paradoxical rela- tionship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6). 1055–1060.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 429 10/24/16 9:03 PM
430 References
Walton, G. M., Cohen, G. L., Cwir, D., & Spencer S. J. (2012). Mere belonging: The power of so- cial connections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 513–532.
Walton, R. E., & Hackman, J. R. (1986). Groups under contrasting management strategies. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Designing effective workgroups. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Work- man, K., & Christensen, A. L. (2011). Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader-member exchange, self-ef- ficacy, and organizational identification. Orga- nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 204–213.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1275–1286.
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 420–432.
Wann, D., Grieve, F., Waddill, P., & Martin, J. (2008). Use of retroactive pessimism as a method of coping with identity threat: The im- pact of group identification. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 11(4), 439–450.
Wanous, J. P. (1980). Organizational entry: Recruit- ment, selection, and socialization of newcomers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Warner, R. (1988). Rhythm in social interaction. In J. E. McGrath (Ed.), The social psychology of time (pp. 63–88). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wason, P. C., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1972). Psy- chology of reasoning: Structure and content. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Was Sprint buying Nextel one of the worst ac- quisitions ever at 35b? (2012, November 29). Forbes. forbes.com.
Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on interac- tion process and performance: Comparing ho- mogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 590–602.
Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 145–180.
Wageman, R. (1997a, Summer). Case study: Criti- cal success factors for creating superb self- managing teams at Xerox. Compensation & Ben- efits Review, 29(5), 31–41.
Wageman, R. (1997b, Summer). Critical success factors for creating superb selfmanaging team. Organization Dynamics, 26(1), 49–61; Cohen, S.G., Ledford, G.E., Spreitzer, G.M. (1996). A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness. Human Relations, 49(5), 643–675.
Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders foster self- managing team effectiveness: Design choices versus hands-on coaching. Organization Science, 12(5), 559–77.
Wageman, R. (2003). Virtual processes: Implica- tions for coaching the virtual team. In R. Peter- son & E. A. Mannix (Eds.), Leading and manag- ing people in the dynamic organization (pp. 65–86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wageman, R., & Donnenfeld, A. (2007). Interven- ing in intra-team conflict. In K. M. Behfar & L. L. Thompson (Eds.), Conflict in organizational groups: New directions in theory and practice. Evan- ston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Wageman, R., & Gordon, F. (2006). As the twig is bent: How group values shape emergent task interdependence in groups. Organization Science, 16(6), 687–700.
Wageman, R., Hackman, J. R., & Lehman, E. V. (2005). Team diagnostic survey: Development of an instrument. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(4), 373–398.
Wageman, R., & Mannix, E. A. (Eds.). (1998). Uses and misuses of power in task-performing teams. Power and influence in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wagner, G., Pfeffer, J., & O’Reilly, C. (1984). Or- ganizational demography and turnover in top management groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 74–92.
Walker, A. (2010, June). BP to InnoCentive: Sorry, we don’t want your 908 ideas for saving the Gulf. Fast Company. fastcompany.com.
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1961). Aspects of judg- ment and decision making: Interrelationships and change with age. Behavioral Science, 6, 23–31.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 430 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 431
Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
Weisberg, R. W. (1997). Case studies of creative thinking: Reproduction versus restructuring in the real world. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 53–72). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Weisbuch, M., & Ambady, N. (2008). Affective divergence: Automatic responses to others’ emotions dependent on group membership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1063–1079.
Weitzman, M. (1984). The share economy. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Welch, J., & Welch, S. (2005, April 4). How to be a good leader. Newsweek, p. 45.
Wellins, R. S. (1992). Building a self-directed work team. Training and Development, 46(12), 24–28.
Wellins, R. S., Byham, W. C., & Wilson, J. M. (1991). Empowered teams (p. 26). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Werner, D., Ember, C. R., & Ember, M. (1981). Anthropology: Study guide and workbook. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
West, H. (2012, March 29). Three rules for innovation teams. Harvard Business Review. hbr. org.
West, M. A. (1996). Handbook of work group psychol- ogy. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Whetten, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (1991). Devel- oping management skills (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education. New York: Macmillan.
Whites’ IDs of blacks in crime cases often wrong, studies show. (1991, October 13). Columbus Dis- patch. dispatch.com.
Whitte, E. H. (2007). Toward a group facilitation technique for project teams. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(3), 299–309
Why etiquette schools are thriving. (2010, October 14). BusinessWeek. businessweek.com.
Wicker, A. W., Kermeyer, S. L., Hanson, L., & Al- exander, D. (1976). Effects of manning levels on subjective experiences, performance, and verbal interaction in groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 17(2), 251–274.
Waung, M., & Highhouse, S. (1997). Fear of con- flict and empathic buffering: Two explanations for the inflation of performance feedback. Or- ganizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro- cesses, 71(1), 37–54.
Webber, S. S., & Klimoski. (2004). Crews: A dis- tinct type of work team. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(3), 261–279.
Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (T. Parsons, Trans.) New York: Scribner’s.
Wegge, J., Roth, C., Neubach, B., Schmidt, K., & Kanfer, R. (2008). Age and gender diversity as determinants of performance and health in a public organization: The role of task complex- ity and group size. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1301–1313.
Wegner, D. M. (1986). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Wegner, D. M., Giuliano, T., & Hertel, P. (1995). Cognitive interdependence in close relation- ships. In W. J. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incom- patible relationships (pp. 253–276). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Weick, K. E., & Gilfillan, D. P. (1971). Fate of ar- bitrary traditions in a laboratory microculture. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 179–191.
Weingart, L. R. (1992). Impact of group goals, task component complexity, effort, and planning on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(5), 682–693.
Weingart, L. R., Cronin, M. A., Houser, C. J. S., Cagan, J., & Vogel, C. (2005). Functional di- versity and conflict in cross-functional prod- uct development teams: Considering repre- sentational gaps and task characteristics. In L. Neider & C. Schriesheim (Eds.), Understanding teams (pp. 89–100). Greenwich, CT: IAP.
Weisband, S. P. (1992). Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Organi- zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 352–380.
Weisberg, R. W. (1986). Creativity, genius and other myths. New York: Freeman.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 431 10/24/16 9:03 PM
432 References
Wittenbaum, G. M. (1998). Information sam- pling in decision-making groups: The impact of members’ task-relevant status. Small Group Research, 29, 57–84.
Wohl, M. J. A., Hornsey, M. J., & Bennett, S. H. (2012). Why group apologies succeed and fail: Intergroup forgiveness and the role of primary and secondary emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(2), 306–322.
Wolinsky, H. (1998, November 11). Report calls AMA a house divided. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 72.
Wong, S.-S., & Boh, W.-F. (2010). Leveraging the ties of others to build a reputation for trust- worthiness among peers. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 53(1), 129–148.
Worringham, C. J., & Messick, D. M. (1983). Social facilitation of running: An unobtrusive study. Journal of Social Psychology, 121, 23–29.
Worthen, B. (2012, September 29). The perils of texting while parenting. The Wall Street Journal. online.wsj.com.
Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact ef- fect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 73(1), 73–90.
Wu, J., Tsui, A., & Kinicki, A. (2010). Conse- quences of differentiated leadership in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 90–106.
Yaffe, T., & Kark, R. (2011). Leading by example: The case of leader OCB. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 96(4), 806–826.
Yakovleva, M., Reilly, R. R., & Werko, R. (2010, January). Why do we trust? Moving beyond in- dividual to dyadic perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 79–91.
Yaniv, I. (2004). The benefit of additional opin- ions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 75–78.
Yerak, B. (2011, November 15). It pays to work at Discover. Chicago Tribune. chicagotribune.com.
Yerema, R., & Leung, K. (2011, October 6). Cana- da’s top employers for 2012. Mediacorp Canada. mediacorp.ca.
Yogis, J. (2012, March 19). I think, therefore I choke. ESPN The Magazine. espn.com.
York, E. B. (2011, November 15). Family-owned pizza chain offers right mix of ingredients to
Wicker, A. W., & Mehler, A. (1971). Assimilation of new members in a large and a small church. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(2), 151–156.
Wild, T. C., Enzle, M. E., Nix, G., & Deci, E. L. (1997). Perceiving others as intrinsically or extrinsically motivated: Effects on expectancy formation and task engagement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(8), 837–848.
Wilder, D. A., & Allen, V. L. (1977). Veridical social support, extreme social support, and confor- mity. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 8, 33–41.
Williams, C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in “female” professions. So- cial Forces, 39, 253–267.
Williams, K. D. (1981). The effects of group cohe- siveness on social loafing in simulated word- processing pools. Dissertation Abstracts Interna- tional, 42(2-B), 838.
Williams, K. D. (1997). Social ostracism. In R. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 133–170). New York: Plenum.
Williams, K. D., Harkins, S. G., & Latané, B. (1981). Identifiability as a deterrant to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(2), 303–311.
Williams, K. D., & Williams, K. B. (1984). Social loafing in Japan: A cross-cultural development study. Paper presented at the Midwestern Psychologi- cal Association Meeting, Chicago, IL.
Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demog- raphy and diversity in organizations. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 20, pp. 77–140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Williamson, B. (2009, June 17). Managing virtu- ally; First get dressed. Businessweek. business- week.com.
Wilson, D. (2012, June 29). The second city way of better brainstorming. Fast Company. fastcom- pany.com.
Wilson, D. C., Butler, R. J., Cray, D., Hickson, D. J., & Mallory, G. R. (1986). Breaking the bounds of organization in strategic decision making. Human Relations, 39, 309–332.
Wise, L. (2012, April 27). Houston soldier to re- ceive Silver Star for heroics in Afghanistan. Houston Chronicle. chron.com.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 432 10/24/16 9:03 PM
References 433
Zernike, K. (2012, October 31). One result of hur- ricane: Bipartisanship flows. New York Times. nytimes.com.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empow- ering leadership and employee creativity: The in- fluence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107–128.
Zhang, Z., Wang, M., & Shi, J. (2012). Leader-fol- lower congruence in proactive personality and work outcomes: The mediating role of leader- member exchange. Academy of Management Jour- nal, 55(1), 111–130.
Ziller, R. C. (1957). Four techniques of group decision-making under uncertainty. Journal of Applied Psychology, 41, 384–388.
Ziller, R. C. (1965). Toward a theory of open and closed groups. Psychological Bulletin, 64(3), 164–182.
Zillman, C. (2015). Acuity’s worker loyalty could outlast a zombie apocalypse. Fortune. fortune. com; 100 best companies to work for: The B oston Consulting Group. (2015, March 5). Fortune. http://www.fortune.com.
Zolin, R., Hinds, P. J., Fruchter, R., & Levitt, R. E. (2004). Interpersonal trust in cross-functional, geographically distributed work: A longitudinal study. Information and Organization, 14(1), 1–26.
Zurcher, L. A. (1965). The sailor aboard ship: A study of role behavior in a total institution. So- cial Forces, 43, 389–400.
Zurcher, L. A. (1970). The “friendly” poker game: A study of an ephemeral role. Social Forces, 49, 173–186.
keep workers satisfied. Chicago Tribune. chica- gotribune.com.
Young, D. L., Goodie, A. S., Hall, D. B., & Wu, E. (2012). Decision making under time pressure, modeled in a prospect theory framework. Orga- nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(2), 179–188.
Yukl, G. A. (1981). Leadership in organizations. Lon- don: Prentice-Hall International.
Zaccaro, S. J. (1984). Social loafing: The role of task attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychol- ogy Bulletin, 10, 99–106.
Zagenczyk, T. J., Scott, K. D., Gibney, R., Murrell, A. J., & Bennett-Thatcher, J. (2010). Social in- fluence and perceived organizational support: A social networks analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111(2), 127–138.
Zajonc, R. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere ex- posure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (monograph supplement, No. 2, Part 2).
Zarate, M. A., Shaw, M., Marquez, J. A., & Biagas, D. (2011). Cultural inertia: The effects of cul- tural change on intergroup relations and the self-concept. Journal of Experimental Social Psy- chology, 48, 634–645.
Zellmer-Bruhn, M., & Gibson, C. (2006). Multi- national organizational context: Implications for team learning and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 501–518.
Zellmer-Bruhn, M., Maloney, M., Bhappu, A., & Salvador, R. (2008). When and how do dif- ferences matter? An exploration of perceived similarity in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107(1), 41–59.
Z04_THOM4204_06_SE_BIB.indd 433 10/24/16 9:03 PM
434
A Aarts, H., 114 Abakoumkin, G., 119, 236 Abbott, A. S., 154 Abel, D., 133 Abele, A. E., 253 Abele, S., 123 Abrams, D. A., 24, 62, 103, 106, 254 Adair, W. L., 334 Adamson, C., 224 Adams, S., 205 Addis, D. R., 241 Adelberg, S., 193 Aggarwal, I., 40, 140 Aime, F., 246 Akio Toyoda, 331 Alderfer, C. P., 4, 7, 261, 262 Aldrich, H. E., 262, 279 Aleksander, P. J., 16 Alexander, D., 34 Alexander, K. M., 238 Alexander, L., 224 Allen, D., 69 Allen, J. A., 362, 370 Allen, N. J., 87, 119, 202 Allen, S., 320 Allen, T. J., 280, 301 Allen, V. L., 178, 189, 190 Alliger, G. M., 35, 82 Allison, S., 206 Alonso, A., 265 Alter, M., 347 Alt, M., 342 Alutto, J. A., 34 Amabile, T. M., 220, 227, 238 Amason, A., 204 Amazon, 196, 370 Ambady, N., 302 American Psychological
Association, 48 Ames, D. R., 57, 260 Amit, A., 42
Ancona, D. G., 15, 262–264, 278, 279, 298
Anderson, C., 55, 74, 260 Anderson, H. J., 200 Anderson, L. R., 234 Anderson, N., 246, 359 Andersson, B., 343 Andeweg, R. B., 55 Angermeier, I., 52 Ang, S., 334, 335 Anicich, E. M., 37, 116 Antino, M., 257, 258 Appelt, K. C., 165 Apple, 33, 179, 240, 350 Arcuri, L., 167 Ardolino, A., 154 Arends, L., 28 Argote, L., 45, 47, 106, 107,
141, 143, 145, 147, 158, 159, 161, 222
Argyris, C., 24, 197, 217 Ariel, S., 330, 333 Ariely, D., 239 Armed Services Vocational Aptitude
Battery (ASVAB), 54 Armenakis, A. A., 87, 115 Armour, S., 363 Armstrong, D. J., 300 Arnaud, A., 113 Arnold, D. W., 34 Aronson, E., 40 Arrow, H., 33, 46, 107, 303 Arthur, W., Jr., 141, 159 Asch, S. E., 189 Ashford, S. J., 360 Ashkenas, R., 222 Asplund, J., 117 Aswathappa, K., 357 Atkinson, D., 278 Austin, W., 83 Avnaim-Pesso, L., 168 AvtoVAZ, 343
Aycan, Z., 333 Ayoko, O. B., 140
B Bachrach, D. G., 60, 87 Back, K. W., 189 Backman, E., 263 Bacon, P. L., 85 Badea, C., 259 Baer, M., 237, 244 Baetge, M. M., 140 Bajaj, P., 259 Balakrishnan, A. D., 34 Balderrama, A., 19 Baldwin, M. W., 282 Balkundi, P., 288, 291 Ballinger, G. A., 69 Bal, M., 96 Bamberger, P., 114 Banks, G. C., 86 Barchas, P. R., 259 Bardes, M., 195 Baretto, M., 194 Barkema, H. G., 245 Barley, S. R., 306 Barling, J., 259 Barnes, C. M., 14, 38, 265 Barnes-Farrell, J. L., 243 Baron, J. N., 286 Baron, R., 174, 175 Barra, M., 339 Barreto, M., 191, 260 Barrett, M., 319 Barrick, M. R., 44, 61, 115, 125 Barsade, S. G., 88, 90, 238 Barsness, Z., 33, 288, 291 Bartel, C. A., 90, 105 Bartol, K. M., 75, 246, 320, 358 Baruah, J., 238 Basalla, G., 225 Bashshur, M. R., 125 Baskin, M., 357
Name Index
Z05_THOM4204_06_SE_NIDX.indd 434 10/24/16 9:05 PM
Name Index 435
Bass, B. M., 54, 60–62 Bastardi, A., 367 Bastian, B., 96 Batchelor, J. H., 86 Batson, C. D., 193 Bauer, T. N., 70 Baumann M. R., 142 Baumeister, R. F., 74, 116, 182 Baur, J. E., 200 Bavelas, J. B., 90 Bazerman, M. H., 164, 172, 207 Beal, D. J., 288 Bear, J. B., 158, 200 Bechky, B. A., 18 Bechtoldt, M. N., 220, 237 Becker, A. L., 144, 157 Becker, S. W., 58 Beckman, J., 117 Beehr, T. A., 280 Beer, M., 80 Beersma, B., 65, 347 Behar, R., 193 Behfar, K. J., 97, 197, 198, 201, 202 Belkin, L. Y., 321 Bell, B. S., 138 Bell, C. H., 325 Belliveau, M. A., 160, 286 Bell, S., 141 Belsky, G., 54 Bendersky, C., 205, 260 Benne, K. D., 36 Bennett-Thatcher, J., 293 Berdahl, J. L., 74 Berfield, S., 9 Berger, D. R., 349, 358 Berger, J., 56, 259 Berger, L. A., 349, 358 Berkowitz, L., 104, 143 Berman, J. J., 328 Berman, S. L., 9 Bernardin, H. J., 357 Bernieri, F., 92 Berry, J. W., 343 Berry, P. C., 230 Bettenhausen, K., 46 Bezos, J., 370 Bezrukova, K., 257, 258 Biagas, D., 341 Bian, L., 244 Bikson, T. K., 310 Billings, R. S., 153 Bilton, N., 179 Bingham, J. B., 194 Birnbaum-More, P. H., 129 Biron, M., 114 Bivolaru, E., 336
Black, A., 90 Blackburn, R., 318 Black, R. H., 169 BlackRock, 33 Blader, S. L., 68 Blakeman, C., 13 Blake, R. R., 59, 339 Blascovich, J., 66, 67, 116 Blau, P. M., 281 Bliese, P. D., 359 Blinder, A. S., 352 Block, C. H., 230 Bloomfield, R., 157 Blount, S., 282 Bluemke, M., 68 BMW, 246 Bodell, L., 241 Boerner, S., 202 Boettger, R., 193 Boh, L., 169 Bohmer, R., 322 Bohrnstedt, G. W., 103 Boh, W. F., 289 Boiarsky, C., 306 Boisjoly, R. M., 177 Bolinger, A. R., 170 Bommer, W. H., 93 Bond, R., 188 Bonner, B. L., 142, 169, 170, 194 Bonos, L., 256 Boone, C., 41 Boroush, M., 219 Bos, N. D., 307 Boss, A. D., 52 Boss, R. W., 52 Boston Globe, 133 Boswell, W. R., 106 Bouas, K. S., 303 Bouchard, T. J., 233 Boudette, N. E., 215 Bourne, E. J., 328 Bowen, D. D., 372 Bowers, C. A., 276 Boyle, B., 62 Boyle, T., 210 Brabander, B., 41 Bradley, B. H., 44, 61, 200, 202 Bradshaw, T., 251 Brakus, J. J., 167 Branscombe, N. R., 260 Brass, D. J., 290 Brauer, M., 74 Braun, C. C., 276 Brawley, L. R., 94 Brehmer, B., 79 Brem, S., 240
Bresman, H., 263, 264 Brett, J. F., 42 Brett, J. M., 203, 325, 331, 332, 336 Brewer, M. B., 256, 280, 328 Brickner, M. A., 124, 125 Bridges, W. P., 223 Briggs, G. E., 107 Briggs, R. O., 232, 237 Briner, R. B., 90 Broberg, J. C., 316 Brocato, R. M., 116 Brommel, J. M., 116 Brooks, D., 143, 166 Brousseau, K. R., 27 Brower, A. M., 145, 147 Brown, C. E., 260 Brown, D. D., 78 Brown, E. R., 57 Brown, G., 237 Brown, J. D., 124 Brown, K. G., 46, 177, 202 Brown, M. E., 194 Brown, P. M., 58 Brown, T., 225 Brown, V. R., 239, 247 Brown, Y., 208 Bruch, H., 91 Bruckmueller, S., 253 Bruneau, E., 254 Brunell, A. B., 55 Bruns, H., 264 Bruun, S., 123 Bryant, A., 47, 339 Bryant, F. B., 143 Buffett, W., 59, 61 Bunderson, S., 84 Burden, L., 59 Bureau of Labor Statistics, 347 Burger, J. M., 258 Burke, M. J., 288 Burnette, J. L., 54 Burns, J. M., 60 Burns, K., 46 Burris, E. R., 70 Burrows, P., 240 Burruss, J. A., 317 Burton, T. M., 187 Burt, R. S., 97, 278, 282, 283, 292 Burtscher, M. J., 137 Bushe, G. R., 113 Bushouse, E., 240 BusinessWeek, 173 Butera, F., 156, 160, 208 Butler, R. J., 200 Buzanowski, J. G., 38 Byham, W. C., 75
Z05_THOM4204_06_SE_NIDX.indd 435 10/24/16 9:05 PM
436 Name Index
Byrne, J. A., 173 Byron, K., 238
C Cabrera, C., 339 Cacioppo, J. T., 90, 91, 124 Cadiz, D., 136 Cadman, B. D., 194 Cagan, J., 138, 139 Cahill, D., 256 Caldwell, D. F., 258, 264, 278 Callahan, S. P., 178 Callan, V., 105 Calvard, T. S., 55 Camacho, L. M., 230, 234 Cambrosio, A., 301 Cameira, M., 261 Camerer, C., 97 Cameron, K. S., 362–364 Campbell, D. T., 48, 340 Campbell, E. M., 124 Campbell, R. J., 87 Campbell, W. J., 96 Campbell, W. K., 55, 94 Campion, M. J., 115 Cannella, A. A., 302 Cannon-Bowers, J. A., 140 Cardello, A. V., 308 Carey, H. R., 169 Carley, K. M., 41, 141 Carmeli, A., 246 Carnevale, P., 169 Carroll, J., 326 Carron, A. V., 94 Carson, J. B., 64, 280 Carter, M. Z., 72, 98 Carter, N. M., 262 Carter-Sowell, A. R., 190 Carton, A. M., 254–256 Cartwright, D., 7, 72 Caruso, E. M., 207 Caruso, H. M., 202 Cascio, W. F., 357 Case, C. R., 71 Cerasoli C. P., 82 CetraRuddy, 343 Chaffin, B., 33 Cha, J., 60 Change, C.-H., 82 Chang, J. W., 158 Chang, K. T. T., 289 Chang, S., 175 Chao, G. T., 82 Chao, M. M., 341 Charbonnier, E., 124 Cha, S. E., 62
Chasteen, A. L., 199 Chater, N., 167 Chatman, J. A., 204 Chavan, S. K., 357 Chaykowski, K., 6 Cheek, J. M., 329 Cheema, A., 242 Chen, C.-H., 246 Chen, G., 102, 115, 124, 125, 359 Cheng, G. H. L., 105 Chen, J., 224 Chen, L. C., 329 Chen, W., 61 Chen, X.-P., 334 Chen, Z., 159, 198 Chertkoff, J., 206 Chervany, N., 290 Cheshin, A., 307 Chi, N. W., 61 Chiu, C.-Y., 326, 341 Chiu, Y. T., 258, 259 Choi, H. S., 105–107, 220, 221, 237,
245, 281 Choi, J. N., 30, 220, 238 Chou, E. Y., 197 Chow, J., 344 Christensen, A. L., 69 Christensen, C., 154 Christian, J. S., 144, 237 Christian, M. S., 72, 144, 347 Christiansen, N. D., 115 Christie, A. M., 259 Chua, E. L., 140 Chuang, A., 39 Chung, M.-H., 287 Cialdini, R. B., 143 Cikara, M., 254 Cini, M., 35 Clair, J. A., 11 Clarke, S., 163 Clark, J., 315 Clark, K. B., 275 Clark, K. E., 62 Clark, M. B., 62 Clark, M. S., 288 Clawson, D., 52 Clawson, J. C., 53 Clifton, J., 333 Cobb, A. T., 70 Cogliser, C. C., 316 Cohen, D., 330, 332, 337 Cohen, G. L., 100 Cohen, M. D., 282 Cohen, P., 350 Cohen, R. R., 288 Cohen, S. G., 314–317
Cohen, T. R., 191, 195, 199 Colbert, A. E., 44, 61 Cole, M., 91 Coleman, D., 232 Coleman, J. S., 282 Cole, M. S., 72 Cole, P., 300 Cole, R. E., 5 Collaros, P. A., 234 Collins, E. G., 132 Colquitt, J. A., 38, 94, 106 Columbia Sportswear, Inc., 210 Comb, D. B., 140 Conant, D., 348 Conger, J. A., 65, 76 Conlon, D. E., 182, 347 Connell, J., 177 Connolly, T., 226, 235 Consalvi, C., 190 Conti, R., 238 Converse, S. A., 140 Conway, L. G., 73 Cooper, C. D., 65, 100 Cooper, D. M., 42 Cooper, R. G., 219 Corbett, S., 324, 333 Cornelis, I., 72 Corrigan, T, 173 Cortina, J., 8 Coskun, H., 241, 247 Cote, S., 65 Cottone, K., 124 Cottrell, C., 96 Courtright, S. H., 43, 113, 125 Cowlin, R. A., 153 Craig, S., 213 Crandall, C. S., 46 Crawford, E. R., 276 Crawford, M. T., 83 Cray, D., 200 Creelman, D., 345 Criscuolo, P., 316 Crisp, C. B., 317 Crisp, R. J., 66, 68 Crocker, J., 240, 252 Cronin, M. A., 97, 138, 139 Crosson, S., 33 Cross, S. E., 85 Crotty, S. K., 336 Csikszentmihalyi, M., 117, 118 Cummings, J. N., 34, 254 Cummings, T. G., 114 Cunningham, L., 123 Curral, L., 144 Cvent, 365 Cwir, D., 100
Z05_THOM4204_06_SE_NIDX.indd 436 10/24/16 9:05 PM
Name Index 437
D Daft, R. L., 301 Dahlin, K., 40 Dalgaard, L., 47 Damen, F., 65 Dansereau, F., 34 Danziger, S., 168 Darley, J. M., 122, 182 Davenport, C., 173 David, B., 40 Davies, P. G., 56 Davis-Ali, S., 363 Davis, J. H., 97, 119, 132, 207 Davison, R. B., 265 Day, E., 141 DeChurch, L. A., 50, 136–138, 158,
205, 265 Deci, E. L., 61 De Cooman, R., 96 De Costanza, A. H., 158 De Cremer, D., 72, 125 De Dreu, C. K. W., 41, 100, 154, 156,
172, 201, 211, 216, 220, 237, 347 DeGeest, D. S., 46 DeGroot, A., 221 Deiglmayr, A., 134 De Jong, B. A., 97, 98 De Jong, J. P., 86 Delbecq, A. L., 242, 243 DeMarree, K. G., 55 DeMeuse, K. P., 9, 129 DeMeyer, A., 301 De Moura, G. R., 24, 62, 66 Denning, S., 31 Dennis, A. R., 226 Denson, T. F., 253 Derbyshire, D., 227 Derfler-Rozin, R., 96 Derks, B., 86 DeRue, D. S., 14, 29, 35, 38,
126, 246 DeSanctis, G., 319 Deuja, A., 238 Deutsch, M., 190, 206 Deutschman, A., 61 Devadas, R., 107 DeWall, C. N., 74 De Wit, F. R. C., 200, 201 Dibble, R., 340 Dickson, G. W., 319 Diehl, M., 119, 121, 123, 229, 230,
235, 236 Diekman, A. B., 57 Dietz-Uhler, B., 181 Dinnocenzo, D., 308, 321 D’Innocenzo, L., 95 Dion, K. L., 94, 129
DiPietro, B., 163 Dirks, K. T., 98, 100, 288–290 Division of Biological
Standards, 149 Dolan, S., 334 Dominguez, P., 239 Dominguez, R., 191 Donahue, L. M., 115 Doney, P. M., 194 Donnellon, A., 53, 54 Donnenfeld, A., 213 Donovan, M., 53 Donsbach, J. S., 35 Dooley, K. J., 245 Doosje, B., 260 Doty, D., 205 Dovidio, J. F., 83, 254 Down, J., 9 Drach-Zahavy, A., 118 Drechsler, H., 326 Drechsler, W., 326 Drescher, M. A., 64 Dreu, C. D., 136 Driver, A., 326 Driver, J., 234 Drolet, A., 100 Droutman, V., 73 Druskat, V. U., 291 DuBois, C. I. Z., 43 Dubrovsky, V. J., 310, 313 Duck, J. M., 66 Duclos, S. E., 90 Duffy, M. K., 201 Dugoni, B. L., 222 Dugosh, K. L., 237, 242 Duguid, M. D., 157 Duguid, M. M., 234 Dukerich, J. M., 57 Dumont, T. M., 145 Duncan, K., 320 Dunford, B. D., 52 Dunlap, S., 294 Durham, C., 75 Dutton, J. E., 246 Dysvik, A., 136 Dzindolet, M. T., 230, 239, 247
E Eagly, A. H., 56 Earley, C. P., 333 Earley, P. C., 330, 334, 335 Eban, K., 124 Eckloff, T., 66 Eden, D., 115 Edinger, S. K., 125 Edmondson, A. C., 62, 73, 77, 100,
101, 158, 245, 305, 322
Edwards, B., 141 Edwards, J., 143 Èerne, M., 136 Effland, V. S., 230 Effron, D. A., 195 Eggins, R. A., 58 Ehrlenspiel, F., 117 Ehrlich, S. B., 57 Eisenhardt, K. M., 42, 265 Eisenkraft, N., 90 Eisenstat, R. A., 80 Elfring, T., 97 Ellemers, N., 40, 86, 105, 191,
194, 260 Elliot, A. J., 94 Elliott, A. L., 177 Ellis, A. P. J., 38, 48, 72, 138, 144,
148, 191, 237, 347 Ellis, S. E., 16 Elsaid, M., 88, 89 Elsass, P. M., 183 Ember, C. R., 120 Ember, M., 120 Emery, C., 55 Emery, F. E., 306 Emich, K. J., 157 Engelmeier, S., 339 Enzle, M. E., 61 Epitropaki, O., 69 Epley, N., 126, 207, 307 Erdogan, B., 70 Erez, M., 118, 334, 340 Erickson, T. J., 258 Ernst & Young, 293 Ettlie, J. E., 223 Etzkowitz, H., 297 Evans, C. R., 94 Eveland, J. D., 310
F Facebook, 370 Fan, E. T., 44, 107, 174, 265, 279 Faraj, S., 140, 285 Farh, C. I. C., 92, 198 Farh, I. C., 222 Farh, J. L., 125, 222 Farmer, S. M., 86 Farquharson, J., 84 Fast, N. J., 73 Faulmuller, N., 156 Faust, W. L., 120 Fazzini, D., 62 Feinberg, M., 297 Feintzeig, R., 199 Feldman, D. C., 103, 238, 295 Feld, P., 175 Fenn, D., 214
Z05_THOM4204_06_SE_NIDX.indd 437 10/24/16 9:05 PM
438 Name Index
Ferguson, A. J., 98 Ferguson, R., 240 Fernandez, R., 82 Ferrin, D. L., 100 Ferris, G. R., 148 Ferris, L. J., 96 Ferzandi, L., 30 Fidler, M., 163 Field, H. S., 87, 115 Fielding, K. S., 105 Fielkow, B., 173 Finke, R. A., 224 Fiol, C. M., 315 Firth, B. M., 265 Fischer, A. H., 100, 106 Fischhoff, B., 23, 169 Fisek, M. H., 56, 259 Fishbein, M., 132, 155 Fisher, D. M., 25 Fisher, G. A., 103 Fisher, R., 216 Flache, A., 257 Flade, P., 117 Flynn, F. J., 57, 192 Ford, 215 Forsyth, D. R., 164, 187 Foschi, M., 57 Foss, N. J., 289 Foster-Fishman, P. G., 155, 156 Foushee, H. C., 140 Fowler, K. A., 302 Fox, C. R., 33 France Telecom, 92 Frank, R. H., 192 Franssila, H., 306 Franz, T. M., 154, 155 Frederick, P., 68 Freeman, D., 253 French, J. R. P., Jr., 71, 72 French, W. L., 325 Frey, D., 156, 177 Fried, J., 16 Friese, M., 167 Fry, R., 7 Fu, J. H.-Y., 326 Fujimori, J., 221 Fujimoto, T., 275 Fullerton, T. D., 95 Furnham, A., 123 Furst, S., 318 Futoran, G. C., 32 Futrell, D., 9, 129
G Gabel-Shemueli, R., 334 Gabrenya, W. K., 120 Gabriel, S., 54, 85, 328
Gaffney, A. M., 68 Gaines, L., 82 Galdi, S., 167 Galinsky, A. D., 37, 74, 116, 125,
197, 260, 336, 337, 339 Gallant, M., 328 Gallardo, C. H., 324 Gallivan, M. J., 256 Gannon, D., 124 Garber, S., 148 Garcia, S. M., 253 Gardner, R. G., 96 Gardner, W. L., 54, 83, 85, 143,
316, 328 Garza, A. S., 72 Gates, G., 163 Gauron, E. F., 103 Gauvin, S., 237 Gavin, J., 260 Gavin, M. B., 316 Gawronski, B., 167 Gebert, D., 39, 202 Gehrt, D., 365 Geiger, F., 324 Gelfand, M. J., 333 Gelles, D., 5, 95 Gellman, L., 293 Genera Games, 362 General Motors, 339 Genovese, K., 122 Gentner, D. R., 24, 137, 240 Gentry, W. A., 55 Geoghegan, I., 255 George, G., 316 George, J. M., 91 Gerard, H. B., 190, 194 Gersick, C. J. C., 46 Geschka, H., 231 Giacolone, R. A., 56 Giang, V., 253 Gibb, J. R., 120 Gibney, R., 293 Gibson, C. B., 65, 314–317, 319, 340 Gibson, D. E., 88 Giessner, S. R., 58, 60 Gigone, D., 150, 156 Gilad, C., 69 Giles, W., 115 Gilfillan, D. P., 48 Gill, D. L., 96 Gillespie, D. F., 129 Gillespie, J. J., 297 Gill, S., 302 Gilovich, T., 143, 192, 366 Gilson, L. L., 13, 223, 228, 319, 342 Gilson, P. W., 223 Gino, F., 55, 74, 159, 222, 239
Giuliano, T., 141 Glasford, D., 83 Glaymann, D., 212 Glazer, E., 195 Glenz, A., 257 Glickman, A. S., 34, 96 Glikson, E., 340 Glomb, T. M., 261 Godart, F. C., 337 Goethals, G., 141 Gogus, C. I., 159 Goia, D. A., 137 Goldenberg, A. T., 92 Gollwitzer, P. M., 114 Gomes, L., 307 Gomez, A., 84, 86 Goncalo, G. A., 157 Goncalo, J. A., 68, 88, 206, 222, 234 Gonzales, R., 253 Gonzalez, C., 169 Gonzalez-Mulé, E., 46 González-Navarro, P., 316 Gonzalez-Roma, V., 125, 203, 257 Goodman, J. S., 56, 159 Goodman, N. R., 340 Goodman, P. S., 5, 148 Google, 15, 345 Google Maps, 15 Google News service, 15 Gordin, E. H., 202, 253 Gordon, F., 45 Gosling, S., 260 Gottesdiener, L., 193 Gough, H. G., 234 Gower, K., 86 Graen, G., 68, 79 Graham, J., 318 Graham, W. K., 234 Grande, B., 137 Granovetter, M., 284 Grant, A. M., 55, 124, 208, 330 Grant, F., 84 Gratton, L., 258 Greenaway, K., 37 Greenbaum, R., 195 Greenberg, C. I., 34 Greenberg, J., 121, 125 Greene, C. N., 129 Greenfield, R., 121, 123 Green S. G., 69 Greer, L. L., 41, 72, 200, 202, 205 Grice, J., 105 Griffin, M. A., 61 Griffith, T. L., 136, 244, 314–317 Grima, F., 212 Groenen, P. J., 72 Gropel, P., 117
Z05_THOM4204_06_SE_NIDX.indd 438 10/24/16 9:05 PM
Name Index 439
Grossman, J., 231 Gross, S. E., 348, 349, 358 Grote, G., 137 Grow, B., 326 Gruder, C. L., 94 Gruenfeld, D. H., 41, 44, 107, 128,
155, 156, 208, 244, 265, 279 Gruley, B., 326 Grynbaum, M. M., 213 Guerette, P. J., 96 Guetzkow, H., 132, 197 Guilford, J. P., 221, 227 Guimerà, R., 245, 287 Guinote, A., 74 Gullett, L., 39 Gunia, B. C., 191, 194 Gunn, L. K., 203, 212 Gupta, N., 121, 144 Gustafson, D. H., 243 Gutierrez, R., 42 Guzzo, R. A., 9, 87, 114, 119, 164 Gyr, J., 197
H Haas, M. R., 295, 316 Hackman, J. R., 4, 12, 18, 27, 33,
48–50, 80, 98, 114, 128, 129, 143, 214, 317, 357
Hadley, C. N., 61 Hafenbrack, A. C., 336 Hagafors, R., 79 Hains, S. C., 66 Hakim, D., 173 Halevy, N., 197 Halfhill, T., 129 Hall, D. T., 78, 372 Hall, F. S., 78, 372 Halperin, E., 92 Hambley, L. A., 303 Hambrick, D. C., 94 Hamilton, K., 30 Handgraaf, M. J., 165 Han, J. H., 358 Hanna, C., 152 Hanson, L., 34 Harari, O., 234 Hardin, A. E., 246 Harding, D. J., 230 Hargadon, A. B., 241 Harkins, S. G., 123–125, 233, 235 Harmon, V. M., 151 Harrison-Barnhill, M., 304 Harrison, D. A., 30, 194, 288 Harrison, G., 238 Harrison, S. H., 239 Harris, T. B., 106 Harris, V. A., 100
Harter, J., 117 Harvey, J., 183, 184 Harvey, O. J., 190 Harvey, S., 244 Harzing, A. W., 342 Haslam, S. A., 58 Hassin, R. R., 114 Hastie, R., 150, 156, 170, 171, 185 Hatch, E., 169 Hater, J. J., 61 Hatfield, E., 90, 91 Hayden, J., 351 Haynes, M. C., 57 Hays, N. A., 260 Healey, M. P., 138 Hecht, T. D., 87, 119 Hedlund, J., 78, 106, 311 Heerdink, M. W., 106 Heffernan, V., 318 Heilman, M. E., 39, 57 Heine, S. J., 321 Heisler, Michele, 350 Helmer, O., 243 Henderson-Kling, E., 143 Henderson, M. D., 302 Hendrick, C., 279 Hendron, M. G., 70 Henrich, J., 321 Herker, D., 279 Hernandez, A., 125, 203 Herndon, B., 160 Hershfield, H. E., 195 Herskovits, F., 340 Herskovits, M. J., 340 Hertel, G., 119, 122 Hertel, P., 141 Hewlett, B., 61 Hewlett-Packard, 62 Hewstone, M., 260 Hey, J., 231 Hickson, D. J., 200 Hideg, I., 334 Higgins, E. T., 238 Hill, C. W., 9 Hillinge, W., 326 Hill, M., 17 Hill, N. S., 320 Hilton, T. F., 29 Hiltz, S. R., 310, 311 Hinds, P. J., 40, 41, 304, 306 Hinsz, V. B., 88, 170 Hirschfeld, R., 115 Hirst, G., 29, 227, 244, 246 Hixon, J. G, 84 Hoch, J. E., 316 Hochwarter, W. A., 29 Hodge, R. D., 111
Hodgkinson, G. P., 138 Hoever, I. J., 245 Hoffman, B. J., 55 Hoffman, D. A., 55 Hoffman, L. R., 178 Hoffman, R., 355, 356 Hofstede, G. J., 326, 327 Hogan, R., 62 Hogg, M. A., 66, 68, 83, 84, 94, 95,
190, 203 Hollander, E. P., 60, 178, 190 Hollbach, S., 88 Hollenbeck, J. R., 14, 16, 29, 35, 38,
56, 78, 106, 258, 265, 311, 347 Hollingshead, A. B., 142, 148, 156,
157, 311 Homan, A. C., 41, 65, 106, 136, 258,
261, 347 Homans, G., 114 Hom, P. W., 289 Hong, Y.-Y., 326 Horgan, M. A., 145 Horn, E. M., 231 Hornsey, M. J., 203 Hornsey, T., 105 Horton, J., 117 Houlette, M., 153 Houser, C. J. S., 138, 139 Howell, J. M., 61 Howells, L. T., 58 Hoyt, C. L., 54 Hseih,Tony, 112 Huang, J. C., 61 Huang, L., 194 Huang, R., 316 Huber, V. L., 357 Huettermann, H., 202 Hüffmeier, J., 119 Huguet, P., 124 Huici, C., 84, 86 Hu, J., 125 Hu, L., 280 Hulsheger, U. R., 246 Humphrey, A. S., 16 Humphrey, S. E., 36, 148, 246,
258, 347 Hunter Quartz, K., 361 Hunter, S. B., 116 Hurley, R., 201 Hutchison, P., 24, 42, 62, 106 Hütter, M., 121 Huy, Q., 93 Hymowitz, C., 299
I IBM, 279 Ickes, W. J., 141
Z05_THOM4204_06_SE_NIDX.indd 439 10/24/16 9:05 PM
440 Name Index
IDEO, 225 Ilgen, D. R., 29, 35, 38, 78, 106, 258,
265, 311, 347 Ilies, L., 68 Ilies, R., 91 Innella, A. N., 54 Insko, C. A., 107, 199
J Jablin, F. M., 230 Jackson, J. M., 123, 235 Jackson, M. H., 232 Jackson, P., 190 Jackson, S. E., 38, 42, 300 Jacobs, R. C., 48 Jacoby, J., 167 James, E. H., 11 Janis, I. L., 172, 173 Jans, L., 83 Janssens, M., 336 Jarvenpaa, S. L., 317 Jefferis, V. E., 114 Jehn, K. A., 38, 41, 197, 198,
200–202, 204, 205, 257, 258, 288
Jenkins, R., 297 Jennings, K. E., 231 Jessup, L. M., 232 Jestice, R. J., 316 Jetten, J., 42, 96, 203, 259 Jetten, N., 105 Jex, S. M., 212 Jia, L., 358 Jimenez-Rodriguez, M., 158, 251 Jochims, M., 177 Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., 56 Johll, N. L., 230 Johnson, B., 56 Johnson, C., 230 Johnson, K. L., 302, 310 Johnson-Laird, P. N., 137, 167 Johnson, M. D., 14, 35, 347 Jones, E. E., 100, 105, 135, 190, 233,
264 Jones, J. E., 314, 372 Jones, R. G., 9 Jonsen, K., 205 Jordan, M. H., 87, 115, 220 Jordan, P. J., 92, 93 Joshi, A., 39, 261, 295 Joshi, P. D., 73 Joyce, C. K., 231 Judd, C. M., 74 Judge, T. A., 55, 94 Julin, J. A., 42 Jundt, D. K., 14, 29, 35, 347 Jung, D. I., 88
Jusko, J., 79 Juwein, L., 194
K Kaagan, S. S., 372 Kahi, S. S., 316 Kahneman, D., 165, 312, 366 Kahn, R. L., 130 Kalenick, Travis, 51 Kalil, T., 231 Kaltenheuser, S., 263 Kamans, E., 202, 253 Kamdar, D., 68, 86, 240 Kameda, T., 170, 287 Kane, A., 106, 158, 161 Kane, G., 290 Kane, T. D., 29 Kanfer, R., 69 Kanis, B., 242 Kanter, R. M., 42 Kantor, J., 196 Kaplan, J., 348 Kaplan, S. A., 148 Karam, E. P., 126 Karau, S. J., 32, 56, 86, 88, 89, 94,
119, 154, 233 Karavidas, M., 319 Kardes, F. R., 167 Kark, R., 61 Kasmer, J., 124 Katsikas, S. L., 319 Katz, D., 130 Katz, R., 160, 280 Kayser, T. A., 229 Kazuo Inamori, 331 Kearney, E., 39, 202 Keating, D. E., 53, 54 Keating, P., 301 Keck, S., 191 Kedrosky, P., 163 Keisler, S., 301, 309, 310 Kelleher, H., 330 Keller, J., 160, 163 Keller, R. T., 60, 288 Kellet, S., 90 Kelley, D., 225 Kelley, H. H., 70, 102, 103, 127 Kelley, T., 225 Kelly, E. C., 87, 119 Kelly, J. R., 31, 32, 88, 90–92, 105,
135, 154, 190, 264 Keltner, D., 302 Kemelgor, C., 297 Kempton, W., 139 Kennedy, D. M., 45 Kenney, R. A., 66, 67 Kermeyer, S. L., 34
Kerr, M., 366 Kerr, N. L., 34, 119, 122, 123, 169 Kerschreiter, R., 156, 177 Kessler, T., 88, 107 Keys, C. B., 156 Khalaili, A., 285 Khanna, R., 232 Khazanchi, S., 238 Kiesler, S., 34, 310, 313 Kilduff, G. J., 55, 260 Kilduff, M., 283 Kilduff, R., 260 Kim, C., 246 Kim, E., 261 Kim, H. S., 86, 330 Kim-Jun, S. Y., 191 Kim, J. W., 317 Kim, M., 238 Kim, P. H., 41, 100, 155, 208 Kim, S. H., 206, 358 Kim, T.-Y., 244 Kim, Y.-H., 60, 332 King, E., 82 Kinicki, A., 70 Kirkman, B. L., 69 Kirksey, J., 355 Kishida, K. T., 361 Kitayama, S., 330, 337 Kjerulf, A., 77 Klammer, J. D., 87, 119 Kleingeld, A., 27 Klein, K. J., 289 Kleinmuntz, B., 221 Klimoksi, R. J., 102 Klimoski, R. J., 9, 115, 138 Kline, T. J. B., 303 Klingebiel, R., 179 Klinger, R. L., 55 Klocke, U., 71, 72 Klonsky, B. G., 56 Klotz, A. C., 200, 202 Kneece, R., 289 Knievel, E., 169 Knight, A. P., 90, 261 Knight, D., 75 Knippenberg, D. V., 227 Knowles, M., 83 Kogan, N., 186 Koh, C., 334, 335 Kohn, N. W., 238 Kolbe, M., 137 Kolesnikov-Jessop, S., 203 Komisar, R., 325 Komorita, S., 206 Koning, L., 41, 157 Korde, R. M., 238 Korsgaard, M. A., 64
Z05_THOM4204_06_SE_NIDX.indd 440 10/24/16 9:05 PM
Name Index 441
Kouchaki, M., 192 Kozlowski, S. W. J., 82, 316 Krackhardt, D., 41, 283, 291 Kramer, R. M., 74, 174, 333 Kramer, S. J., 227 Kramer, W. S., 251 Krames, J. A., 59 Krantz, D. H., 165 Kraus, M. W., 302 Kray, L., 181 Kresa, K., 5 Kret, M. E., 100 Krishnan, A., 309 Krishnan, R., 143, 145, 147 Kristof-Brown, A. L., 44, 61 Krizan, Z., 166 Kroll, M., 287 Kruger, J., 307 Kuenzi, M., 195 Kuhnert, K. W., 55 Kukenberger, M. R., 35, 95 Künzle, B., 137 Kurita, S., 342 Kurtzberg, T. R., 226, 309, 320,
321 Kwan, J. L., 208, 244 Kyocera, 331
L LaBarre, P., 15 Labianca, G., 287, 290 LaFasto, F. M. J., 8, 128, 149 LaFrance, A., 39 Lagorio-Chafkin, C., 51 Laham, S. M., 260 Lai, L., 57, 289 Laird, J. D., 90 Lalijee, M., 260 Lambertus, J. D., 231, 233 Lam, C. F., 126 Lam, S. S., 62 Lanaj, K., 56 Landkammer, F., 167 Langa, G. A., 320 Langan, C. J., 190 Langfred, C. W., 97, 202 Lapedis, D., 124 LaPorte, N., 240 Larey, T. S., 230, 236, 247 Larrick, R. P., 74, 100 Larsen, I. M., 30 Larson, C. E., 8, 128, 149, 156 Larson, J. R., Jr., 151, 154, 155 Lasaleta, J., 321 Latané, B., 34, 120, 122, 123, 182 Lauber, J. K., 140 Lau, D. C., 254, 257, 258, 292
Laughlin, P. R., 132, 155, 169 Lau, R. S., 70 Lawler, E. E., 76, 345, 348 Lawler, E. J., 142 Lawrence, S. A., 93 Lawson, L., 33, 288 Leach, C. W., 88, 191 Lean In, 256 Leary, M., 234 Ledgerwood, A., 178 Lee, A. Y., 129, 328 Lee, C., 222 Lee, D., 87 Lee, F., 337 Lee, H. O., 302 Lee, J. Y., 60, 244 Lee, K., 124 Leggett, K. L., 236, 241, 247 Legrenzi, P., 208 Lehman, D. W., 69 Lehman, E. V., 49, 357 Lehman, J., 33 Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., 370 Leicht, C., 66 Leith, K. P., 182 Lembesis, M., 57 Lemery, C. R., 90 Lengel, R. H., 301 Leonard, D. J., 91, 182 LePine, J.A., 28, 38, 106, 276 Lepsinger, R., 355, 356 Lerner, J. S., 193 Le, S. A., 287 Leslie, L. M., 333, 339 Letize, L., 53 Leung, K., 337 Levav, J., 168 Leve, C., 176 Levett, C., 163 Levine, D., 173 Levine, J. M., 35, 48, 99, 102–107,
142, 158, 174, 190, 199, 238, 255, 265, 278
Levine, L. J., 174 LeVine, R. A., 340 Levinson, H., 60 Lewicki, R. J., 78, 214, 372 Lewin, D., 214, 278 Lewis, B. P., 117 Lewis, K.R., 8, 144, 160 Lewis, M., 30 Lewis, S. A., 190 Leyden, D. P., 148 LG Electronics, 354 Li, A. N., 70 Liang, D. W., 147 Liao, H., 39, 70, 278
Libby, R., 142, 157 Liberman, N., 178 Lichtenstein, S., 169 Lickel, B., 253 Liden, R. C., 125, 292 Lightdale, J. R., 84 Lilienfeld, S. O., 302 Liljenquist, K., 105 Limayem, M., 237 Lim, B. C., 289, 333 Lim, N. K., 319 Li, N., 96, 106 Lind, A., 181 Lind, E. A., 71 Linder, D. E., 117 Lindzey, G., 40 Lin, H. L., 309 Linkous, R. A., 116 Lipsky, D., 278 Lisak, A., 334 Litchfield, R. C., 223 Littlepage, G., 148 Littman, J., 225 Liu, D., 334 Li, V, 62 Locke, C. C., 260 Locke, E. A., 75 Loder, A., 326 Lodewijkx, H. F. M., 226 Loersch, C., 114 Loewenstein, J., 24, 366 Lojeski, K. S., 303 Lombard, Didier, 92 Long, C. P., 205 Lorcsh, J., 114 Lord, J., 240 Lord, R. G., 66 Lorinkova, N. M., 62 Lorsch, J. W., 12 Louis, M. R., 48, 103 Lount, R. B., Jr. 83, 99, 119,
252, 253 Lount, R. M., 119 Lovallo, D., 366 Loving, T., 32 Lowe, C. A., 243 Loyd, D. L., 72 Lublin, J. S., 33, 215, 355 Lub, X., 96 Lucas, B. J., 195 Lucia, A., 355 Luciano, M. M., 278 Lucken, M., 188 Lun, J., 333 Lunn, J., 83 Luo, Z., 61 Lüthgens, C., 156
Z05_THOM4204_06_SE_NIDX.indd 441 10/24/16 9:05 PM
442 Name Index
M Maccoby, M., 52 Machatka, D. E., 29, 31 Machida, R., 324 MacKenzie, M., 301 Mackie, D. M., 91 MacLean, T. L., 101 Maddux, W. W., 336, 337 Madore, K. P., 241 Magee, J. C., 39 Magnus, E. B., 341 Maher, K. J., 66 Maier A. A., 372 Maier, N. R. F., 176, 178, 372 Mai, K. M., 237 Main, E. C., 186 Major, B., 252, 295 Major, D. A., 78 Mäkelä, K., 316 Makhijani, M. G., 56 Maki, M., 127 Mallory, G. R., 200 Maner, J. K., 71 Mann, A., 117, 306 Manning, J. F., 95 Mannix, E. A., 33, 70, 73, 155, 156,
172, 197, 198, 314–317 Mann, L., 173 Mannor, M., 36 Manz, C. C., 13, 53, 54 March, J. G., 227 March, J. P., 282 Mark, G., 308 Mark Gurman, M., 200 Markham, S. E., 34 Markman, A. B., 240 Markovsky, B., 142 Marks, M. A., 25, 30, 45, 264, 265 Markus, H. R., 330 Markus, M., 119 Marques, J. G., 62 Marques, J. M., 24, 103 Marques-Quinteiro, P., 144 Marquez, J. A., 341 Marr, J. C., 199 Marrone, J. A., 64, 280 Marson, J., 344 Martínez-Moreno, E., 316 Martin, J. A., 265 Martin, R., 69 Martiny, S. E., 107 Martocchio, J., 352 Martorana, P., 107, 174 Maruping, L. M., 31 Maslach, C., 88 Mäs, M., 257 Mason, C. M., 61
Mathieu, J. E., 13, 25, 35, 37, 95, 126, 228, 264, 265, 278, 342
Maurer, R., 354 Mayer, D. M., 69, 73, 195, 289 Mayer, R. C., 97 Maynard, M. T., 319 Maynard, T., 342 Mayo Clinic, 129 Mayseless, O., 208 Mazur, A., 259 McAuliffe, B. J., 203 McCauley, C., 176 McComb, S. A., 45 McCormick, B. W., 46 McCracken, H., 46 McEvily, B., 158 McGarty, C., 58 McGlynn, R. P., 230 McGrath, J. E., 31, 32, 34, 90,
107, 311 McGregor, D., 80 McGregor, J., 123 McGuire, C., 175 McGuire, T. W., 310 McGurk, D., 230 Mcintyre, M., 129 McKimmie, B. M., 177 Mckinsey & Co, 293 McLean, M. C., 259 McLendon, C. L., 288 Mead, N. L., 71, 74 Meadow, A., 229 Medvec, V. H., 366 Meehan, C., 84 Mehler, A., 34 Mehra, A., 338 Mehrabian, A., 302 Mehta, R., 242 Meindl, J. R., 57 Mell, J. N., 142 Melwani, S, 65 Memmert, D., 29 Mendes, W. B., 116, 295 Menon, T., 280–282, 294, 326 Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., 137, 138,
158, 205 Messe, L. A., 119, 122 Messé, L. M., 119 Messick, D.M., 107, 116, 174, 206,
265, 278 Metzcus, R., 59 Meyer, B., 257 Meyer, C. J., 347, 353 Meyer, R., 26 Michael, J. H., 33, 288, 291 Michaelsen, L. K., 169 Michaels, S. W., 116
Michalisin, M. D., 86, 94 Michel, J. G., 94 Michinov, N., 232 Microsoft, 31, 179 Milch, K. F., 165 Miler, C. E., 170 Miles, J. E., 265 Miles, R. P., 59 Milkman, K. L., 33 Miller, C. E., 18, 190 Miller, D. T., 84, 191 Miller, N., 253 Milliman, J. F., 355, 356 Mills, J. R., 288 Milton, L. P., 42, 103 Miner, A. G., 169 Miner, K. N., 96 Minkov, M., 326, 327 Miriam, A., 258 Miron-Spektor, E., 159, 222 Mitchell, C. K., 242 Mitchell, M. S., 194 Mitchell, R., 62 Mittleman, D. D., 232 Moffett, M., 214 Mohammed, S., 30, 31, 138 Mohn, T., 275 Mohrman, A. M., 348 Mohrman, S. A., 114, 348 Mojzisch, A., 156, 169, 177 Moneim, A., 88, 89 Moneta, G. B., 227 Monsell, S., 234 Montague, P. R., 361 Montague, R., 361 Monteil, J., 124 Montero, R. C., 96 Montesanto, A., 294 Moon, H., 38, 347 Moons, W. G., 91 Moon, T., 334, 338 Moore, D. A., 164, 320 Morales, J. F., 84 Moreland, R. L., 35, 48, 99, 102,
104–107, 142, 143, 145, 147, 199, 255
Morgan, B. B., 276 Morgan, J., 28 Morgeson, F. P., 36, 50, 68, 91 Morrill, C. G., 199, 205 Morris, C. G., 143 Morris, F., 179 Morris, M. L., 85, 320 Morris, M. W., 100, 330, 336 Morris, N., 137 Morrison, B. E., 58 Morrison, E. W., 74
Z05_THOM4204_06_SE_NIDX.indd 442 10/24/16 9:05 PM
Name Index 443
Mor, S., 336 Mortensen, M., 304 Morton, T., 358 Mosakowski, E., 334 Moscovici, S., 40, 156, 199, 207 Moskalenko, S., 321 Mossholder, K. W., 72, 98 Moss-Racusin, C. A., 39 Mount, M. K., 115 Mouton, J. S., 59, 339 Mueller, J. S., 65, 68, 126, 190,
238, 240 Mueller, P., 68 Mueller, T., 227 Mugny, G., 40, 199, 207, 208 Mulally, A., 215 Mulhern, F., 308, 317 Mullen, B., 141, 230 Mullett, J., 90 Mullins, R., 87 Mulvey, P. W., 183 Mumm, Steve, 13 Munkes, J., 235 Munter, M., 364 Munz, D. C., 93 Muoio, A., 220 Murase, T., 136 Murnighan, J. K., 46, 191, 194,
254, 298 Murnighan, K., 257, 375 Murphy, K. J., 358 Murrell, A. J., 293 Muzzy, E. L., 153 Myers, D., 34 Myers, J., 143
N Nadkarni, S., 31 Nadler, D. A., 15 Nadler, J., 24 Nagao, D. H., 170 Nag, R., 137 Nahrgang, J. D., 29, 38, 68 Nakui, T., 239 Naquin, C. E., 309, 321 National Basketball Association
(NBA), 8 Nayab, N., 15 Naylor, J. C., 107 Nazarian, D., 238 NBC, 350 Neale, M. A., 33, 38, 105, 155, 156,
207, 314–317 Nebus, J., 289 Neider, L., 138, 139 Nelson, B., 348, 351 Nelson, M. W., 157
Nembhard, I. M., 77, 101, 245 Nembland, I. M., 158 Nemeth-Brown, B., 222 Nemeth, C. J., 58, 177, 199, 207,
208, 222, 244 Nerstad, C. G. L., 136 Netzley, M., 364 Neuberg, S., 96 Neubert, M. J., 115 Neuman, G. A., 115 Neumann, F., 326 Newheiser, A.-K., 833 Newstrom, J., 372 Ng, K. Y., 333–335 Ng, T. W. H., 238, 295 Ng, Z. W., 307 Nier, J. A., 259 Nieva, V. F., 34 Nijstad, B. A., 106, 154, 172, 220,
222, 226, 230, 233, 237 Nilson, C. D., 372 Nisen. M., 186 Nishii, L. H., 69, 333 Nix, G., 61 Nokia, 179 Nordstrom, 46 Norman, C., 355 Norman, R. Z., 56 Northcraft, G. B., 38, 360 Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., 232, 237 Nunes Amaral, L. A., 287 Nunes, D. A., 317 Nyberg, A., 87 Nye, J. L., 145, 147
O Oakes, P. J., 83, 95, 190 Oaksford, M., 167 O’Bannon, D., 94 Oborn, E., 319 O’Boyle, E., 86 O’Brien, P., 363 O’Connor, E. J., 315 O’Connor, K., 195 O’Connor, M. S., 244 Offermann, L. R., 61 O’Hara, C., 303 Oh, H., 287 Ohngren, K., 350 Ohno, A., 117 Ohtsubo, Y., 170, 287 O’Keefe, B., 13 O’Keefe, R. D., 223 Okhuysen, G. A., 18 Okimoto, T. G., 260 Okkonen,J., 306 Oldham, G. R., 129
Oldroyd, J. B., 70 Olffen, W., 41 Olian, J., 94 Olsen, J. P., 282 Oltmanns, J., 172 O’Neill, O. A., 207 O’Neill, T. A., 202, 303 O’Reilly, C. A., 38, 286 Orkut, 15 Ormiston, M. E., 39, 222 Ortega, A. H., 230 Osborn, A. F., 228 Osborne, T., 59 Ostrom, T. M., 124, 125 Otten, S., 202, 253 Overbeck, J. R., 65, 73 Owen, J., 345 Owens, P. D., 174 Oxley, N. L., 239
P Packer, D. J., 199 Paddock, E. L., 94 Page-Gould, E., 295 Pagliaro, S., 194 Panzer, F. J., 265 Papastamou, S., 207 Park, E., 119 Parker, J., 307 Parker, S. K., 61 Park, E. S., 88, 119 Park, J. H., 302 Parks, C. D., 153, 207 Park, T. Y., 358 Parnes, S. J., 229, 239 Parussini, G., 323 Pashler, H., 234 Pasmore, W. A., 114 Passos, A. M., 144 Patek, S., 79 Patel, P., 31 Patil, S. V., 208 Patrick, C. J., 302 Patzelt, H., 159 Paul, J. B., 246 Paulsen, V., 105 Paulus, P. B., 34, 48, 106, 190, 222,
230, 234, 236–239, 241, 242, 247 Payne, B. K., 114 Pearce, C. L., 62, 64 Pearsall, M. J., 29, 62, 84, 138, 144,
148, 191, 347 Pearson, C. M., 11 Peck, E., 337 Pedersen, T., 289 Pelled, L. H., 42 Peltokorpi, V., 159
Z05_THOM4204_06_SE_NIDX.indd 443 10/24/16 9:05 PM
444 Name Index
Peng, A. C., 62 Peng, T. K., 72 Pennebaker, J. W., 212 Pennington, G., 85 Pennington, N., 170 Penrod, S., 170 Pentland, A., 302 Perez, J. A., 208 Perkins, D. V., 34 Perrow, C., 140 Perry-Smith, J. E., 245, 338 Personnaz, B., 222 Personnaz, M., 222 Peterson, R. S., 98, 174, 175, 197,
198, 201, 202, 244, 314 Pettit, N. C., 83, 99, 253 Petty, R. E., 124, 233 Petty, R. M., 34 Peyronnin, K., 42 Pfeffer, J., 24, 280, 356 Pfeiffer, C., 154 Pfeiffer, J. W., 372 Phelps, R., 127 Phillips, J. M., 78, 79 Phillips, K. W., 40, 72, 105, 155, 252 Picot, A., 64 Pierce, M. E., 55 Pierotti, A. J., 43 Pieterse, A. N., 28, 39 Pillutia, M. S., 96 Pinto, I. R., 103 Pisano, G., 322 Pitesa, M., 96 Ployhart, R. E., 359 Podolny, J. M., 286, 330 Poepsel, D. L., 205 Polanyi, M., 322 Poletes, G., 230 Pollack, J. M., 86 Polman, E., 88 Polzer, J. T., 42, 103, 317 Poole, M. S., 232, 319 Popielarz, P. A., 286 Porath, C., 213 Porter, C. O. L. H., 38, 159 Porter, J., 239 Portnoy, R., 334 Posavac, E. J., 143 Posavac, S. S., 167 Postlethwaite, B., 202 Postmes, T., 83, 311 Powell, C., 74 Powell, L., 355 Pratkanis, A. R., 176 Pratto, F., 83, 254 Prelic, D., 366 Prentice, D. A., 84
Prentice-Dunn, S., 34 Priesemuth, M., 113 Probasco, P., 176 Pudelko, M., 342 Puente, R., 339 Putman, V. L., 236, 239, 241, 247
Q Qi, Z. J., 258 Quartz, S. R., 361 Quinn, A., 190
R Rabinovich, A., 358 Radicati, S., 308 Rafaeli, A., 307 Rana, P., 336 Randall, K. R., 136, 137 Randel, A. E., 280 Randsley de Moura, G., 106, 254 Rao, R. D., 45 Rao, V. R., 187 Rapp, A. A., 87 Rapp, T. L., 87, 126, 342 Rapson, R., 90, 91 Raskin, R., 62 Rast, D. E., 68 Ratcliff, N. J., 73 Rathi, A., 29 Raven, B. H., 71, 72 Raver, J. L., 333 Rawlings, E. I., 103 Rawlins, W. K., 288 Rayasam, R., 308 Reagans, R., 143, 158 Reddington, K., 148 Reeder, G. D., 94 Reeves, M., 318 Regan, D. T., 192 Reicher, S. D., 83, 95, 190 Reichman, V., 302 Reilly, G., 95 Reilly, R. R., 303, 313 Reinholt, M., 289 Reinig, B. A., 237 Ren, Y., 141 Resick, C. J., 136, 137 Restubog, S. L. D., 29, 348 Rexrode, C., 195 Reynolds, K. J., 58 Reynolds, M., 92 Reznick, J. S., 92 Ribeiro, T. A., 261 Richards, H., 129 Rich Karlgaard, R., 34 Richter, A. W., 244 Rico, R. S. M., 257, 258
Ridgeway, C., 142 Rietzschel, E. F., 230, 237 Rijnbout, J. S., 177 Ringelmann, M., 120 Ringen, J., 256 Rink, F., 40, 105 Riordan, C. A., 56 Rispens, S., 204, 205 Roberts, J., 173 Robison, W., 148 Roccas, S., 42 Roch, S. R., 169 Rockstuhl, T., 334, 335 Rode, J. C., 61 Rodgers, M. S., 70 Roetzer, P., 320 Rogelberg, S. G., 243, 244, 362 Rogers, C., 215 Rogers, J., 177, 208 Rogers, M. S., 30 Rogers, R. W., 34 Roland, E. J., 236, 241, 242, 247 Romer, D., 94 Romero, A. A., 107 Ronay, R., 37, 116 Roseman, I., 200 Rosen, B., 69, 318 Rosenblum, H., 297 Rosenholtz, S. J., 259 Rosenthal, R., 90, 92, 302 Rosette, A., 58 Ross, J., 179, 180 Ross, L., 57 Ross, S. M., 61 Rothgerber, H., 252 Rothman, N. B., 68, 74 Rouse, E. D., 239 Rouse, W., 137 Rousseau, D. M., 60, 97, 288, 289 Roussin, C. J., 101 Routhieaux, R. L., 235 Rowe, J. S., 116 Roy, M. C., 237 Rubin, M., 259 Rubin, R. S., 93 Ruddy, N., 343 Ruddy, T. M., 13, 228, 278 Ruderman, M. N., 300 Ruder, M. K., 96 Rudman, L. A., 56 Rudolph, J. W., 101 Ruef, M., 262 Rughani, A. I., 145 Rusbult, C. E., 212 Russell, K., 163 Russo, F., 241 Rutkowski, G. K., 94
Z05_THOM4204_06_SE_NIDX.indd 444 10/24/16 9:05 PM
Name Index 445
Ryan, C. S., 255 Ryan, L. R., 63
S Saavedra, R., 65, 90, 208 Sackett, P. R., 43 Sacramento, C. A., 246 Saguy, T., 92, 254 Salaman, L., 83 Salas, E., 9, 106, 140, 164, 230 Salgado, J. F., 246 Sally Herships, S., 332 Salomon, K., 116 Saltz, J. L., 289 Salvador, R., 195 Sambolec, E., 119 Sample, I., 220 Sanchez-Burkes, J., 93, 203, 337 Sandberg, S., 256 Sani, F, 83 Sassenberg, K., 167 Sauer, S. J., 68 Savadori, L., 154 Savage, L. J., 367 Savitsky, K., 126 Savolainen, R., 306 Sawaoka, T., 83 Sawyer, J. E., 136, 153, 244 Saxe, R., 254 Scandura, T. A., 79 Scannell, E., 372 Schacter, D. L., 241 Schaeffner, M., 202 Schaerer, M., 116 Schaller, M., 46, 73 Schatzel, E. A., 227 Schaubroeck, J., 55, 62 Schaude, G. R., 231 Scheepers, D., 201 Scheiber, N., 256 Schein, E. H., 46 Schersching, C., 190 Scher, S. J., 182 Schippers, M. C., 120 Schleicher, D. J., 69 Schlenker, B., 190 Schlicksupp, H., 231 Schmidt, A. M., 360 Schminke, M., 113 Schneider, E., 90 Schneider, M. C., 57 Schneider, S. K., 235 Schoel, C., 68 Scholten, L., 154 Schoorman, F. D., 69, 97 Schriesheim, C., 138, 139
Schroeder, D. A., 205 Schroth, R. J., 177 Schubert, T. W., 58 Schuler, R. S., 357 Schultze, T., 169 Schultz, M., 297 Schulz-Hardt, S., 156, 169, 177 Schwartz, E., 259 Schwartz-Kenney, B. M., 66, 67 Schweder, R. A., 328 Schwind, K., 38 Scott, B. A., 94 Scott, E., 213 Scott, K. D., 293 Scott, K. L., 201 Scruton, P., 163 Scully, J., 94 Sedekides, C., 94 Seeley, E. A., 85 Seers, A., 86 Seger, C., 91 Sego, D. J., 78 Seibert, S. E., 113 Seidman, D., 15, 16 Sekaquaptewa, D., 43 Seok, D., 119 Seo, M. G., 92 Seong, J. Y., 30, 46 Sergiovanni, T. J., 59 Sessa, V. I., 42 Seta, J. J., 236 Sethna, B. N., 310, 313 Sexter, M., 90 Seyle, D. C., 84, 86 Shafir, E., 367 Shah, P. P., 288–290 Shalley, C. E., 228, 245, 338 Shapiro, D. L., 125, 203 Sharkey, J., 343 Sharma, P. N., 125 Shaver, K. G., 100 Shaw, J. D., 201, 358 Shaw, M. E., 134, 135, 341 Shea, G. P., 87, 114, 119 Sheats, P., 36 Sheffey, S., 153 Shellenbarger, S., 213, 361 Sheng, E., 336, 341 Shen, Y., 256 Shepard, D. A., 159 Shepherd, M. M., 237 Sherif, M., 46 Sherman, D. K., 86 Sherman, J., 208 Shiffman, J., 326 Shih, H.-A., 201
Shi, J., 69 Shi, K., 61 Shilo, R., 128 Shin, S. J., 244 Shin, Y., 238 Shipilov, A. V., 337 Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, 180 Shteynberg, G., 125 Shuffler, M. L., 158, 251 Shukla, R. K., 243 Shure, G. H., 30 Siegel Christian, J., 72 Siegel, J., 310 Siegman, A. W., 92 Sigerson, K., 57 Silver, J., 169 Silverman, R. E., 111, 318 Sim, J., 326 Simon, B., 188 Simon, L. S., 55 Simonton, D. K., 55 Sims, H. P.,Jr., 62, 64, 94 Sims, R. R., 191 Sinaceur, M., 207 Singh, H., 330 Sitkin, S. B., 97 Škerlavaj, M., 136 Skilton, P. F., 245 Skitka, L., 193 Sleebos, E., 60 Sleesman, D. J., 182, 265 Sligte, D. J., 237 Slovic, P., 169 Smith, C. M., 222, 240, 242 Smith, D., 3 Smith, E. R., 91, 294 Smith, K. G., 94, 211 Smith, S. M., 224, 225 Sniezek, J. A., 154 Sokel, D., 278 Solem, A. R., 372 Soll, J. B., 74 Solomon, M., 46 Somech, A., 285 Sommer, D., 169 Sommer, S. A., 61, 117 Sondak, H., 33 Song, L. J., 202 Sosik, J. J., 88 Southwest Airlines, 15, 330, 350 Spada, H., 134 Spahn, D. R., 137 Sparrowe, R. T., 286 Spears, R., 88, 202, 260, 311 Spector, B., 80 Spector, P. E., 212
Z05_THOM4204_06_SE_NIDX.indd 445 10/24/16 9:05 PM
446 Name Index
Spell, C. S., 258 Spence, J. R., 334 Spencer, L., 38 Spencer, S. J., 56, 100 Spiro, J., 245, 287 Spitzmuller, M., 29 Spoor, J. R., 88 Sproull, L., 140, 301, 309 Srivastave, A., 75 Staats, B. R., 33 Stachowski, A., 148 Stahlberg, D., 68 Stajkovic, A., 87 Stallard, M. L., 215 Staples, D. S., 258 Stasser, G., 142, 151–153, 155 Staw, B. H., 181 Staw, B. M., 179, 238, 333 Steckel, J. H., 187 Steele, C. M., 56 Steep, M., 246 Steinel, W., 157, 261 Steiner, I., 114 Steinhilber, A., 116 Stein, J., 148 Stenstrom, D. M., 253 Stern, G. M., 350 Stern, L., 90 Stevens, A., 137 Stevens, M. A., 115 Stewart, D. D., 142, 153, 155 Stewart, G. I., 13 Stewart, G. L., 43, 53, 115, 125 Stires, L. K., 100 Stokes, J. P, 96 Stone, A. B., 207 Stoner, J. A. F., 186 Stoner, J. L., 339 Stoverink, A. C., 96 Streitfeld, D., 196 Stroebe, W., 119, 226, 229, 230,
235, 236 Suarez-Balcazar, Y., 143 Subramony, M., 278 SuccessFactors, 47 Summers, J. K., 148 Sundstrom, E. D., 9, 96, 129 Sundstrom, M. G., 96 Sung, S. Y., 220 Sunstein, C. R., 185 Susanto, E., 201 Sutton, R. I., 24, 241 Svenson, O., 124 Swaab, R. I., 116, 339 Swann, W. B., Jr., 42, 84, 86, 103 Swartz, T., 200
Sycara, K., 30 Symantec, 350 Sy, T., 65 Szalavitz, M., 27
T Taber, B., 280 Tadmor, C. T., 336 Tajfel, H., 83, 190, 234 Takács, K., 257 Takemoto, T., 321 Takezawa, M., 287 Tam, T., 260 Tangpong, C., 86, 94 Tang, X., 256 Taniguchi, T., 331 Tan, M. L., 334, 335 Tannenbaum, S. I., 35, 82, 140 Tan, T., 169 Tarakci, M., 72 Tassinary, L. G., 302 Tasson, J., 30 Taylor, D. W., 120, 230 Taylor, L. A., 152 Taylor, S. E., 124 Teather, D., 191 Tenbrunsel, A., 33 Tenzer, H., 342 Terry, D. J., 105 Tesluk, P. E., 64, 92, 280, 320 Teten, D., 320 Tetlock, P. E., 174, 175, 193 Teuchmann, K., 90 Thatcher, S. M. B., 31, 204, 258 Thau, S., 96 The Wall Street Journal, 266 Thibaut, J., 70, 102 Thomas, H. C., 359 Thomas-Hunt, M. C., 41, 72,
207, 208 Thomas, K. W., 210 Thomas, R., 343 Thomée, S., 309 Thompson, J., 43, 44 Thompson, L. L., 5, 20–22, 24, 58,
97, 101, 107, 131, 172, 174, 181, 195, 196, 220, 221, 236, 245, 265, 278, 279, 281, 283, 294
Thompson, L. F., 307, 314, 316, 320 Thorgren, S., 65 Thurgood, G. R., 43 Tickle-Degnen, L., 90, 302 Tijoriwala, S. A., 60 Tindale, R. S., 143, 157, 170, 222 Tindale, S., 153 Titus, W., 151
Tjosvold, D., 211 Todman, J., 83 Todorova, G., 159, 200 Toma, C., 156 Tonidandel, S., 82 Topham, G., 163 Tor, A., 253 Torelli, C. J., 339 Tost, L. P., 74 Totterdell, P., 90 Toyota, 246, 328 Tranmer, B. I., 145 Travaglino, G. A., 254 Trevino, L. K., 194, 301 Trevor Clawson, T., 80 Triandis, H. C., 328 Trist, E. L., 306 Trochim, W. M. K., 197 Tropman, J. E., 363–365, 370 Tropp, L. R., 329 Tröster, C., 338 Trotman, K. T., 142 Tsui, A. S., 70, 358 Tucker, A. T., 101, 158 Turner, J. C., 40, 50, 83, 95, 190 Turner, M. E., 176 Turoff, M., 310 Tversky, A., 165, 312 Twitter, 17 Tykocinski, O., 87 Tyler, T. R., 71, 74 Tziner, A., 115
U Ulanoff, L., 266 Umphress, E. E., 96, 194 Underwood, M. K., 329 Unger-Aviram, E., 348 Ury, W., 216 U.S. Census Bureau, 5, 6, 166 U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, 29 U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
187, 264 U.S. Supreme Court, 41 Utz, S., 157 Uzzi, B., 99, 245, 287, 294, 295, 297
V Valacich, J. S., 226, 232 Van Avermaet, E., 40, 199, 206 Van Bavel, J. J., 254 Van Boven, L., 24, 126 Vandello, J. A., 330 Van den Berg, S. B., 55
Z05_THOM4204_06_SE_NIDX.indd 446 10/24/16 9:05 PM
Name Index 447
Van der Vegt, G., 84 Van der Zee, K. I., 83, 328 Van de Ven, A. H., 242 Van Dierendonck, D., 28 Van Dyne, L., 86, 208, 334, 335 Van Engen, M. L., 56 Van Ginkel, W. P., 39, 60, 142,
155–157, 245 Van Hiel, A., 72 Van Kleef, G. A., 41, 65, 106, 258,
261, 347 Van Knippenberg, B., 61, 65 Van Knippenberg, D., 28, 29, 39, 41,
60, 61, 65, 66, 136, 142, 154–157, 172, 224, 244–246, 258, 338
Van Laar, C., 86 Van Lighten, O., 90 Van Maanen, J., 48, 103 Van Mierlo, H., 27 Van Quaquebeke, N., 66 Van Swol, L. M., 154 Vantilborgh, T., 96 Van Witteloostuijn, A., 41 Van Zomeren, M., 88 Vaughn, P., 264 Veiga, J. F., 183 Venkataramani, V., 29, 69, 84 Venkatesh, V., 31 Verespej, M. A., 54 Vertex Pharmaceuticals, 124 Vescio, T. K., 73 Vessey W. B., 82 Vignoles, V. L., 107 Vignovic, J. A., 307 Villado, A. J., 159 Voci, A., 260 Voelpel, S. C., 39 Vogel, C., 138, 139 Vohs, K. D., 74 Voida, S., 308 Voigt, A., 258 Volkswagen, 164 Von Glinow, M. A., 203 Von Hippel, E. A., 275 Vos, M., 328 Vozza, S., 362, 365 Vuori, T., 138
W Wachtler, J., 58, 208, 244 Wacker, J., 137 Wade, J. B., 286 Wageman, R., 13, 14, 27, 28, 45,
48–50, 73, 213, 214, 314, 317, 348, 357
Wagner, D., 38, 91
Wagner, S. H., 115 Waitrose, 80 Wakabayashi, D., 7 Waldman, D. A., 64 Walker, H. A., 142 Walker, T. G., 186 Wallach, M. A., 186 Waller, M. J., 137, 148 Walsh, J., 280 Walster, G. W., 243 Walter, F., 91 Walters, B. A., 287 Walton, G. M., 100 Walton, R. E., 80 Walumbwa, F. O., 55, 69 Wang, D., 64 Wang, G., 113 Wang, J., 337 Wang, L., 194 Wang, M., 69 Wang, P., 61, 69 Wang, W. L., 258 Wang, Y., 120 Wang, Z., 61 Wanless, T., 237 Wann, D., 87 Wanous, J. P., 103 Ward, T. B., 224 Warner, R., 90 Wason, R. C., 167 Watkins, D., 163 Watson, W. E., 169 Webber, S. S., 11 Webb, J. W., 159 Weber, E. U., 165 Weeks, R., 375 Wegner, D. M., 141, 142 Weick, K. E., 48 Weingart, L. R., 30, 40, 97, 138, 139,
200, 201, 211, 216 Weisband, S. P., 310 Weisberg, R. W., 225 Weiss, J. A., 27 Weiss, S. E., 214 Weitzman, M., 352 Welch, J., 59, 65 Welch, S., 65 Wellins, R. S., 75, 76 Welpe, I. M., 64 Wenzel, M., 260 Werko, R., 313 Werner, D., 120 West, B., 38 West, M. A., 157, 211 West, T. V., 39 Wetherell, M. S., 83, 95, 190
Wheeler, J. V., 291 Whetten, D. A., 362–364 White, E. H., 119 Whitehead, A. N., 24 Whitson, J., 72 Whitte, E. H., 169 Wholey, D., 41 Wicker, A. W., 34 Widmeyer, W. N., 94 Wiesenfeld, B. M., 105 Wiest, C., 200 Wigand, R. T., 64 Wiggins-Noe, A., 43 Wight, W. M., 126 Wilder, D. A., 189 Wildman, J., 158 Wildschut, T., 199 Wild, T. C., 61 Willer, R., 260, 297 Williams, C. L., 43 Williams, E., 17 Williams, K. B., 119, 120 Williams, K. D., 48, 120, 123, 125,
190, 233 Williams, K. Y., 38, 156 Wilson, D. C., 200, 223 Wilson, J. M., 75 Wiltermuth, S. S., 192 Wincent, J., 65 Windschitl, P. D., 166 Winfre, G., 263 Wingfield, N., 341 Winslow, A., 322 Winterkorn, M., 46 Winton, S. L., 29 Witte, E. H., 207 Wittenbaum, G. M., 142, 155 Witt, L. A., 29 Wolfe, M., 159 Wolff, P., 240 Wong, S. S., 289 Wood, K. L., 240 Woodman, R. W., 114 Wood, R. E., 159 Woolley, A. W., 40, 140, 158 Worchel, S., 83, 252 Workman, K., 69 Worley, C. G., 345 Worringham, C. J., 116 Worthen, B., 309 Wright, A. G., 238 Wright, J., 115 Wright, V., 239 Wu, C. H., 61 Wu, J., 70 Wynne, B. E., 226
Z05_THOM4204_06_SE_NIDX.indd 447 10/24/16 9:05 PM
448 Name Index
X Xactly, 339 Xerox, 281 Xerox service organization, 13 Xiao, Z., 289 Xie, X. Y., 258 Xie, Z., 106 Xin, K. R., 42
Y Yaffe, T., 61 Yakovleva, M., 313 Yan, A., 285 Yang, D., 361 Yang, H.-C., 242 Yang, J., 72 Yen, J., 237 Yost, P. R., 87 Youngblood, S. A., 357
Young, D. L., 178 Young, E., 3 Yovetich, N., 107 Yukl, G. A., 55
Z Zaccaro, S. J., 25, 124, 264 Zadeh, R. B., 34 Zagenczyk, T. J., 293 Zaino, G., 8 Zajonc, R., 99 Zala-Mezö, E., 137 Zander, A. F., 71, 72 Zander, L., 316 Zander, M., 169 Zappos, 46, 121, 350 Zarate, M. A., 341 Zawacki, R. F., 355 Zelditch, M., 56, 259
Zellmer-Bruhn, M., 319 Zembrodt, I. M., 212 Zetlin, M., 363 Zettinig, P., 316 Zhang, X., 246 Zhang, Z. X., 64, 69, 72, 341 Zhou, J., 227 Zhu, J., 201 Zhu, R., 242 Ziemer, J., 330 Ziller, R. C., 120 Zillman, C., 95 Zimmer, I., 142 Zimmer, S., 96 Zoopa, 281 Zornoza, A., 316 Zuckerberg, M., 370 Zurcher, L. A., 103 Zwikael, O., 348
Z05_THOM4204_06_SE_NIDX.indd 448 10/24/16 9:05 PM
449
A Abdication, 73 Abilene Paradox, 183–6 Ability. See KSAs (knowledge, skill,
and ability) Absorptive capacity, 136 Abusive supervision, 198 Accountability, 153–4, 193–4, 238 Accuracy, 139–40 Acquaintance potential, 271 Acquisitions
in global economy, 7 knowledge valuation and, 280 of skill, 354
Action processes, 45 Activated faultlines, 257 Actual productivity, 132, 168 Adaptation process, 341–2 Adaptive capacity, 137 Administrators, 53 Advice question, 186 Advice ties, 288–90 Advisor, 279 Affective conflict. See Relationship
conflict Affirmation, 273–4 African American. See also Diversity
vicarious licensing, 192 After-action review (AAR), 159 Agendas, 35 Americans with Disabilities Act, 356 Analogical reasoning, 240–1 Announcements, 16 Anonymity, of EBS, 233 Anti-poaching suits, 173 Apology, 272–3 Applied Imagination (Osborn), 228 Appointed leaders, 66 Approval, need for, 181, 282 Arguments, Abilene Paradox, 183 Armed Services Vocational Aptitude
Battery (ASVAB), 54
Assimilation, 343 Attachment, group, 84, 85 Attentional Focus Model (AFM), 32 Attributions, group-serving, 86–7 A-type conflict. See Relationship
conflict Audience, accountability to, 193 Authority, 14 Autocratic decision making, 56 Autocratic leadership, 62–4 Autonomy-oriented help, 273 Autonomy, team, 20 Average external leadership, 278 Average winner, 171 Aversive leadership, 64 Avoidance–avoidance conflict, 367
B Background noise level, for
creativity enhancement, 242 Backing-up behavior, 37–8 Base pay, 347 Bay of Pigs operation, 174 Behavioral CQ, 334, 335 Behavioral entrainment, 91–2 Behavioral stability, 160 Beliefs about groups (BAG) scale,
88, 89 Best member rule, 171 Best practices, for enhancing team
creativity, 238–46 Bias
confirmation, 167 egocentric, 71, 206 hindsight, 23 individual decision making, 164–8 overconfidence bias, 165–6 overstaffing, 34 positive illusion, 124
Birth order, leadership and, 55 Blind justice, 205. See also Equality
method
Bonds, common, 84 Borda rank winner, 171 Boredom, 117 Boundaries. See Team boundaries Boundary-loosening activities, 285 Boundary objects, 319 Boundary spanners, 279, 284–7 Boundary spanning, 284–5
advantages, 287 disadvantages, 287
Boundary-tightening activities, 285 Boundedness, 4 BP oil spill, 173 Brainstorm E, 232 Brainstorming. See also Creativity
cognitive methods, 238–41 competition, 237 electronic, 232–3 facilitator-led methods, 241–4 goal of, 229 leader and organizational
methods, 244–6 motivational methods, 236–8 observations in, 236 performance data of, 229 problems, 233–6 quantity goals, 236–7 regulatory fit, 238 rules for, 228, 239 solitary groups, 229
Brainwriting, 230–1 Breaks, for creativity enhancement,
242 Budgets, 360 Bufferers, 279 Bureaucratic organizations, 80 Bureaucrats, 52 Bystander effect, 182
C Capability problems, 32 Capacity, absorptive, 136
Subject Index
Z06_THOM4204_06_SE_SIDX.indd 449 10/24/16 9:06 PM
450 Subject Index
Capacity problems, 32 Card test, 167 Category generation, brainstorming,
238 Cautious shift, 186 Cave-and-commons design, 321 Centralization, team networks, 277 Centralized taskwork network, 277 Challenge
cohesion and, 96 flow and, 117 stress vs., 118
Charters, team, 126, 318, 373 Choking under pressure, 116 Cliques, 285–7, 293
advantages, 287 disadvantages, 287 network, 284
Closed-mindedness, 173 Closure, 277 Coaching
conflict process, 214–16 consultative, 49–50 educational, 49–50 motivational, 49–50 task process, 214 team, 48 types of, 49–50 virtual teams, 322
Codified knowledge, 322 Coercive power, 71 Cognition, 290 Cognitive complexity, 341 Cognitive conflict. See Task conflict Cognitive CQ, 334, 335 Cognitive methods, in
brainstorming, 238–41 Cognitive stimulation, 229 Cognitive territoriality, 265 Cohesion, 94–6, 125, 129–31, 309
in-group building, 95 Collaboration, 134–7 Collaborative problem solving, 115,
134 Collaborative response, 216 Collaborators, 305 Collective attachments, 85 Collective efficacy, 87–8 Collective identity, 84–5 Collective intelligence
example, 133 tacit coordination, 143 team mental models, 137–41 TMS and, 143
Collective self, 328 Collectivism, 326–30
Commitment, 103 Commitment escalation, 178–82 Commitment organizations, 80 Common identity and bonds, 84 Common information effect,
148–51, 188 Communication, 113, 133. See also
Information dependence problem
compensation and, 360 different-place, different-time,
306–9 different-time, same-place, 305–6 direct, 128 face-to-face, 301–3 group socialization and, 102 informal, 303–4 information technology, 311 same-place, different-time,
305–6 technology and health, 309 uneven, 134
Compensation guiding principles, 358–60 incentive pay, 347–8 team performance appraisal,
353–4 Compensatory favoritism, 259 Competency-based pay, 354 Competition, 6–7 Competitive favoritism, 259 Compliance, 207 Computer-mediated
communication (CMC). See Information technology
Condorcet majority rule, 171 Confidence, 157, 183 Confirmation bias, 167 Conflict
contagion, 205 culture and, 194–5 distributive vs. procedural, 205 global culture and, 203 investment model of, 212–13 minority and majority, 207–9 negative, 201 organizational climate and, 203 organizational culture conflict,
209 personality and, 202 power and, 202 resolution, 115 states vs. processes, 205 task, 197 team members, 18–20 team performance, 211–12
types of, 197–200, 204–9 virtual teams and, 316–17 work–family conflict, 209
Conflict intervention model, 213–16 Conflict management style, 211 Conflict process coaching, 214 Conflict resolution, 115 Conflict types
process, 199–200 relationship, 197–9 task, 199
Conformity, 234 Conformity pressure, 188–90 Conservative idealism, 225 Conservative realism, 225 Consultative coaching, 49 Consultative decision making, 49 Contact, 270–2
face-to-face, 100, 301–3 Contending (power-based)
response, 217 Contending (rights-based) response,
216–17 Context. See also Team context
coaching contribution, 49 Contingency theory
task conflict, 211–12 team performance, 211–12
Contrarians, 52 Contribution-based distribution,
205 Contrived dissent, 177 Convergent thinking, 221–3 Conversion, 207 Coordination, tacit, 143 Coordinators, 75, 279 Corporate World, groupthink in,
172, 173 Correspondence, 140–1 Costs, sunk, 182 CQ model, 333–4 CQ & performance, 334 Creative abrasion, 245 Creative idealism, 225
Edison example, 225 Creative ideas, 223–4 Creative innovation, 337–8 Creative people, 220–1 Creative realism, 224–5 Creative synthesis, 223–4 Creativity, 219
creative realism, 224–5 EBS, 232–3 enhancing, 236–46 evaluation of, 226–7 feasibility and value, 223
Z06_THOM4204_06_SE_SIDX.indd 450 10/24/16 9:06 PM
Subject Index 451
vs. innovation, 221–8 threats to, 233–6
Cross-cultural teamwork, challenges of, 324
Crosscut role assignments, 271 Cross-functional teams, 264 Cross-group friendships, 272 Cross-team integrating teams, 266 C-type conflict. See Task conflict Cuban Missile Crisis, 174 Cultural change, 342
assimilation, 343 integration, 343 marginalization, 344 separation, 343–4
Cultural inertia, 341–2 Cultural intelligence, 333–7 Cultural metacognition, 335–6 Cultural relativism, 340–1 Cultural values, 325–33 Culture. See also Team culture
and conflict, 194–5 dimensions of, 331
Customer service, 27 Cutthroat cooperation effect, 347
D Data, brainstorming
performance, 229 Davis’ weighted average winner, 171 Debate, structured, 214 Decision fatigue, 168 Decision making
Abilene Paradox, 183–6 diversity of, 38–43 escalation of commitment,
178–82 group polarization, 186–90 groupthink, 172–8 individual, biases, 164–8 individual vs. group, 168–72 information technology and, 310,
313 meetings and, 16, 17, 127 rational model of, 164 review and, 153 rules, 171 team related, 164 unethical, 190–5 vicarious licensing, 192
Decision-making climate, 183 Deep-level diversity, 39 Defensive help, 273 Defensive vs. offensive orientation,
158 Deindividuation, 122 Delegation, 77, 78
Delphi technique., 243 Democratic leadership, 62–4 Demonstrable tasks, 168 Dense networks, 283 Description, 112 Desensitization, 192–3
accountability, 193–4 contemplation, 194 elimination, conflict of interest, 194 integrity creation, 194–5
Design. See Team design Developmental feedback, 106 Deviant opinions, 106 Devil’s advocate, 177 Differential treatment, Leader
Member Exchange (LMX) theory
advantages, 69–70 attributes, 68–9 disadvantages, 70
Different-place, different-time communication, 306–9
Different-time, same-place communication, 305–6
Dignity culture, 331, 332 11-Dimension Expanded CQ Scale,
335 Direct communication, 128 Direct influence method, 207 Direction, 14 Directive leadership, 64 Disconnected feedback, 304 Discussion
increasing, 153 redirecting and focusing, 155
Discussion principles, structured, 177–8
Disinhibition and negativity effect, 312–13
Dispute model interest-based approach, 216 power-based response, 217 rights-based argument, 216–17
Dissensus, monitoring, 98 Distance, virtual, 303 Distributed (partial) overlap, 149, 150 Distributive vs. procedural conflict,
205 Divergent thinking, 221–3 Diverse team, building, 41 Diverse teams, 296 Diversity
creativity and, 244–5 social capital and, 295–6
Dormant faultlines, 257 Double-loop learning, 24 Downward norm setting, 235
E East Asians, 203 Educational diversity, 40 Effectiveness. See Team effectiveness Effort, 119–23 Egalitarian cultures, 330 Egalitarian values, 44–5, 338–9 Egocentrism, 306–7 Ego protection, as psychological
determinant, 181 Elastic coordination, 239 Elected leaders, 66 Electronic brainstorming (EBS), 232–3 Eligibility, for compensation plans,
359 Email and productivity, 307–8 Email communication and etiquette,
307. See also Communication; Information technology
Emotional burden, 92 Emotional conflict. See Relationship
conflict Emotional contagion, 90–1 Emotional display, 339–40 Emotional intelligence, 92 Emotional nonconformity, 92 Emotional transfer, 92 Emotions
escalation of commitment and, 182
group, 88 leadership, 92–4 management of, 93
Employees, out-of-the-loop, 304–5 Empowering, 291 Empowering leadership, 64 Empowerment, 75 Ends vs. means, 27–8 Entrepreneur network, 285–7 Environment, learning from, 158 Episodic memory, 241 Equality method, 205–6 Equality, of EBS, 233 Equal status, 271 Equifinality, 130 Equity method, 205, 359 Escalation of commitment, 178–82 Ethnicity. See Diversity Ethnocentrism, 340 Evaluation
bias, 354 group socialization, 102
Evidence-based management, 23–4 Existing group members’ reactions.
See Old-timers’ reactions, to newcomers
Z06_THOM4204_06_SE_SIDX.indd 451 10/24/16 9:06 PM
452 Subject Index
Experienced community of practice, 136–7
Expertise Abilene Paradox and, 183 team performance and, 114–15 technical or functional, 35
Expert learning, 24 Expert power, 71, 72 Exploitation, 227–8, 263 Exploration, 227–8, 263 Exportation, 263–4 Exposure, 99–100, 161 External leadership, 277–8 External review, 182 External roles, of team members,
278–80 “Extreme behavior,” 84
F Face culture, 331, 332 Face-saving mechanisms, 176 Face-to-face communication, 301–3 Face-to-face contact, 100, 301–3 Face-to-face meetings, IT
facilitation of, 320–1 Facilitation. See Social facilitation Facilitator-led methods,
brainstorming, 241–4 Facilitators
tips for, 368–71 trained, 241–2
Failed memory, 368 Failure
circumstances and, 18–19 decision making and, 185–6 experimenting with, 17–18 managerial error and, 17
Faith, 97 Familiarity
building, 156–7 trust based on, 99
Faultlines, 38 detecting and measuring, 257 dormant vs. activated, 257 effects on performance, 258 goals, 257–8 management of, 258–9 subgroup polarization, 257
Feedback, 126 conflict in groups and, 201–2 creativity, 240 disconnected, 304 multirater, 354, 355 negative, 180 specific, 159
Financial measures, 359 Finke’s model of creativity, 224–5
Flaming effect, 313 Flattery, 100 Flawed process, 168 Flexibility, 226, 227 Flow, 117 Fluency, 226, 227 Followers, 60 Foreign experience model, of
creative innovations, 337–8 Forming, life cycle (virtual teams),
318 Founding teams, 262 Four-factor model, of cultural
intelligence, 334 Frame-of-reference training, 265 Framing bias, 165 Free riders, 120–2 Fully shared case, 150 Functional expertise, 35 Fundamental attribution error, 57 Fusion, identity, 84 Fusion principle, 336
G Gainsharing, 352 Gatekeepers, 279 Gender. See also Diversity
conflict and, 42 group interaction and, 310–11 leadership and, 56–7 perceptions, 56–7
female, 56–7 male, 56–7
social relationships and, 297 General external leader behaviors,
278 General mental ability (GMA), 55 General Motors, 173 Generation X, 7 Genuine dissent, 177 Globalization, 7 Goals, 14
compensation and, 358 contagion, 114 definition, 27 faultlines, 237 fit, 29–30 group socialization and, 105 performance management and,
115 productivity, 128–9 reflectivity, 157 setting, 64, 115 shared, 214 stress vs. challenges, 118 study groups, 373
Group
cohesion, 94–6 entitativity, 83 homogeneity, 161 identity, 83–4 potency, 87–8, 119 role transition, 103–4 size distribution, 135 socialization, 102 training, 148 trust, 64
Group-affirmation, 274 Group decision making, 164. See
also Decision making Group decision rules, 170–2 Group mood and emotion, 88–94
creativity, 238 escalation of commitment, 182 leadership, 65
Group, nominal, 229–30 technique, 242–3
Group polarization, 186–90 Group positive affect, 90 Group satisficing rule, 171 Group-serving attributions, 86–7 Group-serving judgments, 86 Group social capital, 287–8. See
also Social capital Group socialization, 102–7 Group status, 259 Groupthinking
in corporate world, 172, 173 inconclusive conditions, 175 precipitous conditions, 175 preventative conditions, 175
Group-to-individual transfer process, 169–70
Group-verification, 85–6 Guanxi networks, 289 Guiding principles, team-based pay
structure, 358–60
H Hardship, 96 Heterogeneous teams, 296. See also
Diversity Hidden profile, 151–3 Hierarchical cultures, 330–1 Hierarchical networks, 296–7 High-learning orientation, 28 High-performance orientation, 28 High-performance strategies. See
Creativity Hindsight bias, 23 Historical examples of groupthink,
174 Hofstede’s model, 325–6 Homogeneity bias, 295
Z06_THOM4204_06_SE_SIDX.indd 452 10/24/16 9:06 PM
Subject Index 453
Homogeneous majority teams, 296 Homogeneous minority teams, 296 Homophily, 262 Honor culture, 331–3 Human capital, 282–4 Hybrid teams, 314–15
advantages, 314–15 attention and problem-solving,
316 conflict, 316–17 geographic faultlines, 317 identification, 315 leadership, 315–16 prevalence, 314
Hypocrisy attribution dynamic, 62 Hypocrisy-by-association effect, 195
I Iceberg model of culture, 325 Idealism, 225 Ideas
creative, 223–4 parallel entry of, 233
Ideation, 221 Identifiability, 123 Identity. See also Team identity
fusion, 84 group, 83–4
Identity-based subgroups, 255–6 Identity questionnaire, aspects of,
329 Idiosyncratic deals (i-deals), 288,
289 Illegitimate accountability, 194 Implementation power, 80 Implicit leadership theories (ILT)
expectations, 66 leader is worthy of influence
(LWI), 66 status, 66–8 uncertainty factors, 66–8
Implicit trust, 99 Impossibilities, 223 Improvement teams, 267 Incentive-based trust, 98 Incentive pay, 347–8 Inconclusive conditions, 175 Incremental innovation, 223–4 Incremental theories, leadership
random selection, 58 seating arrangements, 58
Independent self-orientation, 328–30
Indirect influence method, 207 Individual accountability, 193 Individual brainstorming, 229 Individual decision making
biases, 164–8 vs. group decision making,
168–72 Individual integrating roles, 267 Individualism, 326–30 Individual judgment averaging rule,
170 Individual pay, 358 Individual self, 328 Individual training, for conflict
resolution, 214 Inert knowledge problem, 24 Informal communication, loss of,
303–4 Informal modeling, loss of, 304 Information, 150, 305 Informational clones, 150 Informational diversity, 38 Informational influence, 188 Informational power, 71 Information broker, 285 Information dependence problem,
149 common information effect,
148–51 group polarization and, 187 hidden profile, 151–3 ineffective strategies, 153–8
Information distribution, 150, 153 Information elaboration theory, 136 Information load, increasing, 153 Information redundancy, 150 Information suppression, 311–12 Information technology, 5–6, 300,
304 disinhibition, 312–13 manager’s role, 6 negativity effect, 312–13 place–time model of social
interaction, 300–9 virtual team work, performance
of, 317–22 work environment, 6
Informing teams, 262–3 In-group bias, 254 In-groups, 252 Inhibition. See Social inhibition Innovation, 221
trade-offs, 159–62 turnover and, 106–7
Instant-messaging, 316 Institutional support, 271 Instrumental ties, 289 Integration, 130–1, 266–7, 343 Integrity, 194–5, 321 Intelligence
cultural, 333–7
emotional, 92 leadership and, 54–5
Interaction, place–time model, 300 Interdependence, 4. See also Task
interdependence Interdependent self-orientation,
328–30 Interests-based response, 216 Intergroup contact theory,
meta-analytic test of, 272 Intergroup empathy bias, 254 Intergroup relations, 252–4
in-group bias, 254 in-groups and out-groups, 252 social comparison, 252–3 team rivalry, 253–4 transgression credit, 254
Internal attribution, 86 Interpersonal relations, coaching
and, 50 Interpersonal skills, 35, 36, 145 Interpreters, 279 Inter-team relationships
affirmation, 273–4 apology, 272–3 assistance and help, 273 contact, 270–2 improvement of, 269–74 perspective taking, 269 superordinate identity, 269–70
Intervention, research-based, 22 Intra group deviance, 261 In vivo experience, 159 Involvement promoting, 124
J Janusian thinking, 222 Job-based pay, 353 Job design, powerlessness and, 76 Job involvement, 79 Judgment
overconfidence, 166 suspending, 156
K Knowlede era, managers role in, 6 Knowledge, 71, 115–16, 322. See
also KSAs (knowledge, skill, and ability)
adaptation, 137 augmentation, 137 brokering, 241 hiding, 136 insider vs. outsider valuation,
280–2 integrators, 6 sharing, 135, 280
Z06_THOM4204_06_SE_SIDX.indd 453 10/24/16 9:06 PM
454 Subject Index
Knowledge-based subgroups, 255, 256
Korean companies, 354 KSAs (knowledge, skill, and ability),
115
L Language barriers, 342 Leader centrality–performance
hypothesis, 291 Leader-Member Exchange (LMX),
68–70 attributes, 68–9 differential treatment, impact on,
68–70 Leaders
appointed, characteristics of, 67 behaviors, 74 elected, characteristics of, 67 nonprotoypical, 66 point of view, 52, 53 prototypical, 66 representative behavior, 64
Leadership, 18 emergence, in virtual teams, 316 group emotion and, 92–4 group socialization and, 102 groupthink and, 176 vs. management, 52 mood, 65 network and, 290–2 over-emergence, 56 paradox, 52–4 participative management, 74–81 power and, 70–4 styles, 58–65 team coaching, 52
Leader-team perceptual distance, 65 Leader worthy of influence (LWI),
66. See also Implicit leadership theories (ILT)
Learn-how, 158 Learning, 130, 131, 158–61
from change, 159 curves, 116 from failure, 159 from threat, 159
Learn-what, 158 Legally defensible appraisal systems,
357 Legitimate accountability, 194 Legitimate power, 71 Liaison roles, 266 Life cycle, virtual teams managerial
intervention, 318 Limits, setting, 182 LinkedIn, 6
Loafing. See Social loafing Lobbyist, 279 Longevity. See Team longevity Long-term study groups, tips for,
374 Loose culture, 333
M Majority conflict, 207–9 Majority opinions, 41 Majority rule, 170–2 Management
of emotions, 94 evidence-based, 23–4 group socialization and, 102 leadership vs., 52 participative, 74–81 teams, 62, 86, 266–7
Manager control, 20 Managerial error, 17 Managerial grid, 209–10
illustration, 210, 211 Manager-led teams, 12–13 Marginalization, 344 Material resources, 13, 14 McGregor method, 80 Measurement
periods, 360 team performance, 360
Median winner, 171 Mediators, 279 Medical diagnosis, hidden profiles
in, 154 Meeting facilitators
agenda, 370 closing, 371 feedback, 371 ground rules, 369–70 humor patterns, 370 next-in-line strategy technique,
369 physical environment, 368–9 relationship, 369 summary overview, 368
4P Meeting management model attendees, advice for, 364–6 dealing with problem people in,
364–6 facilitators, tips for, 368–71 key skills, 362–3 mistakes and common problems,
366–8 Meetings, 361 Meetings management. See Meeting
facilitators; 4P Meeting management model
Memory
episodic memory, 241 organizational, 233, 241 transactive, 159 transactive memory systems, 342 transactive memory systems
(TMS), 141–2, 159 Mental models, 137–8 Mere contact strategy, 270–2 Mergers, 267–9 Meritocratic values, 45 Meta-analytic test, of intergroup
contact theory, 272 Metacognitive CQ, 334, 335 Method, scientific, 185 Minority conflict, 207–9 Minority influence, 40–1 Minority viewpoint, 40 Mirroring, 100 Misattribution error, 17 Modeling, informal, 304 Monologues, avoiding, 318 Mood contagion model, 65 Moods
creativity and, 238 escalation of commitment, 182 group, 88–94 leadership, 65
Motivation, 118 Motivational brainstorming
methods, 236–8 Motivational coaching, 49–50 Motivational CQ, 334, 335 Motivation gains, 119 Motivation to acquire relationship-
threatening information (MARTI), 199
Multicultural collaborations, 340–1 Multicultural engagement, 336 Multicultural teams, 341–2 Multicultural teamwork, 337–40 Multigenerational teams, 7–8 Multi-national teams, 324 Multiplex (bundled) ties, 277 Multirater feedback, 354, 355 Multi team systems (MTS), 264–5 Multiteam systems (MTSs), 251
N Narcissism, 202 Need method, 206 Negotiator, 279 Networking, 338. See also Social
capital advice ties, 288–90 boundary spanning, 284–5 cliques, 285–7 external team’s role, 296
Z06_THOM4204_06_SE_SIDX.indd 454 10/24/16 9:06 PM
Subject Index 455
friendship ties, 288–90 human and social capital, 282–4 leadership ties, 209–92 organizational, 245–6, 280–92 strategic expansion, 292 taskwork, 276 team social capital, 287–8 teamwork, 276 three-step guide, 293 trust ties, 288–90
Network size, expansion of, 294 Neuroticism, 289 Newcomers
innovation, 106–7 learning from, 158 reactions to, 105
Next-in-line strategy technique, 369
Nominal group, 229–30 Nominal group technique (NGT),
242–3 Noncash awards, 348–9 Non-demonstrable tasks, 168 Nonoverlapping case, 149 Nonverbal behavior, 303 Normative influence, 188 Norming stage, for virtual teams,
318 Norms, 46–8, 114
changing, 48 development and enforcement,
46–7 information technology and, 307 life cycle ( virtual teams), 318 social, 310 violation of, 47–8
Not-invented-here (NIH) syndrome, 280
O Objective diversity, 39 Objective self-awareness, 321 Old-timers’ reactions, to
newcomers, 105 Online planning, 30 Operational measures, 359 Operations groups, 20 Opinion polarization, 257 Optimal team size, 33–5 Organizational context, 113 Organizational demography, 295–6 Organizational factors, leading to
powerlessness, 76 Organizational involvement, 79–81 Organizational memory, 233 Organizational myopia, 359 Organizational networks, 245–6,
280–92 Orientation
future, self-orientation, 195 high-performance, 28 pro-social, 156 relationship, 338 sexual, 302 task, 174, 258, 259 team vs. individual, 7
Originality, 226–7 Ostracism, 48 Outcome accountability, 194 Outcome interdependence, 43, 347 Out-groups, 252 Out-of-the-loop employees, 304–5 Outsourcing, 7, 31 Overbounded teams, 261–2 Overcommitment, 366–7 Overconfidence bias, 165–6 Overdelivering, 320 Overestimation of the group, 172 Overlapping membership, 266 Overstaffing bias, 34 Overuse, power, 73
P Parading teams, 263 Paradoxical frames, 222 Parallel entry of ideas, 233 Parallel suggestion involvement,
77–9 Paraverbal behavior, 303 Participation, equalization of,
310–11 Participative management, 77–81 Passion
harmonious, 65 obsessive, 65
Passive leadership, 64. See also Transactional leadership
Payment. See Compensation; Performance-based reward; Team-based pay
People. See Team selection Perceived networks, 283 Perceptual conflict, 204 Perceptual conflict composition,
204 Performance. See Team
performance Performance analysis, 131 Performance appraisals, 353–4.
See also Team performance appraisal
Performance-based reward, 307 Performance data, brainstorming,
229
Performance equation, 131–2 Performance level, 235 Performance management, 115 Performance matching, 235 Performance-prove goal orientation,
29 Performance reviews, 126 Performance standards, 128 Performance threats, 132 Performance vs. learning goals,
28–9 Performing, life cycle ( virtual
teams), 318 Personality, leadership and, 55 Personal responsibility, 125 Personal rewards, as psychological
determinant, 180 Person leadership, 59–60 Person–team fit, 96 Perspectives
controversial, 185 differing, 164 taking, 269
Perspective-taking diverse teams, 244–5 inter-team relationships, 269
Persuading, 291 Pessimism, retroactive, 87 Physical environment, planning,
305. See also Environment, learning from
Physical proximity, 96 Place–time model of social
interaction, 300–9 Planning, 113
management planning, 52 online, 30 organizational, 32 task coordination, 115 virtual meeting, 307, 308 work, 144
Pluralistic ignorance, 183 Plurality rules, 170, 171 Polarization. See Group polarization Polling, prediscussion, 154 Pooled interdependence, 43 Positive illusion bias, 124 Post-decision accountability, 193 Potential productivity, 132 Power
distance, 72 empowered teams, 246 implementation, 80 interests, rights and, 216–17 leadership and, 64, 70–4 sources of, 71–2 using, 73
Z06_THOM4204_06_SE_SIDX.indd 455 10/24/16 9:06 PM
456 Subject Index
Power-based response, 217 Power distance, 325–7, 330–1 Power heterarchies, 246 Powerlessness, 76 Practice, experienced community
of, 136–7 Pre-decision accountability, 193 Prediscussion polling, 154 Preplanning, 30 Prescription, 112 Prescriptions, 357 Prevention focus, 167 Prevention-focused people, 347 Prevention goals, 29 Priming effect, 229 Private votes, 185 Proactive scanning, 137 Probing teams, 263 Problem solving
collaborative, 115, 134 minorities vs. majorities, 170
Problem-solving teams, 146, 148 Procedural vs. distributive conflict,
205 Process accountability, 194 Process conflict, 199–200 Processes, 45, 132
group polarization, 186–90 group socialization and, 102 norms, 46 team structure, 45–6 vigilant, 164 virtual teams and, 316
Process shifts, 45 Production blocking, 234–5 Productivity, 128–9 Profit sharing, 351–2 Project determinants, 180 Promotion-focused people, 347 Promotion goals, 29 Proportional conflict, 204 Proportional conflict composition,
204 Prosocial motivation, 125 Prototypes, 324 Prototypicality, in-group, 105 Psychological contract, 60 Psychological determinants,
180–1 Psychological flow, 117 Psychological safety
microclimates, 101 in teams, 100–1
Purely virtual teams, 314
Q Questions, for additional ideas, 78
R Race. See Diversity Radical innovation, 223–4 Random member rule, 171 Random selection, of leaders, 58 Ranking scale, 253 Rapport development, 92, 100, 302,
303, 313, 320 Rational expectations model, 191–2 Rational man model, 191–2 Rational model of group decision
making, 164 Reactions to newcomers,
old-timers’, 105 Real status characteristics, 259 Reciprocal interdependence, 43, 44 Reciprocity, 290 Recognition awards
cash, 350 implementation, 349 noncash, 348, 350 techniques, 351
Referent power, 71 Reflective mental models
(C-system), 138 Reflexive mental models (X-system),
138 Reflexivity, 39
team, 157 Regulatory fit, 29 Regulatory focus, 167, 347 Reinventing, large organization,
130 Relating, 291 Relational attachment, 85 Relational focus, 328 Relational identity, 84 Relational loss, 126 Relational self, 328 Relationship conflict, 197–9 Relationship orientation, 338 Relationship strength, 290 Relative external leadership, 278 Reliability capital, 321 Reorganizations, 267 Representational gaps, 138–9, 265 Representative integrating teams,
267 Reputation, as psychological
determinant, 181 Reputation management, 297–8 Research-based intervention, 22 Resource-based subgroups, 255,
256 Resources, 132
power management, 73 Respect, 96–7
Responsibility diffusion of, 122 failure and, 185–6 personal, 125
Restructurings in global economy, 7 group emotions and, 88 job involvement, impact on, 79 QC teams, 5
Retreats, 19–20 Retroactive pessimism, 87 Reviews, 126
decision making and, 153, 182 Reward model, 180 Reward power, 71 Rewards, 13. See also Compensation
performance-related, 124–5 powerlessness and, 76 psychological determinants and,
180 Richness, 300 Rights-based response, 216–17 Risk taking, 312 Risk technique, 176 Risky shift, 186 Role assignments, cross-cut, 272 Role differentiation, 161 Role negotiation, 46, 104 Roles and responsibilities, 35–7 Role transition, 103–4 Rotating nominal group technique,
243 Rotators, learning from, 158 Routinization, 159–61 Rubult’s EVLN model of conflict
attack, 213 avoidance, 212 exit, 212 loyalty, 212 neglect, 212 voice, 212
Rules, group decision, 170–2
S Safety. See Psychological safety, in
teams Same-time, different-place
communication, 303 Sampling on the dependent
variable, 22 Scarce resource competition, 256 Schmoozing, 320 Scientific method, 185 Scouting, 291 Script, 46 Seating arrangements, 58 Second solutions, 178
Z06_THOM4204_06_SE_SIDX.indd 456 10/24/16 9:06 PM
Subject Index 457
Selective exposure, 161 Self-affirmation, 273–4 Self-concept, 328 Self-designing work teams, 15 Self-governing work teams, 15–16 Self-limiting behavior, 183 Self-managing teams, 13–14, 295 Self-managing work teams, 12–14, 97 Self-orientation, 195 Self-verification, 85–6 Separation, 343–4 Sequential interdependence, 43, 44 Service teams, 20, 27, 115 Shared goal, 4, 271–2 Shared leadership, 62, 64 Shared mental models, 319 Similarity
team composition, 262 team members, focusing, 95 trust based on, 98 value of, 41
Simplex taskwork ties, 276 Simplex teamwork ties, 276 Single-digit teams, 127 Single-loop learning, 24 Skill. See KSAs (knowledge, skill,
and ability) Skill acquisition, 354 Skill-based pay, 353 Skim effect, 306 Sleeper effect, 207 Social behavior, information
technology and, 309–13 Social capital
human capital and, 282–4 increasing, 292–8 team, 287–8
Social category diversity, 38 Social comparison, 252–3 Social determinants, 181 Social distance, 290 Social embeddedness, 99 Social exclusion, fear of, 96 Social facilitation, 116–17 Social inhibition, 116–17 Social interaction, place–time model
of, 300–9 Socialization, 101–8 Social loafing, 119, 120, 122, 123,
233 Social network, 283. See also Social
capital analyzing, 293 brokers in, 293 gender scripts in, 297 trust based on, 99
Social norms, 307, 310. See also Norms
Social striving, 122 Social support, 64, 271 Solitary brainstorming, 230 Solo status, 42–3 Solutions, second, 178 Solve, 221 Specialization, team, 277 Speedstorming, 231 Spokesperson, 59, 279 Stability, 4 “Stacking the deck,” 126 Status
competition, 260 effects on judgment and
information processing, 261 group status, 259 hierarchy, 259–60
Status differences information technology and,
309–10 minimizing, 157, 185
Status perceptions, 260, 339 Status systems, 259 Stepladder technique, 243–4 Stereotypes, 324 Storming stage, for virtual teams,
318 Strategic core, 36 Strategic network expansion, 292 Strategist, 279 Strategy norms, 14 Stress
challenge vs., 118 reduction, 148
Striving. See Social striving Strong ties, 262 Structural connectedness, 224–5 Structural determinants, 181–2 Structural holes, 284, 293 Structural solutions, for virtual
teamwork, 317–22 Structured debate, 214 Structured discussion principles,
177–8 Study groups, 81, 102
additional questions, 373–4 goals, 373 peer-feedback performance
review, 374 person–task mapping, 373 resources, 372–3 team assessment, 374 team charter, 373 thought questions, 373
tips, 374 Subgroups, 254–61
deference, 261 faultlines, 257–9 identity, resource, and knowledge,
255–6 impact on performance, 256 intra group deviance, 261 number of groups, 255 size, 255 status, 259–61
Sucker aversion, 123 Summarization, 319 Sunk costs, 182 Superordinate goals, 271 Superordinate identity, 269–70 Supervisory role, powerlessness
and, 76 Sure-thing principle, 367 Synergy, 132
T Tacit coordination, 143 Tacit knowledge, 322 Tactical teams, 8–9 Talking to the room, 137 Target performance levels, 359 Task analysis
backing-up behavior, 37–8 roles and responsibilities, 35–7 tactical teams, 8–9 task interdependence, 43–5 team size, 33 time pressure, 30–2
Task conflict, 199 contingency theory of, 211–12 divergent thinking and, 222
Task-content conflicts, 217 Task coordination, 115 Task delegation, 77 Task demands, 132 Task interdependence, 43–5
pooled, 43, 44 reciprocal, 43, 44 sequential, 43, 44
Task leadership, 54 Task-management skills, 35 Task performance, IT impact on,
313 Task process coaching, 214 Task-process conflicts, 217 Tasks, information sharing on, 155 Taskwork–teamwork network
structure factors affecting, 277 types of, 276–7
Z06_THOM4204_06_SE_SIDX.indd 457 10/24/16 9:06 PM
458 Subject Index
Taskwork vs. teamwork, 276–7 Team autonomy, 20 Team-based pay, 346
gainsharing, 352 guiding principles, 358–60 incentive pay, 347–8 individual pay vs., 358 profit sharing, 351–2 recognition awards, 348–51 types of, 345–52
Team behavior cohesion and, 94 groupthink and, 175
Team boundaries, 261–4 Team building. See Task analysis Team-building skills, developing,
22–4 Team charters, 126, 318, 373 Team coaching, 48–50 Team communication. See
Communication Team conflict. See Conflict Team context, 112–14 Team creativity. See Creativity Team culture, 112–14 Team decision making. See
Decision making Team design, 27, 113, 213–14
conflict intervention and, 213–14 processes, 43–50 team members, selecting, 32–43
Team (re)Design, 213–14 Team development, 82 Team diagnostic survey (TDS),
356–7 Team effectiveness, 291
leadership and, 62–4 Team efficacy, 87–8 Team empowerment continuum, 75 Team goals. See Goals Team identification, 202 Team identity
cohesion and, 95 common identity and common
bonds, 84 group entitativity, 83 group identity, 83–4 group-serving attributions, 86–7 identity fusion, 84
Team integration, structural solutions, 266–7
Team learning, 158–61 Team longevity, 20, 160–1 Team-member exchange (TMX),
86–7 Team members
compensation and, 358 conflict among, 18 diversity and, 42 external roles of, 278–80 fluid membership, 245 group socialization and, 102 overlapping, 266 retreats and, 19–20 rewards for, 124–5 task interdependence among, 43–5 team selection and (see Team
selection) training, 127, 144–5
Team member skills, 115 Team mental models, 137–41 Team norms. See Norms Team paradox, 53 Team performance, 112, 131
cohesion and, 94 conflict, impact on, 200–2 KSAs, 115 motivation and effort, 119 team context, 112–14
Team performance analysis, 131 Team performance appraisal, 353–4 Team performance criteria
cohesion, 129–30 integration, 130 learning, 130 productivity, 128–9
Team performance equation, 131–2, 168
Team power, 202 Team problems, diagnosis, 20–2 Team processes. See Processes Team recognition, 348–52 Team reflexivity, 157 Team related decision making, 164.
See also Decision making Team resilience, 82 Team rewards, 14 Team rivalry, 253–4 Teams. See also Information
technology; Inter-team relationships; Leadership; Meetings; Networking; Social capital
attention, requirement, 17 autonomy vs. manager control, 21 BAG scale, 88, 89 cave-and-commons flexibility,
321 characteristics of, 4–5 creative, 219–47 crew classification scale, 11 cross-team integrating, 266
defining, 4–5 emotional intelligence in, 92 failure and, 17 founding, 262 frustrating aspects in, 22 group cohesion, 94–6 group mood and emotion, 88–94 group potency and collective
efficacy, 87–8 informing, 262–3 integral model, 112 integration between, 265–6 leadership and, 18 leadership survey results, 20–2 longevity aspect, 20 managerial error and, 17 in matrix organizations, 264–7 observations about, 16–20 overbounded teams, 261–2 parading, 263 probing, 263 problems with, 17 reasons for, 5–8 respect, 96–7 role negotiation, 104 roles and responsibilities, 35–7 single-digit, 127 specialization, 277 team identity, 83–7 ties in, 290–2 trust, 96–101 types of, 8–16 underbounded, 261–2 virtual, 314–17 work authority, 12 X-teams, 263–4
Team scaling fallacy, 33 Team selection, 33
diversity, 38–43 interpersonal skills, 35 member-initiated, 33 task-management skills, 35 technical or functional expertise,
35 Team size, 20, 126
EBS and, 233 groupthink and, 176 information dependence problem
and, 153 task analysis and, 33–5
Team social capital, 287–8 Team socialization, 101–8 Team structure, 45–6 Team tasks, 13 Teamwork. See also Compensation;
Performance appraisals
Z06_THOM4204_06_SE_SIDX.indd 458 10/24/16 9:06 PM
Subject Index 459
cross-cultural, 324 frustrating aspects of, 20–2 in mergers, 267–9 in reorganizations, 267
Teamwork model, 112 cohesion, 129–30 integration, 130 KSAs, 115, 130 motivation and effort, 119 productivity, 128–9 team context, 112–14
Technical expertise, 35 Technology, for virtual teams,
309. See also Information technology
Temporal leadership, 30 Temporary, people’s behavior, 57 Theory Y, 80 360-degree program, 354
developing, 355–7 Threshold model, 139 Ties
advice, 288–90 friendship, 288–90 instrumental, 289 leadership, 209–92 trust, 288–90
Tight culture, 333 Time
decision making and, 311 pressure, 30–2
Timelines, 30–2 Too-much-talent effect, 115–16 Top management team (TMT), 80,
258, 287 Traditional teams, 314, 315
advantages, 314–15 attention and problem-solving,
316 conflict, 316–17 geographic faultlines, 317 identification, 315 leadership, 315–16 prevalence, 314
Trained facilitators, 241–2 Training, 127
case analysis, 146–7 team members, 148 work groups, 145–7
Trait theories, leadership birth order, 55 gender, 56–7 intelligence, 54–5 personality, 55
Transactional leadership, 60, 64 Transactional models of teamwork,
60–2 Transactive memory system (TMS),
141–8, 342 centralized vs. decentralized, 142 developing, 144–5 differentiated vs. integrated,
142–3 free-riding, 144 routine vs. nonroutine tasks,
143–4 tacit coordination, 143 team longevity and, 160–1 team member loss, resilience to, 144 training, 147
Transformational leadership, 60–2, 64
dark side, example, 63 Transition processes, 45 Trickle-down model, 194 Trust, 96–101, 309
asymmetry, 98 building, 156–7 congruence, 98 on face-to-face contact, 100 familarity based, 98–9 on flattery, 100 implicit, 99 incentive-based, 98 mere exposure, 99–100 mirroring, 100 and monitoring, 97–8 similarity based, 99 social networks, 99 in virtual team member, 313
Trust ties, 288–90 Tumor problem, 144–5 Tunnel vision, 167, 182 Turnover, 107
U Unanimous decision making, 172 Underbounded teams, 261–2 Undercommitting, 320 Unethical decision making, 190–5 Uneven communication, 134 Uniformity, pressures toward, 173 U.S. Census Bureau, 6
V Value diversity, 38 Values, cultural, 325–33 Valuing diversity, 41
Variable pay, 347 Vertical leadership, 62 Vicarious affect, 90 Vicarious learning, 159 Vicarious retribution, 253–4 Videoconferences, 314 Viewpoints, 178 Views, controversial, 185 Vigilant process, 164 Virtual distance, 303 Virtual handshake, 320. See also
Schmoozing Virtual meeting checklist, 308 Virtual teams, 158, 299, 314, 315
advantages, 314–15 attention and problem-solving, 316 conflict, 316–17 geographic faultlines, 317 identification, 315 integrity, 321 leadership, 315–16 objective self-awareness, 321 prevalence, 314 shared mental models and, 319 technology and, 318–19 Wageman’s model of coaching,
322 Volkswagen scandal, 173 Votes, private, 185
W Welfare-based justice, 206 Win-win situation, 99 Women
information technology and, 309 leadership and, 56 social capital and, 297 team design and, 39, 42
Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP), 92
Work groups common roles, 279 training in, 145–7
Working groups, 5 Work planning, 144 Work teams, 12–13. See also Teams
self-designing, 15 self-governing, 15–16 self-managing, 13–14, 295
Work ways, 337
X X-teams, 263–4
Z06_THOM4204_06_SE_SIDX.indd 459 10/24/16 9:06 PM
- Cover
- Title Page
- Copyright Page
- Brief Contents
- Contents
- Preface��������������
- Part 1 Building the Team�������������������������������
- Chapter 1 TYPES OF TEAMS�������������������������������
- Teams vs. Groups�����������������������
- Why Should Organizations Have Teams?�������������������������������������������
- Information Technology�����������������������������
- Competition������������������
- Globalization and Culture��������������������������������
- Multigenerational Teams������������������������������
- Task Focus�����������������
- Tactical Teams���������������������
- Problem-Solving Teams����������������������������
- Creative Teams���������������������
- Types of Team Autonomy
- Manager-Led Teams������������������������
- Self-Managing Teams��������������������������
- Self-Directing Teams���������������������������
- Self-Governing Teams���������������������������
- Observations About Teams and Teamwork��������������������������������������������
- Teams Should Be the Exception, Not the Rule��������������������������������������������������
- Managers Fault the Wrong Causes for Team Failure�������������������������������������������������������
- Teams Require Attention������������������������������
- Experimenting with Failures Leads to Better Teams��������������������������������������������������������
- Conflict is Not Always Detrimental�����������������������������������������
- Strong Leadership is Not Always Necessary for Strong Teams�����������������������������������������������������������������
- Good Teams Can Still Fail Under the Wrong Cir-cumstances���������������������������������������������������������������
- Retreats Will Not Fix All the Conflicts Between Team Members�������������������������������������������������������������������
- What Leaders Tell Us About Their Teams���������������������������������������������
- Most Common Type of Team
- Team Size����������������
- Team Autonomy versus Manager Control�������������������������������������������
- Team Longevity���������������������
- The Most Frustrating Aspect of Teamwork
- Developing Your Team-Building Skills�������������������������������������������
- Accurate Diagnosis of Team Problems
- Evidence-Based Management��������������������������������
- Expert Learning����������������������
- A Warning����������������
- Chapter Capstone�����������������������
- Chapter 2 DESIGNING THE TEAM�����������������������������������
- Team Design������������������
- Define the Goal����������������������
- Ends vs. Means���������������������
- Performance vs. Learning Goals�������������������������������������
- Promotion vs. Prevention Goals�������������������������������������
- Goal fit���������������
- Pre-Planning vs. On-line Planning����������������������������������������
- Timelines and Time Pressure
- Capacity Problems vs. Capability Problems������������������������������������������������
- Selecting Team Members�����������������������������
- Member-Initiated Team Selection��������������������������������������
- Optimal Team Size
- Skills, Talents, and Abilities�������������������������������������
- Roles and Responsibilities���������������������������������
- Diversity����������������
- Processes: How to Work Together��������������������������������������
- Task vs. Outcome Interdependence���������������������������������������
- Transition and Action Processes��������������������������������������
- Structure����������������
- Norms������������
- Team Coaching��������������������
- Chapter Capstone�����������������������
- Chapter 3 LEADING TEAMS������������������������������
- Leadership Versus Management�����������������������������������
- The Leadership Paradox�����������������������������
- Leaders and the Nature–Nurture Debate��������������������������������������������
- Trait Theories of Leadership�����������������������������������
- Incremental Theories of Leadership�����������������������������������������
- Leadership Styles������������������������
- Task Versus Person Leadership������������������������������������
- Transactional Versus Transformational Leadership
- Autocratic Versus Democratic Leadership
- Leader Mood������������������
- Expectations of Leaders������������������������������
- Implicit Leadership Theories�����������������������������������
- Prototypicality����������������������
- Status & Uncertainty���������������������������
- Leader–Member Exchange�����������������������������
- Attributes that Influence Differential Treatment�������������������������������������������������������
- Advantages of Differential Treatment�������������������������������������������
- Disadvantages of Differential Treatment����������������������������������������������
- Power������������
- Sources of Power�����������������������
- Power Distance���������������������
- Using Power������������������
- Effects of Using Power�����������������������������
- Participative Management�������������������������������
- Task Delegation����������������������
- Parallel Suggestion Involvement��������������������������������������
- Job Involvement����������������������
- Organizational Involvement���������������������������������
- Chapter Capstone�����������������������
- Chapter 4 TEAM COHESION AND TRUST����������������������������������������
- Team Identity��������������������
- Group Entitativity�������������������������
- Group Identity���������������������
- Identity Fusion����������������������
- Common Identity and Common Bond Groups���������������������������������������������
- Relational and Collective Identity�����������������������������������������
- Self-verification vs. Group-verification�����������������������������������������������
- Team-Member Exchange���������������������������
- Group-serving Attributions���������������������������������
- Group Potency and Collective Efficacy��������������������������������������������
- Team Efficacy and Performance������������������������������������
- Group Mood and Emotion�����������������������������
- Group Affect and Performance�����������������������������������
- Emotional Contagion��������������������������
- Behavioral Entrainment�����������������������������
- Emotional Nonconformity������������������������������
- Emotional Intelligence�����������������������������
- Leadership and Group Emotion�����������������������������������
- Group Cohesion���������������������
- Cohesion and Team Behavior���������������������������������
- Cohesion and Performance�������������������������������
- Building Cohesion in Groups����������������������������������
- Fear of Social Exclusion�������������������������������
- Group Trust������������������
- Trust vs. Respect������������������������
- Trust & Monitoring�������������������������
- Trust Congruence�����������������������
- Propensity to Trust��������������������������
- Types of Trust
- Repairing Broken Trust�����������������������������
- Psychological Safety���������������������������
- Group Socialization & Turnover�������������������������������������
- Group Socialization��������������������������
- Phases of Group Socialization������������������������������������
- Old-timers’ Reactions to Newcomers�����������������������������������������
- Deviant Opinions�����������������������
- Newcomer Innovation��������������������������
- Turnover and Reorganizations�����������������������������������
- Chapter Capstone�����������������������
- Part 2 Team Performance������������������������������
- Chapter 5 PERFORMANCE AND PRODUCTIVITY���������������������������������������������
- An Integrated Model of Team Performance
- Team Context�������������������
- Organizational Context�����������������������������
- Team Design������������������
- Team Culture�������������������
- Essential Conditions for Successful Team Performance
- Expertise����������������
- Engagement�����������������
- Execution����������������
- Performance Criteria���������������������������
- Productivity�������������������
- Cohesion���������������
- Learning���������������
- Integration������������������
- Team Performance Equation��������������������������������
- Chapter Capstone�����������������������
- Chapter 6 Team Communication and Collective Intelligence
- Collaboration��������������������
- Uneven Communication���������������������������
- Knowledge Specialization�������������������������������
- Knowledge Sharing and Knowledge Hiding���������������������������������������������
- Transforming Knowledge into Solutions��������������������������������������������
- Experienced Community of Practice����������������������������������������
- Adaptive Capacity������������������������
- Monitoring and Talking to the Room�����������������������������������������
- Team Mental Models�������������������������
- Reflective vs. Reflexive Mental Models���������������������������������������������
- Representational Gaps����������������������������
- Accuracy���������������
- Correspondence���������������������
- Transactive Memory Systems���������������������������������
- Centralized vs. Decentralized TMS
- Differentiated vs. Integrated TMS
- Tacit Coordination�������������������������
- Routine vs. Nonroutine Tasks�����������������������������������
- Resilience to Team Member Loss�������������������������������������
- Reaction to Free-Riding������������������������������
- Developing a TMS�����������������������
- Common Information Effect��������������������������������
- Hidden Profile���������������������
- Ineffective Strategies�����������������������������
- Effective Interventions������������������������������
- Team Learning��������������������
- Environment������������������
- Newcomers and Rotators�����������������������������
- Vicarious vs. In Vivo Experience���������������������������������������
- Threat, Change, and Failure����������������������������������
- After-Action Review (AAR)��������������������������������
- Routinization vs. Innovation Trade-Offs����������������������������������������������
- Chapter Capstone�����������������������
- Chapter 7 TEAM DECISION MAKING�������������������������������������
- Team Decision Making���������������������������
- Individual Decision-Making Biases����������������������������������������
- Framing Bias�������������������
- Overconfidence���������������������
- Confirmation Bias������������������������
- Decision Fatigue�����������������������
- Individual Versus Group Decision Making����������������������������������������������
- Demonstrable versus Non-Demonstrable Tasks�������������������������������������������������
- Groups Out-Perform Individuals�������������������������������������
- Group to Individual ?Transfer������������������������������������
- Minorities versus Majorities�����������������������������������
- Group Decision Rules���������������������������
- Refusal to Make Decisions��������������������������������
- Groupthink�����������������
- Learning from History����������������������������
- Reducing Groupthink��������������������������
- Escalation of Commitment�������������������������������
- Project Determinants���������������������������
- Psychological Determinants���������������������������������
- Social Determinants��������������������������
- Structural Determinants������������������������������
- Minimizing Escalation of Commitment to a Losing Course of Action�����������������������������������������������������������������������
- Abilene Paradox����������������������
- How to Avoid the Abilene Paradox���������������������������������������
- Group Polarization�������������������������
- The Need to be Right���������������������������
- The Need to be Liked���������������������������
- Conformity Pressure��������������������������
- Unethical Decision Making��������������������������������
- Rational Expectations Model����������������������������������
- False Consensus����������������������
- Vicarious Licensing��������������������������
- Desensitization����������������������
- Chapter Capstone�����������������������
- Chapter 8 MANAGING TEAM CONFLICT���������������������������������������
- Relationship, Task & Process Conflict��������������������������������������������
- Relationship Conflict����������������������������
- Task Conflict��������������������
- Process Conflict�����������������������
- Impact on Performance����������������������������
- Personality & Conflict�����������������������������
- Team Identification��������������������������
- Power & Conflict�����������������������
- Organizational Climate and Conflict������������������������������������������
- Global Culture and Conflict����������������������������������
- Types of Conflict������������������������
- Proportional and Perceptual Conflict�������������������������������������������
- Conflict States vs. Conflict Processes���������������������������������������������
- Conflict Contagion�������������������������
- Distributive vs. Procedural Conflict�������������������������������������������
- Equity, Equality and Need��������������������������������
- Minority and Majority Conflict�������������������������������������
- Work–Family Conflict���������������������������
- Organizational Culture Conflict��������������������������������������
- Conflict Management��������������������������
- Conflict Modes���������������������
- Contingency Theory of Task Conflict and Performance in Teams
- Investment Model of Conflict�����������������������������������
- Wageman and Donnenfeld’s Conflict Intervention Model�����������������������������������������������������������
- Interests, Rights, and Power Model of Disputing������������������������������������������������������
- Chapter Capstone�����������������������
- Chapter 9 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN TEAMS���������������������������������������������������
- Nature vs. Nurture�������������������������
- Creativity Versus Innovation�����������������������������������
- Convergent versus Divergent? Thinking��������������������������������������������
- Radical versus Incremental Innovation��������������������������������������������
- Creative Realism�����������������������
- Fluency, Flexibility, and Originality��������������������������������������������
- Exploration versus Exploitation��������������������������������������
- Brainstorming Versus Brainwriting����������������������������������������
- Brainstorming��������������������
- Brainstorming versus Nominal Group�����������������������������������������
- Brainwriting�������������������
- Speedstorming��������������������
- Electronic Brainstorming�������������������������������
- Threats to Team Creativity
- Social Loafing���������������������
- Conformity�����������������
- Production Blocking��������������������������
- Performance Matching���������������������������
- What Goes on During a Typical Group Brainstorming Session?�����������������������������������������������������������������
- Best Practices for Enhancing Team Creativity���������������������������������������������������
- Motivational Methods���������������������������
- Cognitive Methods������������������������
- Facilitator-Led Methods������������������������������
- Leader and Organizational Methods����������������������������������������
- Chapter Capstone�����������������������
- Part 3 Teams in Organizations������������������������������������
- Chapter 10 SUBGROUPS AND MULTI-TEAMS�������������������������������������������
- Intergroup Relations���������������������������
- In-Groups and Out-Groups�������������������������������
- Social Comparison������������������������
- Team Rivalry�������������������
- In-group Bias��������������������
- Transgression Credit���������������������������
- Subgroups����������������
- Size�����������
- Identity, Resource, and Knowledge Subgroups��������������������������������������������������
- Number of Groups�����������������������
- Impact on Performance����������������������������
- Faultlines�����������������
- Status�������������
- Deference����������������
- Intragroup Deviance��������������������������
- Team Boundaries����������������������
- Underbounded versus Overbounded Teams��������������������������������������������
- Founding Teams���������������������
- Informing, Parading, and Probing Teams���������������������������������������������
- X-Teams��������������
- Teams in Matrix Organizations������������������������������������
- Cross-functional Teams�����������������������������
- Multi-team Systems�������������������������
- Integration Between Teams��������������������������������
- Integration Across Multiple Teams and Components of a Business Unit
- Teamwork in Reorganizations & Mergers��������������������������������������������
- Reorganizations����������������������
- Mergers��������������
- Improving Interteam Relationships����������������������������������������
- Perspective Taking�������������������������
- Superordinate Identity�����������������������������
- Contact��������������
- Apology��������������
- Assistance and Help��������������������������
- Affirmation������������������
- Chapter Capstone�����������������������
- Chapter 11 TEAM NETWORKING AND SOCIAL CAPITAL����������������������������������������������������
- Taskwork and Teamwork����������������������������
- Taskwork vs. Teamwork����������������������������
- Taskwork and Teamwork Network Structures�����������������������������������������������
- Factors that Affect Networks�����������������������������������
- External Leadership��������������������������
- General vs. Differential�������������������������������
- External Roles of ?Team Members��������������������������������������
- Organizational Networks������������������������������
- Sharing Knowledge������������������������
- Insider vs. Outsider Knowledge Valuation�����������������������������������������������
- Human Capital and Social Capital���������������������������������������
- Boundary Spanning������������������������
- Boundary Loosening Versus Boundary Tightening����������������������������������������������������
- Cliques Versus Entrepreneur Networks�������������������������������������������
- Team Social Capital��������������������������
- Friendship, Trust, and Advice Ties�����������������������������������������
- Leadership Ties����������������������
- Increasing your Social Capital�������������������������������������
- Analyze your Social Network����������������������������������
- Identify Structural Holes��������������������������������
- Expand the Size of the Network�������������������������������������
- Diversify Networks�������������������������
- Build Hierarchical Networks����������������������������������
- Recognize Gender Scripts in Networks�������������������������������������������
- Reputation Management����������������������������
- Chapter Capstone�����������������������
- Chapter 12 VIRTUAL TEAMWORK����������������������������������
- Place–Time Model of Social Interaction���������������������������������������������
- Face-to-Face Communication���������������������������������
- Same Time, Different Place���������������������������������
- Different Time, Same Place���������������������������������
- Different Place, Different Time��������������������������������������
- Information Technology and Social Behavior�������������������������������������������������
- Reduced Status Differences: The Weak Get Strong Effect�������������������������������������������������������������
- Equalization of Participation������������������������������������
- Increased Time to Make Decisions
- Information Suppression������������������������������
- Risk Taking������������������
- Disinhibition and the Negativity Effect����������������������������������������������
- Task Performance and Decision Quality��������������������������������������������
- Trust and Rapport������������������������
- Virtual, Hybrid, and Traditional Teams���������������������������������������������
- Prevalence�����������������
- Advantages�����������������
- Identification���������������������
- Leadership�����������������
- Attention and Problem-Solving������������������������������������
- Conflict���������������
- Geographic Faultlines����������������������������
- Enhancing Virtual Teamwork
- Team Formation���������������������
- Technology�����������������
- Shared Mental Models���������������������������
- Boundary Objects�����������������������
- Initial Face-to-Face Experience��������������������������������������
- Objective Self-Awareness�������������������������������
- Integrity����������������
- Cave and Commons Flexibility�����������������������������������
- Coaching the Virtual Team��������������������������������
- Chapter Capstone�����������������������
- Chapter 13 MULTICULTURAL TEAMS�������������������������������������
- Challenges of Cross-Cultural Teamwork��������������������������������������������
- Multinational Teams��������������������������
- Stereotypes versus Prototypes������������������������������������
- Cultural Values����������������������
- Defining Culture�����������������������
- Iceberg Model��������������������
- Hofstede’s Model�����������������������
- Dignity, Face and Honor Cultures���������������������������������������
- Tight versus Loose Cultures����������������������������������
- Cultural Intelligence����������������������������
- CQ Model���������������
- Cultural Metacognition�����������������������������
- Fusion Teamwork����������������������
- Multicultural Engagement�������������������������������
- Work Ways����������������
- Multicultural Teamwork�����������������������������
- Creative Innovation��������������������������
- Relationship Orientation�������������������������������
- Networks���������������
- Egalitarian Values�������������������������
- Status Perceptions�������������������������
- Emotional Display������������������������
- Multicultural Collaboration����������������������������������
- Ethnocentrism��������������������
- Cultural Relativism��������������������������
- Managing Multicultural Teams�����������������������������������
- Change and Adaptation����������������������������
- Transactive Memory Systems���������������������������������
- Language Barriers������������������������
- Cultural Change����������������������
- Integration������������������
- Assimilation�������������������
- Separation�����������������
- Marginalization����������������������
- Chapter Capstone�����������������������
- Appendix 1 Rewarding Teamwork������������������������������������
- Appendix 2 Managing Meetings�����������������������������������
- Appendix 3 Creating Effective Study Groups�������������������������������������������������
- References�����������������
- Name and Author Index����������������������������
- Subject Index��������������������
-
- 2018-03-24T10:32:24+0000
- Preflight Ticket Signature
