Lecture 6 Flashcards
(25 cards)
phases that teams work through
- idea generation (generating as many high-quality alternatives as possible)
- sharing knowledge and recombining ideas
- decision making (deciding best alternatives/solutions)
what do you need to do to realize the potential of teams?
guard against biases inherent in each phase of team work
diversity & idea generation
POTENTIALLY useful…
-divergence in knowledge, skill, and ability = greater blending potential
-different interpretations of the same input = greater blending potential (think Fed match)
team brainstorming
produces lower quantity and quality of ideas (Mullen)
bc of production blocking and evaluation apprehension
brainwriting
Briggs
individuals generate ideas independently (prevents production blocking)
submit ideas anonymously (prevents evaluation apprehension)
subgroups
useful middle ground between isolated individuals and teams for recombining ideas
knowledge-based or identity-based
knowledge-based subgroups
people who overlap on traits that relate to knowledge sharing (ex. reporting channel)
identity-based subgroups
people who overlap on traits that relate to social categories (ex. gender)
configuration conundrum
optimal configurations to recombine ideas = more knowledge-based subgroups is better (B=.166) & equal sized knowledge-based subgroups are better (B =.570)
Carton
equal sized subgroups (+ & -)
knowledge = optimal for recombining ideas
identity = bad esp when there are 2 subgroups (B= -.305); people more likely to exhibit territorialism
common knowledge effect
groups favor knowledge shared by majority of members
Stasser and Titus; University students and candidates for student gov
why do people dissent only occasionally?
hypotheses
1. conformity = extreme anxiety and fear of becoming ostracized by majority if one dissents
Asch
- balancing competing values = when values are in conflict, people can balance them across time…when people balance truth vs solidarity, solidarity often wins
Hodges
timing of the move to group interaction
if you move to group interaction earlier than needed, there’s a tradeoff b/w efficiency and effectiveness
homogeneity and solidarity = efficient, but hurts effectiveness
Damanpour: hierarchy can exacerbate tradeoff b/w efficiency and effectiveness (breeds more conformity; stifles creativity)
how do you eliminate the tradeoff b/w efficiency and effectiveness?
- possible by averaging peoples’ independent judgements for certain decisions
- if deliberation is necessary, use devil’s advocacy and dialectic inquiry
why use devil’s advocacy and dialectic inquiry?
to force ppl to make their assumptions explicit and pre-empt conformity
Schwenk:
devil’s advocacy > experts deliberating w/o structure (cohen’s d = .28)
dialectic inquiry > experts deliberating w/o structure (cohen’s d = .16)
groysberg’s chasing stars
one of the best uses of teams is not for team work, but for individual thriving
the info, knowledge, and capabilities that allow a star to thrive are embedded in his/her team
liftouts = plucking teams from other firms, rather than just individuals
pitfalls during each phase in team decision making
brainstorming: do not favor teams over individuals
watch out for harmful patterns of subgrouping
beware of obstacles that undermine decision effectiveness
team vs group
team is a type of group (cluster of actors that have some things in common); also has a common purpose/goal with a greater amount of interdependence
relationship b/w quantity and quality of ideas
quantity predicts quality (r = .82, Diehl and Strobe)
as you come up with more ideas, you become more creative and have better ones
production blocking
you’re thinking about other people’s ideas, and not your own
dialectic inquiry
encouraging people to accumulate info that competes with their specific stance
teams are being used in ___ of ____ companies
80% of fortune 1000 companies
people believe teams outperform individuals
Paulus, 1993
romance of teams
Allen & Hecht, 2004
