Lecture 8 Flashcards
(26 cards)
decentralization & teams
greater integration of unique perspectives
member proactivity
= greater performance
Lanaj
decentralization & units
lacks points of coordination (coordination failures)
= harmful to performance
Lanaj
overall effect of decentralization on performance
r = -.14
disjunctive
low interdependence
team perf disproportionately dependent on strongest
don’t often need teams vs. individuals working alone
not a lot of role-specialization
Ex. Academic league/quiz bowl
Ex. all-star CEO
additive
advantages of scale & aggregation of effort
when all team members perform same job and group perf is a sum of team members’ perf
teams sometimes useful/necessary, but requires little “teamwork”
Ex. getting a car out of the mud, tug-of-war
Ex. sales team (each individual responsible for a region, dept’s national success depends on aggregation)
conjunctive
co-action, heavy role specialization
team perf disproportionately dependent on weakest
need teams; impossible to do alone
Ex. orchestra
size & team perf
as team size ↑, coordination costs ↑, coordination ↓, and motivation ↓
decr in team motivation w/ incr in team size
team size increases diffusion of responsibility (b = .57) and attribution of blame (Alnuaimi, b = .59)
it is better for team coordination for members to work together for longer
= more stability = better perf
73% of incidents occur on flight crew’s first day together
44% of incidents occur on flight crews’ first flight (Hackman)
why does team stability help coordination?
transactive memory
transactive memory
= collective mind (segmented but holistic unit), knowing who knows what
+ relationship b/w transactive memory & client-related perf (Lewis, b = .37)
team transactive memory & individual perf
great for individual performance
Groysberg; analysts know how to find information/who to get it from
how to fix stagnation w/ teams
brokers! = external knowledge links, constant influx of knowledge thru fixed channels
helps fight not-invented-here syndrome (resistance to ideas coming from outside the team)
get fresh perspectives via external knowledge rather than getting new team members
diffusion of responsibility
more people in team = opportunity for de-individuation (when you no longer identify w/collective, you feel like you aren’t contributing as much)
b=.57, Alnuaimi
attribution of blame
we focus on people rather than context/random chance for when things go wrong; having a larger team = more potential people to blame
b=.59, Alnuaimi
dyads & team size
dyads incr exponentially w/ team size; ↑team size = harder to manage relationships (↑ coord costs)
(team = collective of dyadic interactions operating in unified fashion)
relationship conflict
personal, non-work
almost always bad
deWit, r = -.16
status conflict
hierarchical, status jockeying (over decision-making rights, dominance)
almost always bad
Bendersky & Hays say its the worst
process conflict
over roles and responsibilities
almost always bad
deWit, r = -.15
task conflict
work-based, non-personal
good in moderation
Ex. deciding which idea is best
high performing teams and timing of conflict
low relationship conflict throughout
low task conflict @beg, then rises as team has to make decisions
managing relational conflict
embracing multi-culturalism
incr. in appreciation of others’ differences
managing status conflict
justify hierarchy
managing process conflict
subordination - helping ppl recognize their work is important/essential
