Macro Flashcards
• Action team: highly skilled specialist teams cooperating in brief performance events that require improvisation in unpredictable circumstances• Adaptive expertise - capability to modify knowledge, skills,and other characteristics acquired during training to effectively meet novel, difficult, and complex situations• 3 types of learning outcomes: cognitive (knowledge),behavioral (skills), and affective and motivational (affect)• Undergrads, flight simulator task, team consists of 1 pilot andgunner attacking enemy targets, 3 phases: role and team training, training evaluation, transfer of training mission• Level of team task mastery at end of training inferior toindividual task mastery, resulting in lower team-level relationships btw knowledge and skill measures and team adaptive performance• Self-efficacy belief increase likely to improve individual motivation and performance (team level too)
Chen et al. (2005)
Two main approaches• Group dynamics (forming, storming, norming, and performing; Tuckman, 1965)• Phases in group problem solving or decision development (orientation, evaluation, and control; Bales and Strodtbeck, 1951)• Limitations:o Under these paradigms, an environment may constrain the system’s ability to develop, but it cannot alter the developmental stages or their sequence (Not always linear)o Used grounded theory to develop idea of punctuated equilibrium• 8 groups/qualitative work• Half-way point was criticalo Transition phase (at mid point) doesn’t necessarily mean success- but needs to happeno First meeting (estab. direction of team) and midpoint were ultimately most important.• Groups exhibited distinctive approaches, maintained those approaches through phase 1, or about half the time. Groups then underwent major transition, dropping old patterns and creating new ones, shaping a new approach carried out through phase 2 and completion.• Patterns of long periods of inertia, punctuated by concentrated, revolutionary periods of quantum change.
Gersick 1988punctuated equilibrium
• To explore the differential impact of surface (gender, ethnicity) vs. deep level (time urgency, extraversion) diversity and 2 moderators (team orientation and processes) on conflict over time• Undergrad teams in quality management courses working on project• Team orientation and team processes were found to moderate the relationships btw diversity and conflict• ↑team orientation lessened effect of gender diversity on rel. conflict.• Team processes weakened the negative effects of deep-level diversity (time urgency) on relationship conflict• Time 2 showed an absence of significant conflict effects for surface- and deep-level diversity → students may have found ways to cope with conflict or just had less group interaction• Contribution: examines surface- and deep-level diversity in the same study; longitudinal design
Mohammed & Angell (2004)
• Temporal issues in teams – a review• Longitudinal approach• Team temporal constructs (collective efficacy, team mental model, process conflict)• Team temporal constructs over time (socialization and group development)• Team temporal environment: deadlines, time pressure, org. temporal context, cultural temporal context• An integrated conceptualization of the role of time in team functioning should address individual level, team level, and contextual influences as well as their combined effects• Using methods other than longitudinal more feasible and adds to empirical base
Mohammed et al. (2007)temporal issues
• Meta-analysis: examines the relationship between team composition of Big 5 personality variables and team performanceo Mean levels of personality variables in teams• Significant positive effect sizes for level of agreeableness (0.24) and conscientiousness (0.20) and team performance; non-significant effect sizes for extraversion (0.04), emotional stability (0.04), and openness (0.03)• Moderator: professional vs. student teams• Effect sizes for mean level of personality and variability in personality greater for professional teams than student teams
Peeters et al (2006)
• A lab experiment examining the emotional contagion in groups: • Used a 2 (positive vs. negative emotions) by 2 (high energy vs. low energy levels) design (using a confederate as the source of emotion contagion• (1) emotional contagion occurred at both individual and group level (using both self-report as well as outside coders’ ratings) and (2) positive emotional contagion group members experienced improved cooperation, decreased conflict, and increased perceived task performance. • No difference in degree of contagion was found between positive vs. negation emotions or high vs. low energy.
Barsade (2002)
o Meta-analysis - cohesion and performanceo Cohesion related more to performance behaviors than performance outcomeso Cohesion more related to efficiency than effectivenesso Three components of cohesion each correlate with performance• Interpersonal attraction• Group pride• Task commitmento As work flow increased or got more interdependent, the cohesion → performance relationship got stronger.
Beal et al (2003)
• Adaptation is important for team effectiveness as they are presented with environment change and must change themselves; little is known about the concept• Team adaptation: A change in team performance, in response to a salient cue or cue stream, leading to a functional outcome for the entire team (entails a manifest behavior)• Adaptive cycle: Phase 1 (Situation assessment – emergent cognitive states) → Phase 2 (Emergent states – plan formulation) → Phase 3 (Emergent states – plan execution) → Team learning • Task-related leadership behaviors - facilitating task requirements, operating procedures and task information (transactional)• Person-focused leadership behaviors – emphasizing personal relationships (transformational)• Task related: positively related to effectiveness and productivity• Person focused: positively related to effectiveness, productivity, and learning (stronger effects that task-related)• Boundary spanning and empowerment explained large amount of variance in team effectiveness• Leadership behaviors (task and person-focused) does play a role in team performance outcomes
Burke et al (2006) meta
• Changes in workers, work and organizations• Psychological Contract- temporary and flexible work patterns• Globalization- interdependence across locations• Technology- information economy• E-Commerce- prices will go down• Demographics & cultural diversity- female, minority• Finding talent- people shortage- use the internet!• Staffing methods- work samples, GMA, structured interview, peer ratings, job knowledge tests• Retaining talent- focus on the ones you want• Orgs in the 21st century• Flatter, more intricately woven, mass customization, criticality of intellectual capitol, importance of globalization, importance of speed, virtual and module orgs., changing demographics
Cascio (2003)
• Statistical importance of means/averages as group descriptive (operationalization of cog. abil.)• Additive – sum of the parts• Disjunctive – best performer• Conjunctive – worst performer• Compensatory – interdependent (each indiv. input can contribute to grp. decision)• The only really important statistic is the mean
Day et al (2004) stats/teams
• Multiteam systems (MTS) - two or more teams that interface directly and interdependently in response to environmental contingencies toward the accomplishment of collective goals• MTS functional leadership, intra- and interteam coordination process, and team and MTS performance were measured in undergrad MTSs• Training MTS leaders in strategy development and coordinating behavior targeted at facilitating MTS-level process generally resulted in better MTS functional leadership and interteam coordination• MTS leader behavior and interteam coordination process positively predicted MTS performanceo Training influenced MTS leadership, which influenced interteam coordination; MTS leadership influenced interteam coordination and, in turn, MTS performance• Distinguished and measured team and interteam coordination• Leader teams can improve the functioning of the system by developing plans that specify interunit cooperation during transition phases and working to facilitate coordination during action phases
DeChurch & Marks (2006)
• Introduces a framework for assessing and promoting methodological fit as an overarching criterion for ensuring quality field research• Problems created poor fit: new measures for new constructs lacking credibility, qualitative work lacking statistical support for hypotheses, researchers look for any sig. relationship they can find, because constructs aren’t clearly defined, relationships are more attributable to the measures than to the phenomena under study• Creating fit involves feedback and modification many times• Educating new field researchers is important• Authors don’t advocate for any one method (many are explained), but clarify which might be useful, and when• Fit is achieved by logical pairing between methods and the state of theory development
Edmondson & McManus (2007)
• Team psychological safety is associated with learning behavior, but team efficacy is not, when controlling for team psychological safety. • Team psychological safety is associated with learning behavior, but team efficacy is not, when controlling for team psychological safety. As predicted, learning behavior mediates between team psychological safety and team performance. • As predicted, learning behavior mediates between team psychological safety and team performance.• Psychological safety -> team learning beh. -> team. Perf.• PS is impt. factor in whether or not errors get reported• Questions about what other outcomes are affected by PS>
Edmondson (1999)
• Leader actions -> psyc. safety & team stability -> collective learning -> implementation outcomes• leader actions impt. to frame the tech. implementation• psych. Safety impt. enabling beh. Change in hierarchical structure• team stability NOT predict collective learning
Edmondson et al (2001)
• Meta-analysis of team efficacy (normally tested as individual or collective construct), potency (normally tested as a collective construct), and performance• Team efficacy pos. related to perf.• Potency pos. related to perf.• Relationship stronger @ team level than individual• Team efficacy - perf. relationship depends on environment (ex. interdependence - includes tasks, outcomes, goals, and rewards) CONCLUSIONS: 1. Important to cnosider levels of analysis; important to consider contextual var. on team performance. IMPLICATIONS: 1. Team leaders play a key role in influencing members’ perceptions of efficacy of others and team, 2. Efficacy and potency influence conflict mgmt and interpretations of ambiguous situations that affect decision-makeup
Gulley et al (2001)
3 leadership decisions:• What type of team to create• How to structure the team• How and when to actively coach the teamTeam leader importance is based on when they can make a differenceLeading after identifying team/contextual constraints:• Elaborating the shell• Exercise influence upwards and laterallyCreate a real team with direction, structure, and supportCoaching: increases effort, performance strategy, appropriate KSAs
Hackman & Wageman (2005)
• Collected longitudinal data from student projects • Over time, the effects of surface diversity decreased while the effects of deep diversity increased.o Surface variables: Race, Sex, Age, and Marital Statuso Deep level variables: Personality, Values, Attitudes, Beliefs• Perceived surface and deep diversity negatively related to team social integration (or team liking and feelings about team performance), higher social integration led to better grades• Demographic diversity seems to play a less significant role than previously thought
Harrison et al (2001)
• Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion• Found that surface level differences were less important and deep level differences were more important for groups that had interacted more often• Demographic factors are poor substitute for deeper level information people need to make accurate judgments about similarity of attitudes – time merely allows for more information to be conveyed
Harrison et al. 1998
• Use of teams in orgs has increased • This article provides HR practitioners with ideas on how to improve team selection, training, and task design• Approaches to finding person-team fit [team COMPOSITION]• Matching people to teams and roles (KSAs, mix of members)• Teamwork KSAs and team training important [team TRAINING]• Team task design contingent on multiple factors type of task, level of internal and external fit).• This article is full of non-intuitive and counterintuitive research examples on how to implement teams most effectively• The message is to rely on the results of this research and engage in more research on teams
Hollenbeck et al. (2004)
• Meso paradigm: Concerns the simultaneous study of at least two levels of analysis wherein (a) one or more levels concern individual or group behavioral processes or variables, (b) one or more levels concern organizational processes or variables, and (c) the processes by which the levels of analysis are related are articulated in the form of bridging or linking propositions• Macro theory: Asserts that organizational form, technology, and environment attributes are dominant causes of org actions and perf• Micro theory: Concerns the behavior and attributes of individuals and small groups in orgs• Isomorphism – the degree to which the constituent components of a phenomenon and the relationships among the components are similar across levels of analysis• Need meso research: several phenomena that occur only in orgs; phenomena may vary across hierarchical echelons and levels of analysis; qualitatively diff from micro/macro single level phenomena
House et al (1995)
• I-M-O-I (input, mediates, output, input) NEW FRAMEWORKo Forming Stage: IM phase- trusting (affective), planning (behavioral), structuring (cog)o Functioning Stage: MO phase- bonding (affective), adapting (behavioral), learning (cog)o Finishing Stage: OI phase – little empirical work• Teams are complex, adaptive, dynamic systems, and they are embedded in organizations and contexts and performing tasks over time• Methodological and computational developments are appearing to handle more effectively the complexities of multilevel problems• Research in this area are often more problem-driven than theory-driven
Ilgen et al. (2005)IMOI
• Teams: a) 2 or more individuals b) interact socially c) perform organizationally relevant tasks d) exhibit interdependencies e) 1 or more common goals f) embedded in organizational context-boundaries, constraints, influences exchanges with other units in broader entity• 4 critical issues: centrality of task interdependence, contextual creation and constraints, multilevel influence, temporal dynamics• Understanding team composition issues can influence selection, firing, training, and engaging adjunct workers• Appropriate team composition depends on knowing personality of current team members and task characteristics• Team bridge the gap between individual and organizational system as a whole – must attend to organizational context, team task, levels and time
Kozlowski & Bell (2003)
o 50 Year Review!o Team defined: 2 or more people who socially interact, possess one or more common goals, perform organizationally relevant tasks, exhibit interdependence, have different roles and responsibilities and embedded in a system with boundaries, context and environmento Topics covered:• Team processes, emergent states, and effectiveness• TMM, transactive memory/learning• Efficacy/potency, affect/mood/emotion• Conflict, design (normative vs. structured)• Training/development• Leadership•2 emerging reserach needs -> virtual teams, multicultural teams
Kozlowski & Ilgen 2006
• To deepen understanding of the cognitive underpinnings of the way time and deadlines are perceived by individuals and groups as they attempt to schedule activities in clock time• Study 1: explains how externally imposed group deadlines (environmental stimulus) that deviate from dominant cultural rhythms for clock time cause difficulties with group members interpreting the deadlines and affect subsequent pacing and, ultimately, group output (group level of analysis)• In groups with atypical deadlines: deadline more likely to be misheard, stored in and retrieved from memory incorrectly, and more likely to create cognitive difficulties in pacing for the group, greater errors in calculating time remaining until deadline • Atypical starting times got to action phase later and performed more poorly• Study 2: Generalized findings to the individual level of analysis• Transitions are dynamic and emergent, rather than statically defined at the beginning of tasks
LaBianca et al. (2005)
