Week 6 Student Led Readings Flashcards
(8 cards)
Author: Shea & Richard
Year: 1987
Focuses on the factors that contribute to the effectiveness of groups in organizational settings. It addresses key considerations that influence how well groups perform and achieve their objectives.
The authors explore how group effectiveness is not solely dependent on individual talents but also on how well group members collaborate and utilize resources. Several dimensions impacting group performance are discussed, including:
Task clarity and relevance: The importance of having clear goals and an understanding of how these goals align with the organization’s objectives.
Group composition: How the mix of skills, personalities, and roles within a group can significantly affect outcomes.
Leadership and decision-making: The role of leadership in fostering collaboration and ensuring that the group stays focused on its tasks.
External support and resources: The need for groups to have access to the necessary resources and external support to be effective.
Author: Romzek & Dubnick
Year: 1987
The article examines the concept of accountability in public sector organizations using the space shuttle Challenger disaster as a case study.
Romzek and Dubnick explore different dimensions of accountability, including:
Hierarchical accountability: Accountability through direct reporting structures within an organization.
Legal accountability: Adherence to laws and regulations governing organizational conduct.
Professional accountability: Responsibility tied to professional norms and standards within specific fields.
Political accountability: The obligation of public organizations to be responsive to elected officials and the general public.
The Challenger tragedy is used to illustrate how failures in balancing these forms of accountability can have disastrous consequences. The authors argue that the tragedy was not just a technical failure but also a breakdown in accountability systems, where pressures to meet political expectations and maintain organizational prestige overrode safety concerns. This case highlights the complexity of managing accountability in high-stakes environments, especially where multiple forms of accountability intersect.
Author: Ancona & Caldwell
Year: 1992
the article investigates how organizational teams manage external interactions and how these activities influence team performance.
The study focuses on new-product teams in high-technology companies and emphasizes the importance of boundary-spanning activities—actions that link teams to the broader organization and external environment. The researchers categorize external activities into three main types:
Ambassador Activities: Engaging top management and external stakeholders to secure resources, protect the team from outside interference, and promote the team’s work.
Task Coordinator Activities: Coordinating with other departments like manufacturing and R&D to ensure smooth operation and alignment with organizational goals.
Scout Activities: Gathering information from the external environment, such as market trends, competitor actions, and new technologies.
The findings suggest that the type and intensity of external activities significantly affect team performance. Teams that engage in ambassadorial and task coordinator activities tend to perform better, while excessive scout activities may hinder performance by delaying commitment to a specific direction.
The article proposes that successful teams follow a “comprehensive strategy” that balances these external activities, leading to positive feedback loops and long-term success. The research emphasizes that effective external communication is key to a team’s ability to manage complex tasks and achieve high performance in dynamic environments.
Author: Wholey & Hatry
Year: 1992
The article advocates for the use of performance monitoring in public programs. The authors argue that regular monitoring of service quality and program outcomes is essential for informed public management and improving public sector performance.
Key points from the article include:
Feasibility and Value: Performance monitoring is both feasible and worthwhile at various levels of government. It enables public managers to assess program quality, identify areas for improvement, and be accountable to elected officials and citizens. This is especially important in an era where decentralization and market forces are used to stimulate efficient resource use.
Importance of Monitoring: Monitoring service quality and program results can provide valuable insights into program effectiveness. It goes beyond simple financial tracking to include short- and medium-term outcomes, like changes in client health or employment rates, that are directly tied to public services.
Challenges and Barriers: Implementing effective performance monitoring systems is complex. It requires agreement between policymakers and program managers on appropriate performance indicators, and there are concerns about the cost, validity of data, and potential misuse of performance reports.
Practical Examples: The article offers examples of successful performance monitoring systems at the federal, state, and local levels. These include monitoring in areas such as public health, education, and job training programs. Monitoring systems have been used to allocate resources, motivate employees, and improve government credibility.
Recommendations: Wholey and Hatry emphasize that while performance monitoring is not a cure-all, it is a critical tool for improving government accountability and effectiveness. They encourage the use of performance reports for both internal management improvements and external accountability.
Author: Ingraham
Year:1993
The article critically examines the adoption and implementation of pay-for-performance programs in the public sector. The article explores how the concept of pay-for-performance, widely used in the private sector, has been transferred to the public sector despite a lack of empirical evidence supporting its effectiveness in either setting.
Key points discussed in the article include:
Policy Diffusion without Evaluation: Ingraham highlights how pay-for-performance systems spread across public sector organizations, both in the U.S. and internationally, based on assumptions of private-sector success. However, much of this diffusion occurred without sufficient evaluation of its effectiveness in the private sector, where the success of these programs was often overstated or not critically examined.
Challenges in the Public Sector: Public sector organizations face unique challenges in implementing pay-for-performance, including complex civil service systems, limited managerial discretion, lack of financial resources, and rigid performance appraisal systems. These factors make it difficult for public organizations to replicate the conditions necessary for success observed in some private-sector contexts.
Implementation Issues: Ingraham points out that public sector pay-for-performance programs often fail due to poor design, insufficient funding, and inadequate integration with broader civil service reforms. The reliance on centralized rules and the influence of political appointees further complicate the system, resulting in dissatisfaction among employees and managers.
International Experience: The article compares pay-for-performance systems across OECD countries, noting variations in design and implementation. In countries like Australia and New Zealand, broader civil service reforms preceded the introduction of pay-for-performance, while other countries, like the U.S., adopted the system without such foundational changes.
Recommendations for Improvement: Ingraham calls for more careful attention to the design, evaluation, and contextual fit of pay-for-performance systems in the public sector. She emphasizes the need for empirical analysis and suggests that public organizations focus on their specific needs rather than simply mimicking private-sector practices.
In conclusion, the article argues that pay-for-performance in the public sector has often been implemented without sufficient consideration of the unique challenges public organizations face. To improve the effectiveness of these programs, Ingraham recommends fundamental reforms to public management systems, better resource allocation, and more rigorous evaluation.
Author: Wageman
Year: 1995
The article explores the relationship between different types of interdependence (task and outcome) and the effectiveness of work groups in organizations. Wageman’s study specifically examines how group tasks and reward structures, which vary in their levels of interdependence, influence group performance and internal processes.
Key points of the article include:
Types of Interdependence: Wageman distinguishes between two forms of interdependence:
Task Interdependence: Refers to how much the work of group members depends on each other. This can range from individual tasks (low interdependence) to group tasks (high interdependence).
Outcome Interdependence: Involves the degree to which rewards or outcomes depend on the collective performance of the group versus individual performance.
Research Design: The study was conducted within a large U.S. corporation (Xerox), where groups of technicians were organized into different conditions with varying levels of task and outcome interdependence. These conditions included:
Groups with high task and outcome interdependence (pure group-based work and rewards).
Groups with low task and outcome interdependence (individual tasks and individual rewards).
Hybrid groups (a mix of individual and group tasks and rewards).
Findings on Group Effectiveness: The research showed that:
Groups that had high task interdependence and were rewarded based on group performance were generally the most effective in terms of productivity and cooperation.
Groups with low interdependence (individual tasks and rewards) performed well in individual tasks but lacked cooperative behaviors.
Hybrid groups, where members experienced both individual and group tasks and rewards, struggled with performance and had lower satisfaction, as the mixed signals made it difficult for members to fully engage in collaborative work.
Effects of Task and Outcome Interdependence:
Task Interdependence significantly influenced cooperative behavior, as more interdependent tasks led to greater teamwork and information sharing.
Outcome Interdependence affected effort, with higher group-based rewards encouraging more collective effort but sometimes decreasing individual motivation.
Implications for Work Design: Wageman concludes that task and outcome interdependence must be aligned for groups to function effectively. Mismatched designs (such as hybrid systems) can lead to confusion and lower group effectiveness.
Overall, the article emphasizes the importance of designing work structures and reward systems that complement the level of interdependence required by the tasks, and it provides insights into how these factors contribute to group performance and member satisfaction.
Author: Pelled, Eisenhardt & Xin
Year: 1999
The article presents an integrative model examining how diversity in work groups influences conflict and performance. It uses a sample of 45 teams to explore the relationships among diversity types, conflict (task and emotional), and performance outcomes.
Diversity and Conflict:
The study differentiates between task conflict (related to disagreements on tasks, goals, and procedures) and emotional conflict (interpersonal clashes characterized by frustration and negative emotions).
Functional background diversity primarily drives task conflict, meaning that teams with diverse functional backgrounds are more likely to experience task-related disagreements, which can enhance cognitive task performance.
Race and tenure diversity are more strongly associated with emotional conflict, as these types of diversity tend to increase interpersonal tension and clashes due to stereotypes and identification issues.
Moderating Factors:
The effects of diversity on conflict are moderated by the routineness of tasks and group longevity.
For example, nonroutine tasks increase the likelihood of task conflict in diverse groups, while routine tasks may diminish the need for task-related disagreements.
Over time, as group members work together longer, the negative effects of diversity on emotional conflict are reduced, as familiarity and shared experiences help mitigate interpersonal clashes.
Conflict and Performance:
Task conflict is generally found to be beneficial for performance on cognitive tasks because it encourages members to think critically, consider alternatives, and engage in problem-solving. However, it is important to manage task conflict constructively to avoid it becoming personal.
Emotional conflict, on the other hand, tends to have a negative impact on group performance, as it distracts members from the task at hand and can create a hostile environment.
Complex Linkages:
The article emphasizes that the relationship between diversity, conflict, and performance is complex, with different types of diversity impacting performance through different forms of conflict. It calls for a more nuanced understanding of how diversity affects group functioning.
The study provides insights for managers and organizational leaders on the importance of managing diversity and conflict in teams to enhance performance, particularly through fostering task conflict while minimizing emotional conflict.
Author: Harrison, Price, Gavin & Florey
Year: 2002
The article explores how time influences the effects of diversity on team functioning and performance. The authors investigate how two types of diversity, surface-level diversity (such as demographic characteristics like age, race, and gender) and deep-level diversity (psychological characteristics such as attitudes, values, and personality), affect team social integration and performance over time.
Surface- and Deep-Level Diversity:
Surface-level diversity refers to easily observable characteristics like age, gender, and race. It is often linked to initial judgments based on social identity and similarity-attraction theories, leading to potential negative effects on team cohesion in the early stages of group formation.
Deep-level diversity includes less visible traits like values, attitudes, and personality, which become more salient as team members interact over time.
Time as a Moderator:
The authors argue that time moderates the effects of diversity on team outcomes. In the early stages of team development, surface-level diversity has a stronger impact, leading to lower social integration. However, as time progresses and team members collaborate, surface-level differences become less relevant, and deep-level diversity plays a more significant role in determining social integration and performance.
Teams that spend more time collaborating develop a better understanding of each other’s deep-level characteristics, which can lead to improved social integration and task performance.
Perceived vs. Actual Diversity:
The study distinguishes between actual diversity (objective differences among team members) and perceived diversity (team members’ perceptions of how different they are from each other). The authors find that perceived diversity, particularly deep-level diversity, has a stronger effect on team functioning than actual diversity.
Collaboration and Reward Structure:
Team reward contingency, or the degree to which team outcomes are tied to individual rewards, positively influences collaboration. Teams with higher collaboration are more likely to overcome the negative effects of surface-level diversity and capitalize on the positive effects of deep-level diversity.
Social Integration and Performance:
Social integration (cohesiveness, satisfaction, and willingness to work together) is a key mediator between diversity and performance. Teams with higher social integration perform better on tasks. The authors also emphasize that deep-level diversity, particularly related to attitudes and values, has a stronger influence on social integration over time.
In conclusion, the article demonstrates that the effects of diversity on team performance are dynamic, changing over time as teams collaborate. While surface-level diversity initially hinders social integration, deep-level diversity becomes more important in driving team cohesion and performance as time progresses.
