330 C H A P T E R 10
achieving process gain. The final section of this extend others’ ideas whenever possible. Brain-
chapter examines several of these methods, particu- storming is conducted in a group, so that par-
larly those that can be used by groups searching for ticipants can draw from one another.
creative solutions to difficult problems.
Does Brainstorming Work? When groups need
10-4 GROUP CREATIVITY to think of new ideas, the call to “brainstorm” is often
raised, but their faith in this method may be mis-
Sully and Skiles did not have much time to trou- placed. Researchers began testing this method by
bleshoot the problem and discuss alternatives. Their comparing brainstorming groups to individuals and to
air traffic controller had proposed a few alternatives. so-called nominal groups: groups created by having
They tried to restart the engines, but as the plane individuals work alone and then pooling their ideas (a
lost altitude, Sully turned to Skiles and asked, “Got group “in name” only). Their studies offered support
any ideas?” Their final solution, however, if not for brainstorming. A four-person brainstorming
creative was certainly unusual. Commercial jets group, for example, would not only outperform any
rarely land in the Hudson River. single individual but also a nominal group of four
individuals. However, these investigations stacked
10-4a Brainstorming the deck against the nominal groups; brainstorming
groups were told to follow the four basic brainstorm-
Had the crew of Flight 1549 more time they ing rules, whereas the individuals composing the
may have used a group method known as brain- nominal group were not given any special rules con-
storming to identify solutions to their problem. cerning creativity. When individuals working alone
This method was developed by Alex Osborn were better informed about the purposes of the
(1957), an advertising executive, to help his collea- study and the need for highly creative responses,
gues identify novel, unusual, and imaginative solu- they often offered more solutions than individuals
tions. The technique requires an open discussion of working in groups. In one study, for example, four-
ideas and is guided by four basic rules: person groups came up with an average of 28 ideas in
their session, whereas four individuals working alone
■ Be expressive. Express any idea that comes to suggested an average of 74.5 ideas when their ideas
mind, no matter how strange, wild, or fanciful. were pooled. The quality of ideas was also lower in
Do not be constrained or timid; freewheel groups—when the researchers rated each idea on cre-
whenever possible. ativity, they found that individuals had 79.2% of the
good ideas. Groups also performed more poorly even
■ Postpone evaluation. Do not evaluate any of the when given more time to complete the task (Diehl &
ideas in any way during the idea-generation Stroebe, 1987; see Paulus & Brown, 2007; Paulus &
phase. All ideas are valuable. Coskun, 2013 for reviews).
■ Seek quantity. The more ideas, the better. Production Blocking Brainstorming groups,
Quantity is desired, for it increases the possi- like many performing groups, must struggle to
bility of finding an excellent solution.
nominal groups A collection of individuals that meets
■ Piggyback ideas. Because all ideas belong to the only the most minimal of requirements to be considered
group, members should try to modify and a group and so is a group in name only; in studies of
performance, a control or baseline group created by hav-
brainstorming A method for enhancing creativity in ing individuals work alone and then pooling their
groups that calls for heightened expressiveness, post- products.
poned evaluation, quantity rather than quality, and delib-
erate attempts to build on earlier ideas.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
PERFORMANCE 331
overcome process losses as they strive to generate Social Matching Social comparison processes
ideas. Even though members think they are also conspire to create a social matching effect.
expending maximum effort, social loafing detracts Although undercontributors are challenged to reach
from their performance unless such safeguards as the pace established by others, overcontributors
high identifiability, clear goals, and involvement tend to reduce their contributions to match the
prevent the undercutting of individual effort group’s mediocre standards. Since overcontribution
(Wegge & Haslam, 2005). But brainstorming groups is more effortful than undercontribution, over time
also suffer coordination and cognitive losses. The ori- the high performers tend to adjust their rate down-
ginators of brainstorming thought that hearing others’ ward to match the group’s lower norm (Brown &
ideas would stimulate the flow of ideas, but the Paulus, 1996; Seta, Seta, & Donaldson, 1991).
clamor of creative voices instead can cause produc-
tion blocking. In brainstorming groups, members Illusion of Group Productivity Brainstorming
must wait their turn to get the floor and express groups are also unproductive because they often
their ideas, and, during that wait, they forget their overestimate their productivity. In many cases, a
ideas or decide not to express them. Hearing others group has no standard to determine how well it is
is also distracting and can interfere with one’s ability to performing, so individual members can only guess
do the cognitive work needed to generate ideas. Even at the quantity and quality of their group’s product
when researchers tried to undo this blocking effect by and their personal contributions to the endeavor.
giving brainstormers notepads and organizing their These estimates, however, are often unrealistically
speaking turns, the groups still did not perform as positive, resulting in a robust illusion of group
well as individuals who were generating ideas alone productivity (Stroebe, Diehl, & Abakoumkin,
(Diehl & Stroebe, 1987, 1991; Nijstad & Stroebe, 1992). Members of groups working on collective
2006). tasks generally think that their group is more pro-
ductive than most (Polzer, Kramer, & Neale, 1997).
Evaluation Apprehension Evaluation apprehen- Nor do group members feel that they are doing less
sion can also limit the effectiveness of brainstorming than their fair share. When members of a group
groups, even though the “no evaluation” rule was trying to generate solutions to a problem were
designed to free members from such concerns asked to estimate how many ideas they provided,
(Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). Groups become even each group member claimed an average of 36% of
less effective when an authority watches them the ideas, when in reality they generated about 25%
work. Apparently, members worry that the author- of the ideas (Paulus et al., 1993).
ity may view their ideas negatively (Mullen et al.,
1991). Individuals with high social anxiety are Several processes appear to combine to sustain
particularly unproductive brainstormers and report this error in performance appraisal. Group members
feeling more nervous, anxious, and worried may intuitively mistake others’ ideas for their own,
than group members who are less anxiety prone and so, when they think about their own perfor-
(Camacho & Paulus, 1995). mance, they cognitively claim a few ideas that others
actually suggested (Stroebe et al., 1992). When they
production blocking A loss of productivity that occurs brainstorm in groups, they can also compare them-
when group and procedural factors obstruct the group’s selves to others who generate relatively few ideas,
progress toward its goals, particularly when individuals in
a brainstorming session are delayed in stating their ideas social matching effect The tendency for individuals in
until they can gain the floor and when group members brainstorming groups to match the level of productivity
are distracted by others’ ideas and so generate fewer of displayed by others in the group.
their own. illusion of group productivity The tendency for
members to believe that their group is performing
effectively.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
332 C H A P T E R 10
reassuring them that they are one of the high per- ideas individually during and after the session.
formers (Paulus et al., 1993). Group brainstorming One technique, called brainwriting, involves
may also “feel” more successful since the communal asking members to write down ideas on paper
process means that participants rarely experience fail- and then pass the paper along to others who add
ure. When alone and trying to think creatively, peo- their ideas to the list. A postgroup session during
ple repeatedly find that they are unable to come up which members generate ideas by themselves
with a new idea. In groups, because others’ ideas are enhances idea generation (Dugosh et al., 2000).
being discussed, people are less likely to experience
this failure in their search for new ideas (Nijstad, ■ Take breaks: Members should deliberately stop
Stroebe, & Lodewijkx, 2006). Group members also talking periodically to think in silence
mistakenly adjust their definition of what counts as a (Ruback, Dabbs, & Hopper, 1984).
group success downward when they brainstorm in
groups. If they estimate that a single person can gen- ■ Do not rush: Members should have plenty of
erate 10 good ideas, do they think a group of 5 time to complete the task. Groups that work
people will come up with 50 good ideas? No. under time pressure often produce more solu-
They expect fewer contributions per member, and tions initially, but the quality of those solutions
their expectations decline still further the larger the is lower than if they had spent more time on
group (Jones & Lambertus, 2014). the task (Kelly, Futoran, & McGrath, 1990;
Kelly & Karau, 1993).
10-4b Improving Brainstorming
■ Persist: Members should stay focused on the
Studies of brainstorming offer a clear recommenda- task and avoid telling stories, talking in pairs, or
tion: Do not use face-to-face deliberative groups to monopolizing the session; they must continue
generate ideas unless special precautions are taken to persist at the task even through periods of
to minimize production blocking, evaluation low productivity.
apprehension, social matching, and social loafing.
Groups can be creative, but Osborn’s original sug- ■ Facilitate the session: Members’ efforts should be
gestions should be augmented with additional coordinated by a skilled discussion leader. A
requirements (see Paulus & Brown, 2007; Paulus skilled leader can motivate members by urging
et al., 2006), such as them on (“We can do this!”), correcting mistakes
in the process (“Remember, the rules of brain-
■ Stick to the rules: Members should be trained to storming forbid criticism.”), setting a clear stan-
follow brainstorming rules and be given feed- dard (“Let’s reach 100 solutions!”), and stressing
back if they violate any of the basic principles. the importance of individuality, uniqueness, and
Groups that have not practiced brainstorming novelty (Goncalo & Staw, 2006). A facilitator can
methods usually generate only mediocre ideas. also record all of the ideas in full view of the
participants, as exposure to others’ ideas is critical
■ Pay attention to everyone’s ideas: The key to for successful brainstorming.
brainstorming is exposure to other’s ideas, but
people tend to focus on their own suggestions ■ Use technology: Various computer-mediated
and pay little attention to other people’s sug- communication tools, including sophisticated
gestions. Many techniques can be used to force idea-generating software packages, minimize
members’ attention onto others’ ideas, includ- various types of process loss, including pro-
ing listing the ideas on a board or asking duction blocking and social matching.
members to repeat others’ ideas.
brainwriting Brainstorming sessions that involve gener-
■ Mix individual and group approaches: Members ating new ideas in writing rather than orally, usually by
should be given the opportunity to record their asking members to add their own ideas to a circulating
list.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
PERFORMANCE 333
Can Online Groups Brainstorm?
Computer technology offers yet another alternative to process. Social matching can also occur in groups if
face-to-face brainstorming. Electronic brainstorming members know how many ideas each group member
(EBS) allows members to communicate via the Internet has contributed. EBS sessions are also not particularly
rather than meeting face-to-face. Using software productive if the group members become so focused on
designed specifically for groups (called group decision generating ideas that they ignore the ideas generated
support systems or groupware), group members who by other members. When researchers arranged for
communicate via the Internet can share information groups and individuals working online to generate
rapidly and more completely. One program, ThinkTank solutions to a problem, they discovered that EBS groups
(from Group Systems), opens up several windows on reached high levels of creativity only when members
each group member’s computer—one window is for were told that their memory of the ideas expressed by
entering ideas, another displays all the ideas, and still others would be tested later (Dugosh et al., 2000).
another shows a counter that tracks how many ideas Individuals can also show marked declines in motivation
the group has generated (see thinktank.net). when they could not take personal credit for their con-
tributions to the pool of creative ideas (McLeod, 2011).
EBS offers practical advantages over more tradi-
tional face-to-face sessions, such as reduced travel, More research is needed to explore fully the gains
time, and cost. But EBS may also be more effective and losses associated with EBS methods, but preliminary
than face-to-face brainstorming, since the format may results are positive. In a meta-analysis, investigators
reduce factors that lead to creative mediocrity. Mem- compared EBS to (a) traditional face-to-face groups, (b)
bers do not need to wait their turn, so EBS reduces nominal groups, and (c) e-nominal groups, individuals
production blocking. Working online, participants may who generated ideas in isolation using a computer.
also feel less evaluation apprehension and nervousness They discovered that EBS was clearly superior to tradi-
about contributing, and they may be able to persist tional brainstorming groups, both in terms of produc-
longer at the task. EBS also enhances one of the key tivity and also members’ satisfaction: They liked the EBS
features of brainstorming—idea building—for online approach better. EBS was generally equal to nominal
exposure to others’ ideas tends to stimulate the pro- and e-nominal groups, unless the size of the group was
duction of additional novel ideas (Michinov, 2012). large (greater than eight); in this case, EBS was superior
even to nominal groups (DeRosa, Smith, & Hantula,
Groups using EBS, although they are freed from 2007). Osborn, the inventor of brainstorming, surely
some of the constraints created by face-to-face meet- never could have imagined the possibility that people in
ings, still display problems of social coordination and locations widely dispersed around the world could work
motivation (see Dzindolet, Paulus, & Glazer, 2013, for a together creatively using an adaptation of his brain-
review). Computer-mediated discussions can over- storming methods.
whelm group members with a flood of information to
10-4c Alternatives to Brainstorming The Nominal Group Technique Several
creativity-building methods take advantage of the
Most groups, when faced with the challenge of “wisdom” of groups by integrating individual
generating creative solutions, uncreatively suggest idea-generating sessions with group-level methods.
brainstorming. But given the difficulties in imple- The nominal group technique (NGT), for
menting brainstorming techniques correctly, example, minimizes blocking and loafing by reduc-
groups should consider turning to other methods ing interdependence among members; it achieves
in their quest for fresh ideas and new insights into this improvement by starting with a nominal
old problems (Sunwolf, 2002).
electronic brainstorming (EBS) Generating ideas and nominal group technique (NGT) A group perfor-
solving problems using computer-based communication mance method wherein a face-to-face group session is
methods such as online discussions rather than face- prefaced by a nominal-group phase during which indivi-
to-face sessions. duals work alone to generate ideas.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
334 C H A P T E R 10
group phase before turning to a group session This method, named for the legendary Delphic ora-
(Delbecq & Van de Ven, 1971). cle, involves surveying members repeatedly with
the results of each round of surveys informing the
■ Step 1. The group discussion leader introduces framing of the questions for subsequent rounds.
the problem or issue in a short statement that is The Delphi coordinator begins the process by
written on a blackboard or flip chart. Once developing a short list of questions on the topic
members understand the statement, they and gathering the answers of a carefully selected
silently write ideas concerning the issue, usually group of respondents. Their answers are then
working for 10–15 minutes. pooled and communicated back to the entire
group; members are asked to restate their responses
■ Step 2. The members share their ideas with one to the original items, comment on others’
another in a round-robin; each person states an responses, or respond to new questions that
idea, which is given an identification letter and emerged in the first round of surveying. This pro-
written beneath the issue statement, and the cess is repeated until a solution is reached. The
next individual then adds his or her method is particularly well-suited for problems
contribution. that cannot be solved by a systematic review of
the available data (Forsyth, 2010).
■ Step 3. The group discusses each item, focusing
primarily on clarification. Buzz Groups, Bug Lists, and Beyond When
stumped for new ideas, members can break up
■ Step 4. The members rank the five solutions into buzz groups, which are small subgroups
they most prefer, writing their choices on an that generate ideas that can later be discussed by
index card. the entire group. Members can jot down a bug
list of small irritations pertaining to the problem
The leader then collects the cards, averages the under discussion, and the group can then discuss
rankings to yield a group decision, and informs the solutions for each bug. Groups can use the step-
group of the outcome. The group may wish to ladder technique, which requires asking each new
add two steps to further improve the procedure: member of the group to state his or her ideas
a short discussion of the vote (optional step 5) and before listening to the group’s position
a revoting (optional step 6). These methods are (Rogelberg & O’Connor, 1998). Groups can
particularly useful when groups discuss issues that even use elaborate systems of idea generation
tend to elicit highly emotional arguments. NGT with such exotic-sounding names as synectics
groups produce more ideas and also report feeling and TRIZ. In synectics, a trained leader guides
more satisfied with the process than unstructured the group through a discussion of members’
groups. The ranking and voting procedures also goals, wishes, and frustrations using analogies,
provide for an explicit mathematical solution that metaphors, and fantasy (Bouchard, 1972). TRIZ
fairly weights all members’ inputs and provides a is used primarily in science and engineering and
balance between task concerns and interpersonal involves following a specific sequence of problem
forces (Delbecq & Van de Ven, 1971; Gustafson analysis, resource review, goal setting, and review
et al., 1973). of prior approaches to the problem (Moehrle,
2005).
The Delphi Technique The Delphi technique
eliminates the group-level discussion altogether.
Delphi technique A group performance method that
involves repeated assessment of members’ opinions via
surveys and questionnaires as opposed to face-to-face
meetings.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
PERFORMANCE 335
CHAPTER REVIEW
When and why does working in the presence of other ■ Social orientation theory suggests that indivi-
people facilitate performance? duals who display a positive interpersonal
orientation (extraverted and low anxiety)
1. Triplett’s 1898 study of social facilitation indi- are more likely to display social facilitation
cated people’s performance improves when effects.
they work with others. Social facilitation
occurs for both coaction tasks and audience tasks. 4. Social facilitation effects are related to a num-
ber of interpersonal processes, including prej-
2. Zajonc (1965) concluded social facilitation udice, eating, electronic performance monitoring,
usually occurs when a simple task requires and collaborative learning.
dominant responses, whereas social interference
or impairment occurs for complex tasks that When do people give their all when working in a
require nondominant responses. Studies con- group?
ducted in a variety of settings have confirmed
the effect, which also holds for many species— ■ Groups become less productive as they increase
including cockroaches. in size. This Ringelmann effect is caused by
coordination losses and by social loafing—the
3. Researchers have linked social facilitation to reduction of individual effort when people
the personal and interpersonal processes listed work in a group.
in Table 10.2, including the following:
■ Latané, Williams, and Harkins (1979) identified
■ Drive theory (Zajonc, 1965) argues that the the relative contributions of coordination losses
mere presence of a member of the same and social loafing to the Ringelmann effect by
species (compresence) raises the perfor- studying groups and pseudogroups producing
mer’s arousal level by touching off a basic noise.
alertness response.
■ Factors that influence social loafing include the
■ Blascovich’s studies of the challenge–threat following:
response and brain imaging work have
confirmed that people respond physiolog- ■ Identifiability: When people feel as though
ically and neurologically to the presence of their level of effort cannot be ascertained
others (Blascovich et al., 1999). because the task is a collective one, then
social loafing becomes likely. But when
■ Cottrell ’s (1972) evaluation apprehension people feel that they are being evaluated,
theory proposes that the presence of others they tend to exert more effort, and their
increases arousal only when individuals feel productivity increases.
that they are being evaluated. Self-
presentation theory (Goffman, 1959) sug- ■ Free riding: Individuals expend less effort
gests that this apprehension is greatest if they believe others will compensate for
when performance may threaten the group their lack of productivity and to avoid
member’s public image. Distraction–conflict being the “sucker” who works too hard
theory emphasizes the mediational role (the sucker effect).
played by distraction, attentional conflict,
and increased motivation. Harkins’ (2006) ■ Goals: Groups that set clear, challenging
mere-effort (Threat-Induced Potentiation goals outperform groups whose members
of Prepotent Reponses) model traces have no clear performance standards.
facilitation effects back to changes in how
information is processed. ■ Involvement: Loafing is less likely when
people work at exciting, challenging, and
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
336 C H A P T E R 10
involving tasks. Members sometimes work working on Eureka problems, whereas the
harder to compensate for the poor perfor- truth-supported-wins rule holds for groups
mance of others (social compensation; working on non-Eureka problems.
Williams & Karau, 1991).
■ Groups are more effective decision makers
■ Identity: Social identity theory suggests that than individuals, particularly when dealing
when individuals derive their identity from with problems that have a known solution
their membership in a group, social loafing (intellective tasks) rather than problems that
is replaced by social laboring as members have no clear right or wrong answer
expend extra effort for their groups. (judgmental tasks; Laughlin, 1980).
■ Karau and Williams’s (1993) collective effort model ■ Reviews of plane crashes suggest that
(CEM) draws on expectancy-value theories of crews sometimes fail to communicate
motivation to provide a comprehensive theo- information clearly, resulting in pilot error.
retical framework for understanding social
loafing. ■ Groups perform poorly on conjunctive tasks,
unless the task can be subdivided with
When do groups outperform individuals? subtasks matched to members’ abilities.
Kerr and his colleagues’ (2007) studies of
1. Steiner (1972), in his analysis of group pro- the Köhler effect finds the poorest perform-
ductivity, suggests that few groups reach their ing members increase their productivity
potential, because negative group processes due to competitive strivings and the rec-
(process loss) place limits on their performance. ognition that their poor performance is
He believed that actual productivity = holding the group back from success.
potential productivity minus process loss, or
AP = PP − PL. ■ The effectiveness of groups working on
discretionary tasks covaries with the method
2. Steiner’s typology of group tasks argued that chosen to combine individuals’ inputs.
potential productivity and level of process loss
depend, to a significant extent, on the task the 3. Groups perform better than the average
group is attempting. Task demands are defined group member on many kinds of tasks (see
by divisibility (divisible tasks versus unitary tasks), Table 10.4), but only when process losses
the type of output desired (maximizing tasks are minimized.
versus optimizing tasks), and the social
combination rule used to combine individual ■ Synergy results in the group achieving
members’ inputs. collectively results that could not be
achieved by any member working alone.
■ Groups outperform individuals on additive
tasks and compensatory tasks. Galton con- ■ As Larson (2010) notes, weak synergy
firmed the wisdom-of-the-crowd: inde- occurs when the group’s performance is
pendent individuals’ judgments, when superior to that of the typical member.
averaged, tend to be accurate. Other work Strong synergy occurs when the group
indicates that a crowd must be sufficiently outperforms its best member. Strong syn-
large, and the problem not too difficult, for ergy, or the assembly bonus effect, rarely
a crowd to be wise. occurs in groups.
■ Groups perform well on disjunctive tasks if What steps can be taken to encourage creativity in
the group includes at least one individual groups?
who knows the correct solution. The
truth-wins rule usually holds for groups 1. Brainstorming groups strive to find creative
solutions to problems by following four basic
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
PERFORMANCE 337
rules that encourage the flow of ideas among social loafing, production blocking, social match-
members: “Be expressive,” “Postpone evalua- ing, and the illusion of productivity.
tion,” “Seek quantity,” and “Piggyback ideas.”
3. Other methods, including brainwriting, synectics,
2. Brainstorming groups rarely generate as many the nominal group technique (NGT), the Delphi
ideas as individuals in nominal groups. Their less- technique, and electronic brainstorming (EBS), offer
than-expected performance has been linked to advantages over traditional brainstorming.
RESOURCES
Chapter Case: Miracle on the Hudson Seitchik, Adam J. Brown, and Stephen G.
Harkins (2016) examines empirical find-
■ Highest Duty by Chesley “Sully” Sullen- ings pertaining to improved performance
berger (with Jeffrey Zaslow, 2009), the in the presence of others, including studies
autobiographical account of the crash of examining the threat-induced potentiation
Flight 1549, provides critical details about of prepotent responses model of social
the processes that occurred on the flight facilitation.
deck before and after the bird collision.
■ “Understanding Individual Motivation in
■ Miracle on the Hudson by the Survivors Groups: The Collective Effort Model” by
(with William Prochnau and Laura Parker, Steven J. Karau and Kipling D. Williams
2010) provides details about what occurred (2001) is an updated review of work
in the passenger area of Flight 1549, drawn examining the factors that contribute to
from the passengers’ personal statements motivation loss in groups. This chapter is
about the experience. one of many excellent papers in Groups at
Work, edited by Marlene E. Turner (2001).
Group Productivity
Group Creativity
■ “Performance” by Bernard A. Nijstad
(2013) is an excellent overview of group ■ “Getting the Most Out of Brainstorming
performance and productivity, but those Groups” by Paul B. Paulus, Jubilee
seeking even more information about Dickson, Runa Korde, Ravit Cohen-
working groups may wish to consider Meitar, and Abraham Carmeli (2016)
Nijstad’s (2009) book, Group Performance. organizes much of the research on brain-
storming and offers recommendations for
■ In Search of Synergy in Small Group Perfor- eliminating impediments to creativity in
mance by James R. Larson, Jr. (2010) groups.
examines synergy in groups generating
ideas, solving problems, rendering deci- ■ Group Genius: The Creative Power of Col-
sions, and making judgments. laboration by Keith Sawyer (2007) provides
dozens of inspiring examples of groups that
Social Facilitation and Loafing reached the heights of creativity through
collaboration.
■ “Social Facilitation: Using the Molecular
to Inform the Molar” by Allison E.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Teams
11C H A P T E R
CHAPTER OUTLINE CHAPTER OVERVIEW
11-1 Working Together in Teams When the work to be done is difficult, complicated,
11-1a What Is a Team? and important—such as building a bridge, flying a
11-1b When to Work in Teams spacecraft to Mars, or performing cardiac surgery—
11-1c Varieties of Teams people turn to teams. A teams’ potential depends
11-1d A Systems Model of Teams on the people who the team joins together, but
also the dynamic processes that transform those
11-2 Input: Building the Team individuals into a task-performing system. Teams
11-2a The Team Player create reliable relations among their members,
11-2b Knowledge, Skill, and Ability (KSA) who find that by working collectively they can
11-2c Diversity reach goals that would elude them if they worked
11-2d Men, Women, and Teams alone.
11-3 Process: Working in Teams ■ What are teams and what are their various
11-3a Interlocking Interdependence forms?
11-3b Coordinated Interaction
11-3c Compelling Purpose ■ How does the team’s composition influence its
11-3d Adaptive Structure effectiveness?
11-3e Cohesive Alliance
■ What processes mediate the input–output
11-4 Output: Team Performance relationship?
11-4a Evaluating Teams
11-4b Suggestions for Using Teams ■ How effective are teams, and how can they be
improved?
Chapter Review
Resources
338
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
TEAMS 339
Groups that Work: The Mountain Medical Cardiac Surgery Team
The cardiac surgery team was ready to undertake the prepares the sterile field, suctions blood from the site,
most technically challenging of all surgeries: repair of and passes instruments to the surgeon as needed.
the heart. Only last week they had been using the The new procedure is not so modularized. The surgeon
traditional, open-heart procedure that requires split- can no longer see the heart, but must rely on the
ting the patient’s chest at the breastbone, stopping computer-enhanced images provided by the perfu-
the heart and transferring its duties to a heart–lung sionist and the anesthesiologist. Because the surgeon
bypass machine, clamping off arteries and valves, iso- cannot apply clamps directly to the heart to stop the
lating and repairing the damaged portions of the flow of blood, that work is done by the anesthesiolo-
heart, and then closing the eight-inch long wound in gist who threads a catheter into the aorta through the
the chest. But they would not be using those methods femoral vein. The scrub nurse monitors and maintains
today. Instead, the team would be carrying out a min- pressures and vital signs and attaches, when needed,
imally invasive surgical procedure. The surgeon would forceps, scissors, scalpels, and other surgical tools to
make a small incision between the patient’s ribs and the surgeon’s operating mechanicals.
snake high-tech instruments to the heart, guided by
feedback from a network of technicians, computers, The new procedures require an unprecedented
cameras, and ultrasound scanners. degree of teamwork, but the Mountain Medical team
was ready for the challenge. They had practiced for
These new procedures would make entirely new months to learn the new method, and their diligence
demands of the surgical team. Traditional surgical showed in their level of coordination and communica-
teammates work closely with one another, but they tion in the operating room. The operation took some-
are not continually interdependent. The anesthesiolo- what longer than they had expected it would, but
gist sedates the patient and monitors his or her there were no surprises: Their first patient recovered
breathing. The perfusionist is the technician who fully but also more quickly because of their use of the
operates the heart–lung machine. The surgeon makes minimally invasive, and team-intensive, technique
the incision, splits the chest, repairs the heart, and (Healey, Undre, & Vincent, 2006; Pisano, Bohmer, &
then closes the incision. The scrub nurse or technician Edmondson, 2001).
The Mountain Medical surgical team is not the first the way of collaboration and coordination. Teams
team we have encountered in our analysis of groups are often spawned when one or more individuals
and their dynamics. Peak Search and Rescue, the confront an obstacle, a problem, or a task they wish
U.S. Olympic hockey team, the Old Christian to overcome, solve, or complete, but they recog-
rugby team stranded in the Andes, and the crew nize that the solution is beyond the reach of a single
of Flight 1549 were all teams. These groups created person. Such situations require that members com-
reliable social alliances among the members, and bine their personal energies and resources in such a
these interpersonal bonds patterned their commu- way that the group, and not just the individuals in
nications, their influence, and their interdependen- the group, reaches its goals. This chapter examines
cies. These groups became more and more unified these unique aspects of teams—their nature, design,
over time, as they embedded themselves in mem- processes, and effectiveness.
bers’ daily lives and in their identities. These teams
included leaders and followers, interpersonal stars 11-1 WORKING TOGETHER
and isolates, and hard workers and loafers, and
they excelled at the many and varied tasks they IN TEAMS
attempted.
In the past, most teams were either pulling plows
Those who understand groups are well on their or playing games. Groups assembled for work that
way to understanding teams, but not all groups are
teams. Teams require more from the members in
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
340 C H A P T E R 11
required many hands and much muscle, but less Teams usually have other important characteris-
physically demanding labor was given over to tics, particularly if they are effective teams. For example,
skilled craftsmen and artisans. Over time, however, the members often have “complementary skills”
the complexity of the tasks that humans undertook (Katzenbach & Smith, 2003, p. 45), “different roles
grew, and so did their need to work in teams in and responsibilities” (Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006, p.
order to achieve their ends. A very talented person 79), and the “authority to manage their own work
could potentially perform coronary surgery, design and internal processes” (Thompson, 2014, p. 4).
a new telecommunication device, create an online Many teams, too, have clear boundaries, time pres-
database of all knowledge, or pilot a spacecraft to sures, and standards for performance. They are usually
the moon, but such tasks are now done by people part of a larger social organization. Just as groups vary
working in teams. in their degree of “groupness,” some teams—those
with higher levels of interdependence and integration
11-1a What Is a Team? of members’ efforts—seem more team-like than
others. But the sine qua non of a team is task-
Nowadays the word team is used to describe a wide oriented interdependence. This specialized form of
assortment of groups. In business settings, work units interdependence even has a name: teamwork. Not
are sometimes referred to as production teams or all teamwork is good teamwork, for it can range along
management teams. At a university, professors and a continuum from skilled and effective to ungainly
students form research teams to conduct research and ineffectual, but at minimum teamwork requires
cooperatively. In the military, small squads of soldiers two or more individuals trying to get something done
train as special operations teams. In schools, teaching by working together instead of separately.
teams may be responsible for the education of hun-
dreds of students. In online multiplayer games, people 11-1b When to Work in Teams
join carefully composed teams to attempt challenges
that require the skills of many types of characters. Can Not all tasks require the skills, attentions, and
all these groups be considered teams? resources of a group of people working in close col-
laboration. Teams, with their greater resources, goal-
Despite this diversity in terms of focus, composi- focus, and vast potential are becoming the default
tion, and design, teams are fundamentally groups— choice in a variety of performance settings, but
two or more individuals who are connected by and some caution is needed before rushing to form a
within social relationships—with the qualities one can team to solve a problem. Studies of group perfor-
expect in any group: boundaries, interaction among mance and decision making (see Chapters 10 and
members, interdependence, structure, goals, cohesion, 12, respectively) suggest that groups are not all gain
and so on (see Chapter 1). But the word team is without loss. As tasks become more challenging,
usually reserved for a particular type of group—one complex, and consequential, the more likely a
whose members are working together in the pursuit well-organized team will succeed where an individ-
of a shared goal. While no one definition of team will ual may fail (Salas, Cooke, & Rosen, 2008).
satisfy everyone who studies them, most would agree
with team expert Richard Hackman (2002) when he Level of Difficulty In some circumstances, peo-
explained the members of teams “work together to ple are faced with tasks that are well beyond the
produce something—a product, a service, or decision
for which members are collectively accountable and teamwork The process by which members of the team
whose acceptability is potentially assessable” (p. 42). combine their knowledge, skills, abilities, and other
resources, through a coordinated series of actions, to pro-
team A group that pursues performance goals through duce an outcome.
interdependent interaction.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
TEAMS 341
When Were Teams Invented?
Teams may be de rigueur in most organizations today, manufacturer, set up work groups with varying levels
but for centuries humans did not work in teams—the of authority and organizational overlap; and Volvo
word was reserved for harnessed animals. The first and Saab both began using teams in their production
documented use of the word team to describe groups plants.
of humans working collectively did not occur until the
1600s, when Ben Jonson wrote in Bartholomew Fayre, From these initial beginnings, organizations
“Twere like falling into a whole Shire of butter: they began relying on teams for production, management,
had need be a teeme of Dutchmen, should draw him distribution, and general decision making. Half of the
out” (OED Online, 1989). The word team apparently workers in the United States now belong to at least
derives from the old English and Norse word “for a one team at work. Teams are used by a majority of all
bridle and thence to a set of draught animals har- larger organizations in the United States, and in
nessed together” (Annett & Stanton, 2001, p. 1045). countries like Sweden and Japan, the use of teams
approaches 100% (Devine et al., 1999). Nonprofit
It was not until the second half of the twentieth organizations, such as health care organizations and
century that teams began their ascension to promi- public service corporations, are particularly heavy
nence (Sundstrom et al., 2000). In the early 1960s, adopters of team approaches to work (81%), followed
concerns about the inflexible, autocratic nature of by blue-collar industries such as construction,
most large organizations prompted a search for alter- manufacturing, and retail sales (50%) and white-collar
natives (Likert, 1967; McGregor, 1960). Heeding the industries such as banking, real estate, and insurance
call for worker autonomy and participation in decision (34%). In many organizations, employees serve not on
making, a number of companies began experimenting one team, but on many; recent estimates suggest
with employees working in small groups. General between 65% and 95% of knowledge workers are
Motors, for example, used teams rather than an members of more than one team (Maynard et al.,
assembly line in one of its truck factories; General 2012). The modern organization is no longer a net-
Foods set up autonomous work teams at its Topeka, work of individuals, but rather a network of intercon-
Kansas plant; the Banner Company, a large nected teams (DeChurch & Mathieu, 2009).
skills and resources of a single individual. No one action of group members” (Shaw, 1981, p. 364) cre-
person, no matter how talented, can compile a dic- ate dependencies among the members. Individuals
tionary of all the words in the English language, who agree with such statements as “I have a one-
construct a nuclear power plant, or overthrow a person job; I rarely have to check or work with
political dictator. Other tasks are difficult ones others” have little need to work in groups on tasks,
because they require enormous amounts of time, whereas those who depend on their colleagues to
effort, or strength. One talented individual could complete their work are more likely to tout the
build a car or dig a 100-yard-long trench, but a benefits of working collectively rather than individ-
crew of workers will accomplish these tasks far ually (Haines & Taggar, 2006). In general, as inter-
more quickly and with better results. Projects that dependency increases, group members feel more
take months or years to complete are best attempted responsible for successfully completing their work
by multiple individuals, so that the work continues (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001).
even when specific individuals leave the group.
Importance Changing a flat tire or reformatting a
Complexity and Interdependence A single per- document pale in importance when compared to
son cannot perform Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony or rescuing the wildlife harmed by an oil spill or land-
compete against the New York Yankees. Individuals ing a jet airliner whose engines have failed. Impor-
may be able to carry out specific assignments with tant tasks are those that have significant effects on
great skill, but tasks that require the “integrated many, rather than a few people, and these effects
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
342 C H A P T E R 11
are long-lasting rather than temporary. Important be avoided when constraints in the situation are
tasks are also those that concern health, safety, and such that the basic requirements for a highly effec-
survival, as well as those that have significant finan- tive team (e.g., high rates of interaction, interde-
cial consequences. When circumstances are dire and pendence, and consensual goals) cannot be met.
the consequences of a mistake would be cata-
strophic, the wisdom of a team is preferred to inter- 11-1c Varieties of Teams
vention of the lone expert (Cannon-Bowers &
Bowers, 2011). Groups may also help individuals Teams, like groups in general, vary considerably in
deal with the stress of decision making and the con- form and function. Some teams require members to
sequences of their actions should they fail. Even be experts and specialists, but others require less
individuals who question the wisdom of a group’s differentiation in terms of members’ skills and expe-
judgment may turn to groups in an effort to shield rience levels. Some teams meet in face-to-face con-
themselves from liability should the outcome be a texts, whereas others rely on communication
negative one. technologies to conduct their work. Some teams
work for brief periods of time, before disbanding
The Romance of Teams Teams, with their when the project is complete, but others continue
greater resources, goal-focus, and promise of their work for many years. Some distinctions,
increased productivity, are becoming the default though, can be made between teams based on
choice in a variety of performance settings, but the type of task their members are attempting
some caution is needed before rushing to form a (see Figure 11.1). For some teams, their work
team. Teams are sometimes used because they are involves solving problems, planning, and making
popular, rather than effective or appropriate. Just decisions. Other teams, in contrast, are more
as the “romance of leadership” describes people’s action-oriented, for they make products and per-
tendency to put too much faith in their leaders as form services. (For alternative approaches to classi-
saviors who will rescue them when they face dif- fying teams see Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Devine,
ficult circumstances, the romance of teams is a 2002; Hollenbeck, Beersma, & Schouten, 2012;
“faith in the effectiveness of team-based work that Wildman et al., 2012.)
is not supported by, or is even inconsistent with,
relevant empirical evidence” (Allen & Hecht, Work Teams When people think about teams,
2004, p. 440). As the industrial/organizational psy- work teams are probably the groups that first come
chologist Edwin Locke and his colleagues (2001, to mind; these are the millions of groups that pro-
p. 501) put it: “the emphasis on groups and teams vide or produce specialized, and often highly
has gone far beyond any rational assessment of desired, goods and services through their members’
their practical usefulness. We are in the age of coordinated actions. Mining crews, workers glazing
groupomania.” the windows of a skyscraper, and the rock band at a
concert are all work teams who, through coordi-
A team approach may be the best choice in a nated actions, create a product. Other work teams,
given situation, but teams perform remarkably such as the Mountain Medical surgical team and
badly when given a task to do that is so simple, Peak Search and Rescue team, provide services to
routine, or individualistic that collaboration is others.
both unnecessary and irritating. Teams should also
romance of teams The intuitive appeal of teams as Management Teams Many groups carry out
effective means of improving performance in business both operational and strategic functions within an
and organizational settings, despite the lack of definitive organization. These management teams identify and
evidence supporting their utility. solve problems, make decisions about day-to-day
operations and production, and set the goals for
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
TEAMS 343
Teams
Work teams Management Project teams Advisory teams
teams
Production teams, Boards of Commissions, Panels, steering
construction directors, top research and committees,
crews, management development
performing teams (TMTs), teams, task review boards,
executive teams, forces, etc. mentoring
ensembles, sports groups, etc.
teams, etc. etc.
F I G U R E 11.1 Four types of teams, classified on the basis of the types of tasks members perform. A team from
any one of these categories may be very different from a team in the same category, so generalizations about all
teams in any given category are often inaccurate. Many teams also perform many tasks, and so these types are not
necessarily mutually exclusive categories.
the organization’s future. They coordinate the and groups in the organization. These teams often
actions of others and deal with unexpected issues produce a set of conclusions or an official report that
and difficulties. These groups usually have the analyzes a specific, and sometimes contentious, issue,
authority to make decisions that influence other and then offer recommendations regarding how
individuals and groups in the organization. things should be done differently. These teams are
sometimes called parallel teams because they work in
Project Teams When groups and organizations parallel with existing groups and organizational struc-
encounter problems, issues, or challenges that are tures (Cohen & Bailey, 1997).
out of the ordinary in some way, they often
respond by forming a project team. These teams, Self-Managing Teams Most groups require the
because they are given a specific task to accom- services of a leader, and teams are no different. But
plish, are usually time limited. They do not, in whereas some work best by recognizing one per-
most cases, move on to the next assignment once son within the group as the leader, others adopt a
they reach their goal—instead, they disband. For distributed leadership structure whereby members
example, commissions make judgments on specific share the responsibilities among themselves on a
issues, in situations that require both objectivity rotating basis. Some teams, too, work under the
and sensitivity to the needs of many parties. Design guidance of an external leader, who may or may
teams grapple with ill-defined problems—ones not monitor the team’s procedures closely, regu-
that require creativity and innovation rather than late its activities, and determine its overall purposes
those that are routine and have a demonstrably (Stewart, 2006).
correct solution. An expeditionary team will only
exist for the duration of the exploration that it is Hackman (2002) developed his authority matrix
undertaking. model to account for these variations in team auton-
omy. This model, summarized in Table 11.1,
Advisory Teams Such groups as review panels, describes (in the left column) four critically impor-
steering committees, investigatory teams, and some tant team and executive responsibilities: execution
judiciary boards are advisory teams, for they study issues of the task itself, managing the work process,
and make recommendations to other individuals designing the team within the organizational con-
text, and determining the team’s overall mission
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
344 C H A P T E R 11
T A B L E 11.1 The Authority Matrix: Four Levels of Team Self-Management
Responsibilities Manager-led Type of Team Self-governing
Self-managing Self-designing
Executes tasks PP P P
Monitors and manages work processes P PP
Designs the team and its context PP
Sets overall direction P
SOURCE: Adapted from “The Psychology of Self-Management in Organizations” by Hackman, J. R. (1986). The psychology of self-management in organizations.
In M. S. Pallak & R. O. Perloff (Eds.), Psychology and work: Productivity, change, and employment (pp. 89–136). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
and objectives. The model also identifies, along the cross-functional teams. These teams bring
top row of the chart, four types of teams that differ together representatives with different backgrounds
in their degree of responsibility and autonomy. In a and responsibilities to reduce the insularity of each
manager-led team, members provide a service or segment of the organization and increase the pool
generate a product, but that is their sole respon- of available information needed to make an
sibility: An external leader or manager monitors informed decision. The representatives to such
the work, designs the team, and sets the team’s groups function as boundary spanners by build-
direction. Members of self-managing teams have ing relationships that stretch beyond their own sub-
more autonomy, for they are charged with both groups and divisions.
executing the task and managing the team’s
work. These teams can gauge the quality of Cross-functional teams are not the most stable,
their work product, but only an authority exter- equable, or effective of groups, however. They
nal to the team can adjust its procedures and provide organizations with the means to break
structures. Self-designing teams enjoy more discre- down communication barriers between isolated
tion in terms of control over their team’s struc- units and increase collaboration, but in many cases
ture, for they have the authority to change the the members of these teams do not have sufficient
team itself. The team’s leader sets the direction, authority to make decisions for their units. Also,
but the members have full responsibility for doing when these teams must identify ways to solve pro-
what needs to be done to get the work accom- blems, identify ways to reduce costs, or suggest new
plished. Finally, members of self-governing teams have initiatives, the members’ commitment to the groups
responsibility for all four of the major functions listed they represent prevents them from cooperating
in Table 11.1. They decide what is to be done, fully with their other team members. Since their
structure the team and its context, manage their loyalties lie with the group they represent and not
own performance, and actually carry out the work. with the team, cross-functional teams are too often
The Mountain Medical cardiac surgery team was a unable to reach their goals. As one participant in
self-governing team. The surgeon who founded the
team was the one who lobbied the hospital to try the cross-functional teams Project groups composed of
new procedure, and he worked closely with the staff people with differing types of functional expertise,
to design the team. often drawn from various levels, divisions, or segments
of an organization.
Cross-Functional Teams Many organizations boundary spanners A group role that involves estab-
create connections among different units, groups, lishing relationships with individuals, groups, or organi-
and teams within their organizations by forming zations beyond one’s group.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
TEAMS 345
What Is Holacracy?
MTSs—multiteam systems—are not some new thing, for adjusts over time. Each circle includes one role that is
rare is the organization that does not rely on the coor- responsible for monitoring the connections among the
dinated actions of interdependent teams, particularly in roles—the “lead link”—but the individual who takes on
production and the delivery of services. Recently, how- that role has no more authority than any others in the
ever, a number of companies have begun to use teams circle. Most people at Zappos occupy multiple roles in
to reorganize their work more fully, shifting from tra- the organization and belong to many circles, which
ditional hierarchically organized layers of authority with overlap and are nested: circles contain subcircles, and
free-standing divisions, departments, and branches to supercircles contain any number of smaller circles. Hola-
systems of interconnected groups and subgroups. Their cracy also sets guidelines for regulating the system,
teams go by various names, such as “circles,” “cabals,” including governance standards, prescriptions for tacti-
“pods,” or just “teams,” but they share one basic qual- cal meetings, specifications for defining a role’s respon-
ity: they are teams of collaborating teams working sibilities, and an organizational constitution.
together to achieve shared goals (Bernstein et al., 2016).
This emphasis on interlocking, multiteam systems
Zappos, for example, is a billion-dollar online shoe balances two desirable organizational necessities that
and apparel retailer that is experimenting with a multi- too often compete with each other: the need for reli-
team organizational system called holacracy (Robertson, able execution of responsibilities and the need to
2015). Zappos shifted from a traditional, hierarchical adapt to changing circumstances. Too much order and
structure with a relatively small number of departments standardization means that organizations can’t
responsible for such tasks as customer service, product respond quickly to new opportunities or deal with
development, merchandizing, and finance to approxi- unexpected problems, but too little structure can
mately 500 self-managed and interdependent teams. In result in very little work getting done. These new
holacracy, these teams are called circles, and each one is organizational strategies, by fully utilizing teams at all
defined not by the individuals who belong to that circle, levels of the organization, promise to undo that ten-
but by the roles within that circle. Each role has a spe- sion between standardization and flexibility. Time will
cific set of “accountabilities”: activities and responsibili- tell if this innovative, team-centered approach to
ties that the person who occupies that role continually organizational design can deliver on this promise.
such a team explained, “Very few of these meetings complete them. The cardiac surgical team, for exam-
actually lead to creative problem solving…The ple, did not work alone in providing care for patients
result is that the group doesn’t take collective at Mountain Medical. Dozens of teams staffed the
responsibility, and that can be very demotivating” hospital—nursing teams, the recovery room teams,
(Denison, Hart, & Kahn, 1996, p. 1012). the emergency room crews, the patient management
teams, and so on. These teams pursued their own
Multiteam Systems Given the prevalence of team’s goals, but also goals that were common across
teams in organizational settings, many teams interact all the hospital’s teams (Marks et al., 2005).
regularly with other teams. When these teams coop-
erate with one another in the pursuit of common As might be expected, the dynamics of MTSs
goals, then these teams become “teams of teams,” are even more complicated than the dynamics of any
or multiteam systems (MTSs). Some tasks are one team. The teams in some MTSs, with sufficient
not just too demanding for individuals, but too experience, learn to work well together—they coor-
demanding for a single team—and so require the dinate their efforts, communicate necessary informa-
coordinated engagement of multiple teams to tion across the team boundaries, and respond
appropriately to the organizational interventions of
multiteam systems Networks of interrelated teams team leaders. However, features and processes that
united by common purposes. promote effectiveness for isolated teams, such as
high levels of cohesion, trust, and goal striving,
may be dysfunctional when teams must reach across
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
346 C H A P T E R 11
their team’s boundaries to work with the members changes. Their internal relations are always drifting
of other teams. Groups that have developed high toward entropy—disorganization—but they counter
levels of coordinated interdependence when mem- this tendency through monitoring outcomes and effi-
bers work together may find that they must change ciencies (Arrow et al., 2000; Kozlowski et al., 1999).
their structures and procedures to align their actions
with the members of other groups. Social identity The Input–Process–Output Model Rather than
processes, which work to increase members’ com- assuming that variables in the system are linked to
mitment to their own teams, may also prompt one another in simple, one-to-one relationships, sys-
them to view the members of other teams negatively tems theory recognizes factors that set the stage for
(Shuffler, Jiménez-Rodríguez, & Kramer, 2015). teamwork (inputs), that facilitate or inhibit the
nature of the teamwork (processes), and a variety
11-1d A Systems Model of Teams of consequences that result from the team’s activities
(outputs). This assumption is the basis of the well-
When Ludwig von Bertalanffy, the originator of open known input–process–output (IPO) model first intro-
systems theory, defined a system to be a “complex of duced in Chapter 2 and shown in Figure 11.2.
mutually interacting components,” he could have just
as well have been describing a team. Teams emerge ■ Inputs include any antecedent factors that may
from and then sustain patterns of coordinated interde- influence, directly or indirectly, the team
pendencies among individual members. Teams, members and the team itself. These antecedents
because of their emphasis on the achievement of include individual-level factors (e.g., who is on
desired goals, are more likely than most groups to the team, and what are their strengths and
plan a strategy to enact over a given time period, weaknesses), team-level factors (e.g., how large
seek feedback about the effectiveness of the plan and is the team, and what resources does it control),
implementation, and make adjustments to procedures and contextual- and environmental-level fac-
and operations on the basis of that analysis. Teams strive tors (e.g., what is the culture of the larger
for regularity and order, but they also adapt spontane- organization, and how does this team work
ously to deal with new circumstances or internal with other units within the organization).
Inputs Processes Outputs
Individual-level factors Sustaining Performance outcomes
(personality, knowledge) interdependence (performance quality,
skill, abilities, etc.) Coordinating speed to solution, number
interaction of errors, etc.)
Team-level factors
(diversity, structure, Goal setting and Team-level outcomes
cohesiveness, group size, monitoring (improved procedures
and processes, increased
etc.) Developing and
maintaining adaptive cohesion, etc.)
Contextual and
environmental factors structures Member-level outcomes
(organizational culture, (satisfaction, personal
Maintaining cohesion development, etc.)
type of task, time) and resolving conflict
pressure, etc.)
F I G U R E 11.2 A multilevel input–process–output (IPO) model of team performance that assumes interpersonal
team processes mediate the relationship between input factors and outputs.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
TEAMS 347
■ Processes are operations and activities that consequence, some suggest that the IPO model should
mediate the relationship between the input be reconfigured into an input–mediator–output–input
factors and the team’s outcomes. These pro- (I-M-O-I) model to indicate the diversity of elements
cesses sustain the members’ interdependence, in the process stage and the fact that the outputs feed-
insuring that members’ actions are coordinated back to become inputs (Ilgen et al., 2005; Marks,
and focused on the group’s goals. Teams tend Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001).
to be well-structured groups, and so members’
interactions are often guided by role require- These limitations notwithstanding, the IPO
ments, normative standards, and networks of model provides a heuristic framework for this chap-
relationships that standardize interactions and ter’s examination of teams. The next section con-
productivity. Many team processes also pertain siders inputs, with a focus on who is recruited to the
to interpersonal aspects of the team’s system, team and how their personal qualities shape the
such as dealing with conflict and increasing the team’s interactions. The chapter then turns to issues
team’s level of cohesion. of process before considering ways to evaluate the
effectiveness of teams.
■ Outputs are the consequences of the team’s
activities. The team’s emphasis on outcome 11-2 INPUT: BUILDING
means that the tangible results of the team effort
draw the most attention—did the team win or THE TEAM
lose, is the team’s product high in quality or
inadequate, did the team successfully complete In 1996, hospitals around the United States began
the operation, or did it kill the patient—but considering adopting noninvasive surgical methods
other outcomes are also important, including for cardiac surgeries. Technological developments
changes in the team’s cohesiveness or modifica- ensured that the procedure was a safe one, but
tion of the team’s structure and processes that each hospital needed to determine how to change
improve its overall efficiency. from the traditional method to the newer proce-
dure (Pisano et al., 2001).
Beyond the IPO Model The IPO model, despite
years of steady service to researchers studying teams, is Nearly all hospitals settled on a team approach:
not without its limitations. First, the model, with its They would create teams of physicians, nurses, and
categorization of factors as inputs, processes, or out- technicians who would study the method and imple-
puts, understates the complex interdependencies ment it locally once they had mastered its demands.
among the variables that influence team performance. One hospital, given here the fictitious name of
Second, some of the so-called “processes” within the Chelsea Hospital, put the chief of cardiac surgery in
process category are not actually processes at all, but charge of building the team. He was an extremely
rather characteristics of the team that emerge over skilled surgeon, but he did not view the new surgery
time as members interact with one another. These as much of a challenge. He was also very busy and did
emergent states certainly influence the team’s out- not get involved in selecting the members of his team.
comes, but it would be more accurate to call The composition of the Chelsea team was determined
them mediators of the relationship between inputs by seniority and who was available to attend the
and outputs rather than processes. Third, given that three-day offsite training session.
the IPO model is a systems theory, it is essential to
always consider feedback processes that occur over Mountain Medical did things a little differently
time. The model is often interpreted as a sequential from Chelsea. A young surgeon, who was new to
one, with inputs leading to processes/mediators and the hospital, volunteered to get the team started.
these leading to outcomes; but the reverse causal He talked with the staff in all the departments,
sequences are also a part of the complete model. In and he picked people for the team “based on
their experience working together” rather than
their seniority (Edmondson, Bohmer, & Pisano,
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
348 C H A P T E R 11
2001, p. 128). He was part of the team during the groups, seek and reward the efforts of those who are
training sessions and held meetings with physicians conscientious; people who are dependable, dispatch
in other departments to share information about the their duties, are achievement oriented, and confident
procedure and to identify the best patients for refer- are very much appreciated when work demands are
rals. The members of the team met regularly, prior unpredictable and success depends on each person
to the procedure, to walk through the basic steps completing his or her portion of the group’s task.
and to share information about what each of them Extraversion, too, is consistent with a number of
would be doing and how their actions fit with what desirable qualities in a teammate (dominance, affilia-
the other members of the team were doing. tion, social perceptiveness, and expressivity), as is
agreeableness. Even emotional stability and openness
When organizational behavior researchers Gary are likely associated with success working with others,
Pisano, Richard Bohmer, and Amy Edmondson since they are indicators of adjustment, confidence
(2001) studied 16 hospitals that used the new (self-esteem), and flexibility. These general tendencies
method, they discovered that things worked out are, however, partly moderated by the nature of the
differently for Chelsea Hospital and Mountain team and the type of work it does. In a work or
Medical. The Chelsea team did not lose patients, project team, for example, conscientiousness may be
but the operations took longer than they should critically important, particularly if the group is self-
have, even after they gained experience with the managing. In action teams that require higher levels
procedure. Mountain Medical, in contrast, per- of cohesion, in contrast, agreeableness and emotional
formed the first few operations slowly, but then stability may be more critical (Driskell et al., 2006;
became one of the fastest and most effective surgical Judge & LePine, 2007).
teams in the group of 16 studied—despite being led
by one of the least experienced surgeons. These team members’ personality traits not
only influence the effectiveness of individual mem-
11-2a The Team Player bers but also the overall performance of teams
themselves. Meta-analytic reviews of the relation-
Mountain Medical, like most teams, owes much of ship between personality and team performance
its success to its composition: the individuals who report that groups with members who were, on
were selected to make up the team. All teams are average, more agreeable and conscientious outper-
composites formed by the joining together of multi- formed teams whose members were less agreeable
ple, relatively independent individuals. Each member and conscientious—but only for teams working in
of the group brings to the team a set of unique per- professional contexts rather than educational or lab-
sonal experiences, interests, skills, abilities, and moti- oratory settings (Bell, 2007; Peeters et al., 2006; see
vations, that merge together with the personal Figure 11.3).
qualities of all the other individual members to
form the team as a whole (Mathieu et al., 2014). Team Composition Each member brings to the
team a set of unique personal experiences, interests,
Personality Traits Mountain Medical deliberately skills, abilities, and motivations, and those personal
sought out “team players” for their surgical team. qualities will influence how they act as team mem-
Such people are often identified on the basis of their bers. But a group-level analysis considers teams to be
personalities, for some people, by temperament, make composites formed when the personal qualities of all
better teammates than others. For example, the per- the individual members merge to form the team as a
sonality traits identified in the five-factor model of whole. Certain combinations of people, given their
personality—extraversion, agreeableness, conscien- personal motivations, are more effective than others
tiousness, emotional stability (or low neuroticism), (Mathieu et al., 2014). Teams composed of all highly
and openness—all reliably predict how people dominant individuals are less stable and less produc-
respond in group settings. Teams, as task-focused tive than groups that include a mix of people who
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
TEAMS 349
Trait – Team Effectiveness Relationships
ρ = .21 ρ = .15 ρ = .20 ρ = .31 ρ = .30
Emotional Extraversion Openness Agreeable- Conscien-
stability ness tiousness
Adjustment Dominance Flexibility Trust Dependability
Self-esteem Affiliation Cooperation Dutifulness
Social Achievement
perceptiveness
Efficacy
Expressivity
F I G U R E 11.3 Hierarchical model of personality characteristics and facets related to teamwork.
SOURCE: Adapted from “What Makes A Good Team Player? Personality and Team Effectiveness” by Driskell, J. E., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E.., & O’Shea, P. G.
In Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2006, 10, 249–271.
are dominant and less dominant (Groysberg, Polzer, Chapter 10, some tasks require more in the way of
& Elfenbein, 2011). An individual who is conscien- coordination than others. Additive tasks, for example,
tious may fit in well with a team when other mem- only require summing together each team member’s
bers are highly motivated to perform well, but that work to yield a total, group product. Conjunctive
individual may not fit the requirements of other, less tasks, in contrast, require each member contribute to
task-focused teams (Bell et al., 2015). the group’s product, so the group’s performance is
determined by the group’s least productive member.
In one illustrative study, researchers examined the When researchers tracked group performance, they
complex interplay of personality, group composition, discovered increases in team-level extraversion went
and performance by taking into account the demands hand in hand with increases in performance on the
of the tasks the teams were performing and the per- additive task, but not the conjunctive task.
sonality traits of each member. As noted in
What’s Your Type: A or B?
Studies of personality and health have identified two some teams with a mixture of both types. After they
basic orientations to work: time pressure and produc- worked together for a time, the members of these
tivity. Some of us are very busy people; these Type A teams were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction
personalities tend to be temperamental, competitive, with their team and its members. In general, people
and time-oriented, but they are also high in their were more satisfied when their teammates were similar
achievement orientation. Type B individuals, in contrast, in terms of personality. Teams composed of all Type As
are more relaxed and slow going. To determine what or all Type Bs were rated as more satisfying by their
would happen when these two types mixed in teams, members than were teams when Type As and Bs were
researchers experimentally manipulated team member- mixed together. Teams of only Type As did, however,
ships to create all Type A teams, all Type B teams, and get a lot more done (Keinan & Koren, 2002).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
350 C H A P T E R 11
Performance on the conjunctive task, in contrast was for success at the task. A team struggling to generate
better explained by emotional stability: groups with solutions to math puzzles may not have any math-
members who were more emotionally stable did ematicians at the table. A soccer team made up of
well at conjunctive tasks, but not additive ones (Kra- slow-moving defensive fullbacks but no offensive
mer, Bhave, & Johnson, 2014). goal scorers will likely lose. A team’s performance
depends, in part, on its members’ knowledge, skills,
Team Orientation Even though some people and abilities (KSAs). Those KSAs are generally of
value working in an organized, task-focused group, two types: task-relevant proficiencies and interper-
others are quick to announce “I don’t like working sonal skills.
in teams” at any opportunity. Individuals who have
negative beliefs about groups, for example, generally Task-Specific Proficiencies A team of mediocre
perform more poorly when they are forced to work individuals can, with enough practice, good leader-
in them (Karau & Elsaid, 2009). Individualists, in ship, and determination, reach lofty goals, but teams
contrast to collectivists, tend to respond less posi- cannot work miracles; mediocre members make for
tively when part of a team (see Chapter 3). Teams mediocre teams (Ellis et al., 2003). Careful design
with many such individuals in their ranks perform and leadership cannot take a group beyond the lim-
more poorly, as a group, than teams composed of its set by the skills and capabilities of the individual
fewer anti-team types (Bell, 2007). members.
This negativity toward teams is sustained, in Studies of sport teams indicate that “the best
part, by two interrelated components: a preference individuals make the best team” (Gill, 1984,
for working alone rather than with others and an p. 325). In many sports, the players’ offensive and
unwillingness to accept input from other people. defensive performances can be tracked so that their
Those who expressed the most negative attitudes skill levels can be identified accurately. These qual-
toward working in groups agreed strongly with ities can then be used to calculate the statistical
such statements as “I would rather take action on aggregation of the talent level of the team, which
my own than to wait around for others’ input” and can be compared to the team’s outcomes. Such
“I prefer to complete a task from beginning to end analyses indicate that the correlation between the
with no assistance from others.” But they also aggregation of individual members’ ability and
tended to exhibit a low opinion of other people team performance is very strong: .91 in football,
as a source of useful information. They agreed .94 in baseball, and .60 in basketball (Jones, 1974;
with such statements as “When I have a different Widmeyer, 1990). The relationship is somewhat
opinion than another group member, I usually try reduced in basketball because this sport requires
to stick with my own opinion” and “When others more coordination among members and the teams
disagree, it is important to hold one’s own ground are smaller in size. Hence, the team members’ abil-
and not give in.” Individuals with these beliefs ity to play together may have a larger impact on the
tended to perform poorly on a series of team- outcome of a basketball game, whereas the sheer
based tasks, particularly those that called for high level of ability of players has a greater impact on a
levels of interdependence among the team mem- football or baseball game’s outcome.
bers (Driskell, Salas, & Hughes, 2010).
The close connection between members’ pro-
11-2b Knowledge, Skill, and ficiency and performance is not limited only to
sports teams. Teams that succeed in creating new
Ability (KSA)
KSAs Acronym for knowledge, skills, abilities, and other
Some teams fail because they simply do not include characteristics that are needed to complete a job or task
people with the qualities and characteristics needed successfully.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
TEAMS 351
products and solutions to long-standing problems inadequate when asked to act as a peacekeeping
are generally staffed by individuals of high intelli- police force. The group may be quite capable
gence, motivation, and energy. For example, inves- when dealing with situations rife with conflict—
tigators who studied high-performance teams in contests, battles, and competition—but not when
such organizations as Disney Studios, Lockheed, the situation requires cooperation and creative
and the Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) traced problem-solving (Weiss, 2011).
much of the success of these teams back to their
composition. Many of the members of these groups But some groups may be jacks-of-all-trades—
were individually highly motivated: “fueled by an skilled at many types of tasks. One team of researchers
invigorating, completely unrealistic view of what examined groups’ generalized proficiency—which
they can accomplish” (Bennis & Biederman, 1997, they called collective intelligence, or c-factor—by
p. 15). But their most essential characteristics were assembling groups of two to five members and having
their talent and expertise. them work for up to five hours on tasks from all the
quadrants of the McGrath (1984) task model examined
A team of experts does not always make an in Chapter 1. The groups spent time brainstorming
expert team, however (Almandoz & Tilcsik, 2016). possible uses for a brick, solving problems taken from
In one study, researchers had four people work on a intelligence tests, discussing an issue that required moral
task that simulated the work of teams in the intelli- sensitivity, planning a shopping trip, typing a shared
gence services, detecting possible terrorists from Google document, playing a game of checkers against
email messages, images taken from surveillance cam- a computerized opponent, generating as many words
eras, archives and databases, and so on. Each member as possible that started with “s” and ended in “n”, and
of the group reviewed substantial quantities of infor- so on. The researchers then added together the scores
mation individually before meeting collectively to on all these different tests to generate each group’s
make a team decision. The researchers screened “collective intelligence” (only the morality test was
members of the groups, identifying individuals with unrelated to all the other tasks). Like individuals,
the particular qualities that would enhance their per- some groups had higher levels of “intelligence” than
formance in this kind of situation (good verbal mem- others, for they were able to master most of the diverse
ories and facial recognition). A group with experts in problems they faced. Groups with more women per-
these two areas should have helped their teams per- formed better than those with few or none, as did
form more effectively—and they did, but only if the groups with higher average scores on social sensitivity.
teams had spent time organizing their team’s proce- The best performing groups were also those where
dures. Groups with two experts in them performed members contributed to the tasks more equally (Wool-
particularly poorly—even worse than groups with ley, Aggarwal, & Malone, 2015; Woolley et al., 2010).
no experts—if the teams immediately began their More recent work, however, affirms only the strength
work without discussing how they would collabo- of the relationship between the intelligence of each
rate to make a decision (Woolley et al., 2008). member and team’s collective intelligence: teams that
have lots of smart members tend to be smarter at the
Collective Intelligence Most high-performance collective level (Bates & Gupta, 2017).
teams specialize: they are more effective when
working at one type of task rather than another. Interpersonal Skills On the social side, teams
The Mountain Medical team, for example, was function best when the members have sufficient
skilled in the operating room, but their proficiency social skills to get along well with other people.
at this task does not guarantee success when they Social skills are those basic cognitive and behavioral
attempt some other type of task. Similarly, groups competencies that allow people to interact with
in military contexts may be skilled when dealing other people in an effective, respectful, and support-
with hostile forces and protecting the group mem- ive way. They include skill in understanding other
bers from harm, but this same group may prove people, communicating with them effectively, and
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
352 C H A P T E R 11
responding appropriately during social exchanges. B. set up a specific order for everyone to speak
Basic social skills include conversational skill, emo- and then follow it?
tional sensitivity, maintaining self-control, making
appropriate self-disclosures, giving praise and C. let team members with more to say determine
encouragement as needed, and expressing agreement the direction and topic of conversation?
(Riggio & Kwong, 2009).
D. do all of the above?
In addition to these basic skills—ones that help
people work with others in a range of situations— According to the Teamwork-KSA Test (Stevens
team members must also understand the unique inter- & Campion, 1999), the best choice, in the situation
personal dynamics of teams themselves—they require in which you were arguing with others about who
team knowledge (Stevens & Campion, 1994). Although must do the unpleasant chore, is option B. In con-
different teams require different skills of their members, trast, the best choice in terms of KSAs for interper-
many performance settings reward individuals who are sonal skill for the second question is option A. An
skilled in conflict resolution, can collaborate with individual who scores well on the Teamwork-KSA
others to solve problems, and are good communica- Test is more likely to cooperate “with others in the
tors. Conflict resolution KSAs, for example, include team,” “help other team members accomplish their
the ability to distinguish between harmful and con- work,” and talk “to other team members before
structive conflicts and an emphasis on integrative dis- taking actions that might affect them” (Morgeson,
pute resolution skills rather than a confrontational Reider, & Campion, 2005, p. 611).
orientation. Collaborative problem-solving KSAs
involve skill in using group approaches to decision 11-2c Diversity
making. Communication KSAs require a range of
finely tuned listening and messaging skills, including The Mountain Medical team was, in some ways, a
the capacity to engage in small talk: “to engage in ritual relatively homogeneous team. Members were simi-
greetings and small talk, and a recognition of their lar in terms of ethnicity, skill level, age, motivation,
importance” (Stevens & Campion, 1994, p. 505). background, and experience with the new proce-
dure. They were, however, heterogeneous with
How, for example, would you respond if you regard to sex, status in the hospital, and training.
found yourself in the following situation: You and Would their similarities and dissimilarities influence
your coworkers do not agree about “who should their team’s processes and performance?
do a very disagreeable, but routine task” (Stevens &
Campion, 1999, p. 225)? Should you: The diversity of a team is determined by the
extent to which members are different from one
A. have your supervisor decide, because this another. A sample of the many ways that people
would avoid any personal bias? do, in fact, differ from each other is shown in
Table 11.2 that identifies six general clusters of dif-
B. arrange a rotating schedule so everyone shares ferences: social categories, knowledge and skills,
the chore? values and beliefs, personality, status, and social con-
nections (Mannix & Neale, 2005). Some of these
C. let the workers who show up earliest choose differences pertain to demographic qualities of peo-
on a first-come, first-served basis? ple, such as race and sex. Others refer to acquired,
functional differences between the members, such as
D. randomly assign a person to do the task and not variations in experience, knowledge, and skills.
change it?
Diversity and Team Performance From a
Or what if you wanted to improve the quality strictly informational perspective, diverse teams
and flow of conversations among the members of should win out against less diverse ones. Diversity
the teams. Should you: brings variety to the team and with that variety
A. use comments that build upon and connect to
what others have already said?
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
TEAMS 353
T A B L E 11.2 Categories and Types of the intertwining of all three disciplinary outlooks
Diversity (Edmondson, 2011).
Categories Types of Diversity But diversity has a possible downside. Diversity
can also separate members of the team from one
Social-category Race, ethnicity, gender, age, another. As social categorization theory suggests
differences religion, sexual orientation, and (Chapter 3), individuals are quick to categorize
physical abilities other people based on their membership in social
groups. Although the members of a team should
Differences in Education, functional knowl- think of each other as “we” or “us,” when mem-
knowledge or edge, information, expertise, bers belong to a variety of social categories, some
skills training, experience, and abilities members of the team may be viewed as “they” and
“them.” Diversity may therefore create faultlines
Differences in Cultural background, ideological within the team, and when the team experiences
tension, it may break apart along these divisions
values or beliefs beliefs, and political orientation (Lau & Murnighan, 1998). As Chapter 5 noted,
because people are attracted to those who are simi-
Personality Cognitive style, affective lar to them, homogeneous teams tend to be cohe-
differences disposition, and motivational sive teams and so members may be more willing to
factors perform the supportive, cooperative actions that are
so essential for team success (for reviews, see Jack-
Organizational or Tenure or length of service, son & Joshi, 2011; Meyer, 2017; Van Knippenberg
community-status and title & Schippers, 2007).
differences
Studies of Team Diversity Diversity is a mixed
Differences in Work-related ties, friendship blessing for teams, contributing to gains in perfor-
social and ties, community ties, and mance but at the same time adding the potential for
network ties ingroup membership process loss. Diversity, when based on information
and expertise, tends to improve team outcomes,
SOURCE: Mannix, E. and Neale, M. A. Psychological Science in the Public particularly on difficult tasks. When members vary
Interest, 6, 31–55, copyright © 2005 Association for Psychological Science. in ability, then by definition the team will include
Reprinted by Permission of SAGE Publications. at least one individual with high ability. Some
homogeneous teams will be uniformly unskilled,
should come a broader range of expertise, knowl- so these teams will perform particularly badly at
edge, insight, and ideas. If a team is composed of their task. As studies of social compensation dis-
highly similar individuals, they bring the same cussed in Chapter 10 suggest, heterogeneous
information and insights to the team so that they teams may also become more productive because
are less able to identify new strategies and solutions. the low-performing members are motivated by
A diverse team, in contrast, should maximize per- the high standards set by the others in the team,
formance, particularly in situations where success is and the others in the team may also be a source
not determined by the capacity to apply traditional of help and assistance as the low performers work
solutions. For example, the team of researchers who to increase their performance.
conducted the studies of Mountain Medical was a
diverse group, at least in terms of sex and disciplin- faultlines Hypothetical divisions that separate the mem-
ary training. One had a background in organiza- bers of a heterogeneous group into smaller, more homo-
tional behavior and engineering. Another was an geneous subgroups.
economist and the third a physician. When the
researchers first started their investigation, each
one expected his or her discipline’s theories and
models would explain why some of the cardiac
units were more successful in learning the new pro-
cedures than others. But their final conclusions
were based on the combined insights drawn from
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
354 C H A P T E R 11
But other types of diversity, such as variations and age—lower the team’s overall level of cohesive-
in ethnicity, race, age, and sex, influence perfor- ness. Intervention may also be required when, after
mance less reliably. Teams of researchers are more time, members have discovered that these surface-
productive when they join with researchers from level differences are unimportant, but that their deep-
other scientific fields, but not always: in some level differences in values and principles are causing
cases interdisciplinary research teams never agree unexpected turbulence in the team (Harrison et al.,
on the goals they are seeking or the means they 2002). Second, because teams exist in an organizational
will take to reach those goals. Diverse top manage- context, the nature of that organization’s culture will
ment teams navigate challenges more successfully influence how teammates respond to diversity. If the
than teams that are very homogenous, but these organization’s culture encourages collectivistic values
teams also tend to experience heighten levels of and minimizes distinctions based on tenure and status,
conflict and turnover. Studies of various types of then diverse teammates tend to behave more cooper-
teams making decisions and solving problems, atively than they would in more traditional organiza-
such as project teams, policy advisors, and even stu- tions (Chatman & Spataro, 2005). Third, to minimize
dents working to solve problems in research labs, conflict between team members from different social
are more innovative when they include members categories, steps should be taken to minimize any ten-
with different backgrounds and orientations—but dency to draw distinctions between people based on
not when working on very challenging problems. their category memberships (Cunningham, 2005;
When researchers weighed the relative costs and Homan et al., 2010). Team leaders should remind
gains of team diversity in a meta-analytic review members of the importance of involving all members
of 108 studies of over 10,000 teams, they discov- of the team in the process and make certain that indi-
ered that process gains associated with diverse viduals in the minority do not become isolated from
groups were offset, to a degree, by process the rest of the team (see Chapter 7‘s analysis of minor-
loss (Stahl et al., 2010). Conflict was greater in ity influence).
diverse groups, and social integration was reduced.
However, diverse groups were more creative than 11-2d Men, Women, and Teams
less diverse ones, and—somewhat unexpectedly—
people enjoyed membership more in diverse groups Same-sex teams are becoming increasingly anachro-
compared to less diverse ones. nistic. Whereas women were once barred from
many types of teams in business and organizational
Designing for Diversity These conflicting find- settings, changes in the social climate—and in
ings attest to the mixed benefits and limitations employment law—have increased sex-based diver-
offered by diversity in teams. Diverse teams may sity in the workforce.
be better at coping with changing work conditions
because their wider range of talents and traits The Myth of Male Bonding These changes are
enhances their flexibility. Diverse teams, however, not welcomed as progress in all quarters of society
may lack cohesion because members may perceive or recognized as adaptive by all theories of collec-
one another as dissimilar. Heterogeneity may tive action. Some evolutionary anthropologists, for
increase conflict within the team (Mannix & example, argue that the presence of women in pre-
Neale, 2005; van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; viously all-male teams may disrupt the functioning
Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). of such teams in substantial ways. This perspective
suggests that it was males, and not females, who
Steps can, however, be taken to minimize the affiliated in same-sex groups for adaptive reasons,
negative side effects of diversity and maximize diver- so that over time male bonding became a stronger
sity’s gains. First, diverse teams will need time to work psychological force than female bonding. In conse-
through the initial period in which differences between quence, heterogeneously gendered teams may be
people based on their surface-level qualities—race, sex,
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
TEAMS 355
How Productive Are Online “Crowds”?
At this moment, teams are working on thousands of and independent individuals, often rival the work of
tasks, but these teammates will never meet each other: dedicated (and often highly paid) experts and profes-
They are scattered around the world, linked by an sionals. One team of researchers, seeking to classify a
online network of distributed production called large set of documents for a research project, turned
crowdsourcing. This term combines both the idea of a to the workers of the Mechanical Turk for assistance.
crowd—a large and often dispersed group of people— This service links requesters—those who are seeking
with the idea of outsourcing—assigning a task to people to perform human intelligence tasks (HITs)—
individuals outside of the group or organization. with people who are interested in performing these
Crowdsourcing, as used by businesses, harnesses the tasks (turkers) in an online network. Turkers are paid
great diversity of Internet users around the world to for their time, if the work is adequate, although the
review, evaluate, create, develop, and even market amount paid is usually quite small—in this study, for
new products, procedures, and applications. Wikipedia, example, two cents per HIT. The investigators provided
for example, is a crowdsourced resource, for this online the turkers with a statement of the criteria for rating
encyclopedia is edited by volunteers who continually the documents and a document to review and rate on
upgrade and monitor the entries. The open source a scale from 0 (not relevant) to 3 (excellent). When the
software program Linux also makes use of crowdsour- ratings were returned from the hundreds of turkers
cing, as programmers work on its code and applications who did the work, the researchers just averaged the
voluntarily and without direct compensation. Uniting ratings and compared these ratings to those provided
all these forms of crowdsourcing is the reliance on a by experts. In all but four cases, the experts and turkers
great variety of people—diverse in terms of expertise, agreed, but when the researchers reviewed those four,
training, and skill—to perform group-level tasks. they concluded that the turkers were right on three
of them (Alonso & Mizzaro, 2009). The crowd was
Crowdsourced products, even though they are wiser than experts.
generated by large numbers of relatively anonymous
less productive than same-sex teams, since all-male the studies that favored men, the content of the task
teams would be more cohesive than mixed-sex was more consistent with the typical skills, interests,
teams. Bonding theorists also suggest “the difficulty and abilities of men than of women. Groups of men
females experience in male work groups is not that were better at tasks that required math or physical
males dislike females but rather that the force of strength, whereas women excelled on verbal tasks.
their enthusiasm for females can disrupt the work Second, Wood suggested that sex differences in
and endanger the integrity of groups of men” performance are influenced by the different inter-
(Tiger & Fox, 1998, p. 145). action styles that men and women often adopt in
groups. Men more frequently enact a task-oriented
The data do not support either the idea that interaction style, whereas women tend to enact an
males bond more cohesively in all-male groups interpersonal-oriented interaction style. Thus, men
than females bond in all-female groups or that, in outperform women (to a small extent) when suc-
consequence, male teams outperform female teams. cess is predicated on a high rate of task activity, and
Social psychologist Wendy Wood (1987), after women outperform men when success depends on
reviewing 52 studies of sex differences in group a high level of social activity (Mendelberg & Kar-
performance, identified two factors that influence powitz, 2016).
the effectiveness of all-male and all-female
teams—task content and interaction style. First, in Heterogeneously Gendered Teams But what of
mixed-gender teams—teams that include both men
crowdsourcing Obtaining information, estimates, ideas, and women? Studies of men and women working
and services from a large number of individuals, often together in teams suggest that such teams, because
using Internet-based technologies.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
356 C H A P T E R 11
of their diversity, have greater information ability (they make more errors when taking the
resources than same-sex teams and so excel at Stroop test) when they are led to believe that they
tasks that require a broad range of expertise, expe- are being observed by a member of the opposite sex
rience, and information. However, sexism, sexual (Nauts et al., 2012).
harassment, and stereotyping continue to dog such
teams (Bell et al., 2015). As with other forms of Hackman and his colleagues have explored the
diversity, sex-based diversity can create subgroups complex relationships of gender diversity, the pro-
within the team and increase levels of conflict. portion of men and women, and the organizational
Diverse teams must also deal with problems of pro- context in their studies of a particular type of team:
portion, particularly when very few men are enter- the concert orchestra (Allmendinger, Hackman, &
ing into groups that were traditionally staffed by Lehman, 1996; Hackman, 2003). As noted in
women and vice versa. Teams that achieve diversity Chapter 2, these orchestras were in the midst of a
by adding only one or two members of a social transition from all-male groups to groups that
category, such as a team with one woman and included both men and women. Some orchestras
many men, tend to encounter more problems were only beginning this transition, for they
than homogeneous teams. When work groups included very few women (2% was the lowest),
include a single token or “solo” woman, for exam- whereas others were more heterogeneous (up to
ple, coworkers are more likely to categorize each 59% women). When they measured members’
other in terms of their sex. Solo members are also work motivation and overall satisfaction with their
scrutinized more than other group members, and orchestras, they discovered that orchestras with a
this unwanted attention may be emotionally larger proportion of female members were viewed
depleting and may contribute to stereotype threat more negatively. This tendency was more pro-
(Johnson & Richeson, 2009). Token members are nounced among the men in the group and also in
more often targets of sexism and prejudice and countries with traditional conceptions of the role of
must, in many cases, work harder and express men and women in society. Hackman wrote:
higher levels of commitment to the group to over-
come other members’ biases (see Chapter 8). Life in a homogeneously male orchestra surely is
not much affected by the presence of one or
In some cases, teams with token members will two women, especially if they play a gendered
outperform homogeneous teams, even when the instrument such as a harp. Larger numbers of
teams attempt tasks that are traditionally reserved for women, however, can become a worrisome
homogeneous teams. For example, one team of presence on high-status turf that previously had
researchers watched groups working on a wilderness been an exclusively male province, engendering
survival exercise—an activity that favors people who intergroup conflicts that stress all players and
have knowledge of the outdoors. Groups of men disrupt the social dynamics of the orchestra.
generally outperformed women, but groups of men (2003, p. 908)
that included one woman performed best of all. The
researchers speculated that the addition of a woman to 11-3 PROCESS: WORKING
the otherwise all-male groups may have tempered the
men’s tendency to compete with one another and, IN TEAMS
thus, helped them to function as a team (Rogelberg
& Rumery, 1996). Other research, however, confirms The members of the Mountain Medical surgical
one of the speculations offered by the proponents of group had the experience, skills, ability, and drive
male-bonding theory: Men exhibit impaired cogni- needed to function as a highly effective team, but
tive functioning when working in the presence of they needed to combine these raw materials expe-
the opposite sex—women do not (Karremans et al., ditiously to maximize their team’s performance.
2009). In fact, only men show declines in cognitive
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
TEAMS 357
A group of people who join together to get some- members interact jointly to complete their tasks, so
thing done may qualify as a team, but will they be they are fully rather than partially interdependent,
an effective team? Although researchers have identi- with members reliably and substantially influencing
fied dozens of processes that work to transform one another’s outcomes over a long period of time
team inputs into performance outputs, here we and in predictable ways (Saavedra, Earley, & van
consider five that are noted with regularity across Dyne, 1993). In a traditional operating room, for
most models of highly effective teams: reliable example, surgeons have been known to control the
interdependence, coordinated thought and action, entire operation, so the outcome was largely deter-
a compelling purpose, adaptive structures, and mined by the surgeon’s skills rather than the effec-
cohesion (Hackman & Katz, 2010; Kozlowski & tiveness of the “support staff.” In the Mountain
Ilgen, 2006; Marks et al., 2001; Salas et al., 2015). Medical team, in contrast, the contributions of
each member of the team were vital to the success-
11-3a Interlocking Interdependence ful outcome. The interdependencies in a team tend
to be equal and reciprocal rather than asymmetric
Chelsea Hospital and Mountain Medical both faced and unequal (see Figure 1.3).
the same problem, and they both decided to solve
the problem by forming a team. But they designed Shared Mental Models Physicians, before under-
their teams differently. Both teams included a scrub taking an operation, have a clear understanding of
nurse, a perfusionist, an anesthesiologist, and a car- the complexities of what they are about to do. Each
diac surgeon, and each trained carefully that they one has a mental model that serves as a cognitive
were skilled at the tasks they needed to perform. representation of all they know about the case,
But the leaders of the two teams had different the procedure, and the challenges. But when phy-
views about how they should work together. Chel- sicians are no longer working alone, but as part of a
sea’s head surgeon believed that the team’s mem- team with others, their mental model must be
bers should focus on their own subtasks: as he shared with those others. Because of differences in
explained, “Once I get the team set up, I never prior experiences, knowledge, expectations, and so
look up [from the operating field].” The young on, each team member may have a differing view of
surgeon who headed the team at Mountain Medi- the case, the procedures, and even their specific
cal, in contrast, stressed the team members’ connec- duties as a part of the team. Some of these differ-
tions to one another: “you really do have to change ences may lead to misunderstandings and inefficien-
what you’re doing [during an operation] based on a cies as the team does its work, so the emergence of
suggestion from someone else on the team. This is a social sharedness (Tindale, Talbot, & Martinez,
complete restructuring of the [operating room] and 2013), a shared mental model (Cannon-Bowers
how it works” (Edmondson et al., 2001, p. 128). & Salas, 2001), or a collective problem orientation
He asked that during the operation everyone com- (Bonner, Soderberg, & Romney, 2016)—will facil-
municate with everyone else and not focus on only itate the group’s functioning.
their own duties.
Some semblance of this shared mental model is
All group members are interdependent to a present nearly from the team’s inception, but as the
degree, but members of teams are so tightly cou- team practices, differences among the members in
pled that no member can determine his or her own terms of their understanding of their situation and
outcome. As Figure 1.3 in Chapter 1 suggested,
groups create many types of interdependencies shared mental model Knowledge, expectations, con-
among members. For example, a team on an assem- ceptualizations, and other cognitive representations that
bly line may pass work from one person to the next members of a group have in common pertaining to the
in a fixed order, so the level of interdependence is group and its members, tasks, procedures, and resources.
equal and sequential. In other teams, however, all
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
358 C H A P T E R 11
their team diminish (Tindale, Stawiski, & Jacobs, them worked alone practicing building the radio
2008). In one study of this process, members of whereas others practiced in three-person teams.
groups completed two geography quizzes about One week later, the participants returned and
U.S. cities, with such questions as “What city is assembled a radio, this time with an offer of a
known as the Crescent City?” and “Through what cash prize if they performed well. All the subjects
city does the Trinity River run?” Unbeknown to the worked in teams, but only some of them were
group, one of their members was a confederate who assigned to the same team they had worked with
had been prepped with the answers, and he originally. These individuals outperformed the sub-
answered seven of the eight questions correctly on jects who were trained individually, apparently
the first test. The group used some of his answers because they were able to form a collaborative, trans-
(60.3%) on the first test, but when they were given active memory for the procedures in the first session.
feedback and a chance to do a second quiz, they used Moreland and his colleagues discovered that teams
his answers almost exclusively (84.7%). They had that performed the best showed signs of (a) memory
learned to rely on his expertise (Littlepage, Robison, differentiation—some of the team members were
& Reddington, 1997; see, too, Littlepage et al., better at remembering certain parts of the assembly
2008; Littlepage & Silbiger, 1992). procedures than others; (b) task coordination—the
team-trained teams worked with less confusion;
Transactive Memory Teams also need time to and (c) task credibility—the teams with stronger
develop transactive memory systems (Wegner, transactive memories trusted one another’s claims
1987). In the complex world of the operating about the assembly process.
room during heart surgery, there is too much infor-
mation about the equipment, the proper settings, the 11-3b Coordinated Interaction
instruments, the heart–lung machine, and so on, for
a single individual to retain it all with any degree of Before Mountain Medical carried out its first sur-
accuracy. The surgical team therefore distributes the gery the members of the team had already worked,
information to specific members of the team, for weeks, as a team. They met regularly to discuss
depending on their role and responsibilities. Then, the procedure, and all had trained together for three
when the information is required, the team consults days offsite in a simulated operation procedure.
with the member known to be the “expert” on that They had discussed the sequence of steps that
particular matter who then supplies the necessary would begin with an anesthetized patient and end
information to the best of his or her ability (see, with a repaired heart, so that when it was time to
too, Chapter 12‘s discussion of collective memory). work together, they functioned as a team.
Social psychologist Richard Moreland and his Teams do things as single, coordinated units.
colleagues (Moreland, Argote, & Krishnan, 1996) The members of all groups engage in a mixture of
examined the development of transactive memory task and relational interactions, but in teams the
systems by training volunteers to build radios from interaction rate is higher and the flow more contin-
hobby kits. Each kit included a circuit board and uous. In addition, teams are work-focused groups,
dozens of components that had to be put in the so a greater proportion of their interactions pertains
correct locations and connected before the radio to group tasks: monitoring of progress, improving
would function. All the participants received the coordination, structuring the work process, assisting
same training in the first session, but some of one another, strategizing, and so on (Aubé & Rous-
seau, 2005). Members of teams are attentive to each
transactive memory systems Information to be other’s interpersonal needs—they continuously
remembered is distributed to various members of the maintain, build, and even question the quality of
group who can then be relied upon to provide that their social connections—but they spend the bulk
information when it is needed. of their time on their work. When researchers used
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
TEAMS 359
the Bales (1999) Interaction Process Analysis to Transition phase Action phase
record the communication among team members,
they discovered relational statements were used Mission analysis
only rarely. In the groups Bales studied, nearly
40% of the commentary was classified as relational, Goal specification
whereas teams made relational comments (e.g.,
shows solidarity, shows tension) only 11% of the Strategy formulation and planning
time (Gorse & Emmitt, 2009).
Monitoring progress toward goals
Organizational experts Michelle Marks, John
Mathieu, and Stephen Zaccaro (2001), in their Systems monitoring
analysis of coordination in teams, identify three
processes that high-functioning teams display as Team monitoring and backup
they work: transitioning, acting, and managing
interpersonal relations among members. During Coordination
the initial phase of their work, teams plan what
they will do in later stages, set their goals, and Conflict management
plan strategy. The group then transitions to the
actual action stage when it carries out its assigned Motivating and confidence building
tasks through coordinated activity. Once this action
phase is completed, the team reenters the transition Affect management
phase and begins preparing for subsequent tasks.
Across all phases, the members are also managing F I G U R E 11.4 The teamwork process model.
the interpersonal aspects of the team in order to
minimize conflict and maximize coordination. SOURCE: “A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes,”
Thus, as Figure 11.4 indicates, Marks and her by Michelle A. Marks, John E. Mathieu, and Stephen J. Zaccaro (2001). Acad-
associates break teamwork down into three funda- emy Of Management Review, 26, 356–376. Reprinted by permission of Acad-
mental components: action processes, transition emy of Management via Copyright Clearance Center.
processes, and interpersonal processes (see, too,
LePine et al., 2008). the resources the team needs, whether they be
physical resources, time, or even energy. Third,
Action Processes When teams are at work, their team monitoring and backup behavior, considered by
task-related actions are so perceptually vivid that some to be a key difference between teams and
the action processes that make up the teamwork task groups, occurs when one member of the
portion of their activities often go undetected. team delivers assistance to another member, simply
When, for example, the Mountain Medical team because that team member needs help. Finally, coor-
began to repair the patient’s heart, an observer dination of action involves a change in the behaviors
watching the team would see a physician incising of the team members so that each one’s actions
and suturing, a nurse monitoring the patient’s vital mesh with other’s actions, resulting in synchrony.
signs, and an anesthesiologist sedating the patient.
But Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro’s teamwork pro- Transition Processes Often, teams attempt tasks
cess model suggests that four other, teamwork- that are so complex that they cannot be completed,
related actions are also taking place during the at least with any degree of success, without advance
action period. First, the group is monitoring progress
toward its goals as members implicitly check their
own actions as well as those performed by others.
Second, systems monitoring involves keeping track of
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
360 C H A P T E R 11
planning. The first type of transition process, mission group and reduce the tendency for members to
analysis, focuses on the current situation: the tasks work at cross-purposes to one another.
and subtasks that must be completed, the resources
available to the team, and any environmental con- Team expert Richard Hackman (2002, 2011)
ditions that may influence the team’s work. Teams stresses the importance of goals in his real teams
also engage in goal specification and strategy formulation model. Real teams, he suggests, embrace shared
between action episodes, since experience working goals that guide the work of the group and
together will provide the members with a clearer heighten members’ motivation. According to
idea of the team’s potential and limitations. Strategy Hackman, a team’s purposes should be clear, chal-
formulation is particularly essential if the team is lenging, and consequential, but not overly speci-
unable to reach the goals it has set for itself, for, fied, impossibly difficult, or so daunting that team
by reviewing the causes of failure, team members members are motivated by a fear of failure. Teams
may find ways to improve their efficiency and out- stress outcomes to such an extent that their very
comes (Cannon & Edmondson, 2005). existence is threatened should they fail to achieve
their agreed-upon goals. Team members’ high level
Interpersonal Processes Consistent with studies of interdependence, combined with the team’s pur-
of work groups in general, during both the transition suit of consensual goals, means that the members of
and action periods, teammates must spend some of a team cannot succeed unless their group succeeds.
their time tending to the relational side of their team. The members of a team may strive to outperform
To reach a high level of effectiveness, teams require a each other or achieve personally important goals,
degree of unity; yet the pressures often encountered but each member’s outcomes are tied to the
by groups as they strive to reach their goals can pro- team’s outcomes, such that if the team is successful,
duce tension within the group. Members of effective so are the individual members. But, should the
teams tend to reduce the threat of such conflict to team fail, the members do as well.
the group’s cohesion through conflict management.
Other types of interpersonal work required of the 11-3d Adaptive Structures
group members include motivation and confidence
building and affect management. Teams—effective ones, at least—are usually well
organized, for their roles, norms, and intermember
11-3c Compelling Purpose relations are defined rather than nebulous. The
members of a baseball team, for example, play dif-
The sine qua non of teams is their pursuit of goals— ferent positions, and the actions of each player are
and collective ones at that. Teams have been defined determined, not only by the skills and abilities of
in many different ways, but nearly all definitions sug- the person who occupies that position, but also by
gest teams “work toward shared and valued goals” the standards that define what a person in that role
(Salas et al., 2009, p. 39); they seek a “common should and should not do: the pitcher will pitch,
purpose” (Hackman, 2011, p. 51); and team mem- the outfielders will catch fly balls, the infielders
bers are “committed to a common purpose, perfor- will cover the bases and field grounders, and so
mance goals, and approach for which they hold on. Similarly, in the Mountain Medical surgical
themselves accountable” (Katzenbach & Smith, team, each member played a specific role in the
2001, p. 7). All these definitions stress the consensual
nature of a team’s goals: members share an under- real teams model A theoretical analysis of teams that
standing of the group’s recognized purpose and—in identifies the key factors that distinguish effective (“real”)
effective teams, at any rate—willingly contribute teams from other collective enterprises, including a com-
their time and energy in the group’s pursuit of its pelling direction, an enabling structure, a supportive con-
goals. Shared goals increase coordination within the text, and effective leadership (developed by J. Richard
Hackman).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
TEAMS 361
operation, and the outcome of the surgery absence of conflict in the team, and members’ sense
depended on each team member meeting the of psychological safety.
demands of his or her role. These structures are
adaptive, for they serve to improve the degree of 11-3e Cohesive Alliance
coordination of the members’ actions.
Teams are cohesive groups: The relations linking
Other structural elements, including perfor- members to the group are strong, rather than
mance norms, status, communication networks, and weak and the group tends to remain intact over
so on, also tend to be better defined in teams than in time and in difficult circumstances. Teams are
more informal types of groups. The actions and inter- united in their pursuit of a common goal, so a
actions of the team members are governed by implicit team’s unity usually springs from its task cohesion,
and explicit social norms that prescribe the appropri- but teams may exhibit one or more of the other
ate way to respond in the situation as well as pro- forms of cohesion considered in Chapter 5. Team-
scribed actions members should avoid if at all mates are often socially and emotionally close to
possible. These norms are what transform an aggre- each other (social cohesion), they strongly identify
gate of individuals into hardworking, engaged team with their team (collective cohesion), and they are
members who are committed to the group’s goals. affectively bonded (emotional cohesion). The
Run-of-the-mill teams become high-performance team’s dense network of interdependencies, com-
teams when team norms encourage mutual respect bined with its stability in membership and clear
and support, open communication, commitment to boundaries, may also heighten its structural cohe-
effectiveness, and high levels of engagement in the sion. External pressures may magnify this unity, for
work (Katzenbach & Smith, 2003). teams usually work under some kind of pressure,
such as a heavy workload, limited time, or compe-
Teams, although they tend to develop formal- tition with other teams.
ized procedures and a fixed division of labor, are
not miniature bureaucracies. Bureaucracies are Cohesion’s Benefits An increase in a team’s level
highly organized systems, but they tend to become of cohesion results in both affective (emotional) and
inefficient as structures that are no longer needed instrumental gains for the individual members and
are retained, and changes that would improve the the group as a whole. Working in a cohesive team
system are not implemented. Teams, in contrast, is, at core, more satisfying for members—the expe-
continuously review and revise their structures to rience is more enjoyable, the relationships more
improve their functioning. Researchers confirmed positive, and the satisfactions gained from success
the relationship between adaptive team structures are more pronounced. If, as many have argued,
and performance by first calibrating the extent to people have a strong need to belong to groups,
which members of one hundred teams working membership in a cohesive, successful team will
for a Fortune 100 technology firm agreed when likely satisfy that need. But cohesion also yields
describing their teams’ degree of role specialization, practical advantages for teams. Cohesive groups
responsibilities, and work scheduling. They then retain their members, and so one of the core
asked outside observers to rate each team’s capacity requirements for group efficiency—a predictable
for self-improvement. Supporting the adaptive roster of membership—is more likely in cohesive
function of structure, they found that teams with teams than less cohesive teams. Conflict, although
clearer structures were more, rather than less, likely inevitable, is usually managed more effectively by
to “continually look for more efficient ways to the members of cohesive teams, and so results in
accomplish our assigned tasks” and “learn from fewer long-term negative consequences. As noted
one another as we do our individual jobs” (Bun- in Chapter 5, when a group lacks cohesion, the
derson & Boumgarden, 2010, p. 616). Ratings of members are less likely to act in a coordinated,
the team’s structure were also highly correlated
with level of information sharing among members,
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
362 C H A P T E R 11
Is Your Team Psychologically Safe?
Google, the fabulously successful technology company, their voices were heard, and that others were con-
has always relied on teams to maintain its effective- cerned for their well-being.
ness. So, when the company wanted to know more
about why some teams were more effective than Instructions. Focus on a specific team or group to
others, it initiated its own project—code-named which you belong (a club, class, organization, work
Aristotle—and began collecting all sorts of data from group, or even your family). Put a check by those
hundreds of Google teams. Initially, they expected to statements with which you agree.
find the answer in the composition of the groups—the
talents of each individual members—but the data told q Members of this team are able to bring up pro-
a different story. The keys to success in Google groups blems and tough issues.
were the norms that took hold in each team. But what
mattered most was not so much the content of the q It is safe to take risks on this team.
norms, but their clarity: when all agreed on the norms q No one on this team would deliberately act in a
of the group, these norms sustained the group’s
workflow, creativity, and commitment, and the teams way that would undermine my efforts.
tended to prosper (Duhigg, 2016).
q If you make a mistake on this team, it is often
Clear norms also contributed to what team held against you.
researcher Amy Edmondson (1999) calls a sense of
psychological safety: “people’s perceptions of the q It is difficult to ask other members of this team
consequences of taking interpersonal risks in a partic- for help.
ular context such as a workplace” (Edmondson & Lei,
2014, p. 23). In some teams, members felt insecure and Scoring. Do you feel psychologically safe in this
uncertain; they were so constrained that they did not group or team? If you agreed with the first three
speak up and express concerns and dissatisfactions. In items, then the level of psychological safety in your
other groups, in contrast, the members felt safe, that group is high. But if you agreed with the final two
items, then you described your group as low in safety.
(These items are only a subset of Edmondson’s Team
Psychological Safety measure; please see Edmondson,
1999, for more details.)
efficient way: members’ actions will not mesh with work group may not be successful because it is cohe-
those of other members. If the group’s tasks do not sive, but instead it may be cohesive because it has
require synchronization and coordination, a lack of succeeded in the past. Cohesive teams can also be
cohesion may not undermine performance, but as spectacularly unproductive if the group’s norms stress
coordination demands increase, so does the need low productivity rather than high productivity.
for cohesion (Severt & Estrada, 2015).
Cohesion and Trust Cohesion also benefits
Because of these positive benefits, a cohesive teams because it contributes to the development of
team will usually outperform a less cohesive team. interpersonal trust: the mutual assurance that
However, and as discussed in detail in Chapter 5, the other members of the group will do what they are
cohesion–performance relationship is a complex one. supposed to do and do so without too much supervi-
Meta-analytic studies suggest that cohesion improves sion, pestering, or application of pressure (Kramer,
teamwork among members, but that performance 1999). As sociologist Gary Alan Fine concludes,
quality influences cohesion more than cohesion “trust, which originates in confidence in information
influences performance (Mathieu et al., 2015). The
psychological safety A shared belief that the group or interpersonal trust The confidence or certainty that
team will support and affirm members who take risks, other individuals will do what they are supposed to do
make mistakes, express concerns, and raise issues. even in the absence of social surveillance or pressure.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
TEAMS 363
Do the Members of Online Teams Trust Each Other?
Not all teams meet in face-to-face settings, but instead skills they needed to be successful. Then, as the group
they collaborate on shared tasks using information worked on the project, members of high-trust groups
technologies. Variously termed e-teams, virtual teams also attributed integrity (e.g., “I am never doubtful
(VTs), and distributed teams, e-teams interact via about whether the other team members will do what
computer-based communication technologies, and so they promised”) and benevolence (e.g., “the other team
the nature of these teams has changed as technology members will do everything within their capacity to help
has changed. Whereas these teams once used e-mail and the team perform”) to the group and its members.
telephone-based conference calls as their primary means
of communicating, most now augment these tools with Team B, for example, was a high-trusting group.
videoconferencing, decision support software, file store Members communicated with one another at much
systems, and even virtual-world conferencing. higher rates to clarify the group’s task and procedures,
but to also exchange personal information. They “com-
When teams first turned to these technologies, municated their excitement and optimism in their first
they often encountered difficulties in planning and messages (‘I am very excited about working on the project
strategizing relative to offline groups, and, in some with all of you … ‘; ‘I am really looking forward to work
cases, performance outcomes were disappointing. with you … the assignments do look very interesting’)”
Over time, however, improvements in technological (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998, p. 46). They did not quickly divide
tools have increased the richness of e-team interac- up the work into parts and assign each part to a member,
tions, and members have become more skilled in using but instead worked continuously together on their tasks.
them. This improvement is due, in part, to a genera- They communicated with one another continuously.
tional shift in team composition: The newest members
of teams grew up using technology in all aspects of Team F, in contrast, was low in trust, for members
their lives (Maynard et al., 2012). showed little initiative or concern for others’ work.
Communication rates were low throughout the pro-
How do members of e-teams learn to trust each cess, and much of the work was done (grudgingly) by
other as they collaborate on projects from a distance? just two of the members:
Sirkka Jarvenpaa (2016), a researcher in business and
management, examined this question by arranging for Although the team members expressed their
students in college classes at dozens of universities interest and commitment in early messages, no
located around the world to work together virtually member was willing to take charge. Each time
(Jarvenpaa, Knoll, & Leidner, 1998; Jarvenpaa, Shaw, & something was needed, a member would ask who
Staples, 2004). The groups were given eight weeks to was going to do the activity rather than volun-
complete a series of tasks, including a written paper and teering. This began with the first exercise in which
a working website that would count toward their course a member said that someone needed to coordi-
grade. These groups varied considerably in their overall nate the activity and asked for a volunteer. No
levels of productivity, but also in their levels of trust. The one volunteered. (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998, p. 51)
high-trust groups expressed a high degree of confidence
in each other and in their group, in part because mem- Team F never completed the assignment, whereas
bers believed that their partners in the work had the members of Team B stayed in touch with each other
even after the project ended.
provided by groups and individuals and builds on per- groups, but one particularly influential theory of
sonal commitment to the group, is translated into a trust—the organizational trust model—ties trust
‘pure’ relationship that, when generalized to the col- in others to perceptions of ability, benevolence, and
lectivity, produces organizational loyalty. Trust integrity (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995;
anchors cohesion” (2003, p. 189).
organizational trust model A theory of trust in groups
Trust develops gradually as members interact and organizational settings that assumes people’s trust in
with one another, for members require time to others is based on perceptions of ability, benevolence,
gather the information they need to estimate the and integrity.
strength of the relationships before they risk testing
those relationships. Many factors influence trust in
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
364 C H A P T E R 11
Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007). At first, trust is lists. Teams have also taken the place of some tradi-
largely determined by appraisals of the skills and abil- tional groups as people’s source of social connection,
ities of other group members; individuals who are for more people report belonging to teams than they
thought to be incompetent or untrained cannot be do to hobby, community, and social groups. Teams
trusted to complete their tasks. Integrity, too, is also now have only one group to overtake in terms of
salient to group members early in the life of the popularity: religious groups. But do teams live up to
group, as members determine if others accept the their promise as systems for increasing productivity
group’s norms and standards as their own. Members and members’ well-being?
will also, in time, add to ability and integrity a third
quality—benevolence—as they contribute unstint- The Success of Teams Anecdotal evidence and
ingly to the group (Aubert & Kelsey, 2003; Yakov- research findings converge on a verdict that favors
leva, Reilly, & Werko, 2010). In teams with high teams, but with reservations. Case study approaches
levels of trust, members share information, expend are generally, but not uniformly, positive (Apple-
more effort, and provide others with more support, baum & Blatt, 1994). Texas Instruments, for exam-
and as a result: trust leads to improved team perfor- ple, increased productivity when it organized its
mance (Fiore, Carter, & Asencio, 2015). employees into small groups whenever possible,
took steps to build up team cohesiveness, and
11-4 OUTPUT: TEAM went to great lengths to establish clear goals based
on realistic levels of aspiration (Bass & Ryterband,
PERFORMANCE 1979). When a manufacturer in the United States
shifted to teams, supportive supervision, participant
Organizational experts recommend using teams to leadership, organizational overlap among groups,
achieve excellence. No matter what system the and intensified group interaction, employee satisfac-
experts propose—job enrichment, balanced score- tion increased and turnover decreased (Seashore &
card management, business process reengineering, Bowers, 1970). Case studies have, however, uncov-
activity-based management, or an updated version ered examples of spectacularly ineffective teams.
of management by objectives—most will tout the For example, Hackman (1990), after examining
benefits of using teams to get work done. But do the effectiveness of 33 teams, had to revise the pro-
teams offer the best means to maximize human posed title of the book he had planned: Groups That
potential? This section examines the final segment Work was given the subtitle (and Those That Don’t)
of the input–process–output model of teams: What because he found considerable variation in perfor-
do teams generate by way of direct and indirect mance quality across the teams he studied.
outcomes? The analysis raises the question of
evaluation—how effective are teams?—and also Field studies of the use of groups and team
considers ways to improve teams. development generally support the wisdom of rely-
ing on teams (Sundstrom et al., 2000). The Harley-
11-4a Evaluating Teams Davidson Motor Company, for example, dramati-
cally transformed their production methods by
Viewed from an evolutionary perspective, teams are shifting from a traditional command-and-control
highly successful social organisms. From relatively culture to one based on self-managing work
humble beginnings in athletics, farming, and agricul- teams, and the positive results of this conversion
ture, teams have spread out to populate much of the appear to depend in large part on the high level
world. Teams are gaining popularity as preferred of cohesiveness maintained by these groups (Chans-
approaches to management, and “how to” books ler, Swamidass, & Cammann, 2003). When
on team methods continue to make the bestseller researchers, through meta-analysis, examined the
link between organizational change and perfor-
mance, they found that companies that made
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
TEAMS 365
multiple changes usually improved their performance of the team as a whole and individual development
and that group-level interventions were more closely of the members. Many teams can perform their
linked to productivity than individual-level interven- basic work effectively, but over time they fail to
tions (Macy & Izumi, 1993). A recent survey of peo- profit from their experiences of working together.
ple’s satisfaction with their team memberships, A truly successful team is one that grows stronger
however, suggests that members themselves are not over time so that it can undertake even more chal-
so happy with their teams. Only 13% of the 23,000 lenging tasks in the future. Hackman (2002, p. 28)
managers, workers, and executives in one survey also feels that a high-performing team should con-
agreed that their “teams work smoothly across func- tribute, in positive ways, “to the learning and per-
tions” (Covey, 2004, p. 371). sonal well-being of individual team members”:
Beyond Productivity Teams are task-focused If the group prevents members from doing
groups, and so the major criterion for determining what they want and need to do, if it compro-
their success is their performance: Do they reach the mises their personal learning, or if members’
goals they, and others, set for them? By this standard, main reactions to having been in the group are
Mountain Medical was a success. The team learned frustration and disillusionment, then the costs
to perform the new surgery quickly and safely, and of generating the group product were too high.
this efficiency meant a better recovery for the (Hackman, 2002, p. 29)
patients and substantial savings for the hospital. The
team needed less time in the operating room, and its Team Learning Because these cognitive founda-
efficiency was so high that it could do more opera- tions of teamwork develop as the teammates expe-
tions than other teams. At a price of approximately rience working together, teams require group
$36,000 per case, the team proved to be both medi- rather than individual practice. Although in years
cally sound and economically profitable. past, organizations often sent their personnel offsite
to individually receive training in team skills at
A team’s productivity, however, is only one of institutes and workshops, team members need to
the outputs that should be considered when deter- be trained together—as a unit—rather than sepa-
mining its effectiveness. Mountain Medical may rately. Only by confronting the learning situation
have become a crack surgical team, but what if as a group can the team engage in team learning, a
the demands of the task were so great that mem- “process in which a group takes action, obtains and
bers, feeling great pressure, decided to leave the reflects upon feedback, and makes changes to adapt
group? What if the team was productive, but over or improve” (Sessa & London, 2008, p. 5).
time members grew to dislike working with each
other? What if Mountain Medical became The success of the Mountain Medical Center’s
stagnant—repeating the motions required for the cardiac surgery team illustrates the importance of
operation with each case, but losing the capacity learning as a team. The 16 hospitals that Pisano
to adapt and change that had made them a high- and colleagues (2001) studied all used the same
performance team in the first place? equipment, and the operating room staffs were all
trained by the equipment’s manufacturer. These
Hackman (2002) suggests three key factors that highly trained surgical teams performed their
should be considered when evaluating the success work well, and nearly all of the patients fully recov-
of a team. Task performance is the first and fore- ered after their surgery. Some, however, recovered
most criterion. Teams are created for the purpose of more rapidly and with fewer complications than
generating results, and a successful group is one that others, and this gain was indicated by the speed of
meets or exceeds agreed-upon “standards of quan- the operation. None of the teams operated too
tity, quality, and timeliness” (Hackman, 2002, quickly, but some were relatively slow. With each
p. 23). But Hackman adds to this criterion two patient, the teams improved—minimizing the
other, more indirect, outcomes: adaptive growth
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
366 C H A P T E R 11
amount of time that the patient was on the heart– 11-4b Suggestions for Using Teams
lung machine is an indicator of recovery time—but
some teams learned more quickly than others. Sur- Teams are perhaps the most popular of all groups.
prisingly, the educational backgrounds and surgical No longer does a lone mechanic change your car’s
experience of the teams did not predict learning engine oil; most automotive shops claim a team of
rates nor did the overall support for the new proce- technicians will take care of your car’s needs. Pow-
dure by the hospital’s administrative staff. The status erful moguls once ran all the large companies, but
of the head surgeon on the team was also unrelated now executive leadership teams are in charge. Even
to learning rate, as was the amount of time the teams scientists, long portrayed as loners working in soli-
spent in formal debriefing sessions after each case. tude to unlock the secrets to the universe, are doing
their work in groups: Science is now “team sci-
What did predict learning rates? The way the ence” (Fiore, 2008).
teams were designed and trained. In the slow-
to-learn teams, the surgeons assigned to the team But even the most optimistic appraisal of the avail-
happened to be the ones who were available to able data on team effectiveness would suggest that
attend the training session. They showed little there is room for improvement in the use of teams in
interest in who was on their surgical team—in performance settings. Teams are a group with extraor-
fact, the members of the team varied from case to dinary promise, but to fulfill that promise they must be
case, violating a basic rule of good team design implemented correctly, and members must be given
(Hackman, 2002). These teams did not fully realize assistance to use them to their full advantage (Cordery,
how intense the new surgical methods would be in 2004; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006).
terms of coordination demands, and the surgeons
did not explicitly discuss the need for greater atten- Fidelity of Team Innovations The popularity of
tion to teamwork. team approaches has brought with it a significant
drawback—in the rush to claim that they are
At places like Mountain Medical, in contrast, using team methods, individuals sometimes call
the team surgeon was usually an advocate for the work groups “teams” even though they lack the
procedure, and he or she was actively involved in defining features of real teams. More than 80% of
selecting all the other members of the team. These the executives, managers, and team members sur-
individuals worked together during the training ses- veyed in one study reported that their teams lacked
sions as a team, and they remained together longer clear goals; that their members did not engage in
during the first cases using the new methods. The creative discussion; that team members did not hold
surgeons in these teams also stressed the importance each other accountable for their assigned tasks; and
of working together as a team rather than stressing that members of their team rarely initiated actions
the acquisition of new individual skills: “They made to solve problems (Covey, 2004). These are basic,
it clear that this reinvention of working relationships essential qualities of teams, and, if they are lacking,
would require the contribution of every team mem- these work groups likely are not actually teams.
ber” (Edmondson et al., 2001, p. 130). These fast
learners also continued to increase their efficiency, These responses may indicate that the very
as they developed an open pattern of communica- concept of a team—individuals joining together in
tion where all felt free to make suggestions for unified groups to pursue shared goals—is unwork-
improving the work. As noted earlier in the chapter, able, but it may also be that team-based methods
this team began slowly, taking longer to finish the have not been properly implemented. Members of
procedure than most teams. By the fifth case, how- true teams cannot complete their work without
ever, this team was performing at the same speed as interacting with each other. That interaction may
most other teams, and they continued to improve involve exchanging information, sharing resources,
their rate with each new case until they were able or even lifting, carrying, or moving something
to conduct the operation faster than most. together rather than individually, but the work
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
TEAMS 367
requires each team member to contribute in some training team members yields demonstrably positive
way (Aubé & Rousseau, 2005; Kauffeld & results, and he encourages organizations to make use
Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012). Members of suc- of scientific principles and findings to improve their
cessful teams are also committed to group-level training of team members (Salas et al., 2012; Shuffler,
goals, and the rewards they receive should be DiazGrandados, & Salas, 2011).
based on attaining those goals rather than individual
ones. Teams are also relatively well structured and Team Building When well-meaning leaders and
cohesive. If a team fails because it lacked these key managers wish to help their teams work more effec-
ingredients, then the blame most likely rests with tively, they often turn to team building exercises,
those who built the team rather than the team itself. social events, and off-site training experiences. In
the name of team building, organizations often
Training in Teamwork Too many organizations place their teams in challenging environments so
create teams but then do little to help team mem- that the members will learn teamwork skills but
bers develop the skills they need to work in those also develop a sense of unity as a result of surviving
teams. Only 29% of the organizations in one survey the ordeal. Team building adventures, such as back-
gave their teams any kind of training in teamwork packing together in the wilderness, spending the
or interpersonal relations, and only 26% based com- day on a ropes course, or playing a paintball game
pensation (salary, bonuses) on team performance against a rival team, continue to be popular meth-
(Devine et al., 1999). Given the complexity of ods for increasing team unity.
interpersonal and cognitive demands that teams
require, members will likely need assistance in These activities often function as group-level
learning how to work effectively in them. rewards for participating in teams, but they are no
substitute for research-based team building interven-
Fortunately, team training has robust effects tions. Unlike team training—which is skill-focused
on team effectiveness (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). and usually involves practice and feedback—team
When team expert Eduardo Salas and his colleagues building is less structured and targets general relational
examined the effectiveness of several types of skills. Team building, however, when properly imple-
training interventions using meta-analysis, they mented, does tend to improve team functioning
concluded that (a) most methods work, but (b) the (Klein et al., 2009). Salas and his colleagues identified
best ones focus on improving member coordination four basic approaches to team building that target
rather than communication strategies (Salas, Nichols, more specific problems that teams often face: goal
& Driskell, 2007). Cross-training, which involves setting, interpersonal relations (e.g., trust, communica-
rotating members throughout the various positions tion, and teamwork), role clarification, and problem-
within the group, was particularly helpful, in that it solving procedures (Salas et al., 1999; Salas, Priest, &
provided members with a clear understanding of the DeRouin, 2005). A meta-analytic review of studies of
demands associated with each role and the intercon- these types of team building methods suggests that all
nections among members’ responsibilities. Crew are relatively effective, but that goal-setting and role-
resource management (CRM), developed for train- clarification interventions led to more significant
ing flight crews in teamwork procedures, has also improvements (Klein et al., 2009).
been successfully applied to teams working in
many other settings with considerable success. Salas, Situational Support A final condition for imple-
summarizing the available data, concludes that menting teams is the degree of organizational sup-
port available to the teams (Kennedy et al., 2009).
team training Empirically supported instructional
methods used to teach individuals and teams the cogni- team building Instructional methods used to promote
tive, behavioral, and affective skills required for effective the development of interpersonal and teamwork skills in
team performance. individuals and teams.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
368 C H A P T E R 11
Organizations may, in the rush to implement and to increase productivity, efficiency, quality,
teams, create them but then fail to provide them and job satisfaction. Yet, by the 1990s, most of
with the support they need to flourish. Features of these groups were gone—the failure rate was
the organizational context, such as support for between 60% and 70% (Tang & Butler, 1997).
technologically based group support systems, What happened?
development of group-level reward systems to
supplement or complement individual rewards, QCs were not teams, and they had their own
degree of collectivism in the organizational cul- unique limitations—participants volunteered and
ture, and the availability of external coaches who were not compensated, and, in many cases, conflicts
can assist the team to navigate trouble spots, will developed between participants and nonpartici-
increase the probability that team-based pants. Worse, however, was the lack of support
approaches will be successful (Mathieu et al., provided the QCs. They were originally viewed
2008). Other organizational features, such as tradi- as an easy means of increasing involvement and sat-
tional leadership styles, hierarchical patterns of isfaction, but the suggestions of QCs were rarely
organization, and individually based compensation heeded by management. They were essentially
systems, will increase the likelihood that team powerless, and members soon realized that they
approaches will not prosper. were an ineffective means of achieving valued out-
comes. A few transformed from QCs into true self-
The case of quality circles (QCs) provides a managing teams, but most were just abandoned
lesson in the importance of providing support for (Lawler & Mohrman, 1985).
group-level innovations. QCs were popular in
the 1980s. These small, self-regulated decision- The lesson of QCs should not be ignored.
making groups usually included five to ten As many as 90% of Fortune 500 companies
employees who performed similar jobs within implemented such methods in their plants, facto-
the organization. The groups were often led by ries, and meeting rooms at the peak of their pop-
a supervisor who had been trained for the role, ularity, but the method did not take. Without
but participation in the circle was often volun- institutional support or proper design, QCs rapidly
tary, and no monetary incentives were offered disappeared. It would be unfortunate if teams
to those involved. These groups were thought went the way of quality circles, due to failures to
to be excellent ways to increase workers’ partici- implement them correctly, failures to train indivi-
pation in the management of the organization duals to work effectively in them, and failures to
support them.
CHAPTER REVIEW
What are teams and what are their various forms? ■ Teams have become increasingly popular
1. Teams are groups whose members are working as a means of organizing work in a variety
of settings.
together in the pursuit of a shared goal.
■ Teamwork is the process used to combine ■ Teams are needed when tasks are difficult,
complex, and important, but the popular-
(coordinate) members’ efforts effectively. ity of teams is not consistent with their
overall effectiveness (according to the
quality circles (QCs) Small self-regulated groups of concept of the romance of teams).
employees charged with identifying ways to improve
product quality. 2. Types of teams include work, management,
project, advisory teams, and self-managing
teams.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
TEAMS 369
■ Hackman’s (2002) authority matrix model ■ Individuals who function effectively in
distinguishes between four types of teams groups possess a working knowledge of
on the basis of their control over their how teams work (team knowledge KSAs).
processes and goals: manager-led, self-
managing, self-designing, and self- 5. There are advantages and disadvantages associated
governing. with team diversity.
■ Members of cross-functional teams often ■ Diversity increases the team’s resources,
serve as boundary spanners for the but diverse groups may lack cohesion,
organization. because their members may perceive each
other as dissimilar. If cohesion is essential
■ Holacracy is a multiteam system that use for the group to succeed, a diverse group
teams (“circles”) for all organizational will be disadvantaged.
functions.
■ Crowdsourcing capitalizes on the creativity
3. The input–process–output (IPO) systems of diverse groups.
model guides much of the theoretical and
empirical study of teams. 6. Wood’s (1987) meta-analysis of sex differences
found that men and women do not differ in their
How does the team’s composition influence its effectiveness as team members, disconfirming the
effectiveness? male bonding hypothesis.
1. Pisano, Bohmer, and Edmondson (2001) ■ Groups that include a lone representative
examined the performance of medical teams of a particular social category (tokens, or
and related their effectiveness to composition solos) may encounter problems of fairness,
and design. influence, and so on.
2. Conscientiousness and agreeableness are the ■ Hackman’s (1992) studies of performing
two personality traits most closely linked to orchestras indicate that the group’s history
team effectiveness, followed by extraversion, and the larger social context in which the
emotional stability, and openness. group is embedded influence the impact of
a group’s gender heterogeneity on
3. A configural approach to team composition performance.
assumes that each member’s fit within the team
depends on the personal qualities of the other What processes mediate the input–output
individuals who are on the team. relationship?
4. Members’ team orientation and their knowl- 1. Interlocking interdependence promotes team
edge, skills, and abilities, or KSAs, predict performance by enhancing the development of
team effectiveness. shared mental models and improving transactive
memory systems.
■ KSAs include both task competence and
interpersonal skills. ■ Moreland and his associates (1996) examined
the development of transactive memory by
■ Studies of highly successful teams suggest training individuals either in groups or indi-
they were all staffed with highly moti- vidually, and then examining how much of
vated, skilled experts, but including experts that training transferred to a subsequent
in groups does not assure that the team will group situation.
be effective.
2. Coordinated interaction is sustained by three
■ Some groups may be, collectively, more key processes: transitioning, acting, and
intelligent than others, but the cause of
those variations is not yet known.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
370 C H A P T E R 11
managing interpersonal relations among mem- How effective are teams, and how can they be
bers (Marks et al., 2001). improved?
3. Hackman’s (2002) real team model stresses the 1. Team approaches do not ensure success, but
unifying functions of a clear, challenging, and they are reliably associated with increases in
consequential task. effectiveness and member satisfaction.
4. Teams are well-structured groups, with clearly 2. Hackman (2002) identified three factors that
defined roles, norms, and intermember define the success of a team: task performance,
relations. adaptive growth of the team, and individual
development of the members.
■ Clarity of group structures enhances
members’ sense of psychological safety ■ The Pisano, Bohmer, and Edmondson
(Edmondson, 1999). (2001) study of surgical teams identified
the factors that promoted learning in some
5. Effective teams are usually cohesive (social, groups and reduced the learning capacity
task, collective, emotional, and structural). of others.
■ Cohesiveness promotes the exchange of ■ The checkered success of team approaches
information and trust, but cohesive teams is due, in part, to the failure to properly
do not necessarily outperform less cohesive design teams.
ones.
3. Salas and his colleagues (2007) have identified a
■ According to Fine, team members develop number of ways to improve team function and
interpersonal trust over time as they learn have developed team training and team building
which members of their team can be techniques that can be used to teach team
trusted to perform their requisite tasks members the skills they need to perform more
adequately. effectively in groups.
■ Research conducted by Jarvenpaa and her 4. Experience with past group-level methods,
colleagues (2004) indicates that teams that such as quality circles, suggests that fidelity,
meet online rather than offline (e-teams or training, and support are required to maximize
virtual teams) develop trust in a manner effectiveness.
consistent with the organizational trust model.
RESOURCES
Chapter Case: Mountain Medical’s Cardiac Surgery The Nature of Teams
Team
■ Making the Team: A Guide for Managers by
■ “Organizational Differences in Rates of Leigh L. Thompson (2014) provides a
Learning: Evidence from the Adoption of detailed analysis of all the core topics in the
Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery” by analysis of teams, with chapters pertaining
Gary P. Pisano, Richard M. J. Bohmer, and to internal dynamics (e.g., communication
Amy C. Edmondson (2001) examined how and conflict) and external dynamics (e.g.,
the surgery teams at 16 different medical social networks and multiteam contexts).
centers adjusted to a new surgical procedure
that required a higher degree of teamwork ■ “Team Development and Functioning” by
(see, too, Edmondson et al., 2001). Janis A. Cannon-Bowers and Clint Bowers
(2011) is a comprehensive review of the
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
TEAMS 371
current state of research into team provides extensive coverage of team work
processes and dynamics that examines processes, with 25 chapters dealing with
historical approaches, taxonomies, team antecedents to team effectiveness, team
selection processes, team performance, and work processes, and performance
emerging issues. outcomes.
■ “Unraveling the Effects of Cultural ■ Looking Back, Moving Forward: A Review
Diversity in Teams: A Meta-Analysis of of Group and Team-based Research, edited
Research on Multicultural Work Groups” by Margaret A. Neale and Elizabeth A.
by Gunter K Stahl, Martha L Maznevski, Mannix (2012), includes chapters examin-
Andreas Voigt, and Karsten Jonsen (2010) ing fundamentally important topics in
synthesizes the findings from 108 studies of the study of groups and teams, including
over 10,000 teams to draw conclusions power, leadership, composition, and
about the relationship between team conflict.
diversity and performance.
Improving Teams
Working in Teams
■ Smarter Faster Better: The Secrets of Produc-
■ Team Cohesion: Advances in Psychological tivity in Life and Business by Charles Duhigg
Theory, Methods, and Practice, edited by (2016) is an engaging integration of core
Eduardo Salas, William B. Vessey, and concepts in the scientific study of team
Armando X. Estrada (2015), provides processes with cases of high-functioning
extensive theoretical and empirical details teams in military, business, and entertain-
about one of the core qualities of most ment settings.
successful teams: cohesion.
■ Holacracy: The New Management System for a
■ The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Rapidly Changing World, by Brian J.
Psychology of Team Working and Collaborative Robertson (2015) describes one way teams
Processes, edited by Eduardo Salas, Ramon can be used to structure collective effort in
Rico, and Jonathan Passmore (2017), business and industry.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
12C H A P T E R Decision
Making
CHAPTER OUTLINE
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
12-1 The Decision-Making Process
12-1a Orientation People turn to groups when they must solve prob-
12-1b Discussion lems and make decisions: They are better informed,
12-1c The Difficulty of Discussion they can review and appraise ideas, information,
12-1d Making the Decision and alternatives through discussion, and they use
12-1e Implementation consensus-based standards when making their final
choices. But groups are not perfect and neither are
12-2 Decisional Biases their decisions. People sometimes make more
12-2a Judgmental Biases extreme decisions when in groups than they
12-2b The Shared Information Bias would if they were alone, and in rare cases they
12-2c Group Polarization seek concurrence instead of the best decision possi-
ble, and so fall victim to groupthink.
12-3 Victims of Groupthink
12-3a Symptoms of Groupthink ■ How do groups make decisions?
12-3b Defective Decision Making ■ What problems undermine the effectiveness of
12-3c Causes of Groupthink
12-3d The Emergence of Groupthink decision making in groups?
12-3e Alternative Models ■ Why do groups make riskier decisions than
12-3f Preventing Groupthink
individuals?
Chapter Review ■ What is groupthink, and how can it be
Resources
prevented?
372
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
DECISION MAKING 373
The Bay of Pigs Planners: Victims of Groupthink
The decision makers are meeting in the Cabinet Room senior advisors and staff members, cabinet members,
of the White House, just down the hall from the Oval the CIA and their subject matter experts, and military
Office. The group has gathered at the request of advisors from the Department of Defense—all highly
President John F. Kennedy to discuss a covert para- skilled individuals well trained in making critically
military operation code-named Zapata. The Central important policy and military decisions. This group,
Intelligence Agency (CIA) had developed operation after a thorough review, advised the president to give
Zapata after Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba. the CIA the go-ahead.
During this period in U.S. history the CIA used various
methods to curtail the spread of communism in Latin The Bay of Pigs invasion took place on April 17,
and South American countries, and it hoped to apply 1961. The assault that was so carefully planned was a
these covert operational strategies to overthrow disaster. For the plan to succeed, the attacking force
Castro and his communist government. needed to secure and hold the beachhead at Playa
Girón, but Castro’s forces’ counterattack overwhelmed
Operation Zapata proposed training, transport- them. Several key elements of the plan, including air
ing, and supporting a regiment-sized group of guer- support and supplying the ground forces with muni-
rilla fighters who would invade Cuba at the Bahía de tions, were either aborted or poorly executed. The
Cochinos (Bay of Pigs). The men would then launch entire attacking force was killed or captured within
raids and encourage civilian revolt in the country’s days, and the U.S. government had to send food and
capital city, Havana. The CIA needed Kennedy’s supplies to Cuba to ransom them back. Group expert
approval, but Kennedy did not want to make this Irving Janis described the decision as one of the “worst
decision by himself. So, he assembled his advisors, and fiascoes ever perpetrated by a responsible govern-
together they discussed the strengths and weaknesses ment” (1972, p. 14), and President Kennedy lamented,
of the proposal. The Bay of Pigs advisory group, as “How could I have been so stupid?” (quoted in Wyden,
diagrammed in Figure 12.1, included White House 1979, p. 8).
The Bay of Pigs advisory committee, like many examining one potentially catastrophic group
other groups, faced a problem needing a solution. process—groupthink—in detail.
Through discussion, the members pooled their
expertise and knowledge. They sought out infor- 12-1 THE DECISION-MAKING
mation from available sources, and they thoroughly
weighed alternatives and considered the ramifica- PROCESS
tions of their actions. When their alternatives
were narrowed down to two—to invade or not to In office buildings, executives hold conferences to
invade—they made the decision as a group. But the solve problems of management and production; at
committee was typical in another way. Like so the dinner table, families talk over moving to a new
many other groups, it made the wrong decision. neighborhood; in courthouses, juries weigh evi-
dence to determine guilt and innocence; on the
We owe much to groups. Groups put battlefield, a combat squad identifies a target and
humans on the moon, built the Empire State plans an attack. In these and thousands of other
Building, performed the first symphony, and similar settings, interdependent individuals make
invented the personal computer. But groups also decisions in groups.
killed innocent civilians at My Lai, marketed tha-
lidomide, doomed the space shuttles Challenger Why turn to a group when a decision must be
and Columbia, and decided that the best way to made? Even though groups are far from perfect,
deal with the communist regime in Cuba was to their choices, judgments, estimates, and solutions
invade it. This chapter examines both the pros are usually superior to those tendered by lone
and the cons of making decisions in groups before
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
374 C H A P T E R 12
President John F. Kennedy
White House Cabinet Consultants Defense
staff Department
National Security Advisors R. Kennedy CIA Subject matter Nitze
Council Rusk experts Williams
Bundy Schlesinger Dillon Dulles
McNamara Bissell
Berle
Mann
F I G U R E 12.1 The members of President Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs advisory committee.
individuals (Hinsz, 2015). The work of scientists the wisdom of the many is greater than even the
who collaborate is superior to the work of scientists genius of the one.
who work alone (Uzzi et al., 2013). Groups’ per-
ceptions of other people are more accurate than What is the secret to groups’ superiority in mak-
individuals’ impressions (Ruscher & Hammer, ing decisions? A process model of group decision
2006). Small groups working together on Google making suggests that groups engage in a sequence of
searching for information will find more relevant activities, operations, and practices as they move from
information more quickly than a single searcher uncertainty to decisional conviction and that each step
can (Lazonder, 2005). Teams of physicians making in the series serves some purpose. When group mem-
a diagnosis are more accurate than single physicians bers convene to make a decision or solve a problem,
(Glick & Staley, 2007). Students who take a test in they don’t just vote and then adjourn. Instead, they
groups get better grades and learn more than indi- define their purpose, share information through dis-
vidual students (Vogler & Robinson, 2016). Bur- cussion and deliberation, consider alternatives and
glars who work in groups are less likely to be solutions, and identify implications. No two groups
caught than are thieves who work alone (Warr, reach their decisions in precisely the same way, and
2002). Groups solve difficult logic problems (e.g., no two theorists agree on the definitive list of processes
the Wason selection task) faster than individuals, that determine those decisions, but the four phases
and when the members encounter similar problems identified in the ODDI process model shown in
later as individuals they outperform those who did Figure 12.2—Orientation → Discussion → Decision →
not have a group learning experience (Maciejovsky Implementation—are often in evidence when groups
et al., 2012). Even very powerful leaders—
presidents of the United States, for example— ODDI process model A conceptual analysis of the
rarely make decisions without consulting others. steps or processes that groups generally follow when
Instead, they rely on groups, for the weighty pro- making a decision, based on the intended purpose of
blems that they must handle on a daily basis would each step or process in the overall decision-making
overwhelm a lone individual. In most situations, sequence.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
DECISION MAKING 375
Start No decision
Orientation Discussion Decision Implementation
Defining Remembering Decision
problem, goals information
Planning the Exchanging reached
process information
Carrying out
the decision
Evaluating
the decision
Developing Processing
shared mental information
model
Detecting
inaccurate
information
F I G U R E 12.2 The orientation–discussion–decision–implementation (ODDI) model of group decision making.
make decisions and solve problems (Simon, 1997). organizes the procedures it will use in its work. As
The group defines the problem, sets goals, and devel- that great expert on human behavior, baseball player
ops a strategy in the orientation phase. Next, during and manager Yogi Berra (2002, p. 53), once warned,
the discussion phase, the group gathers information “If you don’t know where you’re going, you might
about the situation and, if a decision must be made, not get there.”
identifies and considers options. In the decision phase,
the group chooses its solution by reaching consensus, Goal Clarity and Goal-Path Clarity Some
voting, or using some other social decision process. In groups may know exactly what they want to
the implementation phase, groups put the decision achieve and how they will go about doing it, but
into action and assess the consequences of their most must first clarify both the goals they seek and
choice. These processes need not occur in this order the path they will take to reach those goals (Shaw,
or in every case, but they often do. Groups that fol- 1981). Goal clarification requires not only setting spe-
low these four stages are more likely to make better cific, attainable goals, but also the review of the
decisions than those who do not (Wittenbaum, group’s overall mission, the problems it is dealing
Hollingshead, & Botero, 2004). with and the decisions it must make, the results it
intends to deliver, and the criteria it will use to
12-1a Orientation evaluate the quality of its performance and results.
Goal-path clarification, in contrast, requires spelling
Decisions begin with a problem that needs a solution. out just how the group will do its work, including
A group of students in a class are required to complete a identifying tasks and subtasks, organizing members’
project that includes a written paper and a presentation. roles and responsibilities, specifying how the mem-
The president of the United States is briefed by the bers will work together, determining how the
CIA on the invasion of Cuba. The police unit must group will make its decisions, and setting milestones
take into custody a criminal who is residing in a heavily and deadlines.
defended residence. Such situations trigger a decision-
making process that often begins with a period of Both groups and the individuals who are
orientation, as the group reviews its objectives and members of those groups are more successful—
they make better decisions, solve problems more
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
376 C H A P T E R 12
efficiently, and waste less time—when they have the other group members respond positively
clarified their goals and their paths to those goals (Hackman et al., 1976). When groups are given a
(Weingart, 1992; Weldon, Jehn, & Pradhan, problem to solve or a decision to make, their first
1991). The importance of this orientation process tendency is to get started on the task itself rather
is so great that in some cases it is the only thing that than consider process-related issues. Even when
differentiates successful groups from unsuccessful enjoined to plan, groups believe that planning is
ones (Hirokawa, 1980). In a study of six conferences less important than doing (Shure et al., 1962).
in which panels of experts evaluated new medical Even Kennedy’s group moved through the orien-
technologies, participants were more satisfied when tation stage too hastily. Kennedy had just become
the decisional procedures had been discussed in the president of the United States, and his advisors
advance (Vinokur et al., 1985). Similarly, in a project had not worked together before, so the members
that experimentally manipulated the use of process should have spent several meetings talking about
planning, groups were more productive when they the problem and the strategy they would take in
were encouraged to discuss their performance strate- solving it. Instead, they immediately began to dis-
gies before working on a task requiring intermember cuss logistics and operations (Stern, 1997). This
coordination (Hackman, Brousseau, & Weiss, 1976). anti-planning bias stems, in part, from the tendency
Effective teams, as noted in Chapter 11, take time to of groups to apply whatever method they used in
develop a shared mental model as the members the past to current and future projects (Hackman &
review their tasks, roles, goals, and procedures Morris, 1975).
(Bonner, Soderberg, & Romney, 2016).
Yet, groups that recognize that their time is
Researchers examined the benefits of this ori- limited plan out their work better than groups
entation phase by studying groups that were that do not (Sanna et al., 2005). In one survey of 48
responsible for making critically important decisions self-managing teams, those who spent time during
for the companies where they worked—such as their initial stages with temporal planning devel-
launching an e-commerce website or developing a oped strong norms about time, and these norms
technologically sophisticated training program. helped these groups perform better than groups
They discovered that some of these groups per- that did not put enough time into time planning
formed marvelously, meeting their goals, and (Janicik & Bartel, 2003). Groups that spend time
impressing high-ranking leaders in the company. setting deadlines and reviewing problems they
Others did not. But what set the high and low might encounter as they pursue their goals are
performers apart was how they mobilized their also more likely to avoid the planning fallacy:
resources during their initial meetings. Groups that the tendency to underestimate just how long a
spent considerable time clarifying their goals and task will take to finish (Kahneman & Tversky,
reviewing their procedures in a series of sessions 1973). This fallacy occurs because most people
were more effective than those who did not. assume that the future will be pleasant rather than
These investigators also found, however, that in bleak, that issues that come up along the way will
the best teams the leader did not orchestrate the be handled quickly and without great expendi-
planning process, but let the group members them- ture and effort, and that one’s choices will be
selves explore their purposes and procedures right rather than wrong. People are basically opti-
(Ericksen & Dyer, 2004). mists, so when they envision the future, they tend
to construct mental scenarios that err on the
Problems with Planning Given the clear benefits
of spending time setting goals and making plans, it planning fallacy The tendency for individuals and
is unfortunate that few groups show much interest groups to underestimate the time, energy, and means
in planning their procedures. When a group mem- needed to complete a planned project successfully.
ber raises the issue of planning, very rarely do any of
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
DECISION MAKING 377
Are Group Discussions a Waste of Time?
The humorist C. Northcote Parkinson’s (1957) time turns to Item 10, the allocation of $2350 to build a
management laws are particularly apt when applied bicycle shed to be used by the office staff, everyone on
to groups. Parkinson’s first law, which he modestly the committee has something to say. As Parkinson
named Parkinson’s Law, states that a task will (1957, p. 301) explained:
expand to fill the time available for its completion.
Hence, if a group gathers at 1 PM for a one-hour A sum of $2350 is well within everybody’s com-
meeting, the group will likely adjourn at 2 PM, no prehension. Everybody can visualize a bicycle
matter how simple or routine the issues they shed. Discussion goes on, therefore, for forty-five
examine. minutes, with the possible result of saving some
$300. Members at length sit back with a feeling of
Parkinson’s second law, the law of triviality, states achievement.
that the time a group spends on discussing any issue
will be in inverse proportion to the consequentiality of Research does not entirely support Parkinson’s
the issue (Parkinson, 1957, paraphrased from p. 24). bleak assessment. Groups are sensitive to the chal-
Parkinson described a hypothetical finance committee lenges that various items on their agendas pose, and
dealing with Item 9 on a long agenda: a $10-million they tend to allocate more time to more difficult
allocation to build a nuclear reactor. Discussion is terse, tasks—although their attention and interest does tend
lasting about 2½ minutes, and the committee unani- to wane the longer the meeting lasts (Littlepage &
mously approves the item. However, when the group Poole, 1993).
positive side and underestimate the possibility of 12-1b Discussion
negative, time-draining problems and missteps
(Dunning, 2007). On February 17, 1961, President Kennedy asked
his advisors a simple question: Should the United
Both individuals and groups are prone to this States support a paramilitary invasion of Cuba? To
bias, but groups are even less accurate than indivi- provide the president with an answer, the group
duals. When college students were asked to make examined all kinds of issues through discussion.
predictions about the time needed to complete a They reviewed the issue in a series of meetings by
written case analysis that would count as 25% of sharing information, setting priorities, expressing
their final grade, their estimates were less accurate misgivings, and studying alternatives until they felt
after they talked the project over as a group. Even confident enough to make a recommendation.
though the projects had been divided into subtasks,
each with its own distinct deadline, the group If information is the lifeblood of decision mak-
members grossly underestimated the time they ing, then the discussion phase must be the heart of
would need to complete each one. During that process (Kowert, 2002). An information pro-
their discussion of deadlines, the groups focused cessing model of decision making assumes that peo-
primarily on factors promoting successful task com- ple strive, in most cases, to make good decisions by
pletion and overlooked possible problems (Buehler, acquiring the information that is relevant to the
Messervey, & Griffin, 2005). issue and processing that information thoroughly,
so that its implications are clearly understood. A
collective information processing model also assumes
Parkinson’s Law A task will expand to fill the time discussion The communication of information between
available for its completion. two or more people undertaken for some shared purpose,
law of triviality The amount of time a group spends on such as solving a problem, making a decision, or increasing
discussing any issue will be in inverse proportion to the participants mutual understanding of the situation.
consequentiality of the issue.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
378 C H A P T E R 12
that people seek out and process relevant informa- Orientation, Discussion, Decision, and Implemen-
tion but that they do this cognitive work during the tation (Bonner & Baumann, 2012). Groups can also
group discussion (Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath, get more information than individuals can. In many
1997). When people discuss the problem as a cases, decision-making groups are staffed by indivi-
group, they improve their memory for information, duals who have widely differing experiences, back-
exchange information with each other, process the grounds, and associations, so each one can
information more thoroughly, and identify errors contribute unique information to the discussion
and mistakes (see Figure 12.2). (Henningsen & Henningsen, 2007).
Collective Memory Processes Two heads are Groups’ memories are also superior to indivi-
better than one because groups have superior mem- duals’ memories because only groups can store and
ories for information relative to individuals. Arthur retrieve information in a transactive memory system
Schlesinger, for example, knew a great deal about (Wegner, 1987). If the human mind is an informa-
international relations, but he could not compete tion processing network, then a group is a “net-
with the combined informational resources of all work of networks” (Van Overwalle & Heylighen,
the Bay of Pigs planners. Their memories, when 2006, p. 606). A group has not just one system for
combined, contained a vast assortment of informa- storing memories, but many such systems, so the
tion about Cuba, Castro, weaponry, and even the group can improve both the capacity and durability
terrain of the beach where the troops would land of its memories by dividing data among the mem-
(see Harris, Paterson, & Kemp, 2008, for a review). bers. Members working in the same group often
specialize, to a degree, in different areas. These
A group’s collective memory is the shared individuals not only have more information on a
reservoir of information held in the memories of given topic, but they are also the ones who should
two or more members of a group. Groups remem- be more responsible for storing any new informa-
ber more than individuals, because groups draw on tion that is relevant to their area of expertise. In the
more memories that contain different types of committee, for example, the CIA was recognized as
information. The CIA operatives who met with the source of all information about the invasion
the Bay of Pigs planners knew all about the weap- force, so other group members spent little effort
ons, tactics, and the morale of Castro’s troops, but deliberately storing information on that topic.
Rusk was an expert on the relationship between When anyone needed to check a fact pertaining
Cuba and the Soviet Union. When they joined to the commandos, they turned to the CIA and
together, they could pool their individual expertise their memory stores (Hollingshead, 2001a). But
to form the group’s decisions. (Unfortunately, no the Bay of Pigs planners had not spent enough
one in the group knew that the Bay of Pigs was time together to develop a strong transactive mem-
Castro’s favorite fishing spot, so he was thoroughly ory system. As discussed in Chapter 11, transactive
familiar with every path, road, and hill in the area.) memory is enriched by the experience of working
Similarly, when students are permitted to take as a team and by trust among members. The Bay of
examinations as a group, they usually outperform Pigs planners had neither.
individuals, for the student who is stumped by the
question “Name four common phases of group Groups can also improve their access to infor-
decision making” is saved by a group member mation stored in members’ memories through
who remembers the mnemonic acronym ODDI: cross-cuing. This process occurs when one
collective memory A group’s combined memories, cross-cuing The enhancement of recall that occurs dur-
including each member’s memories, the group’s shared ing group discussion when the statements made by group
mental models, and transactive memory systems. members serve as cues for the retrieval of information
from the memories of other group members.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
DECISION MAKING 379
member says something that jogs other members’ Shows Solidarity
memories. For example, President Kennedy may Shows Tension
not remember where the force will land, but per- Release
haps he will say, “I think it’s a bay.” This cue may Agrees
trigger someone else’s memories, so that the name
“Bay of Pigs” is retrieved by the group, even Gives Suggestion
though none of the members could generate this
name initially (Meudell, Hitch, & Kirby, 1992). Gives Opinion
Unfortunately, if a group member offers up a mis-
leading cue— instead of saying, “I think it’s a bay,” Gives Orientation
a committee member said, “I think it’s near a
lagoon”—then such cueing can inhibit memory Asks for Orientation
retrieval rather than facilitate it (Andersson, Hitch, &
Meudell, 2006). Asks for Opinion
Information Exchange Groups do not merely Asks for Suggestion
draw on a larger pool of information than indivi-
duals. They can also exchange information among Disagrees
the members of the group, thereby further
strengthening their access to information as well as Shows Tension
their recall of that information. For example, the
discussion groups in one study were asked to Shows Antagonism
make simple estimates, such as “What is the popu-
lation of the state of Utah?” These groups 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
exchanged, on average, 27 pieces of information Percent rate
before drawing a conclusion (Bonner & Baumann,
2012). The general discussion groups that sociolo- F I G U R E 12.3 Average interaction profile for dis-
gist Robert F. Bales (1955) studied exchanged, on cussion groups (Bales, 1999).
average, 960 pieces of information in each of their
sessions. More than 50% of all comments made by SOURCE: Social Interaction Systems: Theory and Measurement, by Robert F.
members were suggestions, expressions of opinion, Bales, Transaction Publishers, 1999, p. 240.
and attempts at orientation (see Figure 12.3).
Group members also shared information about are discussed, and the strengths and weaknesses of
the problem, expressed agreement or disagree- each option are considered. Group members analyze
ment, and asked for more information and clarifi- each other’s ideas and offer corrections when they
cation. The proportion of comments in each note errors. Members dialogue with one another,
category will vary depending on the nature of sharing viewpoints and seeking a shared meaning.
the group discussion and its level of intensity, but Ideas are debated, with some group members seeking
in most groups communication peaks during the to convince others that their position is better. The
discussion phase. group members also monitor their work and inter-
vene as necessary to bring the group back on task.
Processing Information Groups not only recall Most group discussions also include an interpersonal
and exchange information more effectively than indi- element that complements the focus on the work to
viduals, but they also process that information more be done. Members of decision-making groups not
thoroughly through discussion. Members ask ques- only share and evaluate information, but they also
tions, and others offer answers. Alternative options encourage each other, express commitment to the
group, and help each other (Jehn & Shah, 1997;
Weingart & Weldon, 1991).
Just as the orientation period is essential to effec-
tive decision making, so the time spent in active
discussion increases the quality of the group’s deci-
sion (Katz & Tushman, 1979). When researchers
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
Forsyth, Donelson R. - Group dynamics (2019, Cengage) - libgen.lc
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search
Forsyth, Donelson R. - Group dynamics (2019, Cengage) - libgen.lc
- 1 - 50
- 51 - 100
- 101 - 150
- 151 - 200
- 201 - 250
- 251 - 300
- 301 - 350
- 351 - 400
- 401 - 450
- 451 - 500
- 501 - 550
- 551 - 600
- 601 - 650
- 651 - 700
- 701 - 723
Pages: