Groups & Teams Flashcards
Ilgen et al. 2005
Replaced the I-P-O framework with IMOI
Input, Mediator, Ouput, Input to show there is feedback from output and that relationships may not be linear
Trust in team is made up of team efficacy and team psych safety
Edmondson 1999
Psych Safety and Team Learning - Multimethod study in office supply company
Team Psych Safety is a shared belief about the consequences of interpersonal risk-taking
Structure/Support promote shared beliefs (safety & efficacy) that encourage learning behaviors (asking questions, seeking feedback, etc.) which is good for performance
Tuckman 1965; Tuckman & Jansen 1977
Looked at notes from different work groups, therapy groups, etc. and identified 4 stages of group development, later adding the fifth stage.
Forming - role negotiations, testing boundaries Storming - intergroup conflict Norming - acceptance of roles Performing Adjouring - disbanding the group
Gersick 1988
Punctuated Equilibrium
An alternative model of group development that incorporates the group context/environment
Groups progress is not necessarily sequential and change is triggered more by members’ awareness of time and deadlines
Observed that teams alternated between states of inertia and revolution…Usually at the midpoint, they’d have an explosion of work.
Humphrey 2009
Strategic Core
Certain roles (and the role holders) are uniquely influential to team performance which challenged prior models of team composition/attitudes as an average of all team members
Strategic Core (roles that encounter more problems and have greater exposure to tasks, and more central to workflow) (i.e., pitcher/catcher in MLB)
Core Role Holder experience and skill are critical to team performance, teams that invest more in core roles outperformed other teams
Kerr & Tinsdale 2004
Review of Group Perf and Decision making
Groups tend to exhibit more process losses
Nominal groups outperform brainstorming groups
High goals increase productivity and satisfaction, and collective efficacy mediates between goal-setting and performance
same group processes can lead to both good and bad performance
Kozlowski & Illgen 2006
Group Effectiveness Review
Teams are embedded in a multi-level system that has individual, team, and organizational aspects,
Cognitive - team climate, mental models, transactive memory (e.g., knowledge of members’ expertise), team learning
-leadership can shape mental models, assumptions are that tighter mental models are good for performance
Motivational/Affective: team cohesion, team efficacy/group potency, affect/mood/emotion, team conflict
- general positive relationship between cohesion and performance
- how do we enhance cohesion? Techniques?
Affect/Mood/Emotion - need more research, in its infancy
Martins et al. 2004
Virtual Teams Review
teams whose members use technology to varying degrees in working across locational, temporal, and relational boundaries to accomplish an interdependent task.
Most research on trust and conflict in virtual teams
Need to look at interpersonal processes (psych safety, identity, group emotion)
Morgeson et al. 2005
Selecting individuals in team settings
Used a situtational judgment tests, measured personality, found that social skills, conscientousness, extraversion, and teamwork knowledge incrementally predicted contextual performance (i.e., helping)
Pearsall & Ellis
Thick as Thieves - Downside of Psych Safety
Undergrad student teams’ ethical orientations
Utilitarian teams with high psych safety were more likely to engage in unethical behaviors
Porter et al. 2003
Backup Behaviors and Legitimacy of Need
Extraverts secure help
Conscientousness people provide help
Backup may hep peformance but when its given to those that don’t need it, it may not be functional (see Barnes et al. 2008 early backup help bad for perf)
Canon-Bowers, air traffic controllers- experience working together predicts requests and provisions of backup
