Teams & Groups

Question 1

Organizational Groups

Answer 1

Have more than two members, are intact social systems with boundaries, so that members recognize themselves as a group, are recognized by others as a group, have one or more tasks that are measurable, and operate within an organization
(Hackman, 1987; in Jehn, 1995)

Question 2

Teams

Answer 2

are interdependent in their tasks, who share responsibility for outcomes, who see themselves and who are seen by others as intact social entity embedded in one or more larger social systems, and who manage their relationships across organizational boundaries
(Cohen & Bailey, 1997)

Question 3

Teams #2

Answer 3

collectives who exist to perform organizationally relevant tasks, share one or more common goals, interact socially, exhibit task interdependencies, maintain and manage boundaries, and are embedded in an organizational context that sets boundaries, constrains the team, and influences exchanges with other units in the broader entity.
(Kozlowski & Bell, 2003)

Question 4

Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon (2003)

Answer 4

A creative meta-analysis to further test cohesion and group performance by looking at performance as a behavior and not as an outcome.

• looked at effectiveness instead of efficiency.
• only the group level of analysis.
• found cohesion to be more strongly correlated to performance measured as a behavior. Performance efficiency was more strongly correlated to cohesion than was performance effectiveness. Teams that had lots of workflow between and among members experienced a greater cohesion-performance relation.

Question 5

DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus (2010)

Answer 5

a meta-analysis on the effect of cognition on teamwork performance.
importance of team cognition for performance (effectiveness). Shared mental models (compositional) vs. transactive memory (compilation).

• found that the relationship between team cognitive emergent states and team effectiveness to be moderated by team type. Teams may vary in their types.
• team cognition additional variance after controlling behavior and motivational dynamics

Question 6

Team Cognition

Answer 6

an emergent state that refers to the manner in which knowledge important to team functioning is mentally organized, represented, and distributed within the team and allows team members to anticipate and execute actions (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006)

Question 7

Compositional Emergence

Answer 7

“the individual-level building blocks are similar in form and function to their manifestion at the team level” and compilational emergence is described as when “the construct manifested at the team level is different in form to the individual-level counterpart” (p. 35).

Question 8

Work Team

Answer 8

(a) two or more individuals who
(b) socially interact (face-to-face or, increasingly, virtually);
(c) possess one or more common goals;
(d) are brought together to perform organizationally relevant tasks;
(e) exhibit interdependencies with respect to workflow, goals, and outcomes;
( f ) have different roles and responsibilities; and
(g) are together embedded in an encompassing organizational system, with boundaries and linkages to the broader system context and task environment.
(Kozlowski & Ilgen 2006 p. 79)

Question 9

Team Interdependence

Answer 9

the extent to which team members cooperate and work interactively to complete tasks
(Stewart & Barrick, 2000, AMJ)

Question 10

Festinger (1950)

Answer 10

3 components of cohesion:

1. interpersonal attraction
2. task commitment
3. group pride

Question 11

Hill (1982)

Answer 11

groups vs. individuals
- Groups are stronger than the average member. - Groups show superior positive correlations with learning tasks, abstract or difficult thinking, and brainstorming.

Question 12

Wegner (1987)

Answer 12

Transactive memory knowledge held by members in the team in which each member know who holds what knowledge.

Question 13

Watson et al. (1991)

Answer 13

re-evaluating group decision making. Longitudinal study that concludes contrary to prior studies that groups decision making across time was superior to that of the best individual member. Newly formed groups need time to get to know members. Group experience increased which increased proficiency and effectiveness and decreased dependence on the ‘best member’

Question 14

Warkentin et. al (1997)

Answer 14

points out the lack of social cues in VT and the lack of relational ties. Compared VT and face to face on information sharing with relational ties. Found that lack of relational ties = lower satisfaction and cohesion. While relational ties did impact information sharing in face to face teams, no statistically significant difference in sharing was found for VT.

Question 15

Watson et. al (1998)

Answer 15

groups work best when there are:

1. multiple parts to the problem
2. no one individual has all the information
3. the task is complex
4. there is interdependence
5. time

Question 16

Kozlowski & Klein (2000)

Answer 16

team cognition is a bottom up emergent state; it is the way knowledge is organized, represented and distributed in the team.

Question 17

Cannon-Bowers & Salas (2001)

Answer 17

Shared mental models as coordinated team behavior. Found cohesion to explain a portion of variance in team performance.

Question 18

Beal et al. (2003)

Answer 18

Cohesion and Performance-behavior = stronger relationship than cohesion and performance-outcome.

Efficiency vs. Effectiveness. The more workflow (pooled, sequential, reciprocal, intensive) the stronger the relationships (moderator).

Interpersonal attractiveness, task commitment, and group pride all displayed independent relations to group performance.

Question 19

De Dreu & Weingart (2003)

Answer 19

relational vs. task conflict on performance.

Findings show that overall contrary to prior studies conflict is not good. Minor task conflict if high trust, openness and psychological safety exists is ok.

Relational trust has a stronger impact on turnover, OCB and satisfaction and is never found as a benefit.

Question 20

Kerr & Tindale (2004)

Answer 20

Group performance and decision-making.

Productivity baseline (best member) process loss and gain. Motivation loss and gain (context; expectancy). Group decision making=consensus. Less than optimal will ignore information that was not shared. Sense-making is performed to reach consensus on a decision. more weight given to the mean group members, less to the outsiders (social sharedness). judges are influenced by advisors however give themselves more weight. the more info, accuracy, and past correct info influences judge. groups focus on shared info at the expense of unshared. could improve decisions by lengthening time, group leader, sharing unshared info., dividing tasks. overlap of members cognition (cognitive centrality). minority decisions more likely to be accepted if the group is broken down to smaller groups. a big decision is more likely to be accepted when looking at parts then the whole. stress can reduce quality but increase quantity.

Question 21

Van Vugt & Hart (2004)

Answer 21

Social Glue Theory supported by all 3 experiments.

• Group perception is an antecedent of group loyalty and mediates between social identity and group loyalty.
• Social identity provides stability in groups that would otherwise collapse. High identifiers group loyalty is better explained by an extremely positive impression of their group membership than by a justification of previous investments in the group.

Question 22

Matzler, Renzl, Müller, Herting, & Mooradian (2008)

Answer 22

In the study examining knowledge sharing as it relates to 3 personality traits - conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness. Concentrate on the role that personal dispositions play in individual’s knowledge sharing behavior. Found 3 personality traits correlated positively with knowledge sharing in teams. Empirical evidence of the impact of enduring individual characteristics on knowledge sharing.

Question 23

Mesmer-Magnusa, DeChurch, Jimenez-Rodriguez, Wildman, & Shuffler (2011)

Answer 23

meta-analysis to uncover new insights on the role of virtuality on team information sharing. to what extent does virtuality affect information sharing uniqueness
and openness in teams? Second, do the effects of information sharing uniqueness and openness on team performance depend on the means through which information is transmitted?

• virtuality improves the sharing of unique information, but hinders the openness of information sharing.
• unique information sharing is more important to the performance of face-to-face teams than is open
  information sharing, whereas open information sharing is more important to the performance of virtual
  teams than is unique information sharing
• the effects of virtuality on information sharing are more curvilinear than linear – such that low levels of virtuality improve information sharing, but high levels
  hider it.

Question 24

Mesmer-Magnus and DeChurch (2009)

Answer 24

meta-analyzed the team information sharing literature and found essentially two different forms of information sharing, uniqueness and openness,
that have different effects on team outcomes.
- information sharing enhances team performance most when teams shared unique, rather than commonly held, information.

Question 25

Harrison, Price, & Bell (1998)

Answer 25

Examines how time and surface-level (demographic) diversity and deep-level diversity (attitudinal) impacts group social integration.

• the length of time group members worked together weakened the effects of surface-level diversity and strengthened the effects of deep-level diversity as group members had the opportunity to engage in meaningful interactions.

Question 26

Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey (2017)

Answer 26

Strong relevance of time to research on work team diversity (time, team, and task performance)

Stronger team reward contingencies stimulate collaboration. As time passes, increasing collaboration weakens the effects of surface-level (demographic) diversity on team outcomes but strengthens those of deep-level (psychological) diversity.

• perceived diversity transmits the impact of actual diversity on team social integration, which in turn affects task performance.