View
226
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
7/27/2019 Topic Summary Groups&Teams
1/23
Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams 1
Topic Summary: Groups and Teams
Topic summary learning goals
1. Recognize the difference between a group and a team.2. Explain factors that lead to effective groups and teams.3. Describe group and team norms and their development.4. Identify different types of teams and give an example of each.5. Describe group and team decisions making processes and barriers to decision-
making processes.
Key terms
BrainstormingCommon knowledge effect
Decision-making processDelphi technique
Group developmentGroup polarization
GroupthinkHomogenous team
Heterogeneous teamMaintenancenorms
Mental modelsNominal group technique
NormsPsychological safety
Punctuated equilibriumRoles
Shared mental modelsSocial loafing
Task normsTeam Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSAs)
Virtual teams
7/27/2019 Topic Summary Groups&Teams
2/23
Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams 2
Introduction to Groups and Teams
Teams and groups are the basic unit by which organizations accomplish goals and
coordinate work. Most researchers make a distinction between groups and teams. Groups
refer to a collection of individuals who may interact, but do not share similar goals or
interdependence. Group processes refer to the interpersonal, social, and psychological
dynamics that occur during human interaction. Members of a team, in contrast, hold
interdependent roles and goals. They share interdependence and hold responsibility for
specific outcomes. Teams also typically fit within and must conform to a wider
organizational structure that includes reporting to the same manager, sharing a common
identity, and holding relatively stable membership (Sundstrom et al, 1990; p. 7-9).
Despite the many differences between the two, whether working in a group or a team,
both involve complex emotional dynamics. Membership in a group or a team creates
ambiguity and often results in anxiety. Anxiety emerges as group members struggle to
deal with the ambiguity. Anxiety emerges as group members struggle to answer questions
like:
What role should I play? What is an appropriate level of commitment to the task we face? What is an appropriate level of intimacy between members? What tension exists over what members are thinking and feeling about me and my
performance? (Bennis & Shepard, 1956).
In both groups and teams, three sets of factors relate to effectiveness. Context and
support factors, internal factors, and the desired organizational outcomes.
7/27/2019 Topic Summary Groups&Teams
3/23
Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams 3
Figure 1: Factors for effective group and teamwork
Context and composition
Types of teams and their desired outcomes
Organizations turn to groups and teams to accomplish tasks that a single person
can achieve working alone. Organizations rely on groups and teams to achieve several
different types of outcomes like improving overall performance, increasing effectiveness,
and completing projects, or managing ongoing processes. Depending on the desired
outcome, organizations might rely on and implement a different type of team. Many
types of teams exist.
Management teamsconduct planning, policy-making, budgeting, staffing, and
coordinating activities for organizations. Most management teams also share
responsibility for managing subordinates. Executive teams and corporate boards are two
common types of management teams.
Project teams, often called task forces or short term project teams, share a
specific, time bound purpose. Project teams usually have narrowly defined goals and are
Contextandcomposition
TypeofteamCoachingandsupport
Teamcompositionandroles
Knowledge,skillsandabilities
Internalteamfactors
NormsDevelopmentDecisionmakingprocesses
Desiredoutcomes
Learningandimprovement
Customerservice
Projectcompletion
Management
7/27/2019 Topic Summary Groups&Teams
4/23
Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams 4
single minded in their pursuit of these goals. An organization might rely on a project
team for designing a new product, writing a new soft ware package, filming a movie, or
constructing a new building. Action and performance teamsalso focus on conducting
single performance events. Action and performance teams require a higher degree of
coordination and specialized skills do to the complex nature, of the task they perform.
Cockpit crews, military and geographical expeditions, and professional musicians qualify
as action and performance teams.
Production teams focus on production or operations of existing products.
Production teams typically involve improving performance by improving effectiveness
and efficiency of ongoing operations including production.A similar type of team, called
a service teams responds to the ongoing needs of customers such as airline flight
attendants, customer services teams, and maintenance teams.
Some teams may have characteristics of several different types of teams. In
addition, individuals may be members of several different teams simultaneously. For
example, organizations formparallel teams to work on special projects of short duration.
Membership in a parallel team coincides with membership with other work arrangements
such as the case with advisory committees and quality assurance teams (Sundstrom et al,
1990).
The specific purpose of the group or team will determine what outcomes the
organization expects. Groups often form in organizations with the sole purpose of helping
improve learning or the development of its members, with little regard to outcomes
within the organization. Other times, groups and teams form to help accomplish specific
organization goals.
7/27/2019 Topic Summary Groups&Teams
5/23
Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams 5
Coaching and support
Organizations can design systems and supports to improve the work of groups and
teams. Coaching, has achieved increasing popularity. Three major types of coaching
exist. Process coaching improves interpersonal relationships between members.
Behavioral coaching helps to change the behavior and assumptions of the specific
members. Developmental coaching occurs when an intervention is tailored to the
particular developmental stage of the group or team. In addition to coaching,
organizations often rely on reward systems, such as compensation and recognition
programs, designed to improve group and team work. Organizations also support group
and team work by increasing the degree of self-management, which is the degree of
autonomy that the team has over its task (Hackman & Wageman, 2005).
Composition and roles
Composition describes the make-up of the group or team members. Research
shows that when an individual group or team member holds a distinct view of their role
on the team, innovation and ability to perform improves (Swann, Polzer, Seyle, & Ko,
2004; Polzer, Milton, & Swann, 2002). This evidence suggests that the degree and type
of diversity matters for performance. Gender, education level, functional specialty, and
age are some key characteristics for group and team diversity. Simply stated, a group or
team can be eitherhomogenous, wheremembers are more similar on these key
characteristics orheterogeneous, where members are characterized by a greater degree of
difference.
Another important factor related to composition are the formal and informal roles
within the group or team. Roles refer to the division of labor, skill, and skills among
7/27/2019 Topic Summary Groups&Teams
6/23
Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams 6
members. Roles relate to group and team composition as they describe the unique
activity, competency, knowledge, or preferences that each individual demonstrates.
While the list of potential roles is exhaustive, generally roles full fill either an internal or
external purposes. For example, external roles can focus on managing boundaries
between the team and its environment and internal roles focus on how the group or team
functions (Ancona, 1990).
Knowledge, skills, and abilities
One dimension of composition proves of particular importance: the knowledge,
skills, and abilities of the members. Many organizations expect their employees to work
in a group or team, but may over-estimate the ability of individuals to successfully work
together. Organizations may believe that effective group or teamwork simply emerges
naturally. However, research shows that successful group and team work requires
members who hold knowledge, skills, and abilities specific to teamwork. In other words,
teamwork is itself a competency that can be learned (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003). Some of
the competencies that individual team members can bring to a team include conflict
resolution, problem solving, communication, goal-setting and task performance, planning
and task coordination (Stevens and Campion, 1994; Stevens and Campion, 1999).
Internal team factors
Norms
Norms describe the patterns of interaction within a group or team, the specific
rules of the game to which members must adhere. There are many different types of
norms. It is often difficult to detect norms because most people look at individual
behavior rather than the more abstract patterns associated with group or team activity, but
7/27/2019 Topic Summary Groups&Teams
7/23
Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams 7
with careful observation, these patterns of interaction become more obvious. In some
cases, norms can be observed. For example, do members show up on time for meetings or
do they show flexibility over when members arrive? Other norms can be more complex,
for example, do members share authority or is there a power struggle within the group or
team. Whether norms are simple or complex, norms serve an important social and
psychological function by setting limits of acceptable or unacceptable behavior, creating
predictable environments, setting expectations for members, facilitating the achievement
of group goals, forming a common identity, and determining the boundaries of group and
team membership (Brown, 2000 p. 64).
Two types of norms exist. Interpersonal norms, often called maintenancenorms,
reflect the interpersonal aspects of group and team life such as conflict, emotional
awareness, and social interactions. Task norms reflect more specifically aspects of group
and team life directed towards work and accomplishing organizational goals (Feldman,
1984).
Development of norms
Five stages of group development
Groups and teams establish norms early in their life cycle. A predictable pattern
of interaction begins to emerge within the first 5 minutes of the members coming together
for the first time. Norms, however, change over time as the group or team develops.
Group and team developmentdescribes the life cycle and the process whereby norms
develop and change over time in a progressive fashion. Perhaps the most widely known
models of group and development is Tuckmans (1965) five stage model of group
development. Since Tuckman largely concerned himself with self-development groups,
7/27/2019 Topic Summary Groups&Teams
8/23
Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams 8
we refer specifically to group development, even though psychologists largely agree, that
both groups and teams need to progress through a relatively predictable sequence of
psychological changes to reach their potential. Each stage presents the group with a
challenge. When the group successfully works through each stage, they move onto a
progressively more challenging phase.
In the first phase, called forming stage, the group works through issues of
dependency and ambiguity. Behavior is polite and conflict avoided or held to a minimum.
Members begin to consider the capabilities and personalities of each group member as
individuals search for their place in the group.
In the storming stage, group members begin negotiating for authority and dealing
with conflict. Conflict may become pronounced as members seek an acceptable level of
conflict. The storming stage marks an important developmental milestone because in the
group successfully moves through storming, the groups members learn to deal with
conflict. Some groups may never leave the storming stage, dooming the group to high
levels of unresolved conflict.
If the group is successful at navigating the storming stage, it progresses to the
norming stage. In the norming stage, the group begins to lay the groundwork for a
productive work environment. Members agree upon work procedures, interpersonal
dynamics, and individual roles become mutually agreed upon.
During the performing stage, which follows the norming stage, the group acquires
the ability to take action on the agreed upon goals, begins to improve its working
relationships and can adjust and learn in the face of changes, obstacles, and setbacks.
Once a group successfully navigates the first four stages of group development, members
7/27/2019 Topic Summary Groups&Teams
9/23
Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams 9
will accept individual differences, reserve conflict for task rather than emotional issues,
reach consensus through rational discussion rather than an attempt at unanimity, be aware
of group dynamics, share acceptable levels of anxiety, and hold greater awareness of
others individual expectations and goals (Bennis and Shepard, 1956).
Finally, in the adjouring stage, group norms are characterized by the realization
that the group itself will come to an end. The group often has a sense of fulfillment, pride,
and or even euphoria as members seek to hold positive feelings about the groups
experiences (Tuckman, & Jensen, 1977).
Two stage model of group development
The five-stage model describes how psychological norms develop within a group or
team. A second model, the punctuated equilibrium model, considers how project time
constraints trigger changes in productivity (Gersick, 1991). The punctuated equilibrium
model recognizes two primary phases of group and team development, which are
separated by a midpoint transition.
In the first phase, behaviors are marked by low productivity and the search for
direction. A midpoint transition separates the first and second phase. The midpoint occurs
near or at the halfway point of the project lifecycle. In the second phase, behaviors
become more task directed and behaviors are focused on achieving a higher level of
productivity. In this second phase, the members experience a burst of activity as it
redefines its basic processes and direction. This new level of productivity is marked by
renewed vigor and inertia towards completing the designated task. In the final push
towards finishing its project, activity accelerates as the group or team focuses on meeting
external expectations and seeks closure (Gersick, 1988).
7/27/2019 Topic Summary Groups&Teams
10/23
Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams 10
-------------------
The punctuated equilibrium model of group development: set as figure
-----------------
Decision making processes
The steps taken by a group or team to generate choices, choosing among these
choices, and taking actions is the decision making process. Decision-making requires the
group or team to coordinate among members to complete work, learn, and accomplish
goals. Team and group decision-making can occur face to face or virtually, mediated by
technology or distance. Team processes refer to the varied activities of team decision
making, coordinating, and planning. Many types of group and team processes exist, we
focus on three brainstorming, nominal group andDelphi technique. When brainstorming,
all members work together in a face-to-face meeting. They strive to generate as many
ideas as possible, holding evaluation for each idea until after the session is complete. The
following rules guide brainstorming processes. No criticism can be offered towards an
idea until after the brainstorming session is complete. The group or team should approach
all ideas with an open mind. The group or team generates as many ideas as possible
(quantity over quality is key), and everyone is encouraged to build upon or improve on
each idea (see Sutton & Hargadon, 1996)
Similar to brainstorming, in the nominal technique, the group or team sets out to
generate an idea or solution to a problem, but with the nominal technique each individual
member conducts much of the work independently rather than working face to face. The
process begins with each member in a face-to -ace meeting where they learn about the
particular issue to be addressed. Once the entire membership is familiar with the issue,
7/27/2019 Topic Summary Groups&Teams
11/23
Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams 11
then each member works independently for 10 to 15 minutes to generate a solution or
idea about how to address the issue. After the individual session, members return to the
collective setting where each individual member, in turn, presents his or her idea aloud to
other members. During this time, the members discuss, refines, and build on each idea.
The final step may involve a ranking of each idea as a way to select the best ideas (Van
de Ven & Delbecq, 1971). TheDelphi technique provides a more structured alternative to
brainstorming and nominal technique. It requires more directive involvement from a team
leader. The team leader collects ideas, distributes the ideas to the team and collects a
response, usually through a formal questionnaire. The Delphi technique works well when
membership is geographically dispersed but because the leader serves as the
intermediary, the Delphi technique limits direct interaction between team members.
Several variations of the Delphi, nominal, and brainstorming methods exist (Van de Ven
& Delbecq, 1974).
Contemporary issues in groups and teams
An emerging factor, proving to be quite important for building group and team
performance is psychological safety, the shared belief among members that the
environment within the team or group is safe for interpersonal risk-taking (Edmondson,
1999: p 354). When a group or team has strong norms of psychological safety, the
members stand willing to trust and respect each other in the context of the team itself, not
just between individuals. In groups and teams with high degrees of psychological safety
team members are more likely to tell other members about mistakes, express ideas that
are different from other members, express multiple points of views, challenge a point of
7/27/2019 Topic Summary Groups&Teams
12/23
Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams 12
view even if that point of view is held by a powerful person such as a leader or a
dominate person.
Globally dispersed groups and teams, the impact of multi national organizations,
and cross-cultural membership provide new challenges for the contemporary
organization. For example, groups and teams composed of members from different
cultures need to understand how to work together. For example, learning, the processes
by which groups and teams gather, process, share, and take action on information (Kayes,
Kayes, & Kolb, 2005) as well as time orientation, how people perceive past, present, and
future, varies across cultures. Understanding how learning and time orientation may
differ among different members can improve effectiveness of group and teamwork in a
multinational context (Zellmer-Bruhn & Gibson, 2006; Rico, Sanchez-Manzanares, Gil,
& Gibson, 2007).
With increasing globalization, a geographically distributed work force, and
unique work arrangements, like working from home, organizations increasingly rely on
virtual teams to accomplish work. Virtual teams use information technology to
accomplish work. Not only do contemporary organizations rely on virtual teams to
improve work effectiveness, they also contribute to cost savings as organizations can
avoid travel and other expenses associated with face-to-face work. The concept of virtual
teams has become popular as nearly 60 % of all professional workers report working in
virtual teams (Martins, Gilson, & Maynard, 2004).
Virtual teams often encounter problems because members havent met or dont
interact on a regular basis. Psychological safety becomes even more important in virtual
teams. Some of the problems encountered by virtual teams can be overcome by proper
7/27/2019 Topic Summary Groups&Teams
13/23
Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams 13
training, keeping a strategic focus, and preparing the team for the unique experience of
working virtually. (Rosen, First, Blackburn, 2006).
7/27/2019 Topic Summary Groups&Teams
14/23
Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams 14
Text box materials
OB Feature: Barriers to effective group and teamwork
Certain types of processes and norms foster improved decision-making and lead
to successful outcomes for group and teamwork. Psychological safety, conflict
management, and interpersonal understanding improve performance. Other types of
processes and norms foster poor decision making and serve as barriers to effective group
and teamwork. Researchers have identified a number of barriers to effective group and
teamwork. Here are four barriers to effective group and teamwork.
Groupthink
Irving Janis (1972; 1982), a psychologist interested in improving decisions in
business and public policy settings, noticed a trend in several disasters. He reviewed
decision-making process in situations like the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion, the US
war in Vietnam, and the decision by US President John Kennedy US to invade the Bay of
Pigs in Cuba. Janis concluded that in these and other cases, the groups advising the policy
makers quickly moved toward agreement and consensus. At the same time, critical
thinking in the groups disintegrated. Due to real and felt pressure from other members of
the group, dissenting individuals, those that disagreed with the group as a whole, kept
quite and hesitated from challenging the dominant view point of the group. Janis called
this situation, where peer pressure stifles critical thinking and groups move toward
consensus,groupthink. Groups that fall victim to groupthink share several characteristics:
1. Sharing an illusion that the group is invulnerable. This feeling of invulnerabilityentices groups to be overconfident and anticipate that all their decisions will be
successful.
7/27/2019 Topic Summary Groups&Teams
15/23
Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams 15
2. Discrediting of opposing viewpoints without engaging in critical reflection of viewscounter to their own.
3. Justifying their action on questionable moral principles such as the ends justify themeans.
4. Characterizing all who disagree with position as evil.5. Sensoring or ostracizing members of the group who do not conform to the dominant
viewpoint.
6. Identify someone in the team who will play the role of mindguard - a person whoseeks to insolate the team from opposing opinions (Janis, 1982).
Common-knowledge effect
Another effect that interferes with good group and team process is something
called the common-knowledge effect, which describes the tendency of group and team
members to share information that is known by other members rather than share unique
information held only the individual. The common knowledge effect limits effectiveness
because unique insights or knowledge held by individual members are not factored into
decisions making and action is guided by limited information (Gigone & Hastie, 1993).
Peer pressure and the polarization
Groups and teams also tend to make riskier decisions or more conservative
decisions than individuals working alone -- something referred to as the polarization
effect. In a classic study conducted by Solomon Asch (1956; see also Bond & Smith,
1996), he observed that when others pressured an individual group member, the group
member was more likely to conform to the groups opinion, even when the opinion
7/27/2019 Topic Summary Groups&Teams
16/23
Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams 16
appeared obviously wrong. The studies showed that group conformity pressures can lead
groups to making less than prime decisions.
The polarization effect describes how peer pressure may encourage decision
making that is either more risky or more conservative than individuals making the
decision alone. Thus, group and team decisions tend to be polarized, either more
conservative or more risky, than an individual decision.
Social loafing and the free-rider effect
Social loafingand thefree-rider effectdescribe a phenomenon where an
individual within a group or team exerts less effort and performs at a lower level than the
individual would if he or she were working alone. Social loafing occurs when only a few
or a single members the group take responsibility for accomplishing the work of the
entire team, thus, certain individuals loaf or exert less effort than others on the group or
team (George, 1992). The free-rider effect describes how an individual relies on other
group members to do the majority of work, thus taking a free ride while other members
carry the workload (Albanese & Van Fleet, 1985).
7/27/2019 Topic Summary Groups&Teams
17/23
Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams 17
OB at work: Teamwork skills help a television news producer get the story
When Brian Weiss took his first Organizational Behavior course, he never
imagined he would put it to use on the job so quickly. As one of the youngest producers
at Bloomberg TV, he produced a program called Money and Politics. In leading his
team, he relied on his skills as a news professional to make, gather and deliver the news.
The growing company often relied on young and ambitious college graduates, like Brian
to lead their productions. He was 24 years old. Even in his short time as producer, he had
mastered the complex technical and logistical side of
TV production. Producing regular television
programming required more than just knowledge of
the news, it required knowledge of how to build and
maintain a team. In one case, he pulled together a
production team just a few hours before a going live
at a remote location. He hired a local camera-operator
and audio specialist as well as a lighting expert. In
addition he needed to make sure that his on camera reporter stayed dry as it poured down
rain. In addition to his local crew, a remote team of technicians and producers sat in a
production room in downtown New York City. Building a team quickly across a
geographically distributed area and keeping the diverse roles working together proved
essential to getting the story.
Brian realized intuitively how teamwork contributed to getting his story on the
air, but learning more about teamwork confirmed his ability to build a team. For example,
Brian knew that in the time critical television news business there is no time to sugar
7/27/2019 Topic Summary Groups&Teams
18/23
Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams 18
coat words. I needed to express urgency and be forceful enough to be sure that things
happened immediately. At the same time, he always knew not to shout or make the
team members cynical, or make anybody angry. Learning about teamwork in his
organizational behavior class only reaffirmed what Brian understood intuitively, that
effective teamwork requires trust among members, especially between the leader and the
rest of the team. At the same time, in a live situation, the broadcast culture accepts that
you might frustrate in the moment, but you can apologize later. So even if the team is
frustrated in the short term, the team continues to function in working towards its goal of
getting the shot onto television sets around the world.
Concepts from the research on teamwork helped Brian understand more clearly
that the success of a team relies on two distinct, yet related abilities. First, the team must
be able to effectively perform its task. In the case of the television news crew, his team
needed to understand the complex technical aspects live television news. Just as
important, the news crew had to coordinate its skills, keep focused in the face of many
distractions, and maintain good working relationships in the high stress environment of
television news. Concepts from organizational behavior helped Brian build and maintain
stronger teams that lead to getting the story on air.
7/27/2019 Topic Summary Groups&Teams
19/23
Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams 19
Spotlight on Research: Do groups and teams share common characteristics?
Recent research suggests that groups and teams share some common
characteristics. A team of researchers created an experiment where they asked twenty-
five different groups to create an advertisement for a fictional airline. The researchers
recorded the 40-minute sessions and then observed the team processes. They kept in mind
the two development processes described in this chapter: the progressive psychological
development model and external constraints punctuated equilibrium model. The
researchers paid special attention to statements that reflected task related statements.
They found two types of task related statements consistent with the punctuated
equilibrium model. This included action statements, such as references to how the team
would accomplish their goals, when they might accomplish a certain aspect of the task or
discussion of specific resources. Another type of task related statements included content
statements about the ads themselves, such as references to format of the ad, specific
details, or how to present the ad to fictional customers.
The researchers also observed the teams reference various psychological
processes related to psychological consistent with Tuckmans model of group
development. These included processes associated with groups such as dependency and
counter-dependency, as well as statements that suggested the group members were
directly avoiding task or aspects of work that were critical of the task. Taken together the
groups made statements about both the task, consistent with behavior in teams, but they
also made statements about psychological factors typically associated with groups.
After complete analysis of the team meetings, the researchers explained that both
group and team dynamics exist in teams. The researchers found that, not surprisingly, the
7/27/2019 Topic Summary Groups&Teams
20/23
Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams 20
teams spent as much as 80 % of their time on task related activities and far less time on
psychological or social dynamics. At most, during any one time, teams spent no more
than 25 % of their time on psychological issues, an in most cases less than 10 % of their
efforts were focused on psychological issues. None the less, the researchers observed that
many of the teams did change their patterns of interaction at the midpoint, just as the
punctuated equilibrium model suggested, but the teams spent much of their time before
the first half discussion issues like leadership, work allocation and flow. During the
second half, teams focused more on the specific content of the commercial they were
developing.
From this evidence, the researchers instruct teams to consider both group
elements and team elements when working on a project. Early in the life cycle, the team
can establish leadership, identify workflow, and determine process. Addressing the
psychological issues up front helps the team develop a strong psychological foundation,
which then allows the team to focus more directly on its task in the second half. Groups
that fail to deal with the psychological dynamics early on in group life may return to
these issues as the project develops, wasting crucial time as the project nears completion.
*Based on an article by Chang, A. , Bordia, P. , & Duck, J. (2003). Punctuated
equilibrium and linear progression: toward a new understanding of group development.
Academy of Management Journal, 46, 1, 106-117.
7/27/2019 Topic Summary Groups&Teams
21/23
Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams 21
References
Albanese, R. & Van Fleet, D. D. 1985. Rational behavior in groups: The free-ridingtendency.Academy of Management Review, 10, 244-255.
Ancona, A. G. , 1990. Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in organizations.Academy of Management Journal, 33, 2, 334-365.
Asch, S. E. 1956. Studies of independence and conformity: A. minority of one against aunanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70, 9, 416.
Bennis, W. G. & Shepard, H. A. 1956. A Theory of group development.Human
Relations, 9, 415-437.
Bond, R. , & Smith. P. B. , 1996. Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studiesusing Aschs (1952b, 1956) line judgment task.Psychological Bulletin, 119, 1, 111-137.
Brown, R. 2000. Group processes: dynamics within and between groups. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing.
Druskat, V. U. , & Wheeler, J. V. 2003. Managing the boundary: The effective leadershipof self-managing work teams.Academy of Management Journal, 4, 46, 435-457.
Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 2, 350-383.
Feldman, D. C. 1984. The development and enforcement of group norms.Academy ofManagement Review, 9, 1, 47-53.
George, J. M. 1992. Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in
organizations.Academy of Management Journal, 35, 191-202.
Gigone, D. , & Hastie, R. 1993. The common knowledge effect: Information sharing andgroup judgment.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 5, 959-974.
Gersick, C. J. G. 1991. Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the
punctuated equilibrium paradigm.Academy of Management Review, 16, 1, 10-36.
Gersick, C. J. G. 1988. Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of groupdevelopment.Academy of Management Journal, 31, 1, 9-41.
Hackman, J. R. , & Wageman, R. 2005. A theory of team coaching.Academy of
Management Review, 30, 2, 269-287.
Janis, I. L. 1982. Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes.Cengage.
7/27/2019 Topic Summary Groups&Teams
22/23
Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams 22
Janis, I. L. 1972. Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions
and fiascos. Houghton Mifflin Company.
Kayes, A. B. , Kayes, D. C. , & Kolb, D. A. 2005.Experiential learning in teams.
Simulation and Gaming, 36, 3, 330-354.
Martins, L. L. , Gilson, L. L. , & Maynard, M. T. 2004. Virtual teams: What do we know
and where do we go from here?Journal of Management, 30, 6, 805-835.
Polzer, J. T. , Milton, L. P. , Swann, W. B. 2002. Capitalizing on Diversity: Interpersonalcongruence in small work groups.Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 296-324.
Rico, F. Sanchez-Manzanares, M., Gil, F. Gibson, C. 2007. Team implicit coordination
processes: A team knowledge-based approach.Academy of Management Review, 33, 1,163-184.
Rosen, B. , Furst, S. , & Blackburn, R. 2006. Training for virtual teams: An investigation
of current practices and future needs.Human Resource Management, 45, 2, 229-247.
Stevens, M. J. , & Campion, M. A. 1994. The knowledge, skill, and ability requirementsfor teamwork: Implications for human resource management.Journal of Management, 2,
20, 503-530.
Stevens, M. J. & Campion, M. A. 1999. Staffing work teams: Development andvalidation of a selection test for teamwork settings.Journal of Management, 2, 25, 207-
228.
Sundstrom, E. de Meuse, K. P. Futrell, D. 1990. Work teams: Applications andeffectiveness.American Psychologist, 45, 2, 120-133.
Sutton, R. I. , & Hargadon, A. 1996. Brainstorming groups in context. Effectiveness in a
product design firm.Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 685-715.
Swann, W. B. , Polzer, J. T. , Seyle, D. C. , Ko, S. J. 2004. Finding value in diversity:Verification of personal and social self-views in diverse groups.Academy of Management
Review, 29, 9-27.
Tuckman, B. W. , & Jensen, M. A. C. 1977. Stages of small-group development revisited.Group and organization management, 2, 4, 419-427.
Tuckman, B. W. 1965. Developmental sequence in small groups.Psychological Bulletin,
6, 63, 384-399.
7/27/2019 Topic Summary Groups&Teams
23/23
Van de Ven, A. , & Delbecq, A. L. 1971. Nominal versus interacting group processes forcommittee decision-making effectiveness.Academy of Management Journal, 14, 2, 203-
212.
Van de Ven, A. , & Delbecq, A. L. 1974. The effectiveness of nominal, Delphi and
interacting group decision making processes.Academy of Management Journal, 17, 4,605-621.
Zellmer-Bruhn, M. , & Gibson, C. 2006. Multinational organization context: Implicationsfor team learning and performance.Academy of Management Journal, 49, 3, 501-518.
Recommended