12
This article was downloaded by: [Queensland University of Technology] On: 01 November 2014, At: 02:56 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Basic and Applied Social Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hbas20 Agreement About Norms and Work-Unit Effectiveness: Evidence From the Field Linda Argote Published online: 07 Jun 2010. To cite this article: Linda Argote (1989) Agreement About Norms and Work- Unit Effectiveness: Evidence From the Field, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10:2, 131-140, DOI: 10.1207/s15324834basp1002_3 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1002_3 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

Agreement About Norms and Work-Unit Effectiveness: Evidence From the Field

  • Upload
    linda

  • View
    213

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Agreement About Norms and Work-Unit Effectiveness: Evidence From the Field

This article was downloaded by: [Queensland University ofTechnology]On: 01 November 2014, At: 02:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Basic and Applied SocialPsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hbas20

Agreement AboutNorms and Work-UnitEffectiveness: EvidenceFrom the FieldLinda ArgotePublished online: 07 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Linda Argote (1989) Agreement About Norms and Work-Unit Effectiveness: Evidence From the Field, Basic and Applied SocialPsychology, 10:2, 131-140, DOI: 10.1207/s15324834basp1002_3

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1002_3

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

Page 2: Agreement About Norms and Work-Unit Effectiveness: Evidence From the Field

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 02:

56 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 3: Agreement About Norms and Work-Unit Effectiveness: Evidence From the Field

BASIC AND APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1989, 10(2), 131-140 Copyright o 1989, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Agreement About Norms and Work-Unit Effectiveness: Evidence

From the Field

Linda Argote Graduate School of Industrial Administration

Carnegie Mellon University

Hypotheses on the relationship between norms and work-unit effectiveness are developed and tested on data from 30 hospital emergency units. The analyses are based on data collected from sources inside and outside the emergency units and on hospital records data. Results indicate that agreement about norms within and between interacting groups is positively associated with the effectiveness criteria. Agreement about norms between groups appears to be more strongly related to effectiveness than agreement within groups. Suggestions are advanced for future research on norms. Two lines of research that look particularly promising are specifying the conditions under which norms relate to effectiveness and identifying variables that lead to agreement about norms.

Researchers and practitioners agree about the importance of norms for group and organizational performance (e.g., Hackman & Morris, 1975; Peters & Waterman, 1982). Yet, there are few empirical studies that relate norms to the effectiveness of actual organizations. This research contributes to our understanding of norms by examining the relationship between norms and the effectiveness of hospital emergency units.

NORMS AND EFFECTIVENESS: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The concept of a norm has been important throughout the development of social psychology. Norms have been defined as: behavioral rules (Thibaut &

Requests for reprints should be sent to Linda Argote, Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsbureh. PA 15213.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 02:

56 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 4: Agreement About Norms and Work-Unit Effectiveness: Evidence From the Field

Kelley, 1959), ideas about how categories of people ought to behave in specific situations (Haas & Drabek, 1973), and expected behaviors sanc- tioned by systems (Katz & Kahn, 1978). These definitions share a common theme: Norms are ideas or expectations about appropriate behavior for system members.

This study focuses on norm structures, the interrelationships among norms (cf. Georgopoulos, 1965; Jackson, 1966). Georgopoulos (1965) found that norm structures were positively associated with the productivity of merchandise delivery organizations. Two dimensions of norm structures are analyzed here: normative complementarity and normative consensus. Nor- mative complementarity is the amount of agreement existing between groups about norms governing their relationship (Georgopoulos, 1965). This agreement is likely to vary across systems. For example, in one hospital, nurses might think that what administrators expect the nurses to do is "about right," whereas in another, nurses might think administrators expect the nurses to do too much paperwork or to exert too little influence over patient care.

Normative consensus is the amount of agreement existing within a group about norms (Georgopoulos, 1965). Some level of agreement is necessary for an expectation to be a norm; however, systems are likely to vary in the amount of agreement. For example, all the members of one emergency unit might believe that staff should adhere strictly to unit policies; three fourths of the staff of another unit might hold such a belief.

Organizational effectiveness is a construct with multiple dimensions (Goodman et al., 1977). This research relies on effectiveness criteria in an area critical in hospitals, the care and treatment of patients. Three effectiveness criteria are used: the promptness of care, the quality of nursing care, and the quality of medical care.

Norms provide a base for task performance and for system integration (Cartwright & Zander, 1968; Kiesler & Kiesler, 1970; Shaw, 1981). Because norms are expectations about appropriate behavior for system members, they embody information about what system members should do under various conditions. This information is likely to make certain responses more probable or dominant for individual system members. When there is agreement about the norm (either within or between units), the dominant responses of individual staff are compatible with one another. Precious time is not lost while staff members discuss what to do. The probability of efforts being duplicated (e.g., a patient being asked to give his or her medical history twice) or the probability of critical activities being neglected (e.g., obtaining information about a patient's allergies) is low. Thus, we expect that normative complementarity and normative consensus will be positively associated with the promptness of care and the quality of care in emergency units.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 02:

56 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 5: Agreement About Norms and Work-Unit Effectiveness: Evidence From the Field

METHOD

Sample and Procedure

Data for this research were collected as part of a project on the effectiveness of Hospital Emergency Services (Georgopoulos, 1978; Georgopoulos & Cooke, 1979). Forty-four hospitals were selected through a stratified random sampling procedure from the population of not-for-profit, general hospitals with between 100 and 499 beds in six Midwestern states. Thirty of these 44 hospitals participated in the study. They are representative of the popula- tion on key variables (Georgopoulos et al., 1980).

This study relies on interview and questionnaire data from physicians and registered nurses working in the emergency units and on interview data from hospital physicians having contact with the emergency units but working in other departments (e.g., the head of surgery). The number of respondents in each group was: 248 emergency units physicians, 278 nurses, and 215 hospital physicians. Response rates were quite high and ranged from 85% for emergency unit physician questionnaires to 98% for nurse interviews. Archival data from the organizational records at each hospital were also used in the analyses.

The emergency units had between 1 and 25 beds, with an average of 6.9 beds per unit. On average, 348 patients visited the units during the week preceding data collection; this number ranged from 87 to 877. Between 1 and 22 physicians worked in the units during the week preceding data collection with the average number being 7.8. The average number of registered nurses working in the units was 8.9; this number ranged from 4 to 16. The average number of hours nurses (physicians) worked per patient visit during the week preceding data collection was .82 (.52), with a range of .19 (.22) to 1.77 (1.70).

Measures

The theory and measures of the research were geared to the system level. Although several measures were based on responses of individuals, the individuals served as informants and evaluated the situation in their units. One-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) were run by emergency unit on individuals' responses on these measures. A significant F ratio indicates large between- relative to within-unit variance and supports aggregating the responses of individuals to the emergency unit level (cf. Roberts, Hulin, & Rousseau, 1978). For these measures, a mean was calculated of the responses of individuals at each unit.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 02:

56 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 6: Agreement About Norms and Work-Unit Effectiveness: Evidence From the Field

134 ARGOTE

Norms. Normative complementarity was measured by asking nurses to respond to a 5-point scale about how much difference there was "between the way the hospital sees the job of nurses in the emergency units and the way in which nurses see their job." There is evidence for the validity of the measure: It correlates with a measure of nurses' perceptions of the extent to which they have to do things that should be the responsibility of others, r(28) = .47, p < .01. There is also evidence for the reliability of the measure: respondents within the units agree more than respondents across the units about the degree of complementarity.

Normative consensus was measured by the amount of variance charac- terizing nurses' perceptions of how frequently work problems in their units were solved by "having clear and detailed job definitions for all involved." The measure appears to be valid: It correlates with a measure of the variance characterizing the use of another problem-solving method, r(28) = .61, p < .01. The F ratio from the analyses of individuals' responses is significant, suggesting that there is less variance across respondents within the units than between the units.

Thus, the measure of complementarity reflects the perception of agree- ment about norms between groups whereas the measure of consensus reflects the actual agreement (i.e., variance) about norms within groups. Previous studies have shown that measures of perceived and actual agree- ment relate very similarly to organizational effectiveness (Georgopoulos, 1 965).

Work-unit effectiveness. Three effectiveness measures from the hos- pital project were used: measures of the promptness of care, the quality of nursing care, and the quality of medical care (Georgopoulos, Cooke, Argote, & Uhlaner, 1977). The construction of these measures is described in Argote (1982). The reliability and validity of the measures are acceptable. '

Control variables. Because variables such as the number of physicians and nurses working in the units, patient volume, and hospital size affect the structure and performance of hospital units (Comstock & Scott, 1977; Reinhardt, 1972), they are controlled for in the analyses to insure that relationships observed between norms and effectiveness are not due to their mutual dependence on these variables. The control variables were derived from the organizational records at each hospital. The measure of patient volume represents how many patients visited the emergency units in the most recent quarter. The measure of hospital size is the number of beds in

'Further details on the construction of these measures and their psychometric properties are available from the author.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 02:

56 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 7: Agreement About Norms and Work-Unit Effectiveness: Evidence From the Field

NORMS AND WORK-UNIT EFFECTIVENESS 135

the parent hospital. The measure of nurse (or physician) hours worked relative to the patient load was formed by dividing the total number of hours nurses (or physicians) worked in the units during the week preceding data collection by the number of patient visits in the same period.

RESULTS

As normative complementarity increases, the promptness of care increases, r(28) = .43, p c .01, the quality of nursing care increases, r(28) = .39, p c .05, and the quality of medical care increases, r(28) = .46, p c .01, as predi~ted.~ Similarly, as normative consensus increases, the promptness of care increases, r(28) = .39, p c .05, the quality of nursing care increases, r(28) = .18, ns, and the quality of medical care increases, r(28) = .34, p < .05.

Multiple regression provides a vehicle for testing whether each dimension of normative structure is significantly related to effectiveness while control- ling for the other dimension. Results from regressions of the effectiveness criteria on normative complementarity and consensus are shown under Model 1 in Table 1. The results indicate that complementarity and consensus, taken together, explain a significant amount of the variance in the effectiveness indicators. The coefficients of the norms variables in the three regressions are positive, as predicted. The coefficients of complementarity are statistically significant in all three regressions. The coefficient of consensus reaches marginal significance, p < .lo, in the promptness of care regression.

Additional equations which included key control variables along with the norms variables as predictors of effectiveness were estimated. Results of these analyses are presented under Model 2 in Table 1 .3 The coefficients of the complementarity variable are positive and significant in the three regressions whereas the coefficients of consensus are positive in the three regressions and marginally significant in two of them. These analyses demonstrate that the positive association between norms and the perfor- mance variables holds up when key control variables are included in the models.

Although the coefficients of the control variables are not the central

'Because the theory specifies the direction of relationships expected, one-tailed tests were used.

3 ~ h e analyses under Model 2 in Table 1 are based on 23 cases, due to missing data on 7 cases for the staffing variables. To test whether the results are sensitive to the exclusion of these cases, the models with only the normative structure variables as predictors (Model 1) were estimated a second time using only the 23 cases with no missing data. The results from these analyses are comparable to those based on all 30 cases.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 02:

56 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 8: Agreement About Norms and Work-Unit Effectiveness: Evidence From the Field

TABLE 1 Regressions of the Effectiveness Criteria on Normative Complementarity,

Normative Consensus, and Key Control Variables

Promptness of Care

Model la Model 2b

Variable Coefficient T-stat F-stat R-SQR Coefficient T-sfat F-stat R-SQR

Complementarity 10.40 1.90** 4.55** .25 16.32 2.47** 2.91** .52 Consensus 5.47 1.59* 3.31 0.71 Patient volume -1.00 -0.60 Size 0.15 0.42 Nurse hours/visits 17.99 1.30 Physician hours/visits 6.35 0.46

Quality of Nursing Care

Complementarity 0.74 1.95** 2.40 .I5 0.69 1.89** 3.36** .56 Consensus 0.07 0.29 0.35 1.35* Patient volume 0.14 1.51* Size 0.03 1.40* Nurse hours/visits 1.47 1.92** Physician hours/visits -0.36 -0.47

Quality of Medical Care

Complementarity 0.87 2.24** 4.64** .26 0.90 2.07** 3.50** .57 Consensus 0.30 1.21 0.45 1.45* Patient volume -0.12 -1.11 Size 0.05 2.23** Nurse hours/visits 1.29 1.41* Physician hours/visits -0.95 -1.04

"n = 30. bn = 23. *p < .lo. **p < .05.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 02:

56 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 9: Agreement About Norms and Work-Unit Effectiveness: Evidence From the Field

NORMS AND WORK-UNIT EFFECTIVENESS 137

focus of this research, the signs of the significant coefficients are not implausible. For example, one would expect, other things constant, that the quality of nursing care would be positively related to the number of nurse hours worked per patient. Similarly, larger hospitals may offer a wider range of support services or may attract better physicians than smaller hospitals.

Because an earlier study examined the relationship of the effectiveness criteria to uncertainty about patient inputs, coordination methods, and their interactions (Argote, 1982), additional analyses were performed in which the effectiveness critiera were regressed on uncertainty, the coordi- nation methods, the uncertainty by coordination interactions, and the two norms variable^.^ The coefficient of complementarity is always positive and significant at at least the p < .10 level in these additional analyses. Normative consensus is not as significant as complementarity but is generally in the predicted direction. Thus, the results on norms hold when the nature of patient inputs and methods of coordination are controlled for in the analysis. Further, the coefficients of the uncertainty by coordination interactions - the focus of the earlier study - are essentially replicated, with a slight decrease in significance levels.

DISCUSSION

This study provides empirical evidence that agreement about norms within and between interacting groups is positively associated with the effective- ness of emergency units. The relationship between complementarity and effectiveness is stronger than the relationship between consensus and effectiveness. According to the proposed theoretical framework, norms increase the likelihood of certain responses for individual system members. When agreement about norms exists, responses dominant or most probable across group members are compatible with one another. This provides a base for coordination and for effective performance.

Research is needed to test whether the framework proposed here actually corresponds to the process through which agreement about norms relates to

4When control variables such as the staffing variables, hospital size, and patient volume are added to these models, the signs of complementarity, consensus, and the uncertainty by coordination interactions remain in the predicted direction, but the consensus and the interaction variables become less significant. Because these analyses are based on 23 cases and because the addition of the control variables uses four additional degrees of freedom, the decline in significance levels is not surprising. It is reassuring that the signs of the coefficients remain in the predicted direction.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 02:

56 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 10: Agreement About Norms and Work-Unit Effectiveness: Evidence From the Field

performance and whether this framework can explain the greater signifi- cance of normative complementarity. Our results concerning the impor- tance of between-group norms are consistent with those of Krackhardt and Stern (1988), who found that organizations with strong between-group ties were more effective than those with strong within-group ties in crisis situations.

Many studies have found that group members are more positive toward members of their own group than toward members of other groups (Brewer, 1979; Turner, 1987). This study suggests that hospitals in which group membership is not demarcated as clearly and/or where group members are better able to overcome ingroup biases and agree about intergroup norms are more effective than hospitals lacking such agreement.

The content, as well as the structure, of norms is also important (Berkowitz, 1954; Schachter, Ellertson, McBride, & Gregory, 1951). There are examples in the literature of groups agreeing about norms that contributed to poor quality decisions (Janis, 1972) or low productivity (Seashore, 1954). In this study, information was available about the content of the within-unit norm about how work problems were solved. The a priori expectation was that there would be no direct relationship between norm content and effectiveness (cf. Katz & Kahn, 1978). The content of the norm showed a very weak and insignificant, negative relationship to effectiveness. Thus, this study suggests that agreeing about how to solve work problems may be more important than the particular problem-solving method selected. This generalization would not hold in special cases where the content of the norm was antieffectiveness.

Our data do not enable us to establish causality. Based on theory and on experimental evidence that norms affect performance (e.g., Hackman, Brousseau, & Weiss, 1976), the theoretical framework developed here seems reasonable. Another limitation of the study is the narrowness of the norms' measures. Future research should examine a broader set of relationships and a wider array of norms from the perspective of all individuals involved in the relationship. In addition, it would be important to obtain measures of perceptual agreement and actual agreement for both within-group and between-group norms.

In closing, these results indicate that emergency units where staff report that hospital administration and, to a lesser extent, other emergency unit staff agree about work expectations perform better than units lacking such agreement. Future research is needed to identify the conditions under which these relationships hold. It seems likely, for example, that the importance of norms will increase as the interdependence among system members in- creases. Future research is also needed to determine what leads to the development of agreement about norms (cf. Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985; Feldman, 1984).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 02:

56 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 11: Agreement About Norms and Work-Unit Effectiveness: Evidence From the Field

NORMS AND WORK-UNIT EFFECTIVENESS 139

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The data for this study were collected as part of a larger project, the Hospital Emergency Services project, conducted through the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. The project was supported by Research Grant Number HS-02538 from the National Center for Health Services Research, U.S. Public Health Service-Health, Education, & Wel- fare (PHs-HEW), Basil S. Georgopoulos, principal investigator. I ac- knowledge contributions to this study made by colleagues on the hospital project, Basil S. Georgopoulos, Robert Cooke, Mark Peterson, Lorraine Uhlaner, and Eser Uzun. Thanks are also due Dennis Epple, Paul Goodman, Lance Kurke, Robert Sutton, and Pamela Tolbert for helpful comments.

REFERENCES

Argote, L. (1982). Input uncertainty and organizational coordination in hospital emergency units. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 420-434.

Berkowitz, L. (1954). Group standards, cohesiveness, and productivity. Human Relations, 7, 509-519.

Bettenhausen, K., & Murnighan, J . K. (1985). The emergence of norms in competitive decision-making groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 318-335.

Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307-324.

Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1968). Pressures to uniformity in groups: Introduction. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed., pp. 139-151). New York: Harper & Row.

Comstock, D. E., & Scott, W. R. (1977). Technology and the structure of subunits: Distinguishing individual and workgroup effects. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 177-202.

Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management Review, 9, 47-53.

Georgopoulos, B. S. (1965). Normative structure variables and organizational behavior. Human Relations, 18, 155- 169.

Georgopoulos, B. S. (1978). An open-system approach to evaluating the effectiveness of hospital emergency departments. Emergency Medical Services, 7, 118-129.

Georgopoulos, B. S., & Cooke, R. A. (1979). Conceptual-theoretical framework for thestudy of hospital emergency services. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.

Georgopoulos, B. S., Cooke, R. A,, Argote, L., & Uhlaner, L. M. (1977). Clinicalefficiency: Preliminary working statement. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.

Georgopoulos, B. S., Cooke, R. A., Argote, L. M., Peterson, M. F., Uhlaner, L. M., & Uzun, N. E. (1980). A comparative study of the organization and performance of hospital emergency services. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.

Goodman, P. S., Pennings, J . M., Campbell, J. P., Cummings, L. L., Freeman, J., Hannan, M. T., Kahn, R. L., Perrow, C., Pfeffer, J., Pondy, L. R., Scott, W. R., Seashore, S. E., & Weick, K. E. (1977). New perspectives on organizational effectiveness. San Francisco:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 02:

56 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 12: Agreement About Norms and Work-Unit Effectiveness: Evidence From the Field

Jossey-Bass. Haas, J. E., & Drabek, T. E. (1 973). Complex organizations: A sociological perspective. New

York: Macmillan. Hackman, J. R., Brousseau, K. R., & Weiss, J. A. (1976). The interaction of task design and

group performance strategies in determining group effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 350-365.

Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 45-99). New York: Academic.

Jackson, J. (1966). A conceptual and measurement model for norms and roles. Pacific Sociological Review, 9, 35-47.

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York:

Wiley. Kiesler, C. A., & Kiesler, S. B. (1970). Conformity. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Krackhardt, D., & Stern, R. N. (1988). Informal networks and organizational crises: An

experimental simulation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 123-140. Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H., Jr. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America's

best-run companies. New York: Harper & Row. Reinhardt, U. (1972). A production function for physician services. Review of Economics and

Statistics, 54, 55-66. Roberts, K. H., Hulin, C. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1978). Developing an interdisciplinary

science of organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schachter, S., Ellertson, N., McBride, D., & Gregory, D. (1951). An experimental study of

cohesiveness and productivity. Human Relations, 4, 229-238. Seashore, S. E. (1954). Group cohesiveness in the industrial work group. Ann Arbor, MI:

Institute for Social Research. Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: Thepsychology of smallgroup behavior (3rd ed.). New

York: McGraw-Hill. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). Thesocialpsychology of groups. New York: Wiley. Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford,

England: Blackwell.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 02:

56 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014