QUT Digital Repository: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/

Unsworth, Kerrie L. and West, Michael A. (2000) Teams: The challenges of cooperative work. In: Chmiel, Nik, (ed) Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK, pp. 327-346.

© Copyright 2000 Blackwell Publishing

Teams at Work 1

Teams: The Challenges of Co­operative Work

by

Kerrie L. Unsworth and Michael A. West Institute of Work Psychology

University of Sheffield Sheffield S10 2TN

UK

To appear in N. Chmiel (Ed.) An Introduction to Industrial/Organizational

Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Word count: 7787

Teams at Work 2

Teamworking is seen by many organizations as an effective strategy for organising work.

Eighty­two percent of companies with 100 employees or more reported that they used teams

(Gordon, 1992). Of the top flight Fortune 1000 companies, 28% used self­managing teams in

1987; this figure rose to 68% in 1993. What makes teamworking effective? How can people

work most successfully in teams? In this chapter we examine research evidence which suggests

ways to maximise team effectiveness.

To illustrate the issues surrounding teamworking, we will use primary health care teams

as an example. Primary health care teams consist usually of one or more family doctors or

general practitioners (GPs), nurses, health visitors (such as midwives or psychotherapists), and

receptionists. Primary health care teams are the first point of call for many of us when we feel

sick or need assistance in the prevention of illness.

What are teams and why are they important?

What is a ‘team’? Definitions of a ‘team’ generally suggest a number of conditions which

must be satisfied before a group of people can be called a team. First, members of the group

have shared goals in relation to their work. They interact with each other in order to achieve

those shared objectives. Team members also have well­defined and interdependent roles, and

they have an organizational identity as a team with a defined organizational function. Take the

example of a primary health care team. They have shared objectives in that all members are

interested in maintaining and improving health in the local population (West & Slater, 1996).

They interact in order to achieve this goal, such that doctors rely on nurses to perform health

check­ups, and everyone relies on the receptionists to make the process of patient

appointments manageable. They have well­defined roles based on skills, knowledge and

background, such as general practitioners (e.g., diagnosis and treatment), health visitors (e.g.,

Teams at Work 3

children’s developmental assessments), receptionists (e.g., responding to calls from patients

and booking appointments), and practice nurses (e.g., minor dressings and routine treatments).

Finally, they have a concept of themselves, more or less, as a whole unit: a primary health care

team.

So why do people work in teams? In general, teams can achieve an aim or a goal that

could not be accomplished easily by an individual working alone. Midwives and health visitors

have specialist skills which general practitioners do not. Indeed, in most organizations, a mix

of skills is required to provide complex services or produce sophisticated products. Mohrman,

Cohen and Mohrman (1995) offer these reasons for implementing team­based working in

organizations:

µ Teams enable organizations to speedily develop and deliver products and services

cost effectively, while retaining high quality

µ Teams enable organizations to learn (and retain learning) more effectively

µ Time is saved if activities, formally performed sequentially by individuals, can be

performed concurrently by people working in teams

µ Innovation is promoted because of cross­fertilisation of ideas

µ Teams can integrate and link information in ways that an individual cannot

Moreover, teamworking can help improve productivity. Macy and Izumi (1993)

conducted a meta­analysis of 131 field studies of organizational change and found that team

development interventions and the creation of autonomous teams (that is, teams which have

substantial responsibility for their own work) had a large influence upon financial measures of

organizational performance. Applebaum and Batt (1994) reviewed 12 large­scale surveys and

Teams at Work 4

185 case studies of managerial practices and concluded that team­based working led to

improvements in organizational performance on measures of both efficiency and quality.

However, there are also difficulties associated with working in teams. Steiner (1972)

argued that, for the most part, actual team productivity is less than its potential productivity

because of ‘process losses’. These process losses can be grouped into two categories: co­

ordination problems and motivational problems (Stroebe & Frey, 1982).

Co­ordination problems are those encountered due to the problems of arranging, and

integrating other people. Obviously, the larger the team, the more problems there will be with

co­ordination. Arranging times for meetings, co­ordinating tasks, integrating and passing on

information are all activities which have the potential to limit the effectiveness of the team.

On the other hand, motivational process losses occur when individuals use less effort in

performing a task in a group than when performing the same task by themselves. For example,

Latané, Williams and Harkins (1979) measured the sound of people’s clapping and found that

they clapped louder when they were measured individually than when they clapped in a group.

They named this phenomenon, “social loafing”. It occurs because people appear to

unconsciously reduce their efforts when they are in a context where their efforts are masked by

the collective effort of others. Although many researchers have found social loafing in

laboratory groups, Erez and Somech (1996) found less of an effect when examining social

loafing effects in real work teams. They compared teams in kibbutzim (where the group is

more valued than the individual) and urban settings (where the individual is more valued than

the group), as well as comparing different goal­setting approaches, communication and

rewards. Erez and Somech found that the social loafing effect only occurred with the urban

respondents who were given a ‘do­your­best’ goal for the team task. Therefore, despite the

Teams at Work 5

potential process loss, it appears that social loafing can be diminished by the use of specific

goals, intragroup communication and incentives for teamworking.

A useful framework for examining teams is the input­process­output model. Figure 1

illustrates the model. In essence, it suggests that inputs (such as team composition and task)

affect the effectiveness of the team both directly and indirectly via team processes (such as

cohesion and leadership). We will discuss these inputs and processes in turn.

But first, what exactly is team effectiveness? There is no easy answer to this question.

Following Guzzo and Dickson (1996, p.309), however, we define team effectiveness in broad

terms. Thus, effectiveness is indicated by (a) team produced outputs (e.g., number of patients

treated, reduction in waiting time, reduction in patient complaints), (b) the consequences a

team has for its members, or (c) the enhancement of a team’s capability to perform effectively

in the future.

INPUTS PROCESSES OUTPUT

Task Leadership

Team Composition Communication Effectiveness

Organizational Context Decision Making

Cultural Context Cohesiveness

Teams at Work 6

INPUTS INTO THE TEAM

The inputs into the team include the task the team must perform, the team members, and

the organizational and national/cultural context within which the team performs. A team works

towards specific outcomes, e.g., a primary health care team has the task of maintaining and

improving a community’s health. Teams also consist of diverse individuals and team

composition will clearly influence team effectiveness. The team works for and within an

organization, and so will be affected by the interaction with the surrounding organizational

context. Finally, the team exists within a wider society which will affect the teams’

fundamental beliefs and value systems, i.e., the cultural context. We consider each of these

factors in turn.

INPUT I: The Task

Team performance depends upon the task which has to be performed; in fact, much of

the variance in performance can be explained by the task (Kent & McGrath, 1969), be it

winning a football match, making a television programme, placing people with disabilities in

employment, managing the development of a new product or providing health and care for a

local community.

How do tasks affect team performance? Kent and McGrath (1969) found that

differences in the cognitions required for different tasks led to different outcomes. For

example, their production tasks (e.g., describe a house in the country) led to teams performing

high on originality but low on issue involvement, while the discussion tasks (e.g., should

abortion be legalised) led to high issue involvement but very low originality. When teams

performed the problem­solving task (e.g., how can you safely cross a motorway at night), they

Teams at Work 7

were most likely to perform highly on action orientation. Therefore, the task that the team

completed had an effect on the team’s performance on the various indicators.

However, there are ways to classify tasks other than by their cognitive requirements.

Probably the most widely­cited task classification system is that developed by Hackman and

colleagues (Hackman, 1990; Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman & Oldham, 1975) ­ the Job

Characteristics Scale. This system identifies five characteristics of motivating tasks and argues

that team effectiveness will be increased when these characteristics are strong (all other things

being equal). They include:

µ autonomy ­ the amount of responsibility the team has over their work and workload;

µ task variety ­ the extent of variety present in the tasks assigned to the team;

µ task significance ­ the degree to which the task is important to the team, the

organization, and wider society;

µ task identity ­ the degree to which the task represents a clear and whole piece of

work; and

µ task feedback ­ the amount of feedback available from completing the task itself.

Research suggests that this model successfully predicts team effectiveness in, for example,

administrative support roles (Campion, Medsker & Higgs, 1993), professional jobs (Campion,

Papper & Medsker, 1996), and technical, customer service, clerical, and management teams

(Cohen, Ledford & Spreitzer, 1994).

Using Hackman’s model, how would a primary health care team classify their task of

improving health and preventing illness? Their autonomy is high: they largely decide amongst

themselves how to do their work. Task variety is relatively high as many different patients

present a range of problems and challenges to the team. Task significance is, of course, very

Teams at Work 8

high: the health of a community literally affects that community’s survival. Task identity is

high in certain cases where an individual’s illness is treated solely within the health centre, but

can be low when patients must be referred to specialists. Moreover, task feedback is extremely

low. Thus, a primary health care team has relatively highly motivating tasks, yet are hampered

in their overall effectiveness by low task identity and low task feedback.

INPUT II: Team Composition

The mix of people with different occupations in a team clearly affect the team’s

performance: if a primary health care team had only GPs without any nurses, health visitors or

receptionists it would not be very effective. Similarly, a team can have a mix of personalities,

backgrounds and characteristics. But what is the ideal mix?

Team diversity, whether in relation to education, professional background, ethnicity, or

gender, offers both opportunities and challenges in the quest for effectiveness. However the

impact of this diversity, whether it be positive or negative, is dependent upon the self­

categorisation of team members. Self­categorisation occurs because people habitually classify

things, attitudes and people into groups for ease of understanding and efficient cognition. If

people consider themselves as members of a particular group (whether it be based on gender,

ethnicity, work role, etc.), that group is their ingroup. Those who do not belong in that

ingroup, are termed outgroup members. Social identity theory (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel,

1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) proposes that ingroup members evaluate their ingroup on

dimensions that not only differentiate them maximally from the outgroup, but that also show

the ingroup in a more positive fashion ­ hence discrimination occurs.

What are the implications for teams? Consider the case when the team itself is the most

salient categorising characteristic: the whole team becomes the ingroup and there will be no

Teams at Work 9

outgroup discrimination within the team. For example, if a female nurse identifies with the

health care team as a whole, she will see every other team member as a part of her ‘ingroup’,

regardless of sex or professional background. Because there are no outgroups within the team,

the team’s diversity will not be as salient and may not influence its effectiveness. If, on the

other hand, she identifies only with the other women within the team, then gender diversity

will produce an ingroup/outgroup differentiation based upon gender, and thus a more

pronounced influence of diversity on the effectiveness of the team.

So, assuming that diversity is a salient issue within the team, does it enhance or detract

from team effectiveness? This depends upon the type of diversity under question. Diversity of

task­relevant skills and knowledge is good: heterogeneity of task­related characteristics

implies that each team member will have relevant and distinct skills that they can contribute to

the accomplishment of the task at hand. Much research supports this proposition. For

example, Wiersema and Bantel (1992) examined the diversity of top management teams of

100 of the largest manufacturing companies in the US. They found that diversity of

educational specialisations among the top management team was related to a more adaptive

organization and more effective strategic change. Similarly, Bantel (1993) reported that the

management teams of banks which were heterogeneous with respect to education and

functional background developed clearer corporate strategies. These findings suggest that

task­related diversity can lead to greater team effectiveness.

However, teams which are diverse in task­related attributes are often diverse in relation

to attributes inherent in the individual, such as age, gender, and ethnicity. These relations­

oriented characteristics can cause differentiation between ingroups and outgroups, and thus

trigger stereotypes and prejudices (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner,

1979) which can inhibit team effectiveness.

Teams at Work 10

Various studies have shown that turnover rates are higher in teams that are

heterogeneous with respect to age (e.g., Jackson, Brett, Sessa, Cooper, Julin & Peyronnin,

1991; Wagner, Pfeffer & O’Reilly, 1984). Jackson et al. (1991) also suggest that age diversity

can have its greatest effects when the differences between the ages reflect differences in

values, attitudes and perspectives. For example, both risk­taking propensity and problem­

solving processes are related to age; if age heterogeneity is present within the team, conflict

may arise over the degree of risk that should be taken for a particular problem.

But what of gender and ethnic diversity? We noted earlier that social identity theory

implies that if team members perceive each other as outgroup members, then there may be

negative repercussions due to discrimination and prejudice. But is there any evidence to

support this claim? One experimental study examined the effects of ethnic diversity over time

and showed that effects diminish as group members gain experience with each other (Watson,

Kumar & Michaelsen, 1993). These researchers grouped students into either culturally

homogenous work groups (i.e., all members of the same nationality and ethnic background),

or culturally heterogeneous work groups. They then observed, rated and evaluated the groups

over a 17 week period. Their results showed that group interaction and performance was more

effective in the homogenous than the heterogeneous teams, until the last point of measurement

where homogenous and heterogeneous teams were rated equally. Thus it appears as though

team members’ identities changed ­ from an ethnic ingroup to a team ingroup.

Researchers examining gender diversity, however, have not produced such clear­cut

results. Some studies have shown that mixed­sex teams perform better than same­sex teams

(e.g., Hoffman & Maier, 1961; Hoffman, 1959). However, other studies have shown quite the

opposite (e.g., Clement & Schiereck, 1973; Kent & McGrath, 1969; Mabry, 1985). To solve

Teams at Work 11

the puzzle, many researchers have concentrated upon gender and ethnicity effects on

communication within the team.

Communication requires common understandings, meanings and language conventions.

However, people from different backgrounds, by they gender or ethnic backgrounds, will have

differing linguistic traditions and norms. Therefore, it is especially easy for misunderstandings

and misperceptions to occur (Brick, 1991). Additionally, women’s contibutions to team

discussions may be ignored, dismissed, or seen as offensive due to a violation of sex­role

stereotypes (Unsworth, 1994); while the contribution of team members of ethnic minorities

may be downgraded because of their accents (Callan, Gallois & Forbes, 1983; Gallois &

Callan, 1981; Giles & Street, 1985).

Thus, we find that diversity is a double­edged sword: it is needed for innovation and

creative solutions, yet it can cause conflict, turnover and an imbalance in team contributions.

INPUT III: Organizational context

The organization within which a team functions influences team effectiveness in a variety

of powerful ways. Researchers, such as Hackman (1990) and Tannenbaum, Beard and Salas

(1992), have proposed many contextual factors that may impact upon the team’s effectiveness.

We will concentrate on the following:

µ How people are rewarded in the team and organization

µ The technical assistance available to support the team in its work

µ Whether the organizational climate is supportive both of people and of teamworking

µ The extent of competition and political intrigue within the organization

µ The level of environmental uncertainty (in relation to the task, customers, suppliers

market share etc)

Teams at Work 12

Motivational theories (e.g., Vroom, 1964), have long emphasised the importance of

rewards for improving the performance of individuals. Behaviour theorists describe how

rewards strengthen behaviour, especially when the reward is explicitly contingent upon that

behaviour. Desired rewards increase a team’s performance by reinforcing high performance

behaviour and good teamwork. However, team performance is most effective when rewards

are administered to the team as a whole and not to individuals, and when they provide

incentives for collaborative rather than individualised work.

The climate of the organization ­ how it is perceived and experienced by those who work

within it ­ will also influence the effectiveness of teams (Allen, 1996). Organisational climate is

usually defined as a set of perceptions that reflect how the employee views and appraises the

work environment and organisational attributes (e.g., James & Jones, 1974; James, Joyce &

Slocum, 1988). Where the climate is characterised by high control, low autonomy for

employees, lack of concern for employee welfare and limited commitment to training, it is

unlikely teamworking will thrive (Markiewicz & West, 1997). The extra commitment and

effort demanded in team­based organizations requires organizational commitment to the skill

development, well­being and support of employees (Mohrman, et al., 1995).

Similarly, competition and intrigue will undermine teambased working. Teamwork

depends on shared objectives, participative safety, constructive controversy and support

(West, 1990; West & Anderson, 1996) which cannot exist in a competitive and untrusting

environment. In a comprehensive study of team­based organizations involving both

questionnaire and case study methods, Mohrman et al. (1995) have demonstrated that inter­

team competition is a major threat for team­based working. Teams which compete may

develop greater commitment to the team’s success than the organization’s success. Thus the

primary health care team may focus on increasing the financial benefits to their team at the

Teams at Work 13

expense of the wider National Health Service. Teams competing against, rather than

supporting, each other may withhold vital information or fail to offer valuable support in the

process of trying to achieve team goals, without reference to wider goals of the organization.

Thus, primary health care teams may fail to pass on information about former patients to other

teams, focusing their efforts on their own team’s immediate demands.

When people work in uncertain environments, teamworking can enhance their

performance. There is also evidence that performance benefits of teamworking which accrue in

relatively uncertain environments are greater than those which are gained in relatively

predictable environments. In an ingenious field study, Cordery, Mueller and Smith (1991)

examined the creation of teams in two water processing settings in Australia. In one setting,

the environment was such that the level of natural phosphates and pollutants was

unpredictable and difficult to manage (uncertain environment); in the other these factors were

relatively constant. The introduction of teamworking led to significantly greater improvements

in performance ­ but only in the uncertain environment.

Overall, evidence is mounting that the organizational context within which teams operate

is a powerful determinant of team effectiveness (Guzzo, 1996; Hackman, 1990; Mohrman et

al., 1995). Yet, consultants and practitioners often remain fixed on intra­team processes, at the

expense of contextual factors, in their efforts to improve team effectiveness. Another

important influence which is often ignored is the cultural context within which the team is

located.

INPUT IV: Cultural Context

Interest in the cultural context of teams and organizations is manifested most clearly in

Geert Hofstede’s work in the late 1960s and early 1970s. He surveyed over 117,000 IBM

Teams at Work 14

employees in 40 countries. From these data, he was able to classify the countries along four

dimensions: individualism­collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and

masculinity­femininity (Hofstede, 1980). Individualism­collectivism is the degree to which

people define themselves as individuals or as group members. Power distance is the degree of

formality with superiors, e.g., employees in low power distance countries may call their boss

by their first name, whereas employees in high power distance countries may call them by their

title. Uncertainty avoidance is the degree of ambiguity about the future that can be tolerated.

Finally, the masculinity/femininity dimension is concerned with whether achievements

(masculine) or interpersonal relationships (feminine) are valued in the workplace. He showed

that, for example, the UK is a relatively low power distant, low uncertainty avoidant, highly

individualistic, masculine culture. Spain, in contrast, exhibits a culture of high power distance

and uncertainty avoidance and a more collectivist, feminine culture; while the Netherlands has

a culture with a more masculine perspective, low power distance, high uncertainty avoidance

and high individualism.

Such differences in value systems will influence team processes and performance.

Indeed, the very definition of a ‘team’ may change across cultures. In cultures such as the UK,

USA, and Australia which score highly on individualism (i.e., they emphasise individuals in the

workplace), teams are seen more as a set of distinctive persons each having a unique

contribution to a specific part of the task. However, in more collectivist cultures such as Hong

Kong and India, teams are viewed as having shared responsibility for all aspects of the task.

Consequently, teamworking is likely to be much easier to implement in collectivistic cultures

(Smith & Noakes, 1996).

Other effects of the cultural context can be related to team processes. In the West,

researchers have discounted trait theories of leadership, in favour of more situational­based

Teams at Work 15

theories. However, consistently effective leadership characteristics have been identified in

other cultures (e.g., Bond & Hwang, 1986; Misumi, 1985). The social loafing effect identified

in Western societies, is apparently non­existent and sometimes reversed in China and Israel

(Earley, 1987, 1993). Similarly, current Western thinking is that group participation is useful

in enhancing performance (e.g., Cummings & Worley, 1993). However, cultures that

emphasise formal, distant relationships with superiors have reported negative effects of

participation (Marrow, 1964).

Finally, the implications of cultural context spread far wider than is immediately implied

by Hofstede’s dimensions. For example, attitudes towards time can have a substantial impact

upon teamworking. Smith and Noakes (1996) describe how latecomers to a team meeting

were perceived negatively in the USA, but positively in Brazil.

Processes

In the previous section, we examined how teams are formed and the context in which

they operate. Now, we examine the way in which teams work. In order to accomplish a task,

teams must be led, communicate, make decisions and work together cohesively. They will also

generate a team climate which denotes the general atmosphere that the team works in. It is

these processes we will concentrate upon here.

PROCESS I: Leadership

What is the influence of leadership in teams? Eden (1990) found that those Israeli

Defence Forces platoons which trained under leaders with high expectations of them,

performed better on physical and cognitive tests. George and Bettenhausen (1990) studied

groups of sales associates reporting to a store manager and found that the better the leader’s

Teams at Work 16

moods the fewer employees quit. Obviously, the leader has an important impact upon the

team.

Currently, the most influential approach to team leadership suggests two types of

leaders: transactional and transformational (Bass, 1990).

Transactional leaders focus on transactions, exchanges and contingent rewards and

punishments to change team members’ behaviours. Transactional leadership styles focus more

upon task­oriented behaviours, and interventions to reward required behaviour and draw

attention to, or even punish, gaps in perfomance. Transactional leadership has the following

components:

1. Contingent reward and punishment;

2. Active management by exception ­ following team members performance and taking

action when mistakes occur;

3. Passive management by exception ­ waiting until mistakes become serious problems

before taking action;

Transformational leadership involves influencing team members through charisma and

visioning. These leadership styles encourage team members to think not only of their

individual performance and completing their task in order to accomplish an individual

objective (as with goal­setting and reward systems used by transactional leaders), but to

complete the task in order to help the team as a whole. Transformational leaders inspire their

team; team members work effectively because of the vision and influence of their leader. There

are four related, but distinct, components within transformational leadership: charisma,

inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualised consideration. Charismatic

Teams at Work 17

characteristics include displaying conviction and trust and emphasising commitment, purpose

and loyalty. Transformational leaders motivate by visioning an appealing future, challenging

standards, encouraging their team and promoting enthusiasm. The third component is

intellectual stimulation ­ questioning assumptions and beliefs, stimulating new perspectives,

and encouraging the expression of ideas. Finally, individualised consideration means that

transformational leaders deal with team members at an individual level, by developing,

coaching, listening and teaching each person.

Autonomous work groups (sometimes called self­managed teams) are teams where there

is no formal leader; they are increasingly popular in today’s organisations. In these teams,

leaders are emergent rather than selected ­ leadership is often highly dependent upon the task

or challenge facing the team at any particular moment. Such self­managed teams have been

effective in contexts such as nursing (Weisman, Gordon & Cassard, 1993), mineral processing

plants (Cordery et al., 1991), and other manufacturing and service industries (Cordery, 1996;

Guzzo, 1996; Macy & Izumi, 1993). Cordery (1996) outlines six reasons for improved team

performance using self­managed teams.

1) autonomous work teams make decisions more rapidly in response to changing and

uncertain environments

2) decisions which are made in trusting and open climates, such as those found in

autonomous work teams, are more likely to be creative and innovative

3) being a part of an autonomous work group creates opportunities for new learning

which aids performance both because employees are able to see ‘the big picture’ due to

greater responsibility, and because their skills are more fully utilised

Teams at Work 18

4) self­managed teams increase the self­efficacy of team members. Williams and

Lillibridge (1992) showed that people who felt they had control over their environments (i.e.,

similar to those in autonomous working groups) perceived themselves to be more competent

at their jobs.

5) Finally, the job characteristics of those in self­managed teams, including autonomy,

feedback, task significance, task identity and skill variety (Hackman & Lawler, 1971;

Hackman & Oldham, 1976) are related to job satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, lower

absenteeism and better work performance.

The influences of leadership processes, be they vested in one person or distributed

throughout teams, are therefore manifold and potent.

PROCESS II: Communication

Communication is the glue which holds the team together. Without communicating a

team cannot survive. But what factors of communication affect team effectiveness? We will

concentrate on two aspects: the need for a facilitator in group situations; and the impact of

information technology on team communication.

When talking to another person, we have a natural reliance upon eye contact and body

language when talking to others in order to signal various cues such as It’s your turn to talk

now, and I agree (or disagree) with what you are saying. In a group situation, these cues are

more difficult to interpret correctly because of the number of people participating in

interactions.

It is often necessary, therefore, for teams to have a facilitator directing the discussions at

meetings. Carletta, Fraser­Krauss and Garrod (1996) compared team meetings in

Teams at Work 19

manufacturing companies which were facilitated either by the team leader, by a junior team

member, or shared amongst the team. They found that when a team leader facilitated a

meeting he or she overcame the difficulties of group discussion; however it was accomplished

only by exercising strong control. However, when the facilitation was shared amongst the

team, or performed by a junior member, meetings were more participative. Discussion was

also more active whilst still maintaining order and consensus.

In this age of increasing technology, computer­mediated communication is becoming

more and more prevalent. But what is the influence of computer­mediated technology on

communication in teams at work? This technology includes such things as voice messaging

and teleconferencing.

Rice and Shook (1990) examined the use of voice mail (a computer­assisted telephone

system which allows users to store and forward spoken messages) in organizations. The

results were positive: voice messaging overcame some communication restraints such as the

requirement to write message slips to others, as well as the constraint of both employees

needing to be available at the same time. Rice and Shook conclude that voice mail is valuable

for co­ordinated, collaborative tasks (such as teamworking) and has considerable potential.

One communication technology which does not realise its full potential, however, is

teleconferencing. Teleconferencing (or, the use of telephone and/or video systems to create a

meeting between people who are physically separated) intuitively appears a very valuable

technology. It allows teams to work across large physical distances and yet communicate as a

group. However, Egido (1990) concluded that although expectations for its success were

high, teleconferencing does not adequately substitute face­to­face meetings.

PROCESS III: Decision­making

Teams at Work 20

Team decision­making includes four elements: describing the problem; identifying

possible solutions; evaluating and choosing the best solution; and implementing the solution.

We discuss each of these steps below.

Problem definition must necessarily begin with problem recognition. Scanning the

environment increases the chances of discovering a problem before it becomes unmanageable

(Cowan, 1986). However, in some teams, problems are regarded as threats and identification

of problems by team members is discouraged (Miceli & Near, 1985). Nevertheless, groups

that do not engage in extensive scanning and discussion of problems may prevent appropriate

planning and action.

A team that is ‘problem­minded’, that is, one that focusses upon the problem rather than

just the solutions, will be more effective (Maier, 1970; Maier & Solem, 1962). Maier and

colleagues also found that defining the problem through breakdown and analysis of its

components improved team decision­making. Similarly, problems which are defined from a

number of different perspectives are likely to produce a wider variety of solutions.

Producing this variety of solutions in the second stage of decision making is thought to

increase the chances of obtaining a high quality, innovative decision. Brainstorming is one

technique used to generate many solutions. Osborn (1963) described brainstorming as a

process with four basic principles: 1) criticisms of others’ suggestions is prohibited; 2) free

thinking and wild, obscure solutions are welcomed; 3) quantity not quality of solutions is the

primary aim; and 4) combination or modification of the ideas will be required. A common

experience of brainstorming is that of ‘piggy­backing’ where voicing an idea may lead others

to have related, but complementary, suggestions. However, although brainstorming is

recognised as useful for generating ideas, physical and psychological barriers may impede the

Teams at Work 21

process. For example, production blocking may occur whereby team members are unable to

contribute ideas because another team member is talking. Perhaps the best method of

obtaining solutions is a modified version of brainstorming: team members individually record

their solutions before sharing them all with other group members (see Diehl & Stroebe, 1987).

Evaluating solutions must be based upon task­related criteria. For example, Janis (1982,

1989) identified the dangers of non­evaluation in a phenomenon called ‘groupthink’. This

occurs when team members are more interested in maintaining harmony within the group, than

with reaching a high quality decision. A famous example of groupthink is the ‘Bay of Pigs’

invasion in 1961. A team of expert advisors, together with U.S. President John Kennedy,

decided to support an invasion of Cuba using a small group of ill­trained exiles and the

American Air Force. The expert group were highly cohesive, isolated from alternative sources

of information, and led by a man who clearly favoured attack. Within days the invasion failed

and Kennedy and his team subsequently acknowledged the incorrectness of their decision.

They had evaluated and chosen a decision which was not based upon information or reality; it

was driven by consensus­seeking.

Implementing the chosen decision and successfully maintaining it depends upon

participation levels within the team. Employees who participate in decision making have

greater satisfaction with, commitment to, and ownership of decisions than those who do not

(Coch & French, 1948; Whyte, 1955). Thus, as Landy and Trumbo (1976) suggest,

participators in the decision­making process will be less likely to allow the implementation to

fail.

Finally, another influence on team decision making is a minority within the team

disagreeing with the other team members. Such minority dissent (Moscovici, Mugny &

Teams at Work 22

Avermaet, 1982; Nemeth, 1986; Nemeth & Owens, 1996) can bring about enduring change in

attitudes through sustained task­related conflict. A numerical or power minority (such as two

doctors in a team of eight) can influence decision making, as a result of the cognitive or social

conflict generated by the minority’s consistent and coherent disagreement with the dominant

view. Because of this conflict, other team members examine team problems and issues more

thoroughly, and think more creatively and widely around the topic. Therefore, if the two

doctors argue that greater nurse involvement in diagnosis and treatment would make the team

more effective, their persistent and coherent arguments are likely to bring about an enduring

change (not always or necessarily in the direction of the doctors’ arguments) in the other team

members’ views (Nemeth & Owens, 1996). Thus, minority dissent and conflict arising from

that dissent adds to the effectiveness of decision making.

PROCESS IV: Cohesiveness

Cohesiveness refers to the degree of attraction and liking among team members and their

liking for the team as a whole. Cohesiveness can influence team effectiveness by increasing

team members’ helping behaviours as well as increasing motivation (see Isen & Baron, 1991).

There is some evidence suggesting that members of socially integrated groups experience

higher morale and satisfaction (Shaw, 1981), and Shaw and Shaw (1962) found that highly

cohesive groups devoted more time to planning and problem solving than teams low in

cohesion. Similarly, Ouchi (1980) found that highly cohesive teams had lower communication

and coordination costs and could thus apply greater attention to problems under time pressure.

Mullen and Copper (1994) found the relationship from team performance to cohesion was

stronger than that from cohesion to team performance. This finding suggests that it is effective

performance which increases team cohesion (i.e., when the team does well, members like each

other more), more than cohesion affecting performance.

Teams at Work 23

PROCESS V: Team Climate

Team climate, similar to organisational climate, is the atmosphere within the team, or

‘the way things are around here’. Reichers and Schneider (1990) define climate as shared

perceptions of both formal and informal policies, procedures and practices. These underlying

values and beliefs can influence performance, productivity and innovation (eg., Burke &

Litwin, 1992).

In a study of over 40 primary health care teams, Peiró, Gonzalez and Ramos (1992)

examined the effect of team climate on team members’ stress and job satisfaction. The

dimensions of climate they used were support, respect for rules, goal­oriented information and

innovation. They found that these dimensions of team climate were significantly related to the

level of role conflict, ambiguity, job tension, and overall job satisfaction felt by the team

members. Thus, a good team climate is related to happy, unstressed, satisfied team members.

West (1990) focussed in upon one of the dimensions used by Peiró et al. (1992) ­ a

climate for innovation. He proposes four factors for an innovative climate: vision, participative

safety, support for innovation and task orientation.

² Vision ­ a clear, shared, negotiated, attainable, and evolving ideal of a valued

outcome which gives the team focus and direction

² Participative safety ­ reduces resistance to change, encourages commitment and

empowerment and allows all team members’ opinions to be heard in a safe

environment

² Support for innovation ­ helps to reduce threat which is often present when

forwarding new and original ideas to the team

Teams at Work 24

² Task orientation ­ commitment to excellence and high quality innovations

West and Anderson (1996) investigated innovation in top management teams and found

these four facets of team climate to be influential predictors. Support for innovation was the

principal predictor of innovation, whilst participation predicted the number of innovations

introduced by top management teams and task orientation predicted the administrative

effectiveness of the introduced innovations.

Developing Teams

The previous sections outlined the different influences of inputs and processes on team

effectiveness. How can we now build upon these ideas to promote team effectiveness?

Tannenbaum, Salas and Cannon­Bowers (1996) detailed five areas of interventions that help

actualise team potential.

The first of these domains relates to team composition. Systematic methods of recruiting

and selecting new team members will help to ensure smooth and effective running of the team.

This happens via three avenues: greater possibility of identifying skillful individuals; greater

control over task­related skill heterogeneity of the team; and increased likelihood of selecting

individuals who are able to work in a team environment.

Stevens and Campion (1994) divide the prescribed knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs)

of teamworking into two main categories: interpersonal and self­management KSAs. The need

for interpersonal skills is increased in teamworking, they argue, because the amount of

interpersonal interaction increases. Thus, each team member must be able to deal with and

manage interpersonal situations and group problem­solving competently. Team members must

be able to resolve conflict, both constructive and destructive, identify and implement

Teams at Work 25

collaborative problem­solving techniques, and communicate openly, supportively, and

nonevaluatively.

The trend towards autonomous work groups in organisations suggests the need for the

self­management KSAs. Each individual needs to possess certain abilities of goal­setting and

planning for a team in order for it to be effective; this requirement is needed to an even greater

extent in self­managing teams. For example a team member must be able to help establish,

monitor and evaluate team goals, coordinate activities, and help establish expectations and

workloads.

Diversity is another element of team composition and team development which requires

careful consideration. With the rise of multinational corporations, managing diversity has

become a pressing concern. Generally, research suggests that awareness of cultural differences

is the key to managing diversity (eg., Bartz & Lehman, 1990; Girndt, 1997).

But how do we make people aware of the differences between cultures in their team?

And once team members are aware, how should they then react? One method, outlined by

Girndt (1997) is to train team members to become aware of, and recognise, misunderstandings

in interactions. She suggests that the most important signals of a misunderstanding are time

delays in responding to communication, nonverbal signs of offence, withdrawal from the

interaction or verbal signs of anger. The hardest component in managing diversity, however, is

understanding why the negative response occurred and making the reasons for the

misunderstanding explicit. Girndt proposes two approaches: directly explaining one’s own

beliefs and behaviours and then asking for the other team member’s beliefs; or indirectly, by

comparing that individual’s behaviours with others from the same cultural group. Once an

understanding has been reached about the differences in cultures, the team can negotiate

Teams at Work 26

common methods and beliefs. This can be either a compromise between the different cultures,

a choice of one over the others, or generation of a completely different set of rules. Either

way, the value systems and methods of working of different team members are brought ‘into

the open’, and this prevents misinterpretations and prejudices from escalating.

The second area of team development described by Tannenbaum and colleagues (1996)

is team building ­ in other words, developing team processes. The processes that the

interventions target can differ widely depending upon the particular exercise, however most

interventions will improve team norms, attitudes, climate, and cohesiveness. One intervention

widely regarded as important in team building is clarification of both team and individual goals

(e.g., Markiewicz & West, 1997; Tannenbaum et al., 1996; West, 1990; West & Unsworth,

1997). West and Unsworth (1997) outline ten steps to developing a clear and motivating team

vision (see Box 1).

Teams at Work 27

STEP 1. Organise a team meeting that everyone can attend. The process of developing a team vision is often most effective when organised as an “away day” for team members and a facilitator. However, no matter where the process takes place, it is imperative that each team member attends. It is also important that each team member is focused upon the issues and understands the importance of developing a team vision.

STEP 2. Ask each team member to note down their views on each element of team vision, i.e., the degree of overlap with the organizational vision, customer emphasis, quality emphasis, value to the wider society, team climate relationships, growth and well­being of team members, and relationships with other teams within and outside the organization.

STEP 3. Pair team members together and ask them to compare their views. Ask them to note down similarities of values, and also to take special notice of areas on which their views differ. Encourage discussion and debate about the reasons for their beliefs.

STEP 4. Bring the discussion back to the whole team. Starting with the first element of team vision, ask each pair to give their opinion on where the team stands. Once all views have been heard for each particular element and have been noted on a central board, begin a discussion around the ideas presented. For elements in which there is discrepancy among team members, ask each member for their reasons behind their opinions. Bring about consensus through discussion, debate and full participation from all team members.

STEP 5. Once the elements of the team vision have been clarified, express these values in a short, concise, motivating mission statement. Once again, each team member must participate in the discussion around the articulation of the statement and agree upon its final form.

STEP 6. From the phrases of the mission statement, develop a list of goals that describe the team’s overall aims. Again, participation, sharedness and clarity are extemely important.

STEP 7. Objectives must then be derived from each of the team’s goals. These should be shared, attainable, clear and measurable.

STEP 8. From each objective, develop action plans which specify a clear route to reaching the goal destination. Again, these action plans need to be shared, attainable, and clear.

STEP 9. Finally, a document needs to be prepared which sets out the mission statement, the goals of the team, the objectives which relate to each goal, and the action plans which relate to each objective. Each team member should read this document and make any disagreements or worries known to other members of the team.

STEP 10. Repeat this process regularly to ensure that changes to the team or the team’s environment are incorporated in the team’s vision.

Teams at Work 28

Associated with team building is the notion of team training. Tannenbaum and colleagues

(1996) describe a training method which causes team members to share mental models. Mental

models are maps that each team member has in their mind regarding the team and its

objectives, methods for achieving objectives, procedures, norms etc. Having such similar

conceptualisations of the team and its components promotes co­ordination amongst members,

even when there are no explicit instructions regarding the activity. A method of cross­training

whereby team members ‘swap’ tasks and perform other members’ duties for a period of time,

enhances this shared mental model. By allowing each team member to experience the tasks

and needs of their team­mates, a more consensual understanding of the team will develop.

Leadership development is the fourth approach to team development. A number of

different strategies have been proposed to improve leader behaviour including leadership

training, coaching and 360 o feedback. Markiewicz and West (1997) suggest three main

functions in which team leaders must be trained and competent:

1) Managing the team ­ setting clear objectives, clarifying the roles of team members,

developing individual tasks, evaluating individual contributions, providing feedback

on team performance, and reviewing team processes, strategies and objectives;

2) Coaching individuals ­ listening, recognising and revealing feelings, giving feedback

and agreeing goals; and

3) Leading the team ­ creating favourable performance conditions for the team, building

and maintaining the team as a performing unit, and coaching and supporting the

team.

Finally, the last group of interventions for team development are those concerning work

redesign. This involves modifying the task and its characteristics (e.g., autonomy, skill variety,

Teams at Work 29

task significance, task identity, task feedback). One method of improving the motivating

potential of these characteristics, already outlined in this chapter, is the notion of self­

managing teams. Similarly, having fluid teams that permeate across project boundaries can

also help to improve task organization.

Promoting team development in each of these five domains (team selection, team

building, team training, leadership development and work redesign) leads to improved team

performance, as well as enhanced satisfaction and well­being of team members (Sonnentag,

1996; Tannenbaum et al., 1996).

Conclusion

What are the messages that the student of organizational psychology can take from

research on teamworking in organizations? The development of teamwork in modern

organizations has made the topic one of the most frequently discussed and addressed among

researchers, consultants and practitioners. The burgeoning of prescriptive and theoretical

accounts of effective teamworking is testament to this. However, for all of the practitioner and

academic attention paid to the topic, it is clear that we have gleaned few axiomatic principles

about effective teamwork. This is largely because teamworking in organizational settings is a

complex phenomenon. Much depends on the nature of the task, the composition of the team,

the organizational context and indeed the cultural context within which teamworking occurs.

All of this implies that we are in the early stages of research on understanding how

groups of people can work effectively together within organizations in the form that has come

to be known as teams. But rather than seeing this as an overwhelming challenge, the limited

progress which has been made to date by researchers who have met the challenge of studying

teamworking in context, suggests that we can make important and exciting progress. The task

Teams at Work 30

for organizational psychologists is to continue this work and address the fundamentally

important question of how groups of people can most effectively work together to achieve

their shared goals, with outcomes that would not be possible if they simply worked separately

and non­collaboratively.

Teams at Work 31

Glossary

Autonomous work groups: Teams where there is no formal leader; leaders are emergent

rather than selected, depending on the situation at hand.

Autonomy: The amount of responsibility the team has over their work and workload.

Brainstorming: A technique used to generate many solutions whereby the team generates as

many solutions as possible while deferring judgement on the ideas until later.

Cultural dimensions: Dimensions along which societies can be located including

individualism­collectivism (the degree to which people define themselves as individuals or

as group members), power distance (the degree of formality with superiors), uncertainty

avoidance (the degree of ambiguity about the future that can be tolerated) and

masculinity/femininity (whether achievements or interpersonal relationships are valued).

Groupthink: A decision­making process that leads to low quality decisions, occurring when

team members are more interested in maintaining harmony within the group, than with

reaching a high quality decision.

Mental models: Maps that each team member has in their mind regarding the team and its

objectives, methods for achieving objectives, procedures, norms etc.

Minority dissent: A decision­making process occuring when a numerical minority within a

team disagrees with the majority and which can result in an enduring change in attitudes.

Organisational climate: A set of perceptions that reflect how the employee views and

appraises the work environment and organisational attributes

Teams at Work 32

Social loafing: A reduction of task­related effort by individuals when performing in a group

compared to performing individually.

Task feedback: The amount of feedback available from completing the task itself

Task identity: The degree to which the task represents a clear and whole piece of work.

Task significance: The degree to which the task is important to the team, the organization,

and wider society.

Task variety: The extent of variety present in the tasks assigned to the team.

Team: A group of people with well­defined and interdependent roles, who interact with each

other in order to achieve shared goals.

Team climate: The atmosphere within the team, or ‘the way things are around here’.

Team effectiveness: Performance criteria indicated by team produced outputs, effect on team

members’ well­being and satisfaction and the enhancement of their future performance.

Transactional leadership: Leadership style which focused on transactions, task­oriened

behaviors, exchanges and contingent rewards and punishments to change team members’

behaviours.

Transformational leadership: Leadership style involving charisma, inspirational motivation,

intellectual stimulation and individualised consideration.

Teams at Work 33

Discussion Points

1. Describe a team you have once been in. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages you

found in being in that team.

2. “Diversity is a double­edged sword.” Explain this statement.

3. What is groupthink? Is the concept applicable to the family as well as the

organisation?

4. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the computer­mediated communication

technology: voice mail and teleconferencing?

5. Discuss the five areas of team development and explain how each can improve team

effectiveness.

Teams at Work 34

Further Reading Suggestions

Guzzo, R.A., & Dickson, M.W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on

performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 307­338.

Hackman, J.R. (1990). Groups That Work (and Those That Don’t): Creating Conditions for

Effective Teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Smith, K.G., Smith, K.A., Olian, J.D., Sims, H.P. Jr, O’Bannon, D.P., & Scully, J.A. (1994).

Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and

communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 412­438.

Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K.P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and

effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120­133.

West, M.A., Borrill, C.S., & Unsworth, K.L. (1998). Team effectiveness in organizations. In

C.L. Cooper and I.T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and

Organizational Psychology (Vol. 13). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Key Readings

Macy, B.A., & Izumi, H. (1993). Organizational change, design and work innovation: A meta­

analysis of 131 North American field studies ­ 1961­1991. Research in Organizational

Change and Design (Vol. 7). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J., & Higgs, A.C. (1993). Relations between work group

characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups.

Personnel Psychology, 46, 823­850.

Teams at Work 35

References

Allen, N.J. (1996). Affective reactions to the group and organization. In M.A. West (Ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psychology (pp.371­396). Chichester: Wiley.

Applebaum, E. & Batt, R. (1994). The new American workplace. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

Bantel, K.A. (1993). Strategic clarity n banking: Role of top management team demography. Psychological Reports, 73, 1187­1201.

Bartz, D.E., Hillman, L.W., Lehrer, S., & Mayhugh, G.M. (1990). A model for managing workforce diversity. Management Education and Development, 21(5), 321­326.

Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership. New York: Free Press.

Bond, M.H., & Hwang, K.K. (1986). The social psychology of Chinese people. In M.H. Bond (Ed.), The Psychology of the Chinese People (pp.213­266). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Brick, J. (1991). China: A handbook in intercultural communication. Sydney: Macquarie University.

Burke, W.W., & Litwin, G.H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523­545.

Callan, V.J., Gallois, C., & Forbes, P.A. (1983). Evaluative reactions to accented English: Ethnicity, sex role and context. Journal of Cross­Cultural Psychology, 14(4), 407­426.

Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J., & Higgs, A.C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823­850.

Campion, M.A., Papper, E.M., & Medsker, G.J. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429­689.

Carletta, J., Fraser­Krauss, H., & Garrod, S. (1997). Speaking turns in face­to­face workplace groups: The role of the communication mediator. Unpublished manuscript. Human Communication Research Centre, Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Clement, D.E., & Schiereck, J.J. (1973). Sex composition and group performance in a visual signal detection task. Memory and Cognition, 1(3), 251­255.

Coch, L., & French, J.R. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1, 512­ 532.

Cohen, S.G., Ledford, G.E., & Spreitzer, G.M. (1994). A predictive model of self­managing work team effectiveness (CEO Publication No. T94­28(271)). University of Southern California.

Teams at Work 36

Cordery, J.L. (1996). Autonomous work groups. In M.A. West (ed.), The Handbook of Work Group Psychology. Chichester: Wiley.

Cordery, J.L., Mueller, W.S., & Smith, L.M. (1991). Attitudinal and behavioural outcomes of autonomous group working: A longitudinal field study. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 464­476.

Cowan, D.A. (1986). Developing a process model of problem recognition. Academy of Management Review, 11, 763­776.

Cummings, T.G., & Worley, C.G. (1993). Organization Development and Change. St Paul, MN: West.

Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Towards the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 447­509.

Earley, P.C. (1987). Intercultural training for mangers: A comparison of documentary and interpersonal methods. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 685­698.

Earley, P.C. (1993). East meets West meets Mid­East: Further explorations of collectivistic and individualistic work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 319­348.

Eden, D. (1990). Pygmalion without interpersonal contrast effects: Whole groups gain from raising manager expectations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 394­398.

Egido, C. (1990). Teleconferencing as a technology to support cooperative work: Its possibilities and limitations. In J. Galegher, R.E. Kraut, & C. Egido (Eds.), Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Erez, M., & Somech, A. (1996). Is group productivity loss the rule or the exception? Effects of culture and group­based motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1513­ 1537.

Gallois, C., & Callan, V.J. (1981). Personality impressions elicited by accented English speech. Journal of Cross­Cultural Psychology, 12(3), 347­359.

George, J.M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1993). Understanding prosocial behaviour, sales performance and turnover: A group­level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 698­709.

Giles, H. & Street Jr, R.L. (1985). Communicator characteristics and behaviour. In M.L. Knapp & G.R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. CA: Sage Publications.

Girndt, T. (1997). An intervention strategy to managing diversity: Discerning conventions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 6(2), 227­240.

Gordon, J. (1992). Work teams: How far have they come? Training, (October), 59­65.

Teams at Work 37

Guzzo, R.A. (1996). Fundamental considerations about work groups. In M.A. West (Ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psychology (pp.3­24). Chichester: Wiley.

Guzzo, R.A., & Dickson, M.W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307­338.

Hackman, J.R. (1990). (ed). Groups That Work (and Those That Don't): Creating Conditions for Effective Teamwork. California: Jossey Bass.

Hackman, J.R., & Lawler, E.E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(3), 259­286.

Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159­170.

Hoffman, L.R. (1959). Homogeneity of member personality and its effect on group problem­ solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 27­32.

Hoffman, L.R., & Maier, N.R.F. (1961). Sex differences, sex composition, and group problem­solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 453­456.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work­related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hogg, M. & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.

Isen, A.M., & Baron, R.A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organiational Behavior (Vol. 13). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Jackson, S.E., Brett, J.F., Sessa, V.I., Cooper, D.M., Julin, J.A., & Peyronnin, K. (1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotins and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 675­689.

James, L.R., & Jones, A.P. (1974). Organizational climate: A review of theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1096­1112.

James, L.R., Joyce, W.F., & Slocum, J.W. Jr (1988). Comment: Organizations do not cognize. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 129­132.

Janis, I.L. (1982). Groupthink: A Study of Foreign Policy Decisions and Fiascos, Second edition. Boston: Houghton Mafflin.

Janis, I.L. (1989). Crucial Decisions. New York: The Free Press.

Kent, R.N., & McGrath, J.E. (1969). Task and group characteristics as factors influencing group performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 429­440.

Teams at Work 38

Kraemer, K.L., & Pinsonneault, A. (1990). Technology and groups: Assessments of the empirical research. In J. Galegher, R.E. Kraut, & C. Egido (Eds.), Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Landy, F.J., & Trumbo, D.A. (1976). Psychology of work behavior. Illinois: Homewood.

Latané, B., Williams, K., and Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822­ 832.

Mabry, E.A. (1985). The effects of gender composition and task structures on small group interaction. Small Group Behavior, 16(1), 75­98.

Macy, B.A., & Izumi, H. (1993). Organizational change, design and work innovation: A meta­ analysis of 131 North American field studies ­ 1961­1991. Research in Organizational Change and Design (Vol. 7). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Maier, N.R.F. (1963). Problem­solving discussions and conferences: Leadership methods and skills. New York: McGraw­Hill.

Maier, N.R.F. (1970). Problem solving and creativity in individuals and groups. Monterey CA: Brooks Cole.

Maier, N.R.F., & Solem, A.R. (1962). Improving solutions by turning choice situations into problems. Personnel Psychology, 15(2), 151­157.

Marrow, A.J. (1964). Risks and uncertainties in action research. Journal of Social Issues, 20, 5­20.

Miceli, M.P., & Near, J.P. (1985). Characteristics of organizational climate and perceived wrong­doing associated with whistle­blowing decisions. Personnel Psychology, 38, 525­ 544.

Misumi, J. (1985). The behavioral Science of leadership: An interdisciplinary Japanese research program. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Mohrman, S.A., Cohen, S.G., & Mohrman, A.M., Jr., (1995). Designing Team­Based Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey­Bass.

Moscovici, S., Mugny, G., & van Avermaet, E. (Eds.) (1985). Perspectives on minority influence. Cambridge: Cambridge Universities Press.

Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210­227.

Nemeth, C., & Owens, J. (1996). Value of minority dissent. In M.A. West (Ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psychology. Chichester: Wiley.

Nemeth, C. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23­32.

Teams at Work 39

Ouchi, W.G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21­37.

Peiro, Gonzalez & Ramos (1992). The influence of work team climate on role stress, tension, satisfaction and leadership perceptions. European Review of Applied Psychology, 42(1), 49­58.

Reichers, A.E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. In Schneider, B. (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture. Jossey Bass: Oxford.

Rice, R.E., & Shook, D.E. (1990). Voice messaging, coordination and communication. In J. Galegher, R.E. Kraut, & C. Egido (Eds.), Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Shaw, M.E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behaviour. New York: McGraw­Hill.

Shaw, M.E., & Shaw, L.M. (1962). Some effects of sociometric grouping upon learning in a second grade classroom. Journal of Social Psychology, 57, 453­458.

Smith, P.B., & Noakes, J. (1996). Cultural differences in group processes. In M.A. West (Ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psychology. Chichester: Wiley.

Sonnentag, S. (1996). Individual well­being. In M.A. West (Ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psychology. Chichester: Wiley.

Steiner, I.D. (1972). Group Process and Productivity. New York: Academic Press.

Stevens, M.J., & Campion, M.A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management, 20(2), 503­530.

Stroebe, W., & Frey, B.S. (1982). Self­interest and collective action: The economics and psychology of public goods. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21(2), 121­137.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (European Monographs in Social Psychology, No. 14). London: Academic Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.G. Austin and S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Tannenbaum, S.I., Beard, R.L., and Salas, E. (1992). Team building and its influence on team effectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments. In K. Kelley (Ed.). Issues, Theory and Research in Industrial/Organizational Psychology. London: North Holland.

Teams at Work 40

Tannenbaum, S.I., Salas, E., & Cannon­Bowers, J.A. (1996). Promoting team effectiveness. In M.A. West (Ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psychology, (pp. 503­529). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Unsworth, K.L. (1994). Perceptions of assertion in the workplace: The impact of ethnicity, sex and organizational status. Unpublished manuscript, University of Queensland, Australia.

Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and motivation. NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Wagner, W.G., Pfeffer, J., & O’Reilly, C.A. (1984). Organizational demography and turnover in top management groups. Adminsitrative Science Quarterly, 29, 74­92.

Watson, W.E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L.K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590­602.

Weisman, C.S., Gordon, D.L., & Cassard, S.D. (1993). The effects of unit self­management on hospital nurses’ work process, work satisfaction and retention. Medical Care, 31(5), 381­393.

West, M.A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M.A. West & J.L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and Creativity at Work (pp. 309­333). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

West, M.A., & Anderson, N.R. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), .

West, M.A., & Pillinger, T. (1995). Innovation in UK manufacturing (Research report). Institute of Work Psychology, University of Sheffield.

West, M.A., & Unsworth, K.L. (1997). Developing a team vision. In Parker, G. (Ed.), Handbook of Best Practices for Teams (Vol.2). NJ: HRD Press.

West, M.A., & Slater, J. (1996). Teamworking in primary health care: A review of its effectiveness. London: Health Education Authority.

Wiersema, M.F., & Bantel, K.A. (1992). Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 91­121.

Williams, K.J., & Lillibridge, J.R. (1992). Perceived self­competence and organizational behavior. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Issues, Theory and Research in Industrial/Organizational Psychology. (Pp.155­184). Amsterdam: North Holland.