Download - Topic Summary Groups&Teams

7/27/2019 Topic Summary Groups&Teams

1/23

Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams 1

Topic Summary: Groups and Teams

Topic summary learning goals

1. Recognize the difference between a group and a team.2. Explain factors that lead to effective groups and teams.3. Describe group and team norms and their development.4. Identify different types of teams and give an example of each.5. Describe group and team decisions making processes and barriers to decision-

making processes.

Key terms

BrainstormingCommon knowledge effect

Decision-making processDelphi technique

Group developmentGroup polarization

GroupthinkHomogenous team

Heterogeneous teamMaintenancenorms

Mental modelsNominal group technique

NormsPsychological safety

Punctuated equilibriumRoles

Shared mental modelsSocial loafing

Task normsTeam Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSAs)

Virtual teams


2/23


Introduction to Groups and Teams

Teams and groups are the basic unit by which organizations accomplish goals and

coordinate work. Most researchers make a distinction between groups and teams. Groups

refer to a collection of individuals who may interact, but do not share similar goals or

interdependence. Group processes refer to the interpersonal, social, and psychological

dynamics that occur during human interaction. Members of a team, in contrast, hold

interdependent roles and goals. They share interdependence and hold responsibility for

specific outcomes. Teams also typically fit within and must conform to a wider

organizational structure that includes reporting to the same manager, sharing a common

identity, and holding relatively stable membership (Sundstrom et al, 1990; p. 7-9).

Despite the many differences between the two, whether working in a group or a team,

both involve complex emotional dynamics. Membership in a group or a team creates

ambiguity and often results in anxiety. Anxiety emerges as group members struggle to

deal with the ambiguity. Anxiety emerges as group members struggle to answer questions

like:

What role should I play? What is an appropriate level of commitment to the task we face? What is an appropriate level of intimacy between members? What tension exists over what members are thinking and feeling about me and my

performance? (Bennis & Shepard, 1956).

In both groups and teams, three sets of factors relate to effectiveness. Context and

support factors, internal factors, and the desired organizational outcomes.


3/23


Figure 1: Factors for effective group and teamwork

Context and composition

Types of teams and their desired outcomes

Organizations turn to groups and teams to accomplish tasks that a single person

can achieve working alone. Organizations rely on groups and teams to achieve several

different types of outcomes like improving overall performance, increasing effectiveness,

and completing projects, or managing ongoing processes. Depending on the desired

outcome, organizations might rely on and implement a different type of team. Many

types of teams exist.

Management teamsconduct planning, policy-making, budgeting, staffing, and

coordinating activities for organizations. Most management teams also share

responsibility for managing subordinates. Executive teams and corporate boards are two

common types of management teams.

Project teams, often called task forces or short term project teams, share a

specific, time bound purpose. Project teams usually have narrowly defined goals and are

Contextandcomposition

TypeofteamCoachingandsupport

Teamcompositionandroles

Knowledge,skillsandabilities

Internalteamfactors

NormsDevelopmentDecisionmakingprocesses

Desiredoutcomes

Learningandimprovement

Customerservice

Projectcompletion

Management


4/23


single minded in their pursuit of these goals. An organization might rely on a project

team for designing a new product, writing a new soft ware package, filming a movie, or

constructing a new building. Action and performance teamsalso focus on conducting

single performance events. Action and performance teams require a higher degree of

coordination and specialized skills do to the complex nature, of the task they perform.

Cockpit crews, military and geographical expeditions, and professional musicians qualify

as action and performance teams.

Production teams focus on production or operations of existing products.

Production teams typically involve improving performance by improving effectiveness

and efficiency of ongoing operations including production.A similar type of team, called

a service teams responds to the ongoing needs of customers such as airline flight

attendants, customer services teams, and maintenance teams.

Some teams may have characteristics of several different types of teams. In

addition, individuals may be members of several different teams simultaneously. For

example, organizations formparallel teams to work on special projects of short duration.

Membership in a parallel team coincides with membership with other work arrangements

such as the case with advisory committees and quality assurance teams (Sundstrom et al,

1990).

The specific purpose of the group or team will determine what outcomes the

organization expects. Groups often form in organizations with the sole purpose of helping

improve learning or the development of its members, with little regard to outcomes

within the organization. Other times, groups and teams form to help accomplish specific

organization goals.


5/23


Coaching and support

Organizations can design systems and supports to improve the work of groups and

teams. Coaching, has achieved increasing popularity. Three major types of coaching

exist. Process coaching improves interpersonal relationships between members.

Behavioral coaching helps to change the behavior and assumptions of the specific

members. Developmental coaching occurs when an intervention is tailored to the

particular developmental stage of the group or team. In addition to coaching,

organizations often rely on reward systems, such as compensation and recognition

programs, designed to improve group and team work. Organizations also support group

and team work by increasing the degree of self-management, which is the degree of

autonomy that the team has over its task (Hackman & Wageman, 2005).

Composition and roles

Composition describes the make-up of the group or team members. Research

shows that when an individual group or team member holds a distinct view of their role

on the team, innovation and ability to perform improves (Swann, Polzer, Seyle, & Ko,

2004; Polzer, Milton, & Swann, 2002). This evidence suggests that the degree and type

of diversity matters for performance. Gender, education level, functional specialty, and

age are some key characteristics for group and team diversity. Simply stated, a group or

team can be eitherhomogenous, wheremembers are more similar on these key

characteristics orheterogeneous, where members are characterized by a greater degree of

difference.

Another important factor related to composition are the formal and informal roles

within the group or team. Roles refer to the division of labor, skill, and skills among


6/23


members. Roles relate to group and team composition as they describe the unique

activity, competency, knowledge, or preferences that each individual demonstrates.

While the list of potential roles is exhaustive, generally roles full fill either an internal or

external purposes. For example, external roles can focus on managing boundaries

between the team and its environment and internal roles focus on how the group or team

functions (Ancona, 1990).

Knowledge, skills, and abilities

One dimension of composition proves of particular importance: the knowledge,

skills, and abilities of the members. Many organizations expect their employees to work

in a group or team, but may over-estimate the ability of individuals to successfully work

together. Organizations may believe that effective group or teamwork simply emerges

naturally. However, research shows that successful group and team work requires

members who hold knowledge, skills, and abilities specific to teamwork. In other words,

teamwork is itself a competency that can be learned (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003). Some of

the competencies that individual team members can bring to a team include conflict

resolution, problem solving, communication, goal-setting and task performance, planning

and task coordination (Stevens and Campion, 1994; Stevens and Campion, 1999).

Internal team factors

Norms

Norms describe the patterns of interaction within a group or team, the specific

rules of the game to which members must adhere. There are many different types of

norms. It is often difficult to detect norms because most people look at individual

behavior rather than the more abstract patterns associated with group or team activity, but


7/23


with careful observation, these patterns of interaction become more obvious. In some

cases, norms can be observed. For example, do members show up on time for meetings or

do they show flexibility over when members arrive? Other norms can be more complex,

for example, do members share authority or is there a power struggle within the group or

team. Whether norms are simple or complex, norms serve an important social and

psychological function by setting limits of acceptable or unacceptable behavior, creating

predictable environments, setting expectations for members, facilitating the achievement

of group goals, forming a common identity, and determining the boundaries of group and

team membership (Brown, 2000 p. 64).

Two types of norms exist. Interpersonal norms, often called maintenancenorms,

reflect the interpersonal aspects of group and team life such as conflict, emotional

awareness, and social interactions. Task norms reflect more specifically aspects of group

and team life directed towards work and accomplishing organizational goals (Feldman,

1984).

Development of norms

Five stages of group development

Groups and teams establish norms early in their life cycle. A predictable pattern

of interaction begins to emerge within the first 5 minutes of the members coming together

for the first time. Norms, however, change over time as the group or team develops.

Group and team developmentdescribes the life cycle and the process whereby norms

develop and change over time in a progressive fashion. Perhaps the most widely known

models of group and development is Tuckmans (1965) five stage model of group

development. Since Tuckman largely concerned himself with self-development groups,


8/23


we refer specifically to group development, even though psychologists largely agree, that

both groups and teams need to progress through a relatively predictable sequence of

psychological changes to reach their potential. Each stage presents the group with a

challenge. When the group successfully works through each stage, they move onto a

progressively more challenging phase.

In the first phase, called forming stage, the group works through issues of

dependency and ambiguity. Behavior is polite and conflict avoided or held to a minimum.

Members begin to consider the capabilities and personalities of each group member as

individuals search for their place in the group.

In the storming stage, group members begin negotiating for authority and dealing

with conflict. Conflict may become pronounced as members seek an acceptable level of

conflict. The storming stage marks an important developmental milestone because in the

group successfully moves through storming, the groups members learn to deal with

conflict. Some groups may never leave the storming stage, dooming the group to high

levels of unresolved conflict.

If the group is successful at navigating the storming stage, it progresses to the

norming stage. In the norming stage, the group begins to lay the groundwork for a

productive work environment. Members agree upon work procedures, interpersonal

dynamics, and individual roles become mutually agreed upon.

During the performing stage, which follows the norming stage, the group acquires

the ability to take action on the agreed upon goals, begins to improve its working

relationships and can adjust and learn in the face of changes, obstacles, and setbacks.

Once a group successfully navigates the first four stages of group development, members


9/23


will accept individual differences, reserve conflict for task rather than emotional issues,

reach consensus through rational discussion rather than an attempt at unanimity, be aware

of group dynamics, share acceptable levels of anxiety, and hold greater awareness of

others individual expectations and goals (Bennis and Shepard, 1956).

Finally, in the adjouring stage, group norms are characterized by the realization

that the group itself will come to an end. The group often has a sense of fulfillment, pride,

and or even euphoria as members seek to hold positive feelings about the groups

experiences (Tuckman, & Jensen, 1977).

Two stage model of group development

The five-stage model describes how psychological norms develop within a group or

team. A second model, the punctuated equilibrium model, considers how project time

constraints trigger changes in productivity (Gersick, 1991). The punctuated equilibrium

model recognizes two primary phases of group and team development, which are

separated by a midpoint transition.

In the first phase, behaviors are marked by low productivity and the search for

direction. A midpoint transition separates the first and second phase. The midpoint occurs

near or at the halfway point of the project lifecycle. In the second phase, behaviors

become more task directed and behaviors are focused on achieving a higher level of

productivity. In this second phase, the members experience a burst of activity as it

redefines its basic processes and direction. This new level of productivity is marked by

renewed vigor and inertia towards completing the designated task. In the final push

towards finishing its project, activity accelerates as the group or team focuses on meeting

external expectations and seeks closure (Gersick, 1988).


10/23


-------------------

The punctuated equilibrium model of group development: set as figure

-----------------

Decision making processes

The steps taken by a group or team to generate choices, choosing among these

choices, and taking actions is the decision making process. Decision-making requires the

group or team to coordinate among members to complete work, learn, and accomplish

goals. Team and group decision-making can occur face to face or virtually, mediated by

technology or distance. Team processes refer to the varied activities of team decision

making, coordinating, and planning. Many types of group and team processes exist, we

focus on three brainstorming, nominal group andDelphi technique. When brainstorming,

all members work together in a face-to-face meeting. They strive to generate as many

ideas as possible, holding evaluation for each idea until after the session is complete. The

following rules guide brainstorming processes. No criticism can be offered towards an

idea until after the brainstorming session is complete. The group or team should approach

all ideas with an open mind. The group or team generates as many ideas as possible

(quantity over quality is key), and everyone is encouraged to build upon or improve on

each idea (see Sutton & Hargadon, 1996)

Similar to brainstorming, in the nominal technique, the group or team sets out to

generate an idea or solution to a problem, but with the nominal technique each individual

member conducts much of the work independently rather than working face to face. The

process begins with each member in a face-to -ace meeting where they learn about the

particular issue to be addressed. Once the entire membership is familiar with the issue,


11/23


then each member works independently for 10 to 15 minutes to generate a solution or

idea about how to address the issue. After the individual session, members return to the

collective setting where each individual member, in turn, presents his or her idea aloud to

other members. During this time, the members discuss, refines, and build on each idea.

The final step may involve a ranking of each idea as a way to select the best ideas (Van

de Ven & Delbecq, 1971). TheDelphi technique provides a more structured alternative to

brainstorming and nominal technique. It requires more directive involvement from a team

leader. The team leader collects ideas, distributes the ideas to the team and collects a

response, usually through a formal questionnaire. The Delphi technique works well when

membership is geographically dispersed but because the leader serves as the

intermediary, the Delphi technique limits direct interaction between team members.

Several variations of the Delphi, nominal, and brainstorming methods exist (Van de Ven

& Delbecq, 1974).

Contemporary issues in groups and teams

An emerging factor, proving to be quite important for building group and team

performance is psychological safety, the shared belief among members that the

environment within the team or group is safe for interpersonal risk-taking (Edmondson,

1999: p 354). When a group or team has strong norms of psychological safety, the

members stand willing to trust and respect each other in the context of the team itself, not

just between individuals. In groups and teams with high degrees of psychological safety

team members are more likely to tell other members about mistakes, express ideas that

are different from other members, express multiple points of views, challenge a point of


12/23


view even if that point of view is held by a powerful person such as a leader or a

dominate person.

Globally dispersed groups and teams, the impact of multi national organizations,

and cross-cultural membership provide new challenges for the contemporary

organization. For example, groups and teams composed of members from different

cultures need to understand how to work together. For example, learning, the processes

by which groups and teams gather, process, share, and take action on information (Kayes,

Kayes, & Kolb, 2005) as well as time orientation, how people perceive past, present, and

future, varies across cultures. Understanding how learning and time orientation may

differ among different members can improve effectiveness of group and teamwork in a

multinational context (Zellmer-Bruhn & Gibson, 2006; Rico, Sanchez-Manzanares, Gil,

& Gibson, 2007).

With increasing globalization, a geographically distributed work force, and

unique work arrangements, like working from home, organizations increasingly rely on

virtual teams to accomplish work. Virtual teams use information technology to

accomplish work. Not only do contemporary organizations rely on virtual teams to

improve work effectiveness, they also contribute to cost savings as organizations can

avoid travel and other expenses associated with face-to-face work. The concept of virtual

teams has become popular as nearly 60 % of all professional workers report working in

virtual teams (Martins, Gilson, & Maynard, 2004).

Virtual teams often encounter problems because members havent met or dont

interact on a regular basis. Psychological safety becomes even more important in virtual

teams. Some of the problems encountered by virtual teams can be overcome by proper


13/23


training, keeping a strategic focus, and preparing the team for the unique experience of

working virtually. (Rosen, First, Blackburn, 2006).


14/23


Text box materials

OB Feature: Barriers to effective group and teamwork

Certain types of processes and norms foster improved decision-making and lead

to successful outcomes for group and teamwork. Psychological safety, conflict

management, and interpersonal understanding improve performance. Other types of

processes and norms foster poor decision making and serve as barriers to effective group

and teamwork. Researchers have identified a number of barriers to effective group and

teamwork. Here are four barriers to effective group and teamwork.

Groupthink

Irving Janis (1972; 1982), a psychologist interested in improving decisions in

business and public policy settings, noticed a trend in several disasters. He reviewed

decision-making process in situations like the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion, the US

war in Vietnam, and the decision by US President John Kennedy US to invade the Bay of

Pigs in Cuba. Janis concluded that in these and other cases, the groups advising the policy

makers quickly moved toward agreement and consensus. At the same time, critical

thinking in the groups disintegrated. Due to real and felt pressure from other members of

the group, dissenting individuals, those that disagreed with the group as a whole, kept

quite and hesitated from challenging the dominant view point of the group. Janis called

this situation, where peer pressure stifles critical thinking and groups move toward

consensus,groupthink. Groups that fall victim to groupthink share several characteristics:

1. Sharing an illusion that the group is invulnerable. This feeling of invulnerabilityentices groups to be overconfident and anticipate that all their decisions will be

successful.


15/23


2. Discrediting of opposing viewpoints without engaging in critical reflection of viewscounter to their own.

3. Justifying their action on questionable moral principles such as the ends justify themeans.

4. Characterizing all who disagree with position as evil.5. Sensoring or ostracizing members of the group who do not conform to the dominant

viewpoint.

6. Identify someone in the team who will play the role of mindguard - a person whoseeks to insolate the team from opposing opinions (Janis, 1982).

Common-knowledge effect

Another effect that interferes with good group and team process is something

called the common-knowledge effect, which describes the tendency of group and team

members to share information that is known by other members rather than share unique

information held only the individual. The common knowledge effect limits effectiveness

because unique insights or knowledge held by individual members are not factored into

decisions making and action is guided by limited information (Gigone & Hastie, 1993).

Peer pressure and the polarization

Groups and teams also tend to make riskier decisions or more conservative

decisions than individuals working alone -- something referred to as the polarization

effect. In a classic study conducted by Solomon Asch (1956; see also Bond & Smith,

1996), he observed that when others pressured an individual group member, the group

member was more likely to conform to the groups opinion, even when the opinion


16/23


appeared obviously wrong. The studies showed that group conformity pressures can lead

groups to making less than prime decisions.

The polarization effect describes how peer pressure may encourage decision

making that is either more risky or more conservative than individuals making the

decision alone. Thus, group and team decisions tend to be polarized, either more

conservative or more risky, than an individual decision.

Social loafing and the free-rider effect

Social loafingand thefree-rider effectdescribe a phenomenon where an

individual within a group or team exerts less effort and performs at a lower level than the

individual would if he or she were working alone. Social loafing occurs when only a few

or a single members the group take responsibility for accomplishing the work of the

entire team, thus, certain individuals loaf or exert less effort than others on the group or

team (George, 1992). The free-rider effect describes how an individual relies on other

group members to do the majority of work, thus taking a free ride while other members

carry the workload (Albanese & Van Fleet, 1985).


17/23


OB at work: Teamwork skills help a television news producer get the story

When Brian Weiss took his first Organizational Behavior course, he never

imagined he would put it to use on the job so quickly. As one of the youngest producers

at Bloomberg TV, he produced a program called Money and Politics. In leading his

team, he relied on his skills as a news professional to make, gather and deliver the news.

The growing company often relied on young and ambitious college graduates, like Brian

to lead their productions. He was 24 years old. Even in his short time as producer, he had

mastered the complex technical and logistical side of

TV production. Producing regular television

programming required more than just knowledge of

the news, it required knowledge of how to build and

maintain a team. In one case, he pulled together a

production team just a few hours before a going live

at a remote location. He hired a local camera-operator

and audio specialist as well as a lighting expert. In

addition he needed to make sure that his on camera reporter stayed dry as it poured down

rain. In addition to his local crew, a remote team of technicians and producers sat in a

production room in downtown New York City. Building a team quickly across a

geographically distributed area and keeping the diverse roles working together proved

essential to getting the story.

Brian realized intuitively how teamwork contributed to getting his story on the

air, but learning more about teamwork confirmed his ability to build a team. For example,

Brian knew that in the time critical television news business there is no time to sugar


18/23


coat words. I needed to express urgency and be forceful enough to be sure that things

happened immediately. At the same time, he always knew not to shout or make the

team members cynical, or make anybody angry. Learning about teamwork in his

organizational behavior class only reaffirmed what Brian understood intuitively, that

effective teamwork requires trust among members, especially between the leader and the

rest of the team. At the same time, in a live situation, the broadcast culture accepts that

you might frustrate in the moment, but you can apologize later. So even if the team is

frustrated in the short term, the team continues to function in working towards its goal of

getting the shot onto television sets around the world.

Concepts from the research on teamwork helped Brian understand more clearly

that the success of a team relies on two distinct, yet related abilities. First, the team must

be able to effectively perform its task. In the case of the television news crew, his team

needed to understand the complex technical aspects live television news. Just as

important, the news crew had to coordinate its skills, keep focused in the face of many

distractions, and maintain good working relationships in the high stress environment of

television news. Concepts from organizational behavior helped Brian build and maintain

stronger teams that lead to getting the story on air.


19/23


Spotlight on Research: Do groups and teams share common characteristics?

Recent research suggests that groups and teams share some common

characteristics. A team of researchers created an experiment where they asked twenty-

five different groups to create an advertisement for a fictional airline. The researchers

recorded the 40-minute sessions and then observed the team processes. They kept in mind

the two development processes described in this chapter: the progressive psychological

development model and external constraints punctuated equilibrium model. The

researchers paid special attention to statements that reflected task related statements.

They found two types of task related statements consistent with the punctuated

equilibrium model. This included action statements, such as references to how the team

would accomplish their goals, when they might accomplish a certain aspect of the task or

discussion of specific resources. Another type of task related statements included content

statements about the ads themselves, such as references to format of the ad, specific

details, or how to present the ad to fictional customers.

The researchers also observed the teams reference various psychological

processes related to psychological consistent with Tuckmans model of group

development. These included processes associated with groups such as dependency and

counter-dependency, as well as statements that suggested the group members were

directly avoiding task or aspects of work that were critical of the task. Taken together the

groups made statements about both the task, consistent with behavior in teams, but they

also made statements about psychological factors typically associated with groups.

After complete analysis of the team meetings, the researchers explained that both

group and team dynamics exist in teams. The researchers found that, not surprisingly, the


20/23


teams spent as much as 80 % of their time on task related activities and far less time on

psychological or social dynamics. At most, during any one time, teams spent no more

than 25 % of their time on psychological issues, an in most cases less than 10 % of their

efforts were focused on psychological issues. None the less, the researchers observed that

many of the teams did change their patterns of interaction at the midpoint, just as the

punctuated equilibrium model suggested, but the teams spent much of their time before

the first half discussion issues like leadership, work allocation and flow. During the

second half, teams focused more on the specific content of the commercial they were

developing.

From this evidence, the researchers instruct teams to consider both group

elements and team elements when working on a project. Early in the life cycle, the team

can establish leadership, identify workflow, and determine process. Addressing the

psychological issues up front helps the team develop a strong psychological foundation,

which then allows the team to focus more directly on its task in the second half. Groups

that fail to deal with the psychological dynamics early on in group life may return to

these issues as the project develops, wasting crucial time as the project nears completion.

*Based on an article by Chang, A. , Bordia, P. , & Duck, J. (2003). Punctuated

equilibrium and linear progression: toward a new understanding of group development.

Academy of Management Journal, 46, 1, 106-117.


21/23


References

Albanese, R. & Van Fleet, D. D. 1985. Rational behavior in groups: The free-ridingtendency.Academy of Management Review, 10, 244-255.

Ancona, A. G. , 1990. Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in organizations.Academy of Management Journal, 33, 2, 334-365.

Asch, S. E. 1956. Studies of independence and conformity: A. minority of one against aunanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70, 9, 416.

Bennis, W. G. & Shepard, H. A. 1956. A Theory of group development.Human

Relations, 9, 415-437.

Bond, R. , & Smith. P. B. , 1996. Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studiesusing Aschs (1952b, 1956) line judgment task.Psychological Bulletin, 119, 1, 111-137.

Brown, R. 2000. Group processes: dynamics within and between groups. Malden, MA:

Blackwell Publishing.

Druskat, V. U. , & Wheeler, J. V. 2003. Managing the boundary: The effective leadershipof self-managing work teams.Academy of Management Journal, 4, 46, 435-457.

Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 2, 350-383.

Feldman, D. C. 1984. The development and enforcement of group norms.Academy ofManagement Review, 9, 1, 47-53.

George, J. M. 1992. Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in

organizations.Academy of Management Journal, 35, 191-202.

Gigone, D. , & Hastie, R. 1993. The common knowledge effect: Information sharing andgroup judgment.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 5, 959-974.

Gersick, C. J. G. 1991. Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the

punctuated equilibrium paradigm.Academy of Management Review, 16, 1, 10-36.

Gersick, C. J. G. 1988. Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of groupdevelopment.Academy of Management Journal, 31, 1, 9-41.

Hackman, J. R. , & Wageman, R. 2005. A theory of team coaching.Academy of

Management Review, 30, 2, 269-287.

Janis, I. L. 1982. Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes.Cengage.


22/23


Janis, I. L. 1972. Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions

and fiascos. Houghton Mifflin Company.

Kayes, A. B. , Kayes, D. C. , & Kolb, D. A. 2005.Experiential learning in teams.

Simulation and Gaming, 36, 3, 330-354.

Martins, L. L. , Gilson, L. L. , & Maynard, M. T. 2004. Virtual teams: What do we know

and where do we go from here?Journal of Management, 30, 6, 805-835.

Polzer, J. T. , Milton, L. P. , Swann, W. B. 2002. Capitalizing on Diversity: Interpersonalcongruence in small work groups.Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 296-324.

Rico, F. Sanchez-Manzanares, M., Gil, F. Gibson, C. 2007. Team implicit coordination

processes: A team knowledge-based approach.Academy of Management Review, 33, 1,163-184.

Rosen, B. , Furst, S. , & Blackburn, R. 2006. Training for virtual teams: An investigation

of current practices and future needs.Human Resource Management, 45, 2, 229-247.

Stevens, M. J. , & Campion, M. A. 1994. The knowledge, skill, and ability requirementsfor teamwork: Implications for human resource management.Journal of Management, 2,

20, 503-530.

Stevens, M. J. & Campion, M. A. 1999. Staffing work teams: Development andvalidation of a selection test for teamwork settings.Journal of Management, 2, 25, 207-

228.

Sundstrom, E. de Meuse, K. P. Futrell, D. 1990. Work teams: Applications andeffectiveness.American Psychologist, 45, 2, 120-133.

Sutton, R. I. , & Hargadon, A. 1996. Brainstorming groups in context. Effectiveness in a

product design firm.Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 685-715.

Swann, W. B. , Polzer, J. T. , Seyle, D. C. , Ko, S. J. 2004. Finding value in diversity:Verification of personal and social self-views in diverse groups.Academy of Management

Review, 29, 9-27.

Tuckman, B. W. , & Jensen, M. A. C. 1977. Stages of small-group development revisited.Group and organization management, 2, 4, 419-427.

Tuckman, B. W. 1965. Developmental sequence in small groups.Psychological Bulletin,

6, 63, 384-399.


23/23

Van de Ven, A. , & Delbecq, A. L. 1971. Nominal versus interacting group processes forcommittee decision-making effectiveness.Academy of Management Journal, 14, 2, 203-

212.

Van de Ven, A. , & Delbecq, A. L. 1974. The effectiveness of nominal, Delphi and

interacting group decision making processes.Academy of Management Journal, 17, 4,605-621.

Zellmer-Bruhn, M. , & Gibson, C. 2006. Multinational organization context: Implicationsfor team learning and performance.Academy of Management Journal, 49, 3, 501-518.

Download - Topic Summary Groups&Teams

Top Related