group dynamics final exam chapter review 7-11

Chapter 7

When do people conform in groups?

Social influence results from the majority impacting the minority (majority influence) and the minority impacting the majority (minority influence)

When do people conform in groups?

Asch (1955) studied conformity by measuring people’s decisions when the majority of their group’s members made errors judging line lengths.

• People in the Asch situation conformed, on average, on one-third of the test trials, but most disagreed with the majority more frequently than they agreed.

• Social responses to influence include compliance, conversion, congruence, independence, anticonformity, and strategic anticonformity.

When do people conform in groups?

Majorities are more influential when unanimous, in strong situations, and when larger in size (up to a point).

• Fewer group members conformed in the test situation developed by Crutchfield (the Crutchfield situation), where their responses were not identifiable.

• Individuals in groups engaged in computer-mediated interactions conform at rates equal to and sometimes greater than face-to-face groups (Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects, or SIDE effects).

• The decreasing impact of increased numbers of sources of influence is consistent with Bond’s (2005) meta-analytic review and Latané’s (1981) social impact theory, which predicts that social influence is a function of the strength (S), the immediacy (I), and the number (N) of sources present, or Social .

When do people conform in groups?

Conformity varies across group strong and weak situations, the sexes, across time, and across cultures.

• People who conform consistently in groups tend to be more authoritarian but seek social approval. Nonconformists are more self-confident.

• Women conform slightly more than men, primarily in face-to-face groups. Women may conform to increase group harmony, whereas men dissent to demonstrate their independence.

• Bond and Smith’s (1996) review suggests that group members in collectivistic societies yield to majority influence more often than those in individualistic societies.

• Conformity rates dropped slightly in the last half of the twentieth century.

When do people resist the group’s influence and instead change the group?

example

Latané’s (1997) dynamic social impact theory uses the processes of consolidation, clustering, correlation, and continuing diversity to explain majority and minority influence in spatially distributed groups that interact repeatedly over time, such as classroom groups (Harton et al., 1998).

When do people resist the group’s influence and instead change the group?

Moscovici’s (1976) conversion theory suggests that consistent minorities will be influential, but that influence in some cases is indirect and delayed. Minorities promote conversion and innovation, whereas majorities promote compliance.

• Behavioral consistency increases the impact of minority influence, as do idiosyncrasy credits gained through prior conformity (Hollander, 1971).

• Minorities exert more effort in their attempts to influence than do majorities, and the decision rule the group adopts will differentially influence the success of majorities (majority-rules) and minorities (unanimity).

When do people resist the group’s influence and instead change the group?

Implicit influence is produced by cognitive, emotional, and behavioral processes that are not consciously controlled and often unnoticed.

• Group members tend to unconsciously imitate each other.

• Mindlessness can cause individuals to conform automatically (Langer, 1989).

When do people resist the group’s influence and instead change the group?

Informational influence takes place whenever group members use others’ responses as reference points and informational resources.

• People gain information via social comparison, although they often misjudge the extent to which others agree with their viewpoint (the false consensus effect).

• Dual process theories recognize that social influence occurs when group members systematically process available information (direct process) or base their choices on nonrational processes, such as heuristics and emotional responses (indirect process).

When do people resist the group’s influence and instead change the group?

Normative influence prompts group members to feel, think, and act in ways that are consistent with their group’s social standards.

• Disagreeing with others can trigger cognitive dissonance, an unpleasant and neurologically detectable psychological state that individuals are motivated to reduce.

• Cialdini’s (2011) focus theory of normative conduct suggests that injunctive norms (normative influences) are often, but not always, more potent than descriptive norms (informational influences).

When do people resist the group’s influence and instead change the group?

Interpersonal influence includes verbal and nonverbal tactics, such as complaining, demanding, threatening, pressuring, and shouting, designed to induce change.

• Schachter’s (1951) analysis of group rejection indicates that communication with a disliked deviant eventually diminishes, at least when cohesive groups are working on relevant tasks. Any dissent from the group mode usually reduces likeability (Levine, 1980).

• Reaction to deviants results, in part, from subjective group dynamics triggered by social identity processes. Group members who violate norms can lead to the black-sheep effect —they will be evaluated more negatively than an individual who is not a group member who performs the same type of action.

• Packer’s (2009) normative conflict model suggests that strongly identified members are more willing to bear social costs associated with dissent in order to improve group outcomes.

When do people resist the group’s influence and instead change the group?

Social influence can cause individuals to fail to respond in emergency situations.

• The bystander effect occurs when individuals help less in groups rather than when alone. Interest in the effect was generated by the Kitty Genovese incident.

• Latané and Darley (1970) confirmed the effect of groups on helping by studying people’s reactions to staged emergencies.

• Informational and normative influences contribute to the bystander effect, as does diffusion of responsibility.

• Cross-cultural studies of helping suggest that the norms of some cultures (such as simpatico cultures) prompt residents to respond more positively to those who are in need (Levine et al., 2001).

Does social influence shape juries’ verdicts?

The magnitude of social influence suggests that the decisions reached by groups, including juries, are shaped by social processes rather than by an unbiased weighing of evidence.

• The Chicago Jury Project and work by Hastie, Penrod, and Pennington (1983) suggest that jurors, through deliberation, develop narratives to account for evidence (story model).

• Most juries use either verdict-driven or evidence-driven deliberation strategies.

• The verdict favored by the majority of the members prior to deliberation (or on the first straw poll) is usually the jury’s final verdict, although hung juries occur in about 10% of all trials.

• Jurors who have higher status occupations tend to dominate the group’s discussion.

Does social influence shape juries’ verdicts?

Studies of juries support their continued use for making legal decisions.

• Despite size-related changes in group dynamics, small and large juries do not differ significantly in the types of verdicts reached.

• Juries that do not have to reach a unanimous decision render their judgments twice as quickly and are far less likely to be hung juries.

• Several alterations of procedure have been developed to help jurors remember and process trial information, but their impact is not yet known.

• Voir dire procedures are often used to select jury members, but Wrightman maintains that this process can undermine the representativeness of the jury (Wrightsman et al., 1998).

chapter 8

What are the limits of an authority’s power?

Social power

is a group-level process, for it is predicated on differences in members’ capacity to influence one another.

What are the limits of an authority’s power?

Milgram (1974) tested people’s obedience to an authority who ordered them to give painful and potentially harmful electric shocks to a confederate (no shocks were actually given).

• A majority (65%) obeyed fully; those who did not often stopped when the learner retracted his consent to participate (at 150 V; Packer, 2008a).

• Obedience varied as Milgram manipulated aspects of the setting, including the harm, proximity, research location, surveillance, legitimacy, and groups.

What are the limits of an authority’s power?

Milgram’s studies suggest that obedience is common in hierarchically organized groups, such as those found in military, educational, and organizational settings.

• Critics noted methodological flaws and suggested that the personal characteristics of Milgram’s participants prompted them to obey, but the findings have been replicated by other researchers (e.g., Burger, 2009).

What are the sources of power in groups?

French and Raven’s (1959) theory of power bases emphasizes six sources of power—reward power, coercive power, legitimate power, referent power, expert power, and informational power.

• Milgram suggested obedient individual believed themselves to be agents of the authority—the agentic state—but recent research suggests they identified with the experimenter and the project’s scientific goals.

• Weber’s (1956/1978) concept of charisma suggests that certain leaders exert their influence by relying on legitimate power and referent power.

• Blass (1990) confirmed empirically that Milgram’s experimenter derived power from all six bases.

What are the sources of power in groups?

Power tactics are specific methods, such as persuasion, bargaining, and evasion, that people use to attain the goal of influencing others.

• These methods vary in a number of ways (hard–soft, rational–irrational, lateral–bilateral), with individuals selecting particular tactics depending on their personal characteristics and the nature of the group setting.

• One tactic, which may explain the levels of obedience in the Milgram experiment and Jonestown, is the foot-in-the-door technique: prefacing major demands with minor, inconsequential ones.

• The so-called “brainwashing” methods used by Chinese military personnel during the Korean War relied on various methods of influencing, including behavioral commitment.

What are the sources of status in groups?

The status structure in a group defines differences in power and influence.

• Members strive for status in groups; the resulting pecking order defines who is dominant and who is submissive.

• Personal characteristics, such as the need for power and political skill, predict those individuals who are more likely to strive for power over others.

• Bullying is the use of coercive influence against another, less powerful person. It can involve physical contact, verbal abuse, exclusion, or other negative actions.

What are the sources of status in groups?

Example 

Group members’ perceptions of one another also determine status. Berger’s expectation-states theory argues that group members allocate status by considering specific status characteristics and diffuse status characteristics (Berger et al., 2014).

What are the sources of status in groups?

When status generalization occurs, group members unfairly allow irrelevant characteristics, such as race, age, or ethnicity, to influence the allocation of prestige.

• Status allocations are particularly unfair when individuals who are members of stereotyped minority societal groups are also underrepresented in the group itself, with the most extreme case being solo status (being the only individual of that category in the group).

• In some online groups, the effects of status on participation are muted, resulting in a participation equalization effect.

What are the sources of status in groups?

Status differences in groups may be an evolved adaptation.

• In leaderless groups, status organizing processes rapidly create status differences.

• Michel’s (1915/1959) iron law of oligarchy predicts the emergence of status differences.

• Individuals tend to respond submissively when they confront authority, and they tend to behave assertively when they encounter someone who is submissive (the interpersonal complementarity hypothesis).

Does gaining power have a transformative effect on people?

example 1

People differ in the disposition level of personal power, but situational factors can also prime a sense of power.

Does gaining power have a transformative effect on people?

example 2

The idea that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” is consistent with Keltner’s (2016) approach/inhibition theory, which suggests that power activates the approach response system whereas the loss of power inhibits actions.

Does gaining power have a transformative effect on people?

example 3

The positive effects of power include increased activity levels, more positive emotions, consistent goal-striving, enhanced executive functioning, increased authenticity, and lower levels of conformity.

Does gaining power have a transformative effect on people?

The negative effects of power include an increased tendency to act in a risky or inappropriate way, a negative impact on others’ emotional states, loss of perspective-taking, the tendency to misjudge others, and increased self-satisfaction.

• Kipnis’s (1974) studies of the metamorphic effects of power found that people who are given coercive power will use this power, and that once it is used, the powerholders tend to overestimate their control over others and devalue their targets.

• The Bathsheba syndrome occurs when authorities use their power to exploit others, particularly in a sexual way.

• Powerholders may become so enamored of power that they are preoccupied with gaining it and using it.

How do those without power react when power is used to influence them?

example 1

Approach/inhibition theory predicts that individuals who do not feel powerful will display more negative emotion and reduced motivation. These negative effects are more likely when powerholders use coercive influence methods.

How do those without power react when power is used to influence them?

example 2

Coercive methods have been linked to a number of dysfunctional group processes, including increases in conflict as more group members rebel against authority (the ripple effect), disrupted interpersonal relations, and revolutionary coalitions.

How do those without power react when power is used to influence them?

example

Kelman’s (1958) compliance–identification–internalization model describes a sequence of increasing private acceptance of an authority’s beliefs, values, and perspectives.

How do those without power react when power is used to influence them?

Milgram’s (1974) theory of the agentic state traces obedience back to the nature of the authority–subordinate relationship.

• When individuals become part of an organized hierarchy, they tacitly agree to follow the leader’s orders. They also experience a reduction of responsibility and reduced agency.

• Zimbardo’s simulated prison study was terminated prematurely when participants became too dominant and too submissive.

How do those without power react when power is used to influence them?

example

People who blame obedience on the individuals in the situation may be displaying the fundamental attribution error (FAE), which underestimates the power of group-level processes.

chapter 10

When and why does working in the presence of other people facilitate performance?

example 

Triplett’s 1898 study of social facilitation indicated people’s performance improves when they work with others. Social facilitation occurs for both coaction tasks and audience tasks.

When and why does working in the presence of other people facilitate performance?

example

Zajonc (1965) concluded social facilitation usually occurs when a simple task requires dominant responses, whereas social interference or impairment occurs for complex tasks that require nondominant responses. Studies conducted in a variety of settings have confirmed the effect, which also holds for many species—including cockroaches.

When and why does working in the presence of other people facilitate performance?

Researchers have linked social facilitation to the personal and interpersonal processes listed in including the following

• Drive theory (Zajonc, 1965) argues that the mere presence of a member of the same species (compresence) raises the performer’s arousal level by touching off a basic alertness response.

• Blascovich’s studies of the challenge–threat response and brain imaging work have confirmed that people respond physiologically and neurologically to the presence of others (Blascovich et al., 1999).

• Cottrell ’s (1972) evaluation apprehension theory proposes that the presence of others increases arousal only when individuals feel that they are being evaluated. Self-presentation theory (Goffman, 1959) suggests that this apprehension is greatest when performance may threaten the group member’s public image. Distraction–conflict theory emphasizes the mediational role played by distraction, attentional conflict, and increased motivation. Harkins’ (2006) mere-effort (Threat-Induced Potentiation of Prepotent Reponses) model traces facilitation effects back to changes in how information is processed.

• Social orientation theory suggests that individuals who display a positive interpersonal orientation (extraverted and low anxiety) are more likely to display social facilitation effects.

When and why does working in the presence of other people facilitate performance?

example 

Social facilitation effects are related to a number of interpersonal processes, including prejudice, eating, electronic performance monitoring, and collaborative learning

When do people give their all when working in a group?

example

Groups become less productive as they increase in size. This Ringelmann effect is caused by coordination losses and by social loafing—the reduction of individual effort when people work in a group

When do people give their all when working in a group?

example 

Latané, Williams, and Harkins (1979) identified the relative contributions of coordination losses and social loafing to the Ringelmann effect by studying groups and pseudogroups producing noise.

When do people give their all when working in a group?

Factors that influence social loafing include the following

Identifiability:

When people feel as though their level of effort cannot be ascertained because the task is a collective one, then social loafing becomes likely. But when people feel that they are being evaluated, they tend to exert more effort, and their productivity increases.

When do people give their all when working in a group?

Factors that influence social loafing include the following

free riding

Individuals expend less effort if they believe others will compensate for their lack of productivity and to avoid being the “sucker” who works too hard (the sucker effect ).

When do people give their all when working in a group?

Factors that influence social loafing include the following

goals 

Groups that set clear, challenging goals outperform groups whose members have no clear performance standards.

When do people give their all when working in a group?

Factors that influence social loafing include the following

Involvement

Loafing is less likely when people work at exciting, challenging, and involving tasks. Members sometimes work harder to compensate for the poor performance of others (social compensation; Williams & Karau, 1991).

When do people give their all when working in a group?

Factors that influence social loafing include the following

Identity

Social identity theory suggests that when individuals derive their identity from their membership in a group, social loafing is replaced by social laboring as members expend extra effort for their groups.

When do people give their all when working in a group?

Factors that influence social loafing include the following

example 

• Karau and Williams’s (1993) collective effort model (CEM) draws on expectancy-value theories of motivation to provide a comprehensive theoretical framework for understanding social loafing.

When do groups outperform individuals?

example 

Steiner (1972), in his analysis of group productivity, suggests that few groups reach their potential, because negative group processes (process loss) place limits on their performance. He believed that actual

When do groups outperform individuals?

what is this AP=PP-PL

potential productivity minus process loss

When do groups outperform individuals?

Groups perform better than the average group member on many kinds of tasks , but only when process losses are minimized.

• Synergy results in the group achieving collectively results that could not be achieved by any member working alone.

• As Larson (2010) notes, weak synergy occurs when the group’s performance is superior to that of the typical member. Strong synergy occurs when the group outperforms its best member. Strong synergy, or the assembly bonus effect, rarely occurs in groups.

When do groups outperform individuals?

Steiner’s typology of group tasks argued that potential productivity and level of process loss depend, to a significant extent, on the task the group is attempting. Task demands are defined by divisibility (divisible tasks versus unitary tasks), the type of output desired (maximizing tasks versus optimizing tasks), and the social combination rule used to combine individual members’ inputs.

• Groups outperform individuals on additive tasks and compensatory tasks. Galton confirmed the wisdom-of-the-crowd: independent individuals’ judgments, when averaged, tend to be accurate. Other work indicates that a crowd must be sufficiently large, and the problem not too difficult, for a crowd to be wise.

• Groups perform well on disjunctive tasks if the group includes at least one individual who knows the correct solution. The truth-wins rule usually holds for groups working on Eureka problems, whereas the truth-supported-wins rule holds for groups working on non-Eureka problems.

• Groups are more effective decision makers than individuals, particularly when dealing with problems that have a known solution (intellective tasks) rather than problems that have no clear right or wrong answer (judgmental tasks; Laughlin, 1980).

When do groups outperform individuals?

Steiner’s typology of group tasks argued that potential productivity and level of process loss depend, to a significant extent, on the task the group is attempting. Task demands are defined by divisibility (divisible tasks versus unitary tasks), the type of output desired (maximizing tasks versus optimizing tasks), and the social combination rule used to combine individual members’ inputs.

• Reviews of plane crashes suggest that crews sometimes fail to communicate information clearly, resulting in pilot error.

• Groups perform poorly on conjunctive tasks, unless the task can be subdivided with subtasks matched to members’ abilities. Kerr and his colleagues’ (2007) studies of the Köhler effect finds the poorest performing members increase their productivity due to competitive strivings and the recognition that their poor performance is holding the group back from success.

• The effectiveness of groups working on discretionary tasks covaries with the method chosen to combine individuals’ inputs.

What steps can be taken to encourage creativity in groups?

example 

Brainstorming groups strive to find creative solutions to problems by following four basic rules that encourage the flow of ideas among members: “Be expressive,” “Postpone evaluation,” “Seek quantity,” and “Piggyback ideas.”

What steps can be taken to encourage creativity in groups?

example 

Brainstorming groups rarely generate as many ideas as individuals in nominal groups. Their less-than-expected performance has been linked to social loafing, production blocking, social matching, and the illusion of productivity.

What steps can be taken to encourage creativity in groups?

example 

Other methods, including brainwriting, synectics, the nominal group technique (NGT), the Delphi technique, and electronic brainstorming (EBS), offer advantages over traditional brainstorming

chapter 9 

What is leadership?

Leadership is an influence process in which group members guide one another in the pursuit of individual and collective goals.

• Leaders influence followers both directly and indirectly.

• Leaders and followers collaborate in the pursuit of shared goals; people willingly accept a leader’s influence and prefer to be led rather than to be leaderless.

• Groups prosper when guided by good leaders, but exaggerating their influence is the romance of leadership fallacy.

What is leadership?

The two-factor model of leadership identifies two basic sets, or clusters, of leadership behavior:

• Task leadership focuses on the group’s work and its goals.

• Relationship leadership focuses on the interpersonal relations within the group.

• The Ohio State University Leadership Studies identified these clusters, and the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) assesses both task and relationship leadership.

What is leadership?

example 

Leadership substitutes theory describes situational and interpersonal factors that substitute for or neutralize the need for task and relationship leadership

What is leadership?

example 

Men tend to be more agentic and women more communal, but this sex difference is not a robust one. Similarly, women show a slight preference for leaderless groups.

Who will emerge as a leader?

Paralleling Carlyle’s great leader theory and Tolstoy’s Zeitgeist theory, early analyses of leadership emergence adopted either a trait model or a situational model. An interactional approach, in contrast, examines the reciprocal relationships among the leader, the followers, and the group situation.

• Improved research procedures, such as longitudinal and rotational designs, have provided clearer evidence of personality’s influence on leadership.

• The trait clusters in the five-factor model of personality and the dark triad (Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy) are related to leadership emergence and effectiveness.

Who will emerge as a leader?

Certain competencies are associated with leadership emergence.

• Leaders tend to be relatively intelligent; their general mental ability is usually superior to that of their followers, but only to a degree.

• Emotional intelligence is related to leadership emergence and effectiveness.

• Sternberg’s (2012) systems model of leadership stresses the importance of practical and creative intelligence.

• Emergent leaders are generally more experienced.

• People who speak more in groups are likely to emerge as leaders (the babble effect), although work by Jones and Kelly (2007) suggests that quality of comments is more influential than sheer quantity.

Who will emerge as a leader?

Leaders tend to be older, taller, and healthier than the average group member.

• Ethnic minorities and women are less likely to be selected as leaders in groups. The terms glass ceiling and leadership labyrinth suggests hidden situational and interpersonal factors prevent women from gaining leadership positions.

• The bias against women is ironic because, in general, women possess more of the skills needed to be a successful leader.

Why do some lead and others follow?

Implicit leadership theory assumes beliefs about leaders and leadership—implicit leadership theories—influence followers perceptual and cognitive reactions to leaders and potential leaders (Lord et al., 1984).

• Most ILTs include task and relationship qualities. The prototype matching hypothesis suggests that individuals prefer leaders who match their ILTs, but ILTs can distort members’ perceptions of and reactions to their leaders.

• The GLOBE studies, conducted by House and his colleagues (2004), identified a number of common elements in ILTs worldwide, including diplomatic, moral integrity, charismatic (inspirational and visionary), and team-oriented.

Why do some lead and others follow?

example

Social identity theory predicts that leader endorsement depends on leader prototypicality and the members’ social identity.

Why do some lead and others follow?

example

Eagly and her colleagues’ (1992) social role theory maintains that stereotypes of sex roles and leadership roles can create negative expectations for women leaders.

Why do some lead and others follow?

example

Terror management theory (TMT) suggests that individuals may have a deep-seated need for leaders, particularly in times of crisis, when mortality is salient.

Why do some lead and others follow?

Evolutionary theory suggests that leadership is an evolutionary adaptation that improves the fitness of both leaders and followers.

• Leadership is a cooperative rather than dominance process, as illustrated by Chagnon’s (1997) studies of the Yanomamö.

• The mismatch hypothesis suggests people sometimes instinctively respond to leaders in less than optimal ways—as when favoring males when facing intergroup conflict and females when dealing with intragroup conflict.

Why are some leaders more effective than others?

Leadership style theorists assume that effectiveness depends on the leader’s task and relationship behaviors.

• The Leadership Grid, proposed by Blake and Mouton (1982), assumes that people vary in their concern for results and in their concern for people and that individuals who are high on both dimensions (9,9) are the best leaders.

• The situational leadership® theory, proposed by Hersey and Blanchard (1976), suggests that groups benefit from leadership that meshes with the developmental stage of the group.

Why are some leaders more effective than others?

Fiedler’s (1964) contingency theory suggests that leadership effectiveness is determined by the leader’s motivational style and the favorability of the situation.

• The leader’s motivational style can be either task-motivated or relationship-motivated, as measured by the Least Preferred Coworker Scale.

• Situational favorability is determined by the leader–member relations, the task structure, and the leader’s power.

• Fiedler’s theory predicts that task-motivated (low-LPC) leaders will be most effective in situations that are either extremely unfavorable or extremely favorable, whereas relationship-motivated leaders are most effective in intermediate situations.

Why are some leaders more effective than others?

Leader–member exchange theory (LMX) focuses on the dyadic relationship linking the leader to each member of the group.

• In many cases, two subgroups of linkages exist (the inner group and the outer group). Groups with more inner-group members are more productive.

• Members with a positive LMX are more likely to engage in organizational citizenship behavior.

Why are some leaders more effective than others?

Participation theories suggest that leadership should be distributed throughout the group rather than concentrated on a single individual.

• Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939) compared three types of “group climates”: autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire. Laissez-faire leadership was ineffective compared to democratic and autocratic, with members preferring democratic.

• Shared leadership models, such as co-leadership, collective leadership, and peer leadership, encourage member-centered leadership methods.

• Kelley’s (2004) theory of followership suggests that followers vary along two dimensions: active/passive and independent/dependent. He identifies five types of followers: conformist, passive, pragmatic, alienated, and exemplary.

Why are some leaders more effective than others?

Transformational theories of leadership examine how charismatic leaders promote change.

• Burns (1978) distinguished between transactional leaders and transformational leaders and suggested that the latter are able to elevate both themselves and their followers.

• Bass (1997) identified four components of transformational (rather than transactional) leadership: idealized influence (or charisma), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration; they can be measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.

Why are some leaders more effective than others?

example 

Women tend to adopt participative and transformational styles of leadership, whereas men are more likely to enact autocratic, laissez-faire, and transactional styles. Women’s skills are particularly well suited for organizations of the future, which will be less hierarchical and require a collaborative, shared approach to leadership.

chapter 11

What are teams and what are their various forms?

Teams are groups whose members are working together in the pursuit of a shared goal.

• Teamwork is the process used to combine (coordinate) members' efforts effectively.

• Teams have become increasingly popular as a means of organizing work in a variety of settings.

• Teams are needed when tasks are difficult, complex, and important, but the popularity of teams is not consistent with their overall effectiveness (according to the concept of the romance of teams ).

What are teams and what are their various forms?

Types of teams include work, management, project, advisory teams, and self-managing teams.

• Hackman’s (2002) authority matrix model distinguishes between four types of teams on the basis of their control over their processes and goals: manager-led, self-managing, self-designing, and self-governing.

• Members of cross-functional teams often serve as boundary spanners for the organization.

• Holacracy is a multiteam system that use teams (“circles”) for all organizational functions.

What are teams and what are their various forms?

example 

The input–process–output (IPO) systems model guides much of the theoretical and empirical study of teams.

How does the team’s composition influence its effectiveness?

example

Pisano, Bohmer, and Edmondson (2001) examined the performance of medical teams and related their effectiveness to composition and design.

How does the team’s composition influence its effectiveness?

example

Conscientiousness and agreeableness are the two personality traits most closely linked to team effectiveness, followed by extraversion, emotional stability, and openness.

How does the team’s composition influence its effectiveness?

example

A configural approach to team composition assumes that each member’s fit within the team depends on the personal qualities of the other individuals who are on the team.

How does the team’s composition influence its effectiveness?

Members’ team orientation and their knowledge, skills, and abilities, or KSAs, predict team effectiveness.

• KSAs include both task competence and interpersonal skills.

• Studies of highly successful teams suggest they were all staffed with highly motivated, skilled experts, but including experts in groups does not assure that the team will be effective.

• Some groups may be, collectively, more intelligent than others, but the cause of those variations is not yet known.

• Individuals who function effectively in groups possess a working knowledge of how teams work (team knowledge KSAs).

How does the team’s composition influence its effectiveness?

There are advantages and disadvantages associated with team diversity.

• Diversity increases the team’s resources, but diverse groups may lack cohesion, because their members may perceive each other as dissimilar. If cohesion is essential for the group to succeed, a diverse group will be disadvantaged.

• Crowdsourcing capitalizes on the creativity of diverse groups.

How does the team’s composition influence its effectiveness?

Wood’s (1987) meta-analysis of sex differences found that men and women do not differ in their effectiveness as team members, disconfirming the male bonding hypothesis.

• Groups that include a lone representative of a particular social category (tokens, or solos) may encounter problems of fairness, influence, and so on.

• Hackman’s (1992) studies of performing orchestras indicate that the group’s history and the larger social context in which the group is embedded influence the impact of a group’s gender heterogeneity on performance.

What processes mediate the input–output relationship?

Interlocking interdependence promotes team performance by enhancing the development of shared mental models and improving transactive memory systems.

Moreland and his associates (1996) examined the development of transactive memory by training individuals either in groups or individually, and then examining how much of that training transferred to a subsequent group situation.

What processes mediate the input–output relationship?

example

Coordinated interaction is sustained by three key processes: transitioning, acting, and managing interpersonal relations among members (Marks et al., 2001).

What processes mediate the input–output relationship?

example

Hackman’s (2002) real team model stresses the unifying functions of a clear, challenging, and consequential task.

What processes mediate the input–output relationship?

Teams are well-structured groups, with clearly defined roles, norms, and intermember relations.

Clarity of group structures enhances members’ sense of psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999).

What processes mediate the input–output relationship?

Effective teams are usually cohesive (social, task, collective, emotional, and structural).

• Cohesiveness promotes the exchange of information and trust, but cohesive teams do not necessarily outperform less cohesive ones.

• According to Fine, team members develop interpersonal trust over time as they learn which members of their team can be trusted to perform their requisite tasks adequately.

• Research conducted by Jarvenpaa and her colleagues (2004) indicates that teams that meet online rather than offline (e-teams or virtual teams) develop trust in a manner consistent with the organizational trust model.

How effective are teams, and how can they be improved?

example 

Team approaches do not ensure success, but they are reliably associated with increases in effectiveness and member satisfaction.

How effective are teams, and how can they be improved?

Hackman (2002) identified three factors that define the success of a team: task performance, adaptive growth of the team, and individual development of the members.

• The Pisano, Bohmer, and Edmondson (2001) study of surgical teams identified the factors that promoted learning in some groups and reduced the learning capacity of others.

• The checkered success of team approaches is due, in part, to the failure to properly design teams.

How effective are teams, and how can they be improved?

example

Salas and his colleagues (2007) have identified a number of ways to improve team function and have developed team training and team building techniques that can be used to teach team members the skills they need to perform more effectively in groups.

How effective are teams, and how can they be improved?

example

Experience with past group-level methods, such as quality circles, suggests that fidelity, training, and support are required to maximize effectiveness.