chapter 9- teams, teamwork, and group behavior

types of teams

1. Tactical: execute well-defined plan 2. Problem resolution: consistent, high-trust focus on solving problems 3. Creative: develop new product or service 4. Ad hoc: limited life-span problem-resolution/tactical team 5. A special type of team: Self-Regulated Work Team (SRWT) book also has virtual team- communication is usually electronic, members are dispersed geographically, may communicate at the same time or different,

distinguishing features of autonomous work groups at butler

1. employees frequently rotated jobs 2. after 18 months, most employees knew the entire production process 3. groups designed and purchased their own tools 4. group members went on service calls to do warranty repairs 5. quality control inspection was done by group members 6. there were few supervisors 7. group members participated in hiring and firing 8. supervisors served as coaches providing counseling and training 9. there were weekly group meetings and monthly plant meetings 10. there were employee advisory groups to management

5 social skills needed for individual to enhance group

1. gain group acceptance 2. increase group solidarity 3. be aware of the group consciousness 4. share the group identification 5. manage others' impressions of him or her need taskwork and teamwork skills

socialization process

1. investigation- searching for members or teams 2. socialization- assimilate into team 3. maintenance- maximize respective needs (achievement of team and satisfaction of individual) 4. resocialization- commitment weakens, try to reinfluence each other 5. remembrance- recall experiences and contributions, end membership

3 dimensions of team structure

1. skill differentiation- dictates who will perform various tasks (high= members not substitutable for another) 2. authority differentiation- dictates who has the power to make decisions (high= one member, low= collective) 3. temporal stability- short or long duration

TRIAD

3 dimensional model of role behavior in groups 1. dominance (how dominant, active, and control-seeking an individual is) 2. sociability (how sociable, friendly, and agreeable a person is) 3. task orientation (how focused a person is on solving a task)

team life cycle

5-stage model of team development: 1. forming- come together but act more as individuals than a unit 2. storming- conflict for position and status in group 3. norming- understand roles, agreed upon goal and plan 4. performing- coordinate actions 5. adjourning- team is disbanding

groupthink examples

Bay of Pigs Bombing of Pearl Harbor Iraq Invasion Space Shuttle Challenger Air traffic Controller Strike Major League Baseball Umpire Strike Penn State Sandusky Cover-up Obamacare (?) FBI decision (?) Impeachment defense (?)

two types of team conflict

Beneficial or cooperative conflict Occurs when team members openly share conflicting views, respect each other's opinions, and focus on finding an acceptable solution. Cooperative conflict relates positively to team performance. Competitive conflict Occurs when individuals promote their own views, have little regard for others' opinions, and try to get their own position adopted. Competitive conflict relates negatively to team performance.

diversity in group dynamics (differences among people)

Cognitive diversity e.g., knowledge, skill and values Skill differentiation e.g., experience, who executes? Authority differentiation seniority, positional power, who makes decisions? Personality diversity e.g., extraverted vs. introverted group members Demographic diversity age, ethnicity, gender, nationality

interpersonal processes

Conflict management- beneficial v competitive (task, process, or interpersonal Motivation and confidence building- create collective confidence and motivation; can lead to higher collective efficacy Affect management- regulating team member emotion, good performance may lead to team-oriented cohesion

preventative measures for groupthink

Define rules and processes for decision making and uphold them. Encourage full participation of every group member. Divide group members up into smaller brainstorming groups before sharing ideas with the larger group. Support debate and productive conflict in the group. Make it a priority to examine all alternatives Invite outside experts in to share their perspectives and insights with the group. Ask leaders to hold their opinions or ideas until after the group has had a chance to express their opinion. Have a designated 'devil's advocate' in the group .

group polarization

Definition: A phenomenon wherein the decisions of people in a group setting become more extreme than their actual, privately held beliefs. The phenomenon also holds that a group's attitudes toward a situation may change in the sense that the individuals' initial attitudes have strengthened and intensified after group discussion. Example: After a discussion about gun control, members of the group who are against gun control will defend their attitudes far more strongly than they would have beforehand.

social loafing

Definition: When group members do not put 100% effort in when they are in a group or team based situations due to losses in motivation. Three ways lack of individual incentives contribute to social loafing: 1. Free-riding (desire to benefit from others' efforts) 2. Sucker effect (reduce effort to match low expectations) 3. Felt dispensability (reduce effort when able members available) Identifiability reduces social loafing

group decision making

Groupthink is the "dark side" of cohesion: Consensus and harmony more important than rational, independent thinking More harmful if isolated from outside ideas and influences Illusion of unanimity (suppresses dissenting opinions) Groups make decisions that they know are poor: Incomplete consideration of options and alternatives Poor information search Selective information processing

Lee article

Integrating functional leadership theory with models of the team creativity and innovation, we present a dynamic model of leadership emergence where leadership emergence is shaped by (a) the type of contributions members express (constructive contributions proposing new ideas, or supportive contributions affirming ideas with merit), (b) when those contributions are expressed (i.e., in the idea generation or idea enactment phase), and (c) the extent fellow teammates themselves are contributing in constructive or supportive ways in those phases. We tested our theoretical model in two studies involving simulated teams engaged in an innovation design challenge. In both studies, we found that constructive contributions were more strongly related to leadership emergence in the idea generation phase than in the idea enactment phase. Moreover, the impact of constructive contributions on leadership emergence in the idea generation phase was stronger when there was a "void"— that is, fellow teammates' constructive contributions were low. Surprisingly, in both studies, we found consistent evidence that supportive contributions also enhanced leadership emergence in the idea generation phase, whereas the findings on supportive contributions and leadership emergence in the idea enactment phase were mixed. Overall, our model highlights the importance of integrating dynamic and contextualized aspects of teams into theories of leadership emergence and also sheds new light on the processes underlying emergent forms of leadership in the early phases of the innovation cycle.

group performance

Performance in the presence of others -Social facilitation- When task is simple or well-learned -Social inhibition- When task is complex or new Group problem solving -Groups perform better Group decision execution -Individuals perform better

group cohesiveness

Stronger enforcement of norms Less diversity in membership Shared mental models - degree of similarity in how to approach problems and evaluate potential solutions 4 categories of what is shared, most specific to most generalizable: task-specific information, task-related knowledge, knowledge of teammates, shared attitudes and beliefs PRO: High cohesion generates greater job satisfaction CON: High cohesion may inhibit healthy conflict shared knowledge can be common knowledge, overlapping, or distributed across team members

SRWT (self-regulated work team)

Teams take on traditional management functions: Planning Organizing Directing Controlling Supervisors take on new roles: Coaches Facilitators Completely autonomous May be stressful for those who have low tolerance for uncertainty and interdependence

5 principles of teamwork

Teamwork involves members who: Principle 1: provide and accept feedback Principle 2: are willing, prepared, and back each other up Principle 3: collectively view themselves as a group whose success depends on their interaction Principle 4: foster within-team interdependence Principle 5: have leaders who serve as models for the others

Michinov article

Two studies aimed to examine an overlooked question in brainstorming research, comparing the effects on performance and attention to the ideas of other group members of 2 idea-generation techniques based on a pooling approach: electronic brainstorming (EBS) and brainwriting (BWr). The results demonstrate that the pooling approach, which is a major feature of EBS, is more effective for EBS than for BWr, and also leads to greater perceived satisfaction with EBS (Study 1). However, if the EBS is forced into a system whereby extra effort is required to see the other participants' ideas (Study 2), the "superiority effect" disappears. These findings suggest ways of optimizing creativity in groups from the perspective of applied social psychology

team behavior

a pattern of action by members of team that directly or indirectly influences team effectiveness norms- unwritten rules of behavior accepted by group members productivity norms behavioral norms

process loss

a. Process loss: loss in productivity caused by inefficient time management/coordination b. May be caused by personnel or equipment/environment

performance impacted by presence of others

a. Quality can increase, but performance generally decreases per capita. Overall performance tends to increase, but the rate slows. Requires strong management to ensure maximal productivity b. Facilitation a. Increase in performance in presence of other people b. Especially in well-trained tasks c. Inhibition a. Decrease in performance in presence of other people b. Especially in unfamiliar tasks

roles v norms

a. Roles - structured (generally) positions/tasks specifically done by employees b. Norms - culture of the group c. Violation can cause loss of productivity (too many cooks), frustration, in-fighting, and disbanding

group performance v. individual performance

additive task (kravitz and martin 1986) rope pull number of people increase, but actual force of pull is not as high brainstorming (creative task): -group size inhibits individual performance- why? -process loss ("the Ringleman Effect")- e.g. coordinating schedules

working together differences

collection of people- two or more people who are in physical proximity to one another work group- collection of people who interact and share some interrelated task goals work team- type of work group that: -is interdependent and coordinated -has specified role for each member -accomplish common goals and objectives

Multilevel theory of team decision making

effective decision making is related to characteristics of individuals who make up the team, pairs of individuals, and how the team functions 1. team informity 2. staff validity- average of individual's ability to make accurate decisions 3. dyadic sensitivity- weighing each member's rec. and opinions before making decision

transition processes

mission analysis- understand their charge and identify resources and constraints that exist for the task goal specification- best if specific, attainable, and valuable to group members strategy formulation and planning- task planning, role definition, etc.

eight roles in teams

roles- specialization of function within positions -formal v informal -do not have to be assigned -may be functional or dysfunctional 4 functions -> 1-3 roles per function 1. leader (leadership func) 2. shaper (leadership func.) 3. resource investigator (liaison function) 4. monitor evaluator (team maintenance function) 5. team facilitator (team maintenance function) 6. creator (work producer function) 7. completer-finisher (work producer function) 8. worker (work producer function)

characteristics of work teams

teams (v. groups): identifiable membership identifiable task(s) interdependence whole is greater than the sum of the parts

multiteam systems

teams of teams that function interdependently to achieve overarching system-level goals e.g. fire department, EMTs, police all work together to fix fire

factors of groups more vulnerable to groupthink

the group is composed of members with similar backgrounds the group is highly cohesive the group has no clear rules or defined processes for decision making the group has an outspoken leader the group feels threatened by external forces the group is isolated from outsiders.

socialization

the process of mutual adjustment between the team and its members, especially new members how it occurs is based on 3 concepts: 1. evaluation- attempts by a team and individual to assess and maximize each other's value 2. commitment- sense of loyalty, union, and connection between individual and team 3. role transition- when commitment reaches a certain level

levels of analysis

the unit or level (individuals, teams, organizations, nations, etc.) that is the object of the researcher's interest and about which conclusions are drawn from the research

3 factor model for team processes

transition processes- beh/act that focus on planning and evaluation action processes- beh/act that facilitate goal accomplishment interpersonal processes- beh/act that concern managing team member affect/emotions

action processes

• Coordination behaviors- sharing of info to accomplish tasks • Monitoring behaviors- tracking and interpreting info • Backup behaviors- supportive in nature, e.g. helping a teammate finish a task; however can be harmful (neglect own work to help a teammate)