Category Archives: Teams

Team Intimacy and Organizational Interventions: Emphasizing Team Cohesion May be More Effective (IO Psychology)

Reply

Topic: Teams, Development
Publication: Human Resource Management Review (JUN 2012)
Article: Too Close for Comfort? Distinguishing Between Team Intimacy and Team Cohesion
Authors: Rosh, L., Offermann, L. R., & Van Diest, R.
Reviewed By: Thaddeus Rada

Within IO psychology, research on teams has become increasingly important in recent years. As organizations have begun to use teams for a wider variety of roles and purposes, it has become necessary for both researchers and practitioners to gain a better understanding of how teams work and how they can be designed to operate most effectively. Two constructs that have received research attention in the realm of teams include team intimacy and team cohesion. Although these constructs may appear to be very similar from the outside, Lisa Rosh and colleagues argue that there are important differences between these constructs, and that they are best conceptualized as distinct constructs.

Rosh and her colleagues explored the literature surrounding group intimacy and group cohesion, noting that, although there are areas of overlap between the constructs (e.g. interpersonal attraction), there are also key differences between them. Specifically, group intimacy necessarily requires some level of group cohesion, while a group may have high levels of cohesion without the added elements (e.g. interpersonal affection) of intimacy.

The authors suggest that, to date, many team-building initiatives in organizations have been designed to foster team intimacy, not cohesion. Noting that the link between intimacy and team performance has not been well-established, the authors suggest that practitioners shift their focus towards team-building interventions that focus, not on intimacy, but rather on the “work-focused” purpose of the group, such as the group’s commitment to their task and the task-based collective efficacy of the group. However, the authors do not discount the importance of intimacy entirely; indeed, they note that group intimacy is likely to become more common as teams take on more and more sophisticated projects in organizations; as such, they argue that additional research and examination of group intimacy is needed so that practitioners will be equipped to address this component of life in teams.

Rosh, L., Offermann, L. R., & Van Diest, R. (2012). Too close for comfort? Distinguishing between team intimacy and team cohesion. Human Resource Management Review, 22, 116-127.

human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management

 

source for picture: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Business_People_g201-Multiethnic_Team_p66538.html

When Does Conflict Improve Team Performance? (IO Psychology)

Reply

Topic: Teams, Conflict, Culture, Performance
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (JAN 2012)
Article: Reaping the Benefits of Task Conflict in Teams: The Critical Role of Team Psychological Safety Climate
Authors: B.H. Bradley, B.E. Postlethwaite, A.C. Klotz, M.R. Hamdani, K.G. Brown
Reviewed By: Ben Sher

There’s a battle in the meeting room! Tempers flare, fists pound the table, insults are hurled, a chair flies through the air! No, this is probably not the best way to get things done. But what happens if team members engage in spirited debate that is strictly focused on the work at hand? Will that be productive? According to research by Bradley, Postlethwaite, Klotz, Hamdani, and Brown (2012), the answer depends on the type of team climate already in place.

First, the authors discuss the difference between relationship conflict and task conflict. Relationship conflict is when team members argue on a personal level, which only leads to tension and animosity. Task conflict is when team members express differences of opinion that relate only to work tasks. Past research has shown that task conflict may sometimes be beneficial and sometimes be detrimental to team performance.

So what determines when task conflict is productive? According to this study, it is the presence of something called psychological safety climate. The authors explain that safety climate occurs when team members are not afraid to speak up and offer dissenting opinions that challenge the status quo. If people believe that they will be attacked for expressing alternative viewpoints, the climate is said to have low psychological safety. In this case, the team could be in danger of groupthink, which is when reluctance to speak up leads to poor or catastrophic team decision making.

The authors found that under a psychologically safe climate, task conflict leads to better team performance. This is because team members feel secure with discussing differing viewpoints and they understand that these opinions are strictly related to the work at hand. Under these circumstances, the team will produce more ideas and engage in healthy debate to arrive at the best solution. When psychological safety is low, team members may interpret any type of dissent as personal and threatening, even when it is task related.

This study highlights the importance of maintaining a work environment that encourages people to speak up and does not punish people for offering alternative opinions. When this happens, conflict related to work tasks will become a conduit for improving team performance and not a potential pitfall.

Bradley, B.H., Postlethwaite, B.E., Klotz, A.C., Hamdani, M.R., & Brown, K.G.
(2012). Reaping the Benefits of Task Conflict in Teams: The Critical Role of Team Psychological Safety

human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management

source for picture: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Business_People_g201-Multi_Ethnic_Business_Team_p66546.html

Goals for Groups (IO Psychology)

Reply

Topic: Goals, Teams, Job Performance
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (NOV 2011)
Article: The Effect of Goal Setting on Group Performance: A Meta-Analysis
Authors: A. Kleingeld, H. van Mierlo, L. Arends
Reviewed By: Ben Sher

He shoots, he scores! No, not those kind of goals. We’re talking about workplace goals—the kind that are used to help improve performance. And while past research has shown that goals do improve performance for individuals, a new meta-analysis by Kleingeld, van Mierlo, and Arends (2011) confirms that goals can help groups as well.

Once upon a time, Locke and Latham (1990) found that goals can help individual performance if the goals meet two criteria. They said that goals ideally need to be specific and difficult to reach. This became the basis of the popular Goal Setting Theory promoted by Locke and Latham over the past two decades.

But many studies also investigated the effects of goal-setting on groups. They wanted to know if goal setting improved group performance the same way it improves individual performance. According to the new meta-analysis, group goals are not only useful, but also subject to the same criteria as individual goals: they work best when they are specific and difficult to reach. Under these circumstances, group goals will best lead to higher group performance.

Additionally, the meta-analysis looked at two types of goals that people might set while working within groups: egocentric goals or “groupcentric” goals. Egocentric goals try to maximize performance of the individual, while “groupcentric” goals aim to improve the performance of the entire group. If group members depend on each other to get work done, setting egocentric goals leads to lower group performance, while setting “groupcentric” goals leads to higher group performance. This is because egocentric goals put too much emphasis on individual performance and discourage collaboration, while “groupcentric” goals encourage team members to cooperate.

This study provides a clear path for team success: Set goals that are specific and difficult to attain. Additionally, team members should set goals which specifically relate to overall group performance, and not goals which focus on individual performance. Following this recipe will allow teams to maximize their performance potential.


Kleingeld, A., van Mierlo, H., & Arends, L. (2011). The Effect of Goal Setting on Group Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1289-1304.

human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management

source for picture: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Business_People_g201-Business_People_Clenched_Fists_p46934.html

Tension at the Top: Why Women at the Executive Level May Not Welcome Other Women to the Club

Reply

Topic: Evidence-Based Management, Teams
Publication: Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes (SEP 2011)
Article: Female Tokens in High-Prestige Work Groups: Catalysts or Inhibitors of Group Diversification?
Authors: Duguid, M.
Reviewed By: Thaddeus Rada

Workplace diversity is a goal that many (and hopefully most or all) organizations aspire to. In recent years, there has been an increased emphasis on incorporating previously underrepresented groups, and especially women, into high-prestige work groups at the highest levels of the organization. Among the many benefits that might come from the addition of women to high-prestige groups, it is commonly believed that other women may be inspired by the level of authority and success that women in elite positions have achieved. However, a new paper by Michelle Duguid challenges this logic, suggesting that this “inspirational” role is one that women may embrace with some reservations.

Duguid conducted three studies to examine various ways in which women, as minority members in high-prestige work groups (i.e. “female tokens”), may, at times, be unsupportive of the efforts of other women to join a high-prestige group. More specifically, Duguid explained that two types of value threat may lead to women resisting the inclusion of other women in elite work groups. The first type of value threat, competitive threat, may occur when another highly-qualified female candidate is being considered for a high-level position. In this situation, the incumbent female may feel threatened by the possible addition of another woman in the high-level group. The second type of value threat is collective threat, which may occur when a moderately-qualified female candidate is being considered. In this situation, the incumbent female may be concerned that the applicant will be a poor performer, and hence perpetuate negative stereotypes about women, perhaps making salient the fact that the incumbent herself is a woman.

The results of Duguid’s studies suggest that organizations would be wise to consider the feelings that incumbent women may have about the addition of other women to high-prestige groups. While the fact that women may have negative reactions to other female applicants should not discourage organizations from adding qualified women to high-prestige work groups, it seems advantageous for organizations to consider the dynamics of the group and the feelings of current female incumbents when considering such additions.

Duguid, M. (2011). Female tokens in high-prestige work groups: Catalysts or inhibitors of group diversification? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116, 104-115.

human resource management,organizational industrial psychology, organizational management

 

How Leaders Sharing Organizational Values Boosts Team Performance

1

Topic: Leadership, Teams, I/o Psychology
Publication: Academy of Management Journal
Article: Person-Organization Value Congruence: How Transformational Leaders
Influence Work Group Effectiveness
Authors: Hoffman, B.J., Bynum, B.H., Piccolo, R.F., & Sutton, A.W.
Reviewer: Neil Morelli

Why is it that some leaders or managers are adept at “rallying the troops” while some seem to be ignored? The former may be a transformational leader. Transformational leaders are those that inspire their subordinates by instilling a sense of mission and purpose to attain long-term goals. These types of leaders have already been shown to positively influence work group effectiveness, but the question of “why” still remains. In an attempt to understand some of the underlying factors governing this relationship, Hoffman and colleagues tested if person-organization and person-leader value congruence at the group level mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and group effectiveness.

Why value congruence? Transformational leaders are said to be good at showing how organizational or group goals are congruent with individually held values, thus motivating followers to strive toward the achievement of those goals. Specifically, Hoffman et al. found that person-organization value congruence at the group-level, but not person-leader value congruence, mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and group effectiveness.

The authors suggested that because organizational values appear to be more important than leader values when offered side by side, organizations should make sure leaders buy into organizational goals and values for groups to be operating at their best. They also noted that managers and leaders who can communicate how the goals of the group and the goals of the organization are congruent will be able to improve the group’s capacity to attain both—important lessons to consider for any leader.

Hoffman, B.J., Bynum, B.H., Piccolo, R.F., & Sutton, A.W. (2011). Person-organization value congruence: How transformational leaders influence work group effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 779-796.

human resource management,organizational industrial psychology, organizational development

Trust in the leader is important for team performance

Reply

Topic: Leadership, Teams
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (JUL 2011)
Article: Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance
Authors: Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Peng, A. C.
Reviewed by: Alexandra Rechlin

Little research has explored the role that trust in the leader plays on team performance. This study examined that relationship and provided support for a model of affect-based and cognition-based trust in the leader mediating (linking) the relationship between leader behavior patterns and team performance.

Two types of trust in the leader were explored in this study: cognition-based trust and affect-based trust. Cognition-based trust is based on one’s perceptions of the leader’s competence, while affect-based trust is based on one’s feelings for the leader (e.g., a sense of empathy or concern from the leader). In this study, cognition-based trust was positively related to team performance through team potency (a team’s belief in its capability). Affect-based trust was positively related to team performance through psychological safety (a team’s belief that it is safe to take interpersonal risks, like suggesting unpopular ideas).

Transformational leadership is a behavior pattern in which the leader conveys a vision and strategic goals to inspire followers. Servant leadership emphasizes the followers, focusing on their welfare and supporting them. The authors found that transformational leadership was positively related to team potency through cognition-based trust. Servant leadership was positively related to team psychological safety through affect-based trust. In addition, both servant leadership and transformational leadership were positively and independently related to team performance.

To put this all in simpler terms, trust in the leader is important for team performance. Transformational leadership leads to cognition-based trust in the leader, which in turn leads to the team’s belief in its own capabilities, and that belief subsequently leads to increased team performance. Servant leadership leads to affect-based trust, which leads to an increase in the team’s sense of psychological safety, which then leads to increased team performance.

So what does all this mean for leaders? Leaders should engage in both transformational and servant leadership. They are not mutually exclusive, and they lead to different types of trust, which subsequently (and separately) lead to better team performance. Leaders may also want to adapt their behavior patterns depending on whether cognitive- or affect-based trust is more important for their situation.

Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 863-871. doi: 10.1037/a0022625

 

There to Serve: Servant Leadership and Team Success

Reply

Topic: Leadership, Teams
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (JUL 2011)
Article: Antecedents of Team Potency and Team Effectiveness: An Examination of Goal and Process Clarity and Servant Leadership
Authors: Hu, J. & Liden, R. C.
Reviewed By: Thaddeus Rada

Teams are used in a wide variety of organizations for a wide variety of purposes. While teams can be useful to organizations in many ways, there are risks as well. By forming individuals into collective teams, organizations must risk conflict and competition amongst group members. Generally, it is also necessary to have one or more individuals lead a team. In essence, teams can yield very positive results, but they must be designed and managed thoughtfully. A new article by Jia Hu and Robert Liden addresses how a particular type of leadership – servant leadership – might be especially useful in guiding teams to success.

The authors note that teams tend to perform better when team goals and processes are clear to all team members. This clarity can lead to high team potency beliefs, wherein team members believe in the team’s ability to effectively achieve its goals. The authors go on to point out that leaders of the “servant leader” type are particularly well-positioned to elicit this clarity and trust in their teams. Servant leaders do this through behaviors that put team members first, empowering them, and helping them to grow and succeed both as individuals and team members. Among their hypotheses, the authors hypothesized that, by fostering team potency in these ways, servant leaders might lead teams to perform better and engage in higher levels of organizational citizenship behavior.

Continue reading →

Is Bureaucracy Bad for Creativity? That Depends on You

Reply

Topic: Creativity, Strategic HR, Teams
Publication: Academy of Management Journal
Article: How does bureaucracy impact individual creativity? A cross-level investigation of team contextual influences on goal orientation-creativity relationships
Authors: Giles Hirst, Daan Van Knippenberg, Chin-Hui Chen, & Claudia A. Sacramento
Reviewed By: Katie Bachman

Bureaucracy and creativity. They might seem like mortal enemies—we often think of red tape and paper work as the killer of creative thinking—but it doesn’t have to be! Really, it depends on your employees. When we talk about goal orientation (why people do what they do), we usually take about three types of people. First, you have your learning-oriented workers. These are the ones who do what they do for sheer enjoyment of the work. They are intrinsically motivated. Second, you have your performance-prove-oriented employees. These workers want to show you how good they are. Third and finally, you have your performance-avoid workers. These are your risk-adverse employees—the rule followers. They all respond to bureaucracy differently, particularly when it comes to creativity.

We can divide bureaucracy into two dimensions—centralization and formalization. Centralization deals with the amount of decision making ability team members have. The more centralized decision making is, the less team members have opportunity to add their input. Formalization deals with the paperwork. It’s the policies and procedures employees have to adhere to in their job. Like centralization, the more formal the procedure, the less wiggle-room there is for workers.

Continue reading →

Joining Teams and Going Overboard!

1

Topic: Teams
Publication: Academy of Management Review
Article: Multiple team membership: A theoretical model of its effects on productivity and learning for individuals and teams
Authors: M.B. O’Leary, M. Mortensen & A.W. Woolley
Reviewed By: Jade Peters

A team is a set of individuals, bound to work together towards a shared goal or outcome. The number of teams an employee is involved in and the variety of the teams are important factors when addressing the employee’s learning and productivity. 

A recent team membership model shows that the more teams an employee is on the more productive they are up until a point where too many teams become overwhelming and productivity decreases significantly.  On the other hand, the variety of teams an employee is on is important because the variety can really aid in the increase of learning within teams and employees.

Really understanding how team membership can affect productivity and learning will help managers and team leaders become more mindful of the number of teams they assign their employees too and the variety of the teams.  Managers are going to want a productive employee that gets the most learning experience out of the teams that they join.  Employees alike can really benefit from this as well.  Knowing when to join teams and resisting teams they know will overwhelm them can help increase their productivity while they still maintain an increase in learning. 

O’Leary, M.B., Mortensen, M., & Woolley, A.W. (2011). Multiple team membership: a theoretical model of its effects on productivity and learning for individuals and teams. Academy of management review, 2011(36), 461-478.

human resource management,organizational industrial psychology, organizational management

Do We Have Organizational Support? Let’s Not Agree to Disagree

Reply

Topic: Teams, Job Performance
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (MAY 2011)
Article: When Managers and Their Teams Disagree: A Longitudinal Look at the
Consequences of Differences in Perceptions of Organizational Support
Author: M.R. Bashshur, A. Hernandez, V. Gonzalez-Roma
Reviewed By: Ben Sher

Your manager likes Chinese food, classical music, Ohio State football, and is a lifelong Democrat.  You, on the other hand, love Mexican food, heavy metal, went to Michigan, and have a ten inch GOP tattoo across your back.  Will workplace productivity suffer?  Hopefully not.  But what if you believe your organization fails to adequately support your work team, while your manager thinks they’re doing a fine job?  According to research by Banshur, Hernandez, and Gonzalez-Roma (2011), this scenario could lead to poor productivity and poor attitudes.

Researchers extensively surveyed bank employees at well over a hundred bank branches and made several important findings about perceived organizational support, which is whether employees or managers believe that the organization is doing everything they can to ensure the success of the team.  This may include providing needed resources, additional training, or simply showing they care about the efforts and success of the team.  When teams perceive organizational support, they feel the need to reciprocate by increasing productivity, and will also experience “positive affect”, which basically means they will be in a good mood.  

But the authors found a problem.  When there is a discrepancy between the manager’s perception and the rest of the team’s shared perception of organizational support, negative consequences could occur.  Specifically, when managers think that organizational support is high, but team members feel it is low, this leads to lower productivity and generally bad moods.  This is because the manager may appear out of touch with reality, leading to frustration and tension for the employees.  When the scenario is reversed, and the manger thinks support is low while team members feel it is high, negative outcomes are also possible.  For example, the manager might proscribe unneeded additional training, which could also be a source of frustration.  Still, the effects are not as severe as in the first scenario. 

Continue reading →