Category Archives: Teams
With OCBs and Justice For All (IO Psychology)
Topic: Organizational Justice, Teams, Citizenship Behavior, Performance Appraisal
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (NOV 2012)
Article: Examining Retaliatory Responses to Justice Violations and Recovery
Attempts in Teams
Authors: J.S. Christian, M.S. Christian, A.S. Garza, A.P.J. Ellis
Reviewed By: Ben Sher
Should managers deal fairly with their employees? Well yes, of course, if they are concerned about being nice people or perhaps want to be told the correct location of the
holiday party. But what if managers are only concerned with bottom-line organizational effectiveness, profit, and ruthless getting-ahead in life? For these types, research by
Christian, et al. (2012) has shown that treating employees unfairly can lead to certain negative workplace outcomes.
The authors conducted an experiment with teams of simulated employees and found
that employees who are treated unfairly respond in two harmful ways. The first is that
these employees engage in fewer organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). This
refers to things that an employee might do to help out at work, but are not technically
considered part of the employee’s job. The second thing that employees do in
response to unfair treatment is give supervisors lower performance ratings.
But worse than that, these retaliatory behaviors may not be confined to the individuals
who were treated unfairly. The authors found that entire teams of employees banded
together and performed fewer OCBs as a response to a teammate’s unfair treatment.
When teammates perceive that someone is getting treated unfairly, they may have an
emotional response of moral outrage that moves them to supportive action.
Another interesting discovery is that these findings do not work equally for all people.
The authors describe “strategic core” employees, or employees whose work is
instrumental for team success, and who encounter more problems and a heavier
workload than the typical employee. When these employees are treated unfairly,
they respond with even fewer OCBs than ordinary employees would under similar
circumstances. Also, teams more drastically reduced their OCBs when a strategic core
employee was wronged.
This research shows the importance of treating employees fairly. But what can
managers do if they have already behaved unfairly toward an employee? Luckily
this study provides a solution. “Recovery” is an attempt to atone for past injustice
by correcting the injustice or showing genuine remorse. Recovery was successful
at raising levels of OCBs as well as improving subsequent performance ratings of
managers. In this situation, the wronged employee’s teammates also increased OCBs
and managerial performance ratings. In other words, don’t underestimate the power of
simply saying “I’m sorry”.
Christian, J.S., Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S., & Ellis, A.P.J. (2012). Examining retaliatory
responses to justice violations and recovery attempts in teams. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97(6), 1218-1232.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Can’t we just get along? Team personality and conflict (IO Psychology)
Topics: Teams, Personality, Selection
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (SEP 2012)
Article: Ready to rumble: How team personality composition and task conflict interact to
improve performance.
Authors: Bret H. Bradley, Anthony C. Klotz, Bennett E. Postlethwaite, & Kenneth G. Brown
Reviewed By: Aaron Manier
Team members need to get along in order to perform well. Unfortunately, we’re all different people, so sometimes conflict arises. Often this conflict arises around different takes on the team’s task. However, scientific understanding of the relationship between task conflict and effective team performance has been inconclusive.
Personality impacts team dynamics and processes. Specifically, openness to experience and emotional stability can help or hinder team communication and conflict resolution. Team members who are open to experience are generally open-minded and curious, resulting in greater adaptability and a willingness to discuss conflict openly. Members with emotional stability have a steady sense of composure and generally have a positive view of others that allows them to use others effectively in conflict resolution.
Teams with members high in emotional stability and openness to experience perform stronger in the face of task conflict than teams with members low in these personality characteristics. Because of these findings, management should consider personality when building teams for unique tasks. Employees with high levels of emotional stability and openness will be able to tackle non-routine, challenging tasks with more grace and dignity, effectively resolving task conflict as it arises.
Makes sense, right? Who wants to work with a neurotic, closed-minded team member? Unless you’re just into that kind of thing.
Bradley, B. H., Klotz, A. C., Postlethwaite, B. E., & Brown, K. G. (2012). Ready to rumble:
How team personality composition and task conflict interact to improve performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, Advance online publication. Doi: 10.1037/a0029845
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Creativity is More Than Thinking Outside the Box (IO Psychology)
Topic: Teams, Creativity
Publication: Academy of Management Journal
Article: Cognitive team diversity and individual team member creativity: A cross-level interaction
Authors: S. J. Shin, T.-Y. Kim, J.-Y. Lee, & L. Bian
Reviewed By: Katie Bachman
A creative team is a joy to own. But how can an organization ensure that their team is acting as a cohesive, effective, creative unit? It turns out that it is oh so simple, but maybe not as rudimentary as you’d think. Join me as we venture outside the box!
When we talk about creativity in teams, we can talk about an individual team member’s creative contribution or we can talk about the creative output for the team as a unit. But none of this is very good if everyone on a team is thinking the same thing (pro tip: that’s not very creative). Instead, we need cognitive team diversity! That’s psychobabble for needing people to think differently, have different knowledge and skills, and come to the table with different values and beliefs. The logical step here (if you follow my creative way of thinking) should be that cognitive team diversity—thinking differently—leads to more creativity among team members. That makes sense, right? If people think differently, they’ll come up with different ideas.
But wait! You don’t think it’s quite that easy, do you? There are two components that we need to add to the model. One is leadership. When a team has a charismatic (“transformational” for those in the know) leader, that relationship between cognitive team diversity and creativity is the real deal. But when the leader is just blahs-ville, that relationship doesn’t hold up. There other thing to look out for is creative self-efficacy among team members. If team members think that cognitive diversity and creativity and all of that are important, it will be. It’s the same relationship as with leadership—if team members have this self-efficacy, it’s all good; but, if team members don’t feel like creativity is warranted or appreciated, it won’t be.
So, good news! Your team can be creative. Just make sure you have the right kind of leader and everyone feels warm and fuzzy about sharing ideas. No sweat!
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Team Intimacy and Organizational Interventions: Emphasizing Team Cohesion May be More Effective (IO Psychology)
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.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
When Does Conflict Improve Team Performance? (IO Psychology)
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.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Goals for Groups (IO Psychology)
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.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Tension at the Top: Why Women at the Executive Level May Not Welcome Other Women to the Club
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.
human resource management,organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
How Leaders Sharing Organizational Values Boosts Team Performance
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.
human resource management,organizational industrial psychology, organizational development
Trust in the leader is important for team performance
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.
There to Serve: Servant Leadership and Team Success
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.
