Differences between „group‟ and „team‟ Team is a group that generates positive synergy through coordinated effort. Collective performance in a team may be more than the sum of individual performance. A team is formed for a limited time. Team tasks require members to work interdependently.
Types of team tasks1. Generative2. Executing3. Negotiating4. Decision making
Types of teams Problem solving teams: Members share ideas and offer suggestions on how a situation or a process can be improved. Self-managed teams: are groups of employees who perform interdependent tasks and take the responsibilities of their actions. Self-managed teams may be involved in planning, scheduling, assigning tasks to members, collective controlling, decision making, and even selecting their own members.
Types of teams (continued) Cross-functional teams: consist of employees from different work areas but with similar hierarchical levels who come together to accomplish a task. The main idea in forming cross-functional teams is that every aspect of a client‟s work can be handled within one team instead of separate departments.
Types of teams (continued) Virtual teams: collaboration on-line. Virtual teams can be effective in many situations. However, it may have limitations in non-verbal communications and using emotional signs. Some have recommended using virtual teams for task-oriented jobs.
Important factors in forming a team Inspirational team leadership; Clarification of team tasks; designing different roles to cover all aspects of team tasks; Allocation of roles based on individuals‟ strengths; Considering appropriate size (5-10) Composition/Diversity (gender, age, expertise, ethnic backgrounds, cultural/industrial/departmental values and norms, etc.); Socialization and trust building.
Some important factors inteam effectiveness Team composition Groupthink Social loafing and free riding Cohesiveness Communication Shared mental models and team learning Collective efficacy
Types of composition Personality Gender Age Education Functional specialization Experience Cultural background
Heterogeneous or indigenous? Group composition must be formed based on the nature of the team. Diversity is appropriate for cognitive and creativity-demanding tasks. Similarity is appropriate for specific executive tasks.
Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis Suzanne T Bell. Journal of Applied Psychology. Washington: May 2007. Vol. 92, Iss. 3; pg. 595.Abstract (Summary) This study sought to unify the team composition literature by using meta-analytic techniques to estimate the relationships between specified deep-level team composition variables (i.e., personality factors, values, abilities) and team performance. The strength of the team composition variable and team performance relationships was moderated by the study setting (lab or field) and the operationalization of the team composition variable. In lab settings, team minimum and maximum general mental ability and team mean emotional intelligence were related to team performance. Only negligible effects were observed in lab settings for the personality factor and team performance relationships, as well as the value and team performance relationships. In contrast, team minimum agreeableness and team mean conscientiousness, openness to experience, collectivism, and preference for teamwork emerged as strong predictors of team performance in field studies. Results can be used to effectively compose teams in organizations and guide future team composition research.
What is social loafing? Consciously or unconsciously, individuals may not exert as much effort in group settings as when they are alone. Social loafing is based on the de-individuation that can occur when people work in groups as opposed to working alone.
Important antecedents of social loafing Lack of identification and uniqueness of individual contribution to the group; Low intrinsic involvement; Individualistic orientation; Lack of peer appraisal; Large group size; Task visibility (hiding in the crowed); Distributive justice
Social loafing and expectancy theory Expectancy: A group member may realize that other factors aside from their own effort will influence his/her group‟s performance. Instrumentality: A group member may realize that valued outcomes (rewards) are divided among all group members, and she/he may not receive a fair share given his or her level of effort.
Definition The degree to which members are attracted to each other and are motivated to stay in the group. This is an important predictor of team effectiveness when performance norms are high.
How to improve cohesiveness? Make the group smaller; Encourage agreement with group goals; Increase the time members spend together; Increase the status of the group and perceived difficulty of attaining membership in the group; Stimulate competition with other groups; Give reward to the group rather than individual members; Physically isolate the group.
Communication processSource Encoding Channel Decoding Receiver Feedback
Important forms of communication Oral communication; Non-verbal communication; Written communication. Actions can impact a receiver more than spoken words (93%). Spoken words 7% Nonverbal symbols 93%
Barriers to effective communication Hearing instead of listening; Information overload; Selective perception; Using jargons; Dysfunctional emotions; Lack of attention to non-verbal communication.
Non-verbal communication Body language:(1) the extent to which an individual likes another and interested in their views;(2) the relative perceived status between a sender and a receiver. Eye contact 10% of the time with Asians; 75% of the time with Americans; 100% of the time with the French. Facial expression; Physical distance and space.
Physical distance and space Public zone (over 3.6m) Social zone (1.2-3.6m) Personal zone (46cm-1.2m) Intimate zone (15-46cm)
Mental models Mental models can be thought of as knowledge structures, images, assumptions, beliefs, and attitudes in an individual‟s cognitions. Mental models such as belief systems, implicit theories, and assumptions affect our reasoning and behaviour
Mental models in teams Cannon-Bowers and colleagues (1993) have proposed one of the most popular conceptual framework for different types of mental models in the context of teamwork. They considered mental models to be multidimensional, and categorised multiple mental models into four types.
Types of mental models equipment models equipment functioning and limitations, technologies task model: procedures, strategies, environmental constraints team interaction model: roles, responsibilities, expectations team model: team members‟ knowledge and skills, attitudes, beliefs, and preferences
Shared mental model Shared mental model (or shared cognition) may improve and facilitate group work and coordination and may result in high group performance and effectiveness.
What does “shared” mean? Two approaches have been proposed to conceptualise shared mental models: the similarities of members‟ mental models (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 2001). In addition to similarity, the extent to which group members are familiar with each other‟s mental models and their differences and similarities (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994; Kraiger & Wenzel, 1997).
How to develop shared mental models? Job rotation and cross-training Team training Role playing Team learning activities
Team learningTwo important team skills for team learning: Reflection refers to “slowing down our thinking processes to become more aware of how we form our mental models” (Senge et al., 1994, p. 237). Inquiry refers to “holding conversations where we openly share views and develop knowledge about each other‟s assumptions” (p. 237).
Team learning and developing sharedmental models learning as modifying mental models and developing shared mental models needs openness to oneself and to other team members (Gibson, 2001). dialogue is a vital process for group learning, and distinct from discussion.
Collective efficacy According to Bandura (1997), “collective efficacy is defined as a group‟s shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to organize and execute the course of action required to produce given levels of attainments” (p. 477). Sources of collective efficacy can be similar to sources of self-efficacy.
Sources of self-efficacy Mastery experiences: Successful experiences are likely to enhance self- efficacy, while failures may reduce self-efficacy. These are the most influential sources of self-efficacy. Vicarious experiences: refer to those by which people appraise their capabilities in relation to others‟ attainments. The information acquired from these experiences is likely to be more influential for one‟s self-efficacy when the others are similar to the individual. Verbal persuasion: persuasion that one possesses certain capabilities can affect self-efficacy. However, verbal persuasion may be ineffective when it is used alone and inconsistent with other sources, especially mastery experiences. Physical and affective states: Personal efficacy may also be appraised when people interpret their physiological or affective states. People may judge their fatigue, aches, pains, and tensions to be signs of physical or affective incapability.