2579Groups and TeamsiStockphotoThinkstockLearning.docx

257
9Groups and Teams
iStockphoto/Thinkstock
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to
• Compare and contrast organizational groups and teams.
• Identify the characteristics of effective teams.
• Describe various types of teams.
• Apply the stages of team development.
• Determine when to use teams.
• Explain the process for and challenges of team decision
making.
• Explain the contagion effects of positivity in teams.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 257 4/20/17 5:36 PM
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for
resale or redistribution.
258

Section 9.1 The Importance of Groups and Teams
9.1 The Importance of Groups and Teams
The use of groups and teams has become increasingly common
not only in organizational
settings but also in education, public policy, and international
relations. However, groups and
teams can present significant challenges in terms of their design
and implementation. Con-
sider the following example.
A large agricultural manufacturing company decides to update
its GPS-
enabled precision farming products with a revolutionary new
color touch-
screen display, a significant advancement over its unwieldy,
now obsolete
monochrome version. To thwart possible competitors, the
company quickly
assembles a team comprising members from across the
company, includ-
ing sales, marketing, product quality, engineering, and supply
management,
and sets a 6-month project timeline. At first, team members
embrace their
assignment with energy and conviction. However, as challenges
arise and the
original excitement begins to wane, the team begins to
experience conflict.
Never having worked together prior to this assignment and not
having estab-
lished trust before beginning the project, team members start to
turn work
disagreements into personal attacks. Soon team members stop
attending

meetings and begin completing assignments individually,
meeting only when
absolutely necessary.
As the project’s due date nears, the team members realize they
have made
critical errors due to lack of communication on certain design
elements. The
project is delayed and delayed again. Eventually, the team
delivers the final
product—nearly a year behind schedule and $1 million over
budget.
Although unfortunate, the above scenario is relatively common.
In fact, one survey of IT teams
found that nearly 75% of them failed to meet one or more
important project milestones (Bull
Survey, 1998). This statistic becomes even more alarming when
you consider that organiza-
tions often use teams as an attempt to increase work
productivity. Are all teams doomed to
failure? Is teamwork an impractical notion? Thankfully, the
answer to both questions is no.
Consider This: Working in Teams
Recall several situations in which you worked with a team to
complete a task or achieve a goal.
Questions to Consider
1. To what extent did you enjoy your team experiences? What
were some of the charac-
teristics of each of these teams, tasks, and environments that
you believe contributed to
your positive (or negative) experience?

2. Which of the above tasks or projects do you believe would
have been better completed
individually? Why?
3. Which of the above tasks or projects do you believe were
better suited to be completed
in teams? Why?
4. In which of the above tasks or projects do you believe that
working in teams or individu-
ally would have made no difference? Explain.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 258 4/20/17 5:36 PM
259
Section 9.1 The Importance of Groups and Teams
Research shows that with careful planning, hard work, and
commitment, organizations can
create effective teams. However, given scenarios like the one
above, is it worth it to do so? In
other words, do effective teams produce spectacularly better
results than individually run
projects? Based on research findings, the answer is that it
depends on the team and the tasks
assigned to it. I/O psychologists help organizations make
practical decisions that allow them
to design, maintain, and leverage effective teams.
Comparing Groups and Teams

The terms group and team are often used interchangeably to
describe a collection of people
who work together to achieve a common goal. Even though a
work team is a type of work
group, it is very different from basic work groups both in terms
of processes and outcomes.
In this section, we describe the similarities and differences
between work groups and work
teams.
A work group consists of two or more individuals who interact
and share ideas in order to
achieve a common goal. Most people have experienced working
in a dependent work group,
such as the traditional departmental group led by a strong
manager. Workers in this type of
group depend largely on the manager to set goals, assign tasks,
and resolve conflicts. In inde-
pendent work groups, on the other hand, workers tend to
complete tasks and assignments
with little direct managerial supervision and
only basic direction. Think of teachers who work
at the same school: As a group, all wish to pro-
mote the success of the school and its students,
and most will work together from time to time,
especially when dealing with changes or chal-
lenges. However, the principal does not tell every
teacher every day how to teach a subject, develop
curriculum, or motivate students.
Beyond dependent and independent work
groups, some groups can develop into true work
teams. Interdependence is the key: Members
of work teams are truly unable to achieve their
goals by themselves and must rely on the skills,
expertise, information, and resources of other

team members. Teams exist to accomplish goals
that require collective responsibility. In other
words, success and failure are attributable to the
team as a whole, not just to one person. Instead of having one
supervisor to dictate members’
every move, teams have the authority to decide how to interact,
function, and make decisions.
Whereas other types of work groups are more inclusive and can
thus be quite large, work
teams tend to include only a few members that possess
complementary skills (Katzenbach
& Smith, 1993). Finally, work teams function within the broader
organizational context, with
and alongside other teams.
To return to the example of a school and its teachers, an
instance of a team within a school
would be a Student Assistance Team, which is formed when a
student experiences significant
performance difficulties within the general classroom. The
student’s classroom teacher or
iStockphoto/Thinkstock
Although the terms group and team
are often used interchangeably, they
are not the same. Teams require
interdependence, relying on the skills,
expertise, knowledge, and resources of
each member to achieve a shared goal.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 259 4/20/17 5:36 PM

260
Section 9.2 Developing Teams
teachers, school professionals (counselor, nurse, psychologist,
etc.), one or more administra-
tors, and other specialists as needed work together to devise a
specific plan to promote the
student’s future success. The Student Assistance Team meets
regularly to assess progress
and make revisions to and recommendations for the student’s
Individual Education Plan. The
team is interdependent, and members must trust each other,
communicate extensively, col-
laborate when challenges arise, and share responsibility in order
to meet the student’s needs
and promote the student’s highest level of success.
Although all types of groups can be organizationally useful, this
chapter focuses mainly on
teams and their place within and significance to the
organization. Teams have become increas-
ingly important to organizations and have been estimated to be
used by over 80% of U.S.
companies (Blanchard, 2006). Why? Quite simply, employees
who work as teams are better
able to solve problems than employees who work alone.
However, as much as management
might wish to make use of this problem-solving resource, one
cannot simply throw people
together and call them a team. The synergy and positive group
dynamics created within a true
team are not instant; teams are built only through careful
thought and hard work. Further-

more, creating teams can be costly and time consuming. The
challenge is how best to enable
organizations to improve their chances of creating effective
teams without wasting valuable
resources. To address this challenge, it is important for I/O
psychologists to understand how
teams work, how to create and make them successful, and
finally, when not to use them.
Find Out for Yourself: The Use of Groups and Teams
Browse the websites of the most recognized organizations in
your current or desired field
of employment—or of 10 organizations you are interested in for
various reasons (e.g., for
employment, as an investment, because it provides a regularly
purchased product or service).
Look for the organizations’ values as well as statements and
information about their structure,
culture, and processes.
What Did You Learn?
1. Which of these organizations mention teams and teamwork as
one of the strategies they
use to accomplish their goals? As a goal in and of itself ? As a
critical success factor?
2. In your opinion, which statements on the websites ring true,
and which statements
seem to be there for marketing or public relations purposes?
3. How many of those organizations present specific,
quantifiable evidence for how impor-
tant teams are to the success of their operations?
9.2 Developing Teams

Organizations use teams for all sorts of reasons—to solve
problems, make decisions, design
products, implement services, and manage projects. Selecting
the right type of team for the
task is critical to achieving the desired goals. However,
assigning a group of individuals to a
task does not automatically make them function as a team. In
addition to being the right type,
teams must also be developed in order to be functional and
productive.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 260 4/20/17 5:36 PM
261
Types of Teams
Different types of teams are better suited to working on
different types of tasks. Five com-
mon types of work teams are self-managed teams, manager-led
teams, cross-functional teams,
project teams, and virtual teams.
Self-Managed Teams
A self-managed work team (SMWT) is a group of people who
work together to accomplish
a goal by managing their own work. Together, members make
decisions, assign tasks, plan
and schedule work processes, and solve work problems. A
central notion of the SMWT is that

team members are better suited to evaluate processes and make
decisions than managers or
any other officially designated leader, and that this
collaborative environment will increase
productivity, enhance quality, reduce cycle time, and hasten
responses to the rapidly changing
workplace.
Naturally, the key question is whether SMWTs are actually as
good as they sound. In fact,
much data supports the SMWT. Sirkin (1993) indicates that
SMWTs can produce greater
worker satisfaction, reduced costs, improved decision making,
and increased market share.
SMWTs also share leadership responsibilities, which has been
found to increase effectiveness
in terms of team performance and team attitudes, especially
when the team’s work is com-
plex in nature (Wang, Waldman, & Zhang, 2014). For
manufacturing giant Procter & Gamble,
SMWTs helped reduce costs by 30% to 50%; for General Mills,
they increased productivity
by 40% as compared to traditional factories; and for Federal
Express, they reduced service
glitches by 13% in just 1 year (Fisher, 1993). In a longitudinal
study, Banker, Field, Schroeder,
and Sinha (1996) found that in the 2 years after their inception,
SMWTs in an electromechani-
cal assembly plant were able to improve both quality and labor
production.
Despite the continuous parade of success stories, not all
companies have been satisfied with
SMWTs. Contrary to expectations, newly formed SMWTs do not
instantly and miraculously
revolutionize an organization’s business. Instead, members of

SMWTs often make a slow tran-
sition from their old work style to the new one and sometimes
do not adopt the team-based
style at all. As Wageman (1997) notes, some members of
SMWTs can have trouble adjusting,
choosing to “divide their work and do it independently, showing
no inclination to join in a
collective effort to improve their work strategies, take
responsibility for different decisions,
or solve problems” (p. 50). Of course, resistance by team
members to the SMWT concept will
negate the potential benefits this work format has to offer.
The effectiveness of self-managed teams depends on the degree
to which their structure is
aligned with the tasks to be accomplished. Structurally aligned
teams have higher perfor-
mance. Moreover, when change is necessary, aligned teams
focus on the structural changes
that can help them continue to restore alignment and
effectiveness. For example, they may
implement changes in team members’ roles or reward systems to
meet the new demands of
their situation. In contrast, structurally misaligned teams tend to
focus on changes in pro-
cesses and personnel. For example, they may blame, remove, or
replace members perceived
to be low performers, or they may focus on monitoring,
evaluating, or adapting the mission,
goals, or performance. While these activities are generally
valuable, emphasizing them can
slow down adaptation and change, which can cause performance
to deteriorate (Johnson,
Hollenbek, DeRue, Barns, & Jundt, 2013).
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 261 4/20/17 5:36 PM

262
Manager-Led Teams
The most common type of team is the tradi-
tional manager-led team. Here, in contrast to
the SMWT, a manager acts as team leader and
is responsible for defining goals, methods, and
functions. The team has little operational input
and is responsible only for completing the work
outlined by the manager. Examples of manager-
led teams include military squadrons, sports
teams, and assembly-line crews.
Manager-led teams have a number of advantages
and disadvantages. On the positive side, the man-
ager has maximum control over team members
and the work they perform, which allows the
manager to use his or her experience to actively guide the team
to optimal performance. The
manager can then ensure that the work of team members is
adequately coordinated and inte-
grated to reduce duplication and redundancies. At the same
time, the manager can work to
avoid gaps in team performance as a result of uncompleted
tasks. Manager-led teams also
encourage team members to spend their energy on work actions
instead of the planning, goal

setting, managing, and other duties associated with SMWTs. On
the other hand, members of
manager-led teams may experience less autonomy and
empowerment than they would in an
SMWT; this can be a serious drawback for workers who value
these characteristics. Addition-
ally, an overly controlling team leader may inspire too much
conformity, resulting in poor
decisions and mistakes that could have been corrected in a more
open environment. Overall,
manager-led teams are ideally suited for straightforward tasks
in which there is a clear goal.
Cross-Functional Teams
Suppose an insurance company plans to bring a new disability
insurance product to market.
Management puts together a team made up of actuarial,
marketing, sales, and finance profes-
sionals, along with representatives from support areas such as
HR, information technology,
customer service, compliance, and the legal department. This
team is an example of a cross-
functional team, in which representatives of approximately the
same hierarchical level from
many functional areas of an organization combine forces to
solve problems.
Cross-functional teams can be quite powerful because of their
ability to leverage the diverse
expertise, skills, and abilities from throughout the entire
organization. However, they can be
problematic, largely because of the amount of time needed for
the group to coalesce into
a fully functioning team. Because members of cross-functional
teams typically do not work
together outside of the team, they will need time to build trust

and get to know and under-
stand their fellow team members’ diverse perspectives. As you
can guess, cross-functional
teams are susceptible to conflict, especially when they are in the
early stages of development
and are working to define goals and outcomes.
To minimize conflict, cross-functional teams can appoint a
leader to help direct and unify the
team as it clarifies goals and processes at the beginning of the
project. However, manager-led
cross-functional teams can experience another type of conflict.
Members of these teams now
Roy Delgado/CartoonStock
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 262 4/20/17 5:36 PM
263
have to report to at least two leaders: the team leader and their
functional department lead-
ers. If they are involved in multiple projects, members may
need to report to multiple team
leaders in addition to their functional leaders. Each individual
leader often has different pri-
orities, and each may try to compete for the employee’s time,
attention, and expertise.

Consider This: Who Should Be on the Team?
Below are several examples of work projects. Read the
description of each project and recom-
mend which type of team is best suited for it. (If a cross-
functional team is necessary, note
which functional areas should be represented.)
Project 1: A wireless phone provider would like to introduce a
new shared plan that
would attract a 25% share of the market for family plans over
the next 2 years and yield at
least 5% profit margin above the current margin of existing
plans.
Project 2: A chain of physicians’ offices would like to update
and improve its patient
database.
Project 3: A department store would like to implement a new
inventory system, called
Just in Time, in which it holds limited inventories but develops
close relationships with
suppliers and links into their inventory systems so that suppliers
are signaled to restock
items when the store’s inventories hit a certain threshold.
Project 4: A privately held organization is considering going
public.
Project 5: A grocery store would like to designate a group of
employees to choose
items for weekly promotions and design the weekly sales flyer
mailed throughout the
neighborhood.
Project Teams

Project teams have a number of defining characteristics. First,
these teams are relatively
small. Second, they are temporary and usually disband at the
project’s end. Third, they are
created for a specific reason and are given a very clear goal to
accomplish. Finally, they are
led by a project manager, who coordinates the people and
materials needed to complete the
task. For example, management might assemble a project team
composed of a team leader
and representatives from each of the major departments in order
to plan and implement a
company-wide changeover to a new type of financial accounting
software. This team would
exist solely to accomplish its goal and would likely dissolve as
soon as employees had transi-
tioned to the new software.
Because project teams exist outside the formal chain of
command, they encourage team
members to identify with the project, which often leads to high
team morale and productiv-
ity. Additionally, because project teams typically work toward
very clear goals, it is easier to
determine their level of success or failure. However, team
members continue to perform their
regular duties and responsibilities in their own departments and
report to their managers
within the permanent organizational structure. As with cross-
functional teams, project teams
can sometimes cause role conflict if the project workload and
schedule are not adequately
coordinated with project team members’ permanent roles.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 263 4/20/17 5:36 PM

264
Virtual Teams
Virtual teams are groups of individuals who
work across time, space, and organizational
boundaries and interact primarily through elec-
tronic communications (Minton-Eversole, 2012).
Up to this point, we have described teams that
interact face-to-face. However, technological
advancements have made it possible for a physi-
cally dispersed team to collaborate via electronic
communication. These virtual teams interact and
collaborate through electronic meetings, e-mail,
instant messages, and social networking sites.
Being open to the concept of the virtual team is
an increasingly important way for organizations
to recruit and retain highly valuable employees
who do not want to relocate, and to draw from
diverse talent pools for short-term assignments.
According to a recent survey, nearly half of organizations today
use virtual teams. However,
multinational organizations are more than twice as likely to use
virtual teams as U.S.-based
organizations (66% versus 28%, respectively). Government
agencies are least likely to use
virtual teams (9%). Almost 40% of organizations that use
virtual teams report increased pro-
ductivity. Other equally important reasons to use virtual teams

include travel cost savings and
facilitating global collaboration (Minton-Eversole, 2012).
However, virtual teams are quite different from traditional
teams. The absence of face-to-
face interaction creates significant challenges (Driskell, Radtke,
& Salas, 2003). For example,
research shows that virtual teams using primarily text-based
media (e.g., e-mail, instant mes-
saging, or texts) are less likely to build trusting relationships
than are virtual teams using
media that simulate face-to-face interactions (e.g., Skype or
videoconferencing; Bos, Gergle,
Olson, & Olson, 2001). Another disadvantage stems from the
relative anonymity that exists
within the virtual world, lowering inhibitions and making it
easier for people to make inap-
propriate comments or flamboyant statements they would not
normally make in a face-to-face
interaction (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991). These types of comments
can hurt feelings, impair team-
work, and reduce team performance. As you can see, the biggest
challenges for virtual teams
are communication and building effective team relations. These
challenges alone compromise
the effectiveness of over 50% of virtual teams. Other important
challenges include time differ-
ences, work distribution, cultural differences, and leadership
(Minton-Eversole, 2012).
Despite these challenges, the use of virtual teams is a growing
trend. Organizations must
thus consider how best to implement this type of team and
ensure its optimum effective-
ness. If possible, organizations should consider having members
of the virtual team meet and

interact face-to-face prior to entering the virtual environment.
Additionally, workers should
receive training on how to work in the virtual realm. A survey
of 440 organizations found
that those companies that implemented such training programs
(e.g., learning how to use
and communicate effectively with electronic media and how to
collaborate in a virtual envi-
ronment) were more likely to experience success with their
virtual teams, reporting them as
a positive competitive advantage for their organization (Rosen,
Furst, & Blackburn, 2007).
The surveyed managers also reported that the traditional
methods of communication, goal
Jon Feingersh/Blend Images/Thinkstock
Virtual teams allow colleagues to interact
and collaborate through electronic
meetings, e-mail, instant messages, and
social networking sites. This enables
organizations to draw from diverse talent
pools and retain highly skilled employees.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 264 4/20/17 5:36 PM
265
setting, performance management, reward allocation, coaching,

and feedback were not as
effective in the virtual environment; they needed to adjust their
methods to effectively man-
age the team.
Similarly, supportive structures and shared leadership are more
effective than hierarchical
leadership in virtual teams. Keep in mind that being a virtual
team is a matter of degree. In
today’s networked world, even face-to-face teams interact
virtually through e-mail, instant
messaging, and conferencing programs such as Skype,
GoToMeeting, and WebEx. Similarly,
many virtual teams have opportunities for face-to-face
interaction. However, the more virtual
a team’s interactions tend to be, the more important it becomes
for that team to be supported
and empowered to make decisions through shared leadership
and other participative pro-
cesses, rather than being led in a traditional, hierarchical
manner (Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014;
Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, & Gipson, 2004).
Consider This: Virtual Project Teams
Think about a recent project you were involved in. It can be a
class project, a project at work, or
a personal or family project. Identify the tasks and participants
involved as well as the timeline
for completing the project. Now, imagine completing the same
project virtually. If the project
is tangible (such as a home improvement project), imagine
having to remotely offer guidance
to the person or team completing the project on the ground.

1. Which communication media would you use?
2. How would each of the tasks be adapted to be more
effectively completed?
3. Which of the members of the project team could be remote,
and which ones would have
to be local?
4. How should the schedule be adapted?
5. What would be some of the advantages and challenges of
moving this project to a virtual
environment?
Stages of Team Development
As previously stated, effective teams do not develop instantly.
Over time, groups progress
through five stages: forming, storming, norming, performing,
and adjourning (Maples, 1988;
Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977).
• Stage 1: Forming. In this initial stage, members are eager to
learn about the new team’s
purpose, structure, and power. This period of orientation
involves members getting to
know each other, and it ends when the individuals see
themselves as part of a team.
• Stage 2: Storming. Teams in the storming stage often
experience conflict. This can be
something of a shakedown period, with hostility, infighting,
tension, and confrontation
as members attempt to clarify expectations, assign roles, and
determine the distribu-
tion of power. Not everyone will be happy with the decisions
made or roles assigned,
and the storming can continue until challenges are resolved. The

storming stage ends
after the team has established a clear hierarchy and basic
assignment of roles.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 265 4/20/17 5:36 PM
266
• Stage 3: Norming. In the norming stage, the team begins to
structure itself by estab-
lishing roles and deeper social relationships. Members begin to
identify with the
team and develop cohesiveness and commitment. Team norms
evolve, and members
know what behaviors will be acceptable (and unacceptable) to
their teammates.
Challenges are met with support and advice, and individuals
volunteer to assist one
another if necessary.
• Stage 4: Performing. In this stage, the team moves from
foundational stages (get-
ting to know each other and setting ground rules and roles) to
accomplishing its key
tasks. Team members believe they are working for a common
purpose and become
an efficiently functioning unit. The team becomes a well-oiled
machine, meeting
regularly to discuss successes, address challenges, and

brainstorm new opportuni-
ties. When working together, each team member has an equal
say in the project, and
disagreements are discussed and dealt with constructively.
• Stage 5: Adjourning. For temporary work teams, such as task
forces, project teams,
and committees, the final stage of development is the
dissolution of the team at the
completion of the project. After meeting one last time to
evaluate the project and tie
up loose ends, the team members leave the group, having
formed important rela-
tionships they can build on in the future.
Teams must address each stage effectively, or they risk having
to go back and deal with unre-
solved issues from earlier stages. As you can guess, one of the
key goals for managers is to
help teams move quickly and successfully through the first three
stages to the performing
stage. This can be tricky, because each team is unique, and
some teams spend more time in
the early stages than others.
Team Dynamics and Emergence Patterns
Traditional models of team development such as the forming,
storming, norming, performing,
and adjourning model have been recently criticized for being
too static (Cronin, 2015). Teams
are dynamic entities that are constantly changing beyond these
predictable stages. For exam-
ple, every time members leave or are added to the team, it may
need to get involved in some
additional forming, storming, and norming. In today’s dynamic
business environment, the

“rules of the game” change all the time. When teams face
changes in sequence and patterns
of events, they can experience unexpected storming that may
require flexibility and frequent
renorming. Thus, it is almost impossible to “catch” a team at
one particular stage of develop-
ment. In reality, these stages may be occurring concurrently and
dynamically at all times.
Although it makes sense to think of teams as dynamic entities,
this poses notable challenges
for the scientific study of teams (Cronin, 2015). In general,
most researchers take a “snap-
shot” approach. They collect their data at one or more points in
time, analyze it, and make
deductions about relationships between the variables they study.
Even longitudinal studies
that span several years and collect data over time, or
experimental studies that use interven-
tions to manipulate some factors and observe their impact on
outcomes of interest, are still
considered static. They may resemble multiple snapshots, but
they are nowhere near a high-
resolution video capture of the richness and dynamism of these
situations.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 266 4/20/17 5:36 PM
267
Section 9.3 Effectiveness of Teams

Similar to team development stages, team phenomena are also
dynamic. For example, the
“teamness” of a team emerges over time. As you will learn later
in this chapter, teams develop
collective characteristics, thought patterns, and emotions that
are unique and different
from those of the team’s individual members. Therefore, most
researchers use an “average”
approach when they measure team phenomena. For example, it
is very common in research
studies to measure the level of work engagement of each team
member, and then take the
average as a representation of team engagement (Harter,
Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). However,
the average is not always representative of a team phenomenon.
For example, let’s compare
the engagement levels of two hypothetical teams. In the first
team, all members are moder-
ately engaged. In the second team, half the members are highly
engaged and the other half are
highly disengaged. The average level of engagement in these
two teams may be the same, but
the dynamics of these two teams are likely to be very different.
To better understand team phenomena, scholars have
recommended a number of approaches.
One approach is to try to understand some team phenomena,
like diversity, in terms of the
level of agreement or dispersion across team members. Team
diversity is not some kind of
“average” that can be taken across team members to represent
the team’s level of diversity.
Instead, each member’s uniqueness and variability across
members are more meaningful
representations of team diversity.

Other team phenomena are more appropriately understood in
terms of “maximum emer-
gence,” or the team’s highest contributor. For example, in
leaderless or self-managed teams,
leadership emerges depending on unique characteristics or
behaviors of the emergent leader.
It is not necessary for every member of the team to exhibit these
characteristics, only for one
member to be determined as the highest contributor of these
characteristics.
Another pattern is “minimum emergence,” where the adage “We
are only as strong as our
weakest link” applies. For example, one member’s deficient
performance can cause the whole
team to fail. Finally, in some cases the average, dispersion,
minimum, or maximum do not mat-
ter as much as the “profile” or combination of team members’
abilities. In these truly dynamic
cases, the mix of team members, like pieces of a puzzle, forms
the full picture that deter-
mines the team’s effectiveness. Unfortunately, these cases are
the hardest to study. However,
new scientific research methods have emerged to study such
complex phenomena and show
substantial promise in shedding additional light on team
dynamism (Chan, 1998; Kozlowski,
Chao, Grand, Braun, & Kuljanin, 2013; Kozlowski & Klein,
2000).
9.3 Effectiveness of Teams
The extensive study of teams has resulted in a better
understanding of why some are more
effective than others. One of the most frequently cited
conceptualizations of team effective-

ness originates from a systems perspective, which proposes that
the team works as a system:
Team inputs lead to team processes, which in turn lead to team
outcomes (Williams & Allen,
2008). As shown in Figure 9.1, this input-process-outcome
model provides an effective heu-
ristic for understanding team effectiveness (McGrath, 1964).
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 267 4/20/17 5:36 PM
268
· Task design
· Team size
· Composition of team
- Personality
- Cognitive ability
- Demographics
Inputs
Team design
· Reward system
· Management support
· Culture
Context variables
· Information sharing
· Group conflict

· Goal setting
· Team efficacy
· Shared mental models
Processes
· Performance
· Efficiency
· Member satisfaction
Effectiveness
Team Task Design
Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) job characteristics model (see
Chapter 6) was designed to
show how individual-level jobs could be enriched to improve
both individual and organi-
zational outcomes. Interestingly, it appears that many of these
techniques apply not only to
individual workers but to teams of workers as well.
Additionally, concepts from the job char-
acteristics model could explain team member motivation and
effectiveness.
Like individual tasks, team tasks are more motivating if they
possess the five job-design char-
acteristics: skill variety, task identity, task significance,
autonomy, and feedback. The basic
nature of the work team tends to promote these characteristics:
Team tasks provide variety
because they require workers to use many different skills and
learn new skills; they provide
task identity because team members usually work on tasks from
start to finish; and they

provide significance because teams usually work on projects
that are important for the orga-
nization. Additionally, members of all effective teams enjoy
some autonomy in deciding how
to handle their assigned tasks. Finally, the overall success or
failure of the team’s finished
product provides the team with feedback about its performance.
The five job-design char-
acteristics should motivate members not only to perform well on
the team task but also to
cooperate with the other team members (Campion, Medsker, &
Higgs, 1993).
Team Composition
A major driver of a team’s effectiveness is its composition.
Forming a team, however, can be
complicated—not only because the organization must consider
the various attributes work-
ers will need, but also because of the manner in which those
individual attributes should be
configured (Levine & Moreland, 1990). Although researchers
have investigated the ways in
which a number of different characteristics affect team
performance, four have been found
to have the greatest influence: member personality, member
cognitive ability, team diversity,
and team size.
Figure 9.1: Input-process-outcome model of team effectiveness
· Task design
· Team size
· Composition of team
- Personality
- Cognitive ability
- Demographics

Inputs
Team design
· Reward system
· Management support
· Culture
Context variables
· Information sharing
· Group conflict
· Goal setting
· Team efficacy
· Shared mental models
Processes
· Performance
· Efficiency
· Member satisfaction
Effectiveness
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 268 4/20/17 5:36 PM
269
Area of best
performance

Low agreeability High agreeability
Best Performance
P
e
rf
o
rm
a
n
c
e
Agreeableness
High
Low High
Personality
Personality has been found to have an effect on both individual
employee and team perfor-
mance. Although all of the Big Five personality variables
(extraversion, conscientiousness,
agreeableness, openness to experience, and emotional stability)
have shown some relation-
ship to team performance, agreeableness and emotional stability
show the strongest rela-
tionship (Bell, 2007; Peeters, Van Tuijl, Rutte, & Reymen,

2006). As you might expect, teams
composed of emotionally stable individuals are more successful
than those composed of
emotionally unstable individuals. A more interesting inverted-
U-shaped relationship exists
between team performance and agreeableness: Teams are less
effective both when team
members have a high level of agreeability and when they have a
low level of agreeability (see
Figure 9.2). Highly agreeable team members usually get along,
but they may not want to chal-
lenge each other sufficiently to explore new options. Team
members with low levels of agree-
ability, on the other hand, may have too much conflict, which
can be dysfunctional. A moder-
ate amount of conflict tends to be most effective; hence the
inverted-U-shaped relationship.
Teams have also been found to benefit differentially from team
conflict based on the prevalent
personality traits of team members. For example, conflict tends
to enhance performance in
teams with higher emotional stability and openness to
experience but tends to have a nega-
tive effect on performance in teams that have lower levels of
these personality traits (Bradley,
Klotz, Postlethwaite, & Brown, 2013). Similarly interesting is
the role of conscientiousness in
promoting teamwork quality. Vîrgă and colleagues (2014) found
that conscientiousness buf-
fers the harmful effects of relationship conflict on teamwork
quality.
Figure 9.2: Inverted-U-shaped relationship between team
performance and
agreeableness

Area of best
performance
Low agreeability High agreeability
Best Performance
P
e
rf
o
rm
a
n
c
e
Agreeableness
High
Low High
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 269 4/20/17 5:36 PM
270

In addition to Big Five personality characteristics, two other
personality traits have an impor-
tant influence on team effectiveness: tolerance for ambiguity
and the need for autonomy.
Because teams often solve problems or perform new tasks for
which no clear solution, orga-
nization, or method has yet been established, people who have a
low tolerance for ambigu-
ity tend to find working on teams frustrating and unfulfilling
and are thus less motivated to
embrace this type of work environment (Kirkman & Shapiro,
2001). A person’s relative need
for autonomy is also important to team dynamics (Kirkman,
2000). Workers who have a high
need for autonomy tend to flourish on teams because they have
more freedom and indepen-
dence to develop and implement their own ideas.
Consider This: Teams and EI
A recurring theme of this text is the importance of EI in the
organizational context. Read the
following article from the Harvard Business Review for a
discussion on the importance of EI
for teams.
Building the Emotional Intelligence of Groups
1. Why is it important for teams to build EI?
2. How does team EI differ from individual EI?
Cognitive Abilities
An individual’s cognitive ability is the strongest single
predictor of job success (see Chap-

ter 3). This result also appears to hold true in the team work
environment. A meta-analytic
study conducted by Stewart (2006) found that the average
cognitive ability of a team’s mem-
bers is strongly related to team performance, regardless of task
type. Even though it appears
that, in most cases, high-ability teams have a significant
advantage over lower ability teams,
higher cognitive ability may not be an advantage in some
situations. For example, if the task
is simple, high-ability teams are likely to lose interest or
become bored. Conversely, lower
ability teams confronted with the same task will remain
focused, regardless of whether they
are intellectually stimulated. Therefore, organizations should
save their high-ability teams to
work on the most challenging and complex assignments.
Team Diversity
Within the workplace, diversity is popularly believed to
positively increase team effective-
ness. However, researchers have discovered that surface-level
demographic diversity, such
as race, gender, and age, can have a negative effect on team
performance (Mannix & Neale,
2005). Apparently, demographic diversity can disrupt team
communication and cohesion
while also increasing member conflict (Mohammed, Cannon-
Bowers, & Foo, 2010), at least
initially, although these effects tend to dissipate over time
(Chatman & Flynn, 2001).
On the other hand, more recent studies demonstrate that the
relationship between demo-
graphic diversity and organizational performance is not linear;
it is instead industry specific

and depends on organizational strategy. For example, gender
and racial diversity have been
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 270 4/20/17 5:36 PM
https://hbr.org/2001/03/building-the-emotional-intelligence-of-
groups
271
shown to have a nonlinear relationship with organizational
performance, moderated by two
dimensions of the organization’s strategy: entrepreneurial
orientation and risk taking (Rich-
ard, Barnett, Dwyer, & Chadwick, 2004). A study of the
banking industry also showed that
racial diversity can have a positive effect on organizational
performance when banks pursue
an innovative strategy but a negative effect in banks that are
low on innovation (Richard,
McMillan, Chadwick, & Dwyer, 2003). Overall, meta-analytical
findings show that cultur-
ally diverse teams gain from increased creativity and
satisfaction but realize losses due to
increased task conflict and decreased social integration; net
gains or losses depend on the
context (Stahl, Maznevski, Voigt, & Jonsen, 2010).
Whereas demographic diversity can challenge a
team’s effectiveness, task-related diversity tends

to improve it. Teams whose members represent a
variety of educational backgrounds, experiences,
tenure, skill sets, and so forth have been shown
to be more effective than teams with less task-
related diversity (Horowitz & Horowitz, 2007).
As is the case with demographic diversity, the
significance of task-related diversity may also
depend on the type of task the team is assigned.
Specifically, teams with low task-related diver-
sity perform better on low-difficulty tasks but
worse on high-difficulty tasks (Bowers, Pharmer,
& Salas, 2000).
Similar to task-related diversity, Liang and colleagues (Liang,
Liu, Lin, & Lin 2007) found that
the knowledge diversity of team members was positively related
to team performance. On the
other hand, they found that value diversity was related to
relationship conflict and, in turn,
lower team performance. This is especially relevant in today’s
local and global business envi-
ronments, given increasing cultural diversity. Cultural diversity
can be manifested in terms
of varied values and beliefs, which can be challenging to
reconcile. However, research shows
that cultural diversity can enhance performance when team
members’ goals are focused on
learning, rather than just on performance. Although
performance is important, overemphasiz-
ing it can lead to what are called avoidance goals, which
emphasize tried-and-true processes
and avoiding mistakes. On the other hand, a learning orientation
results in what are called
approach goals. Approach goals encourage pursuit of new
challenges and exploration of new
solutions, which can reduce conflict, encourage collaboration,

promote information sharing,
and enhance team performance (Pieterse, Van Knippenberg, &
Van Dierendonck, 2013).
Team Size
Determining how many people to include on a team can be
critical to its overall success. Lead-
ers often choose to follow the maxim “The more, the merrier,”
believing that greater input will
result in more accurate decisions and better results. However,
too many people on a team can
impair team performance, reduce cohesiveness, increase
conflict, and interfere with coordi-
nation. Research suggests that the most effective teams are
made up of five to nine members
who possess the combination of KSAOs required to solve the
problem (Thompson, 2003). In
general, it is best for managers to create teams with the smallest
number of workers needed
to get the job done.
Rawpixel Ltd/iStock/Thinkstock
Culturally diverse teams profit from
increased creativity, effectiveness, and
satisfaction.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 271 4/20/17 5:36 PM
272

Context for Team Success
Many contextual factors, such as support, rewards, and culture,
play a significant role in a
team’s success or failure. As Richard Hackman (1999) explains,
“There are no free-standing
groups, as each is embedded in several larger contexts—whether
they be the organization, its
environment (e.g., marketplace or industry), or the wider
culture in which the team operates”
(p. 238).
Support
Organizations can send mixed messages about their support for
teams and their tasks. When
managers say that they value their teams but do not give them
the autonomy to make their
own decisions, this suggests that management is not really on
board with the team concept
(Mathieu, Gilson, & Ruddy, 2006). The actions taken by the
organization to either support or
restrict teams will influence the way team members feel about
their team, its goals, and their
participation on it.
Rewards
Typical performance appraisals and compensation programs are
designed for individuals and
do not work within a team-based environment. Organizations
need to modify their systems
to evaluate both individual- and team-based behaviors and
performance outcomes (McClurg,
2001). Including incentives and rewards that relate to team
performance will encourage team
members to concentrate on team outcomes and shift their focus

from personal to collective
work and accountability.
Culture
Some researchers have suggested that a country’s culture may
affect team performance,
with four cultural characteristics being especially influential:
collectivism, power distance,
a “doing” orientation, and determinism (Nicholls, Lane, &
Brechu, 1999; Kirkman & Shap-
iro, 2001). As discussed in previous chapters, collectivist
societies (such as many in Asia)
emphasize the harmony, success, and needs of the group over
personal needs and desires.
Thus, teams should be more successful in these societies
because workers already have much
experience working as part of a group and, because of cultural
norms, will be less likely to
instigate competition within the team. In contrast,
individualistic cultures emphasize the suc-
cess and goals of the individual, so teams can be more
challenging to implement. In individu-
alistic cultures, it is particularly important to promote teamwork
through team rewards and
job design in order to align individual and team goals. If jobs
continue to be designed and
rewarded based on individual achievement, as is the case in
many U.S. organizations, teams
can be unsuccessful; team goals tend to conflict with individual
goals, which can reduce team
members’ commitment to team goals.
Power distance is the relative importance cultures place on
hierarchical structure, author-
ity, and acceptance of unequal distribution of power. Cultures
with high power distance—

in which leadership leans toward or is openly totalitarian and
subordinates expect specific
instructions and guidance on work tasks—may have more
difficulty implementing successful
teams, because workers may be unfamiliar or uncomfortable
with the higher levels of auton-
omy and task ambiguity inherent in the team work concept.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 272 4/20/17 5:36 PM
273
Cultures that promote and appreciate a high “doing” orientation
should have more success
implementing team work models than cultures that are more
appreciative of reflection and
contemplation. Americans have a very high doing orientation—
we idealize the go-getter at
work, admire people who take the initiative, characterize
children who are bold and outspo-
ken as leaders, and become frustrated with coworkers who can’t
multitask. Everything is in
constant motion and done for a purpose; we often judge others
(or ourselves) as lazy or frivo-
lous for taking time to think, reflect, or talk about nothing in
particular. Organizations expect
their teams and the people on them to meet deadlines, take
action, think proactively, speak
up, and be efficient.

Finally, determinism, or the degree to which people believe they
control what happens in
their lives, can impact team effectiveness. Some cultures
perceive their environments as
unchangeable and their positions and duties as fixed and
determined by others. These highly
deterministic cultures may not be as successful in implementing
teams as cultures in which
people feel they have the power to address problems and
improve their situation. It makes
sense to predict that, in order to be successful, team members
need to believe that their work
is meaningful and will solve the problem.
Consider This: Too Much of a Good Thing?
1. When might a high doing orientation be detrimental to a
team? Can you think of a spe-
cific task or situation that would be better served by a team that
is more contemplative?
2. Can you think of specific tasks or situations where
individualism, determinism, and/or
high power distance can be conducive to effective team
dynamics? What about a task or
situation where collectivism, low power distance, and/or low
determinism can compro-
mise the team’s effectiveness?
Team Cohesion
Team cohesion is the tendency for a team to stick together and
remain united in the pursuit
of its objectives (Carron, Brawley, & Widemeyer, 1998). The
notion that closely knit teams
are more effective than those that are more loosely bound is so

widely held that most team-
training programs include segments with the specific goal of
enhancing team cohesion (Healy,
Milbourne, Aaronson, & Errichetti, 2004). It is surprising, then,
that research does not defini-
tively support this belief. A classic study by Schachter and his
associates (Schachter, Ellertson,
McBride, & Gregory, 1951) revealed an interesting set of
relationships between team cohe-
sion and performance. Cohesion was associated with higher
productivity when the environ-
ment was positive but with lower productivity when the
environment was negative. In other
words, cohesion acted as a double-edged sword. In positive
work environments, cohesion can
magnify the functional dynamics that lead to higher
productivity, but in negative work envi-
ronments, cohesion can exacerbate negative behaviors and
further compromise performance.
A meta-analytical study by Mullen and Cooper (1994) found
that team cohesion has only
a weak effect on team performance, though the relationship
tends to be stronger for small
teams than for larger ones. However, in a more recent
comprehensive study, the relationship
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 273 4/20/17 5:36 PM
274

between team cohesion and performance was found to be
reciprocal and to grow over time.
In other words, this relationship becomes stronger the longer a
team works together, and the
more cohesive a team becomes, the better it performs (Mathieu,
Kukenberger, D’Innocenzo, &
Reilly, 2015). Other research has shown a stronger relationship
between team cohesion and
performance when teams exhibit high interdependence (Gully &
Devine, 1995). Interestingly,
although there is some debate about whether team cohesion
directly affects overall team per-
formance, it does seem to have an effect on specific aspects of
performance. For example,
Beal, Cohen, Burke, and McLendon (2003) found that team
cohesion is a strong predictor of
team performance on behavior and efficiency measures but not
on effectiveness measures.
Finally, cohesive teams are more likely to accept group goals,
decisions, and norms, which can
help improve a team’s overall functionality.
Team Processes
A cohesive team is able to produce work that is greater (in
quantity, creativity, innovation,
efficiency, etc.) than the sum of the work its members can
produce independently. This effect,
called synergy, is one of the major reasons organizations are
attracted to the team work
concept. But how do teams create synergy, and what can
organizations do to promote it? In a
nutshell, synergy evolves through the development and accrual
of interpersonal interactions,
also called team processes, including information sharing,

conflict, collective efficacy, goal set-
ting, and shared mental models.
Information Sharing
Information sharing is one of the most fundamental team
processes. Whether it occurs within
the team (during team meetings, breakout sessions, etc.) or
outside the team (one team mem-
ber calling another for help while working on an individual
component of the project), com-
munication will positively impact team performance (Barry &
Stewart, 1997). If a team mem-
ber hoards data or keeps key information secret in a bid for
power or self-promotion, the
whole team—and the project itself—suffers, because the other
team members must waste
precious time and resources hunting for information they should
already be putting to use.
One way to improve a team’s level of information sharing is to
increase its task-related diver-
sity (using members who represent a variety of educational
backgrounds, experiences, ten-
ure, skill sets, etc.; Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2001).
Conflict
Another team process that affects team performance is conflict.
The term conflict often carries
a negative connotation, suggesting dysfunction, interpersonal
challenges, and hostility. With
teams, however, there is a difference between conflict that
arises in the course of working
on the task, called task conflict, and conflict that stems from
interpersonal disagreements
between team members, called relationship conflict.
Relationship conflict is usually detri-
mental to a team’s effectiveness. Although a certain amount of

task conflict occurs in even the
best teams, research demonstrates that it does not facilitate
positive team performance (De
Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Successful teams take steps to manage
conflict by (a) proactively
setting ground rules for dealing with disagreement and (b)
transforming conflict into compe-
tition (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 2000).
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 274 4/20/17 5:36 PM
275
Collective Efficacy
Effective teams believe in themselves and have confidence they
will be successful, a charac-
teristic known as collective efficacy (Marks, Mathieu, &
Zaccaro, 2001). Collective efficacy
has been defined as “a group’s shared belief in its conjoint
capabilities to organize and exe-
cute the courses of action required to produce given levels of
attainments” (Bandura, 1997,
p. 477). This collective efficacy develops in teams over time as
they share small successes, and
each success serves to make the team believe it will be
successful in the future (Tasa, Taggar,
& Seijts, 2007). Extensive research has shown that collective
efficacy is positively related to
team performance (Gully et al., 2002; Stajkovic et al., 2009).

Efficacy is not the only psychological resource that can emerge
at the team level. Research
supports the emergence of other positive psychological
resources in teams and organiza-
tions, such as compassion and resilience (Hamel & Välikangas,
2003). Similar to the many
synergies experienced in larger groups, these positive
characteristics are more than the sum
of their individual parts. For example, a resilient team is not
simply a team that is composed
of resilient individuals. When resilience occurs at the collective
level, it takes on unique char-
acteristics such as resilient systems and practices. Similarly,
team emotions take on unique
characteristics that are influenced by, and in turn influence, the
emotions of team members
(Barsade & Gibson, 2014).
Goal Setting
Effective teams also use goal setting to translate
the common purpose of the group into specific,
actionable goals and then devise strategies to
accomplish them. Just as they do with individu-
als (see Chapter 8), specific and challenging
goals lead to improved team performance and
help focus the team’s effort in the right direction.
Additionally, such goals have been found to raise
a team’s levels of energy and effort, which leads
to high performance (Weldon & Weingart, 1993).
To be effective, teams should articulate specific
goals that both challenge their capabilities and
include a defined deadline.
Shared Mental Models
Much recent attention has been paid to the ability of team

members to apply a shared under-
standing of how the team’s work will be done. Teams that are
able to construct shared men-
tal models of team processes, tasks, and roles are more likely to
outperform teams that
construct highly divergent mental models (Mohammed &
Dumville, 2001). Teams that share
mental models benefit from fewer misunderstandings among
members, which promotes
rapid coordination, reduced conflict, and ultimately, more time
spent performing the task
(Williams & Allen, 2008). On the other hand, teams whose
members have divergent ideas
on how to complete the assigned task will likely struggle to get
work done, because they will
spend more time arguing than actually doing their job.
Dave Carpenter/CartoonStock
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 275 4/20/17 5:36 PM
276
Social Loafing and Free Riding
Two of the most detrimental team processes are social loafing
and free riding, which occur
when a member or members of a team coast through a project,
letting others do the brunt of
the work. Social loafing and free riding both lead to process

losses within groups; however,
social loafing is a less deliberate reduction in individual effort.
Free riding, on the other hand,
occurs when an individual believes others will pick up the
slack, so he or she does less work
(Forsyth, 2010). Social loafing and free riding are more
common when individual contribu-
tions are not easily identifiable. Therefore, teams can reduce
social loafing and free riding by
making each member of the team accountable to an identifiable
segment of the work effort.
By proactively setting both individual and team tasks, the team
will ensure that everyone
takes an equal share of the work—and enjoys an equal measure
of the team’s success.
Consider This: Social Loafing
Social loafing is a common problem in teamwork. For example,
one team member may not
show up for meetings on time or perform the tasks assigned to
him. Another team member
may do minimal work and depend on the rest of the team to
carry her through the project.
1. Review your experiences of being part of a team (at work, in
school, on the playing field,
or elsewhere). Were any of your team members (or you!) guilty
of social loafing?
2. What did your team do, if anything, to address loafers?
3. What could you or your team have done differently to prevent
loafing?
High-Performance Work Teams

Some teams have been found to exhibit exceptionally high
levels of effectiveness. These teams
are referred to as high-performance work teams. These teams
possess a combination of the
factors discussed throughout this chapter. Riggio (2011)
identifies 10 practices of these types
of teams:
1. Define and create interdependencies.
2. Establish goals.
3. Determine how teams will make decisions.
4. Provide clear and constant feedback.
5. Keep team membership stable.
6. Allow team members to challenge the status quo.
7. Learn how to identify and attract talent.
8. Use team-based reward systems.
9. Create a learning environment.
10. Focus on the collective mission.
A study by MIT’s Human Dynamics Lab (Pentland, 2012) shows
that highly effective teams
tend to communicate more frequently and intensely than a
typical team, not only in terms of
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 276 4/20/17 5:36 PM
277

the content communicated, but also in terms of voice tone and
body language. Highly effective
teams display a lot of energy and engagement when
communicating with team members and
often take the opportunity to communicate outside the team and
bring back valuable infor-
mation and new perspectives. Communication also tends to be
short, focused, and spread
equally among team members. Interestingly, effective teams
tend to engage in a lot of side
conversations, about 50% of the time. This contradicts
conventional wisdom, in which side
conversations are considered disruptive and usually
discouraged.
Find Out for Yourself: Teams at Whole Foods
Whole Foods, an American supermarket chain, is recognized for
its unique structure, which is
designed entirely around teams, from the front lines all the way
to the top of the organization,
including the founders. Read this article to gain insights into
how Whole Foods uses teams
to increase the quality of hiring and in turn how high-quality
teams can improve the perfor-
mance and effectiveness of the organization.
Why Whole Foods Builds Its Entire Business on Teams
What Did You Learn?
1. What strikes you as most distinctive about Whole Foods’
team-based structure?
2. Why do you think Whole Foods’ team-based structure is
conducive to high-performance
work teams?

3. What are the most important factors within the organization’s
structure and culture
that cause this team-based structure to work? Consider aspects
of job design, recruit-
ment, selection, performance appraisal, and reward systems.
4. Do you think you would personally enjoy working for Whole
Foods? Why or why not?
Consider This: Models of Team Effectiveness
Over the years, many models of team effectiveness have
emerged. Of course teams are unique,
and no one model can capture all of their characteristics and
success criteria, so it is helpful to
examine multiple models. I/O psychologist Kenneth De Meuse
(2009) summarizes and com-
pares some of these models in the following article.
A Comparative Analysis of the Korn/Ferry T7 Model
With Other Popular Team Models
1. What are the most notable similarities between the models
discussed in this article?
2. What are the most notable differences?
3. Did you observe any consistencies, inconsistencies, or trends
between older and newer
models? Why do you think that’s the case?
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 277 4/20/17 5:36 PM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidburkus/2016/06/08/why-
whole-foods-build-their-entire-business-on-
teams/#7175c0fe483d
http://www.kornferry.com/media/lominger_pdf/teamswhitepaper
080409.pdf
http://www.kornferry.com/media/lominger_pdf/teamswhitepaper
080409.pdf
278
Section 9.4 Decision Making in Teams
9.4 Decision Making in Teams
“Two heads are better than one.” This common saying describes
the essence of team decision
making, a process in which multiple individuals act collectively
to analyze a problem and
select a solution or solutions that best address the problem.
There are, of course, advantages
and disadvantages of team decision making as well as practical
techniques to help teams
make better decisions.
Advantages of Team Decision Making
There are a number of reasons why organizations utilize teams.
Because teams are able to
leverage more resources, such as KSAOs, time, and energy, they
are able to generate more
complete knowledge and information to use in the decision-
making process. Additionally,
team decision making can take advantage of the diverse
strengths and expertise of its mem-
bers, which enables the team to generate more, higher quality
alternatives. As a result, teams

are often more likely than a single individual to reach a superior
solution.
Another benefit of team decision making has to do with the way
people accept solutions to
problems, especially difficult ones. Teams develop a collective
understanding of the chosen
course of action, which promotes a sense of ownership of the
decision. Team members can
say, “We made this choice,” instead of, “Someone made this
choice for us,” so they are more
likely to support the decision, commit to it, and encourage
others to accept it.
Disadvantages of Team Decision Making
Although teams hold great potential for performing superior
work and producing superior
results, potential pitfalls do exist. Generally speaking, team
decision making is more time con-
suming than individual decision making, which makes it
difficult, if not impossible, to use
when decisions need to be made quickly. Additionally, teams
can fall prey to a domineering
team member, which, if the member is of low or medium ability,
can result in poor outcomes.
Finally, conformity pressures can influence team decisions,
leading to group polarization and
groupthink.
Group Polarization
Team decision-making situations almost always involve some
degree of risk or uncertainty.
Research has found a tendency for group polarization, or
convergence on extreme posi-
tions on either side of an issue. For example, the risky shift
phenomenon occurs when, after

discussion, a team makes decisions that are riskier than those
advocated by individual team
members. The cautious shift, on the other hand, occurs when
discussion prompts teams
to make decisions that are more conservative than those
originally proposed by individual
members (Isenberg, 1986; Stoner, 1968). Why does this
polarization occur? In both cases
individuals propose various ideas, and then the entire team
engages in discussion. Discus-
sion can prompt individuals to generate more and more
information in support of their pre-
ferred solution, resulting in an ever more polarizing game of
one-upmanship. Caught in a
desire to support one side or defeat another, team members feel
pressure to take sides, and
polarization escalates until the final solution is much more
extreme than anything originally
intended. Another possible reason for group polarization is
accountability and responsibility.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 278 4/20/17 5:36 PM
279
Individuals sometimes choose to acquiesce to an extreme
decision instead of continuing to
work on a tough challenge, because if the action fails, they can
shrug and say, “Well, I told you

that would never work. It’s your fault, not mine!”
Groupthink
One of the most serious and detrimental disadvantages of team
decision making is group-
think. In his 1972 book, Victims of Groupthink, Irving Janis
describes this phenomenon as
the “deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and
moral judgment resulting from in-
group pressure” (p. 9). Groupthink occurs when views
dissenting from the majority opinion
are suppressed and alternative courses of action are not fully
explored.
Groupthink has been the main driver of some of the most
damaging decision-making fail-
ures in American history. The disaster of the Space Shuttle
Challenger is a tragic example of
how social pressure and conformity lead teams to make poor
decisions. In response to heavy
demands to meet strict launch timelines, NASA
officials chose not to spend time investigating
their engineers’ concerns about the potential for
O-ring failure and proceeded with the scheduled
launch, resulting in the shuttle’s destruction and
the death of all its crew members (Moorhead,
Ference, & Neck, 1991).
There are many reasons why teams fall vic-
tim to groupthink (see Figure 9.3). Teams with
high cohesiveness are more likely to experience
groupthink, as are those with members who
place a high value on consensus and a need for
approval. Such teams make a collective effort to
rationalize and discount potential warning signs.
Additionally, teams that isolate themselves from

or do not look for conflicting sources of informa-
tion begin to believe that the lack of dissenting
information is proof that their solution is the best one. The most
common cause of group-
think, however, is a charismatic or powerful leader who
champions a specific idea or solution.
In such situations, the other team members feel social pressure
to censor their ideas, align
themselves with the leader, and avoid questioning the leader’s
direction. To address this issue,
Janis (1982) developed five practical steps teams can use to
help avoid the groupthink trap:
1. Team leaders should explicitly encourage dissent and
criticism.
2. Team leaders should gain participation from all members
before stating their own
opinion.
3. Team members can create a separate team with its own leader
to tackle the same
problem.
4. Team members should ask trusted advisors to provide
feedback on the team’s
decision-making process and to challenge the team’s decisions.
5. Team members should appoint one person to serve as devil’s
advocate, who pur-
posefully takes the contrary perspective.
NASA
Groupthink has contributed to some
of the most damaging decision-making

failures in American history, including
the 1986 catastrophe involving the
Challenger Space Shuttle.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 279 4/20/17 5:36 PM
280
Precursors of groupthink
Group
unity
Inaccessibility
Biased
leaders
Stressful
decision
making
+
Warning signs of groupthink
Belief in group immunity. Belief in total agre
e
m
e

n
t a
m
o
n
g
g
ro
up m
em
bers. Peer pressure. Informational filters
. Ju
stif
yin
g.
L
ab
el
lin
g.
R
es
tr
ic
tio

n
o
f
p
e
rs
o
n
a
l c
o
n
ce
rn
s
or
d
ou
bt
s.
B
eli
ef
in
gro
up m

orality.
= Faultydecision making
Each of these techniques legitimizes the value of disagreement
in the decision-making pro-
cess and helps teams capitalize on the fact that dissenting
perspectives reduce conformity
and groupthink.
Over the decades, some of the underlying assumptions of Janis’s
theory have been questioned
by scholars who have noted that groupthink can actually be
related to positive performance
outcomes. Team activities were found to be more important
predictors of team performance
than groupthink alone (Choi & Kim, 1999). Some research even
negates the existence of
groupthink, in essence casting doubt on the concept (Grossman,
2011). Ironically, this would
actually make the idea of groupthink, which has been supported
for decades by scholars and
practitioners alike, a clear example of groupthink! However,
these more recent findings do
not negate the importance of Janis’s practical steps, outlined
above, to ensure that team mem-
bers engage in productive activities.
Team Decision-Making Techniques
There are numerous techniques teams can employ to help them
make better decisions. Two
of the most common team decision-making methods are
brainstorming and the nominal

group technique.
Brainstorming
Brainstorming is a process in which team members attempt to
increase the number and
creativity of solutions by verbally suggesting ideas or
alternative courses of action. A typical
Figure 9.3: Groupthink
Adapted from Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of
Conflict, Choice, and Commitment, by I. L. Janis and L. Mann,
1977,
New York, NY: Free Press.
Precursors of groupthink
Group
unity
Inaccessibility
Biased
leaders
Stressful
decision
making
+
Warning signs of groupthink
Belief in group immunity. Belief in total agre
e
m

e
n
t a
m
o
n
g
g
ro
up m
em
bers. Peer pressure. Informational filters
. Ju
stif
yin
g.
L
ab
el
lin
g.
R
es
tr
ic

tio
n
o
f
p
e
rs
o
n
a
l c
o
n
ce
rn
s
or
d
ou
bt
s.
B
eli
ef
in

gro
up m
orality.
= Faultydecision making
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 280 4/20/17 5:36 PM
281
Section 9.5 When Teams Are a Bad Idea
brainstorming session is relatively unstructured and begins with
the leader describing the
problem. Team members then generate as many solutions as
possible for a given amount of
time. No criticism or evaluation is allowed; all ideas, no matter
how unusual, are recorded.
Once the time has expired or the group members have run out of
ideas, the group begins
evaluating the utility of each of the suggestions.
Although brainstorming tends to generate an abundance of
possible solutions, it is an ineffi-
cient way to solve problems. Research consistently shows that
individuals working alone can
generate more solutions than a brainstorming group. Production
blocking, which occurs
when individual participants lose their train of thought and
become cognitively blocked,

limiting their potential to share, is one reason (Kerr & Tindale,
2004). Another is individual
team member shyness. Finally, some team members may keep
controversial or unusual ideas
to themselves due to fear of being personally judged by other
group members. Thus, even
though brainstorming is a popular and much used technique, it
is flawed.
Nominal Group Technique
The nominal group technique has been shown to produce much
better results than brain-
storming. This method is a structured decision-making process
in which team members gen-
erate ideas on their own, without any interaction, and then bring
their ideas to the entire
group to be evaluated. The process involves four steps:
1. Prior to group discussion, each individual composes a
comprehensive written list of
ideas or proposed alternatives.
2. Individuals gather as a team and present, in turn, one item
from their list until all
ideas or alternatives have been presented and recorded. No
discussion occurs at this
point.
3. The team discusses the ideas for clarity.
4. Each team member privately puts the ideas in rank order. The
solution with the
highest aggregate ranking is chosen.
The nominal group technique has a number of advantages over
brainstorming. First, it has

been shown to produce more effective decisions (Faure, 2004).
Second, the pressure to con-
form is limited, because members work independently. And
third, because ideas are pre-
sented and recorded in an orderly fashion, production block is
reduced. Thus, if you ever
have the option of choosing between brainstorming and nominal
group technique to make an
important team decision, you would be better served by the
latter.
9.5 When Teams Are a Bad Idea
Organizations have become enamored with teams—not because
they are necessarily the best
way to increase productivity but because “everyone” is using
them. However, in certain situ-
ations, teams can be a big mistake. For example, creating
cohesive teams takes a consider-
able amount of time and effort. When speed is essential, new,
inexperienced teams may make
more blunders than they are worth (Staats, Milkman, & Fox,
2012). Additionally, teams put
a big burden on team members and leaders to share information,
manage conflict, and solve
complex problems, which can lead to team members’ frustration
and burnout.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 281 4/20/17 5:36 PM
282

Section 9.6 Collective Positivity: Can Positivity Be Contagious?
Specific conditions do exist under which only teams should be
used. For example, when tasks
are highly interdependent, employees are required to collaborate
in order to perform their
jobs. An example of highly interdependent jobs is a surgical
team: Nurses, doctors, techni-
cians, and specialists each rely on communication with and the
complementary skills of the
others to complete a successful operation. These individuals
must work as a team or risk the
safety of their patients.
On the other hand, if jobs are relatively independent or
sequential, teams can add an unneces-
sary layer of coordination that can be impractical and time
consuming. For example, a large
transportation company decided to implement teams across most
of its operations. The
implementation process was torturous, especially for drivers
who are on the road most of the
time, but senior management persisted and demanded that all
operations should convert to
the new team design. Sacrificing road time to attend team
meetings was costly to the orga-
nization and frustrating to the teams, who complied with the
changes but without any real
engagement or commitment to the new design. Deliveries
became chronically late, customer
complaints increased, turnover skyrocketed, and the initiative
was abandoned within 1 year.
Before rushing into implementing the team concept,
organizations must assess whether the
problem is better addressed with individual or collective effort.

Are multiple individuals
required to complete the task? If so, organizations must then
determine the complexity of the
project. Teams are best suited for situations that are challenging
and complex, whereas sim-
ple problems that require limited input and information sharing
should be left to individuals.
Teams are often viewed as a universal remedy within the
organization. They can, however,
be overused and poorly designed, and they are almost always a
bad idea when they are not
needed. Ultimately, it is important that organizations use teams
only when there is true inter-
dependence between team members and the task requires
leveraging their diverse skills.
9.6 Collective Positivity: Can Positivity Be Contagious?
Positivity can benefit not only individuals, but also groups and
organizations. Research shows
that positivity as well as negativity can be contagious.
Encounters with positive individuals
can lift our spirits and make us more positive and energetic. On
the other hand, interactions
with negative individuals can make us feel down, defeated, or
discouraged. These findings
were revealed in a fascinating set of experiments in which a
trained actor was embedded
in groups assigned to negotiate the distribution of a limited
bonus pool across their depart-
ments. Regardless of the intensity of the emotions expressed by
the actor, or even the degree
of pleasantness of the actor to the other members, positive mood
expressions produced a
ripple effect that shaped the group’s interactions, improving
cooperation and group perfor-

mance and decreasing group conflict (Barsade, 2002).
The contagious effects of managers’ positive emotions and
moods on their employees have
also been demonstrated as a mechanism for effective leadership
(Barsade & Gibson, 2014;
Bono & Ilies, 2006). Positivity should therefore be taken into
consideration when forming
teams, selecting team leaders and members, and training
employees to become effective con-
tributors to their teams. Leadership styles also affect team
functioning beyond their effects
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 282 4/20/17 5:36 PM
283
Section 9.6 Collective Positivity: Can Positivity Be Contagious?
on individual performance. For example, although LMX quality
(see Chapter 7) is generally
positively related to employee performance at the individual
level, bimodal LMX differentia-
tion (treating team members differently based on their
classification into an in-group and
out-group) has a negative effect on team coordination and
ultimately causes the team’s finan-
cial performance to suffer (Li & Liao, 2014).
However, just selecting positive individuals will not
automatically make a positive team or

organization. Positive organizing is also needed, in which the
organization’s context, pro-
cesses, and outcomes also become more positive in order to
facilitate positive organizational
phenomena (Cameron & Caza, 2004). For example, as discussed
earlier, team members need
to build collective efficacy, a shared belief in their joint
abilities to achieve their goals (Ban-
dura, 1997). However, collective efficacy is not the sum of the
individual efficacies of the team
members. In fact, if team members possess extremely high
levels of efficacy, they may become
overconfident, which may hinder their motivation or desire to
collaborate with other team
members. Therefore, for collective efficacy to develop among
team members, trusting rela-
tionships, open communication, and information sharing may be
more important than the
individual efficacy of each team member.
Recently, there has also been an increasing interest in
organizational resiliency, or the ability
of an organization to survive and recover from crises. Again,
however, organizational resil-
iency is not the same as individual resiliency. A resilient
organization (or group) does not
necessarily make its members more resilient, nor does a
resilient group of individuals nec-
essarily make a resilient team or organization. In fact, the
processes leading to individual
resiliency may sometimes be detrimental for groups and
organizations. For example, indi-
viduals may bounce back from adversity at the expense of
others, using coping mechanisms
and strategies that resemble survival of the fittest (Coutu,
2002), which are not conducive to

team or organizational resiliency. On the other hand, the
dynamic processes that help teams
adapt to change and recover from crises need to go beyond the
capabilities and limitations of
any one individual. These processes include flexibility, ability
to learn and evolve, and norms
of respectful interaction (Weick, 1993).
Consider This: A Recent Crisis or Challenge
Think about a challenging situation that you have recently faced
and successfully overcome in
the context of work, family, or social relationships.
1. How did you overcome the crisis or challenge you faced?
2. To what extent did you do it alone? What were some of the
personal resources you drew
upon?
3. To what extent did you get help from others? What were
some of the ways others con-
tributed to your success in overcoming this crisis or challenge?
4. In hindsight, which aspects of the situation were best handled
alone, and which aspects
should have been handled with the help of others? Use the
knowledge you gained from
this chapter to explain your answer.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 283 4/20/17 5:36 PM

284
Summary and Conclusion
Currently, many organizations are focusing heavily on groups
and teams to solve difficult
and complex problems. However, the team outcomes show
mixed results. First, not all tasks
and projects lend themselves to teamwork. Second, just because
a group of individuals are
assigned a common goal does not mean that they will function
as a team and realize the syn-
ergies expected from teamwork. Numerous individual, group,
organizational, and contextual
factors will shape the dynamics of the group and make it more
or less effective. Managers
are strongly advised to consider those factors and thoroughly
analyze them, rather than just
choosing to design operations around teams simply because
everyone else in their industry
is doing the same. If analysis reveals that teams are the correct
approach, then many factors
discussed in this chapter should be evaluated and adopted in
order to facilitate teamwork,
motivate team members, promote positive team dynamics, and
ultimately increase teams’
effectiveness within the organization.
brainstorming A process in which team
members attempt to increase the num-
ber and creativity of solutions by verbally
suggesting ideas or alternative courses of

action.
cautious shift A phenomenon that occurs
when discussion prompts teams to make
decisions that are more conservative than
those originally proposed by individual
members.
collective efficacy A group’s shared belief
in its capabilities to organize and execute
courses of action that will produce a given
level of attainment.
collectivist Tending to value harmony, suc-
cess, and the needs of the group over indi-
viduals’ personal needs and desires.
cross-functional team A team in which
representatives of approximately the same
hierarchical level from many functional
areas of an organization combine forces to
solve problems.
determinism The degree to which people
believe they control what happens in their
lives.
“doing” orientation The tendency to value
action over contemplation.
free riding A belief that sometimes occurs
in a team context, where a team member
believes the other members will pick up the
slack so he or she does less work.
group polarization Convergence on

extreme positions on either side of an issue.
groupthink Deterioration of mental effi-
ciency, reality testing, and moral judgment
resulting from in-group pressure.
manager-led team The traditional, most
common type of team, in which a manager
acts as team leader and is responsible for
defining goals, methods, and functions, and
the team has little operational input and is
responsible only for completing the work
outlined by the manager.
Key Terms
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 284 4/20/17 5:36 PM
285
nominal group technique A structured
decision-making process in which team
members generate ideas on their own,
without any interaction, and then bring their
ideas to the entire group to be evaluated.
power distance The relative importance
cultures place on hierarchical structure,
authority, and acceptance of unequal distri-

bution of power.
production blocking Individual team
members lose their train of thought and
become cognitively blocked, limiting their
potential to generate solutions.
project teams Relatively small teams that
are temporary, created for a specific reason,
given a clear goal, and usually disband at
project’s end; usually led by a project man-
ager, who coordinates the people and mate-
rials needed to complete the task.
relationship conflict Conflict that stems
from interpersonal disagreements between
team members.
risky shift A phenomenon that occurs
when, after discussion, a team makes deci-
sions that are riskier than those originally
advocated by individual team members.
self-managed work team (SMWT) A
group of people who work together to
accomplish a goal by managing their own
work in a collaborative environment without
an officially designated leader.
shared mental model A team’s shared
understanding of team processes, tasks,
roles, and how the team’s work will be done.
social loafing Coasting through a team
project, letting other members of the team
do the brunt of the work.

synergy The notion that the total is greater
than the sum of its independent parts.
task conflict Conflict that arises in a team
in the course of working on a task.
team cohesion The tendency for a team
to stick together and remain united in the
pursuit of its objectives.
virtual teams Groups of individuals who
work across time, space, and organizational
boundaries and who interact primarily
through electronic communications.
work group Two or more individuals who
interact and share ideas in order to achieve a
common goal.
work teams Work groups characterized by
interdependence; collective responsibility
for outcomes; authority to decide how to
interact, function, and make decisions; and
exclusiveness to a few members who pos-
sess complementary skills.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 285 4/20/17 5:37 PM
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 286 4/20/17 5:37 PM

287
10Health and Well-Being
Creatas Images/Thinkstock
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to
• Describe the three components of employee attitudes.
• Discuss the causes and effects of employee attitudes on
performance and behavior.
• Compare and contrast how workers from different generations
view work.
• Explain how stress impacts employee performance.
• Discuss the factors that affect employee health, safety,
violence, and stress.
• Identify emerging perspectives on organizational health and
well-being.
• Describe how positivity influences worker happiness, health,
and success at work.
you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 287 4/20/17 5:43 PM

288
Section 10.1 The Importance of Employee Well-Being
10.1 The Importance of Employee Well-Being
Employers in the United States and worldwide are becoming
increasingly aware of the impor-
tance of having healthy employees and maintaining a workplace
that is conducive to employee
health and well-being. While the focus of research in this area
has traditionally been on the
benefits of reducing insurance costs, this section will also cover
the nonmonetary benefits to
both employees and organizations.
Reducing the Cost of Health Care Benefits
According to a study conducted by the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce in 2007, more than 168
million Americans received health insurance through their
employers. This substantial num-
ber indicates the significant value employers place on their
employees’ health, as well as
employees’ expectation that their employers will provide such
benefits.
However, the costs of health care benefits have skyrocketed.
For example, the 2011 annual
national survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health
Research & Educational Trust
showed that, on average, insurance premiums have more than

doubled since the previous
decade, from $7,061 to $15,073 per employee for family
coverage. Although some employ-
ers have tried to absorb as much of the added cost as possible,
the substantial increases in
costs coupled with the economic recession has made cost
containment challenging. This cost
increase—along with the introduction of the 2010 Patient
Protection and Affordable Care
Act, commonly known as Obamacare—resulted in a significant
drop in employer-sponsored
health insurance. In 2011 many states witnessed as much as a
10% decrease in nonelderly
adult coverage; low-income persons were affected the most
(Robert Wood Johnson Founda-
tion, 2013). This trend essentially shifts the decisions and costs
of health care coverage to
employees, taxpayers, and society at large (Irwin, 2014).
Consequently, there has been increased emphasis on how
workplaces can manage the costs
of health care. There have been two main approaches for doing
so:
1. Reducing employer contributions: The Kaiser Family
Foundation’s 2015 survey
shows a substantial increase in health insurance premiums of
about 61% since
2005, and about 27% compared to 2010. In 2015 the average
annual premium was
$6,251 for single coverage and $17,545 for family coverage.
Even though employers
continue to cover the lion’s share of health insurance premiums,
the relative cost to
employees is much higher. Considering that wages grew by only
about 6% per year

since 1960, with record lows of about 6% decline during the
peak of the 2008 eco-
nomic recession (Trading Economics, 2016), the impact on
employees’ disposable
income has been substantially negative.
2. Enhancing employees’ health: In contrast to reactively
managing health care costs
(by passing increases along to employees), many employers and
employees are
finding it more effective to proactively promote employee
health and well-being.
For example, the U.S.-based supermarket chain Safeway has
kept its health care
costs steady for several years, while on average U.S.
organizations have experienced
significant increases during the same time period. Safeway
contained these costs by
emphasizing health, wellness, and preventive care. Four specific
health conditions—
cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and obesity—account
for 75% of all health
care costs. Safeway focused its energy and resources on
monitoring, preventing, or
you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 288 4/20/17 5:43 PM
289
Section 10.1 The Importance of Employee Well-Being

managing the causes of those four health conditions by
promoting health initiatives
such as smoking cessation and weight control. As a result, it
was able to significantly
reduce insurance premiums rather than reducing coverage or
passing costs on to
employees (Strassel, 2009).
Increasing Employee Wellness
In addition to reducing health care costs for both employers and
employees, many organi-
zations now view employee well-being as a goal in itself. Well-
being is no longer limited to
physical health and safety; it also includes mental, social,
psychological, and spiritual health
and well-being. For example, the U.S. Army established the
Comprehensive Soldier and Fam-
ily Fitness training program in 2008 to proactively enhance
health and well-being in soldiers
and their families. In this way, focusing on health and wellness
is viewed as a preventive
measure and a positive alternative to the prevailing reactive
treatment programs (Seligman
& Matthews, 2011). The program focuses on five dimensions of
well-being: physical, emo-
tional, spiritual, social, and family (U.S. Army, 2013).
Ensuring that employees are happy, healthy, and safe speaks to
the interests of a broad spec-
trum of stakeholders, including employees, customers, and
society. Emphasizing employee
well-being as a valuable and worthy goal—and proactively
pursuing that goal by enhancing
physical, mental, social, and psychological health and safety at
work—aligns the organiza-
tion’s values, strategies, and human investments.

Find Out for Yourself: Comprehensive Soldier and Family
Fitness
Watch the following video on the Comprehensive Soldier and
Family Fitness training program.
Introduction to Comprehensive Soldier Fitness
Employee Wellness Programs
Growing understanding of the importance of employee health
and wellness has promoted a
more integrated approach to the issue. Rather than offering
distinct benefits such as health
insurance, paid time off, and employee assistance programs,
employers are now adopting
more comprehensive employee wellness programs. Similar to
the Comprehensive Soldier
and Family Fitness program, an employee wellness program is a
systematically designed,
multicomponent program that promotes and supports
employees’ physical, mental, social,
and psychological health, safety, and well-being. All of the
program’s components are stra-
tegically integrated for maximum impact, and employees
receive incentives for participating
in the program and achieving wellness-related goals and
milestones. An employee wellness
program might include health screenings and assessments;
health fairs, workshops, newslet-
ters, and other communication on wellness issues; discounted or
free access to on- or off-site
healthy meal offerings, fitness facilities, smoking cessation
classes, or weight loss programs;
or employee counseling. Participation incentives may include
bonuses and awards, discounts
on insurance premiums, public recognition for achieving various

milestones, or tokens such as
T-shirts, water bottles, pedometers, and more (California
Department of Public Health, n.d.).
you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 289 4/20/17 5:43 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3MuUMHoXIM
290
Section 10.2 Developing Healthy Employee Attitudes
The primary distinction between these comprehensive programs
and traditional health ini-
tiatives is that integrated programs emphasize a whole-person
perspective and promote
wellness along a variety of dimensions. An integrated approach
tends to be more effective
because it has a better chance of spreading across the
organization, and this across-the-board
commitment is necessary for promoting a variety of wellness
initiatives. For example, John-
son & Johnson has seen outstanding results from its employee
wellness programs, including
a more than 50% reduction in high blood pressure, more than
65% smoking cessation, $250
million in health care cost savings, and 271% ROI! Other
studies show reductions in absen-
teeism by as much as 80%, turnover rates cut in half, and more
(Berry, Mirabito, & Baun,
2010). In sum, healthy employees tend to be happier, more
productive, and less likely to leave

2579Groups and TeamsiStockphotoThinkstockLearning.docx

2579Groups and TeamsiStockphotoThinkstockLearning.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 2579Groups and TeamsiStockphotoThinkstockLearning.docx

Similar to 2579Groups and TeamsiStockphotoThinkstockLearning.docx (20)

More from tamicawaysmith

More from tamicawaysmith (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

2579Groups and TeamsiStockphotoThinkstockLearning.docx