Content Papers Flashcards Preview

Organisational Behaviour > Content Papers > Flashcards

Flashcards in Content Papers Deck (11)
Loading flashcards...

Hackman: Why teams don't work

- Research consistently shows that teams underperform despite of all the resources they have
- Basic conditions for team effectiveness
- How to prevent team members from becoming complacent > deviant
- Leader can improve chances of team becoming special
- It's the leader's job to get agreement and set the team's direction
- How good are companies at providing a supportive context for teams? > HR & Coaching
- 3 common fallacies about teams
- 5 conditions to increase the likelihood that a team will be great
- Newness is a liability


Woolley: evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups

- The collective intelligence factor appears to depend on the composition of the group (average member intelligence) and on factors that emerge from the way group members interact (conversational turn-taking behavior)
- Average and maximum intelligence scores of individual group members are not significantly correlated with the collective intelligence factor and not predictive of group task performance
- Empirically, collective intelligence is the inference one draws when the ability of a group to perform one task is correlated with that group's ability to perform a wide range of tasks
- Collective intelligence is a property of the group itself, not just the individuals in it
- 3 factors that are not good predictors of collective intelligence > group cohesion, motivation, satisfaction
- 3 factors that were significantly correlated with collective intelligence > social sensitivity, variance in nr of speaking turns, proportion of females


Knippenberg: work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda (CEM)

- Categorization elaboration model (CEM)
- Two main traditions in work-group diversity research > social categorization perspective & information/decision making perspective
- 3 factors that determine the extent to which differences between members engender social categorization > cognitive accessibility, normative fit, comparative fit of the categorization
- Main factors driving intergroup bias > identity threats & challenges
- Intergroup biases are lower when subgroups have distinct roles and/or equal status and hold more inclusive perceptual representations of the group at the same time
- The primary process underlying the positive effects of diversity on performance are the elaboration of task relevant information (task motivation and ability moderate positive effects of diversity)
- Diversity may be positively related to performance when performance requires information processing and/or creative and innovative solutions > when the task has a strong information processing and decision-making component
- Elaboration can be defined as the exchange of information and perspectives, individual-level processing of the info and perspectives, the process of feeding back the results of this into the group, and the discussion and integration of its implications (time constraints can hamper ability to elaborate


Thomas: diversity as a strategy

- IBM example
- Drivers of success of IBM's task force/initiative > diversity market based issue, facilitation of info sharing, executives as rolemodels, company wide implementation, managing diversity included in trainings
- 4 key factors needed for a major corporate change to succeed are strong support from company leaders, fully engaged employee base, integrated and aligned management practices, strong and well-articulated business case for action > IBM's diversity task forces benefitted from all four


Wittenbaum: from cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm

- The collective information sharing paradigm states that info sharing is unbiased, members work cooperatively, info is either mentioned or not, unshared info is more important than shared info, hidden profile distributions most interesting, info is shared with all members
- 7 factors influencing the relative amount of shared and unshared information are info type and distribution, task features, temporal features, group structure and composition, member characteristics, discussion procedures, communication technology
- 3 possible explanations for the discussion bias in favor of shared information are the higher probability of recalling shared vs unshared info, members' preference-consistent evaluation of info in the hidden profile paradigm, social comparison processess
- motivated information sharing framework holds that information exchange in decision-making groups is a deliberate process in the interest of members' goal attainment (sometimes group goals and sometimes individual/competitive goals)


Bazerman & Chugh: decisions without blinders

- bounded awareness is when cognitive blinders prevent a person from seeing, seeking, using, or sharing highly relevant, easility accessible, and readily available information during the decision making process
- bounded awareness can occur in various points of the decision making process > fail to see or seek info, fail to use relevant info, fail to share relevant info bounding the organization's awareness
- Ways to approach integration of diverse knowledge in a group are to set agenda's for meetings and request individual reports, recognize hidden profile effect, ask why not?


de Wit: the paradox of intra-group conflict

- 3 types of conflict are task conflict, relationship conflict, process conflict
- 2 types of moderators of the effects of conflict are contextual characteristics ( avg level of conflict, task type, org context, cultural context) and methodological characteristics
- 2 outcomes types of the effects of conflicts are proximal group outcomes (emergent states, team viability) and distal group outcomes (performance)
- the effects of conflicts are dependend on type of conflict, context studied, methods used
- main effects and moderators of the effects of conflict on group performance: "Task conflict and group performance more positively related (no strong and negative association) - Stable negative relationships were found between relationship and process conflict, and group outcomes - 3 types of conflict are more negatively related to proximal group outcomes than to distal group outcomes - Overall association of relationship and process conflict with group performance is more uniformly negative - None of the studies on process conflict reported a positive association of process conflict with emergent states and group viability"
- Factors that may explain when conflict is more negatively or positively related to group outcomes are type of conflict, type of outcome, Correlation between task and relationship conflict, Organizational level, How variables are operationalized and measured


Weiss & Hughes: want collaboration? accept - and actively manage - conflict

- Two main areas in strategies for managing conflict: Strategies for managing disagreements at the point of conflict and Strategies for managing conflict upon escalation up the management chain

- 3 Strategies for managing disagreements at the point of conflict: Devise and implement a common method for resolving conflict (people will often avoid or work around conflict, causing suboptimal 'split-the-difference' resolutions or deadlock), Provide people with criteria for making trade-offs (in conflict people often need to make trade-offs between competing priorities), Use the escalation of conflict as an opportunity for coaching

- 3 Strategies for managing conflict upon escalation up the management chain: Establish and enforce a requirement for joint escalation (share responsibility for escalation and present disagreement jointly to boss), Ensure that managers resolve escalated conflicts directly with their counterparts (resolving problems early on is more efficient), Make the process for escalated conflict resolution transparent (clear communication about the resolution can increase people's willingness and ability to implement decisions)

- 3 Myths of collaboration: Effective collaboration means "teaming" (most failures don't occur on actual teams, but in the rapid and unstructured interactions between different groups within the organization), An effective incentive system will ensure collaboration ( incentives don't encourage collaboration, it might even undermine it), Organizations can be structured for collaboration (bringing people together is very different from getting them to collaborate)

- Benefits of getting collaboration right: A unified face to customers, Faster internal decision making, Reduced costs through shared resources, Development of more innovative products

- Disagreements are sparked by: Differences in perspective, Differences in competencies, Differences in access to information, Differences in strategic focus


Will Felps: ruining it for the rest of us

- 3 kinds of (bad apple) behavior: Jerk behavior (attacks and insults others) >Defining behaviors: ridiculing/insulting, making inappropriate religious or ethnic remarks, cursing, playing mean pranks, publicly embarrassing others, Slacker behavior (does less than they can) >Defining behaviors: Shirking, free riding, social loafing, Depressive pessimist behavior (violates norms of positivity) >Defining behaviors: Fail to engage in emotional regulation or emotional labor to uphold group functioning

- Effects of actor's behavior in experiments: Profound effect as groups that had actor showing bad apple behavior performed worse, Dramatic effect on the way people in the groups treated each other >People would argue and fight, People would not share relevant information, People would communicate less + Spillover effect showed as members started to take on the bad apple characteristics

- What was different about the group where the bad apple did not spoil the barrel?: One guy was a particularly good leader (son of a diplomat), Leader had amazing diplomatic ability to defuse conflict that would normally emerge from bad apple behavior, Leader would ask questions, Leader would engage all team members and diffuse conflicts


Anicich: hierarchical cultural values predict success and mortality in high-stakes teams

- Power distance describes cultural variation in hierarchy, which he defined as “the extent to which members of society accept the fact that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally”. Lower ranked members in high-power-distance cultures are not expected to disagree with higher ranked members and that higher ranked members are not required to consult lower ranked members in the decision-making process.

- Predictive power of cultural values
The cultural values of one’s home country predict behavior even when people are abroad. The predictive power of cultural values is likely to be even stronger when people also face uncertainty. In an unfamiliar and uncertain context, they use past experiences and cultural assumptions to make sense of the novel environment.

- Mechanisms needed in strong hierarchical cultures>
Need to implement mechanisms geared toward encouraging low-ranking members to voice their perspectives and for high-ranking members to integrate this feedback.

- Hierarchy can produce both best and worst outcomes: Hierarchical differentiation can increase group performance by clearly defining roles that facilitate coordination (1) and the integration of information (2, 3) and by creating patterns of deference that reduce intragroup conflict, especially when group members are interdependent (4, 5). Hierarchy, however, also has the potential to kill. Rigid hierarchies limit low-ranking group members from voicing their opinions and concerns. This lack of p articipative voice can produce negative outcomes, including greater mortality (6, 7). - Hierarchy can also reduce feelings of psychological safety (8), thereby impairing group communication (9) and performance (10).

- When are the benefits of hierarchy especially pronounced? Under conditions of high interdependence.

- 2 studies performed demonstrate
Study 1 demonstrates that expert mountain climbers believed that climbing teams with a hierarchical culture would be more likely to engage in group processes that both improve and harm their chance of success compared with climbing teams with an egalitarian culture. ->A hierarchical culture may improve team coordination, but harm team psychological safety and information sharing.
Study 2 showed: Consistent with the dysfunctional perspective on hierarchy, expeditions consisting of climbers from countries whose culture strongly embraced hierarchy had more climbers die while climbing. -> Hierarchical cultural values predicted summiting and fatality rates only for group expeditions. Hierarchy did not predict summiting or fatality rates in solo expeditions, providing evidence that group processes are a critical driver of the observed effects.


Magee & Galinsky: social hierarchy: the self-enforcing nature of power and status

- Social hierarchy: An implicit or explicit rank order of individuals or groups with respect to a valued social dimension.

- Hierarchical differentiation occurs either created in a formal system or organically in informal interactions.

- Status and power hierarchy: Status hierarchy: Characterized by a rank ordering of individuals or groups according to the amount of respect accorded by others + Power hierarchy: - Individuals are rank ordered with respect to the amount of resources each controls

- Functions of social hierarchy: Social order and coordination, Fulfills an important cluster of human needs characterized by the desire for order, structure, and stability, Individual incentives (providing incentives for individuals to try to ascend to higher positions because higher rank affords greater material and psychological rewards and comfort)

- How do expectations reinforce status hierarchies: Expectancy confirmation > Status of an individual determines how others evaluate his or her behaviour - Behavioural confirmation > Social interaction can shape individuals’ behaviour in a hierarchy-reinforcing manner by guiding behaviour so that it conforms to and becomes consistent with statusbased expectations - Backlash > Individuals whose behaviour deviates from prescriptive expectations are often evaluated negatively and even punished - Opportunity accumulation > Individuals who are most respected are given higher quality opportunities than those who are less respected

- Hierarchy is self-reinforcing through 3 main aspects: The psychological effects of power, Status-based expectations, Hierarchy-enhancing ideologies (Social dominance theory & System justification theory)

- Social status & Social power: Social status > The extent to which an individual or group is respected or admired by others - Objective accomplishments are translated into status only through subjective interpretations - Status emerges from expectations that individuals have for their own and each others’ performance, or on various professional and demographic qualities (“status characteristics”) - To the extent that one’s formal position garners respect in the eyes of others, one has status - Needs to be separated from: attention and influence
Social power > Asymmetric control over valued resources in social relations - More objective than status, because if the sources of value for each party are known, one can measure each party’s power - To the extent that one’s formal position provides control over resources that other care about, one has power - Needs to be separated from: influence, resistance, and conflict

- Effects of power on psychological processes: Power begets more power because the powerful directly capture additional resources for themselves, Power holders’ high-level, abstract construal of the world likely obscures the specific interests of subordinates, which helps perpetuate the status quo hierarchical arrangements, People with power have an instrumental focus: They attend to and approach others only to the extent that they are useful, Relationship between power and objectification can reinforce hierarchy: by increasing efficiency, the powerful will be given disproportionate credit for the organization’s success