Case Study #2 NASA is planning a mission to send a crew of astronauts to Mars. Among other objectives, scientists are interested in the possibility of growing food in space, as there are now reasons to believe that Mars maybe a good place to farm. Although this mission isn’t scheduled until the year 2030 or so, NASA has already begun to explore how aspects of the mission are likely to impact the crew’s ability to function effectively. You see, the crew of six to eight astronauts assigned to the mission will be living and working together in a noisy capsule about the size of an average kitchen for three years—it takes 6 months to get there, they’ll stay for 18 months, and then there’s the 6-month journey home. Given the constraints of their environment, and the fact that the crew will be working long hours under very demanding conditions, it’s inevitable that they’ll get on one another’s nerves on occasion. There’s literally no place to go to escape minor annoyances, and as frustration builds, the probability of emotional outbursts and interpersonal conflict increases. Of course, it goes without saying that conflict among astronauts in a small space capsule millions of miles away from Earth is not a good thing. Astronauts who fail to fulfill a responsibility because they’re reoccupied with conflict could put the mission, and the lives of the entire crew, in jeopardy, and this is true whether the conflict is bubbling beneath the surface or has risen to the surface. Hard feelings could hinder teamwork as well, and the failure to communicate an important piece of information or to provide help to a member of the crew in need of assistance, as examples, could also lead to disaster. Unfortunately, however, the duration and demands of the mission are almost without precedent, and therefore, the specific practices that need to be implemented to facilitate crew functioning in this context are unknown. To address this issue, NASA has awarded grants to psychologists to study teams that have to live and work together in isolated, confined, and extreme environments for extended periods of time. To help increase understanding of conflict and teamwork and how it can be better managed, the psychologists are working on technology that tracks the whereabouts of each crew member, as well as his or her vocal intensity and vital functions such as heart rate. This information would be used to pinpoint where and when conflict occurs and to understand how conflict influences subsequent crew interactions. The crew will be given feedback so they can learn how conflict hurts teamwork and cohesion. This feedback could also motivate crews to take the time to discuss teamwork issues and to devise ways to manage conflict and other process problems. Although it’s impossible to anticipate all the potential issues that could arise on the mission to Mars, NASA believes that research on team process is necessary to enhance the viability and performance of the crew that is ultimately charged with the task. 1. Which team processes do you believe are most important to the crew of astronauts traveling to Mars? Why? Are there specific team processes you feel are relatively unimportant? Explain. 2. Describe additional types of information that could be collected by the psychologists to help crews better understand their interactions and how they influence crew effectiveness. 3. Discuss how team training could be used to build effective processes for the crew traveling to Mars. TEAM DYNAMICS OUTLINE Defining Teams Stages of Team Development Models of Team Effectiveness DEFINING TEAM Defining teams ­ Team = two or more individuals who… ­ Exist to perform organizationally-relevant goals ­ Share one or more common goals ­ Interact socially ­ Exhibit task interdependencies - team members must rely on one another to perform their tasks effectively ­ Embedded in an organizational context that sets boundaries, constrains the team, and influences exchanges with other units STAGES OF TEAM DEVELOPMENT TEAM DEVELOPMENT Tuckman’s Stage Model ­ Model of Team Development FORMING STORMING NORMING PERFORMING ADJOURNING TEAM DEVELOPMENT Tuckman’s Stage Model ­ Forming ­ Characterized by uncertainty or anxiety ­ May depend on team leader for information and comfort ­ Storming ­ Issues associated with forming are resolved ­ Conflict over a number of issues ­ Team norms - e.g., # of meetings, communication ­ Leadership responsibilities ­ Necessary for groups to acknowledge disagreements ­ Some teams may never move past this stage ­ If conflict is too intense or personal TEAM DEVELOPMENT Tuckman’s Stage Model ­ Norming ­ Collection of people becomes a team ­ Role differentiation and group norms/behaviors develops ­ Function as a collective body instead of a collection of individuals ­ Performing ­ Accomplishing major group tasks ­ Not all teams reach this stage, but all have potential TEAM DEVELOPMENT Tuckman’s Stage Model ­ Adjourning ­ Group members move on ­ E.g., class project ­ Group members miss each other and have feelings of loss ­ E.g., high school sports ­ Reflect on experiences ­ Was the team successful? ­ Did I like my team members? ­ Was this a rewarding experience? ­ Influence views of working in teams ­ Influence whether members of a team can work together again in future TEAM DEVELOPMENT Tuckman’s Stage Model ­ Not strictly sequential FORMING STORMING NORMING PERFORMING ADJOURNING STORMING NORMING PERFORMING ADJOURNING ­ Often cyclical FORMING TEAM DEVELOPMENT Gersick’s Punctuated Equilibrium Model ­ Teams go through periods of relative inertia versus rapid change ­ Depends on group members’ awareness of time/deadlines ­ For a given deadline ­ First half – task definition, approaching the task, internal conflicts ­ Second half – great deal of progress will be made ­ Practical Implications ­ Managers should be patient with teams in the beginning ­ Teams should be made aware of deadlines DEFINING TEAM EFFECTIVENESS ­What makes a team effective? DEFINING TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Steiner (1972) ­ Actual productivity = potential productivity – process losses ­ Potential productivity – highest level of performance possible ­ Process losses – less-than-optimal ways of combining team members’ inputs ­ Generally caused by lack of coordination or reduced motivation among team members ­ E.g., basketball – ball hogging ­ Too basic/simplified ­ Does not account for factors that can change team productivity levels ­ Doesn’t ask what can teams/organizations do to improve team performance ­ Assumes that team goals are perfectly aligned with the organization’s goals ­ This is not always the case DEFINING TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Hackman (1987) ­ Team effectiveness = Three-dimensional construct ­ Output of the team ­ Long-term viability of the team ­ Impact of the team experience on individual members ­ Output ­ Teams are put together to accomplish tasks or goals ­ To be successful, team should meet or exceed performance standards ­ Winning isn’t everything DEFINING TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Hackman (1987) ­ Long-term viability ­ Is a team effective if it falls apart as soon as the task is completed? ­ Social processes should maintain or enhance capability of members working together in the future ­ Team member satisfaction ­ If experiences as members are largely negative – team was ineffective ­ Related to viability ­ People may begin to detest all future teamwork MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS McGrath’s model (1964) ­ Input-process-output sequence Input Process Process Output MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS McGrath’s model (1964) ­ Input ­ Individual-level – level/mix of skills, attitudes, personality characteristics ­ Team-level – structure, cohesiveness, size ­ Environment-level – group task characteristics, reward structure, stressors ­ Process ­ Team interaction – how team performs the task ­ Strategies, interpersonal harmony, shared task understanding, etc. ­ Output ­ Performance – judged quality of outputs, time taken to solve problem, # of errors made ­ Other outcomes – team member satisfaction, attitude towards team members, team cohesiveness after task MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS McGrath’s model (1964) Input Individual-level factors Team-level factors Environment-level factors Output Process Performance outcomes Team interaction process Other outcomes MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Gladstein’s model (1984) ­ Similar to McGrath’s (input-process-output) ­ Team composition ­ Individual characteristics and elements of team structure ­ Skills, heterogeneity, organizational and job tenure ­ Team structure ­ Role/goal clarity, norms, task control, size, formal leadership ­ At organizational-level, resources available as well as rewards and supervisory control ­ Team process ­ Communication, level of support, conflict management, strategy discussion ­ Leads to team effectiveness MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Gladstein’s model (1984) ­ Major differences compared to McGrath’s Model ­ Inputs have a direct impact on team effectiveness ­ Team’s task characteristics (complexity, uncertainty, interdependence) moderates the relationship between team process and effectiveness MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Gladstein’s model (1984) Team-level inputs Team task Team process Organizational -level inputs Team effectiveness MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Gladstein’s model (1984) ­ Support ­ Predicts perceptions of team effectiveness more than actual revenue ­ Task characteristics did not moderate (not much variability in tasks) TEAM DYNAMICS OUTLINE Defining Teams Stages of Team Development Models of Team Effectiveness DEFINING TEAM Defining teams ­ Team = two or more individuals who… ­ Exist to perform organizationally-relevant goals ­ Share one or more common goals ­ Interact socially ­ Exhibit task interdependencies - team members must rely on one another to perform their tasks effectively ­ Embedded in an organizational context that sets boundaries, constrains the team, and influences exchanges with other units STAGES OF TEAM DEVELOPMENT TEAM DEVELOPMENT Tuckman’s Stage Model ­ Model of Team Development FORMING STORMING NORMING PERFORMING ADJOURNING TEAM DEVELOPMENT Tuckman’s Stage Model ­ Forming ­ Characterized by uncertainty or anxiety ­ May depend on team leader for information and comfort ­ Storming ­ Issues associated with forming are resolved ­ Conflict over a number of issues ­ Team norms - e.g., # of meetings, communication ­ Leadership responsibilities ­ Necessary for groups to acknowledge disagreements ­ Some teams may never move past this stage ­ If conflict is too intense or personal TEAM DEVELOPMENT Tuckman’s Stage Model ­ Norming ­ Collection of people becomes a team ­ Role differentiation and group norms/behaviors develops ­ Function as a collective body instead of a collection of individuals ­ Performing ­ Accomplishing major group tasks ­ Not all teams reach this stage, but all have potential TEAM DEVELOPMENT Tuckman’s Stage Model ­ Adjourning ­ Group members move on ­ E.g., class project ­ Group members miss each other and have feelings of loss ­ E.g., high school sports ­ Reflect on experiences ­ Was the team successful? ­ Did I like my team members? ­ Was this a rewarding experience? ­ Influence views of working in teams ­ Influence whether members of a team can work together again in future TEAM DEVELOPMENT Criticisms of Tuckman’s Stage Model ­ Not strictly sequential FORMING STORMING NORMING PERFORMING ADJOURNING STORMING NORMING PERFORMING ADJOURNING ­ Often cyclical FORMING TEAM DEVELOPMENT Gersick’s Punctuated Equilibrium Model ­ Teams go through periods of relative inertia versus rapid change ­ Depends on group members’ awareness of time/deadlines ­ For a given deadline ­ First half – task definition, approaching the task, internal conflicts ­ Second half – great deal of progress will be made ­ Practical Implications ­ Managers should be patient with teams in the beginning ­ Teams should be made aware of deadlines DEFINING TEAM EFFECTIVENESS ­What makes a team effective? DEFINING TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Steiner (1972) ­ Actual productivity = potential productivity – process losses ­ Potential productivity – highest level of performance possible ­ Process losses – less-than-optimal ways of combining team members’ inputs ­ Generally caused by lack of coordination or reduced motivation among team members ­ E.g., basketball – ball hogging ­ Too basic/simplified ­ Does not account for factors that can change team productivity levels ­ Doesn’t ask what can teams/organizations do to improve team performance ­ Assumes that team goals are perfectly aligned with the organization’s goals ­ This is not always the case DEFINING TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Hackman (1987) ­ Team effectiveness = Three-dimensional construct ­ Output of the team ­ Long-term viability of the team ­ Impact of the team experience on individual members ­ Output ­ Teams are put together to accomplish tasks or goals ­ To be successful, team should meet or exceed performance standards DEFINING TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Hackman (1987) ­ Long-term viability ­ Winning isn’t everything ­ Is a team effective if it falls apart as soon as the task is completed? ­ Social processes should maintain or enhance capability of members working together in the future ­ Team member satisfaction ­ If experiences as members are largely negative – team was ineffective ­ Related to viability ­ People may begin to detest all future teamwork MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS McGrath’s model (1964) ­ Input-process-output sequence Input Process Process Output MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS McGrath’s model (1964) ­ Input ­ Individual-level – level/mix of skills, attitudes, personality characteristics ­ Team-level – leader and role structure, cohesiveness, size ­ Environment-level – task characteristics, reward structure, stressors ­ Process ­ Output MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS McGrath’s model (1964) Input Individual-level factors Team-level factors Environment-level factors Output Process MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS McGrath’s model (1964) ­ Input ­ Process ­ Team interaction – how the team performs the task ­ Performance strategies, interpersonal harmony, shared task understanding, etc. ­ Output MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS McGrath’s model (1964) Input Individual-level factors Team-level factors Environment-level factors Output Process Team interaction processes MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS McGrath’s model (1964) ­ Input ­ Process ­ Output ­ Performance – judged quality of outputs, time taken to solve problem, # of errors made ­ Other outcomes – team member satisfaction, attitude towards team members, team cohesiveness after completing task MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS McGrath’s model (1964) Input Individual-level factors Team-level factors Environment-level factors Output Process Performance outcomes Team interaction processes Other outcomes MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS ­ Example – Class group project Input Individual Level: Team Level: Environ Level: High Cog Ability Low Agreeableness 3 members Team grade Output Performance: Process 100% grade Effective Strategies Low Interpersonal Harmony Other Outcomes: Dislike team members MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Gladstein’s model (1984) ­ Similar to McGrath’s (input-process-output) ­ Team composition (individual-level factors) ­ Individual characteristics and elements of team structure ­ Skills, heterogeneity, organizational and job tenure ­ Team structure (team-level factors) ­ Role/goal clarity, norms, task control, size, formal leadership ­ Organizational-level (environmental-level factors) ­ Resources available as well as rewards and supervisory control MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Gladstein’s model (1984) Input Team Comp and Structure Organizational -level Output Process MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Gladstein’s model (1984) ­ Team process ­ Communication, level of support, conflict management, strategy discussion ­ Leads to team effectiveness MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Gladstein’s model (1984) Input Team Comp and Structure Output Process Team process Organizational -level Team effectiveness MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Example – Class group project Input High Cog Ability Low Agreeableness 3 members Output Process Effective Strategies Low Interpersonal Harmony Amazing Lecture Slides 100% Grade MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Gladstein’s model (1984) ­ Major differences compared to McGrath’s Model ­ Inputs have a direct impact on team effectiveness MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Gladstein’s model (1984) Input Team Comp and Structure Output Process Team effectiveness Organizational -level MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Example – Class group project – Direct effect Input High Cog Ability Low Agreeableness 2 members (1 leaves) Output Process Effective Strategies Low Interpersonal Harmony Amazing Lecture Slides 100%-20% = 80% MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Gladstein’s model (1984) ­ Major differences compared to McGrath’s Model ­ Team’s task characteristics (complexity, uncertainty, interdependence) ­ Moderates the relationship between team process and effectiveness MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Gladstein’s model (1984) Input Team Comp and Structure Output Team task Process Team process Organizational -level Team effectiveness MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Example – Class group project - Moderation Input High Cog Ability Low Agreeableness 3 members Output Process Highly Interdependent Task Effective Strategies Low Interpersonal Harmony Amazing Lecture Slides 80% DETERMINANTS (INPUTS) OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS DETERMINANTS (INPUTS) OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Team composition ­ Skill level - The more skilled members you have (+) ­ Most robust finding ­ Cognitive ability – The smarter your team (+) ­ Strongest when facing a novel task ­ Diversity of skills (+) ­ E.g., football team ­ Personality ­ High team average level of conscientiousness (+) and agreeableness (+) ­ Variability in conscientiousness, agreeableness, and endorsement of power distance (-) ­ Personality clash leads to negative conflict ­ Conscientiousness negatively related when requiring adaptation DETERMINANTS (INPUTS) OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Team composition ­ Attitude ­ Preference for team work (+) ­ Similarity (+) ­ Groupthink (-) DETERMINANTS (INPUTS) OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Task design ­ Whether the task a team is performing is appropriate for the team ­ Organizations often over zealous regarding team work ­ Interdependence (+) ­ Challenging, interesting, engaging (+) ­ Core job dimensions – autonomy, feedback, task variety, significance, and identity DETERMINANTS (INPUTS) OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Organizational resources ­ Teams need resources similar to individuals ­ Equipment, budgetary resources, and time to accomplish tasks ­ Unique needs ­ Training - team work does not come naturally! ­ Work cooperatively with others, understanding how to coordinate efforts, conflict resolution ­ Meeting space/time ­ Leadership ­ Perceived management support DETERMINANTS (INPUTS) OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Rewards ­ Important in determining team performance like individual performance ­ Not effective if only rewarding individual efforts ­ Team-based compensation ­ Interdependence ­ Team-based compensation most appropriate for high levels of interdependence ­ Otherwise, might be perceived as unfair DETERMINANTS (INPUTS) OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Rewards ­ Team versus individual rewards ­ Impossible to not have individual reward systems ­ Should not work against each other (e.g., server) ­ Control over performance ­ Teams may be highly dependent on technologies or resources ­ Organizational constraints can have adverse motivational effects ­ Attitudes ­ Positive attitude toward team work related to favorable attitudes toward team-based compensation ­ Individual performance negatively related to such an attitude ­ People who performed well as individuals were less likely to want team-based rewards DETERMINANTS (INPUTS) OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Team goals ­ Impact mirrors those of individual goals ­ Differences ­ Team- versus individual-level goals ­ Team goals should not conflict with individual goals ­ Mechanism – collective efficacy ­ Team attraction WITHIN TEAM PROCESSES WITHIN TEAM PROCESSES Behavioral processes - communication ­ Amount (+) ­ Nature of task as a moderator ­ high (++) vs low (+) interdependent task ­ Task-related (+) versus task-unrelated (-) ­ All members participate (+) WITHIN TEAM PROCESSES Affective/cognitive processes ­ Team cohesiveness (+) – degree to which the members of a team are attracted to the team and place a high value on team membership ­ Interpersonal-based – attraction to team based largely on how much they like other members and enjoy their company ­ May sometimes hurt performance ­ E.g., fraternity ­ Task-based – attraction to team is based largely on the attraction to the task that the team is performing ­ Much stronger relationship ­ E.g., football team, girl/boybands ­ Collective efficacy (+) ­ Belief in team’s ability à better coordination/communication WITHIN TEAM PROCESSES Affective/cognitive processes ­ Conflict management (+) ­ Sources ­ Level ­ Task related versus emotion related
Purchase answer to see full attachment