9
Groups 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.
257
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 257
4/20/17 5:36 PM
The Importance of Groups and Teams
Section 9.1
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. Consider the following example.
A large agricultural manufacturing company decides to update its GPSenabled precision farming products with a revolutionary new color touchscreen 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, including 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 established 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 organizations 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 characteristics 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 individually would have made no difference? Explain.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 258
4/20/17 5:36 PM
The Importance of Groups and Teams
Section 9.1
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 independent 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 promote the success of the school and its students,
and most will work together from time to time,
especially when dealing with changes or challenges. 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
iStockphoto/Thinkstock
teams. Interdependence is the key: Members Although the terms group and team
of work teams are truly unable to achieve their are often used interchangeably, they
goals by themselves and must rely on the skills, are not the same. Teams require
expertise, information, and resources of other interdependence, relying on the skills,
team members. Teams exist to accomplish goals expertise, knowledge, and resources of
that require collective responsibility. In other each member to achieve a shared goal.
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
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 259
4/20/17 5:36 PM
Developing Teams
Section 9.2
teachers, school professionals (counselor, nurse, psychologist, etc.), one or more administrators, 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, collaborate 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 increasingly 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. Furthermore, 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 important 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.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 260
4/20/17 5:36 PM
Developing Teams
Section 9.2
Types of Teams
Different types of teams are better suited to working on different types of tasks. Five common 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 complex 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 electromechanical 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 transition 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 performance. 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 processes 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).
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 261
4/20/17 5:36 PM
Section 9.2
Developing Teams
Manager-Led Teams
The most common type of team is the traditional 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 managerled 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 manager has maximum control over team members
Roy Delgado/CartoonStock
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 integrated 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. Additionally, 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 professionals, 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 crossfunctional 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 understand 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
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 262
4/20/17 5:36 PM
Section 9.2
Developing Teams
have to report to at least two leaders: the team leader and their functional department leaders. 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 priorities, 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 recommend 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 transitioned 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 productivity. 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.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 263
4/20/17 5:36 PM
Developing Teams
Section 9.2
Virtual Teams
Virtual teams are groups of individuals who
work across time, space, and organizational
boundaries and interact primarily through electronic 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 physically 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.
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.
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 productivity. 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-toface 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 messaging, 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 inappropriate 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 teamwork, 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 differences, 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 effectiveness. 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 environment) 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
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 264
4/20/17 5:36 PM
Section 9.2
Developing Teams
setting, performance management, reward allocation, coaching, and feedback were not as
effective in the virtual environment; they needed to adjust their methods to effectively manage 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 processes, 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.
Questions to Consider
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 distribution 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.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 265
4/20/17 5:36 PM
Developing Teams
Section 9.2
• Stage 3: Norming. In the norming stage, the team begins to structure itself by establishing 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 (getting 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 opportunities. 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 relationships they can build on in the future.
Teams must address each stage effectively, or they risk having to go back and deal with unresolved 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 example, 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 development. 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 “snapshot” 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 interventions 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 highresolution video capture of the richness and dynamism of these situations.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 266
4/20/17 5:36 PM
Effectiveness of Teams
Section 9.3
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 moderately 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 emergence,” 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 matter 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 determines 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 effectiveness 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 heuristic for understanding team effectiveness (McGrath, 1964).
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 267
4/20/17 5:36 PM
Section 9.3
Effectiveness of Teams
Figure 9.1: Input-process-outcome model of team effectiveness
Inputs
Team design
design
· Task
Team
size
· Composition
· - Personality of team
- Personality
- Cognitive ability
- Demographics
Context variables
system
· Reward
Management
· Culture support
·
Processes
sharing
· Information
conflict
· Group
Goal
setting
· Team efficacy
· Shared mental models
·
Effectiveness
· Performance
· Efficiency
· Member satisfaction
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 organizational 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 characteristics model could explain team member motivation and effectiveness.
Like individual tasks, team tasks are more motivating if they possess the five job-design characteristics: 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 organization. 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 characteristics 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 workers 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.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 268
4/20/17 5:36 PM
Section 9.3
Effectiveness of Teams
Personality
Personality has been found to have an effect on both individual employee and team performance. Although all of the Big Five personality variables (extraversion, conscientiousness,
agreeableness, openness to experience, and emotional stability) have shown some relationship to team performance, agreeableness and emotional stability show the strongest relationship (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 challenge each other sufficiently to explore new options. Team members with low levels of agreeability, on the other hand, may have too much conflict, which can be dysfunctional. A moderate 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 negative 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 buffers the harmful effects of relationship conflict on teamwork quality.
Figure 9.2: Inverted-U-shaped relationship between team performance and
agreeableness
High
Performance
Best Performance
Area of best
performance
Low agreeability
Low
High agreeability
Agreeableness
High
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 269
4/20/17 5:36 PM
Section 9.3
Effectiveness of Teams
In addition to Big Five personality characteristics, two other personality traits have an important 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, organization, or method has yet been established, people who have a low tolerance for ambiguity 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 independence 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
Questions to Consider
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 Chapter 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 members 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 effectiveness. 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 demographic 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
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 270
4/20/17 5:36 PM
Effectiveness of Teams
Section 9.3
shown to have a nonlinear relationship with organizational performance, moderated by two
dimensions of the organization’s strategy: entrepreneurial orientation and risk taking (Richard, 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 culturally 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).
Rawpixel Ltd/iStock/Thinkstock
Culturally diverse teams profit from
increased creativity, effectiveness, and
satisfaction.
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 taskrelated 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 diversity 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 environments, 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, overemphasizing 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. Leaders 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 coordination. 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.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 271
4/20/17 5:36 PM
Effectiveness of Teams
Section 9.3
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 & Shapiro, 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 success and goals of the individual, so teams can be more challenging to implement. In individualistic 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, authority, 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 autonomy and task ambiguity inherent in the team work concept.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 272
4/20/17 5:36 PM
Section 9.3
Effectiveness of Teams
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 outspoken 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 frivolous 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 specific 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 compromise 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 teamtraining programs include segments with the specific goal of enhancing team cohesion (Healy,
Milbourne, Aaronson, & Errichetti, 2004). It is surprising, then, that research does not definitively support this belief. A classic study by Schachter and his associates (Schachter, Ellertson,
McBride, & Gregory, 1951) revealed an interesting set of relationships between team cohesion and performance. Cohesion was associated with higher productivity when the environment 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 environments, 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
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 273
4/20/17 5:36 PM
Effectiveness of Teams
Section 9.3
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 performance, 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 setting, 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 member calling another for help while working on an individual component of the project), communication will positively impact team performance (Barry & Stewart, 1997). If a team member 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 diversity (using members who represent a variety of educational backgrounds, experiences, tenure, 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 detrimental 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 competition (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 2000).
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 274
4/20/17 5:36 PM
Effectiveness of Teams
Section 9.3
Collective Efficacy
Effective teams believe in themselves and have confidence they will be successful, a characteristic 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 execute 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 organizations, 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 characteristics 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 individuals (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.
Dave Carpenter/CartoonStock
Shared Mental Models
Much recent attention has been paid to the ability of team members to apply a shared understanding of how the team’s work will be done. Teams that are able to construct shared mental 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.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 275
4/20/17 5:36 PM
Section 9.3
Effectiveness of Teams
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 contributions 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.
Questions to Consider
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Define and create interdependencies.
Establish goals.
Determine how teams will make decisions.
Provide clear and constant feedback.
Keep team membership stable.
Allow team members to challenge the status quo.
Learn how to identify and attract talent.
Use team-based reward systems.
Create a learning environment.
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
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 276
4/20/17 5:36 PM
Effectiveness of Teams
Section 9.3
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 information 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 performance 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, recruitment, 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 compares some of these models in the following article.
Comparative Analysis of the Korn/Ferry T7 Model
A
With Other Popular Team Models
Questions to Consider
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?
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 277
4/20/17 5:36 PM
Decision Making in Teams
Section 9.4
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 members, 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 consuming 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 positions 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. Discussion can prompt individuals to generate more and more information in support of their preferred 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.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 278
4/20/17 5:36 PM
Decision Making in Teams
Section 9.4
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 groupthink. 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 ingroup 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 failures 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 victim to groupthink (see Figure 9.3). Teams with
high cohesiveness are more likely to experience
groupthink, as are those with members who
NASA
place a high value on consensus and a need for Groupthink has contributed to some
approval. Such teams make a collective effort to of the most damaging decision-making
rationalize and discount potential warning signs. failures in American history, including
Additionally, teams that isolate themselves from the 1986 catastrophe involving the
or do not look for conflicting sources of informa- Challenger Space Shuttle.
tion begin to believe that the lack of dissenting
information is proof that their solution is the best one. The most common cause of groupthink, 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 purposefully takes the contrary perspective.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 279
4/20/17 5:36 PM
Section 9.4
Decision Making in Teams
Figure 9.3: Groupthink
Warning signs of groupthink
orality. Belief in gro
up
up m
imm
gro
n
i
un
f
e
i
ity
l
.
Be
+
Stressful
decision
making
of personal conce
rns
ction
or
stri
e
do
. R
ub
g
ts.
ll in
e
Biased
leaders
Inaccessibility
t among g
roup
reemen
l ag
m
e
tota
mb
er
s.
Group
unity
f in
lie
Be
Precursors of groupthink
=
Faulty
decision making
ational filters.
Inform
Jus
re.
tif
y
i
ssu
n
g.
pre
La
er
b
Pe
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.
Each of these techniques legitimizes the value of disagreement in the decision-making process 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 members 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
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 280
4/20/17 5:36 PM
When Teams Are a Bad Idea
Section 9.5
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 inefficient 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 brainstorming. This method is 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. 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 conform is limited, because members work independently. And third, because ideas are presented 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 situations, teams can be a big mistake. For example, creating cohesive teams takes a considerable 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.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 281
4/20/17 5:36 PM
Collective Positivity: Can Positivity Be Contagious?
Section 9.6
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, technicians, 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 unnecessary 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 organization 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 simple 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 interdependence 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 departments. 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 performance 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 contributors to their teams. Leadership styles also affect team functioning beyond their effects
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 282
4/20/17 5:36 PM
Collective Positivity: Can Positivity Be Contagious?
Section 9.6
on individual performance. For example, although LMX quality (see Chapter 7) is generally
positively related to employee performance at the individual level, bimodal LMX differentiation (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 financial 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, processes, 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 (Bandura, 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 relationships, 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 resiliency 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 necessarily make a resilient team or organization. In fact, the processes leading to individual
resiliency may sometimes be detrimental for groups and organizations. For example, individuals 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.
Questions to Consider
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 contributed 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.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 283
4/20/17 5:36 PM
Summary and Conclusion
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 synergies 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.
Key Terms
brainstorming A process in which team
members attempt to increase the number 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, success, and the needs of the group over individuals’ 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 efficiency, 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.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 284
4/20/17 5:36 PM
Summary and Conclusion
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 distribution 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 manager, who coordinates the people and materials 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 decisions 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 possess complementary skills.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 285
4/20/17 5:37 PM
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 286
4/20/17 5:37 PM
Decision Making, Problem
Solving, and Creativity
8
Rawpixel Ltd/iStock/Thinkstock
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to
• Describe how perceptions affect your judgment of others.
• Compare and contrast rational decision making with bounded rationality.
• List and discuss the common decision-making biases.
• Discuss techniques for improving individual decision making and problem solving.
• Consider how emotions affect decision making and problem solving.
• Explain how positivity impacts creativity and decision making.
231
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_08_c08_231-256.indd 231
4/20/17 5:25 PM
The Importance of Perception
Section 8.1
8.1 The Importance of Perception
Perception is the process people use to bring meaning to their world; it involves organizing
and interpreting the stimuli around us. Objective reality is often much different from perceived reality, however, and one person’s reality may be significantly different from another’s.
Consider this situation: A manufacturing company is merging with another company, giving
it the greatest market share and profitability in the industry. The CEO decides to share this
exciting news with the rest of the company. After a series of presentations in which he makes
a convincing case for the merger and states the positive impact it will have on the company
and its employees, the CEO asks a group of employees for their opinion. The CEO is shocked
to hear the employees make comments such as “I don’t understand why we made this move”
and “In the long-term, this won’t help the company.” The CEO cannot understand why the
employees are not viewing this opportunity as positively as the board of directors and senior
management. What’s going on?
Unfortunately, the CEO failed to realize that the employees’ perceptions of the current merger
were influenced by bad experiences from 2 years earlier, when the CEO decided to roll out a
defective product, the company lost money, and the employees did not receive any pay raises.
It is important that organizations understand perceptions, because perceptions impact workers’ behavior. In the previous example, whether workers accepted or verbally sabotaged the
merger were based on their individual perceptions—not on the CEO’s opinion or the objective reality of the merger’s impact. The world as it is perceived, then, is what matters most.
Components of Perception
Humans receive stimuli through the recognized senses of hearing, sight, touch, smell, and
taste. How, then, can two people who hear or see the same information interpret it so differently? The reason is precisely because they do not really hear and see the same information;
this is due to the difference between sensation and perception. Sensation is the experience
of stimuli’s physical characteristics. On the other hand, perception has three separate components: the characteristics of the perceiver, the target that is being perceived, and the situational context in which the perception is occurring. In order for reality to be perceived, it
must move through a personal filter. As a result, no two people will ever interpret the same
event in exactly the same way. Let’s look at how each component affects perception.
The perceiver is the person who is attending to a target. A person’s interpretation of reality
is based on his or her personal characteristics, including experiences, emotions, motives, values, culture, and physical abilities. Our personal experiences are some of the most significant
influences on perception because they lead us to develop expectations. If, for example, you
worked for a manager who treated you with consideration, mentored you, and helped you
get a promotion, your experience might lead you to trust all organizational leaders and give
them the benefit of the doubt. The reverse might be true if, on the other hand, you worked for
an overbearing, capricious manager who treated you poorly. The perceiver’s emotional and
physical states also affect perception. Generally, people see what they want to see; when in
positive moods, people view targets more positively, and vice versa. Finally, people who are
ill or otherwise physically impaired (forgetting to wear their glasses, for example) will likely
perceive a target differently than they normally would.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_08_c08_231-256.indd 232
4/20/17 5:25 PM
The Importance of Perception
Section 8.1
The target is one of the stimuli to which the perceiver is attending. People are bombarded
with countless stimuli throughout the day, but they consciously perceive only those to which
they actually pay attention. Depending on the stimuli, a target may receive more or less attention from the perceiver. Attractive people (targets), for example, get noticed more than unattractive people, as do high-status targets or targets that share characteristics with or hold
personal interest for the perceiver. Ultimately, the more a person attends to a target, the more
information she will be able to learn about it. However, even close attention is unlikely to
uncover all of a target’s details; the causes of an event or the emotions behind a coworker’s
behavior, for example, often remain hidden. Ambiguity or lack of information about a target
can therefore prompt the perceiver to make additional subjective interpretations about it.
The situation is the context (social, physical, etc.) in which the target is being perceived. Situations can affect whether a target receives any attention and thus whether it is perceived at
all. For example, if you went to a party at the beach and a guest arrived wearing a three-piece
suit instead of a bathing suit, you might think it unusual and observe him closely, wondering
who he is and why he is there. If, on the other hand, you were at a wedding reception and the
same man, dressed in the same suit, walked into the room, you might not even notice he was
sitting at the table next to you. In the first situation, the man’s dress is unusual for the social
context, but in the second, it fits. Thus, even though the target and perceiver in this example
are the same, different perceptions are created by different situations.
Attribution Theory: Perceiving Causes and Motives
Some of the most common perceptions we make are about other people. As mentioned earlier,
we rarely have access to all the information about a target, and this is especially true when the
target is a person. Without complete information, our interpretations of others can never be
perfect. How, then, are we able to make judgments of people? Attribution theory provides a
framework for understanding this process.
Developed by Harold Kelley in 1967, attribution
theory describes how people establish explanations for their own and others’ actions and the
outcomes that arise from them. When we think a
person’s behavior is caused by his or her innate
personal characteristics, we are attributing it
to dispositional, or internal, factors. Conversely,
when we think behavior is caused by factors
outside a person’s control, we are attributing it
monkeybusinessimages/iStock/Thinkstock
to situational, or external, factors. As you might
The woman giving this presentation is
expect, continued experience with the behavthe target for all of the perceivers in her
ior of a target person will increase the amount
audience. The amount of attention paid to
of information we receive to help us determine
her presentation will vary from person to
whether behavior is dispositional or situational
person.
(Kelley, 1973). For example, if a new employee
turns in a very important project late, a manager might attribute this behavior to the person’s
being lazy or disorganized, both internal, or dispositional, characteristics. On the other hand,
if the manager was aware from previous interactions that the employee had been having computer difficulties or that he had trouble getting key information from another department, the
late assignment might instead be attributed to external, or situational, factors.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
you83701_08_c08_231-256.indd 233
4/20/17 5:25 PM
The Importance of Perception
Section 8.1
Let’s look now at the different types of information people gather as they make behavior attributions. According to attribution theory, there are three main sources:
• Consistency. Does the same thing happen every time? Perceptions of a behavior are
based partly on how consistently it is displayed. Think of a rude retail-store clerk.
The more consistent the behavior (customers complain about the clerk every few
weeks), the more likely the observer will attribute the behavior to internal characteristics (the clerk has poor customer service skills). On the other hand, inconsistent behavior (a complaint has never been received about this clerk) is more easily
attributable to external factors (the customer was being difficult and unreasonable).
• Consensus. Would other people act similarly in the same situation? If most people
facing the same or a similar situation respond with the same or similar behavior,
that behavior is said to show consensus. If a sales representative failed to meet her
monthly sales quota, her behavior would show consensus if all of the other representatives also failed to meet their quotas. The high consensus would likely clue the
manager to look for external causes (e.g., slow economy, defective product, ineffective marketing strategy) for the poor sales numbers. Conversely, if the representative
was the only one on the team not to make quota, the manager would likely attribute
the poor performance to the rep’s internal characteristics (e.g., laziness, ineffective
communication skills).
• Distinctiveness. Do other situations and stimuli elicit the same behavior? Behaviors that are uncharacteristic of a specific person are more likely to be attributed
to external causes and vice versa. An employee who often comes to work late but
never has trouble completing projects on time might lead a manager to wonder if
child care arrangements, transportation challenges, or other external factors are
interfering with the employee’s morning commute. If another employee is always
late—arriving at work late, turning in projects late, returning phone calls late, and
so forth—the manager might attribute the behavior as being due to the employee’s
inherent tendency to procrastinate.
In summary, then, low consistency, high consensus, and high distinctiveness tend to lead to
external behavior attributions, whereas high consistency, low consensus, and low distinctiveness tend to lead to internal behavior attributions. Keep in mind that external and internal attributions are, by themselves, neither good nor bad. Depending on the circumstance,
however, the target may think one is more desirabl...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment