Article review Curseu et al.

(2010) study is to combine the insights from team diversity literature and social network research to evaluate the practical method for effective team formation and design. They introduced a new team design strategy called team-dating by exploring the significant role of reciprocal relation preference on teamwork quality and group collective complexity. By investigating the team diversity literature they found that studies really emphasis on human capital for team performance and quality and the literatures argue that by maximising diversity in teamwork the performance and quality is increased. However, the significant results of Curseu et al. (2010) show that teamwork quality and performance is much higher in team-dating team rather than maximising the team diversity. The high performance of teamwork is highly depends on knowledge integration, where in team-dating team knowledge integration is more effective than attribute-based team. The results also indicate that team process and group potency are dramatically effective in groups created on the basis of relational data than groups formed on the basis of team diversity. Some literature argue that team diversity has positively influence on team performance, particularly in elaboration of task relevant information, Curseu et al. (2010) acknowledge that team diversity is beneficial for teams collective complexity, but only through horizontal differentiation within team. The results also indicates a moderate negative links between nationality and team-dated team formation strategy which is against of Krackhardt and Stern (1998) result which states that maximising of friendship tie leads to team performance. The second article by Finn et al. (2010) investigates to bring together the disparate arguments within organisation studies and medical sociology to consider how macro-professional institution and local-organisation context interact to shape teamwork within the public service professional bureaucracy. Their findings through two case studies suggest that team emerges in constructing ways either reproduced or transformed the professional institution. If there are capabilities, shared role expectations beyond the traditional structures, couple with strong historical working relationships can meet firm challenges then the transformation is occurred, and reconfiguration in professional relationship is enhanced. In contrast, in absence of those synthesis facilities contexts, there is institutional reproduction bounded by traditional structure. According to Finn et al. (2010,p.6) findings the (re)production of institutions is not a mere reflection of top-down forces, but rests upon the continual institutional work of local-level actors with differential access to power which is opposite of the government initiative top-down push. However, Finn et al. (2010) found that teamwork shaped by particular historical conditions already in place before its introduction, while literature by Cohen et al. (1996) emphasis on supportive managerial interventions required alongside the

introduction of teamwork. Finn et al. (2010) supported the idea that in existing relationship team is effectively integrated, and emerging in a way to transform the professional institution. On the other hand, Curseu et al. (2010) conform the Cohen et al. (1996) suggestion that preexisting relationship may not form effective teamwork and requires more managerial mediations.

The third study by Handy (2010) is to examine the role of different work group mandates (craft versus management- initiated) and different contexts of work group functioning (unionization, abusive management, and minority concentration). He focuses on the goal of understanding the mechanisms behind why some work group settings produce positive consequences for team member and other settings yield negative outcomes. The experience in craft and management-initiated (MI) is better then traditional Bureaucratic settings (TBS). However, job satisfaction and pride in work in craft compare to MI is even more favourable which lead to employee outcome as in MI employees have less power. Obtaining greater effort and peer training is better in craft than TBS and MI as in MI there are many variables that affect the productivity of employees. For instance, union power in MI increase job satisfaction and efforts, while in non-union condition MI performs very poorly. In non-union settings in MI the possibility of poor peer training leads to effort decreasing which is resulted from abusive management, while in craft the effective power balance in both union and nonunion settings that goal of both employee interest and product quality is achieved. The exclusive objection in craft is that minority work group has more effect on pride in work than majority work group, due to awareness to achieve more experience of work quality. Overall, the greater effort and experience can be obtained by power balancing though employees rights and interests, thus it is craft that meet the requirements. Missing the power balance facilitates the abuse setting which is seen in TBS.