Topic Summary: Groups and Teams Topic summary learning goals 1.

Recognize the difference between a group and a team. 2. Explain factors that lead to effective groups and teams. 3. Describe group and team norms and their development. 4. Identify different types of teams and give an example of each. 5. Describe group and team decisions making processes and barriers to decisionmaking processes. Key terms Brainstorming Common knowledge effect Decision-making process Delphi technique Group development Group polarization Groupthink Homogenous team Heterogeneous team Maintenance norms Mental models Nominal group technique Norms Psychological safety Punctuated equilibrium Roles Shared mental models Social loafing Task norms Team Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSAs) Virtual teams

Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams

Introduction to Groups and Teams Teams and groups are the basic unit by which organizations accomplish goals and coordinate work. Most researchers make a distinction between groups and teams. Groups refer to a collection of individuals who may interact, but do not share similar goals or interdependence. Group processes refer to the interpersonal, social, and psychological dynamics that occur during human interaction. Members of a team, in contrast, hold interdependent roles and goals. They share interdependence and hold responsibility for specific outcomes. Teams also typically fit within and must conform to a wider organizational structure that includes reporting to the same manager, sharing a common identity, and holding relatively stable membership (Sundstrom et al, 1990; p. 7-9). Despite the many differences between the two, whether working in a group or a team, both involve complex emotional dynamics. Membership in a group or a team creates ambiguity and often results in anxiety. Anxiety emerges as group members struggle to deal with the ambiguity. Anxiety emerges as group members struggle to answer questions like: What role should I play? What is an appropriate level of commitment to the task we face? What is an appropriate level of intimacy between members? What tension exists over what members are thinking and feeling about me and my performance? (Bennis & Shepard, 1956). In both groups and teams, three sets of factors relate to effectiveness. Context and support factors, internal factors, and the desired organizational outcomes.

Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams

Figure 1: Factors for effective group and teamwork

Context and composition Type of team Coaching and support Team composition and roles Knowledge, skills and abilities

Internal team factors Norms Development Decision making processes

Desired outcomes Learning and improvement Customer service Project completion Management

Context and composition Types of teams and their desired outcomes Organizations turn to groups and teams to accomplish tasks that a single person can achieve working alone. Organizations rely on groups and teams to achieve several different types of outcomes like improving overall performance, increasing effectiveness, and completing projects, or managing ongoing processes. Depending on the desired outcome, organizations might rely on and implement a different type of team. Many types of teams exist. Management teams conduct planning, policy-making, budgeting, staffing, and coordinating activities for organizations. Most management teams also share responsibility for managing subordinates. Executive teams and corporate boards are two common types of management teams. Project teams, often called task forces or short term project teams, share a specific, time bound purpose. Project teams usually have narrowly defined goals and are

Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams

single minded in their pursuit of these goals. An organization might rely on a project team for designing a new product, writing a new soft ware package, filming a movie, or constructing a new building. Action and performance teams also focus on conducting single performance events. Action and performance teams require a higher degree of coordination and specialized skills do to the complex nature, of the task they perform. Cockpit crews, military and geographical expeditions, and professional musicians qualify as action and performance teams. Production teams focus on production or operations of existing products. Production teams typically involve improving performance by improving effectiveness and efficiency of ongoing operations including production. A similar type of team, called a service teams responds to the ongoing needs of customers such as airline flight attendants, customer services teams, and maintenance teams. Some teams may have characteristics of several different types of teams. In addition, individuals may be members of several different teams simultaneously. For example, organizations form parallel teams to work on special projects of short duration. Membership in a parallel team coincides with membership with other work arrangements such as the case with advisory committees and quality assurance teams (Sundstrom et al, 1990). The specific purpose of the group or team will determine what outcomes the organization expects. Groups often form in organizations with the sole purpose of helping improve learning or the development of its members, with little regard to outcomes within the organization. Other times, groups and teams form to help accomplish specific organization goals.

Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams

Coaching and support Organizations can design systems and supports to improve the work of groups and teams. Coaching, has achieved increasing popularity. Three major types of coaching exist. Process coaching improves interpersonal relationships between members. Behavioral coaching helps to change the behavior and assumptions of the specific members. Developmental coaching occurs when an intervention is tailored to the particular developmental stage of the group or team. In addition to coaching, organizations often rely on reward systems, such as compensation and recognition programs, designed to improve group and team work. Organizations also support group and team work by increasing the degree of self-management, which is the degree of autonomy that the team has over its task (Hackman & Wageman, 2005). Composition and roles Composition describes the make-up of the group or team members. Research shows that when an individual group or team member holds a distinct view of their role on the team, innovation and ability to perform improves (Swann, Polzer, Seyle, & Ko, 2004; Polzer, Milton, & Swann, 2002). This evidence suggests that the degree and type of diversity matters for performance. Gender, education level, functional specialty, and age are some key characteristics for group and team diversity. Simply stated, a group or team can be either homogenous, where members are more similar on these key characteristics or heterogeneous, where members are characterized by a greater degree of difference. Another important factor related to composition are the formal and informal roles within the group or team. Roles refer to the division of labor, skill, and skills among

Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams

members. Roles relate to group and team composition as they describe the unique activity, competency, knowledge, or preferences that each individual demonstrates. While the list of potential roles is exhaustive, generally roles full fill either an internal or external purposes. For example, external roles can focus on managing boundaries between the team and its environment and internal roles focus on how the group or team functions (Ancona, 1990). Knowledge, skills, and abilities One dimension of composition proves of particular importance: the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the members. Many organizations expect their employees to work in a group or team, but may over-estimate the ability of individuals to successfully work together. Organizations may believe that effective group or teamwork simply emerges naturally. However, research shows that successful group and team work requires members who hold knowledge, skills, and abilities specific to teamwork. In other words, teamwork is itself a competency that can be learned (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003). Some of the competencies that individual team members can bring to a team include conflict resolution, problem solving, communication, goal-setting and task performance, planning and task coordination (Stevens and Campion, 1994; Stevens and Campion, 1999). Internal team factors Norms Norms describe the patterns of interaction within a group or team, the specific rules of the game to which members must adhere. There are many different types of norms. It is often difficult to detect norms because most people look at individual behavior rather than the more abstract patterns associated with group or team activity, but

Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams

with careful observation, these patterns of interaction become more obvious. In some cases, norms can be observed. For example, do members show up on time for meetings or do they show flexibility over when members arrive? Other norms can be more complex, for example, do members share authority or is there a power struggle within the group or team. Whether norms are simple or complex, norms serve an important social and psychological function by setting limits of acceptable or unacceptable behavior, creating predictable environments, setting expectations for members, facilitating the achievement of group goals, forming a common identity, and determining the boundaries of group and team membership (Brown, 2000 p. 64). Two types of norms exist. Interpersonal norms, often called maintenance norms, reflect the interpersonal aspects of group and team life such as conflict, emotional awareness, and social interactions. Task norms reflect more specifically aspects of group and team life directed towards work and accomplishing organizational goals (Feldman, 1984). Development of norms Five stages of group development Groups and teams establish norms early in their life cycle. A predictable pattern of interaction begins to emerge within the first 5 minutes of the members coming together for the first time. Norms, however, change over time as the group or team develops. Group and team development describes the life cycle and the process whereby norms develop and change over time in a progressive fashion. Perhaps the most widely known models of group and development is Tuckmans (1965) five stage model of group development. Since Tuckman largely concerned himself with self-development groups,

Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams

we refer specifically to group development, even though psychologists largely agree, that both groups and teams need to progress through a relatively predictable sequence of psychological changes to reach their potential. Each stage presents the group with a challenge. When the group successfully works through each stage, they move onto a progressively more challenging phase. In the first phase, called forming stage, the group works through issues of dependency and ambiguity. Behavior is polite and conflict avoided or held to a minimum. Members begin to consider the capabilities and personalities of each group member as individuals search for their place in the group. In the storming stage, group members begin negotiating for authority and dealing with conflict. Conflict may become pronounced as members seek an acceptable level of conflict. The storming stage marks an important developmental milestone because in the group successfully moves through storming, the groups members learn to deal with conflict. Some groups may never leave the storming stage, dooming the group to high levels of unresolved conflict. If the group is successful at navigating the storming stage, it progresses to the norming stage. In the norming stage, the group begins to lay the groundwork for a productive work environment. Members agree upon work procedures, interpersonal dynamics, and individual roles become mutually agreed upon. During the performing stage, which follows the norming stage, the group acquires the ability to take action on the agreed upon goals, begins to improve its working relationships and can adjust and learn in the face of changes, obstacles, and setbacks. Once a group successfully navigates the first four stages of group development, members

Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams

will accept individual differences, reserve conflict for task rather than emotional issues, reach consensus through rational discussion rather than an attempt at unanimity, be aware of group dynamics, share acceptable levels of anxiety, and hold greater awareness of others individual expectations and goals (Bennis and Shepard, 1956). Finally, in the adjouring stage, group norms are characterized by the realization that the group itself will come to an end. The group often has a sense of fulfillment, pride, and or even euphoria as members seek to hold positive feelings about the groups experiences (Tuckman, & Jensen, 1977). Two stage model of group development The five-stage model describes how psychological norms develop within a group or team. A second model, the punctuated equilibrium model, considers how project time constraints trigger changes in productivity (Gersick, 1991). The punctuated equilibrium model recognizes two primary phases of group and team development, which are separated by a midpoint transition. In the first phase, behaviors are marked by low productivity and the search for direction. A midpoint transition separates the first and second phase. The midpoint occurs near or at the halfway point of the project lifecycle. In the second phase, behaviors become more task directed and behaviors are focused on achieving a higher level of productivity. In this second phase, the members experience a burst of activity as it redefines its basic processes and direction. This new level of productivity is marked by renewed vigor and inertia towards completing the designated task. In the final push towards finishing its project, activity accelerates as the group or team focuses on meeting external expectations and seeks closure (Gersick, 1988).

Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams

------------------The punctuated equilibrium model of group development: set as figure ----------------Decision making processes The steps taken by a group or team to generate choices, choosing among these choices, and taking actions is the decision making process. Decision-making requires the group or team to coordinate among members to complete work, learn, and accomplish goals. Team and group decision-making can occur face to face or virtually, mediated by technology or distance. Team processes refer to the varied activities of team decision making, coordinating, and planning. Many types of group and team processes exist, we focus on three brainstorming, nominal group and Delphi technique. When brainstorming, all members work together in a face-to-face meeting. They strive to generate as many ideas as possible, holding evaluation for each idea until after the session is complete. The following rules guide brainstorming processes. No criticism can be offered towards an idea until after the brainstorming session is complete. The group or team should approach all ideas with an open mind. The group or team generates as many ideas as possible (quantity over quality is key), and everyone is encouraged to build upon or improve on each idea (see Sutton & Hargadon, 1996) Similar to brainstorming, in the nominal technique, the group or team sets out to generate an idea or solution to a problem, but with the nominal technique each individual member conducts much of the work independently rather than working face to face. The process begins with each member in a face-to -ace meeting where they learn about the particular issue to be addressed. Once the entire membership is familiar with the issue,

Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams

10

then each member works independently for 10 to 15 minutes to generate a solution or idea about how to address the issue. After the individual session, members return to the collective setting where each individual member, in turn, presents his or her idea aloud to other members. During this time, the members discuss, refines, and build on each idea. The final step may involve a ranking of each idea as a way to select the best ideas (Van de Ven & Delbecq, 1971). The Delphi technique provides a more structured alternative to brainstorming and nominal technique. It requires more directive involvement from a team leader. The team leader collects ideas, distributes the ideas to the team and collects a response, usually through a formal questionnaire. The Delphi technique works well when membership is geographically dispersed but because the leader serves as the intermediary, the Delphi technique limits direct interaction between team members. Several variations of the Delphi, nominal, and brainstorming methods exist (Van de Ven & Delbecq, 1974). Contemporary issues in groups and teams An emerging factor, proving to be quite important for building group and team performance is psychological safety, the shared belief among members that the environment within the team or group is safe for interpersonal risk-taking (Edmondson, 1999: p 354). When a group or team has strong norms of psychological safety, the members stand willing to trust and respect each other in the context of the team itself, not just between individuals. In groups and teams with high degrees of psychological safety team members are more likely to tell other members about mistakes, express ideas that are different from other members, express multiple points of views, challenge a point of

Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams

11

view even if that point of view is held by a powerful person such as a leader or a dominate person. Globally dispersed groups and teams, the impact of multi national organizations, and cross-cultural membership provide new challenges for the contemporary organization. For example, groups and teams composed of members from different cultures need to understand how to work together. For example, learning, the processes by which groups and teams gather, process, share, and take action on information (Kayes, Kayes, & Kolb, 2005) as well as time orientation, how people perceive past, present, and future, varies across cultures. Understanding how learning and time orientation may differ among different members can improve effectiveness of group and teamwork in a multinational context (Zellmer-Bruhn & Gibson, 2006; Rico, Sanchez-Manzanares, Gil, & Gibson, 2007). With increasing globalization, a geographically distributed work force, and unique work arrangements, like working from home, organizations increasingly rely on virtual teams to accomplish work. Virtual teams use information technology to accomplish work. Not only do contemporary organizations rely on virtual teams to improve work effectiveness, they also contribute to cost savings as organizations can avoid travel and other expenses associated with face-to-face work. The concept of virtual teams has become popular as nearly 60 % of all professional workers report working in virtual teams (Martins, Gilson, & Maynard, 2004). Virtual teams often encounter problems because members havent met or dont interact on a regular basis. Psychological safety becomes even more important in virtual teams. Some of the problems encountered by virtual teams can be overcome by proper

Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams

12

training, keeping a strategic focus, and preparing the team for the unique experience of working virtually. (Rosen, First, Blackburn, 2006).

Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams

13

Text box materials OB Feature: Barriers to effective group and teamwork Certain types of processes and norms foster improved decision-making and lead to successful outcomes for group and teamwork. Psychological safety, conflict management, and interpersonal understanding improve performance. Other types of processes and norms foster poor decision making and serve as barriers to effective group and teamwork. Researchers have identified a number of barriers to effective group and teamwork. Here are four barriers to effective group and teamwork. Groupthink Irving Janis (1972; 1982), a psychologist interested in improving decisions in business and public policy settings, noticed a trend in several disasters. He reviewed decision-making process in situations like the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion, the US war in Vietnam, and the decision by US President John Kennedy US to invade the Bay of Pigs in Cuba. Janis concluded that in these and other cases, the groups advising the policy makers quickly moved toward agreement and consensus. At the same time, critical thinking in the groups disintegrated. Due to real and felt pressure from other members of the group, dissenting individuals, those that disagreed with the group as a whole, kept quite and hesitated from challenging the dominant view point of the group. Janis called this situation, where peer pressure stifles critical thinking and groups move toward consensus, groupthink. Groups that fall victim to groupthink share several characteristics: 1. Sharing an illusion that the group is invulnerable. This feeling of invulnerability entices groups to be overconfident and anticipate that all their decisions will be successful.

Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams

14

2. Discrediting of opposing viewpoints without engaging in critical reflection of views counter to their own. 3. Justifying their action on questionable moral principles such as the ends justify the means. 4. Characterizing all who disagree with position as evil. 5. Sensoring or ostracizing members of the group who do not conform to the dominant viewpoint. 6. Identify someone in the team who will play the role of mindguard - a person who seeks to insolate the team from opposing opinions (Janis, 1982). Common-knowledge effect Another effect that interferes with good group and team process is something called the common-knowledge effect, which describes the tendency of group and team members to share information that is known by other members rather than share unique information held only the individual. The common knowledge effect limits effectiveness because unique insights or knowledge held by individual members are not factored into decisions making and action is guided by limited information (Gigone & Hastie, 1993). Peer pressure and the polarization Groups and teams also tend to make riskier decisions or more conservative decisions than individuals working alone -- something referred to as the polarization effect. In a classic study conducted by Solomon Asch (1956; see also Bond & Smith, 1996), he observed that when others pressured an individual group member, the group member was more likely to conform to the groups opinion, even when the opinion

Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams

15

appeared obviously wrong. The studies showed that group conformity pressures can lead groups to making less than prime decisions. The polarization effect describes how peer pressure may encourage decision making that is either more risky or more conservative than individuals making the decision alone. Thus, group and team decisions tend to be polarized, either more conservative or more risky, than an individual decision. Social loafing and the free-rider effect Social loafing and the free-rider effect describe a phenomenon where an individual within a group or team exerts less effort and performs at a lower level than the individual would if he or she were working alone. Social loafing occurs when only a few or a single members the group take responsibility for accomplishing the work of the entire team, thus, certain individuals loaf or exert less effort than others on the group or team (George, 1992). The free-rider effect describes how an individual relies on other group members to do the majority of work, thus taking a free ride while other members carry the workload (Albanese & Van Fleet, 1985).

Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams

16

OB at work: Teamwork skills help a television news producer get the story When Brian Weiss took his first Organizational Behavior course, he never imagined he would put it to use on the job so quickly. As one of the youngest producers at Bloomberg TV, he produced a program called Money and Politics. In leading his team, he relied on his skills as a news professional to make, gather and deliver the news. The growing company often relied on young and ambitious college graduates, like Brian to lead their productions. He was 24 years old. Even in his short time as producer, he had mastered the complex technical and logistical side of TV production. Producing regular television programming required more than just knowledge of the news, it required knowledge of how to build and maintain a team. In one case, he pulled together a production team just a few hours before a going live at a remote location. He hired a local camera-operator and audio specialist as well as a lighting expert. In addition he needed to make sure that his on camera reporter stayed dry as it poured down rain. In addition to his local crew, a remote team of technicians and producers sat in a production room in downtown New York City. Building a team quickly across a geographically distributed area and keeping the diverse roles working together proved essential to getting the story. Brian realized intuitively how teamwork contributed to getting his story on the air, but learning more about teamwork confirmed his ability to build a team. For example, Brian knew that in the time critical television news business there is no time to sugar

Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams

17

coat words. I needed to express urgency and be forceful enough to be sure that things happened immediately. At the same time, he always knew not to shout or make the team members cynical, or make anybody angry. Learning about teamwork in his organizational behavior class only reaffirmed what Brian understood intuitively, that effective teamwork requires trust among members, especially between the leader and the rest of the team. At the same time, in a live situation, the broadcast culture accepts that you might frustrate in the moment, but you can apologize later. So even if the team is frustrated in the short term, the team continues to function in working towards its goal of getting the shot onto television sets around the world. Concepts from the research on teamwork helped Brian understand more clearly that the success of a team relies on two distinct, yet related abilities. First, the team must be able to effectively perform its task. In the case of the television news crew, his team needed to understand the complex technical aspects live television news. Just as important, the news crew had to coordinate its skills, keep focused in the face of many distractions, and maintain good working relationships in the high stress environment of television news. Concepts from organizational behavior helped Brian build and maintain stronger teams that lead to getting the story on air.

Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams

18

Spotlight on Research: Do groups and teams share common characteristics? Recent research suggests that groups and teams share some common characteristics. A team of researchers created an experiment where they asked twentyfive different groups to create an advertisement for a fictional airline. The researchers recorded the 40-minute sessions and then observed the team processes. They kept in mind the two development processes described in this chapter: the progressive psychological development model and external constraints punctuated equilibrium model. The researchers paid special attention to statements that reflected task related statements. They found two types of task related statements consistent with the punctuated equilibrium model. This included action statements, such as references to how the team would accomplish their goals, when they might accomplish a certain aspect of the task or discussion of specific resources. Another type of task related statements included content statements about the ads themselves, such as references to format of the ad, specific details, or how to present the ad to fictional customers. The researchers also observed the teams reference various psychological processes related to psychological consistent with Tuckmans model of group development. These included processes associated with groups such as dependency and counter-dependency, as well as statements that suggested the group members were directly avoiding task or aspects of work that were critical of the task. Taken together the groups made statements about both the task, consistent with behavior in teams, but they also made statements about psychological factors typically associated with groups. After complete analysis of the team meetings, the researchers explained that both group and team dynamics exist in teams. The researchers found that, not surprisingly, the

Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams

19

teams spent as much as 80 % of their time on task related activities and far less time on psychological or social dynamics. At most, during any one time, teams spent no more than 25 % of their time on psychological issues, an in most cases less than 10 % of their efforts were focused on psychological issues. None the less, the researchers observed that many of the teams did change their patterns of interaction at the midpoint, just as the punctuated equilibrium model suggested, but the teams spent much of their time before the first half discussion issues like leadership, work allocation and flow. During the second half, teams focused more on the specific content of the commercial they were developing. From this evidence, the researchers instruct teams to consider both group elements and team elements when working on a project. Early in the life cycle, the team can establish leadership, identify workflow, and determine process. Addressing the psychological issues up front helps the team develop a strong psychological foundation, which then allows the team to focus more directly on its task in the second half. Groups that fail to deal with the psychological dynamics early on in group life may return to these issues as the project develops, wasting crucial time as the project nears completion. *Based on an article by Chang, A. , Bordia, P. , & Duck, J. (2003). Punctuated equilibrium and linear progression: toward a new understanding of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 1, 106-117.

Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams

20

References Albanese, R. & Van Fleet, D. D. 1985. Rational behavior in groups: The free-riding tendency. Academy of Management Review, 10, 244-255. Ancona, A. G. , 1990. Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 2, 334-365. Asch, S. E. 1956. Studies of independence and conformity: A. minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70, 9, 416. Bennis, W. G. & Shepard, H. A. 1956. A Theory of group development. Human Relations, 9, 415-437. Bond, R. , & Smith. P. B. , 1996. Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Aschs (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 1, 111-137. Brown, R. 2000. Group processes: dynamics within and between groups. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Druskat, V. U. , & Wheeler, J. V. 2003. Managing the boundary: The effective leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 4, 46, 435-457. Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 2, 350-383. Feldman, D. C. 1984. The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management Review, 9, 1, 47-53. George, J. M. 1992. Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 191-202. Gigone, D. , & Hastie, R. 1993. The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 5, 959-974. Gersick, C. J. G. 1991. Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16, 1, 10-36. Gersick, C. J. G. 1988. Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 1, 9-41. Hackman, J. R. , & Wageman, R. 2005. A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management Review, 30, 2, 269-287. Janis, I. L. 1982. Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Cengage.

Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams

21

Janis, I. L. 1972. Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascos. Houghton Mifflin Company. Kayes, A. B. , Kayes, D. C. , & Kolb, D. A. 2005. Experiential learning in teams. Simulation and Gaming, 36, 3, 330-354. Martins, L. L. , Gilson, L. L. , & Maynard, M. T. 2004. Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 6, 805-835. Polzer, J. T. , Milton, L. P. , Swann, W. B. 2002. Capitalizing on Diversity: Interpersonal congruence in small work groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 296-324. Rico, F. Sanchez-Manzanares, M., Gil, F. Gibson, C. 2007. Team implicit coordination processes: A team knowledge-based approach. Academy of Management Review, 33, 1, 163-184. Rosen, B. , Furst, S. , & Blackburn, R. 2006. Training for virtual teams: An investigation of current practices and future needs. Human Resource Management, 45, 2, 229-247. Stevens, M. J. , & Campion, M. A. 1994. The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management, 2, 20, 503-530. Stevens, M. J. & Campion, M. A. 1999. Staffing work teams: Development and validation of a selection test for teamwork settings. Journal of Management, 2, 25, 207228. Sundstrom, E. de Meuse, K. P. Futrell, D. 1990. Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 2, 120-133. Sutton, R. I. , & Hargadon, A. 1996. Brainstorming groups in context. Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 685-715. Swann, W. B. , Polzer, J. T. , Seyle, D. C. , Ko, S. J. 2004. Finding value in diversity: Verification of personal and social self-views in diverse groups. Academy of Management Review, 29, 9-27. Tuckman, B. W. , & Jensen, M. A. C. 1977. Stages of small-group development revisited. Group and organization management, 2, 4, 419-427. Tuckman, B. W. 1965. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 6, 63, 384-399.

Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams

22

Van de Ven, A. , & Delbecq, A. L. 1971. Nominal versus interacting group processes for committee decision-making effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 14, 2, 203212. Van de Ven, A. , & Delbecq, A. L. 1974. The effectiveness of nominal, Delphi and interacting group decision making processes. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 4, 605-621. Zellmer-Bruhn, M. , & Gibson, C. 2006. Multinational organization context: Implications for team learning and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 3, 501-518.

Contemporary OB in Action Topic Summary : Groups and Teams

23