Groups and teams
Group:
- Two or more people
- Freely interacting
- Collective norms and goals
- Common identity
- Formal: Formed at work
- Informal: Evolved naturally
Social network:
- Social entities without boundaries
- (Lack of) relations between members
- Social network analysis identifies:
- Star: person with large number of relations
- Isolate: no relations
- Bridge builder: connecting unconnected parts of network
Tuckman’s group development: 5 Stages
1. Forming: Group comes together
2. Storming: Member test the limits and each other (finding role)
3. Norming: Questions about authority and power are resolved -> Group cohesive
4. Performing: Effective communication & co-operation help the group get things done
5. Adjourning: Members go their own way
Evidence about Tuckman’s model:
Group decay: Shifting reverse once performing stage was reached
- De-norming: Group members drift apart
- De-storming: Discontent slowly shows itself, members grow resistance
- De-forming: Group falls apart because of subgroups
Leaders should not be too focused on reaching performing stage -> Not a static equilibrium
Roles: Set of behaviour expected at the job
Role episode: Snapshot of interaction between two people
- Role overload: Too much expectations and too much to do in too little time
- Role conflict: Receiving conflicting role expectations
- Role ambiguity: Receiving unclear role expectations
Task roles: Goal-oriented
Maintenance roles: Relationship-oriented
Norms: Shared attitudes that differentiate appropriate and inappropriate behaviour. Norms
evolve informally and are enforced because they help the group survive.
Develop in four ways:
- Explicitly stated by supervisor
- Critical event in group history
- Primacy -> First behaviour shown in group sets expectations
- Carry-over behaviour from past situations
, Two approaches to determine optimal size:
- Mathematical models -> Ideal size between 3 and 13
- Observing group behaviour
- 3-4 members for high-quality decisions
- Large groups for generating ideas, socialising and participation
- Odd-numbered groups if there is a majority vote -> Prevent deadlocks (Even vote)
Homogeneous vs heterogeneous: Cognitively similar-diverse according to MBTI
- Diversity increases knowledge pool -> Team tasks
- People prefer working with similar people
- Better to concentrate high-ability people in separate groups
Threats to group effectiveness:
- Asch effect: Distortion of judgement by a unanimous but false opposition
- Group think: Putting too much emphasis on unanimity -> Prevented by devil’s
advocate and outside expertise.
- Social loafing: Individual effort declines as group size increases -> Prevented by
making tasks challenging and important, and holding individuals accountable for
results. The stepladder technique can reduce social loafing by increasing personal
effort and accountability.
Team: Small number of people with complementary skills and a common purpose, they have
to interact to achieve shared goals. All team members have well-defined and interdepended
roles and an organisational identity as a team.
Three categories of roles:
- Do roles
- Think roles
- Social roles
Evidence about Belbin’s theory: Little
- Self-perception questionnaire rather than peer ratings -> Subjective
Four types of teams:
- Advice: Committees, low degree of specialisation
- Production: Performing day to day operations, low specialisation
- Project: Problem solving, research, high specialisation
- Action: Sport, entertainment, surgery, military, high specialisation
Ecological model of work team effectiveness: Two effectiveness criteria
- Performance: Satisfying clients
- Viability: Satisfying members so they keep contributing
Characteristics of an effective team: Clear purpose, informality, participation, listening,
civilised disagreement, consensus decisions, open communication, clear roles and work
assignments, shared leadership, external relations, style diversity and self-assessment.
Group:
- Two or more people
- Freely interacting
- Collective norms and goals
- Common identity
- Formal: Formed at work
- Informal: Evolved naturally
Social network:
- Social entities without boundaries
- (Lack of) relations between members
- Social network analysis identifies:
- Star: person with large number of relations
- Isolate: no relations
- Bridge builder: connecting unconnected parts of network
Tuckman’s group development: 5 Stages
1. Forming: Group comes together
2. Storming: Member test the limits and each other (finding role)
3. Norming: Questions about authority and power are resolved -> Group cohesive
4. Performing: Effective communication & co-operation help the group get things done
5. Adjourning: Members go their own way
Evidence about Tuckman’s model:
Group decay: Shifting reverse once performing stage was reached
- De-norming: Group members drift apart
- De-storming: Discontent slowly shows itself, members grow resistance
- De-forming: Group falls apart because of subgroups
Leaders should not be too focused on reaching performing stage -> Not a static equilibrium
Roles: Set of behaviour expected at the job
Role episode: Snapshot of interaction between two people
- Role overload: Too much expectations and too much to do in too little time
- Role conflict: Receiving conflicting role expectations
- Role ambiguity: Receiving unclear role expectations
Task roles: Goal-oriented
Maintenance roles: Relationship-oriented
Norms: Shared attitudes that differentiate appropriate and inappropriate behaviour. Norms
evolve informally and are enforced because they help the group survive.
Develop in four ways:
- Explicitly stated by supervisor
- Critical event in group history
- Primacy -> First behaviour shown in group sets expectations
- Carry-over behaviour from past situations
, Two approaches to determine optimal size:
- Mathematical models -> Ideal size between 3 and 13
- Observing group behaviour
- 3-4 members for high-quality decisions
- Large groups for generating ideas, socialising and participation
- Odd-numbered groups if there is a majority vote -> Prevent deadlocks (Even vote)
Homogeneous vs heterogeneous: Cognitively similar-diverse according to MBTI
- Diversity increases knowledge pool -> Team tasks
- People prefer working with similar people
- Better to concentrate high-ability people in separate groups
Threats to group effectiveness:
- Asch effect: Distortion of judgement by a unanimous but false opposition
- Group think: Putting too much emphasis on unanimity -> Prevented by devil’s
advocate and outside expertise.
- Social loafing: Individual effort declines as group size increases -> Prevented by
making tasks challenging and important, and holding individuals accountable for
results. The stepladder technique can reduce social loafing by increasing personal
effort and accountability.
Team: Small number of people with complementary skills and a common purpose, they have
to interact to achieve shared goals. All team members have well-defined and interdepended
roles and an organisational identity as a team.
Three categories of roles:
- Do roles
- Think roles
- Social roles
Evidence about Belbin’s theory: Little
- Self-perception questionnaire rather than peer ratings -> Subjective
Four types of teams:
- Advice: Committees, low degree of specialisation
- Production: Performing day to day operations, low specialisation
- Project: Problem solving, research, high specialisation
- Action: Sport, entertainment, surgery, military, high specialisation
Ecological model of work team effectiveness: Two effectiveness criteria
- Performance: Satisfying clients
- Viability: Satisfying members so they keep contributing
Characteristics of an effective team: Clear purpose, informality, participation, listening,
civilised disagreement, consensus decisions, open communication, clear roles and work
assignments, shared leadership, external relations, style diversity and self-assessment.
