Work Design & Team Processes – EXAM
WEEK 1
Lecture 1 = Team processes
Reading 1.1 – Marks, Mathieu & Zaccoro (2001)
Reading 1.2 – Hollenbeck, Beersma & Schouten (2012)
Reading 1.3 – Ashforth & Mael (1989)
WEEK 2
Lecture 2 = MTM & Assignment
Reading 2.1 – O’Leary, Mortsen & Woolley (2011)
WEEK 3
Lecture 3.1 = Team fluidity
Lecture 3.2 = Virtual team work
Reading 3.1 – Rink, Kane, Ellemers & v/d Vegt (2013)
Reading 3.2 – Malhotra, Majchrzak & Rose (2007)
WEEK 4
Lecture 4.1 = Challenges to diversity
Lecture 4.2 = Diversity as an outcome
Lecture 4.3 = Power at the individual level
Reading 4.1 – Leslie (2019)
Reading 4.2 – Hall, Hall, Galinsky & Philips (2009)
Reading 4.3 – Lau & Murnighan (1998)
Reading 4.4 – Philips, Rothbard & Dumas (2009)
Reading 4.5 – Galinsky & colleagues (2015)
WEEK 5
Lecture 5 – Team Hierarchy
Reading 5.1 – Emerson (1962)
Reading 5.2 – Keltner, Gruenfeld & Anderson (2003)
Reading 5.3 – Anderson & Brown (2010)
Reading 5.4 – Power Lecture 5, Hambrick (2007)
WEEK 6
Lecture 6.1 – Ethical decision making
Lecture 6.2 – Team ethics
Reading 6.1 – Trevino (1986)
Reading 6.2 – Umphress & Bingham (2011)
Lecture 1 = Team processes
1
,Articles about team processes leading to group effectiveness are often not generalizable. They do not
reflect on the right processes that occur within teams, even at the top level (e.g. corporate
governance code).
Article 1 – Beyond team types and taxonomies: a dimensional scaling
conceptualization for team description – Hollenbeck, Beersma & Schouten
(2012)
Core of the article = how to organize different types of teams among important dimensions such that
you can make right comparisons among teams when you do research.
A) Team taxonomies
Teams = small groups of interdependent individuals who share responsibility for outcomes. Team-
based structures play an important role in organizations. However, research has developed many
diverse and confusing taxonomies on how to describe or classify teams.
Traditional taxonomy = oversimplified. Classic distinction between
Production teams = output oriented, focused on coordination and efficiency. E.g. team in the
assembly line of a car factory.
Decision making teams = focused on information sharing, problem solving and innovation. E.g.
top management teams or R&D teams.
B) Taxonomy problem
Problem = it is assumed that all teams are equal in a respective category, while team characteristics
are often dichotomous (not black/white) or not normally distributed (there is no average within the
categories of which the majority is … and you have a few outliers: the distribution is irregular).
It is difficult to compare teams! You cannot generalize findings that you find for a particular team
for other teams. Even when a team characteristic is normally distributed, meaning that the majority
of the teams is characterized by a certain feature, it is still difficult to classify teams that are not at
the top of the distribution.
C) New dimensions to classify teams
Hollenbeck, Beersma & Schouten examined 47 different types of teams mentioned in team research.
They looked at the underlying dimensions of the team descriptions.
1. Skill differentiation = the degree to which members have specialized knowledge or functional
capabilities that make it more or less difficult to substitute members. E.g. same type of
knowledge are people easily replaced/taken over from current teams, specified expertise.
2. Authority differentiation = degree to which decision-making responsibility is vested in individual
members, subgroups of the team or the collective as a whole. E.g. hierarchy setting, who is boss?
3. Temporal stability = degree to which team members have a history of working together in the
past and an expectation of working together in the future.
The dimensions are suitable for categorizing and they have a huge impact on how a team functions.
The dimensions are theoretically solid to compare teams on. They are reflective of key topics: SD =
diversity // AD = power & influence differences within the team // TS = fluidity.
2
,D) Dimensional scaling framework for describing teams
The three dimensions are independent from each other. First decide the basic dimension that is
most important for your team. Then you can compare your team with other teams on the same
dimension. E.g. what types of teams can you cluster when focusing on high authority teams?
In reality researchers combine different dimensions and see how they jointly affect team
functioning. You can make conditional assumptions on the basics of these dimensions. E.g.
authority differentiation (hierarchy) can depend on temporal stability.
Lot of research is based on one-shot lab teams. These teams are isolated a specific setting to dive
into processes specifically. However, this is an outlier. In practise, teams are not so isolated as lab
teams. This is a flaw of the research domain. You cannot draw conclusions on the processes that
happen for real teams, unless you look at fundamental processes that they apply across all of
these dimensions (this process is e.g. identification).
Paradoxical development = people like team autonomy, but a lot of top management teams use
a hierarchal structure. At the top, where most important decisions are made, people rely strongly
on hierarchy, while they do not require this from teams in the lower level of the organization. --
Top teams need structures but they allow others to not use structures.
ARTICLE 2 – A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes –
Marks, Mathieu & Zaccaro (2001).
3
, Core of the article = explain how within teams there are dynamic, ongoing processes that are not
static and how you can categorize the temporal nature of the processes within teams.
A) A temporal process taxonomy
Teamwork = people working together to achieve something beyond the capabilities of
individuals working alone. Success is not only based on team member’s talents & available
resources, but also on team processes.
Temporal taxonomy = getting knowledge on how you can study team processes over time
Team process = members’ interdependent acts that convert input to outcomes through
cognitive, verbal, and behavioural activities directed toward organizing task work to achieve
collective goals. This definition has a functional element.
Task work = anything that needs to be done to reach the goal. A team’s interactions with tasks,
tools, machines and systems.
What is a team doing (task work) & How are the teams doing it with each other (team processes).
Team processes determine what the team is doing.
B) Emergent states
Emergent states = team qualities that represent member attitudes, values, cognitions and
motivations. They are typically dynamic and vary as function of team context, inputs, processes and
outcomes. Emergent states are products of social team experiences and become inputs to
subsequent team processes and outcomes. They are not directly task related!
Mistake in literature = focusing on social experiences in a team and drawing conclusions about task-
related outcomes. E.g. liking to work with each other, not stereotyping etc. They are fundamental to
team life & influence how the work is done (processes), but this is indirectly task-related, through a
team process. E.g. not stereotyping affects communication, and that enhances team tasks.
Distinguishing makes you get a better understanding of teams and team functioning.
1. All literature focusing on team processes & outcomes should in essence focus on task related
processes/functional processes.
C) The traditional IPO perspective on team effectiveness
IPO perspective = Input – Process -- Outcome
Classic = Organizational + Team + Individual features (inputs) Processes Performance
New = Organizational × Team × Individual features (mutually dependent) Processes &
Emergent states Outcomes based on multiple criteria (e.g. performance/longevity etc)
Individual characteristics/behaviour are determined by the team and team context is determined
by organizational context.
The model thus became more complex and nuanced. Also, processes & emergent states could lead
back to input variables. E.g. coordination is problematic, that leads to redesigning a teams members.
4
WEEK 1
Lecture 1 = Team processes
Reading 1.1 – Marks, Mathieu & Zaccoro (2001)
Reading 1.2 – Hollenbeck, Beersma & Schouten (2012)
Reading 1.3 – Ashforth & Mael (1989)
WEEK 2
Lecture 2 = MTM & Assignment
Reading 2.1 – O’Leary, Mortsen & Woolley (2011)
WEEK 3
Lecture 3.1 = Team fluidity
Lecture 3.2 = Virtual team work
Reading 3.1 – Rink, Kane, Ellemers & v/d Vegt (2013)
Reading 3.2 – Malhotra, Majchrzak & Rose (2007)
WEEK 4
Lecture 4.1 = Challenges to diversity
Lecture 4.2 = Diversity as an outcome
Lecture 4.3 = Power at the individual level
Reading 4.1 – Leslie (2019)
Reading 4.2 – Hall, Hall, Galinsky & Philips (2009)
Reading 4.3 – Lau & Murnighan (1998)
Reading 4.4 – Philips, Rothbard & Dumas (2009)
Reading 4.5 – Galinsky & colleagues (2015)
WEEK 5
Lecture 5 – Team Hierarchy
Reading 5.1 – Emerson (1962)
Reading 5.2 – Keltner, Gruenfeld & Anderson (2003)
Reading 5.3 – Anderson & Brown (2010)
Reading 5.4 – Power Lecture 5, Hambrick (2007)
WEEK 6
Lecture 6.1 – Ethical decision making
Lecture 6.2 – Team ethics
Reading 6.1 – Trevino (1986)
Reading 6.2 – Umphress & Bingham (2011)
Lecture 1 = Team processes
1
,Articles about team processes leading to group effectiveness are often not generalizable. They do not
reflect on the right processes that occur within teams, even at the top level (e.g. corporate
governance code).
Article 1 – Beyond team types and taxonomies: a dimensional scaling
conceptualization for team description – Hollenbeck, Beersma & Schouten
(2012)
Core of the article = how to organize different types of teams among important dimensions such that
you can make right comparisons among teams when you do research.
A) Team taxonomies
Teams = small groups of interdependent individuals who share responsibility for outcomes. Team-
based structures play an important role in organizations. However, research has developed many
diverse and confusing taxonomies on how to describe or classify teams.
Traditional taxonomy = oversimplified. Classic distinction between
Production teams = output oriented, focused on coordination and efficiency. E.g. team in the
assembly line of a car factory.
Decision making teams = focused on information sharing, problem solving and innovation. E.g.
top management teams or R&D teams.
B) Taxonomy problem
Problem = it is assumed that all teams are equal in a respective category, while team characteristics
are often dichotomous (not black/white) or not normally distributed (there is no average within the
categories of which the majority is … and you have a few outliers: the distribution is irregular).
It is difficult to compare teams! You cannot generalize findings that you find for a particular team
for other teams. Even when a team characteristic is normally distributed, meaning that the majority
of the teams is characterized by a certain feature, it is still difficult to classify teams that are not at
the top of the distribution.
C) New dimensions to classify teams
Hollenbeck, Beersma & Schouten examined 47 different types of teams mentioned in team research.
They looked at the underlying dimensions of the team descriptions.
1. Skill differentiation = the degree to which members have specialized knowledge or functional
capabilities that make it more or less difficult to substitute members. E.g. same type of
knowledge are people easily replaced/taken over from current teams, specified expertise.
2. Authority differentiation = degree to which decision-making responsibility is vested in individual
members, subgroups of the team or the collective as a whole. E.g. hierarchy setting, who is boss?
3. Temporal stability = degree to which team members have a history of working together in the
past and an expectation of working together in the future.
The dimensions are suitable for categorizing and they have a huge impact on how a team functions.
The dimensions are theoretically solid to compare teams on. They are reflective of key topics: SD =
diversity // AD = power & influence differences within the team // TS = fluidity.
2
,D) Dimensional scaling framework for describing teams
The three dimensions are independent from each other. First decide the basic dimension that is
most important for your team. Then you can compare your team with other teams on the same
dimension. E.g. what types of teams can you cluster when focusing on high authority teams?
In reality researchers combine different dimensions and see how they jointly affect team
functioning. You can make conditional assumptions on the basics of these dimensions. E.g.
authority differentiation (hierarchy) can depend on temporal stability.
Lot of research is based on one-shot lab teams. These teams are isolated a specific setting to dive
into processes specifically. However, this is an outlier. In practise, teams are not so isolated as lab
teams. This is a flaw of the research domain. You cannot draw conclusions on the processes that
happen for real teams, unless you look at fundamental processes that they apply across all of
these dimensions (this process is e.g. identification).
Paradoxical development = people like team autonomy, but a lot of top management teams use
a hierarchal structure. At the top, where most important decisions are made, people rely strongly
on hierarchy, while they do not require this from teams in the lower level of the organization. --
Top teams need structures but they allow others to not use structures.
ARTICLE 2 – A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes –
Marks, Mathieu & Zaccaro (2001).
3
, Core of the article = explain how within teams there are dynamic, ongoing processes that are not
static and how you can categorize the temporal nature of the processes within teams.
A) A temporal process taxonomy
Teamwork = people working together to achieve something beyond the capabilities of
individuals working alone. Success is not only based on team member’s talents & available
resources, but also on team processes.
Temporal taxonomy = getting knowledge on how you can study team processes over time
Team process = members’ interdependent acts that convert input to outcomes through
cognitive, verbal, and behavioural activities directed toward organizing task work to achieve
collective goals. This definition has a functional element.
Task work = anything that needs to be done to reach the goal. A team’s interactions with tasks,
tools, machines and systems.
What is a team doing (task work) & How are the teams doing it with each other (team processes).
Team processes determine what the team is doing.
B) Emergent states
Emergent states = team qualities that represent member attitudes, values, cognitions and
motivations. They are typically dynamic and vary as function of team context, inputs, processes and
outcomes. Emergent states are products of social team experiences and become inputs to
subsequent team processes and outcomes. They are not directly task related!
Mistake in literature = focusing on social experiences in a team and drawing conclusions about task-
related outcomes. E.g. liking to work with each other, not stereotyping etc. They are fundamental to
team life & influence how the work is done (processes), but this is indirectly task-related, through a
team process. E.g. not stereotyping affects communication, and that enhances team tasks.
Distinguishing makes you get a better understanding of teams and team functioning.
1. All literature focusing on team processes & outcomes should in essence focus on task related
processes/functional processes.
C) The traditional IPO perspective on team effectiveness
IPO perspective = Input – Process -- Outcome
Classic = Organizational + Team + Individual features (inputs) Processes Performance
New = Organizational × Team × Individual features (mutually dependent) Processes &
Emergent states Outcomes based on multiple criteria (e.g. performance/longevity etc)
Individual characteristics/behaviour are determined by the team and team context is determined
by organizational context.
The model thus became more complex and nuanced. Also, processes & emergent states could lead
back to input variables. E.g. coordination is problematic, that leads to redesigning a teams members.
4
