Master BA: Change Management (RUG)
Summary Work Design and Team Processes (2016/2017)
Exam grade: 8.7
This summary includes:
- Many sample exam questions per article/lecture
o Answers are provided after the summarized article/lecture upside down.
- A summary of the lectures, including the lecture slides
- Summary of the following literature:
Anderson, C. & Brown, C. E. (2010). The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 30, 55–89.
Emerson, R. M., (1962). Power-Dependence Relations. American Sociological Review, 27, 31-41.
Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people. The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48,
621-628.
Gaertner, Mann, Murrell, & Dovidio (2001). Reducing Intergroup Bias. In Michael E. Hogg & Dominique
Abrahms (Eds.). Intergroup Relations (Chapter 12). Psychology Press. New York and Hove.
Galinsky and colleagues (2015). Maximizing the Gains and Minimizing the Pains of Diversity: A Policy
Perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2015, 10, 742–748,
Ilgen, D. R. I., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From Input-
Process-Output Models to IMOI Models. Annual Review Psychology, 56, 517–43.
Keltner, D., & Gruenfeld, D.H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach and inhibition. Psychological
Review, 10, 265–284.
Lau, D., & Murninhan, J.K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of
organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325 – 340.
Milliken, F.J., & Martins, L.L. (1996). Searching for Common Threads: Understanding the Multiple Effects of
Diversity in Organizational Groups. The Academy of Management Review, 21, 402-433.
Nahavandi, A., & Malekzadeh, A.R. (1988). Acculturation in mergers and acquisitions. Academy of
Management Review, 13, 79-90.
O’Leary, M. B., Mortesen, M., & Woolley, A. W. (2011). Multiple Team Membership: a Theoretical Model of
its Effects on Productivity and Learning for Individuals and Teams. Academy of Management Review, 36, 461
– 478.
Phillips, K.W., Rothbard, N.P., & Dumas, T.L. (2010). To disclose or not to disclose? Status distance and self-
disclosure in diverse environments. The Academy of Management Review, 34, 710-732.
Rink, F., Kane, A., Ellemers, N., & van der Vegt, G. S. (2013). Team receptivity to newcomers: Evidence and
future research themes. Academy of Management Annals, 7, 1-47.
Stahl, G. K., & Voigt, A. (2008). Do Cultural Differences Matter in Mergers and Acquisitions? A Tentative
Model and Examination. Organization Science, 19, 160-176.
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism, Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425-452.
Wittenbaum, G.M., Hollingshead, A.B., & Botero, I.C. (2004). From cooperative to motivated information
sharing in groups: Moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Communication Monographs, 71, 286–310.
1
,Ilgen et al. (2005)
Teams in Organizations: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models
Explanatory mechanisms that mediated between team inputs and outcomes:
- Affective, behavioural, cognitive processes (or a combination of the three)
Teams as complex, multilevel systems that function over time, tasks, and contexts.
Not just about what predicts team effectiveness and viability (=levensvatbaarheid), but also
why. Findings in terms of their relevance to the formation, functioning, and final stages of
teams’ existence.
Teams are complex, dynamic systems, existing in larger systemic contexts of people, task,
technologies, and settings. More attention to mediating processes that explain why certain
inputs affect team effectiveness and viability.
Classical systems model ways in which inputs lead to processes that in turn lead to outcomes
(input-process-output [I-P-O] model) to express team performance fails to capture the
emerging consensus about teams as complex, adaptive systems. The I-P-O framework is
insufficient for characterizing teams:
- Many of the mediational factors that intervene and transmit the influence of inputs to
outcomes are not processes, but emergent cognitive or affective states.
- An I-P-O framework limits research by implying a single-cycle linear path from inputs
through outcomes
o even though research has stipulated the potential for feedback loops: outputs
(like team performance) to be treated as inputs to future team process and
emergent states.
- The I-P-O framework tends to suggest a linear progression of main effect influences
proceeding from one category to the next.
As an alternative model, we use IMOI (input-mediator-output-input). This incorporates
important mediational influences with explanatory power for explaining variability in team
performance and viability and also invokes the notion of cyclical causal feedback.
Forming stage (IM phase): issues in the early stages of team development
- Trusting (affective mediators): for team members to trust in the team, they must feel:
o That the team is competent enough to accomplish their task
o That the team will not harm the individual or his or her interests
- Planning (behavioural mediators): the degree to which the team arrives at an
effective initial plan of behavioural action. Two components of effective planning:
o The team needs to gather information that is available to the group members
and/or their constituencies.
o The team then must evaluate and use this information to develop a strategy
for accomplishing its mission.
- Structuring (cognitive mediators): refers to the development and maintenance of
norms, roles, and interaction patterns in the teams. Two cognitive constructs:
o A shared mental model: emphasized common cognitive elements among
group members
2
, o Transactive memory systems: emphasized the unique and distinctive
cognitive elements among group members.
Functioning stage (MO phase): issues that we see as the team develops more experience
working together.
- Bonding (affective mediators): reflects affective feelings that team members hold
towards each other and the team
o Managing diversity of membership:
Homogeneous compositions or highly heterogeneous compositions
are better than moderately heterogeneous compositions for team
bonding.
o Managing conflict among team members: minimize social conflict
- Adapting (behavioural mediators): team adaptability
o Performance in routine versus novel contexts
The speed with which teams recognize that the environment has
changed is important for adaptability.
o Helping behaviours and workload sharing
Amount of helping behaviour exhibited in the team has a positive
impact on team performance.
- Learning (cognitive mediators):
o Learning from team members who are minorities.`
Teams learned best when there were a moderate number of weak
subgroups.
o Learning who is the best team member for specific tasks and capitalizing on
this knowledge.
Finishing stage (OI phase): team completes one episode in the developmental cycle and
begins a new cycle.
- The ending may be planned or unplanned. More empirical work is needed on this final
phase.
3. Ilgen and colleagues describe why HRM/OB researchers use input-process-output
models.
Which of the following input-process-output models is incorrect? Or: what is not
researched before?
a) Mobility influences the level of identification with teams, which in turn affects
performance (Rink et al.?)
b) Power influences the level of efficiency in teams, which in turn affects stereotyping
c) Diversity influences the level of conflict in teams, which in turn affects creativity and
innovation (Lau & Murnighan?)
d) The type of tasks teams perform influence the level of communication among the
members which in turn affects decision making (Wittenbaum?)
ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS UNKNOWN
3
,Wittenbaum et al. (2004)
From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: moving beyond the hidden
profile paradigm.
1. Wittenbaum and colleagues introduce the ‘common knowledge’ effect. This effect refers
to the finding that within teams, members more often share common information with each
other (that everybody already knows) than unique information (that only a few know and
is thus worth sharing). Please provide one cognitive and one motivational explanation for
this problem.
2. According to Wittenbaum and colleagues, team members can be very strategic and tend
to spin their information to others. What does she mean by this term?
a) Team members sometimes chose not to share important information with others
b) Team members twist their information in such a way that it sounds more positive or
negative for others than it really is
c) Team members lie to others about the information that they possess (and share totally
different information)
d) Team members can pretend to possess more information than they really have
1. Working in teams (or belonging to groups in general) fulfills two basic needs for
individuals
in how they see the self:
a) It confirms one’s self-esteem and helps people to execute complex tasks
b) It reduces uncertainty about the environment and helps people to generate new ideas
c) It confirms one’s self-esteem and reduces uncertainty about the environment
d) It reduces uncertainty about the environment and helps people to socialize in
organizations
Slide: Common knowledge effect: Common information is more often shared than unique
information. We talk about what we know, and not about what we don’t know
Stasser and Titus (1985) found that groups often make suboptimal decisions on tasks
structured as hidden profiles,
- because they tend to discuss and incorporate into their decisions information that is
shared (known to all members) at the expense of information that is unshared (known
to a single member).
- In other words, groups are not able to take advantage of the unique knowledge and
expertise of their members.
This paper argues that information exchange is a motivated process whereby members
deliberately select what information to mention and how to mention it to particular members
in order to satisfy goals.
4
,The development of an alternative framework that views members as motivated
communicators and members’ goals as mediating the relations between features of the
decision context and information exchange in groups.
Often information is distributed among members as a hidden profile such that information
supporting the best alternative is largely unshared. Thus, members enter discussion preferring
a suboptimal alternative, and determination of the best decision alternative is possible only if
members pool their unique knowledge.
Factors that increase the amount of unshared relative to shared information presented during
group discussions are expected to lead to the discovery of the hidden profile, and ultimately
higher quality group decisions. Seven types of factors:
- Information type and distribution:
o Information is more likely to be discussed as the number of members who
know it increases.
o To increase the salience of unshared information use pictures instead of words,
use boldface font and mention negative information.
o In sum, information pooling and group decision quality improves when
unshared information is salient and abundant and when members disagree on
the best option.
- Task features:
o In sum, structuring the group’s task to aid information exchange is best done
by having members rank order the alternatives and anticipate recalling
information during discussion.
- Group structure and composition:
o Findings suggest that larger groups may be better than smaller ones at pooling
information.
o Group norms and roles: critical evaluation and members are known as experts.
o Make group members aware of one another’s expertise and establish a critical
evaluation norm to improve members’ pooling of information and decision
quality.
- Temporal features:
o Having ample time facilitates information exchange.
o Unshared information is mentioned later during discussions.
o In sum, longer discussions result in more thorough information exchange.
- Member characteristics:
o In sum, to facilitate information sharing of valuable unshared information,
assign those people to a high status position or acknowledge their expertise to
others.
- Discussion procedures:
o In sum, providing members with access to information during discussion will
not hurt and may help the group’s pooling of information and decision quality.
- Communication technology: mixed findings
5
,Three possible explanations for the discussion bias in favour of shared information:
- The higher probability for recalling shared versus unshared information:
o Cognitive explanation: collective information-sampling model
Biased Sampling Model: The more people possess the same
information, the more chance there is that this information will be
discussed. Shared information has a sampling advantage over unshared
information.
- Members’ preference-consistent evaluation of information in the hidden profile
paradigm.
o Cognitive explanation: preference-consistent evaluation of information
Preference bias: We are more likely to discuss consistent information
than inconsistent information. Because shared information largely
supports members’ initial preferences, this is evaluated as more
important and therefore more worthy of discussion than unshared
information.
- Social comparison processes:
o Motivational explanation:
Social comparison: Hearing that others possess the same information
may make that information appear more valuable, important, and
relevant. So the social functions of groups are also important.
Common information reflects the shared identity. We have a
motivational preference for similarity: it reduces uncertainty and
confirms and enhances self-esteem. To feel certain about ourselves.
Positive consequences: commitment, motivation, effort, loyalty
Negative consequences: conformity, in-group favouritism
Additional relevant information in the article, that largely challenges the assumptions of
Stasser & Titus.
- In organizational decision-making groups, information sharing is a biased process.
Members have goals and deliberately select or withhold information that will help
them to attain their goals during group discussions.
- Group members’ motives in decision-making vary as a result of different motives.
Reward or incentive structures are likely to influence what information members are
willing to communicate. It depends on the goal-structure.
- Group members are not only strategic about what information they share and to whom
they share it, but they also are strategic about how they mention information. Members
may choose to withhold some unshared information to satisfy their goals, but they
may also communicate it with a goal-biased spin: mention negative unshared
information, but do so in a way that frames the information in a more positive
way. Thus, members may misrepresent or frame the information in goal-congruent
ways.
- Either shared or unshared information may be more important, depending on the
content of the information, the distribution of the information among members and
group members’ goals.
- Possible Solutions (slide):
o Give people less task information: less cognitive pressure
6
, o Decrease personal preferences
o Increase proportion of unique information: Differences become more visible
- According to this framework, information exchange in decision-making groups is a
deliberate process in the interest of members’ goal attainment. Group members
intentionally select particular members with whom to share information and determine
what information to share and how to share it in order to satisfy goals evoked by
features of the context. Members’ information-sharing strategies then influence task
outcomes. Moreover, the particular goals of members vary within groups, with some
members embracing group goals and others acting in the interest of individual or
competitive goals.
Het antwoord op de derde MC vraag is C
Het antwoord op de tweede MC vraag is B
2.
enhances self-esteem.
identity. We have a motivational preference for similarity: it reduces uncertainty and
Social functions of group are also important. Common information reflects the shared
Motivational Explanation:
information
Or, preference bias: we are more likely to discuss consistent information than inconsistent
there is that this information will be discussed.
Biased Sampling Model: The more people possess the same information, the more chance
Cognitive Explanations:
1.
Answers Wittenbaum:
7
,Moreland & Levine
3. Moreland and Levine describe different types of tactics used by organizations and
individuals to enhance socialization. Which of the following statements is not true?
a) Institutionalized tactics generally lead to assimilation
b) Institutionalized tactics generally do not lead to innovation
c) Individualized tactics generally lead to accommodation
d) Individualized tactics generally do not lead to innovation
20. According to the socialization model of Moreland & Levine..
a) Are new members during the socialization phase more influential than full team
members during the maintenance phase
b) Are new members during the investigation phase more influential than full team
members during the socialization phase
c) Are new members during the socialization phase less influential than full team members
during the maintenance phase
d) Are new members during the investigation phase less influential than full team
members during the socialization phase
3. Moreland & Levine describe five phases in their newcomer socialization model.
a. Please describe in which phase(s) newcomers generally exert the most influence on
teams (i.e. in terms of sharing their unique expertise, and knowledge).
b. Please indicate why this is the case
c. Please think of a condition (i.e. a moderator) under which groups are likely to value
this unique input of a newcomer - more so than groups would normally do. Explain
your choice.
Aantekeningen:
- Investigation search an organization
- Socialization new member that is chosen, assimilate to the group
- Maintenance commitment to team highest, full member, but not permanent so you
need to resocialize
- Resocialization marginal member, you need to resocialize your position
- Remembrance
Personal influence = your commitment to influence your position
The classic socialization model of Moreland and Levine suggests that the initial disruption
that teams experience due to newcomer entry often makes them reluctant to fully accept this
person, as well as his or her task contributions.
8
,Socialization
Newcomer Socialization:
Process of mutual adjustment that produces changes over time in the relationship between
person and group.
Assumption:
Socialization is good for newcomer and organization
enhances satisfaction and performance
Institutional tactics: Formal, fixed Personal change = Assimilation
Individual tactics: Informal, variable Organizational change = Accommodation
Institutionalized tactics generally lead to assimilation and not to innovation
Individualized tactics generally lead to accommodation and innovation
Main Research focus
- Assimilation
- Organizational level
How can organizations influence individuals?
Disadvantage
- No context
Team Level
- Accommodation = Innovation
9
,
10
Answers Moreland & Levine
MC vraag:
Het antwoord op de MC vraag 3 is D
Het antwoord op de MC vraag 20 is A
Open vraag 3:
a. During the socialization phase.
b. There are several correct answers as to why a newcomer is most influential during
this particular period:
1. Still being seen as a newcomer, a team is not yet committed to this person. He or
she is expected to be different, and to contribute his unique worth/knowledge to
the group (team perspective; congruency argument)
2. Still being the newcomer, he or she does not yet feel the pressure to conform to the
existing norms, or group pressure, and may therefore act more freely inexpressing
opinions and knowledge. (newcomer perspective)
3. During this phase, all norms are not yet set, so a newcomer can still negotiate his
or her needs, and wishes before becoming a full group member (newcomer
perspective).
c. For example: Team regulatory focus (promotion > prevention), newcomer identity
strategies (we > I), position security of oldtimers (secure > insecure). In all of the
example conditions, the oldtimers feel less threatened by the newcomer and are
therefore more open to his or her knowledge. They feel less threat because they are
either focused on success, regardless of the risks involved (promotion focus), because
they think the newcomer is loyal to the group and is willing to represent the group’s
identity (we), or because they are not in competition over their own position with the
newcomer (security).
