Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Team Processes - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Autonomous work group: Specific type of production team with control over a variety of functions (e.g. planning shifts, work allocation, etc.)
    - - Group dissolves after completion of the project
      - Multiple team membership is common (team members would be involved in other teams)
    - - More specific skills required in collaboration and communication
  - - - Team-role theory
- - - - Procedural justice climate: Perception of justice in the company
        
        Positively related to team performance and negatively related to absenteeism
        
        Increases individual level organisational commitment
      - Service climate positively related to customer satisfaction
  - - - Effects strengthened when team members are interdependent and high level of task uncertainty
      - .41 correlation with team performance
    - - .37 correlation with team performance
- - - - Organisational level:
        
        Human Resources system
        
        Organisational culture
      - Team level:
        
        Composition (e.g. group-level KSAOs)
        -Diversity (demographic or psychological)
        
        Interdependence
      - Individual level: KSAO of members
    - - Organisational level: Top management teams
      - Team level
        
        Behaviours: Learning behaviours, process improvement, innovation
        
        Proximal measure of outcomes; behaviours that could lead to good outcomes may not necessarily lead to good outcomes (other factors can result in a poor outcome)
        
        Outcomes: Accuracy and quality of work, sales volume
  - - - Team processes: Interactions among members toward task completion (e.g. interpersonal exchanges, cooperation, conflict, decision-making processes)
      - Team emergent states: Psychological state of the team (e.g. cohesiveness, trust, team climate, team confidence, team autonomy)
        
        Cognitive, motivational, affective states of the team
        
        Influenced by team inputs, processes, outcomes (feedback loop)
    - - Performance
        
        Organisational level: Top management teams
        
        Team level
        
        Behaviours: Learning behaviours, process improvement, innovation
        
        Proximal measure of outcomes; behaviours that could lead to a good outcome may not necessarily lead to good outcomes due to other factors
        
        Outcomes: Accuracy and quality of work, sales volume
      - Satisfaction: Team or individual level
- - - - Detrimental to group behaviours: Information sharing, OCB
      - Can have motivating effect on individual performance
      - Reciprocity rule: Cooperation/competition invites cooperation/competition
    - - Sharing of resources, helping colleagues, result in higher collective gains
      - Cooperation is higher when there is a high level of task interdependence and rewards are contingent to group performance
  - - - Cooperation:
        
        Make concessions
        
        Disclose true needs (surfacing interests)
        
        Invite discussion on issues (problem solving) rather than persuading the opposite parties to comply
      - Competition:
        
        Stand firm (no concessions)
        
        Threat (e.g. IF YOU DON'T DO THIS I'M QUITTING)
        
        Deception, which will lead to trust issues
      - Dual Concern Model: Mode of preferred resolution strategy depends on a combination of concern for self and concern for others
    - - Form a superordinate goal:
        
        Adopt group level rewards (contingent on the achievement of a group goal) and everyone would work towards the goal
        
        Increase cohesiveness
        
        Avoid fine distinctions among members
        
        May be offset by social loafing
      - Cooperative interdependence: Bring different expertise to form a team for a complex task
  - - - Individual members have their stance bolstered by other group members
      - Individuals will excessively adopt the values of the group to show group cohesiveness
      - Risky-shift phenomenon: Groups tend to make more risky decisions than individuals
    - - Deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgement that results from in-group pressures
      - Symptoms:
        
        Illusion of invulnerability
        
        Collective rationalisation
        
        Belief in inherent morality of the group
        
        Negative stereotypes of out-groups
        
        Direct pressure on dissenters
        
        Self-censorship
        
        Illusion of unanimity
        
        Self-appointed mind guards
      - Effects of groupthink
        
        Omit of ignore key information: Fail to challenge assumptions about the situation or consider alternatives
        
        Do not look beyond their functional areas to consider other perspectives and areas of expertise
        
        Settle on a verdict prematurely and then search for evidence to confirm it
    - - Nominal group technique: Works specifically for novel idea generation
        
        Silent generation of ideas in writing
        
        Encourages each member to search for ideas
        
        Avoids conformity pressures
        
        List ideas on chart
        
        Structures equal sharing and participation
        
        Discuss each idea on chart
        
        Spend equal time discussing each idea
        
        Vote on priorities
        
        Multiple rounds to avoid premature decision
      - Devil's advocate: Assigning a member or subgroup to criticise plans raised by the group
        
        Applicable when a plan is identified and discussed and initial plan is advocated by an individual planner or a subgroup
- - - - Some found diversity in age and tenure decreased performance, but others found diversity age and tenure boosted performance
    - - Functional diversity impairs performance
        
        Increased conflict, slower response
        
        Reduced information sharing: When members have different skillsets, there is no common ground. It would take the team longer to reach a decision. There is reduced information sharing because they wouldn't understand each other's expertise
    - - Group diversity brings in different knowledge and perspectives in the process
        
        More elaboration of task-relevant information
        
        Task conflict can be beneficial: Different people think that the task should be done differently --> Lead to the best solution
        
        Relationship conflict will always be bad: Conflict between members not related to the task
        
        Only boosts team performance for less routine tasks and complex tasks
        
        Impairs team performance for simple tasks
    - - Social Categorisation Framework: Diversity could reduce performance
        
        Diversity breeds subgroups
        
        Identification with subgroups would produce intergroup conflict: In-group favouritism
        
        This would ultimately reduce team performance
        
        Identity salience of gender exacerbated the negative effect of group gender diversity on group conflict