Psych Week 12 PDF

Understanding Work Groups A workgroup is "an interdependent collection of individuals who share responsibility for specific outcomes for their organizations" (Sundstrom, DeMeuse, & Futrell, 1990). The key aspect of a work group is that members have interrelated goals, meaning their efforts and outc...

Understanding Work Groups A workgroup is "an interdependent collection of individuals who share responsibility for specific outcomes for their organizations" (Sundstrom, DeMeuse, & Futrell, 1990). The key aspect of a work group is that members have interrelated goals, meaning their efforts and outcomes are connected. For example, a group of people in an emergency (like getting a subway door open) becomes a work group because their actions are interconnected, with the shared goal of resolving the issue. Formal Groups: These are subunits created within the organization, such as committees, departments, or work teams. These groups have clear, defined responsibilities and organizational structures. Informal Groups: Informal groups develop naturally and are not part of the formal organizational structure. They often form based on personal interactions and shared interests among employees, such as working lunch groups or study groups for certification exams. Informal groups play key roles in: ○ Satisfying social needs (friendship, companionship). ○ Providing security by creating connections among employees. ○ Facilitating cooperation between employees. ○ Regulating social and task behaviors, ensuring that norms and procedures are disseminated across the organization. Librarians as a Work Group Example Librarians perform a range of interdependent tasks to ensure the efficient functioning of their institution, which qualifies them as a formal work group. Their roles are defined by the organization (e.g., managing collections, helping patrons). However, informal group characteristics might emerge in their daily interactions—whether they collaborate informally over problems, discuss work challenges over lunch, or build friendships that provide social support. Work Groups vs. Work Teams Historically, researchers differentiated between work groups and work teams. Work teams were seen as consisting of individuals with specific roles relevant to the team’s objectives, while work groups might not have such defined positions (Mathieu et al., 2017).  However, contemporary researchers argue that the distinction between work groups and teams is often unnecessary and unclear (Sundstrom et al., 2000), with many using the terms interchangeably. Social Influence in Groups Social psychologists study how groups impact individual behavior. I/O psychologists now widely apply these influences in organizational settings to better understand workplace dynamics. Norms Norms are shared expectations about how members should behave within a group. They guide individuals' actions and interactions, providing stability and predictability in the group. Norms can serve several purposes, such as promoting cooperation, ensuring group cohesion, and maintaining a standard of behavior. There are two main types of norms: Descriptive norms: These define what most people typically do, feel, or think in a given situation (e.g., most employees work a standard 40-hour week). Prescriptive norms: These indicate what people should do, feel, or think in a specific situation (e.g., employees should arrive at work on time or maintain a positive attitude). Employees who violate descriptive norms are seen as unusual or out of step with the group, while those who violate prescriptive norms are seen as dysfunctional or poor performers. Violating prescriptive norms often leads to stronger social sanctions, as it can disrupt the group's functioning. Development and Impact of Norms Norms typically evolve over time. While some groups may formally establish norms, more often, they develop informally as group members become accustomed to one another's behaviors and the organization’s expectations. Older employees may pass down these norms to newcomers, who usually adapt to the existing standards rather than alter them. For example, in a certain organization, there was a norm where employees were expected never to use sick days unless they were hospitalized. New employees who preferred to stay home when ill, instead of accumulating sick days for early retirement, would violate this norm, leading to interpersonal conflict. This shows how prescriptive norms can deeply influence individual behavior and group cohesion. A recent model of counterproductive work behavior (CWB) suggests that group norms, combined with individual factors, can significantly impact the frequency of such behaviors. If the group's norms encourage certain dysfunctional behaviors (e.g., neglecting work or being overly critical), it can foster a toxic environment that contributes to more frequent CWBs (O'Boyle et al., 2011). Roles in Groups Behavior within groups is influenced by both internal (e.g., values, attitudes, needs) and external forces (e.g., social pressures, job requirements). This is captured by Kurt Lewin’s famous formula: B = f(P, E) Where B represents behavior, P is the person, and E is the environment. The interaction between the person and their environment shapes their behavior. Role Concept The role concept refers to how individuals perceive the expectations and pressures placed on them in a given context. For instance, the role of a father is shaped by what an individual believes fathers should do, while the role of a psychology professor is shaped by what one interprets the demands and expectations of teaching and research to be. Role Definition A role is a set of expected behaviors tied to a specific position within a group or organization. Role differentiation is the process by which distinct roles are established for members, and it happens through: Formal job descriptions and rules Task requirements Communication from supervisors, subordinates, and coworkers For example, a computer programmer at Apple understands their role not just from official documents but through day-to-day interactions with colleagues and supervisors. Role differentiation helps define who is responsible for what in a group, ensuring that everyone knows their expected tasks and behaviors. A study in Major League Baseball teams found that players' experience and skills were most valuable when they occupied core roles, such as pitchers and catchers, highlighting the importance of role differentiation in team performance (Humphrey et al., 2009). Role Conflict and Ambiguity Role differentiation can become complex, especially when combined with role conflict (when an individual faces incompatible demands within their role) and role ambiguity (when role expectations are unclear). These issues can cause stress and affect performance within work groups. Understanding and clarifying roles is crucial for minimizing these challenges. As we move forward, we’ll examine two other important aspects of group dynamics: conflict and cohesion. These are influenced by how roles are defined and managed within teams. Conflict in Groups Conflict within groups is a natural occurrence due to differing perspectives, roles, and objectives. There are three main types of conflict: 1. Relationship Conflict: This arises from interpersonal tension and can harm team performance. It typically occurs due to personal differences between team members. 2. Task Conflict: This occurs when members have differing ideas, beliefs, or viewpoints about the work. While often seen as harmful, task conflict can, in some situations, enhance team effectiveness by fostering diverse perspectives. 3. Process Conflict: This happens when group members disagree on how the work should be accomplished. It often results in poor collaboration and reduced performance. A study by O’Neill and colleagues (2013) found that task conflict positively affected decision-making teams but negatively impacted project and production teams. Additionally, relationship and process conflict had stronger negative effects on teams with greater tenure, likely because ongoing conflict becomes more entrenched over time. Conflict resolution can occur through two processes: Collectivistic processes: Involving collaboration and openness, these processes tend to positively influence team performance. Individualistic processes: Characterized by competition and avoidance, these processes often lead to negative outcomes for teams. Cohesion in Groups Cohesion refers to the strength of motivation to remain in a group and the bonds that form between its members. It is a key factor in determining group dynamics and can significantly impact group performance and satisfaction. Cohesion can manifest in different forms: 1. Binding Force: The attraction and commitment members feel toward each other. 2. Combatant Force: The cohesive bond that opposes forces pulling members apart. 3. “We-ness”: The sense of unity and collective identity within the group. Cohesion leads to various positive outcomes, such as: Increased satisfaction: Members of cohesive groups report higher levels of satisfaction due to less tension, common goals, and good collaboration. Improved performance: Cohesion is linked to better performance, particularly when task cohesion (commitment to the task) is high. Research shows that cohesive groups,  such as the early Disney team, achieved extraordinary success due to their strong internal bonds (Bennis & Biederman, 1997). However, cohesion can also have negative consequences, especially when it negatively influences decision-making or leads to groupthink. The positive effects of cohesion vary depending on the type of task and type of cohesion. Task cohesion (commitment to the group’s tasks) is typically more strongly related to performance outcomes than social cohesion (interpersonal attraction). Developing Cohesion Cohesion is critical for groups to thrive, but how does it develop? Cohesion typically grows through shared experiences, communication, and collective effort. In a study of elite ice hockey players, perceptions of team cohesion predicted players’ likelihood of returning to the team the following year (Spink, Wilson, & Odnokon, 2010). Cohesion can be particularly effective in fostering high performance when teams prioritize group commitment to their tasks and engage in positive interpersonal interactions. Group Development Models Tuckman’s Five-Stage Model of Group Development Bruce Tuckman’s model (1965) is one of the most widely recognized frameworks for understanding how groups evolve over time. It consists of five stages: 1. Forming: This is the initial stage where group members get acquainted with one another. Interactions are polite, tentative, and exploratory, as members assess their roles and relationships within the group. 2. Storming: At this stage, interpersonal conflict often arises. Members begin to question each other’s ideas, roles, and expectations. Disagreements and tensions can emerge as individuals assert themselves and challenge group norms. 3. Norming: As conflict subsides, members begin to establish unity and cohesiveness. Roles become clearer, trust builds, and the group starts to develop shared goals and values. A sense of collaboration begins to form. 4. Performing: In this phase, the group becomes highly productive. Members are focused on task completion, with roles functioning smoothly, and the group works together efficiently to achieve its goals. 5. Adjourning: The final stage involves the dissolution of the group. This can happen because the group’s task is completed or due to external factors, such as lack of performance or organizational changes. The end of a group’s existence can be emotionally challenging for members, as they have formed bonds and worked closely together. Gersick’s Punctuated Equilibrium Model An alternative approach to group development is Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium model (1989), which suggests that groups do not always develop in a linear fashion as described in Tuckman’s model. Instead, this model argues that groups experience periods of inactivity (punctuation) followed by bursts of activity, especially when they become aware of deadlines or time constraints. In this model: Groups may initially experience little progress. As the midpoint of the task approaches, there is often a shift in focus, and activity increases rapidly as the group realizes that time is running out. This model was supported in a study of MBA students participating in a business simulation, which showed that groups with a high-quality performance strategy maintained or improved performance, while groups with a low-quality strategy saw a decline in performance after the midpoint of the task. Combining Models: Stage and Punctuated Equilibrium Researchers have suggested combining elements of both Tuckman’s stage model and Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium model. This integrated approach helps explain group development more comprehensively. For example, groups may experience the traditional stages of group development but also encounter the fluctuating patterns of activity described by the punctuated equilibrium model. Chang, Bordia, and Duck (2003) demonstrated that both models can offer valuable insights depending on the context, providing a more nuanced understanding of how groups develop and perform. Social Loafing and Other Group Phenomena Social Loafing Social loafing refers to the reduction in individual effort when people work in groups rather than alone. Initially observed by Max Ringelmann in the early 1900s, the phenomenon was demonstrated through tasks such as rope pulling, where individuals exerted less effort in larger groups. The core idea is that while a group’s collective effort may remain high, individual effort often decreases because members feel their personal contributions are less noticeable or essential. Factors Influencing Social Loafing: 1. Identification of Individual Effort: People are less likely to loaf when they believe their individual contributions are identifiable. 2. Impact on Others: Loafing is less likely when group members believe their effort directly affects others’ outcomes.  This can be linked to expectancy theory (VIE theory), which posits that motivation is determined by the value of the rewards, the likelihood of outcomes, and the expectancy that behavior will lead to those outcomes. Social Enhancement In contrast to social loafing, social enhancement refers to the phenomenon where group members perform better in larger groups, particularly when the task is perceived as attractive. For instance, in Zaccaro's (1984) study, social loafing occurred with tasks that were low in attractiveness, while social enhancement occurred with tasks viewed as high in attractiveness. Group Cohesion and Social Loafing Research has shown that social loafing is less likely in cohesive groups. Members of cohesive groups are more committed and likely to contribute fully to group efforts. In contrast, noncohesive groups may experience more loafing due to lower emotional investment or interpersonal connections. Cultural Variations Cultural factors can also influence social loafing. For example, North Americans, who typically have an individualistic cultural orientation, tend to loaf more than individuals from collectivistic cultures, such as the Chinese. However, a study by Hong et al. (2008) indicated that Chinese workers might perform similarly to their coworkers, especially in public contexts, where standing out is less desirable. This highlights the complexity of cultural dynamics in social loafing. Free Riding and the Sucker Effect Free riding occurs when some group members do less than their fair share of work while still receiving equal rewards. This can lead to the sucker effect, where other members, noticing the free riders, reduce their own efforts to match the perceived effort of the loafers. This cycle can lead to a decline in overall group performance. Social Compensation In contrast to social loafing, social compensation happens when individuals increase their efforts in group tasks because they believe their teammates won’t contribute much. This can lead to overexertion by some members, especially in groups perceived as lacking effort or ability. Group Decision Making Groups often bear significant responsibilities in our society, from managing large companies to making critical decisions in legal and medical contexts. Effective group decision-making is essential for these groups to function optimally. Here, we will discuss the key steps in group decision-making, common mistakes, and strategies to improve group processes. Diagnosing the Problem Before making a decision, a group must first accurately diagnose the problem. This involves agreeing on the problem’s nature, defining the group’s goals, and identifying potential obstacles. Research indicates that many groups fail to allocate enough time to this crucial step. Common mistakes include: Confusing facts with opinions: This can distort the group’s understanding of the problem. Looking for scapegoats: Assigning blame without understanding the underlying causes of the issue. For example, a group tasked with addressing pay equity between men and women might confuse opinion-based assumptions (e.g., pay differences are due to experience and skills) with facts, which could distort their problem diagnosis. Generating Solutions Once the problem is well-understood, the next step is to generate solutions. A key approach in this stage is brainstorming, where group members suggest potential solutions without fear of criticism. This encourages creative thinking and helps ensure that all possible options are considered. Brainstorming also fosters an open atmosphere where all ideas are welcome, leading to a broad range of solutions that might not emerge in a more judgmental environment. Evaluating Solutions After solutions are generated, the group must carefully evaluate each option based on its potential for success and failure. This step involves considering: The pros and cons of each solution. The feasibility of implementation. Common mistakes during this stage include: Failing to consider downsides: Focusing only on the positive aspects of a solution can lead to overlooking potential risks. Attacking the person proposing a solution: It is important to focus on the idea rather than criticizing the person suggesting it. Choosing a Solution The group then reaches a decision about which solution is best. However, issues can arise if the decision-making process is dominated by more powerful members, or if certain solutions are favored due to political correctness or group dynamics rather than their merits. Developing an Action Plan and Implementation The final step involves translating the chosen solution into action. This includes outlining specific steps, assigning tasks, and monitoring progress. One potential mistake here is preventing some group members from participating in the implementation phase, even though they were involved in the decision-making process. This can lead to disengagement and frustration. Challenges and Solutions in Group Decision-Making Group decision-making, particularly in brainstorming and evaluation, presents several challenges that can hinder the effectiveness of the process. Below, we discuss these challenges, along with potential solutions to improve group performance and decision-making outcomes. Challenges in Brainstorming 1. Production Blocking: One of the most significant obstacles in traditional brainstorming is production blocking—when members have to wait for their turn to share ideas, disrupting the flow of creativity. This can significantly reduce the number of ideas generated by the group. 2. Apprehension and Social Pressure: Group members may feel apprehensive about voicing their ideas, either due to fear of criticism or concern about how their ideas will be perceived. This social pressure can stifle creativity and participation. 3. Motivational Issues: Some members may be more concerned with how they compare to others rather than focusing on generating valuable ideas. This can reduce the quality and quantity of solutions. Electronic Brainstorming as a Solution Recent research suggests that electronic brainstorming—where participants submit ideas via software rather than verbally in a group setting—can overcome many of these challenges. Benefits of electronic brainstorming include: Elimination of production blocking: Since individuals can submit ideas simultaneously, there is no waiting for one's turn. Anonymity: Anonymity can reduce apprehension and social pressure, allowing members to share ideas without fear of judgment. Greater idea flow: The software often displays all ideas in real-time, ensuring that no idea is lost and that participants can build on others' ideas as they appear. Familiarity and Group Dynamics Interestingly, research has shown that familiarity between team members enhances the effectiveness of electronic brainstorming. Familiar groups tend to perform better because they are more comfortable collaborating and building upon each other's ideas. This is consistent with traditional brainstorming findings, where familiar teams also tend to outperform unfamiliar ones. Evaluating Solutions Once solutions are generated through brainstorming, the group moves on to the next step: evaluating solutions. This involves critically assessing each idea based on its feasibility and potential outcomes. It’s important at this stage for the group to consider worst-case scenarios. For example, if the salary-equity task force proposes a solution that involves job classification changes, they must evaluate potential negative outcomes, such as employee dissatisfaction or legal issues. Work-Team Effectiveness Research on work teams has evolved over the years, with early studies focusing on individual outcomes or the quality of team processes. More recent research emphasizes the importance of both team outcomes and emergent states, highlighting the growing complexity of work teams in organizational settings (Mathieu et al., 2017). Work teams are increasingly prevalent across industries, and understanding their effectiveness is essential. Work teams are typically defined as groups where the actions of individuals are interdependent and coordinated, each member has a specific role, and the team works toward common goals and objectives. Evaluating Work-Team Effectiveness One prominent framework for evaluating the effectiveness of work teams was developed by Susan Cohen (1994; Cohen & Bailey, 1997), which outlines three main dimensions of team effectiveness: 1. Team Performance: This dimension concerns how well the team is performing and includes metrics such as productivity, quality of output, and cost control in the process. 2. Attitudes of Team Members: This reflects variables like job satisfaction, trust in management, organizational commitment, and the overall quality of work life. 3. Withdrawal Behaviors: This involves behaviors like turnover, absence, and tardiness, which can indicate issues within the team or organization. In addition to these dimensions, work-team effectiveness can also be understood through the distinction between taskwork and teamwork (Salas et al., 2015):  Taskwork involves the specific duties or actions required to achieve success, focusing on task-oriented aspects of work. Teamwork involves the processes that maintain and enhance team performance, including shared behaviors, attitudes, and cognitions (Levy & Steelman, 1997). This includes communication, coordination, feedback, cohesion, and norms. Predictors of Work-Team Effectiveness Research identifies several factors that influence work-team effectiveness. Sundstrom et al. (2000) categorize these predictors into five broad areas: 1. Organizational Context: ○ Rewards ○ Goals and feedback ○ Training 2. Group Composition and Size: ○ Cognitive ability of group members ○ Personality traits of group members ○ Demographic characteristics of group members 3. Group Work Design: ○ Member task interdependence ○ Member goal interdependence 4. Intragroup Processes: ○ Group cohesion ○ Group efficacy or communication processes 5. External Group Processes: ○ Communication outside the group ○ External interaction patterns Emerging Insights and Mental Models Mental models, an emerging concept in work-team research, focus on how team members share common understanding and assumptions about the tasks and processes. These models help teams synchronize their efforts and are essential for both taskwork and teamwork. Research into mental models aims to further refine how teams collaborate and adapt to challenges. In summary, work-team effectiveness depends not only on how well individual tasks are performed but also on how effectively teams work together, communicate, and maintain cohesion. Understanding the predictors of team effectiveness and the balance between taskwork and teamwork can lead to better-designed teams and more successful organizational outcomes. Group Composition and Selection in Team-Based Environments As organizations increasingly adopt team-based structures, selecting the right individuals for teams has become a critical aspect of work-team effectiveness. Drawing from concepts covered in previous chapters on employee selection, it is important to recognize that hiring decisions in a team environment should consider not only technical skills but also personal traits and dispositions that predict success in collaborative settings. Factors Influencing Team Composition 1. Team Preferences and Attitudes: Research by Jung and Sosik (1999) suggests that individual preferences for teamwork, as well as perceptions of group confidence and ability, significantly influence group performance. Team members who naturally prefer working in teams are more likely to succeed in team environments, making this preference a valuable factor in selection. 2. Mental Abilities and Personality Traits: Studies (Barrick et al., 1998) show that team performance is positively correlated with higher levels of general mental ability and certain Big Five personality traits—specifically conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional stability. Teams may experience decreased performance if one member scores low on these traits, as it can increase stress and disrupt harmony within the group. 3. Conscientiousness and Team Effectiveness: Further research (Humphrey et al., 2011) indicates that teams perform best when members exhibit high conscientiousness but also have diversity in interpersonal traits such as extraversion. This balance allows for strong work ethics while maintaining the flexibility to manage interpersonal dynamics. 4. Backup Behavior and Personality: Porter et al. (2003) found that in teams where members assist each other (known as backup behavior), personality traits play an essential role. Individuals high in conscientiousness are more likely to offer help, while those high in extraversion tend to seek help more frequently, regardless of whether they truly need it. Team Role Knowledge and Orientation Team Role Test: Research has led to the development of tools like the Team Role Test (Mumford et al., 2008), which assesses individuals' knowledge of the roles necessary for effective team functioning. This test helps predict team effectiveness by measuring familiarity with roles such as task-oriented and social roles. Team Role Experience and Orientation (TREO) Test: The TREO test (Mathieu et al., 2015) goes a step further by measuring not only knowledge of team roles but also orientations, past behaviors, and predispositions related to team dynamics. This test has been shown to predict team behaviors months after the initial assessment. The Impact of Team Diversity  Demographic vs. Task Diversity: Diversity in teams has been widely debated. While demographic diversity (e.g., age, gender) has shown mixed effects on team performance (Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007), task-related diversity (such as expertise and education) is positively correlated with improved team outcomes. This suggests that diversity in skills and experience can enhance team performance, especially when diverse perspectives are required for complex tasks. Diversity in Innovation: A study by Perretti and Negro (2007) found that team diversity, particularly the mix of experienced "old-timers" and innovative "newcomers," can lead to greater creativity and innovation in settings like movie production. This finding highlights the potential benefits of diversity in fostering novel ideas and approaches in work teams. Mental Models and Shared Mental Models in Team Learning Mental models are cognitive frameworks that help individuals interpret and interact with their environment. They allow people to understand and predict the actions and behaviors of others, guiding their own responses in various situations. These models are essential for making sense of complex information and solving problems, as they provide a structured understanding of the world. In the context of work teams, shared mental models refer to the collective understanding that develops among team members. These models combine the knowledge, beliefs, and expectations of individuals in the group to create a shared framework that helps coordinate their efforts. When team members possess shared mental models, they are better equipped to synchronize their actions and make informed decisions without needing constant communication. Importance of Shared Mental Models for Team Effectiveness Shared mental models are particularly valuable in high-pressure, fast-paced environments where teams must act quickly and efficiently. When team members share a similar understanding of tasks, roles, goals, and strategies, they can work together more effectively, even without extensive verbal communication. This shared knowledge enables: 1. Strategy Formation: Team members can develop strategies quickly because they understand each other's strengths, weaknesses, and preferences. Shared mental models allow the team to anticipate the likely actions of others, making strategic decisions more coherent and coordinated. 2. Coordination: Effective coordination depends on team members having aligned expectations. With shared mental models, team members know what to expect from each other, reducing misunderstandings and inefficiencies in task execution. 3. Cooperation: When individuals share a common understanding of objectives and roles, they are more likely to cooperate, even in situations that demand collaboration under pressure. Shared mental models reduce friction by fostering trust and mutual respect. 4. Communication: A well-aligned mental model ensures that communication within the team is effective and precise. Team members can rely on a common language and  understanding, which makes it easier to convey ideas and intentions, even in complex or urgent situations. Impact on Performance Research indicates that the extent to which mental models are shared among team members plays a significant role in determining overall team performance. Teams with shared mental models are better at: Strategy development: Teams can plan and execute strategies with greater precision, as all members are aligned in their approach. Efficient task completion: With shared expectations, tasks can be completed more smoothly, reducing the need for clarifications or adjustments. Problem-solving: Shared mental models enhance problem-solving by ensuring that team members can pool their knowledge and expertise effectively. Additionally, when mental models are strong and aligned, teams are more capable of leveraging their collective knowledge across the organization. As Yuan et al. (2010) found, individuals are more likely to recognize and access expertise within the team or organization when strong communication and shared understanding are present. This improves the overall problem-solving capacity of the team and enables better use of organizational resources. Team Cohesiveness vs. Liking Team cohesiveness related to tasks is more important than general liking because team success depends on how well members work together to accomplish common goals. While liking each other can improve interpersonal dynamics, it is not sufficient for high-performance outcomes. Cohesiveness based on task-related goals, such as commitment to the team’s mission, mutual respect for roles, and shared objectives, ensures that the team can effectively collaborate and overcome challenges. In contrast, personal likability alone may not foster the necessary cooperation, problem-solving, or alignment needed to achieve team success. Dr. Ruddy’s Experiences and the Punctuated Equilibrium Model Dr. Ruddy’s experiences align with the punctuated equilibrium model, which suggests that teams experience periods of stability punctuated by significant changes or shifts. The step-by-step process of setting up empowered teams at Xerox and Siemens is an example of this dynamic. Teams often begin with a period of establishing processes (team formation, goal setting, role clarification), followed by periods of adjustment and improvement as they face challenges or new tasks. This mirrors the punctuated equilibrium model’s notion that teams evolve through periods of stability and moments of dramatic change as they adapt and improve. Virtual Teams vs. Traditional Teams Virtual teams differ from traditional face-to-face teams in terms of the critical importance of team processes and organizational context factors. Virtual teams, especially those working across multiple countries and time zones, rely heavily on well-defined processes and communication tools to coordinate efforts. Unlike traditional teams, where members can engage in spontaneous discussions and easily coordinate in person, virtual teams face challenges related to time-zone differences, technology issues, and the need for clear processes for decision making, communication, and task execution. Organizational context factors like access to real-time communication devices (e.g., laptops, pagers, video conferencing) are essential for virtual teams to function effectively. They enable ongoing communication and allow teams to collaborate despite geographical separation. Additionally, virtual teams require more robust leadership and management to guide the process, maintain motivation, and ensure alignment on goals and tasks. Ineffective Decision Making and Process Loss Process loss occurs when group dynamics prevent the team from reaching its potential productivity. Steiner’s formula explains that productivity is reduced due to factors like coordination issues or inadequate communication. A key factor in process loss is the failure to pool unshared information, which can lead to suboptimal decision-making. Research by Larson and colleagues showed that groups tend to rely more on shared information, neglecting the valuable insights held by only one member. Encouraging the sharing of unshared information can help reduce process loss and improve decision quality. To mitigate process loss, participative leadership is recommended. This leadership style involves including all members in decision-making, helping to ensure that diverse perspectives and unshared information are considered. Studies have shown that participative leadership can enhance decision quality by fostering an environment where communication and information sharing are prioritized. Factors Leading to Groupthink Several antecedents can lead to groupthink, according to Janis’s model: 1. Group Cohesion: A strong desire for group unity often outweighs individual opinions or critical thinking. Group members may avoid expressing dissenting views to maintain cohesion. 2. Isolation: Groups that are isolated from external influences lack diverse perspectives. This isolation limits exposure to differing opinions and can reinforce the group’s consensus, even if it's flawed. 3. Strong, Biased Leadership: When leaders dominate decision-making, they may push their own agenda, discouraging alternative viewpoints. This creates an environment where dissent is less likely to be heard.  4. High Decisional Stress: When a decision must be made quickly, especially in a high-pressure, emotionally charged environment, group members may prioritize efficiency and unity over thoughtful discussion and analysis. Symptoms of Groupthink Several symptoms indicate that groupthink is taking place: 1. Belief in Invulnerability: Group members may believe they are invulnerable to harm or failure. This can lead to overconfidence and risky decisions, as seen in historical events like the Watergate scandal. 2. Belief in Unanimity: There is often an assumption that all group members are in agreement, even when this may not be the case. This creates an illusion of harmony, further stifling dissent. 3. Pressure on Dissenters: Groupthink frequently involves pressuring members who disagree with the majority to conform. Dissenters may be shamed or coerced into silence, undermining the diversity of thought necessary for good decision-making. 4. Appointment of a Mindguard: A mindguard is someone within the group who actively prevents outside information or alternative viewpoints from entering the discussion. This further strengthens the cohesion of the group but at the expense of critical evaluation. Example from History One prominent example of groupthink is the Pearl Harbor attack, where U.S. military commanders disregarded critical intelligence due to their desire to maintain group cohesion and avoid the perception of alarmism. They failed to act on available information, and the attack occurred without warning. Combating Groupthink To combat groupthink, it's important for leaders to encourage open communication and dissenting opinions, foster a climate where alternative viewpoints are valued, and ensure the group considers all available information—even if it challenges the prevailing consensus. Involving external opinions and embracing participative decision-making processes can help mitigate the risks associated with groupthink. Examples of Groupthink in Daily Life Groupthink can occur in everyday situations, from casual decisions with friends to more serious decisions in the workplace. Here are some potential examples of groupthink: 1. Choosing a Restaurant with Friends: A group of friends may decide on a restaurant because one person insists it's a great choice, and the others, despite having reservations, go along with the decision to maintain harmony. After the meal, they may  rationalize that it wasn't as bad as they thought, even though it wasn't a satisfying experience. 2. Workplace Decision-Making: In a work environment, team members might agree to a strategy or project plan because the team leader is strongly advocating for it, despite having reservations. The desire to avoid conflict or displeasing the leader might suppress any dissent, even when there are valid concerns that could improve the outcome. 3. Social Commitments: Sometimes, groups will make plans for a social gathering, like attending an event or taking a trip, even though some members may not be enthusiastic. They might avoid speaking up because they don't want to disrupt the group cohesion, only to regret their decision afterward. Preventing Groupthink To prevent groupthink in decision making, it's essential to: 1. Encourage Open Dialogue: All members should feel comfortable voicing concerns, providing alternative perspectives, and discussing potential risks openly. 2. Seek External Opinions: When making important decisions, it helps to gather feedback from outside the group to avoid insular thinking. 3. Evaluate Alternatives Critically: Instead of rushing to consensus, teams should carefully evaluate all options and discuss potential drawbacks. 4. Foster a Culture of Critical Thinking: Encourage a mindset that questions assumptions and considers the validity of different viewpoints, even when they challenge the group's consensus. Types of Work Teams Work teams are categorized into various types based on their functions, responsibilities, and goals. These include: 1. Production Teams: ○ Composed of front-line employees who are responsible for the direct production of goods or services. ○ Often self-managed and self-directed. ○ Examples: Electronics assembly units, coal mining crews, candy production crews. 2. Management Teams: ○ Responsible for coordinating and overseeing the work of other teams. ○ Includes roles like planning, staffing, budgeting, and logistics. ○ Examples: Corporate executive teams, military command teams, healthcare teams. 3. Service Teams: ○ Focused on meeting customer needs and attending to services for customers. ○ Serve many customers simultaneously.  ○ Examples: Flight attendants, hospital emergency units, retail sales groups. 4. Project Teams (Cross-Functional Teams): ○ Formed for specific projects and disbanded after project completion. ○ Often composed of members from various departments, ensuring a wide range of expertise is applied to the project. ○ Examples: New-product teams, research units, research and design project 5. Advisory Teams (Parallel Teams): ○ Created to provide recommendations and solve problems, often outside of the direct production processes. ○ Typically temporary and serve a limited term. ○ Examples: Quality circles, employee involvement teams, and university advisory groups. Emerging Trends in Work Team Structures 1. Self-managed Work Teams: ○ These teams have autonomy and responsibility for managing their own tasks, making decisions, and self-directing their work processes without close supervision. 2. Virtual Teams: ○ Teams that work together from different geographic locations, communicating and collaborating via digital platforms. 3. Multisystem Teams: ○ Teams that are composed of members from different systems, including organizational, technological, and perhaps even societal systems, working together to solve complex problems. Work Team Categorization and Emerging Trends Sundstrom and colleagues' (2000) review of work-team literature showed a clear distinction in research focus, with service teams being the most studied (33%), followed by production (17%), management (14%), and project (14%) teams. Despite the growing popularity of advisory teams, few studies have rigorously examined them, even though they are becoming more common in areas like healthcare. Research into the effectiveness, reception, and management of advisory teams is still limited, with calls for more empirical studies (Romero-Lankao et al., 2013). A contrasting viewpoint from Hollenbeck, Beersma, and Schouten (2012) challenges the utility of categorizing teams into fixed types like production or project teams. They argue that team taxonomy is less important than identifying the fundamental constructs that underlie teams. These constructs are: 1. Skill differentiation – the extent to which team members possess specialized skills.  2. Authority differentiation – how decision-making is distributed among team members. 3. Temporal stability – the degree of continuity and expectation of future collaboration among team members. Self-Managed Work Teams (SMWTs) Self-managed work teams (SMWTs) are teams that autonomously manage the overall process or product, distributing tasks, scheduling, performing housekeeping tasks, and even participating in decisions about budgets or performance. By 1992, 20% of American organizations utilized work teams, and recent reports show that 80% of Fortune 100 companies and 81% of manufacturing companies use SMWTs, recognizing their benefits in productivity and cost efficiency (MacDonald, 2019). Historically, organizations operated on a "command-and-control" approach, focusing on order, predictability, and control. In contrast, SMWTs are aligned with a more flexible approach, where teams are empowered to make decisions and adapt to changes, offering a sensemaking framework that allows organizations to be more adaptive and responsive. Success Factors for SMWTs: Autonomy and Empowerment: SMWTs with greater autonomy tend to be more productive and have higher customer service levels (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). Task Interdependence: When team members rely on each other to complete tasks, autonomy becomes a crucial predictor of success (Langfred, 2000). Pitfalls for SMWTs: Internal Conflict: Conflict among team members can undermine the effectiveness of self-managed teams (Langfred, 2007). Emerging Trends in Team Use Sundstrom et al. (2000) suggested that the use of work teams would continue to grow, especially in service, production, and project work. Teams are also becoming more fluid, with members often coming from different departments, units, or even partner organizations. The use of teams is evolving as companies experiment with new configurations and purposes, such as cross-company partnerships. The continued evolution of teams, especially in terms of their structure and function, reflects the changing dynamics in modern organizational environments. Virtual Teams: Advantages, Challenges, and Emerging Trends Characteristics of Virtual Teams For a team to be considered virtual, computer-mediated communication is essential, and geographical dispersion is usually a defining characteristic (Johnson et al., 2009). Teams can be categorized along a "virtuality" continuum, ranging from teams that use almost entirely face-to-face communication to those relying mostly on computer-mediated communication. This gradation of virtuality impacts how teams interact and function. Research indicates that when virtual teams rely on computer-mediated communication for more than 90% of their interactions, they experience lower levels of positive affect, task effectiveness, and affective commitment (Johnson et al., 2009). This suggests that a small amount of face-to-face interaction can enhance team performance, even in highly virtual settings. Recent Trends in Virtual Team Research Research on virtual teams has expanded significantly, especially in the last decade. Some recent trends include: 1. Real-World Studies: While earlier research focused on artificial laboratory settings, more recent studies now examine actual virtual teams, exploring the extent of their virtual interaction (team virtuality). 2. Task Attributes: Research is shifting from relational factors (like personality or gender) to more task-oriented factors such as group composition, cultural diversity, task interdependence, and time commitment. 3. Globalization: As virtual teams become more globally dispersed, research now focuses on the impact of cultural diversity and the role of different cultural dimensions (e.g., collectivism vs. individualism) on team dynamics. 4. Leadership: Studies emphasize the importance of leadership in guiding virtual teams, especially in adapting to virtuality and maintaining effectiveness (Andressen, Konradt, & Neck, 2012; Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014). Virtual Intelligence and Team Member Selection Erin Makarius and Barbara Larson introduced the concept of virtual intelligence—the ability to recognize, direct, and maintain cognitive resources in a virtual work environment (Makarius & Larson, 2017). This is critical for virtual team success, as team members need to be able to: Establish behavioral guidelines, Build trust, Use media effectively, and Coordinate information flow. Virtual intelligence highlights the importance of team member selection, especially in virtual teams, where individual skills in adapting to the virtual environment can significantly impact team success. Research Opportunities in Virtual Teams According to Gilson et al. (2015), there are several key research opportunities moving forward: 1. Industry Diversity: Most research has focused on knowledge-intensive industries (e.g., software engineering, healthcare). There's a need to understand how virtual teams function across other skill levels and industries. 2. Longitudinal Research: Most studies have been cross-sectional, limiting our understanding of causal relationships. Longitudinal studies could shed light on what factors lead to effective virtual teaming over time. 3. Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC): With the rapid development of new communication technologies, more research is needed on how CMC tools can enhance team effectiveness and how these tools are evolving. Multiteam Systems (MTS): Concept and Growing Interest A multiteam system (MTS) refers to two or more teams that work together in a direct and interdependent manner to achieve a collective goal. These systems are becoming increasingly common across industries such as healthcare, software development, and the military, where multiple teams must coordinate their efforts to tackle complex, large-scale tasks. In an MTS, teams typically have individual subgoals that are hierarchically organized. The superordinate goal, which is the highest-level objective, requires interdependent activity among the component teams. This means that while the individual teams may work independently on their tasks, they must collaborate effectively at key points where their efforts intersect or depend on one another. Key Features of Multiteam Systems 1. Interdependence: Teams within an MTS operate independently on their own tasks but must come together in a coordinated way to achieve the overall goal. At certain points of interdependence, teams must align their activities and work in uniform ways to ensure the success of the collective goal. 2. Complexity: The need for coordination and alignment among diverse teams with varying tasks can lead to significant complexity. Each team has its own ways of operating, but to achieve the superordinate goal, they must harmonize their efforts at critical moments. 3. Diverse Operations: The teams within an MTS may operate in unique ways according to their specific objectives and expertise. However, they must synchronize when interdependent actions are required, making the system both flexible and demanding. Research and Application in MTS MTS research is expanding as the concept gains more attention from both practitioners and researchers. In industries such as healthcare and the military, where teams must often respond to dynamic environmental conditions, MTS are becoming an essential part of the organizational structure. The Growing Importance of MTS The interest in MTS continues to rise due to their potential to address complex, high-stakes environments where multiple teams must collaborate effectively to meet overarching goals. The ability to manage these complex interactions and dependencies among teams is crucial for success in industries where interdisciplinary collaboration and coordinated efforts are key to achieving optimal outcomes. As the MTS framework continues to develop, it provides a more nuanced understanding of team dynamics, particularly in contexts where the complexity of work cannot be handled by individual teams alone. This approach to teamwork is especially valuable in contexts that require adaptation and real-time coordination, such as in healthcare and military operations