Models of Team Effectiveness II

Team Processes
BH2286
Lecture 6

Learning Outcomes

Define the key processes in the IPO model

Describe the differences between action processes, transition

processes and interpersonal processes

Understand how team processes impact different aspects of team

effectiveness

Information on group assignment and exam

Lecture structure

Definition and taxonomy team processes

Transition processes
Team objectives
Reflexivity
Action processes
Communication
Conflict (lecture 5)
Leadership (lecture 7)
Interpersonal processes
Trust
Cohesion

InputProcessOutput (IPO)
Model of Team Effectiveness
Inputs
Organisational context
Task design (lecture 3)
Team composition (lecture 4)
Size
Longevity
KSAs
Personality
Diversity

Group Processes
& Emergent states

Outputs

Team objectives
Reflexivity
Communication
Interdependence (lecture 1)
Decision making (lecture 3)
Conflict (lecture 5)
Leadership (lecture 7)
Trust
Cohesion

EFECTIVENESS:

Shared mental models

Cohesiveness
Team potency
Psychological Safety

Team performance
Team innovation
Team viability
Team member
affective outcomes

Defining team processes

Processes define activities that teams engage in when

combining resources to meet the demands of their task
(Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006).
Examples of team processes include...
Team objectives
Reflexivity
Communication
Interdependence (lecture 1)
Decision making (lecture 3 & tutorial 1)
Conflict (lecture 5)
Leadership (lecture 7)
Cohesion
Trust

Taxonomy of team processes (Marks et al., 2001)

Teams perform different processes at different times

Recurring series of performance episodes
Transition processes (actions that teams execute between episodes of
performance)
e.g. formulation of team objectives, strategies and plans

Action processes (types of activities that a team engages in whilst

workings towards its objectives and goals)
e.g. monitoring of progress towards goals and team resources, team monitoring
and coordination, backup behaviours

Interpersonal processes (management of team member relationships)

e.g. conflict management, affect management, motivation building

Transition
processes

Action processes

Interpersonal processes

Marks et al. (2001)

Validity of the model (LePine et al., 2008)

Review of 138 studies on team processes

Meta-analysis found that teamwork processes (action, transition
and interpersonal) had strong positive relationships with team
performance and team member satisfaction
Relationships were moderated by task interdependence and
team size
Empirical support for the validity of the Marks et al.s model

Transition Processes.

Team objectives
Transition process
Team members interpret information and events differently confusion
and disorganised responses (Kozlowski et al., 1999)
Effective teams must have a common purpose and shared vision about
what they are trying to achieve
Incentive to combine their efforts and work closely together (Weldon &
Weingart, 1993)
Critical to team effectiveness
Agreement and commitment to goals
SMART goals

Reflexivity defined

the extent to which team members overtly reflect upon

the groups objectives, strategies, and processes and
adapt them to current or anticipated endogenous or
environmental circumstances
(West, 1996, p. 559).
Transition Process

Reflexivity

Under high task reflexivity, team members explicitly reflect on

the teamss objectives, strategies, and processes and adapt
them to current or anticipated circumstances (Carter & West,
1998).
Reflexive teams recognise areas that need attention and
development and implement improvement plans accordingly
(Tjosvold, Tang & West, 2004).
Deep systematic information processing allows a team to
combine relevant information and formulate creative solutions to
problems (De Dreu, 2007)

Evidence for reflexivity

Longitudinal research study (Carter & West, 1998)

monitored the performance of 19 BBC-TV production teams
over one year
reflexivity was a significant predictor of the creativity and
team effectiveness (as measured by audience viewing
figures).
Particularly useful for teams working in complex environments
on difficult tasks

Reflexivity Process
Teamwork actions

Stage 2c

Stage 1

Apply lessons
learnt in daily
work

Review process

Stage 2b

Teamwork
actions
appropriate?

Develop ideas
how to improve,
select appropriate
training

Stage 2a
Identify the
negative

No

Yes

Stage 2
Continue applying
with confidence

Swift & West (1998)

Three stages of reflexivity (West, 2000)

Reflection

awareness, attention, monitoring and evaluation of the object under

consideration
how could we have done things better?
do we communicate with one another using the most effective means possible?

Planning

intentions and courses of action are contemplated and decided upon.

detailed and ordered planning
Short and long term plans
potential problems and pitfalls identified.

Action/adaption

Actual implementation of plans

Assessed on four dimensions:
novelty
magnitude
radicalness
effectiveness

Reflexivity and interdependence (De Dreu, 2007)

Team members can perceive their goals and those of others to

be cooperatively linked (swim or sink together) or
competitively linked (one swims, the other sinks).
Under high cooperative outcome interdependence
high trust
high psychological safety
handle conflict more constructively
Is cooperative outcome interdependence a necessary and
sufficient condition for teams to be effective?

Hypothesised Model: Motivated information

processing and team effectiveness

Task
Reflexivity

Motivation to
systematically
process information

Cooperative
outcome
interdependence

Information
sharing

Learning

Team
Effectiveness

De Dreu (2007)

Reflexivity and interdependence (De Dreu, 2007)

A cross-sectional field study of 46 management and cross-functional

teams
Performing non-routine, complex tasks
The more team members perceived cooperative outcome
interdependence, the better they shared information, the more they
learned and the more effective they were, especially when task
reflexivity was high.
When task reflexivity was low, no significant relationship was found
between cooperative outcome interdependence and team processes
and performance.

Action Processes.

Communication

Action process

Interdependence and participation

Crucial for coordination, information sharing and decision making

Formal/informal

Virtual/face-to-face

Communication (and cohesion) among members of credit union topmanagement teams positively impacted the firms financial ratios
(Barrick et al., 2007)

Communication networks

Wheel (or chain)

Wheel

Circle

Chain

Circle

Completely
connected

Chain
Circle

Completely
connected

Interpersonnal Processes.

Trust

Interpersonal process
Trust is the willingness to be vulnerable based on the positive
expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another (Rousseau et
al., 1998)
Collective trust captures the overall trust we have in our
teammatesthe less we trust, the more we control and monitor
others
Trust has long been considered to promote team performance
Particularly important in virtual teams!

Cohesion

Interpersonal process

Carron (1982) defined cohesiveness as a process that reflects a

groups tendency to stick together and remain united to reach a
common goal.

Gross and Martin (1952) identify two underlying dimensions:

task cohesiveness a groups shared commitment or attraction to the
group task or goal
interpersonal cohesiveness - group members attraction to or liking of
the group

Cohesion and team effectiveness

Smith et al. (1994) found that the level of cohesiveness in topmanagement teams was positively related to return on
investment and sales growth.

Meta-analysis found that cohesion is significantly related to

performance in a variety of teams (r = 2.48; Mullen & Cooper,
1994)

Potential moderators:
member interaction
effects of time
Interdependence

Lecture summary

Specific team processes can be categorised into three higherorder team processes which occur in temporal episodes

The formulation of clear team level objectives is a crucial

transition process for team effectiveness

Team reflexivity is hard work, but can lead to innovative team

outcomes

Interpersonal processes (trust & cohesion) also matter!

Reading

** LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J.
R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a
multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness
criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61, 273-307.

**Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., and Higgs, C. A. (1993), Relations

between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for
designing effective work groups, Personnel Psychology, 46/4: 823-850.

De Dreu, C.K.W. (2007). Cooperative Outcome Interdependence, Task

Reflexivity, and Team Effectiveness: A Motivated Information
Processing Perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 628638.

Additional references

Carron, A.V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretations and considerations. Journal of Sport
Psychology, 4, 123138.
Gross, N., & Martin, W.E. (1952). On group cohesiveness. American Journal of Sociology, 57, 546554.
Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Ilgen, D.R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77-124.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of
team
processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376.
Mullen, B., & Cooper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An
integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210227.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A crossdiscipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393404.
Smith, K.G., Smith, K.A., Olian, J.D., Sims, H.P. Jr., OBannon, D.P., & Scully, J.A. (1994). Top
management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 412438.
Weldon, E., & Weingart, L.R. (1993). Group goals and group performance. British Journal of Psychology,
61, 555-569.
West, M.A. (1996). The Handbook of Work Group Psychology, Chichester: Wiley.
West, M. A. (2000). Reflexivity, revolution and innovation in work teams. In M. Beyerlein (Ed.), Product
development teams: Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams (pp. 1-30). Greenwich, CT:JAI.

Group assignment information

Breadth and accuracy of your analysis. Breadth means using a wide

range of theories, concepts and empirical findings introduced in this
module. Accuracy means using the right theories, concepts and empirical
findings to describe objectively what is happening in this situation.
Breadth and depth of your interpretation. Breadth is demonstrating that
you are familiar with a wide range of theories, concepts and empirical
findings covered in this module. Depth means applying theories,
concepts and empirical findings appropriately to explain your analysis of
the case.
So read beyond the lecture material! Look a recently published research
in the field of Organisational Psychology.
Team conflict lecture is critical
Deadline for 500 word drafts is 16th March

Exam information

Exam: 2 hour closed book

Select 2 essay-based questions from a choice of 6

See past exam papers on Blackboard and do some practice answers

One exam question will be a critical analysis of your teams effectiveness

on this module

Exam topics will be discussed in depth in revision class after Easter

End

Many Thanks