WU Team Leadership in Public Health Discussion

There is a common expression in sports, “while individuals may play the game, a team wins a championship.” This expression not only applies to teams in sports, but many businesses as well. It is through the collaborative efforts of a team, that individual talent becomes collective excellence. The benefit of teamwork is immeasurable. With teams, individuals come together to support one another. Likewise, servant leadership offers a similar leadership perspective with supportive relationships and environments. Although servant leadership and team leadership have their differences, both focus on joint participation toward improvements within leadership settings.

This week, you explore leadership perspectives related to team and servant leadership. You examine how both theories of leadership provide collaboration between a leader and his or her followers and consider how a leader’s effectiveness relates to the group’s reliance on one another for success.

Save Time On Research and Writing
Hire a Pro to Write You a 100% Plagiarism-Free Paper.
Get My Paper

Learning Objectives

Students will:

Analyze challenges related to team leadership

Evaluate team leadership

  • Evaluate the effectiveness of servant leadership
  • Apply insights related to effective leadership and servant leadership
  • Learning Resources
  • Required Readings
  • Nahavandi, A. (2014). The art and science of leadership(7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Chapter 6, “Current Era in Leadership”Chapter 8, “Leading Teams”Anonson, J. M. S., Ferguson, L., Macdonald, M. B., Murray, B. L., Fowler-Kerry, S., & Bally, J. M. G. (2009). The anatomy of interprofessional leadership: An investigation of leadership behaviors in team-based health care. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(3), 17-25.Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 517-543.van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228-1261.

    Optional Resources

    Harvard Business Review. (2011). Leading collaborative groups [Video file]. Retrieved from

    In order to effectively function as a team, leaders need to come together and think as a team. For many collaborative leadership teams, this may be a challenge to overcome. As you have learned in this course, often certain qualities or skills separate leaders from a collective group. As a result, leaders take the initiative to enact policies for change. Ironically, when functioning as a team, individualized leadership characteristics and skills are deferred for team decision making and group-identified goals. While team leadership presents benefits in leading an organization, notable challenges also exist within the theory.

    For this Discussion, consider some of the unique characteristics of team leadership. Using the Learning Resources, reflect on the challenges associated with team leadership and consider whether or not team leadership may actually exist within organizations.

    Posta description of team leadership and its characteristics. Then, describe two challenges teams may face when leading an organization. Finally, explain whether team leadership is an effective approach. Justify your response.

    Discussion: Two Heads Are Better Than One—Team Leadership in Public Health

    In order to effectively function as a team, leaders need to come together and think as a team. For many collaborative leadership teams, this may be a challenge to overcome. As you have learned in this course, often certain qualities or skills separate leaders from a collective group. As a result, leaders take the initiative to enact policies for change. Ironically, when functioning as a team, individualized leadership characteristics and skills are deferred for team decision making and group-identified goals. While team leadership presents benefits in leading an organization, notable challenges also exist within the theory.For this Discussion, consider some of the unique characteristics of team leadership. Using the Learning Resources, reflect on the challenges associated with team leadership and consider whether or not team leadership may actually exist within organizations.Posta description of team leadership and its characteristics. Then, describe two challenges teams may face when leading an organization. Finally, explain whether team leadership is an effective approach. Justify your response. Servant Leadership: A Review and Synthesis
    Dirk van Dierendonck
    First Published September 2, 2010 Review Article
    Article information
    Servant leadership is positioned as a new field of research for leadership scholars.
    This review deals with the historical background of servant leadership, its key
    characteristics, the available measurement tools, and the results of relevant studies
    that have been conducted so far. An overall conceptual model of servant leadership
    is presented. It is argued that leaders who combine their motivation to lead with a
    need to serve display servant leadership. Personal characteristics and culture are
    positioned alongside the motivational dimension. Servant leadership is demonstrated
    by empowering and developing people; by expressing humility, authenticity,
    interpersonal acceptance, and stewardship; and by providing direction. A high-quality
    dyadic relationship, trust, and fairness are expected to be the most important
    mediating processes to encourage self-actualization, positive job attitudes,
    performance, and a stronger organizational focus on sustainability and corporate
    social responsibility.
    Keywords servant leadership, review, positive organizational behavior
    Andersen, J.A. 2009. When a servant-leader comes knocking . . . Leadership and Organization
    Development Journal, 30: 4-15.
    Google Scholar
    Antonakis, J. , Ashkanasy, N.M. , & Dasborough, M.T. 2009. Does leadership need emotional
    intelligence? Leadership Quarterly, 20: 247-261.
    Google Scholar
    Avolio, B.J. , & Gardner, W.L. 2005. Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of
    positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16: 315-338.
    Google Scholar | ISI
    Avolio, B.J. , Walumbwa, F.O. , & Weber, T.J. 2009. Leadership: Current theories, research,
    and future directions . Annual Review of Psychology, 60: 421-449.
    Google Scholar | Medline | ISI
    Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
    theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    Google Scholar
    Barbuto, J.E., Jr. , & Wheeler, D.W. 2006. Scale development and construct clarification of
    servant leadership. Group and Organizational Management, 31: 300-326.
    Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
    Bass, B.M. 1985. Leadership and performance: Beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
    Google Scholar
    Bieri, J. 1955. Cognitive complexity-simplicity and predictive behavior . Journal of Abnormal and
    Social Psychology, 51: 263-268.
    Google Scholar
    Block, P. 1993. Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco: BerrettKoehler.
    Google Scholar
    Block, P. 2005. Servant-leadership: Creating an alternative future. Keynote address, 2005
    International Servant-Leadership Conference, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States of Americas.
    International Journal of Servant-Leadership, 2: 55-79.
    Google Scholar
    Bowie, N.E. 2000a. Business ethics, philosophy, and the next 25 years. Business Ethics
    Quarterly, 10: 7-20
    Google Scholar
    Bowie, N.E. 2000b. A Kantian theory of leadership. Leadership and Organization Development
    Journal, 21: 185-193.
    Google Scholar
    Brown, M.E. , Trevino, L.K. , & Harrison, D.A. 2005. Ethical leadership: A social learning
    perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human
    Decision Processes, 97: 117-134.
    Google Scholar | ISI
    Burke, C.S. , Stagl, K.C. , Klein, C. , Goodwin, G.F. , Salas, E. , & Halpin, S.M. 2006. What type
    of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. Leadership Quarterly,
    17: 288-307.
    Google Scholar | ISI
    Burlington, B. 2005. Small giants: Companies that choose to be great instead of big. New
    York: Penguin.
    Google Scholar
    Burns, J.M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
    Google Scholar
    Carl, D. , Gupta, V. , & Javidan, M. 2004. Power distance. In R. House , P. Hanges , M. Javidan
    , P. Dorfman , V. & Gupta, V. (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The Globe study of
    62 societies: 513-563 . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Google Scholar
    Choi, Y. , & Mai-Dalton, R.R. 1999. The model of followers’ responses to self-sacrificial
    leadership: An empirical test. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 397-421.
    Google Scholar
    Collins, J. 2001. Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don’t. New
    York: Harper-Collins .
    Google Scholar
    Conger, J.A. 2000. Motivate performance through empowerment. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), The
    Blackwell handbook of principles of organizational behavior: 137-149. Oxford , UK: Blackwell.
    Google Scholar
    Crocker, J. , & Canevello, A. 2008. Creating and undermining social support in communal
    relationships: The role of compassionate and self-image goals. Journal of Personality and
    Social Psychology, 95: 555-575.
    Google Scholar | Medline | ISI
    Dannhauser, Z. , & Boshoff, A.B. 2006. The relationships between servant leadership, trust,
    team commitment and demographic variables. Paper presented at the Servant Leadership
    Roundtable at Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.
    Google Scholar
    Dannhauser, Z. , & Boshoff, A.B. 2007. Structural equivalence of the Barbuto and Wheeler
    (2006) Servant Leadership Questionnaire on North American and South African samples .
    International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2: 148-168.
    Google Scholar
    Dansereau, F. , Graen, G. , & Haga, W.J. 1975. A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership
    within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process .
    Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13: 46-78.
    Google Scholar | ISI
    Davis, A.L. , & Rothstein, H.R. 2006. The effects of the perceived behavioral integrity of
    managers on employee attitudes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 67: 407-419.
    Google Scholar
    Davis, J.H. , Schoorman, F.D. , & Donaldson, L. 1997. Toward a stewardship theory of
    management. Academy of Management Review, 22: 20-47.
    Google Scholar | ISI
    De Cremer, D. 2006. Affective and motivational consequences of leader self-sacrifice: The
    moderating effect of autocratic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 17: 79-93.
    Google Scholar
    De Cremer, D. , Mayer, D.M. , Schouten, B.C. , & Bardes, M. 2009. When does self-sacrificial
    leadership motivate prosocial behavior? It depends on followers’ prevention focus. Journal of
    Applied Psychology, 94: 887-899.
    Google Scholar | Medline
    Deci, E.L. , & Ryan, R.M. 2000. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
    self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry , 11: 227-268.
    Google Scholar | ISI
    Dennis, R.S. , & Bocarnea, M. 2005. Development of the servant leadership assessment
    instrument . Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 26: 600-615.
    Google Scholar
    Dennis, R. , & Winston, B.E. 2003. A factor analysis of Page and Wong’s servant leadership
    instrument. Leadership and Organization Development Journal , 24: 455-459.
    Google Scholar
    Dienesch, R.M. , & Liden, R.C. 1986. Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique
    and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11: 618-634.
    Google Scholar | ISI
    Dirks, K.T. 1999. The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance . Journal of
    Applied Psychology, 84: 445-455.
    Google Scholar | Medline | ISI
    Dirks, K.T. , & Ferrin, D.L. 2002. Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for
    research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 611-628.
    Google Scholar | Medline | ISI
    Donaldson, L. , & Davis, J.H. 1991. Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and
    shareholder returns. Australian Journal of Management, 16: 49-64.
    Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
    Earnhardt, M.P. 2008. Testing a servant leadership theory among United States military
    members. Paper presented at the Servant Leadership Roundtable at Regent
    University, Virginia Beach, VA.
    Google Scholar
    Ehrhart, M.G. 2004. Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level
    organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57: 61-94.
    Google Scholar | ISI
    Erez, M. , & Arad, R. 1986 Participative goalsetting: Social, motivational, and cognitive factors.
    Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 591-597.
    Google Scholar
    Farling, M.L. , Stone, A.G. , & Winston, B.E. 1999. Servant leadership: Setting the stage for
    empirical research . Journal for Leadership Studies, 6: 49-72.
    Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
    Ferch, S. 2005. Servant-leadership, forgiveness, and social justice. International Journal of
    Servant-Leadership, 1: 97-113.
    Google Scholar
    Ferris, G.R. , Liden, R.C. , Munyon, T.P. , Summers, J.K. , Basik, K.J. , & Buckley, M.R. 2009.
    Relationships at work : Toward a multidimensional conceptualization of dyadic work
    relationships. Journal of Management, 35: 1379-1403. DOI:10.1177/0149206309344741
    Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
    Frieze, I.H. , & Boneva, B.S. 2001. Power motivation and motivation to help others. In A. Y.
    Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the
    causes of corruption: 75-89. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
    Google Scholar
    Fry, L.W. 2003. Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 14: 693-727.
    Google Scholar | ISI
    Fry, L.W. & Slocum Jr., J. W. 2008. Maximizing the triple bottom line through spiritual
    leadership . Organizational Dynamics, 37: 86-96.
    Google Scholar | ISI
    Garber, J.S. , Madigan, E.A. , Click, E.R. , & Fitzpatrick, J.J. 2009. Attitudes towards
    collaboration and servant leadership among nurses, physicians and residents. Journal of
    Interpersonal Care, 23: 331-340.
    Google Scholar | Medline
    George, J.M. 2000. Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence . Human
    Relations, 53: 1027-1055.
    Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
    Gerstner, C.R. , & Day, D.V. 1997. Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory:
    Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology , 82: 827-844.
    Google Scholar | ISI
    Giacalone, R.A. , & Jurkiewicz, C.L. 2003. Toward a science of workplace spirituality. In R. A.
    Giacalone & C. J. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational
    performance: 3-28. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
    Google Scholar
    Giampetro-Meyer, A. , Brown, S.J.T. , Browne, M.N. , & Kubasek, N. 1998. Do we really want
    more leaders in business? Journal of Business Ethics, 17: 1727-1736.
    Google Scholar
    Graham, J.W. 1991. Servant leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. Leadership
    Quarterly, 2: 105-119.
    Google Scholar
    Graham, J.W. 1995. Leadership, moral development, and citizenship behavior . Business
    Ethics Quarterly, 5: 43-54.
    Google Scholar
    Greenleaf, R.K. 1977. Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and
    greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
    Google Scholar
    Greenleaf, R.K. 1996. On becoming a servant leader. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
    Google Scholar
    Greenleaf, R.K. 1998. The power of servant-leadership. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
    Google Scholar
    Hale, J.R. , & Fields, D.L. 2007. Exploring servant leadership across cultures: A study of
    followers in Ghana and the USA. Leadership, 3: 397-417.
    Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
    Halpin, A. , & Croft, D. 1966. Organizational climate of schools. In A. Halpin (Ed.), Theory and
    research in administration: 131-249. New York: Prentice Hall .
    Google Scholar
    Hammermeister, J. , Burton, D. , Pickering, M. , Chase, M. , Westre, K. , & Baldwin,
    N. 2008. Servant-leadership in sports: A concept whose time has arrived. International Journal
    of Servant-Leadership, 4: 185-215.
    Google Scholar
    Harter, S. 2002. Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive
    psychology: 382-394. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Google Scholar
    Hebert, S.C. 2003. The relationship of perceived servant leadership and job satisfaction from
    the follower’s perspective. Doctoral dissertation, Cappella University, UMI No. 3112981.
    Google Scholar
    Heidegger, M. 1962. Being and time. New York: Harper & Row. Original work published 1927
    Google Scholar
    Hind, P. , Wilson, A. , & Lenssen, G. 2009. Developing leaders for sustainable business.
    Corporate Governance, 9: 7-20.
    Google Scholar
    Horsman, J.H. 2001. Perspectives of servant-leadership and spirit in organizations . Doctoral
    dissertation, Gonzaga University, UMI No. 3010149.
    Google Scholar
    House, R. , Hanges, P. , Javidan, M. , Dorfman, P. , & Gupta, V. (Eds.). 2004. Culture,
    leadership, and organizations: The Globe study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Google Scholar
    Humphreys, J.H. 2005. Contextual implications for transformational and servant leadership. A
    historical investigation. Management Decision , 43: 1410-1431.
    Google Scholar
    Ilies, R. , Nahrgang, J.D. , & Morgeson, F.P. 2007. Leader-member exchange and citizenship
    behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 269-277.
    Google Scholar | Medline | ISI
    Irving, J.A. , & Longbotham, G.J. 2007. Team effectiveness and six essential servant leadership
    themes: A regression model based on the items in the Organizational Leadership Assessment.
    International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2: 98-113.
    Google Scholar
    Jahoda, M. 1958. Current concepts of positive mental health. New York: Basic Books.
    Google Scholar
    Jaramillo, F. , Grisaffe, D.B. , Chonko, L.B. , & Roberts, J.A. 2009a. Examining the impact of
    servant leadership on salesperson’s turnover intention. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
    Management, 29: 351-365.
    Google Scholar
    Jaramillo, F. , Grisaffe, D.B. , Chonko, L.B. , & Roberts, J.A. 2009b. Examining the impact of
    servant leadership on sales force performance. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
    Management , 29: 257-275.
    Google Scholar
    Jin, K.G. , & Drozdenko, R.G. 2009. Relationship among perceived organizational core values,
    corporate social responsibility, ethics and organizational performance outcomes: An empirical
    study of information technology professionals . Journal of Business Ethics, 92: 341-359.
    Google Scholar
    Joseph, E.E. , & Winston, B.E. 2005. A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust and
    organizational trust. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 26: 6-22.
    Google Scholar
    Kabasakal, H. , & Bodur, M. 2004. Humane orientation in societies, organizations, and leader
    attributes. In R. House , P. Hanges , M. Javidan , P. Dorfman , & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture,
    leadership, and organizations: The Globe study of 62 societies: 564-601. Thousand Oaks,
    CA : Sage.
    Google Scholar
    Kish-Gephart, J.J. , Harrison, D.A. & Treviño, L.K. 2010. Bad apples, bad case, and bad
    barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied
    Psychology, 95: 1-31.
    Google Scholar | Medline
    Kohlberg, L. 1969. Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to
    socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research: 380437. Chicago: Rand McNally.
    Google Scholar
    Konczak, L. J., Stelly, D. J., & Trust, M. L. 2000. Defining and measuring empowering leader
    behaviors: Development of an upward feedback instrument. Educational and Psychological
    Measurement, 60: 301-313.
    Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
    Ladkin, D. , & Taylor, S. S. 2010. Enacting the “true self”: Towards a theory of embodied
    authentic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 21: 64-74.
    Google Scholar
    Laub, J.A. 1999. Assessing the servant organization; Development of the Organizational
    Leadership Assessment (OLA) model. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 (02): 308A (UMI
    No. 9921922).
    Google Scholar
    Liden, R.C. , & Maslyn, J.M. 1998. Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An
    empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management , 24: 43-72.
    Google Scholar | ISI
    Liden, R.C. , Wayne, S.J. , Zhao, H. , & Henderson, D. 2008. Servant leadership: Development
    of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. Leadership Quarterly, 19: 161-177.
    Google Scholar | ISI
    Luthans, F. 2002. The need and meaning of positive organizational behavior . Journal of
    Organizational Behavior, 23: 695-706
    Google Scholar
    Luthans, F. , & Avolio, B. 2003. Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron & J. E.
    Dutton. Positive organizational scholarship: 241-254 . San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler .
    Google Scholar
    Macik-Frey, M. , Quick, J.C. , & Cooper, C.L. 2009. Authentic leadership as a pathway to
    positive health. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30: 453-458.
    Google Scholar
    Matteson, J.A. , & Irving, J.A. 2005. Servant versus self-sacrificial leadership: Commonalities
    and distinctions of two follower-oriented theories. Paper presented at the Servant Leadership
    Roundtable at Regent University , Virginia Beach, VA.
    Google Scholar
    Mayer, D.M. , Bardes, M. , & Piccolo, R.F. 2008. Do servant-leaders help satisfy follower
    needs? An organizational justice perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational
    Psychology, 17: 180-197.
    Google Scholar | ISI
    McClelland, D.C. , & Burnham, D.H. 1976. Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business
    Review, 54: 100-110.
    Google Scholar | ISI
    McCullough, M.E. , Hoyt, W.T. , & Rachal, K.C. 2000. What we know (and need to know) about
    assessing forgiveness constructs. In E. McCullough , K. I. Pargament & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.),
    Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice: 65-88. New York: Guilford.
    Google Scholar
    McGee-Cooper, A. , & Looper, G. 2001. The essentials of servant-leadership: Principles in
    practice . Waltham, MA: Pegasus Communication .
    Google Scholar
    McIntosh, T.A. , & Irving, J. 2008. Evaluating the Instrumento de Contribucion al Liderazago de
    Siervo (ICLS) for reliability in Latin America. Servant Leadership Roundtable at Regent
    University, Virginia Beach , VA.
    Google Scholar
    Neubert, M.J. , Kacmar, K.M. , Carlson, D.S. , Chonko, L.B. , & Roberts, J.A. 2008. Regulatory
    focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee
    behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 1220-1233.
    Google Scholar | Medline | ISI
    Ng, K.-Y. , Koh, C., S.-K. , & Goh, H.-C. 2008. The heart of the servant leader. Leader’s
    motivation-to-serve and its impact on LMX and subordinates’ extra-role behavior. In G. B.
    Graen & J. A. Graen (Eds.), Knowledge-driven corporation-complex creative destruction: 125144. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
    Google Scholar
    Page, D. , & Wong, P.T.P. 2000. A conceptual framework for measuring servant leadership . In
    S. Adjibolosoo (Ed.), The human factor in shaping the course of history and
    development. Boston: University Press of America.
    Google Scholar
    Parolini, J. , Patterson, K. , & Winston, B. 2009. Distinguishing between transformational and
    servant leadership . Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 30: 274-291.
    Google Scholar
    Patterson, K.A. 2003. Servant leadership: A theoretical model. Doctoral dissertation, Regent
    University. ATT No. 3082719.
    Google Scholar
    Pawar, B.S. 2008. Two approaches to workplace spirituality facilitation: A comparison and
    implications. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 29: 544-567.
    Google Scholar
    Pearce, C.L. , & Sims, H.P., Jr. 2002. Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the
    effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive,
    transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory,
    Research, and Practice , 6: 172-197.
    Google Scholar | ISI
    Peterson, C. , & Seligman, M.E.P. 2004. Character strengths and virtues. A handbook and
    classification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Google Scholar
    Reinke, S.J. 2003. Does the form really matter? Leadership, trust, and acceptance of the
    performance appraisal process. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 23: 23-37.
    Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
    Reinke, S.J. 2004. Service before self: Towards a theory of servant-leadership . Global Virtue
    Ethics Review, 3: 30-57.
    Google Scholar
    Russell, R.F. 2001. The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership and Organization
    Development Journal, 22: 76-83.
    Google Scholar
    Russell, R.F. , & Stone, A.G. 2002. A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a
    practical model. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 23: 145-157.
    Google Scholar
    Sendjaya, S. , Sarros, J.C. , & Santora, J.C. 2008. Defining and measuring servant leadership
    behaviour in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45:402-424.
    Google Scholar
    Singh, N. , & Krishnan, V.R. 2008. Self-sacrifice and transformational leadership: Mediating role
    of altruism. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 29: 261-274.
    Google Scholar
    Sipe, J.W. , & Frick, D.M. 2009. Seven pillars of servant leadership: Practicing the wisdom of
    leading by serving. New York: Paulist Press.
    Google Scholar
    Smith, B.N. , Montagno, R.V. , & Kuzmenko, T.N. 2004. Transformational and servant
    leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership and Organizational
    Studies, 10: 80-91.
    Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
    Spears, L.C. 1995. Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servantleadership influenced today’s top management thinkers . New York: John Wiley.
    Google Scholar
    Spears, L.C. & Lawrence, M. 2002. Focus on leadership: Servant-Leadership for the twenty-first
    century. New York: John Wiley.
    Google Scholar
    Sun, J.-M. & Wang, B. 2009. Servant leadership in China: Conceptualization and
    measurement . Advances in Global Leadership, 5: 321-344.
    Google Scholar
    Stone, A.G. , Russell, R.F. , & Patterson, K. 2004. Transformational versus servant leadership:
    A difference in leader focus. Leadership and Organization Development Journal , 25: 349-361.
    Google Scholar
    Van Dierendonck, D. , & Nuijten, I. in press. The Servant-Leadership Survey (SLS):
    Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and
    Psychology , DOI: 10.1007/s10869-010-9194-1.
    Google Scholar
    Van Dierendonck, D. , Nuijten, I. , & Heeren, I. 2009. Servant leadership, key to follower wellbeing. In D. Tjosvold & B. Wisse (Eds.), Power and interdependence in organizations: 319337. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Google Scholar
    Van Knippenberg, B. , & Van Knippenberg, D. 2005. Leader self-sacrifice and leadership
    effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology,
    90: 25-37.
    Google Scholar | Medline | ISI
    Waldman, D.A. , Siegel, D.S. , & Javidan, M. 2006. Components of CEO transformational
    leadership and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies, 43: 1703-1725.
    Google Scholar | ISI
    Walumbwa, F.O. , Avolio, B.J. , Gardner, W.L. , Wernsing, T.S. , & Peterson,
    S.J. 2008. Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure.
    Journal of Management , 34: 89-126.
    Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
    Washington, R.R. , Sutton, C.D. , & Field, H.S. 2006. Individual differences in servant
    leadership: The roles of values and personality. Leadership and Organization Development
    Journal, 27: 700-716.
    Google Scholar
    Wendt, H. , Euwema, M.C. , & van Emmerik, I.J.H. 2009. Leadership and team cohesiveness
    across cultures. Leadership Quarterly, 20: 358-370.
    Google Scholar | ISI
    West, G.R.B. , & Bocarnea, M. 2008. Servant leadership and organizational outcomes:
    Relationships in United States and Filippino higher educational settings. Paper presented at the
    Servant Leadership Roundtable at Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.
    Google Scholar
    West, G.R.B. , Bocarnea, M. , & Maranon, D. 2009. Servant-leadership as a predictor of job
    satisfaction and organizational commitment with the moderating effects of organizational
    support and role clarity among Filippino engineering, manufacturing, and technology workers.
    International Journal of Servant-Leadership, 5: 129-162.
    Google Scholar
    Whetstone, J.T. 2002. Personalism and moral leadership: The servant leader with a
    transforming vision. Business Ethics: A European Review , 11: 385-392.
    Google Scholar
    Williamson, T. 2008. The good society and the good soul: Plato’s Republic on leadership.
    Leadership Quarterly, 19: 397-408.
    Google Scholar
    Winston, B.E. 2003. Extending Patterson’s servant leadership model: Explaining how leaders
    and followers interact in a circular model. Paper presented at the Servant Leadership
    Roundtable at Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.
    Google Scholar
    Winston, B.E. 2004. Servant leadership at Heritage Bible College: A single-case study.
    Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 25: 600-617.
    Google Scholar
    Winston, B.E. , & Ryan, B. 2008. Servant leadership as a humane orientation: Using the
    GLOBE study construct of human orientation to show servant leadership is more global than
    western. International Journal of Leadership Studies , 3: 212-222.
    Google Scholar
    Wong, P.T.P. , & Davey, D. 2007. Best practices in servant leadership. Paper presented at the
    Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, Regent University , Virginia Beach, VA.
    Google Scholar
    19 Nov 2004 11:24
    P1: IKH
    Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2005. 56:517–43
    doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250
    c 2005 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
    First published online as a Review in Advance on October 5, 2004
    Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models
    Daniel R. Ilgen,1 John R. Hollenbeck,2 Michael Johnson,2
    and Dustin Jundt1
    Department of Psychology, 2Department of Management, Michigan State University,
    East Lansing, Michigan 48824; email: Ilgen@msu.edu, jrh@msu.edu,
    John1781@msu.edu, jundtdus@msu.edu
    Key Words teamwork, workgroup, groups, coordination, cooperation
    ■ Abstract This review examines research and theory relevant to work groups and
    teams typically embedded in organizations and existing over time, although many studies reviewed were conducted in other settings, including the laboratory. Research was
    organized around a two-dimensional system based on time and the nature of explanatory mechanisms that mediated between team inputs and outcomes. These mechanisms
    were affective, behavioral, cognitive, or some combination of the three. Recent theoretical and methodological work is discussed that has advanced our understanding of
    teams as complex, multilevel systems that function over time, tasks, and contexts. The
    state of both the empirical and theoretical work is compared as to its impact on present
    knowledge and future directions.
    INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    INPUT-PROCESS-OUTPUT FRAMEWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    FORMING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Trusting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Structuring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    FUNCTIONING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Bonding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Adapting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    FINISHING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    19 Nov 2004 11:24
    P1: IKH
    Over a decade ago, Levine & Moreland’s (1990) Annual Review of Psychology
    chapter concluded that small groups/teams research was “alive and well, but living
    elsewhere” (p. 620)—in organizational, not social, psychology. Guzzo & Dickson
    (1996) made a similar observation, and Sanna & Parks (1997) documented this
    empirically with an analysis of the top three organizational psychology journals.
    Between 1996 and 2004 the trend continued.
    The organizational domain has shown some shift from questions of what predicts team effectiveness and viability to more complex questions regarding why
    some groups are more effective than others. We review what has been learned over
    the past seven years by categorizing findings in terms of their relevance to the formation, functioning, and final stages of teams’ existence. From the outset we note
    that whereas there seems to be consensus on the need to study affective, cognitive,
    and behavioral mediational processes, this effort has been somewhat fragmented
    and noncumulative due to a proliferation of constructs with indistinct boundaries
    at the conceptual level and item overlap between measures of constructs at the
    level of individual studies.
    As is often the case for Annual Review authors, we struggled with the boundaries
    of our domain. One aspect of this struggle is the recognition that there have been a
    number of both methodological and substantive achievements over the last seven
    years, but in the limited amount of space we have here, we focused primarily
    on substantive studies. This should not obscure the fact that during the period
    covered by the review, several important methodological developments took place,
    including major shifts toward (a) multilevel theoretic and analytic techniques (see
    Klein & Kozlowski 2000), (b) complex computer-generated task environments that
    simulate real-world phenomena while objectively capturing and time-stamping
    team behaviors (Schiflett et al. 2004), (c) the appearance of computational and
    mathematical models that provide potential for means of addressing the dynamic
    complexity of teams (Coovert & Thompson 2000, Losada 1999), and (d) the use
    of social network analysis to investigate the effects of larger social patterns on
    between-team and within-team behavior (e.g., Baldwin et al. 1997, Burt 2000,
    Hinds et al. 2000).
    In terms of content, two recent Annual Review of Psychology chapters (Guzzo &
    Dickson 1996, Kerr & Tindale 2004) were instrumental in establishing boundaries.
    Guzzo & Dickson’s (1996) chapter provided a clear beginning date for our review. It
    also provided excellent guidance for content inclusion with its focus on work teams,
    particularly teams embedded in ongoing organizations with pasts and futures. We
    share the concern for teams in similar contexts, but unlike Guzzo & Dickson,
    we did not limit the research setting to field research if we felt the empirical
    observations were relevant to work teams. Kerr & Tindale’s (2004) Annual Review
    of Psychology chapter reviewed the social psychological literature on small group
    performance and decision making, which provides an up-to-date source for that
    content and allows us to ignore work addressed by them.
    19 Nov 2004 11:24
    P1: IKH
    Conceptually, team researchers have converged on a view of teams as complex,
    adaptive, dynamic systems (McGrath et al. 2000). They exist in context as they
    perform across time. Over time and contexts, teams and their members continually
    cycle and recycle. They interact among themselves and with other persons in contexts. These interactions change the teams, team members, and their environments
    in ways more complex than is captured by simple cause and effect perspectives.
    A number of excellent theoretical models of teams have appeared recently.
    McGrath et al. (2000) describe three levels of dynamic causal interactions (local,
    global, and contextual). Kozlowski and colleagues’ (Kozlowski et al. 1999) theory
    of compilation and performance describes inputs, processes, and outcomes that
    develop over time as teams interact in contexts that are both external environments
    of the team and are shaped by actions of the teams in a reciprocal causal fashion.
    Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors are both inputs and processes in a developmental sequence that impacts team performance. Team performance, while an
    output at time tn, is an input and a part of the process leading to performance output at time tn+1. A similar metatheoretical position, with processes unfolding over
    time, served as an underpinning for Marks et al.’s (2001) taxonomy of team processes and DeShon et al.’s (2004) multigoal study. Although these models contain
    differences in specific details regarding the nature of teams, all reflect the underlying notion that teams are complex, dynamic systems, existing in larger systemic
    contexts of people, tasks, technologies, and settings.
    The empirical research on teams in organizational contexts is also moving in
    the direction of increased complexity, but this work still has a way to go to match
    developments in the conceptual domain. However, the empirical literature in the
    past six years does differ from that which preceded it. Prior to 1996, much of the
    empirical research on teams was focused on the outcomes of team performance
    and viability. This research was guided by practical issues: The search was for
    answers to the generic question of what makes some teams more effective or
    more viable relative to others, and it emphasized inputs such as composition,
    structures, or reward allocations. Over the past six years, more attention was paid
    to mediating processes that explain why certain inputs affect team effectiveness and
    In one sense, this search for mediators was well informed by previous attention
    to process as the link between inputs and outputs. Classic works of Steiner (1972),
    McGrath (1984), and Hackman (1987) expressed the nature of team performance
    in classic systems model ways in which inputs lead to processes that in turn
    lead to outcomes (the input-processes-output, or I-P-O, model). This framework
    has had a powerful influence on recent empirical research, much of which either
    explicitly or implicitly invokes the I-P-O model. In another sense, however, the
    convergence on consensus regarding the utility of I-P-O models as a guide to
    empirical research fails to capture the emerging consensus about teams as complex,
    19 Nov 2004 11:24
    P1: IKH
    adaptive systems. Indeed, the I-P-O framework is insufficient for characterizing
    teams (Moreland 1996), and the most recent team literature, in at least three specific
    First, many of the mediational factors that intervene and transmit the influence
    of inputs to outcomes are not processes. Marks et al. (2001) developed a temporally
    based framework and taxonomy of team processes and correctly noted that many
    constructs presented by researchers trying to invoke the I-P-O model as process
    are not really process at all, but emergent cognitive or affective states. Their solution to the imprecision in the use of the term team process was to exclude from
    their review of team process all constructs that fit their emergent state definition
    rather than process definition as they developed their team process taxonomy. This
    strategy, while useful for their purpose of isolating a subset of conceptually pure
    behavioral processes, was not sufficient for our task of reviewing the broader teams
    literature, a domain including both behavioral processes and emergent cognitive
    and affective states.
    Second, an I-P-O framework limits research by implying a single-cycle linear
    path from inputs through outcomes, even though the authors of the classic works
    clearly stipulated the potential for feedback loops, and some (e.g., Hackman 1987,
    McGrath et al. 2000) explicitly recognized limits of I-P-O thinking. Yet, failure
    to identify the feedback loop in the I-P-O sequence is likely to have limited the
    development of I-P-O-focused team research more than would have resulted with
    the use of a different model. Indeed, research that is more recent has examined
    traditional “outputs” like team performance and treated them as inputs to future
    team process and emergent states.
    Finally, the I-P-O framework tends to suggest a linear progression of main effect
    influences proceeding from one category (I, P, or O) to the next. However, much
    of the recent research has moved beyond this. Interactions have been documented
    between various inputs and processes (I x P), between various processes (P x P),
    and between inputs or processes and emergent states (ES) (Colquitt et al. 2002, De
    Dreu & Weingart 2003, Dirks 1999, Janz et al. 1997, LePine et al. 1997, Simons
    et al. 1999, Simons & Peterson 2000, Stewart & Barrick 2000, Taggar 2002, Witt
    et al. 2001). Emergent states are constructs that develop over the life of the team
    and impact team outcomes. The broader focus beyond simply inputs and process
    places attention on boundary conditions of the traditional I-P-O framework and
    highlights when, where, and with whom various processes and emergent states
    become relevant.
    Thus, the I-P-O framework is deficient for summarizing the recent research and
    constrains thinking about teams. As an alternative model, we use the term IMOI
    (input-mediator-output-input). Substituting “M” for “P” reflects the broader range
    of variables that are important mediational influences with explanatory power for
    explaining variability in team performance and viability. Adding the extra “I” at
    the end of the model explicitly invokes the notion of cyclical causal feedback.
    Elimination of the hyphen between letters merely signifies that the causal linkages
    may not be linear or additive, but rather nonlinear or conditional.
    19 Nov 2004 11:24
    P1: IKH
    In keeping with the temporal features of many recent approaches, we initially
    organized the review around studies that focus on the early stages of team development (i.e., the IM phase), labeled the Forming Stage, followed by those examining
    issues that we see as the team develops more experience working together (i.e., the
    MO phase), labeled the Functioning Stage, and finally the Finishing Stage (i.e., the
    OI phase), where the team completes one episode in the developmental cycle and
    begins a new cycle. The paucity of literature directed at decline led us to collapse
    over the three in the finishing phase. Our use of the verb form throughout the
    review is intentional, to emphasize how these processes and states extend through
    time and involve change (Weick 1969). Within the three-way temporal classification, we added another three-way categorization scheme that reflects whether the
    primary interest of the study deals with affective, behavioral, or cognitive aspects
    of team development. In the formation phase, the topic of trusting focused on affective mediators, planning behavioral ones, and structuring cognitive ones. In the
    functioning phase, affect, behavior, and cognition were discussed under bonding,
    adapting, and learning, respectively. We emphasize that use of these categorical labels, while reflective of the dominating affective, behavioral, or cognitive process,
    was not meant to imply that other processes were excluded. Often all processes
    were present in any one category. For example, trusting involves not only affect
    but also cognitions and behavioral intentions. In sum, we present here a 3 × 3
    framework in an effort to capture the domain or research on teams, not to suggest
    that the organizing model is a theory of team behavior.
    For team members to trust in the team, they must feel that (a) the team is competent
    enough to accomplish their task (in the literature we reviewed, this is expressed in
    terms of constructs such as potency, collective efficacy, group efficacy, and team
    confidence), and (b) that the team will not harm the individual or his or her interests,
    which we refer to as safety.
    Potency is the team member’s collective belief that they can be effective
    (Guzzo et al. 1993). Campion et al. (1996) found potency was positively related to
    employee self-ratings of effectiveness, manager judgments of team performance,
    and group performance appraisals conducted by their organization. Similarly,
    Hyatt & Ruddy (1997) found that work group confidence was positively related
    to managerial ratings of group performance on a number of different objective
    measures. Little & Madigan (1997) found that collective efficacy was positively
    related to a number of different group performance behaviors as well. Finally,
    Seijts et al. (2000) examined how group-referenced individual ratings of group
    efficacy differed from individually aggregated ratings of self-efficacy for multiple
    trials on a mixed motive task.
    19 Nov 2004 11:24
    P1: IKH
    Many studies took a more complex approach to examining the relationship between potency-related constructs and team effectiveness. Hecht et al. (2002) found
    potency predicted performance over and above group member ability, and group
    goal commitment did not predict variance in performance over potency. Jung and
    colleagues (Jung & Sosik 1999, Jung et al. 2002) tested a reciprocal model in
    which group heterogeneity, preference for group work, outcome expectation, and
    potency were suggested to be unique predictors of group performance. Group performance at Time 1 predicted each of these constructs and predicted performance
    at Time 2. The major findings suggested a unique reciprocal relationship between
    potency and group performance.
    Using both a lab and a field sample, Chen et al. (2002) examined the relationships between team expertise, “team drive” (the team level analogue of achievement motivation), collective efficacy, and team performance. They found that “team
    drive” positively and uniquely related to collective efficacy beliefs, whereas team
    expertise did not. Collective efficacy predicted unique variance in team performance and team drive in the lab, but not in the field. Durham et al. (2000) found
    that initial task performance related to group efficacy, and indirectly to group performance through the influence on goals and information seeking. Gibson (1999)
    supported a contingency view in which collective efficacy exerted a positive influence on performance under conditions of low uncertainty, high task interdependence, and high collectivism.
    For Gonzalez et al. (2003), task cohesion mediated the relationship between
    collective efficacy and group effectiveness. Marks (1999) found that collective
    efficacy was positively related to team performance in a routine task environment,
    but not in a novel one. High levels of communication partially mediated the positive relationship between collective efficacy and team performance when the task
    environment was controlled. Sivasubramaniam et al. (2002) found a reciprocal
    relationship between transformational leadership and potency: Potency influenced
    later performance where collective efficacy was referenced to the team’s specific tasks and potency to more generalized settings past, present, and future. Lee
    et al. (2002) made a conscious distinction between potency and collective efficacy.
    Controlling for group size and initial performance, group norm strength predicted
    potency but not collective efficacy, and potency predicted Time 2 performance
    on a novel task whereas collective efficacy did not. The data supported potency
    and efficacy as different constructs. Finally, Gully et al. (2002) conducted a metaanalysis that examined the effects of both team efficacy and potency on performance. Their findings suggest that both team efficacy and potency are meaningful
    predictors of team performance, and that the relationship between team efficacy—
    but not potency—and performance was stronger when task interdependence was
    In addition to trusting the team’s competence, individuals must also
    trust the member’s intentions. Jones & George (1998) distinguished between several different kinds of trust and suggested that levels of trust (or distrust) can be
    19 Nov 2004 11:24
    P1: IKH
    shaped by people’s values, attitudes, and moods/emotions, as well as by previous
    experience. In turn, they suggested that unconditional trust, the kind most valuable
    to teams, should have a strong direct, positive effect on interpersonal cooperation
    and teamwork. Few studies have examined the impact of interpersonal trust-related
    constructs on team effectiveness, and none have gone into the level of detail that
    Jones & George supply in their theoretical piece. Edmondson (1999), however,
    examined both collective efficacy and a trust-related variable she called psychological safety as they related to two structural variables (team leader coaching
    and organizational contextual support), team learning behaviors, and team performance. She defined psychological safety as “a shared belief that the team is safe
    for interpersonal risk taking” (p. 354). Her model suggested a causal sequence in
    which the two structural variables led to higher psychological safety and team efficacy and, in turn, to greater team learning and performance. Psychological safety
    and team efficacy mediated the relationships between the structural variables and
    team learning, learning behaviors mediated the relationship between psychological safety and team performance, and team efficacy did not predict unique variance
    in learning behaviors.
    In a follow-up qualitative study, Edmondson et al. (2001) examined several
    hospitals implementing new cardiac surgery technology. A key characteristic of
    successful innovators was their ability to design preparatory practice sessions and
    early trials that created a sense of psychological safety. In hospitals low in psychological safety, people were less likely to engage in risk taking, and they exhibited
    more behaviors consistent with the status quo. Looking at both psychological and
    physical safety, Hofmann & Stetzer (1996) found that feelings of psychological
    safety led indirectly to actual physical safety through the mediating influence of
    communication regarding unsafe acts.
    Moving from the affective to the behavioral realm, at the early stages of team
    development one key mediating variable that explains success and viability is the
    degree to which the team arrives at an effective initial plan of behavioral action.
    Effective planning has two related, and yet distinct, components. First, the team
    needs to gather information that is available to the group members and/or their
    constituencies. The group then must evaluate and use this information to arrive at
    a strategy for accomplishing its mission.
    The studies pertaining to gathering information have
    focused on information sharing, information seeking, and communicating. Two
    cross-sectional survey studies documented the importance of effective information gathering for team performance. Barry & Stewart (1997) correlated member
    personality measures with open communication and team performance on student
    projects. Although these authors failed to find the relationship they hypothesized
    between group extraversion and open communication, they did report a significant
    19 Nov 2004 11:24
    P1: IKH
    relationship between open communication and team performance, as did Hyatt &
    Ruddy (1997).
    Drach-Zahavy & Somech (2001) examined the influence of functional diversity
    on information exchange and innovativeness. Functional heterogeneity predicted
    information exchange, and information exchange, in turn, was positively correlated
    with team innovation. Bunderson & Sutcliffe (2002) distinguished between withinmember and between-member diversity. Within-person diversity reflects the fact
    that each group member has had experience in different functional areas, and
    between-person diversity means that each team member has a different functional
    background. Information sharing was more effective in the teams that contained
    within-person diversity, relative to between-person diversity, and this, in turn, was
    related to higher team performance.
    Two studies examined group voice, operationalized in this research as the extent
    to which people speak up within their group (Erez et al. 2002, LePine & Van
    Dyne 1998). LePine & Van Dyne found participation rates were higher for group
    members who were (a) high in self-esteem, (b) male, (c) Caucasian, (d) high status,
    (e) highly educated, ( f ) highly satisfied with their group, and (g) in smaller, selfmanaged teams. Those with low self-esteem exhibited especially low levels of
    participation behavior in large groups and self-managed groups. Erez et al. (2002)
    examined the role of participative behavior in a quasi-experiment where leaders
    either rotated in or emerged and were evaluated either by peers or by external
    sources. Rotation of the leader’s role and the provision of peer feedback promoted
    higher participation levels and positively impacted performance.
    Durham et al. (2000) examined the effects of group goals and time pressure
    on information seeking and performance on a team decision-making task. These
    authors found that group efficacy indirectly influenced information sharing through
    group-set goal difficulty, which in turn had an indirect positive effect on group
    performance through information-seeking behaviors.
    Stout et al. (1999) examined the relationships between
    strategy development, communicating, shared mental models (a construct that we
    review in more detail below), and coordinated team performance on a helicopter
    defense/surveillance simulation. Better strategy development led to greater levels
    of unsolicited information sharing, more well developed team mental models, and
    higher performance during high workload situations. Tesluk & Mathieu (1999) investigated teams that faced roadblocks or obstacles to goal accomplishment. Teams
    that were most likely to overcome problems were those that anticipated problems
    in advance and had contingency plans in place from the very beginning. Further,
    crews with higher levels of coordination, potency, and familiarity (which they refer
    to as teamwork processes) were more likely to develop effective strategies.
    Effective strategy development is enhanced by unambiguous and well-prioritized goals and agreement on the best means of goal accomplishment. Pritchard
    (1995) and his colleagues have developed and implemented a team-based performance management system called ProMES (productivity measurement and
    19 Nov 2004 11:24
    P1: IKH
    enhancement system) that focuses on identifying objective team outputs, as well
    as the level of these outputs required to reach various levels of effectiveness for
    the team. Teams receive feedback referenced to these outputs, and are encouraged
    to develop plans that would help them achieve internally or externally set goals.
    ProMES has been used in a wide variety of contexts to help improve team planning
    and performance (Pritchard et al. 2001).
    Structuring refers to the development and maintenance of norms, roles, and interaction patterns in the teams. Two cognitive structuring constructs have dominated
    the recent literature on teams. One is a shared mental model, which emphasizes
    common cognitive elements among group members. The second set of studies
    deals with transactive memory systems and emphasizes the unique and distinctive
    cognitive elements among group members. Ironically, one of these literatures suggests that high performance results when group members share cognitive elements,
    whereas the other suggests groups perform best when members compartmentalize
    and specialize in different aspects of the cognitive space that the team is required
    to cover.
    Mohammed & Dumville (2001) defined shared mental
    models as “organized understanding of relevant knowledge that is shared by team
    members” (p. 89). The focus is on collective knowledge regarding what individual
    team members hold in common. Whereas Mohammed & Dumville’s (2001) work
    was conceptual in addressing the nature of the construct, others were concerned
    with measuring it and treating its development as part of something that could be
    addressed through training (e.g., Langan-Fox et al. 2000). Much of this work grew
    out of the TADMUS (Tactical Decision Making Under Stress) project, which was
    a response to the tragic shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655 by the USS Vincennes
    over the Persian Gulf in 1988. The TADMUS project represented a convergence of
    operational, scientific, and bureaucratic efforts (Collyer & Malecki 1998) to create
    a partnership between behavioral scientists and operational naval personnel. The
    result was the development of a process that embedded team training within the
    dynamic task environment (Cannon-Bowers & Salas 1998). A number of principles
    emerged from this and related work, particularly in connection to team training
    (Kozlowski 1998, Kozlowski et al. 1999). The most important principle is that of
    treating teams, rather than individuals, as the basic unit of analysis, and viewing
    team members as active participants in a continuous learning process.
    Marks et al. (2002) examined the role of shared mental models as a factor that
    mediates the relationship between cross-training and team effectiveness. Crosstrained teams on a helicopter simulation were more likely to develop shared mental
    models, and teams with shared mental models performed better. Better performance resulted because the teams were more likely to display effective coordination and team backup behaviors. Mathieu et al. (2000) found similar results
    19 Nov 2004 11:24
    P1: IKH
    with dyads performing a flight combat simulation. Again, coordination and communication mediated the relationship between the team mental model and team
    Consistent with Wegner’s (1986) work, Austin (2003)
    defined transactive memory as “a combination of the knowledge possessed by
    each individual and a collective awareness of who knows what” (p. 866). In contrast to shared mental models, transactive memory focuses on who knows what
    rather than on overlapping task- or team-relevant knowledge. Austin (2003) studied field groups in charge of launching different types of new products in a sporting goods/clothing company, and broke transactive memory into four elements:
    knowledge stock (amount of knowledge), consensus (agreement on who knows
    what), knowledge specialization (amount of redundancy), and accuracy (correctness of knowledge about what others know). Each facet was then examined for its
    ability to predict unique variance in group goal attainment and both external and
    internal evaluations of performance. Task transactive memory accuracy was related positively and uniquely to all three performance criteria, and task knowledge
    specialization was related uniquely to both external and internal evaluations of
    team performance. Similarly, Lewis (2003), with different subdimensions, found
    transactive memory positively related to performance.
    Two studies did not use the term transactive memory but did capture similar constructs. Druskat & Kayes (2000) assessed teams of MBA students on interpersonal
    understanding—accurate understanding of the spoken and unspoken preferences,
    concerns, and strengths of other members. Hyatt & Ruddy (1997) defined roles in
    terms of knowledge structures to include both (a) common expectations regarding
    work group behavior, and (b) knowledge about what members knew. Both studies
    found their constructs related to team performance.
    Finally, Hollenbeck et al. (2002) examined the impact of different role structures
    on team performance via shared cognition. In divisional structures, team members
    had broad roles and resources and were grouped by region, whereas team members
    in a functional structure each had very narrow, specific roles, and were grouped by
    resource or task. Results suggested that different types of role structures are better
    suited for different types of environments. Divisional structures were thought to
    promote the development of team mental models that were more complete, and
    these models in turn led to better performance in random environments. On the
    other hand, functional structures should promote the development of transactive
    memory, thus leading to higher performance in predictable environments.
    Bonding reflects affective feelings that team members hold toward each other and
    the team. Whereas trust represents a willingness to work together on the task,
    19 Nov 2004 11:24
    P1: IKH
    bonding goes beyond trust and reflects a strong sense of rapport and a desire
    to stay together, perhaps extending beyond the current task context. We placed
    studies that examined constructs such as group cohesiveness, team viability, social
    integration, satisfaction with the group, person-group fit, and team commitment
    under this heading because they share a common core that deals with the strength
    of the member’s emotional and affective attachment to the larger collective (Bishop
    & Scott 2000, Kristof-Brown et al. 2002). Because it takes time for team bonding
    to occur, its effects typically are observed not in the early formative phase but in
    the more mature functioning stage.
    This is an important category of studies for three reasons. First, although past
    research has suggested that bonding is not all that necessary for high levels of team
    performance, more recent meta-analytic evidence suggests otherwise, particularly
    when work-flow interdependence is high (Beal et al. 2003). Second, as noted in
    a recent edited volume by Hinds & Kiesler (2002), organizations are increasingly
    employing virtual teams whose members rarely meet face-to-face. Despite the rise
    in their prevalence, the cumulative evidence from a recent meta-analysis of 27
    studies questions the degree to which members of virtual teams ever bond with
    one another in the traditional sense, and suggests that as a result, they are both
    slower and less accurate than face-to-face teams (Baltes et al. 2002). A number of
    elaborate interventions have been offered to help overcome this problem (Kraut
    et al. 2002, Nardi & Whittaker 2002, Olson et al. 2002). Finally, even in contexts
    that allow face-to-face interactions, attempts to implement team-based structures
    meet resistance due to fears among leaders or members that they will not be able to
    manage the conflict that arises from their differences (Kirkman & Shapiro 1997).
    Conflict often starts small, but then spirals out of control, and in some cases even
    results in violent reactions (Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly 1998) and withdrawal
    behaviors (Duffy et al. 2000).
    Although past research on composition
    has generally conceived of teams as existing on a single continuum ranging from
    demographically homogeneous to demographically heterogeneous, more recent
    research has focused on specific aspects of demography. Riordan & Shore (1997)
    showed that some demographic differences, such as race/ethnicity, were much
    more important relative to age or gender when it came to predicting satisfaction
    with the team, a finding later replicated by Pelled et al. (1999), who employed
    emotional conflict as a criterion. Even within the race/ethnicity categories, it was
    critical to distinguish among different minority groups (African American versus
    Hispanic); without differentiation, a great deal of predictability is lost (Riordan
    & Shore 1997). All of this suggests that the simple, nondelineated construct of
    diversity that does not reflect the specific aspect of diversity embodied in the
    group has little predictive or explanatory power.
    Others have challenged the notion that diversity is a meaningful continuum, and
    proposed that the opposite ends of the scale are qualitatively, not quantitatively,
    different. Earley & Mosakowski (2000) showed that the key to team bonding
    19 Nov 2004 11:24
    P1: IKH
    was developing a single culture within the team, and this was promoted by either
    homogeneous compositions or highly heterogeneous compositions. Worst were
    moderately heterogeneous compositions that created subgroups or token members.
    Polzer et al. (2002) also found that high levels of heterogeneity could be conducive
    to developing cohesive teams.
    Harrison and colleagues (1998, 2002) distinguished between surface-level diversity, which deals with demographic differences, and deep-level diversity, which
    deals with differences in attitudes and values, and showed that the importance of
    each varied with time. Surface-level diversity was more critical early, but its influence gave way to deep-level influence at later stages of the group’s development.
    Jehn et al. (1999) distinguished between social category (demographic), value,
    and informational diversity, and reported similar results. Over the course of team’s
    development, value diversity had a much more deleterious effect on commitment
    to the team relative to social category diversity.
    Other research on bonding has examined diversity operationalized by differences in personality traits among team members. Barrick et al. (1998) found that
    social cohesion was highest when teams were high on agreeableness, extraversion,
    and high emotional stability. However, variance in agreeableness harmed cohesion,
    variance in extraversion promoted cohesion, and variance in emotional stability
    was unrelated to cohesion. Clearly, one must go beyond both demographic characteristics and simple, continuum-based hypotheses regarding homogeneity when
    it comes to understanding the complexities of when and why teams bond.
    Although Barrick et al. did not explicitly show why teams high on agreeableness,
    emotional stability, and extraversion (and variance in extraversion) were better able
    to bond, Keller (2001) showed that cross-functional teams create stress, which in
    turn lowers cohesiveness. Teams high on emotional stability may weather this stress
    better than teams that are low in this trait. Simons et al. (1999) showed that another
    key to managing cross-functional teams is producing effective debate, which is
    likely to be difficult to achieve in introverted teams or teams in which all members
    are high in extraversion and thus fight for “airtime.” Finally, Chatman & Flynn
    (2001) found that the speed with which demographically heterogeneous teams
    developed cooperative norms was the best predictor of their eventual viability, and
    this probably is related closely to the level and variability of agreeableness.
    Several recent studies have examined interventions that might be used to minimize social conflict among team
    members. Druskat & Wolff (1999) showed that face-to-face developmental feedback from peers could drastically reduce conflict, especially if this feedback is
    delivered at the appropriate time (at the project’s midpoint). Naumann & Bennett
    (2000) found that leaders who promote procedural justice and apply rules consistently were able to minimize relationship conflict. De Cremer & van Knippenberg
    (2002) replicated and extended these findings regarding the leader’s role in minimizing relationship conflict. van der Vegt et al. (2001) showed that group satisfaction is also promoted by adopting group-level rewards that do not make fine
    19 Nov 2004 11:24
    P1: IKH
    distinctions among team members; the value of this, however, may be offset by
    the fact that cooperative rewards sometimes are associated with higher levels of
    social loafing (Beersma et al. 2003).
    Although consensus exists regarding the deleterious effects of relationship conflict, this is not true with respect to task conflict. Jehn (1994) showed that there
    was a +0.44 correlation between task conflict and team performance and a –0.45
    correlation between relationship conflict and team performance. Unfortunately,
    subsequent research failed to replicate the Jehn (1994) results. A recent metaanalysis, based upon 26 effect sizes, found the 95% confidence interval for the
    relationship between task conflict and performance to be –0.13 to –0.26, making
    the Jehn (1994) result an extreme outlier (De Dreu & Weingart 2003). Indeed, this
    same meta-analysis estimated the correlation between task and relationship conflict
    at over 0.50. The emerging consensus is that task conflict is generally unhelpful
    for teams. Instead of task conflict, teams require (a) rich, unemotional debate in
    a context marked by trust (Simons & Peterson 2000), (b) a context where team
    members feel free to express their doubts and change their minds (Lovelace et al.
    2001), and (c) an ability to resist pressures to compromise quickly (Montoya-Weiss
    et al. 2001) or to reach a premature consensus (Choi & Kim 1999).
    Most of the recent literature we reviewed dealing with behavioral processes of
    adapting falls under two distinct subcategories, one of which deals with performance in routine versus novel contexts, and the second dealing more narrowly
    with one specific aspect of adaptability—workload sharing in the form of either
    helping behaviors or backing up behaviors.
    In a controlled laboratory setting, LePine (2003) extended research from the individual level to teams
    and found teams with higher mean levels of cognitive ability and openness to experience did better when the task environment changed. Documenting differences
    between variables that predict team performance under routine versus novel conditions was also the goal of a study by Marks et al. (2000), but this study examined
    aspects of team training rather than team composition. Using a laboratory study
    simulation, Marks et al. found that training aimed at increasing the team’s ability
    to communicate and interact, as well as expanding communication from leaders,
    improved team adaptability.
    In a study by Waller (1999), the speed with which teams recognized that the
    environment has changed was also shown to be critically important for improving
    adaptability. This study employed airline crews that were observed on a realistic
    flight simulator performing after a hydraulic failure caused an unexpected change
    in the flight plan. Although previous research had documented that adaptability was
    contingent on the team’s ability to reprioritize goals and redistribute tasks, Waller
    (1999) found that it was the speed—not necessarily the frequency—with which
    19 Nov 2004 11:24
    P1: IKH
    teams engaged in these behaviors that was critical for adaptability. Methodologically, observing teams over time was critical; adapting would have been missed
    with retrospective self-reports. It was the timing of the behaviors, not the behaviors
    themselves, that was critical.
    Subsequent research showed that the speed with which teams recognized the
    need for change was related to the number of “interruptions” that caused them
    to “stop and think” about their processes while engaged in the task (Okhuysen &
    Waller 2002). In addition, specific instructions to team members to raise questions
    helped adaptation (Okhuysen & Waller 2002), but did so less when teams members
    had a previous history of working together (Okhuysen 2001). In familiar teams,
    imposition of an external intervention disrupted established roles that already contained provisions for task interruptions. This effect is similar to that observed by
    Arrow (1997), who showed that feedback about deteriorating performance was not
    sufficient to get teams, entrained in their behavioral routines, to radically change
    their processes. Harrison et al. (2003) revealed entrainment on repeated trials of
    a task persisted even when a different type of task “interrupted” those repeated
    Moon et al. (2004) showed that teams whose initial task experience took place
    in a functional structure that created simple tasks with high interdependency requirements were fully able to switch to a divisional structure characterized by
    increased task complexity and less interdependence when the situation demanded
    such a change (Hollenbeck et al. 2002). However, teams that started out in divisional structure were not able to successfully execute a change to a functional
    structure, even when changes in the task environment demanded such a reconfiguration. In this context, the norms of high communication and support behavior of
    the formerly functional teams persisted into the future and promoted their adaptation to their new divisional structure. In contrast, the norms for concentration
    and independence associated with the formerly divisional teams also persisted
    into the future, destroying their ability to adapt to the new requirements of the
    functional structure. This research implies that rather than conceptualizing adaptation as an all-or-nothing phenomenon (teams are either adaptable or not), a more
    appropriate conceptualization would propose that adaptation is a directional phenomenon that needs to consider what the team is adapting from and what it is
    adapting to.
    One specific aspect of adaptation that has
    received a great deal of attention recently is the degree to which team members
    actively share their workload, help, or back up each other when faced with high
    demands. The virtues of workload sharing are one of the critical reasons behind
    adopting team-based structures (McIntyre & Salas 1995). Recent research supports
    this position, but also qualifies it, suggesting that helping behavior is a doubleedged sword.
    On the positive side, Podsakoff et al. (1997) examined the separate facets of
    organizational citizenship, and found that the amount of helping behavior exhibited
    19 Nov 2004 11:24
    P1: IKH
    in the team was the only facet that had a positive impact on both the quality and
    quantity of team performance. This facet of citizenship was more important than
    facets such as civic virtue or sportsmanship.
    Barrick et al. (1998) linked helping to team composition in a study of a large
    number of manufacturing teams where they found teams that were high on conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, and emotional stability provided more
    help to one another relative to teams characterized in the opposite fashion. Moreover, on all four of these attributes, the score of the member lowest on the variable
    provided better predictive value for helping behavior than the average- or highestscoring member for all four traits. This suggests that team members may only help
    each other in a reciprocal fashion, making the team as a whole look more like its
    worst member than its best member on this aspect of group process.
    Another finding that emerged from the Barrick et al. (1998) study was that both
    helping behavior and flexibility were negatively related to variance in the team
    member’s levels of general cognitive ability, suggesting that when high-ability
    members are teamed up with low-ability members, workload sharing is restricted
    and perhaps unidirectional. Other studies employing very different samples and
    methods have found that the frequency of helping behavior is negatively associated with team performance (Baldwin et al. 1997, Podsakoff & MacKenzie 1997).
    Shedding light on this, Porter et al. (2003) directly tested this speculation in a study
    that separated helping behaviors into two kinds—high-legitimacy helping behavior
    that eliminated a true workload distribution problem, and low-legitimacy helping
    behavior that simply reflected codependent enabling of “needy” team members.
    Extraversion displayed both a main and an interactive effect on backing up behavior, indicating that those who were high in extraversion sought and received
    much more help across all conditions, but especially when legitimacy was high.
    Yet, there was no main effect whatsoever for people who were high in conscientiousness, those who were the most discriminating team members when it came to
    helping. People who were high in conscientiousness were more likely to seek help
    in the high-legitimacy condition, but less likely to seek help in the low-legitimacy
    condition relative to those who were low in conscientiousness (thus showing no
    main effect).
    Although low legitimacy in the Porter et al. (2003) study was operationalized
    in terms of a factor external to the team (objective workload distribution), a help
    request might also be low in legitimacy if it originates from someone who is not
    giving his or her best effort to the team. Research on social loafing continues to
    demonstrate how sensitive team members are to suspected “shirking” on the part
    of their teammates (Plaks & Higgins 2000). Indeed, LePine et al. (2002) found that
    potential providers of helping behavior respond very differently to team members
    who seem to need help because of a lack of ability, relative to team members who
    seem to need help due to lack of effort. LePine & Van Dyne (1998) developed a
    more comprehensive model of how teams react to their weakest link, noting how
    characteristics of the low performer influence peers, and in turn determine the form
    of helping intended to benefit the group.
    19 Nov 2004 11:24
    P1: IKH
    Learning is often a cognitive precursor to adaptation. The studies reviewed here
    focus primarily on changes in the team’s knowledge base, rather than behavioral changes that may or may not flow from such learning. Within this category,
    most of the recent literature we reviewed falls under two distinct subcategories:
    (a) learning from team members who are minorities (defined in many different
    ways) and (b) learning who is the best team member for specific tasks and capitalizing on this knowledge.
    Arguments for
    team-based organizational structures are often predicated on the belief that different team members can broaden the team’s initial knowledge base and set the
    stage for expanding that base as members learn from one another. Historically,
    however, the scientific literature has documented repeatedly that teams often fail
    to benefit from minority dissent when it is offered (Esser 1998, Janis 1982, Turner
    & Pratkanis 1998) or fail to access unique information possessed by members
    (Wittenbaum et al. 1999). Thus, it is not surprising that much of the current literature has been devoted to this issue.
    Gibson & Vermeulen (2003), in a field study of teams working in the pharmaceutical industry, showed how learning could be accomplished by managing
    the team’s composition. Extending prior research by Lau & Murnighan (1998) on
    group fault lines, Gibson & Vermeulen argued that diversity in the team’s demographic characteristics is conceptually and empirically distinguishable from the
    degree to which there are identifiable subgroups in the team. A four-person team
    composed of two women and two men, two African Americans and two Caucasians, and two people from operations and two from marketing is diverse, but
    may or may not contain subgroups depending upon whether the differences are
    crossed. Thus, if both African Americans are also both women and also both in
    marketing, this creates two very strong subgroups in the team, which would not
    be the case if one of the African Americans was a man, and one of the men was
    in marketing, and one of the marketing representatives was an African American.
    Gibson & Vermeulen (2003) showed that unless one controls for the degree of subgroup formation, the level of the team’s diversity does not predict team learning.
    Teams learned best when there were a moderate number of weak subgroups.
    The importance of avoiding minority opinions was also documented in a study
    by Ellis et al. (2003) using a “connecting the dots” paradigm. In this paradigm, no
    one team member could learn based solely on his or her own personal experience.
    Unlike Gibson & Vermeulen’s (2003) compositional approach, Ellis et al. took
    a structural approach to this same problem. Based upon past research on collective induction and the “truth supported wins” models (Laughlin 1999), this study
    showed that teams learned best when their resource allocations and task structures
    created “role partners” who could replicate, confirm, and support each other’s personal experiences. Structures that created specialized loners failed to learn because
    19 Nov 2004 11:24
    P1: IKH
    of the noncommensurate nature of their experiences, and teams structured in terms
    of overly broad generalists failed to learn because of information overload. The
    presence of weak subgroups seems to afford each team member some degree of
    “psychological safety” (Edmondson 1999, Edmondson et al. 2001) when sharing
    their experiences or expressing their doubts, and this seems to be essential to promote the level (De Dreu & West 2001) and nature (Lovelace et al. 2001) of group
    participation that creates team-level learning.
    In terms of composition, Ng & Van Dyne (2001) found that value differences
    in terms of collectivism and individualism on the part of both dissenters and the
    team as a whole were critical determinants of group dynamics when there are opportunities for minority influence. Teams that were, on average, high on horizontal
    collectivism—a value emphasizing interdependence, sociability, and equality of
    in-group members—and low on horizontal individualism—a value stressing independence, self-reliance and equality—benefited more from the expression of
    minority dissent in their groups relative to other groups. Groups that were high
    on vertical collectivism—a value orientation that emphasizes interdependence but
    recognizes status inequalities—only obtained benefits from minority dissent when
    the dissenter was high in status. With respect to the dissenters themselves, the
    results indicated that vertical individualists were least stressed when placed in a
    position where they had to espouse a minority viewpoint, and this in turn led to
    greater social influence for these individuals. Thus, composition affected team’s
    ability to benefit from minority dissent, but ironically, the very people most likely
    to express dissent (individualists) were least likely to be influenced by it.
    McLeod et al. (1997) revealed a similar irony in a study that examined a more
    structural approach to minority dissent. Using the widely employed “hidden profile” paradigm, McLeod et al. found people were more likely to dissent when
    interacting in a context that was not face-to-face. Minority dissent, however, was
    less likely to have an impact on team members in this condition, relative to face-toface conditions. Groups that encounter a minority dissenter in face-to-face contexts
    seem to admire the person’s courage, and in line with norms for politeness, are
    more likely to work to incorporate this person’s input into the group’s discussion,
    whereas anonymous, electronically submitted dissent tended to be ignored.
    In addition to learning from minority members, teams also need to learn from their members under different circumstances, and then use this knowledge to improve performance and expand the
    knowledge of other team members. Indeed, although much has been written about
    the value of information sharing and group discussion for promoting performance,
    two separate recent studies showed the value of learning who is the most knowledgeable member for making decisions based on discussions (Lavery et al. 1999,
    Littlepage et al. 1997). The ability of the team to learn from the most knowledgeable
    and to perform well is greater when task difficulty is higher (Bonner et al. 2002).
    Research that examines how teams or team leaders develop differential weighting systems for aggregating individual member judgments into a single judgment
    19 Nov 2004 11:24
    P1: IKH
    for the team can be found under many different headings. The Team Lens Model
    (Brehmer & Hagafors 1986), Judge-Advisor Systems (Sniezek & Buckley 1995;
    Sniezek & Henry 1989, 1990) and the Multilevel Theory of Team Decision-making
    (Hollenbeck et al. 1995; Phillips 2001, 2002) all examined this issue from slightly
    different perspectives. A detailed description of all of the research conducted under
    this heading is beyond our scope (see Humphrey et al. 2002 for a recent review
    of this literature), but the general patterns that emerge from this literature are
    worth noting, especially as they relate to team-level learning. Left to their own devices, most teams fail to learn the optimal schemes for integrating diverse opinions
    (Humphrey et al. 2002).
    Finally, although this section has generally conceptualized team learning as a
    beneficial process that organizations might want to support, it needs to be noted
    that some of the factors that are known to promote learning and flexibility often
    do so at the expense of efficiency. Indeed, research by Bunderson & Sutcliffe
    (2003) found an inverted-U relationship between learning orientation and longterm performance in teams, and that the downward slope of the curve comes sooner
    for previously high-performing teams relative to teams that have struggled.
    All of this suggests the need to balance the team’s need to experiment and grow
    with the need to execute and survive, and nowhere is this duality more difficult
    to manage than in what some have referred to as “high-reliability organizations”
    (HROs). Weick et al. (1999) defined HROs as those that operate in an unforgiving
    competitive, social, and political environment that is rich for potential for error, and
    where the scale of consequences associated with error precludes learning through
    experimentation. This would include operations in nuclear power plants, air traffic
    control, naval aircraft carriers, and space shuttle operations. In these contexts, the
    team’s first error may be its last, and thus the standard approaches to learning
    through experimentation or trial-and-error processes cannot be employed (Weick
    et al. 1999).
    Weick et al. documented that successful HROs balance the need to learn and
    improve with the need for flawless execution by inducing in their members a high
    state of mindfulness. They identify five specific processes that organizations use to
    induce this state, including (a) a preoccupation with small failures or near misses
    that may be diagnostic for larger problems; (b) reluctance to simplify, explain
    away, or cover-up near misses, but a tendency instead to reward people for reporting them and studying them; (c) a high degree of sensitivity to operations at
    the tactical level, where team members create collective situational awareness via
    story-building techniques; (d) resilience, or the ability to bounce back or recover
    from small errors via contingency planning and containment systems; and finally
    (e) underspecifying structures and operations in order to prevent tight coupling
    of systems, thus preventing errors in one component of the system to trigger a
    cascading set of errors quickly down the chain. All of these processes are institutionalized by “after-action reviews,” and, although not all organizations may be
    classified as HROs, Weick et al. argued that many would be better off in the long
    term if they acted as if they were. Indeed, unlike in HROs, teams often never look
    19 Nov 2004 11:24
    P1: IKH
    back, thus precluding the opportunity to learn. Too little attention has been paid
    to processes that allow some teams to benefit more from their experiences than
    Groups and teams in organizational contexts disband for many reasons. The ending may be planned, as is the case for task forces or crews, or unplanned, as in
    the collapse due to interpersonal tensions, task failure, or many other reasons including member loss of interest in remaining together (Arrow et al. 2000). Of the
    three phases of teams in our framework, however, finishing processes are conspicuous in their absence from the empirical teams literature. This is somewhat
    surprising given the multiple theoretical statements emphasizing this phase in the
    life of a team. Several stage models of team development have addressed finishing processes, calling the end-stage adjourning (Tuckman & Jensen 1977), decay
    (Worchel 1994), or termination (van Steenberg LaFarge 1995). Although other
    team models have eschewed the notion of teams progressing predictably through
    stages, they also have dealt theoretically with finishing processes, referring to the
    phase as completion (Gersick 1988), transition (Marks et al. 2001), and metamorphosis (Arrow et al. 2000). Clearly, because many view the decline and eventual
    disbanding of members to be an important phase in the life cycle of teams, much
    more empirical work is needed on this final phase.
    We are left with two general impressions of the recent teams literature, one more
    positive than the other. The most striking development is a convergence on common
    perspective of teams along with theories and methods to address the complexities
    of the perspective. Teams are viewed as complex, adaptive, dynamic systems, and
    they are embedded in organizations and contexts and performing tasks over time
    (Ilgen 1999). Theories directed at teams/small groups in general (Arrow et al.
    2000), adaptive teams (Kozlowski et al. 1999), team process (Marks et al. 2001),
    or focused on issues of training (Cannon-Bowers & Salas 1998, DeShon et al.
    2004), provide excellent frameworks for addressing team behavior. Methodological and computational developments also are appearing to handle more effectively
    the complexities of multilevel problems (e.g., Klein & Kozlowski 2000). In addition, mathematical (Losada 1999) and computational models are being strongly
    advocated (Arrow et al. 2000, Hulin & Ilgen 2000) for aiding the understanding of
    organizational behavior in teams and other settings. A recent National Research
    Council study panel (Pew & Mavor 1998) shows that these models have been extremely helpful in application to military simulations. In many respects, theories
    and methods that have recently emerged provide a firm foundation on which to
    build into the future.
    19 Nov 2004 11:24
    P1: IKH
    The domain of empirical studies, although possessing a number of interesting
    and important studies (as we have pointed out in our review), is far less cohesive or
    coherent in its entirety than is theory and method. In part, this may be because the
    research is more problem-driven than theory-driven. Demands of rapidly changing markets, the need for command and control, stressful military settings, and
    the existence of virtual organizations spanning national borders cry for the design
    of organizational systems incorporating teams and research to address each specific problem. Problems and the time urgency that often accompanies them direct
    attention away from programmatic research directed toward the development of
    overarching theories. It also leads to unsystematic sampling of the theory space as
    is evidenced by the paucity of work on teams as they decline. It has also led to a
    proliferation of processes that often are not very well articulated, as Marks et al.
    (2001) noticed in their review of team process where the differentiation between
    team process and resulting states of these processes (emergent states) were often
    blurred. Finally, although the importance of dynamic conditions experienced over
    time are accepted by all, the empirical work is only beginning to consider the
    implications of time in research designs. Thus, the empirical research lags behind
    the theoretical and methodological work at this time. However, given the strength
    of the latter and the level of activity in all domains of the study of teams, we are
    optimistic that the next Annual Review of Psychology chapter on teams will see
    even greater progress than we witnessed.
    We thank the Office of Naval Research (N00014-00–1-0398) for support to prepare
    this review and for the many opportunities given to J. R. Hollenbeck, D. R. Ilgen,
    and their students to study and participate in many kinds of teams. While we
    gratefully acknowledge the support, we also acknowledge that the ideas are ours
    and the support does not imply endorsement by the Office of Naval Research.
    The Annual Review of Psychology is online at http://psych.annualreviews.org
    Arrow H. 1997. Stability, bistability, and instability in small group influence patterns. J.
    Personal. Soc. Psychol. 72:75–85
    Arrow H, McGrath JE, Berdahl JL. 2000. Small
    Groups as Complex Systems: Formation, Coordination, Development, and Adaptation.
    Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
    Austin JR. 2003. Transactive memory in organizational groups: the effects of content, consensus, specialization, and accuracy on group
    performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 88:866–78
    Baldwin TT, Bedell MD, Johnson JL. 1997. The
    social fabric of a team-based MBA program:
    network effects on student satisfaction and
    performance. Acad. Manage. J. 40:1369–97
    Baltes BB, Dickson MW, Sherman MP, Bauer
    CC, LaGanke JS. 2002. Computer-mediated
    communication and group decision making:
    a meta-analysis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis.
    Process. 87:156–79
    Barrick MR, Stewart GL, Neubert MJ, Mount
    MK. 1998. Relating member ability and
    19 Nov 2004 11:24
    personality to work-team processes and team
    effectiveness. J. Appl. Psychol. 83:377–
    Barry B, Stewart GL. 1997. Composition,
    process, and performance in self-managed
    groups: the role of personality. J. Appl. Psychol. 82:62–78
    Beal DJ, Cohen RR, Burke MJ, McLendon CL.
    2003. Cohesion and performance in groups:
    a meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. J. Appl. Psychol. 88:989–1004
    Beersma B, Hollenbeck JR, Humphrey SE,
    Moon H, Conlon DE. 2003. Cooperation,
    competition, and team performance: toward
    a contingency approach. Acad. Manage. J.
    Bishop JW, Scott KD. 2000. An examination
    of organizational and team commitment in a
    self-directed team environment. J. Appl. Psychol. 85:439–50
    Bonner BL, Baumann MR, Dalal RS. 2002.
    The effects of member expertise on group
    decision-making and performance. Organ.
    Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 88:719–36
    Brehmer B, Hagafors R. 1986. Use of experts
    in complex decision-making: a paradigm for
    the study of staff work. Organ. Behav. Hum.
    Decis. Process. 38:181–95
    Bunderson JS, Sutcliffe KM. 2002. Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: process and performance effects. Acad. Manage.
    J. 45:875–93
    Bunderson JS, Sutcliffe KA. 2003. Management team learning orientation and business
    unit performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 88:552–
    Burt RS. 2000. The network structure of social
    capital. Res. Organ. Behav. 22:345–423
    Campion MA, Papper EM, Medsker GJ. 1996.
    Relations between work team characteristics
    and effectiveness: a replication and extension. Pers. Psychol. 49:429–52
    Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, eds. 1998. Making Decisions Under Stress: Implications for
    Individual and Team Training. Washington,
    DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc. 447 pp.
    Chatman JA, Flynn FJ. 2001. The influ-
    P1: IKH
    ence of demographic heterogeneity on the
    emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Acad. Manage. J.
    Chen G, Webber SS, Bliese PD, Mathieu JE,
    Payne SC, et al. 2002. Simultaneous examination of the antecedents and consequences
    of efficacy beliefs at multiple levels of analysis. Hum. Perform. 15:381–409
    Choi JN, Kim MU. 1999. The organizational
    application of groupthink and its limitations
    in organizations. J. Appl. Psychol. 84:297–
    Collyer SC, Malecki GS. 1998. Tactical decision making under stress: history and
    overview. See Cannon-Bowers & Salas 1998,
    pp. 3–16
    Colquitt JA, Noe RA, Jackson CL. 2002. Justice in teams: antecedents and consequences
    of procedural justice climate. Pers. Psychol.
    Coovert MD, Thompson LF. 2000. Computer
    Supported Cooperative Work: Issues and Implications for Workers, Organizations, and
    Human Resource Management. Thousand
    Oaks, CA: Sage
    De Cremer D, van Knippenberg D. 2002. How
    do leaders promote cooperation? The effects
    of charisma and procedural fairness. J. Appl.
    Psychol. 87:858–66
    De Dreu CKW, Weingart LR. 2003. Task versus
    relationship conflict, team performance, and
    team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis.
    J. Appl. Psychol. 88:741–49
    De Dreu CKW, West MA. 2001. Minority dissent and team innovation: the importance
    of participation in decision making. J. Appl.
    Psychol. 86:1191–201
    DeShon RP, Kozlowski SWJ, Schmidt AM.
    2004. A multiple goal, multilevel model of
    feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance in training. J. Appl.
    Psychol. In press
    Dirks KT. 1999. The effects of interpersonal
    trust on work group performance. J. Appl.
    Psychol. 84:445–55
    Drach-Zahavy A, Somech A. 2001. Understanding team innovation: the role of team
    19 Nov 2004 11:24
    P1: IKH
    processes and structures. Group Dyn. 5:111–
    Druskat VU, Kayes DC. 2000. Learning versus performance in short-term project teams.
    Small Group Res. 31:328–53
    Druskat VU, Wolff SB. 1999. Effects and timing of developmental peer appraisals in selfmanaging work groups. J. Appl. Psychol.
    Duffy MK, Shaw JD, Stark EM. 2000. Performance and satisfaction in conflicted interdependent groups: When and how does selfesteem make a difference? Acad. Manage. J.
    Durham CC, Locke EA, Poon JML, McLeod
    PL. 2000. Effects of group goals and time
    pressure on group efficacy, informationseeking strategy, and performance. Hum.
    Perform. 13:115–38
    Earley PC, Mosakowski E. 2000. Creating
    hybrid team cultures: an empirical test of
    transnational team functioning. Acad. Manage. J. 43:26–49
    Edmondson AC. 1999. Psychological safety
    and learning behavior in work teams. Admin.
    Sci. Q. 44:350–83
    Edmondson AC, Bohmer RM, Pisano GP. 2001.
    Disrupted routines: team learning and new
    technology implementation in hospitals. Admin. Sci. Q. 46:685–716
    Ellis APJ, Hollenbeck JR, Ilgen DR, Porter
    COLH, West BJ, Moon H. 2003. Team learning: collectively connecting the dots. J. Appl.
    Psychol. 88:821–35
    Erez A, Lepine JA, Elms H. 2002. Effects of
    rotated leadership and peer evaluation on
    the functioning and effectiveness of selfmanaged teams: a quasi-experiment. Pers.
    Psychol. 55:929–48
    Esser JK. 1998. Alive and well after 25
    years: a review of groupthink research. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 73:116–
    Gersick CJG. 1988. Time and transition in work
    teams toward a new model of group development. Acad. Manage. J. 31:9–41
    Gibson CB. 1999. Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and group ef-
    fectiveness across tasks and cultures. Acad.
    Manage. J. 42:138–52
    Gibson CB, Vermeulen F. 2003. A healthy divide: subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Admin. Sci. Q. 48:202–39
    Gonzalez MG, Burke MJ, Santuzzi AM,
    Bradley JC. 2003. The impact of group process variables on the effectiveness of distance
    collaboration groups. Comput. Hum. Behav.
    Gully SM, Incalcaterra KA, Joshi A, Beaubian
    JM. 2002. A meta-analysis of team-efficacy,
    potency, and performance: interdependence
    and level of analysis as moderators of
    observed relationships. J. Appl. Psychol.
    Guzzo RA, Dickson MW. 1996. Teams in
    organizations: recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annu. Rev. Psychol.
    Guzzo RA, Yost PR, Campbell RJ, Shea GP.
    1993. Potency in groups: articulating a construct. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 32:87–106
    Hackman JR. 1987. The design of work teams.
    In Handbook of Organizational Behavior, ed.
    JW Lorsch, pp. 315–42. Englewood Cliffs,
    NJ: Prentice-Hall
    Harrison DA, Mohammed S, McGrath JE, Florey AT, Vanderstoep SW. 2003. Time matters
    in team performance: effects of member familiarity, entrainment, and task discontinuity
    on speed and quality. Pers. Psychol. 56:633–
    Harrison DA, Price KH, Bell MP. 1998. Beyond
    relational demography: time and the effects
    of surface- and deep-level diversity on work
    group cohesion. Acad. Manage. J. 41:96–107
    Harrison DA, Price KH, Gavin JH, Florey AT.
    2002. Time, teams, and task performance:
    changing effects of surface- and deep-level
    diversity on group functioning. Acad. Manage. J. 45:1029–45
    Hecht TD, Allen NJ, Klammer JD, Kelly EC.
    2002. Group beliefs, ability, and performance: the potency of group potency. Group
    Dyn. 6:143–52
    Hinds PJ, Carley KM, Krackhardt D, Wholey
    D. 2000. Choosing work group members:
    19 Nov 2004 11:24
    balancing similarity, competence, and familiarity. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.
    Hinds PJ, Kiesler S, eds . 2002. Distributed
    Work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 475 pp.
    Hofmann DA, Stetzer A. 1996. A crosslevel investigation of factors influencing unsafe behaviors and accidents. Pers. Psychol.
    Hollenbeck JR, Ilgen DR, Sego DJ, Hedlund
    J, Major DA, et al. 1995. Multilevel theory of team decision-making: decision performance in teams incorporating distributed
    expertise. J. Appl. Psychol. 80:292–316
    Hollenbeck JR, Moon H, Ellis APJ, West BJ,
    Ilgen DR, et al. 2002. Structural contingency
    theory and individual differences: examination of external and internal person-team fit.
    J. Appl. Psychol. 87:599–606
    Hulin CL, Ilgen DR. 2000. Introduction to computational modeling in organizations: the
    good that modeling does. In Computational
    Modeling of Behavior in Organizations: The
    Third Scientific Discipline, ed. DR Ilgen, CL
    Hulin, pp. 3–18. Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
    Humphrey SE, Hollenbeck JR, Meyer CJ, Ilgen DR. 2002. Hierarchical team decision
    making. In Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, ed. GR Ferris,
    JJ Martocchio, pp. 175–214. New York: Elsevier/JAI Press
    Hyatt DE, Ruddy TM. 1997. An examination of
    the relationship between work group characteristics and performance: once more into the
    breech. Pers. Psychol. 50:553–85
    Ilgen DR. 1999. Teams embedded in organizations. Am. Psychol. 54:129–39
    Janis IL, ed. 1982. Groupthink: A Study of Foreign Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston:
    Houghton Mifflin. 2nd ed.
    Janz BD, Colquitt JA, Noe RA. 1997. Knowledge worker team ef…

    Place your order
    (550 words)

    Approximate price: $22

    Calculate the price of your order

    550 words
    We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
    Total price:
    The price is based on these factors:
    Academic level
    Number of pages
    Basic features
    • Free title page and bibliography
    • Unlimited revisions
    • Plagiarism-free guarantee
    • Money-back guarantee
    • 24/7 support
    On-demand options
    • Writer’s samples
    • Part-by-part delivery
    • Overnight delivery
    • Copies of used sources
    • Expert Proofreading
    Paper format
    • 275 words per page
    • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
    • Double line spacing
    • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

    Our guarantees

    Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
    That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

    Money-back guarantee

    You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

    Read more

    Zero-plagiarism guarantee

    Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

    Read more

    Free-revision policy

    Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

    Read more

    Privacy policy

    Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

    Read more

    Fair-cooperation guarantee

    By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

    Read more
    Live Chat+1(978) 822-0999EmailWhatsApp

    Order your essay today and save 20% with the discount code LEMONADE