No abstract

Two experiments compared the effectiveness of team and solo negotiators in integrative and distributive bargaining. When at least 1 party to a negotiation was a team, joint profit increased. Teams, more than solos, developed mutually beneficial trade-offs among issues and discovered compatible interests. The presence of at least I team increased information exchange and accuracy in judgments about the other party's interests in comparison with solo negotiations. The belief by both teams and solos that teams have a relative advantage over solo opponents was not supported by actual outcomes. Unexpectedly, neither private meetings nor friendships among team members improved the team's advantage. Teams of friends made less accurate judgments and reached fewer integrative agreements compared to teams of nonfriends.

We assessed collective efficacy (a group's judgment of their ability to perform a particular task) and some dimensions of shared mental models (models of the group structure, process and the task, that members hold in common) in student groups working on semester-long research projects. In particular, we assessed the extent to which group members had agreement and accuracy about members' past and future contributions to the group project, and agreement about the importance of various task aspects. Groups with higher efficacy early in the semester had more agreement and accuracy later in the semester. However, the reverse was not true; the extent to which agreement and accuracy developed early in the semester was not correlated with collective efficacy later in the semester. Also, groups with higher collective efficacy (as measured early and late in the semester) and more shared mental models (as measured late in the semester) received higher grades on their projects. A number of task process and social process variables were tested as possible mediators of these relationships; however, no significant mediators were found.

No abstract

No abstract