Agreement About Norms and Work-Unit Effectiveness: Evidence From the Field

Argote, Linda

doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1002_3

Cited by 39 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research into shared mental models is based on the proposition that if team members share similar mental models of the abilities, skills, and processes of the group, they will be able to communicate and coordinate with one another more effectively and, ultimately, perform better (BarTal, 1990; Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Converse, 1993;Salas, Dickinson, Converse, & Tannenbaum, 1992). The empirical research not only supports this proposition (Argote, 1989;Marks, Zaccaro, & Mathieu, 2000;Mathieu, Goodwin, Heffner, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000;Peterson, Mitchell, Thompson, & Burr, 2000;Walsh, Henderson, & Deighton, 1988) but suggests that other forms of homogeneity also are beneficial for group performance and well-being. For example, homogeneity in attitudes and affect has been found to be associated with lower group conflict, higher member satisfaction, and more prosocial behavior (Barsade, Ward, Turner, & Sonnenfeld, 2000;Krebs, 1975).…”

Section: Why Investigate Within-group Homogeneity?mentioning

confidence: 65%

Exploring the Processes Underlying Within-Group Homogeneity

Mason

2006

Small Group Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many group-level constructs are based on within-group homogeneity in attitudes, affect, beliefs, and perceptions. In this article, three models for the development of within-group homogeneity are delineated. These models are shown to have implications both for differences between variables in their level of homogeneity and the conditions under which relatively high and low homogeneity should be observed. The models are explored in a small sample (N = 24 groups), where homogeneity in job satisfaction, positive affect, potency beliefs, and task-identity perceptions is examined. The results indicate that variables differ in their mean level of homogeneity and suggest that homogeneity may be the product of a combination of processes. A hierarchical framework for the investigation of homogeneity is suggested for further research.

show abstract

Section: Why Investigate Within-group Homogeneity?mentioning

confidence: 65%

Exploring the Processes Underlying Within-Group Homogeneity

Mason

2006

Small Group Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a result, "group members tend to decrease the variance in their behavior" (Vroom, 1969, p. 223) as their behavior converges on the agreed upon norm. Norms apply more or less equally to all team members (Argots, 1989).…”

Section: Normsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A norm does not always arise when the existence of an effective norm would be in the interests of all or most persons (Coleman, 1990). By debating and establishing formal norms, teams are better able to proactively determine behaviors that are best tailored to their needs (Argots, 1989;Feldman, 1984). Accordingly, because of the importance of team norms, some scholars recommend that formal team norms be debated and agreed upon when the team is initially created (e.g., Argots, 1989;Feldman, 1984).…”

Section: Normsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By debating and establishing formal norms, teams are better able to proactively determine behaviors that are best tailored to their needs (Argots, 1989;Feldman, 1984). Accordingly, because of the importance of team norms, some scholars recommend that formal team norms be debated and agreed upon when the team is initially created (e.g., Argots, 1989;Feldman, 1984). Negotiation of common expectations regarding how each team member should behave (i.e., team norms) represents a proactive stance toward dealing with team problems (Wageman, 1997) and should contribute to team performance (Mullen & Copper, 1994;Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939).…”

Section: Normsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…the negotiation of common expectations in the form of agreed upon team norms may contribute to team performance (Argots, 1989;Mullen & Copper, 1994;Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939;Thompson, 1967).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The role of leaders in shaping formal team norms

Taggar

Ellis

2007

The Leadership Quarterly

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The positive group affect spiral: a dynamic model of the emergence of positive affective similarity in work groups

Walter¹,

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThis conceptual paper seeks to clarify the process of the emergence of positive collective affect. Specifically, it develops a dynamic model of the emergence of positive affective similarity in work groups. It is suggested that positive group affective similarity and within-group relationship quality are reciprocally interrelated in the form of a self-reinforcing spiral, which is driven by mechanisms of affective sharing and affective similarity-attraction between group members. We label this spiraling relationship 'Positive Group Affect Spiral.' This spiral is proposed to continuously strengthen both the similarity of group members' positive affect and the quality of their interpersonal relationships in a dynamic process. Further, we embed the Positive Group Affect Spiral into a framework of contextual factors that may diminish or strengthen its functioning, considering the potential impacts of charismatic leadership, individuals' or subgroups' organizational cynicism, group and organizational emotion norms, and organizational identity.

show abstract

Agreement About Norms and Work-Unit Effectiveness: Evidence From the Field

Cited by 39 publications

References 17 publications

Exploring the Processes Underlying Within-Group Homogeneity

Exploring the Processes Underlying Within-Group Homogeneity

The role of leaders in shaping formal team norms

The positive group affect spiral: a dynamic model of the emergence of positive affective similarity in work groups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About