Analyzing Interaction Patterns in Dysfunctional Teams

Abstract

After a brief review of team effectiveness models is presented, Stohl and Schell’s concept of farrago— a confusing group member who becomes the relational focus of a dysfunctional group—is reconfigured into primary and secondary provokers. It was hypothesized that a group’s dysfunction is caused by the primary provoker’s confusing behavior. Behaving at one anchor of a behavioral dimension and then at the other, the primary provoker pulls other group members into a web of confusing communication, causing them to become secondary provokers. The dysfunction that results replaces the task focus of the team. This assumption was tested in two studies of organizational work groups. Results indicate that confusion on only one dimension—the friendly-unfriendly—distinguishes dysfunctional from effective groups.

Small group relational satisfaction scale: Development, reliability and validity

“…Both attitudes and communication traits have been identified as meaningful input factors affecting groups (see Gouran, 1994;Haslett & Ruebush, 1999). Equally, group members need feedback to strengthen self-efficacy beliefs that the members and the group can and will reach goals (Keyton, 1999a). Nadler (1979) suggested that the giving and receiving of feedback is valuable because it provides information and evaluation of group and individual role performances to strengthen self-efficacy beliefs.…”

Cohesion in Sports and Organizational Psychology: An Annotated Bibliography and Suggestions for U.S. Army Aviation (1993 to 2003)

“…The presence of persistent conflict, poor perceived support, or perceptions of injustice often results in negative attributions to teams. Weak leadership can contribute to negative perceptions when a member seeks to usurp control over the team by refocusing team communication on his or her actions rather than on team tasks (Keyton, 1999). Common responses to negative associations with teams include the creation of factions, confusion over goals, and withdrawal.…”

“…The mixture of poor leadership and poor organizational governance can provide the opportunity for informal leaders to seek control of the team (Keyton, 1999). Leaders can avoid dysfunctional behavior in teams by stressing roles, goals, norms, and task-oriented activity.…”

“…Members are motivated to remain engaged in the team process when they hold the belief that team outcomes depend upon the efforts of team members and that the outcomes are of personal value (Shepperd & Taylor, 1999;Smith, Kerr, Markus, & Stasson, 2001). Problems with team leadership can detract from cooperation (Keyton, 1999). Strategies for maintaining member involvement include reinforcing team goals, fostering a sense of belonging to the group, and creating a sense of value in team outcomes that the individual will value personally (Karau & Williams, 1995).…”

“…Positive interactions increase commitment and the likelihood that future interactions will occur, leading to cohesion (Lawler, 2001). Negative interactions or team failures can cause commitment to diminish leading to flawed decision-making that will likely diminish productivity (Keyton, 1999). A task of leadership is to manage the interpersonal climate of the team.…”