Individual-Level Predictors of Task-Related Teamwork Processes

Sonnentag, Sabine; Volmer, Judith

doi:10.1177/1059601108329377

Cited by 60 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, interviewers who are less efficacious may have difficulty making decisions about applicants. Other research has found that people who are highly efficacious are less likely to seek information from others, tend to consider fewer alternatives, and take less time to make decisions than people who are less efficacious (e.g., Sonnentag & Volmer, 2009;Stone, 1994). Cognitive load theory may help to explain these effects.…”

Section: Interviewer Individual Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

How quickly do interviewers reach decisions? An examination of interviewers' decision‐making time across applicants

Frieder

Iddekinge

Raymark

2015

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We develop and test a model of factors that may account for how quickly interviewers make decisions about job applicants. Data were collected from 166 interviewers who interviewed applicants (N = 691) at a university career centre. Results revealed that interviewers who possessed more experience and higher interviewing efficacy tended to make quicker decisions, as did interviewers who engaged in more rapport building. In contrast, use of question consistency (a key element of structured interviews) tended to increase the time interviewers took to make their decisions. Consistent with cognitive load theory, interview decision time had a curvilinear relationship with applicant order. Specifically, decision time increased as interviewers progressed through the first few applicants, but after about four applicants, decision time reached an asymptote and then began to decrease as interviewers evaluated additional applicants. These findings have implications for the design of future interview research (e.g., accounting for intrainterviewer changes in decision-making time across applicants), as well as for the use of interviews in organizations (e.g., designing interviews and interview schedules that discourage quick decisions). Practitioner pointsThe belief that most interviewers make very quick decisions about job applicants may be overstated. Interviewers with more experience and higher interviewing efficacy tend to make quicker decisions than interviewers with less experience and lower efficacy. Organizations may want to conduct refresher training for interviewers that emphasizes the value of gathering information throughout the entire interview. The way interviews are designed can promote or inhibit quick decisions. For example, less structured interviews that encourage interviewers to build rapport with applicants at the outset of the interview appear to lead to quicker decisions. In contrast, structured interviews that require interviewers to ask every applicant the same questions appear to discourage quick decisions. Interviewers tend to take longer to evaluate applicants near the beginning of their interview schedule and take less time to evaluate applicants near the end of their schedule. This may prevent applicants who appear later in the schedule from having a full opportunity to perform. Organizations may benefit from limiting the number of interviews an interviewer conducts in immediate succession to around four, which may decrease reliance on more automatic information processing strategies.

show abstract

Section: Interviewer Individual Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

How quickly do interviewers reach decisions? An examination of interviewers' decision‐making time across applicants

Frieder

Iddekinge

Raymark

2015

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The finding that procedural behaviors can actively promote proactive behavior thus offers promising opportunities for creating more efficient meeting processes and outcomes. Meetings research should continue to explore procedural communication as a tool for promoting good team meeting practices and thus facilitating team performance (Baran, Shanock, Rogelberg, & Scott, 2012;Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012;Sonnentag & Volmer, 2009). Furthermore, procedural communication significantly inhibited dysfunctional meeting behaviors within the team interaction process.…”

Section: Implications For Meetings Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Sequential Analysis of Procedural Meeting Communication: How Teams Facilitate Their Meetings

Lehmann‐Willenbrock¹,

Allen²,

Kauffeld³

2013

Journal of Applied Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

show abstract

“…For example, the person controlling the keyboard dominated cross-site communication even though the audio facility made contributions from any team member perfectly audible at either site. Sonnentag and Volmer (2009) studied how individuals in software design teams contributed to teamwork processes during team meetings. They found expertise to be a strong predictor of individuals' contributions.…”

Section: Meetings In Generalmentioning

confidence: 99%

The daily stand-up meeting: A grounded theory study

Stray

Sjøberg

Dybå

2016

Journal of Systems and Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: The daily stand-up meeting is one of the most used agile practices but has rarely been the subject of empirical research. Aim: The present study aims to identify how daily stand-up meetings are conducted and what the attitudes towards them are. Method: A grounded theory study of the daily stand-up meeting was conducted with twelve software teams in three companies in Malaysia, Norway, Poland and the United Kingdom. We interviewed 60 people, observed 79 daily stand-up meetings and collected supplementary data. Results: The factors that contributed the most to a positive attitude towards the daily stand-up meeting were information sharing with the team and the opportunity to discuss and solve problems. The factors that contributed the most to a negative attitude were status reporting to the manager and spending too much time; both the frequency and duration of the meeting were perceived to be too much. Based on our results, we developed a grounded theory of daily stand-up meetings and proposed evidencebased guidelines on how to organize them. Conclusion: Organizations should be aware of the factors that may affect attitude towards daily stand-up meetings and should consider our proposed guidelines to improve the way the meetings are conducted.

show abstract

Individual-Level Predictors of Task-Related Teamwork Processes

Cited by 60 publications

References 73 publications

How quickly do interviewers reach decisions? An examination of interviewers' decision‐making time across applicants

How quickly do interviewers reach decisions? An examination of interviewers' decision‐making time across applicants

A Sequential Analysis of Procedural Meeting Communication: How Teams Facilitate Their Meetings

The daily stand-up meeting: A grounded theory study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About