Multilevel theory of team decision making: Decision performance in teams incorporating distributed expertise.

Hollenbeck, John R.; Ilgen, Daniel R.; Sego, Douglas J.; Hedlund, Jennifer; Major, Debra A.; Phillips, Jean M.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.80.2.292

Cited by 302 publications

(272 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

262

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The research paradigm is temporally sensitive in that the leader makes decisions, gets feedback, and has to incorporate the feedback into subsequent decisions. Hollenbeck et al (1995) introduced the theory and tested it in two research contexts showing that team leaders are generally sensitive to the quality and accuracy of the advice they receive from team members and, over time, adjust accordingly. Hollenbeck, Colquitt, Ilgen, LePine, and Hedlund (1998) evaluated boundary conditions across different components of decision accuracy and member specialization.…”

Section: Enhancing Team Effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Work Groups and Teams in Organizations

Kozlowski

Bell

2012

Handbook of Psychology, Second Edition

537

678

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract[Excerpt] Our objective in this chapter is to provide an integrative perspective on work groups and teams in organizations, one that addresses primary foci of theory and research, highlights applied implications, and identifies key issues in need of research attention and resolution. Given the volume of existing reviews, our review is not intended to be exhaustive. Rather, it uses representative work to characterize key topics, and focuses on recent work that breaks new ground to help move theory and research forward. Although our approach risks trading breadth for depth, we believe that there is much value in taking a more integrative view of the important areas of team research, identifying key research themes, and linking the themes and disparate topics closer together. To the extent that we identify new and necessary areas of theory development and research, the value of this approach will be evident. We would like to acknowledge several colleagues who provided insightful comments on an initial outline or draft of this chapter. Our thanks to Neil Anderson, Murray Barrick, Jan Cannon-Bowers, Paul Goodman, Stan Gully, Cyn D. Fisher, Richard Hackman, John Hollenbeck, Susan Jackson, Michelle Marks, John Mathieu, Susan Mohamed, Greg Stewart, Anne Tsui, Eduardo Salas, Ruth Wageman, Wang Zhong-Ming, and Michael West. Thanks also to Richard Klimoski for his helpful editorial guidance throughout. We would also like to acknowledge the Air Force Office of Scientific Research for support (F49620-98-1-0363 and F49620-01-1-0283, S.W.J. Kozlowski and R.P. DeShon, Principal Investigators) that in part assisted the composition of this chapter. Although many sources provided inputs to this chapter, the views expressed are those of the authors. Work Groups and Teams RESEARCH ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Research IssuesContext.Task Interdependence. Levels.Time. Research RecommendationsThe Nature of Teams.Composition.Formation, Socialization, and Development.Team Effectiveness, Processes, and Enhancements.Leadership and Motivation.Continuance and Decline. Conclusion Work Groups and Teams 4The last decade and a half has witnessed a remarkable transformation of organizational structures worldwide. Although there are economic, strategic, and technological imperatives driving this transformation, one of its more compelling aspects has been an ongoing shift from work organized around individual jobs to team-based work structures (Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1995 This ongoing transformation in the basic organization of work has captured the attention of researchers and is reflected by new theories of team functioning, a rapidly growing number of empirical studies, and numerous literature reviews written on the burgeoning research on teams. It is also reflected in a shift in the locus of team research. For most of its history, small group research has been centered in social psychology (McGrath, 1997). Over the last 15 years, however, group and team research has become increasingly centered in the fields of organizational psycho...

show abstract

Section: Enhancing Team Effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Work Groups and Teams in Organizations

Kozlowski

Bell

2012

Handbook of Psychology, Second Edition

537

678

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As individuals work together they become aware of both the similar and the complementary skills of other group members. Groups with complementary skills can cover a wider range of possible problems and may bring a host of alternative information, thus increasing the overall knowledge and information processing capability of the group, which should in turn lead to higher group performance (Hollenbeck, Ilgen, Sego, Hedlund, Major, & Phillips, 1995; see also Jehn, Northcraft, &Neale, 1997, andPelled, Eisenhardt, &Xin, 1997). Groups with complementary skills should therefore be more successful to the extent that their skills are necessary to the task.…”

Section: Homophilymentioning

confidence: 99%

Choosing Work Group Members: Balancing Similarity, Competence, and Familiarity

Hinds

Carley

Wholey

2000

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

335

246

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explores one of the contributors to group composition-the basis on which people choose others with whom they want to work. We use a combined model to explore individual attributes, relational attributes, and previous structural ties as determinants of work partner choice. Four years of data from participants in 33 small project groups were collected, some of which reflects individual participant characteristics and some of which is social network data measuring the previous relationship between two participants. Our results suggest that when selecting future group members people are biased toward others of the same race, others who have a reputation for being competent and hard working, and others with whom they have developed strong working relationships in the past. These results suggest that people strive for predictability when choosing future work group members. ᭧ 2000 Academic PressPeople often play either a direct or an indirect role in choosing their work partners. In volunteer organizations, people decide which group or committee to join. Academics decide who to collaborate with on research projects. And,

show abstract

“…Experience has been shown to impact both individual job performance (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998) and team job performance (Berman, Down, & Hill, 2002;Gladstein, 1984;Hollenbeck et al, 1995;Mohammed, Mathieu, & Bartlett, 2002;Rentsch & Klimoski, 2001). Yet, these effects have been observed in research that lacked "any guiding theoretical framework" (Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998;p.…”

Section: Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a theory of the strategic core of teams: A role composition model of team performance.

Humphrey

Morgeson

Mannor

2009

Journal of Applied Psychology

238

291

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although numerous models of team performance have been articulated over the past 20 years, these models have primarily focused on the individual attribute approach to team composition. The authors utilized a role composition approach, which investigates how the characteristics of a set of role holders impact team effectiveness, to develop a theory of the strategic core of teams. Their theory suggests that certain team roles are most important for team performance and that the characteristics of the role holders in the "core" of the team are more important for overall team performance. This theory was tested in 778 teams drawn from 29 years of major league baseball (1974 -2002). Results demonstrate that although high levels of experience and job-related skill are important predictors of team performance, the relationships between these constructs and team performance are significantly stronger when the characteristics are possessed by core role holders (as opposed to non-core role holders). Further, teams that invest more of their financial resources in these core roles are able to leverage such investments into significantly improved performance. These results have implications for team composition models, as they suggest a new method for considering individual contributions to a team's success that shifts the focus onto core roles.

show abstract

Multilevel theory of team decision making: Decision performance in teams incorporating distributed expertise.

Cited by 302 publications

References 22 publications

Work Groups and Teams in Organizations

Work Groups and Teams in Organizations

Choosing Work Group Members: Balancing Similarity, Competence, and Familiarity

Developing a theory of the strategic core of teams: A role composition model of team performance.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About