Need for structure as asset and liability in dynamic team decision-making.

Abstract

Based on the motivated information processing in groups model, we predicted that low personal need for structure (PNS) among team members helps team dynamic decision-making performance on highly ambiguous tasks, but hurts performance on tasks low in ambiguity. In a laboratory experiment involving 22 groups of army cadets performing a command-and-control task, we measured PNS and manipulated informational ambiguity. We found that team PNS was negatively related to team performance when tasks were high in ambiguity and positively related to performance when tasks were less ambiguous. This effect was mediated by information processing and behavioral coordination.

Collaboration in project teams: The role of mastery and performance climates

“…Until now only few studies have investigated regulatory foci and motivational climates in a team context (Lai et al, 2018). Beersma et al (2016) demonstrated in an experimental design that prevention focused teams reported higher work engagement, less error intolerance and coordinated more effectively, but only when teams were working for team rewards rather than individual rewards. Apparently, social motivations are a decisive factor that connects motivational climates to collaboration in teams.…”

From Integrated Care to Integrating Care: A Conceptual Framework of Behavioural Processes Underlying Effective Collaboration in Care

“…Besides integrating a wide variety of theories, the MIP-G model is renowned for shedding light on the factors that contribute to effective joint decision-making in groups and its applicability across various contexts. These include cross-functional teams that perform non-routine and complex tasks [47], army cadets working on a dynamic, ambiguous decision-making task [48], and top management teams agreeing upon innovations proposed by team members [49]. What the aforementioned studies have in common is that actors have different perspectives and interests that must be integrated in order to come to a workable solution for all actors involved.…”

The dual nature of adaptive coordination in teams

“…Following the latter argument, we focus on coordination here. Often, coordination is conceptualized as a unitary construct and measured with survey questions (e.g., DeChurch & Haas, 2008;Summers, Humphrey, & Ferris, 2012) or inferred from performance indicators (e.g., Beersma, Greer, Dalenberg, & De Dreu, 2016;Beersma et al, 2009;Moon et al, 2004). There are a few observational studies, which contain a more fine-grained analysis of coordination, distinguishing, for instance, between explicit and implicit coordination (e.g., Grote, Kolbe, Zala-Mezö, Bienefeld-Seall, & Künzle, 2010;Riethmüller, Fernandez Castelao, Eberhardt, Timmermann, & Boos, 2012) or between task and information management (e.g., Burtscher et al, 2011), or capturing team-specific idiosyncratic coordination patterns (e.g., Uitdewilligen, Rico, & Waller, 2018).…”