Teamwork Processes and Emergent States

Grossman, Rebecca; Friedman, Sarit B.; Kalra, Suman

doi:10.1002/9781118909997.ch11

Cited by 30 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 115 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given this issue Van Oorschot comes to a similar realisation as research on human work and design activity (Bedny and Harris, 2005;Cash and Kreye, 2017). Specifically, design bridges individual cognitive and social group perspectives (Grossman et al, 2017) and thus, core 'design processes' are embedded in the broader flow of innovation or entrepreneurial work (Cash et al, 2015;von Stamm, 2004). Here, Van Oorschot characterises the interactions between these elements using existing constructs from the design literature in order to offer insights for entrepreneurship, however, he also recognizes that the utility of such an approach is limited by the degree to which such interactions can be described in common fundamental terms.…”

Section: Supporting Impact In Other Fields: Design Innovation and Enmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Theory-Driven Design Research Agenda: Exploring Dual-Process Theory

Cash¹,

Daalhuizen²,

Valgeirsdóttir³

et al. 2019

Proc. Int. Conf. Eng. Des.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Design research faces a critical 'impact gap' where the potential for scientific and practical impact is yet to be fully realised. A key means of bridging this gap is the adoption of fundamental theory from other fields to support clarification and synergy in design research. In this paper we examine one of the main candidates for adoption: dual-process theory of cognition. Cognition forms a common element across much of the design literature and leads to fundamental dual-process theories of reasoning. While dual- process theory has started to be recognised in design research, its widespread recognition and potential utility have not been widely explored. Following a conceptual theory development approach we identify and logically describe interactions between dual-process theory and design research. We conclude the paper with a proposition of a design research framework with a core rooted in dual-process theory, and based on this, an agenda for theory-driven design research. This contributes to the debate on how to improve impact, and theoretical and scientific rigour in design research, and provides a concrete agenda for discussion and development within the community.

show abstract

Section: Supporting Impact In Other Fields: Design Innovation and Enmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Theory-Driven Design Research Agenda: Exploring Dual-Process Theory

Cash¹,

Daalhuizen²,

Valgeirsdóttir³

et al. 2019

Proc. Int. Conf. Eng. Des.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Teams differ from groups insofar that individuals in a team are united by shared goals, whereas individuals in a group are not [41]. CO, TMM, CD, and CE are processes at the team-level of analysis and represent team ("we" and "us") rather than individual ("I" and "me") factors [50][51][52]. That is, CO, TMM, CD, and CE emerge from the team as a whole rather than from any single individual, akin to the gestalt notion that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts".…”

Section: Theoretical Scopementioning

confidence: 99%

Team Dynamics Theory: Nomological network among cohesion, team mental models, coordination, and collective efficacy

Filho

2018

Sport Sci Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I put forth a theoretical framework, namely Team Dynamics Theory (TDT), to address the need for a parsimonious yet integrated, explanatory and systemic view of team dynamics. In TDT, I integrate team processes and outputs and explain their relationships within a systemic view of team dynamics. Specifically, I propose a generative nomological network linking cohesion, team mental models, coordination, collective efficacy, and team outcomes. From this nomological conceptualization, I illustrate how myriad alternative models can be derived to account for variance in different working teams, each comprised of unique members, and embedded in singular contexts. I outline TDT's applied implications for team development, the enhancement of team functioning, and the profiling of team resilience. I conclude by discussing how TDT's ontological and nomological propositions can be tested through various theoretical inquiries, methodological approaches, and intervention-based studies.

show abstract

“…Early work by McGrath (1984) described them as "patterned relations" (p. 11). They are complex because they (a) entail members' interdependent acts (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001, p. 357), (b) require constant coordination among member contributions (e.g., Kolbe et al, 2014), and (c) are at the core of teamwork itself (for an overview, see Grossman, Friedman, & Kalra, 2017). Team interactions are inherently temporal because team task accomplishment requires temporal rhythms (e.g., Mohammed, Hamilton, & Lim, 2009;Zellmer-Bruhn, Waller, & Ancona, 2004), and team dynamics are temporally patterned (e.g., Massey, Montoya-Weiss, & Hung, 2003; see also Lehmann-Willenbrock & Allen, 2017).…”

Section: Theoretical Background and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Igniting and resolving content disagreements during team interactions: A statistical discourse analysis of team dynamics at work

Lehmann‐Willenbrock

Chiu

2017

J Organ Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disagreements are integral to fruitful team collaboration but have rarely been studied within actual team interactions. We develop a temporal account of how disagreement episodes begin and are resolved during team interactions, testing explanatory factors at multiple levels: team context (team conflict states and team productivity), individual characteristics and perceptions (individual status and perceptions of team viability), and behavioral patterns (problem solving versus off-task communication) with a statistical discourse analysis of 32,448 turns of talk by 259 employees during 43 team meetings. As hypothesized, problem-solving behaviors (e.g., describing problems and proposing solutions) ignited content disagreements, often by participants who perceived greater team viability. In contrast, after off-task behaviors or talk by higher status team members, participants started fewer content disagreements. Moreover, content disagreements started by higher status individuals were more likely than those started by others to be resolved with agreements, especially via agreements with higher status individuals. Also, problem-solving behaviors facilitated the resolution of disagreement episodes with agreement, whereas off-task behaviors hindered them. Contrary to our hypotheses, team conflict states and productivity were not linked to starting or ending disagreements. We discuss the conceptual and methodological importance of capturing team interaction dynamics at work and derive practical implications for managing content disagreement.

show abstract

Teamwork Processes and Emergent States

Cited by 30 publications

References 115 publications

A Theory-Driven Design Research Agenda: Exploring Dual-Process Theory

A Theory-Driven Design Research Agenda: Exploring Dual-Process Theory

Team Dynamics Theory: Nomological network among cohesion, team mental models, coordination, and collective efficacy

Igniting and resolving content disagreements during team interactions: A statistical discourse analysis of team dynamics at work

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About