Yours, Mine, and Ours: Facilitating Group Productivity through the Integration of Individual and Group Goals

Crown, Deborah F.; Rosse, Joseph G.

doi:10.1006/obhd.1995.1096

Cited by 91 publications

(94 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In a team setting, however, providing individual feedback alone would direct the individual's attention to the task, but provide no information about how changes in the individual's performance impact team outcomes, which partially depend on the individual performance of others. For example, Mitchell & Silver 18 found that giving individual goals to members of a team decreased team performance; along similar lines, Crown & Rosse 19 observed that "groupcentric" goals (individual goals focusing on contributions to team performance) combined with team goals led to the highest team performance. Finally, DeShon and colleagues 20 noted parallel processes for individual-level and team-level goals and feedback, with team members performing to whichever feedback level provided the most and highest-quality feedback: those receiving individual-level feedback performed best at individual-level goals and measures, whereas those receiving group-level feedback focused on team performance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Examining Clinical Performance Feedback in Patient-Aligned Care Teams

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND:The move to team-based models of health care represents a fundamental shift in healthcare delivery, including major changes in the roles and relationships among clinical personnel. Audit and feedback of clinical performance has traditionally focused on the provider; however, a team-based model of care may require different approaches. OBJECTIVE: Identify changes in audit and feedback of clinical performance to primary care clinical personnel resulting from implementing team-based care in their clinics. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews with primary care clinicians, their department heads, and facility leadership at 16 geographically diverse VA Medical Centers, selected purposively by their clinical performance profile. PARTICIPANTS: An average of three interviewees per VA medical center, selected from physicians, nurses, and primary care and facility directors who participated in 1-hour interviews. APPROACH: Interviews focused on how clinical performance information is fed back to clinicians, with particular emphasis on external peer-review program measures and changes in feedback associated with team-based care implementation. Interview transcripts were analyzed, using techniques adapted from grounded theory and content analysis. KEY RESULTS: Ownership of clinical performance still rests largely with the provider, despite transitioning to team-based care. A panel-management information tool emerged as the most prominent change to clinical performance feedback dissemination, and existing feedback tools were seen as most effective when monitored by the nurse members of the team. Facilities reported few, if any, appreciable changes to the assessment of clinical performance since transitioning to team-based care. CONCLUSIONS: Although new tools have been created to support higher-quality clinical performance feedback to primary care teams, such tools have not necessarily delivered feedback consistent with a team-based approach to health care. Audit and feedback of clinical performance has remained largely unchanged, despite material differences in roles and responsibilities of team members. Future research should seek to unpack the nuances of teambased audit and feedback, to better align feedback with strategic clinical goals.KEY WORDS: audit and feedback; patient-aligned care teams; primary care; qualitative methods.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Examining Clinical Performance Feedback in Patient-Aligned Care Teams

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Para anggota tim yang lebih merasakan hubungan kerja sama, semakin mereka berbagi informasi dan mendiskusikan perbedaan pendapat mereka secara langsung dan, akibatnya, semakin mereka belajar menjadi lebih efektif (De Dreu, 2007;Johnson & Johnson, 1989Tjosvold, 1988). Meskipun persaingan dan tidak ketergantungan bermanfaat pada kondisi tertentu, hasil penelitian telah menunjukkan bahwa anggota tim yang memiliki tujuan kooperatif, daripada tujuan yang kompetitif dan mandiri, memiliki dinamika interaksi yang lebih efektif (Chen & Tjosvold, 2002;Crown & Rosse, 1995;Tjosvold, Tang, & West, 2004;Tjosvold & Yu, 2007). Dimana tujuan kooperatif membentuk kontroversi konstruktif, sehingga menghasilkan percaya diri, kreatif, dan kerja sama tim yang produktif (Lu, JiaFang, Tjosvold, & Shi, 2010) …”

Section: Kerjasama Versus Kompetisiunclassified

Cooperative vs Competitive: Filosofi Keseimbangan “Yin-Yang” dalam Hubungan Interdependency

Dudija

2015

bpsi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teori ini 1 dikembangkan oleh Morton Deutsch (1949a, 1949b, 1973, 1985) danjuga diuraikan oleh David W. Johnson (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Cooperative–Competitive merupakan salah satu teori dalam psikologi sosial yang dikemukakanoleh Morton Deutch. Ilmuan evolusi sosial mengatakan bahwa altruisme manusia dan kerjasama adalah hasil dari sejarah spesies yang unik “konflik antar kelompok dan perang” (Alexander, 1987; Buss, 1999; Campbell, 1975; Tooby & Cosmides, 1988), dapat diartikan bahwa konflik antar kelompok telah membentuk psikologi dan perilaku manusia khususnya (Vugt, Gremer, & Janssen 2007). Penelitian psikologi sosial konsisten dengan ide ini. Dalam hal ini manusia spontan membuat perbandingan “kita vs mereka” kategorisasi dan cepat mengembangkan aspek emosional dalam kelompok bahkan ketika keanggotaan didasarkan pada kriteria yang sederhana, seperti flip koin (Brewer, 1979; Ostrom & Sedikides, 1992; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Manusia juga mudah melakukan tindakan diskriminasi terhadap anggota dari luar kelompok (Fiske, 2002) dan terlibat dalam tindakanaltruistik untuk membela kelompok mereka (De Cremer & Van Vugt, 1999;Sherif , 1966).

show abstract

“…The Sentence Construction Task was similar to one used by Crown and Rosse (1995). Each crew member received a different set of 27 letters from which he built words of three or more letters.…”

Section: Sentence Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Movement and Intravehicular Versus Intervehicular Communication on C2V Crew Performance: Limited User Test Phase III

Beck¹,

Pierce²

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The procedure and results of the group performance component of the command and control vehicle (C 2 V) Limited User Test (LUT) Phase III are described in this report. The test was conducted to examine (a) the effects of movement on the ability of crews to work effectively as a team, (b) terrain impacts on team performance tasks, and (c) the effect of distributed team operations. Sixteen National Guardsmen, divided into four-person teams, served as participants. The evaluation design was similar to a 2 (Movement: Stationary, Moving) x 2 (Terrain: Paved, Course A) x 2 (Communication: Intravehicle, Intervehicle) with the baseline occupying the position of the nonfitting control arrangement. The effects of movement on team performance were evaluated by conducting some trials while the C 2 V was stationary and other trials while it was moving. The influence of terrain on team performance was studied by conducting some trials on Course A of the Perryman test course and the remaining trials on a paved 3-mile course. In the intravehicular communication condition, the four members of a team were housed in the same C 2 V and worked together on the same task. Teammates had visual contact and communicated verbally via intercom. Two teammates were in each C 2 V for the intervehicular manipulation. It was concluded that the C 2 V environment impaired all group performance tasks, especially those that appeared to demand a great degree of coordination and integration. Team performance was below the baseline when crews were housed in the C 2 V, regardless of whether the vehicle was stationary or moving, although movement increased the deleterious impact of the C 2 V on group performance. The impact of terrain on performance was inconclusive, possibly because of the small sample size and the limited number of situational conditions examined. If the C 2 V is to become a prominent part of the 21st century Army's arsenal, then additional experimentation must be conducted to assess implications for team performance during a variety of conditions using validated task procedures. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

show abstract

Yours, Mine, and Ours: Facilitating Group Productivity through the Integration of Individual and Group Goals

Cited by 91 publications

References 0 publications

Examining Clinical Performance Feedback in Patient-Aligned Care Teams

Examining Clinical Performance Feedback in Patient-Aligned Care Teams

Cooperative vs Competitive: Filosofi Keseimbangan “Yin-Yang” dalam Hubungan Interdependency

The Effects of Movement and Intravehicular Versus Intervehicular Communication on C2V Crew Performance: Limited User Test Phase III

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About