1
Team Research: MSU Team Lab
An Experimental Approach to Structural Issues in Command and Control
Perspective– Situation X Person Interaction
» Situation includes both task structure and task demands– Contingency Models– Mapping the Structural and Personal Space
» Horizontal space (Divisional and Functional)» Vertical space (Roles and Power/Status)
– Research: Past and Ongoing– Research: Future Directions
2
Research on Adaptation
Review and discuss 4 studies focused on adaptation in team-based work environments
Study Form of Adaptation Publication StatusTeam Adaptation & Postchange Performance: Effects of Team Composition in Terms of Members’ Cognitive Ability and Personality
Role structure adaptation as a means of adapting to communication losses during the course of performing a task
Published in Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88, 1, 27-39
Backing Up Behaviors in Teams: The Role of Personality and Legitimacy of Need
Backing up behaviors as a form of adapting to new adversary tactics
Published in Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88, 3, 391-403
Team Learning: Collectively Connecting the Dots
Team learning as a means of adapting to new adversary technology
Published in Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88, 5, 821-835
Adapting to Unexpected Changes in Team Size: The Role of Individual Differences & Team Processes
Adapting to unexpected reductions in team size
Data collected in Spring 2004; manuscript to be completed Fall 2004
3
Adapting to Communication Losses (Lepine, 2003)
Purpose: Examine the factors that allow teams to effectively adapt their routines in response to unforeseen changes in the work environment
Primary contribution:– Extension of individual-level, cognition-focused adaptation
research to consider team-level behavior
4
Adapting to Communication Losses Theory & Conceptual Model
Teams must be able to deal with unanticipated change and modify their routines (Argote & McGrath, 1993)
Key questions:– What variables predict the extent to which teams adjust their routines in response to
unforeseen change?– Do the same factors predict team performance prior to and after unforeseen change?
Member Cognitive AbilityMember Cognitive Ability
Member AchievementMember Achievement
Member DependabilityMember Dependability
Member Openness to Exp.Member Openness to Exp.
Role Structure AdaptationRole Structure AdaptationPost Change
Decision-Making Performance
Post Change Decision-Making
Performance
5
Adapting to Communication Losses Hypotheses
Hypotheses 2b, 3b, 4b, & 5b:– Member cognitive ability, achievement, and
openness to experience positively related to team decision-making performance after change
– Member dependability negatively related to team decision-making performance after change
Member Cognitive AbilityMember Cognitive Ability
Member AchievementMember Achievement
Member DependabilityMember Dependability
Member Openness to Exp.Member Openness to Exp.
Role Structure AdaptationRole Structure AdaptationPost Change
Decision-Making Performance
Post Change Decision-Making
Performance
+ Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 2a, 3a, 4a, & 5a
+
−
+
+
Hypotheses 2c, 3c, 4c, & 5c:– Role structure adaptation mediates
relationship between member cognitive ability, achievement, dependability and openness to experience and team decision-making performance after change
6
Adapting to Communication Losses Research Design & Methods
TIDE2 decision-making simulation 73 three-person teams (college juniors and seniors) Random assignment to teams and roles Training and practice designed to facilitate development
of team routines Role structure adaptation measured using (a) count
method and (b) rated measure
7
Adapting to Communication Losses Findings & Implications
All hypotheses received empirical support
Suggests that the set of individual differences that predict team performance in a changing situation may be quite distinct from those that predict performance in more routine situations
Implication: Effective team staffing should consider the degree to which the team is likely to experience unexpected change
8
Adapting to New Adversary Tactics (Porter et al., 2003)
Purpose: Examine the effects of team member personality and legitimacy of need on backing up behaviors in teams
Primary contribution:– Differentiates help in terms of its legitimacy of need– Examines backing up behavior at the team-level– Provides an objective measure of whether help actually ensued
9
Adapting to New Adversary Tactics Conceptual Model & Hypotheses
InputInput
Legitimacy of need positively relates to backing up (H1)
Recipient conscientiousness and legitimacy of need interact to predict backing up (H2)
Recipient emotional stability and legitimacy of need interact to predict backing up (H3)
Recipient extraversion and legitimacy of need interact to predict backing up (H4)
Provider conscientiousness and legitimacy of need interact to predict backing up (H5)
Provider emotional stability and legitimacy of need interact to predict backing up (H6)
Provider agreeableness and legitimacy of need interact to predict backing up (H7)
Team ProcessTeam Process
Personality of back up recipient
Personality of back up provider
Legitimacy of need (direct & moderator effect)
Backing up behavior (# of help attacks)
Backing Up Behavior: Discretionary provision of resources and task-related effort to another member of one’s team that is intended to help that team member obtain the goals defined by his or her role when it is apparent that the team member is failing to reach those goals
10
Adapting to New Adversary Tactics Research Design & Methods
DDD decision-making simulation 71 four-person teams (college juniors and seniors) Individuals randomly assigned to teams / roles Teams randomly assigned to high or low-legitimacy
condition (based on resource allocation and workload distribution)
Hierarchical regression used to test moderation effects
11
Adapting to New Adversary Tactics Findings & Implications
Hypotheses 1, 2, 4, and 6 (no support for H3, H5 or H7)– Legitimacy of need predicts backing up behavior
– Legitimacy of need interacts with back up provider and recipient personality to predict backing up behavior
Implication: – Personality of the back up provider and recipient can differentially affect the
effectiveness of backing up behavior in teams» E.g., showing good discrimination on when to provide back up
– Effective team staffing should consider the degree to which team members will experience workload distribution imbalance – and compose the team accordingly
» E.g., conscientious and extraverted recipients
» E.g., emotionally stable providers
12
Adapting to New Adversary Technology (Ellis et al., 2003)
Purpose: Examine how project teams learn and how the speed of the learning process can be improved within teams of individuals with no prior history or knowledge of each other’s strengths and weaknesses
Primary contribution:– Expands traditional conceptualization of learning process at the individual
level to the team level» Recognizes that team members learn from their own direct experience AND the
experience of other team members
13
Adapting to New Adversary Technology Theory & Conceptual Model
InputInput
Team Learning– Relatively permanent change in the team’s
collective level of knowledge and skill produced by the shared experience of the team members
Accounts for multiple sources of learning in teams
– Individual team member’s ability to individually acquire knowledge and skill
– Team members’ ability to collectively share information
Team ProcessTeam Process
Member cognitive ability
Workload distribution (even/uneven)
Member agreeableness and openness to experience
Team structure– Pair-based– Functional– Divisional
Team learning
14
Adapting to New Adversary Technology Hypotheses
InputInput
Higher levels of general cognitive ability generates higher levels of team learning (H1)
Evenly distributed workloads will engender greater team learning than unevenly distributed workload (H2)
Higher levels of agreeableness will generate lower levels of team learning (H3)
Higher levels of openness to experience will generate higher levels of team learning (H4)
Project teams using pair-based structures will learn more than those structured functionally or divisionally (H5)
Team ProcessTeam Process
Member cognitive ability
Workload distribution (even/uneven)
Member agreeableness and openness to experience
Team structure– Pair-based– Functional– Divisional
Team learning
15
Adapting to New Adversary Technology Research Design & Methods
DDD decision-making simulation 109 four-person teams (college juniors and seniors) Individuals randomly assigned to teams / roles Teams randomly assigned to paired, functional and divisional structures Workload distribution manipulated within teams across 2 different 30-minute
simulations Team learning based on the nature of engagement toward a series of
Unknown targets– Effective engagement / efficient engagement
Repeated measures regression used to analyze data
16
Adapting to New Adversary Technology Findings & Implications
Findings support H1, H2, H3, and H5
Cognitive ability, agreeableness, workload distribution and team structure impact project team learning
Implication:
– For project teams operating in contexts that demand learning, effective team staffing should select individuals with high cognitive ability – and not all members should be high in agreeableness
– Ensuring even workload distribution and employing team structures where two members have access to the same information helps to eliminate learning barriers
17
Adapting to Reductions in Size (DeRue et al., 2005)
Purpose: Examine the factors that allow teams to effectively adapt in response to unforeseen reductions in team size
Primary contribution:– Examines the compositional factors and processes that enable
teams to effectively adapt to reductions in team size– Explores multiple forms of reductions in team size
18
Adapting to Reductions in Size Theory & Conceptual Model
InputInput
Examined 3 forms of reducing team size:
– Eliminate hierarchy (eliminate the team leader role)
– Integrate hierarchy (leader replaces displaced team member in action role)
– Maintain hierarchy (leader position remains; displaced team member not replaced)
MediatorsMediators
Team structure Task environment Individual differences Form of reduction in
team size
Trusting Structuring Bonding Adapting Learning
Post-Change Team Performance
Post-Change Team Performance
19
Adapting to Reductions in Size Research Design & Methods
DDD decision-making simulation
~75 five-person teams (college juniors and seniors)
Individuals randomly assigned to teams / roles
Teams randomly assigned to conditions
Data analysis in process
20
Adapting to Reductions in Size Preliminary Findings
Offense Scores (Game 2 Mean)
1170
1180
1190
1200
1210
1220
1230
1240
1250
Control EliminateLeader
IntegrateLeader
MaintainHierarchy
Defense Scores (Game 2 Mean)
36500
37000
37500
38000
38500
39000
39500
40000
40500
Control EliminateLeader
IntegrateLeader
MaintainHierarchy
Form of reduction significantly affects team performance– E.g., Leader may not be an adequate substitute for task performing roles– E.g., Losing the team leader has little impact on offensive performance but significantly detracts from
team’s ability to monitor the team environment
21
Adapting to Reductions in Size Preliminary Findings (cont.)
Losing a task performing team member engenders more structuring of roles and responsibilities in the team
Loss of team leader significantly hinders team bonding (potentially more task-focused)
Bonding (Game 2 Mean)
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
Control EliminateLeader
IntegrateLeader
MaintainHierarchy
Structuring (Game 2 Mean)
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
Control EliminateLeader
IntegrateLeader
MaintainHierarchy
22
Adapting to Reductions in Size Emerging Implications
Shifting traditional, hierarchical teams to self-managing teams with no formal leader does not always result in superior team performance
– Potential short-term bonding loss
– Loss of external monitoring function
If forced to downsize, which team members should stay / go?– Key considerations: Task environment? Short-term or long-term
perspective?
23
Structural Asymmetry Research
Review and discuss 4 studies focused on structure in team-based work environments
Study Form of Structure Publication StatusStructural Contingency Theory and Individual Differences: Examination of External and Internal Person-Team Fit
Horizontal resource allocation structures interact with the type of environment to determine team performance
Published in Journal of Applied Psychology, 2002, 87, 3, 599-606
Asymmetric Adaptability: Dynamic Team Structures as One-Way Streets
Horizontal resource allocation structural changes may not be as easy to make in one direction as they are in the other
In press at the Academy of Management Journal
The Asymmetric Nature of Structural Adaptation: The Impact of Centralizing and Decentralizing on Group Outcomes
Vertical decision-making authority structural changes may not be as easy to make in one direction as they are in the other
Manuscript under revision, to be submitted to the Journal of Applied Psychology
The Impact of Hybrid Team Structures on Performance and Adaptation: Beyond Mechanistic and Organic Prototypes
Hybrid horizontal and vertical structures outperform redundant ones
Data collected in Spring 2003; manuscript to be completed Fall 2004
24
Purpose
Examine the impact of team structure on team performance and effectiveness by addressing:– the fit of structural conditions to task demands– structural adaptability to changes in task demands– the internal fit of team members to team structures
25
Dimensions of Structure
26
Fixed Structures(Hollenbeck et al., 2002)
Structural Contingency Theory– No one best way to structure teams in organizations
Fit of Team Structure to Environment (External Fit)– Team performance will be an interactive effect of the team structure
and its task/problem environment Types of structure
– Divisional: People are grouped based on geographic region» Broad Roles» Highly independent
– Functional: People are grouped on the basis of the type of the work they perform
» Narrow/specialized roles» High levels of interdependence
27
Fit of individuals’ characteristics to the demands placed on team members by different structures
– In divisional structures, jobs are complex and have fairly high levels of autonomy
» High cognitive ability may be better here
– In functional structures, roles are fragmented and there are high levels of interdependence, making coordination very important
» Agreeable team members may be important
– In misaligned structures/environments, high levels of stress or conflict may occur
» Emotional stability is important in dealing with this
Fixed Structures(Hollenbeck et al., 2002)
28
Fixed Structures Hypotheses
External Fit:– H1: Functional structures will be superior in predictable
environments while divisional structures will be superior in random environments
Internal Fit:– H2: There will be a positive relationship between cognitive ability
and individual performance in divisional structures– H3: There will be a positive relationship between agreeableness
and individual performance in functional structures Joint Fit:
– H4: In teams with misaligned structures/environments, there will be a positive relationship between emotional stability and individual performance
29
Fixed Structures Methods
Design: 2 (structure) X 2 (task demand) between subjects
Sample: 80 4-person teams Task: DDD(MSU) Measures:
– Cognitive Ability (Wonderlic)– Agreeableness & Emot. Stability (NEO-PI-R)– Performance (team & Individual, DDD output)
30
Fixed Structures Results: External Fit
31
Fixed Structures Results: Internal and Joint Fit
H2: In aligned divisional structures, cognitive ability was positively related to individual performance (ΔR2 = .04, p < .05)
H3: In aligned functional structures, Individual performance was not related to agreeableness
H4: In misaligned divisional structures, emotional stability was positively related to individual performance (ΔR2 = .03, p < .05)– This relationship was not significant for misaligned
functional structures
32
Comparison of 2 types of structural shift– Functional Divisional– Divisional Functional
Stimulated by: Need to change; tendency to apply static findings to dynamic situations
Asymmetric Adaptability: structural changes may not be as easy to make in one direction as they are in the other– May be easier to switch from a divisional structure to a
functional structure, or vice versa
Structural Asymmetry(Moon et al., in press)
33
Structural AsymmetryTheory
Structural shifts may be more or less difficult depending on the types of norms teams develop
– Initial norms may carry over to impact future performance
In functional structures, norms are built for cooperation and communication
– These norms are not likely to hamper performance when a team switches to a divisional structure
In divisional structures, norms are built for independence– These norms will be detrimental to team performance when a team
switches to a functional structure
34
H1: Functional structures will be superior in predictable environments while divisional structures will be superior in random environments [Replication of Hollenbeck et al. (2002)]
H2: Teams switching from Div. to Fun. structures will perform worse upon switching than teams switching from Fun. to Div. structures
H3: Communication and coordination behaviors mediate the difference in performance between teams engaged in Div. to Fun. and Fun. to Div. structural adaptation
H4: The positive effects of Fun. to Div. structural adaptation will be stronger for teams that are high in general cognitive ability
Structural AsymmetryHypotheses
35
Structural AsymmetryMethods
Design: 2 (structure) x 2 (task demand) x 2 (time) Sample: 63 4-person teams Task: DDD (MSU) Measures:
– Cognitive Ability (Wonderlic)– Team Performance (DDD output)
36
Structural AsymmetryResults
H1: At time 1, functional structures were superior in predictable environments while divisional structures were superior in random environments (ΔR2 = .08, p < .05)
H2: At time 2, teams that switched from Fun. to Div. structures outperformed teams who switched from Div. to Fun. Structures (ΔR2 = .06, p < .05)
H3: Coordination behaviors mediated the relationship between structure and performance such that main effect of structural change on performance at time 2 was no longer significant when communication and coordination behaviors were controlled for
37
30000
31000
32000
33000
34000
35000
36000
37000
38000
39000
D-F structure F-D structure
Type of change
Pe
rfo
rma
nc
e
High G
Stage 2 ave
Low G
Structural AsymmetryResults
38
Dimensions of Structure
39
Built on notion of asymmetric adaptability by examining centralization as structure
– Vertical/role structure mode (centralization) rather than horizontal/task mode (departmentation)
Centralized: A designated leader has a degree of authority and control
– Ensure coordination– Better in task conditions that require error control
Decentralized: Team members have authority to make individual decisions
– Ease of learning/adapting – More innovative– Better in environments that demand speed or learning
Centralization Structures (Ellis et al., 2004)
40
Centralization Structures Theory
Norms developed initially may impact future performance
In centralized structures, norms are built for coordination– These should lead to higher accuracy, which may carry over
when teams switch structures In decentralized structures, norms are built for
independence and personal discretion– These should lead to higher speed, but may be harmful
when the team switches structures and they are removed
41
Centralization Structures Hypotheses
H1a: At time 1, teams with a centralized structure will be more accurate than teams with a decentralized structure
H1b: At time 1, teams with a decentralized structure will be faster than teams with a centralized structure
H2: Teams switching from Cen to Decen structures will be more successful at time 2 than teams switching from Decen to Cen structures
– i.e. retain accuracy and gain speed vs. lose speed but do not gain accuracy
42
Centralization Structures Methods
Design: 2 (structure) x 2 (time) between Sample: 93 4-person teams Task: DDD (MSU) with mixed task environment
(environment held constant) Measures:
– Performance (DDD output)» Speed» Accuracy
43
H1a: Centralized teams were more accurate than decentralized teams at time 1 (ΔR2 = . 30, p < .05)
H1b: Decentralized teams were faster than centralized teams at time 1 (ΔR2 = .11, p < .05)
H2: Teams switching from Cen to Decen gained accuracy, but did not lose speed. Teams switching from Decen to Cen did not gain accuracy, but lost speed
Centralization Structures Results
44
Redundant– Horizontal and vertical structure are parallel– Costs and benefits of both types of structures are similar
Complimentary (hybrid)– Horizontal and vertical structures compliment each other– Can reap the benefits associated with both types of
structures simultaneously
Mechanistic vs. Organic Structures(Jundt et al., 2004)
45
Mechanistic vs. Organic StructuresTheory
Fun Cen
Div Decen
Div Cen
Fun Decen
46
Teams having members with certain characteristics may be better able to make the necessary adjustments needed when changing structures. – May be especially true for the difficult O M shift
Emotional stability - Better able to deal with stress and anxiety
Extraversion – More assertive and talkative
Mechanistic vs. Organic StructuresTheory
47
H1: Teams switching from MO structures will outperform teams switching from OM structures at time 2
H2a: Hybrid teams will outperform mechanistic teams at time 1
H2b: Hybrid teams will adapt to structural change better than OM teams at time 2
H3: Teams with high mean levels of emotional stability will be able to more successfully make the organic to mechanistic (O M) structural shift
H4: Teams with high mean levels of extraversion will be able to more successfully make the (O M) structural shift
Mechanistic vs. Organic StructuresHypotheses
48
2 (Departmentation) x 2 (Centralization) between at time 1 Within team shift on both dimensions of structure at time 2
Mechanistic vs. Organic StructuresResearch Design
49
Sample: 64 4-person teams Task: MSU-DDD with mixed task environment Measures:
– Team performance (DDD output)– Emotional Stability & Extraversion: NEO-PI-R (Costa &
McCrae, 1992)
Mechanistic vs. Organic StructuresMethod
50
H1: M O teams outperformed O M teams at time 2, controlling for time 1 performance (b = 2.55, p < .01)
H2a: Hybrid teams outperformed mechanistic teams at time 1, (t [47] = 3.01, p <.01)
H2b: Controlling for time 1 performance, hybrid teams outperformed O M teams at time 2 (b = 1.93, p < .01)
Mechanistic vs. Organic StructuresResults
51
H3: teams making the difficult OM shift were more successful when team members were high on emotional stability (ΔR2 = .05, p < .05)
H4: teams making the difficult OM shift were more successful when team members were highly extroverted (ΔR2 = .07, p < .05)
Mechanistic vs. Organic StructuresResults
52
Structural contingencies on both horizontal and vertical dimensions impact team performance
Asymmetry effects found on horizontal dimension also observed on vertical dimension
Optimal team structures may involve both vertical and horizontal structural characteristics
– Hybrid structures may allow teams to perform well initially and still be able to switch structures successfully: “best of both worlds”
Individual differences impact team and individual performance as well as ease of structural adaptation
Mechanistic vs. Organic StructuresConclusions
53
Reward Structure Research
Review and discuss 4 studies focused on reward structures in team-based work environments
Study Form of Structure Publication StatusDecision Aid Study Teams may make different decisions on
altering their structure depending on the type of feedback provided to them
Data to be collected in the Fall, 2004
Cooperation, Competition, and Team Performance: Toward a Contingency Approach
Reward structures interact with performance dimension to determine team performance
Published in the Academy of Management Journal, 2003, 46, 5, 572-590
Cutthroat Cooperation: Asymmetrical Adaptation of Team Reward Structures
Reward structure changes may not be as easy to make in one direction as they are in the other
Under review at the Academy of Management Journal
Role Negotiation in Self-Managed Teams: A Conflict Trajectory Approach
The effectiveness of allowing team members to negotiate their roles depends on the team’s reward structure history
Under review at Administrative Science Quarterly
54
Decision Aid Study(Johnson et al., 2005)
Will teams alter their structure, roles, or process given feedback on their structural fit?
Does the nature of the feedback tool or the degree of centralization affect this decision?
55
Decision Aid StudyMethod
Time 1– Divisional structure– Predictable environment
Feedback provided
Decision
Time 2– Structure of their choice– Predictable environment
56
Decision Aid StudyMethod
Manipulated variables– Type of feedback
» Structural fit» Team member performance
– Centralization» Appointed leader» Self-managing
– Decision options» Structure only» Structure, process, roles
Dependent variables– Structural decision– Team performance
57
41 44 47 50 53 56 59 62 65
Decision Aid StudyStructural Fit Feedback
Optimal Fit
58
Decision Aid StudyTeam Member Performance Feedback
18.5 22 25.5 29 32.5 36 39.5 43 46.5 50 53.5 57 60.5 64 67.5 71 74.5 78 81.5
OptimalPerformance
59
Cooperative/Competitive Statics(Beersma et al., 2003)
Reward structure/performance fit– Does the team’s reward structure impact differential
components of performance?» Cooperative vs. competitive rewards
Personnel/reward structure fit– Do certain types of people operate better under certain
reward structures?» Personality» Ability
60
Cooperative/Competitive StaticsResults: External Fit
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Competition Cooperation
Reward Structure
Sta
ndard
ized P
erf
orm
ance
Speed
Accuracy
61
Cooperative/Competitive StaticsResults: External Fit
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Competition Cooperation
Reward Structure
Sta
nd
ard
ized
Per
form
ance
Speed - Best
Accuracy - Best
Speed - Worst
Accuracy - Worst
62
Cooperative/Competitive StaticsResults: Internal Fit
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Competition Cooperation
Reward Structure
Sta
nd
ard
ized
Per
form
ance
High Extraversion
Low Extraversion
63
Cooperative/Competitive StaticsImplications
External fit– Competitive reward structures: Enhance speed,
decrease accuracy– Cooperative reward structures: Enhance accuracy,
decrease speed
Internal fit– Extroverted and agreeable people: Best suited for
cooperative reward structures– Introverted and disagreeable people: Best suited for
competitive reward structures
64
Cooperative/Competitive Dynamics(Johnson et al., 2004)
Do teams that move from cooperative to competitive reward structures perform differently than teams that move from competitive to cooperative structures?
How does communication within the team affect how well teams adapt under different reward structures?
65
Cooperative/Competitive DynamicsTheory
Two conditions caused by reward structure change– Friendly Competition: cooperative → competitive
» Establish norms of cooperation and interdependence» These norms are easily changed» Able to engage in constructive competition with each other
(Tjosvold, Johnson, & Johnson, 2003)
– Cutthroat Cooperation: competitive → cooperative» Establish norms of competition and independence» These norms are not easily changed» Not able to engage in constructive cooperation with each other
66
Cooperative/Competitive DynamicsResults
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Speed Accuracy
Sta
ndar
dize
d P
erfo
rman
ce .
Time 1 Competitive
Time 2 Competitive
Friendly Competition
67
Cooperative/Competitive DynamicsResults
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Speed Accuracy
Sta
ndar
dize
d P
erfo
rman
ce .
Time 1 Cooperative
Time 2 Cooperative
Cutthroat Cooperation
68
Cooperative/Competitive DynamicsImplications
Similar to resource allocation structures, changing reward structures appears to be a one-way street
Examples– Product development teams– Mergers and acquisitions– Department of Homeland Security
69
Cooperative/Competitive DynamicsFuture Research Directions
Overcoming Cutthroat Cooperation– Transitional reward structures– Hybrid reward structures– Separate teams (built for speed or accuracy)– Team composition
70
Supporting Cutthroat Cooperators(Beersma et al., 2004)
Does allowing team members to negotiate their roles enhance performance in cooperative reward structures?
Do people with certain personality characteristics negotiate roles more effectively?
71
Supporting Cutthroat CooperatorsTheory
Conflict trajectories– Positive and negative spirals– History effects– Team composition effects
Coordination efficiency– Information sharing– Workload sharing
72
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
No negotiation Negotiation
Acc
ura
cy o
f per
form
ance
Previous history ofcooperation
Previous history ofcompetition
Supporting Cutthroat CooperatorsResults
73
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
No negotiation Negotiation
Acc
ura
cy o
f per
form
ance
Low teamagreeableness
High teamagreeableness
Supporting Cutthroat CooperatorsResults
74
Team history– Previously competitive teams: Role negotiation de-
escalates conflict and enhances performance– Previously cooperative teams: Role negotiation
escalates conflict and hurts performance
Team composition– Agreeable teams benefited from role negotiation– Disagreeable teams were hurt by role negotiation
Supporting Cutthroat CooperatorsImplications
Top Related