Lecture 1: Course overview
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. et al. (2006). Teams in Organizations: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI
Models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517 – 543.
The current review goes beyond the input-process-output framework of teams. Knowledge, attitudes and
behaviors can both be inputs and processes that influence team performance. Team performance can both be
an output and part of the process that leads to another performance at time B.
Now, it is more interesting to look at mediators for input and team effectiveness. The I-P-O framework is not
sufficient when capturing teams as complex and adaptive systems. This is because: - most of the mediators of
input and effectiveness are not processes but cognitive or affective states
- I-P-O looks at single loops, whereas there is always some kind of feedback loop
- I-P-O suggests linear progression from one step to another (IPO), however, interactions have been found
between the different steps.
Therefore, this review suggests the input-mediator-output-input (IMOI) framework. (no hyphens because this
signifies that the linkages between steps may not be linear). There are three phases that teams go through
following this framework.
1. Forming Stage (IM phase)
2. Functioning Stage (MO phase)
3. Finishing Stage (OI phase) : not much research on this stage.
Moreover, it is a 3x3 framework: is the primary interest affective, behavioural or cognitive aspects of team
development?
1. Forming Stage
Trusting. AFFECTIVE!For team members to trust the team, they need to feel like the team is competent
(Potency) and that the team will not harm the individual (Safety). Potency: collective belief that they
can be effective.
- Potency is a better predictor of performance than goal commitment. There is also evidence for a
reciprocal model: group heterogeneity, preference for group work, outcome expectations, and
potency predict group performance. Group performance predicts group performance at later stages.
“Team drive” (achievement motivation) is related to potency, whereas team expertise is not. Task
cohesion mediates the effect of collective efficacy (≠ potency) on group effectiveness (also only in
routine tasks). group norm strength predicted potency but not collective efficacy, and potency
predicted Time 2 performance on a novel task whereas collective efficacy did not. The relationship
between team efficacy— but not potency—and performance was stronger when task
interdependence was high.
- Psychological safety and team efficancy lead to greater team learning and performance. Team
efficacy did not predict unique variance in learning behaviour. Psychological safety leads to physical
safety, through communication.
Planning. BEHAVIOURAL!
- Gathering information: communication is key. Functional heterogeneity predicted information
exchange and information exchange was positively correlated with team innovation. More info sharing
when there is within-person diversity in experience vs between-person diversity.
- Developing strategy: better strategy development more information sharing, well developed
team mental models & higher performance.
Structuring. COGNITVE! Development and maintenance of norms, roles and interaction patterns.
- Shared mental models: organized understanding of relevant knowledge regarding what
individuals hold in common. Cross-training mental models coordination &communication
performance.
, - transactive memory: combination of knowledge of each individual and collective awareness of who
possesses what knowledge. Divisional structures ( members have broad roles and resources) promote
team mental models better performance in random environments, functional structures (members
have narrow, specific roles and are grouped per resource) promote transactive memory better
performance in predictable environments.
2. Functioning Stage
Bonding. Affective feelings and wanting to stay together, goes beyond trust. Especially important for
performance when work-flow interdependence is high. Upcoming virtual teams might not be as
effective due to poor bonding.
- Managing diversity of membership: Groups that are highly homogeneous or heterogeneous do better
in developing a “team culture”. Moderately heterogeneous teams don’t do so good. Surface-level
diversity (demographic differences; sometimes called social category) is more critical in early stages of
team development and influences deep-level diversity (differences in attitudes and values). Variance
in agreeableness harmed cohesion, variance in extraversion promoted cohesion, and variance in
emotional stability is unrelated to cohesion.
- Managing conflict among team members: feedback, apply rules, group satisfaction reduce
relationship conflict. Task conflict not good for teams, rather unemotional debates, feeling free to
express doubts and resist pressures to compromise.
Adapting. - Performance in routine vs novel conditions: Communication increases adaptability. Reprioritize
goals and redistribute tasks as fast as possible. In well established teams, this is more difficult, as it
disrupts established roles. In these teams, feedback does not really help. Going from tasks that need
functional structure (simple, high interdependency; norms of communication and support) to
divisional structure (complex, less interdependence; norms of concentration and independence) is
easy, other way around not.
- Helping and workload sharing: Helping behaviour is a double-edged sword: citizenship (high-
legitimacy helping behaviour, eliminating workload distribution problems) good for quality and
quantity of team performance. Low-legitimacy helping behaviour (helping the needy team members)
not so much.
Learning. Cognitive precursor to adaptation.
- Learning from minority and dissenting team members. Teams learned best when there were a
moderate number of weak subgroups. Connect the dots paradigm: information needs to be
exchanged in order to learn. Teams that were high on horizontal collectivism—a value emphasizing
interdependence, sociability, and equality of in-group members—and low on horizontal
individualism—a value stressing independence, self-reliance and equality—benefited more from the
expression of minority dissent. Groups that were high on vertical collectivism—a value orientation
that emphasizes interdependence but recognizes status inequalities—only obtained benefits from
minority dissent when the dissenter was high in status.
- Learning from the team’s best member: greater when task difficulty is higher. Note: promoting
learning might come at the expense of efficiency: U relationship between learning orientation and
long term performance in teams,and that the downward slope of the curve comes sooner for
previously high-performing teams relative to teams that have struggled.
Mindfullness can improve the need to learn.
Van Lange, P. A. M., Joireman, J., Parks, C. D., & Van Dijk, E. (2012). The psychology of social dilemmas.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 125 – 141.
Social dilemma: Situation in which each decision maker had a dominating strategy of non-cooperating, and if all
people choose this, all will end up worse than if they cooperate. this definition misses interdependence
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. et al. (2006). Teams in Organizations: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI
Models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517 – 543.
The current review goes beyond the input-process-output framework of teams. Knowledge, attitudes and
behaviors can both be inputs and processes that influence team performance. Team performance can both be
an output and part of the process that leads to another performance at time B.
Now, it is more interesting to look at mediators for input and team effectiveness. The I-P-O framework is not
sufficient when capturing teams as complex and adaptive systems. This is because: - most of the mediators of
input and effectiveness are not processes but cognitive or affective states
- I-P-O looks at single loops, whereas there is always some kind of feedback loop
- I-P-O suggests linear progression from one step to another (IPO), however, interactions have been found
between the different steps.
Therefore, this review suggests the input-mediator-output-input (IMOI) framework. (no hyphens because this
signifies that the linkages between steps may not be linear). There are three phases that teams go through
following this framework.
1. Forming Stage (IM phase)
2. Functioning Stage (MO phase)
3. Finishing Stage (OI phase) : not much research on this stage.
Moreover, it is a 3x3 framework: is the primary interest affective, behavioural or cognitive aspects of team
development?
1. Forming Stage
Trusting. AFFECTIVE!For team members to trust the team, they need to feel like the team is competent
(Potency) and that the team will not harm the individual (Safety). Potency: collective belief that they
can be effective.
- Potency is a better predictor of performance than goal commitment. There is also evidence for a
reciprocal model: group heterogeneity, preference for group work, outcome expectations, and
potency predict group performance. Group performance predicts group performance at later stages.
“Team drive” (achievement motivation) is related to potency, whereas team expertise is not. Task
cohesion mediates the effect of collective efficacy (≠ potency) on group effectiveness (also only in
routine tasks). group norm strength predicted potency but not collective efficacy, and potency
predicted Time 2 performance on a novel task whereas collective efficacy did not. The relationship
between team efficacy— but not potency—and performance was stronger when task
interdependence was high.
- Psychological safety and team efficancy lead to greater team learning and performance. Team
efficacy did not predict unique variance in learning behaviour. Psychological safety leads to physical
safety, through communication.
Planning. BEHAVIOURAL!
- Gathering information: communication is key. Functional heterogeneity predicted information
exchange and information exchange was positively correlated with team innovation. More info sharing
when there is within-person diversity in experience vs between-person diversity.
- Developing strategy: better strategy development more information sharing, well developed
team mental models & higher performance.
Structuring. COGNITVE! Development and maintenance of norms, roles and interaction patterns.
- Shared mental models: organized understanding of relevant knowledge regarding what
individuals hold in common. Cross-training mental models coordination &communication
performance.
, - transactive memory: combination of knowledge of each individual and collective awareness of who
possesses what knowledge. Divisional structures ( members have broad roles and resources) promote
team mental models better performance in random environments, functional structures (members
have narrow, specific roles and are grouped per resource) promote transactive memory better
performance in predictable environments.
2. Functioning Stage
Bonding. Affective feelings and wanting to stay together, goes beyond trust. Especially important for
performance when work-flow interdependence is high. Upcoming virtual teams might not be as
effective due to poor bonding.
- Managing diversity of membership: Groups that are highly homogeneous or heterogeneous do better
in developing a “team culture”. Moderately heterogeneous teams don’t do so good. Surface-level
diversity (demographic differences; sometimes called social category) is more critical in early stages of
team development and influences deep-level diversity (differences in attitudes and values). Variance
in agreeableness harmed cohesion, variance in extraversion promoted cohesion, and variance in
emotional stability is unrelated to cohesion.
- Managing conflict among team members: feedback, apply rules, group satisfaction reduce
relationship conflict. Task conflict not good for teams, rather unemotional debates, feeling free to
express doubts and resist pressures to compromise.
Adapting. - Performance in routine vs novel conditions: Communication increases adaptability. Reprioritize
goals and redistribute tasks as fast as possible. In well established teams, this is more difficult, as it
disrupts established roles. In these teams, feedback does not really help. Going from tasks that need
functional structure (simple, high interdependency; norms of communication and support) to
divisional structure (complex, less interdependence; norms of concentration and independence) is
easy, other way around not.
- Helping and workload sharing: Helping behaviour is a double-edged sword: citizenship (high-
legitimacy helping behaviour, eliminating workload distribution problems) good for quality and
quantity of team performance. Low-legitimacy helping behaviour (helping the needy team members)
not so much.
Learning. Cognitive precursor to adaptation.
- Learning from minority and dissenting team members. Teams learned best when there were a
moderate number of weak subgroups. Connect the dots paradigm: information needs to be
exchanged in order to learn. Teams that were high on horizontal collectivism—a value emphasizing
interdependence, sociability, and equality of in-group members—and low on horizontal
individualism—a value stressing independence, self-reliance and equality—benefited more from the
expression of minority dissent. Groups that were high on vertical collectivism—a value orientation
that emphasizes interdependence but recognizes status inequalities—only obtained benefits from
minority dissent when the dissenter was high in status.
- Learning from the team’s best member: greater when task difficulty is higher. Note: promoting
learning might come at the expense of efficiency: U relationship between learning orientation and
long term performance in teams,and that the downward slope of the curve comes sooner for
previously high-performing teams relative to teams that have struggled.
Mindfullness can improve the need to learn.
Van Lange, P. A. M., Joireman, J., Parks, C. D., & Van Dijk, E. (2012). The psychology of social dilemmas.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 125 – 141.
Social dilemma: Situation in which each decision maker had a dominating strategy of non-cooperating, and if all
people choose this, all will end up worse than if they cooperate. this definition misses interdependence
