Download Impact of Behaviors on Student Team Effectiveness and more Exercises Communication in PDF only on Docsity!
Exploring and Developing Effective Team Behaviors: An Analysis of Emerging Business Professionals GRACA proposal submission by Nicole Landowski PhD Student, Industrial/Organizational Psychology Project Description The Current Study Across the globe, we have seen a transformational shift of organizational structures; while economic, technological, and strategic changes may have guided this transformation, an additional contribution has been the transition from work organized around the individual to work organized around the team (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003; Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1995). Team-based work is employed in most, if not all, organizations today (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). In a poll conducted on behalf of the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU), 71% of employers reported that colleges should place a greater emphasis (than they currently do) on “teamwork skills and the ability to collaborate with others in diverse group settings” (Hart, 2010, p. 9). Therefore, it is essential that higher education institutions, such as the University of Nebraska at Omaha (UNO), provide a strong curriculum that prepares students for academic success, careers, and professional responsibilities given the complex demands of the workforce. Identified through employer focus groups, UNO’s College of Business (CBA) has recognized the importance of teamwork and has integrated this standard into the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) assessment process (K. Henebry, personal communication, November 9, 2017). The CBA has chosen to assess this learning goal through team-based collaboration recordings of students solving multifaceted financial problems in small- group settings. A problem with terms such as “teamwork” and “collaboration” is that these terms are conceptually vague and may vary depending on the context. To date, researchers disagree upon what constitutes effective teamwork, methods of assessing team outcomes, and approaches to develop team behaviors (e.g., Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998; Landowski Kulas, & Hinnenkamp, 2015). The purpose of this proposed study is to identify effective teamwork, particularly for undergraduate business students who are expected to effectively function within a work-related team (i.e., Goal 5 , Objective 1 for AACSB accreditation; Assessment Report, 2014). Through qualitative and quantitative approaches, Kath Henebry and I plan to identify effective team behaviors through the input-process-output (IPO) model (McGrath, 1964). We hope to use these study findings to distribute practical behavioral training aids, such as tip sheets or video demonstrations, to further facilitate long-term student learning. Input-Process-Output Model of Student Team Effectiveness The organizational literature theorizes several models of team effectiveness applicable to student teams (e.g., Gladstein, 1984; Hackman, 1983); one of which, the input-process-output (IPO) model pervades theory and research on team performance (McGrath, 1964). IPO models have “input factors”, for instance, student-level characteristics which lead to an “output” in the form of group performance or effectiveness (Hackman & Morris, 1975; see Figure 1). A major assumption of this model is that the input factors affect performance outcomes through the group interaction process. Thus, if teams were equally cohesive (input at time 1) and groups vary in performance (output at time 2), it could be possible to explain the differences due to the group’s interaction processes. Inputs could be described as things students bring to the group (e.g., personality characteristics, attitudes; Conway, 1967; McGrath, 1964; Sample & Wilson, 1965); processes as the interactions amongst team members (e.g., conversation, conflict; Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Gladstein, 1984; McGrath, 1964); and outputs as the products yielded by the group (e.g., course paper grade, attitudinal outcomes; Cohen & Bailey, 1997). Figure 1. Traditional input-process-output model. Adapted from McGrath (1964).
Group Interaction Process: Emergence of Task- and Relationship-focused Functions During the interaction process, each team member develops unique task- and relationship-focused functions given the nature and social aspects of the group’s task (Mumford, Campion, & Morgeson, 2006). These functions emerge as socially derived patterns of behaviors that guide how an individual acts. In a particular team meeting, the student may take on a specific task- or relationship-focused role then switch between these functions given the appropriateness of the situation. While students may feel more comfortable regularly communicating task- or relationship-focused behaviors, these functions are not necessarily tied to a single student from situation to situation but emerge from interdependent interactions in the group (Morgeson, Humphrey, & Reeder, 2012). For decades, researchers have been interested in categorizing the way in which team members function and communicate with one another (e.g., Bales, 1950; Benne & Sheats, 1984); however, there has been no research examining the unique emergence of task- and relationship-focused communication behaviors on team outcomes in the context of student-based collaboration. In this proposed study, we plan to investigate how observable task- and relationship-focused communication behaviors prompt the emergence of team member functions, specifically, in the context of student team-based collaborations. Proposed Research: Task- and Relationship-focused Behaviors To better understand the nature of team member functions, researchers have typically categorized behaviors as either task- or relationship-focused (e.g., Benne & Sheats, 1948). Task-focused behaviors promote the completion of tasks and activities while relationship-focused behaviors promote the functioning and interpersonal relations in the team. Research suggests that these team member functions may have disproportionate impact on team outcomes, that is to say, relationship-focused behaviors may not be as closely tied to performance outcomes as task-focused behaviors (Morgeson, Humphrey, & Reeder, 2012; Humphrey, Morgeson, & Mannor, 2009). It is likely that meeting attendees will engage in both task- and relationship-focused behaviors; however, the present study seeks to explore whether the number of task- or relationship-focused statements made by students are related to two distinct types of collaboration outcomes (i.e., performance or attitude outcomes). Thus, I propose the following two research questions: Research Question 1 : Which interactions (i.e., task-focused, relationship-focused) promote greater attitudinal outcomes (i.e., team effectiveness, team satisfaction)? Research Question 2 : Which interactions (i.e., task-focused, relationship-focused) promote greater student group performance outcomes? Act4teams is the predominant observational instrument used to measure team interactional processes; this coding scheme is based on classification systems for intragroup interactions focused on four dimensions of team interaction behavior including: problem-focused, procedural, socioemotional, and action-oriented statements (Kauffeld & Lehmann- Willenbrock, 2012). Aligned with the act4teams coding scheme, problem-focused statements may be most analogous to task-focused behaviors while socio-emotional statements may be most analogous to relationship-focused behaviors. According to this coding scheme, problem-focused statements occur when team members: (1) identify, describe, and make connections with a problem, (2) identify, describe, object, and make connections with a solution, and (3) provide information about processes, specialists, or ask questions regarding the imminent task. Whereas socio-emotional statements occur when team members: (1) encourage others to speak up, provide support to others, listen actively, voice disagreements, give feedback, make jokes, separate opinions from facts, express feelings, or offer praise and (2) criticize or run others down, interrupt, have side conversations, or promote themselves. Given that behaviors in the group interaction process may have unique impacts upon group performance and attitudinal outcomes (Humphrey et al., 2009), we expect to see opposing effects between task- and relationship-focused team functions; thus, we hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 1a: The ratio of socio-emotional statements an individual contributes to the meeting is positively related to attitudinal perceptions (i.e., team effectiveness, team satisfaction). Hypothesis 1b : The relationship between socio-emotional statements and attitudinal perceptions will be stronger for individuals with certain individual differences (e.g., extraversion, collective orientation). Hypothesis 2: The ratio of problem-focused statements that a group engages in is positively related to student group performance outcomes (i.e., course paper grade). Methodology Qualitative coding and analyses will be conducted on archival video-recorded group assignment data collected as a part of the CBA’s AACSB accreditation process. The students in these recordings were juniors and seniors enrolled in
Budget Justification Project Phase Details Budget Video Coding Cutting and coding archival video data; entering and cleaning pre- meeting and post-meeting survey data (225 hours)
Data Analysis Complete analysis of all data (100 hours) $ Manuscript Formal drafting of introduction, literature review, methodology, results, and discussion; collaboration with mentor on specific findings and revisions (100 hours)
Deliverables Preparing conference and journal submissions, revisions (75 hours) $ Resources Access to SPSS and Mangold’s INTERACT will be required; however, the CBA provides me access to these software packages
Total $ Student Stipend The proposed budget reflects the time allotment at a standard graduate student pay rate of $10 per hour. Associated Sources of Income I have been the Assessment and Accreditation Graduate Assistant for the CBA ( 9 - month academic year appointment) since August 2015 under the guidance of Kath Henebry. There are two levels of my work tasks. First, I must stay up-to- date with semester assessment data entry, analysis, and faculty feedback working with three CBA academic programs (BSBA, MBA, EMBA), leaving little time for the college’s long-term goals. Second, if time permits, I can work on long- term goals, such as researching and developing training aids for CBA students, however, this has been put on hold to keep up with incoming sources of assessment data. Coding video data is an incredibly labor-intensive process. This GRACA grant would provide me with the opportunity to spend the summer to complete this research project which has been on Kath Henebry’s back burner now for approximately five years. Additionally, the outcomes will benefit the next AACSB re-accreditation cycle and prepare CBA students to be effective team members in a competitive workforce. Additional Expenses Access to journals is available through University of Nebraska at Omaha’s library at no additional cost. In addition, the CBA has invested in a variety of statistical software programs which I may use to analyze data for my study.
References Assessment report ( 2014 ). Omaha, NE: University of Nebraska at Omaha. Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison- Wesley. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work- team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377 - 391. Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues , 4, 41 – 49. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1948.tb01783.x Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23 (3), 239-290. Conway, J. A. (1967). Problem solving in small groups as a function of “open” and “closed” individual belief systems. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 2 (4), 394-405. Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499 – 517. Hackman, J. R. (1983). A normative model of work team effectiveness (technical report no. 2). New Haven, CT: Yale School of Organization and Management. Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 8 , 45-99. Hart Research Associates (2010). Raising the bar: Employers’ view on college learning in the wake of the economic downturn. Washington, DC: Hart Research Associates. Humphrey, S. E., Morgeson, F. P., & Mannor, M. J. (2009). Developing a theory of the strategic core of teams: a role composition model of team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology , 94 (1), 48. Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012). Meetings matter: Effects of work group communication on organizational success. Small Group Research, 43 , 130–158. doi:10.1177/ Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. Handbook of Psychology. doi:10.1002/0471264385.wei Lawler III, E. E., Mohrman, S. A., & Ledford, G. E. J. (1995). Creating high performance organizations: Survey of practices and results of employee involvement and TQM in fortune 1000 companies. John & Sons Incorporated. Landowski, N., Kulas, J. T., & Hinnenkamp, S. Development and initial validation of a group-level ability assessment. Poster presented at the 30th^ Annual Conference of Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, April 23- 25, 2015, Philadelphia, PA. Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Meyers, R. A., Kauffeld, S., Neininger, A., & Henschel, A. (2011). Verbal interaction sequences and group mood: Exploring the role of team planning communication. Small Group Research , 42 , 639-
- doi:10.1177/ Mangold. (2010). INTERACT quick start manual V2.4. Retrieved from www.mangold-international.com McGrath, J. E. (1964). Social psychology: A brief introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Morgeson, F. P., Humphrey, S. E., & Reeder, M. C. (2012). Team selection. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of personnel assessment and selection (pp. 832- 848). New York, New York: Oxford University Press. Mumford, T. V., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2006). Situational judgment in work teams: A team role typology. In J. A. Weekley & R. E. Ployhart (Eds.), Situational judgment tests: Theory, measurement, and application (pp. 319 – 343). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sample, J. A., & Wilson, T. R. (1965). Leader behavior, group productivity, and rating of least preferred co- worker. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1 (3), 266.
