What distinguish teams from social aggregates? A tool to assess the group development
Supporting Agencies
- Grupo de Investigación Consolidado PSicoSAO (SGR 210) por la Generalitat de Cataluña
Abstract
TThis research uses the construct of group development (GD) to distinguish highly developed workgroups and teams from mere social aggregates. The aims were to develop a scale capable of measuring this basic emergent process and to study the scale’s reliability and construct validity (content, factorial, convergent and criteria). Data concerning the GD, other related processes (entitativity and group identification) and team outputs (group performance and team effectiveness) were gathered from four successive studies (4099 participants belonging to 521 workgroups in 13 organizations). All the studies were carried out using a cross-sectional and correlational design. The results revealed an one-dimensional solution for the proposed measurement scale, which showed adequate reliability and validity. The scale is not only practical (quick and easy to apply) but also useful for group managers and leaders, since it provides them with a tool for determining the extent to which their groups are actually functioning as highly developed groups.
Downloads
References
Andriessen, J. H. E. (2002). Working with groupware. Understanding and evaluating collaboration technology. London: Springer Verlag.
Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E. & Berdhal, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems. Formation, coordination, development and adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J. & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989-1004. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability. Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations. Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349-381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Burke, M. J., Finkelstein, L. M. & Dusig, M. S. (1999). On average deviation indices for estimating interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 49-68. doi: 10.1177/109442819921004
Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS-Windows : basic concepts, applications, and programming. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Carpenter, S. & Radhakrishnan, P. (2002). The relation between allocentrism and perceptions of ingroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1528-1537. doi: 10.1177/014616702237580
Chiocchio, F. & Essiembre, H. (2009). Cohesion and performance: A meta-analytic review of disparities between project teams, production teams and service teams. Small Group Research, 40, 382-420. doi: 10.1177/1046496409335103
Gaertner, L. & Schopler, J. (1998). Perceived ingroup entitativity and ingroup bias: An interconnection of self and others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 963-980. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(1998110)28:6<963::AID-EJSP905>3.0.CO;2-S
Hamilton, D. L. & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 336-355. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.336
Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G. & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 191-205. doi: 10.1177/1094428104263675
Hogg, M. A., Turner, J. C. & Davidson, B. (1990). Polarized norms and social frames of reference: A test of the self-categorization theory of group polarization. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 77–100. doi: 10.1207/s15324834basp1101_6
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and a test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179-185. doi: 10.1007/BF02289447
Kozlowski, S. W. J. & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology:Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333-375). London: Wiley.
Lickel, D., Hamilton, D., Lewis, A., Sherman, S., Wieczorkowska, G. & Uhles, A. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223-246. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.223
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., Alonso, A., DeChurch, L. & Panzer, F. J. (2005). Teamwork in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 964-971. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.964
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E. & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376.
McKimmie, B., Terry, D., Hogg, M. A., Manstead, A., Spears, R. & Doosje, B.(2003). Uncertainty reduction, self-enhancement, and ingroup identification. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 214–224.
Meneses, R., Ortega, R., Navarro, J. & Quijano, S. D. de (2008). Criteria for assessing the level of group development (GD) of work groups. Groupness, entitativity, and groupality as theoretical perspectives. Small Group Research, 39, 492-514. doi: 10.1177/1046496408319787
Sherif, M. (1967). Social interaction. Process and products. Selected papers by Muzafer Sherif. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Stajkovic, A. D., Lee, D. & Nyberg, A. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: Meta-analysis of their relationships, and test a mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 814-828. doi: 10.1037/a0015659
Tuckman, B. W. & Jensen, M. A. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2, 419-427. doi: 10.1177/105960117700200404
Wheelan, S. A. (2010). Creating effective teams. A guide for members and leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
The works published in this journal are subject to the following terms:
1. The Publications Service of the University of Murcia (the publisher) retains the property rights (copyright) of published works, and encourages and enables the reuse of the same under the license specified in paragraph 2.
© Servicio de Publicaciones, Universidad de Murcia, 2022
2. The works are published in the online edition of the journal under a Creative Commons Reconocimiento-CompartirIgual 4.0 (legal text). You can copy, use, distribute, transmit and publicly display, provided that: i) you cite the author and the original source of publication (journal, editorial and URL of the work), ii) are not used for commercial purposes, iii ) mentions the existence and specifications of this license.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
3. Conditions of self-archiving. Is allowed and encouraged the authors to disseminate electronically pre-print versions (version before being evaluated and sent to the journal) and / or post-print (version reviewed and accepted for publication) of their works before publication, as it encourages its earliest circulation and diffusion and thus a possible increase in its citation and scope between the academic community. RoMEO Color: Green.
