From causes to conditions in group research

Abstract

SummaryIt is time to move beyond standard conceptual and research paradigms in scientific work on group behavior and performance to better align our models and methods with the phenomena we are studying. Cause-effect models are of limited use in conducting research and generating useable theory about group behavior and performance. This paper proposes and illustrates an alternative conceptual approach that focuses on the conditions within which groups chart their own courses. The paper suggests three implications of a condition-focused approach for those who create, lead, and serve in purposive groups, and closes with a discussion of the conceptual challenges that must be overcome if the potential of a condition-focused approach is to be realized. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Keywords: group research; theory; cause; conditionsResearch on any social phenomena always addresses, whether explicitly or implicitly, all three legs in the simple triangle shown in Figure 1. The vertices of the triangle are (i) the phenomena of interest, (ii) theory about those phenomena, and (iii) empirical research on those same phenomena (Hackman, 2011b). Scholars who aspire to publish in mainstream academic journals in social psychology and organizational behavior often choose (or are required by journal editors) to emphasize the first leg of the triangle, the one linking theory and empirical research. Others, such as some business school faculty, emphasize the second leg, inductively developing theory solely (or mainly) on the basis of deep immersion in the phenomena. And, still, others, such as some "applied" researchers, emphasize the third leg, bringing empirical data to bear on specific problems without worrying too much about conceptual issues. It probably is asking too much to expect that any one researcher, or even any one research group, will be able to work all three legs of the triangle. Yet, the development of basic-but-useful knowledge about group behavior and performance requires overcoming, or at least circumventing, several self-imposed barriers that slow progress by keeping scholars focused on one or another of the legs. We need to quit acting as if writing about what we have learned about groups from case studies or consulting assignments is, by itself, scholarly work. We need to quit pretending that the system context of group behavior is irrelevant to understanding what happens within groups-let alone to changing how they operate. And, directly to the point of this paper, we need to become more inventive in developing conceptual models and research strategies that respect the fact that groups are social systems.The time is right to rethink how we construe and study groups because the balls are in the air and in ways that pose direct challenges to traditional conceptual models and research methodologies. Indeed, recent papers by Mortensen (2009) and Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas, and Cohen (in press), as well as the articles in this special issue, convincingly document that the phenomena group researchers st...

Lärande samspel för effektivitet: En studie av arbetsgrupper i ett mindre industriföretag

“…I den typen av forskning är det viktigt att forskaren tar rätt beslut om vilka variabler som ska manipuleras respektive mätas, vilka som ska kontrolleras och vilka som ska ignoreras, för att inte resultaten ska leda fel (Hackman, 1987). Det förekommer också i olika sammanhang en hel del myter kring och felaktiga antaganden om att alla grupper fungerar på liknande sätt (Hackman, 2002;Sjovold, 2008) Viss kunskap om grupper har byggts på vad som framträtt under olika konsultuppdrag och i fallstudier utan att vara vetenskapligt prövat (Hackman, 2012). För att kunna ta hänsyn till viktiga aspekter som till exempel kontextuella faktorer så kan grupper studeras i sin verkliga miljö -på arbetsplatsen, när uppgiften hanteras (Hackman, 1987;Hackman & Morris, 1978;McGrath & Tschan, 2004).…”

“…För att kunna ta hänsyn till viktiga aspekter som till exempel kontextuella faktorer så kan grupper studeras i sin verkliga miljö -på arbetsplatsen, när uppgiften hanteras (Hackman, 1987;Hackman & Morris, 1978;McGrath & Tschan, 2004). I den typen av studier ges forskaren möjlighet att använda konceptuella modeller och strategier som respekterar det faktum att grupper är komplexa sociala system och befinner sig i en påverkande kontext (Hackman, 2012;McGrath & Tschan, 2004). Hackman (2012) betonar i sin definition gruppen som socialt system i relation till sin omvärld samt hur olika roller i gruppen utvecklas utifrån uppgiften, något som framgår av citatet nedan:…”

“…This definition means that it is possible to distinguish members of groups from nonmembers, even if they do not have regular face-to-face contact and even if membership changes frequently. Moreover, members of groups depend on one another in pursuing some collective purposes(s), they develop specialized roles within the group as they do so, and they are capable of relating as a unit to other individuals or groups (Hackman, 2012). Bions (1961) teorier bygger på att det vi i dagligt tal kallar en "arbetsgrupp" långt ifrån alltid är en funktionell grupp med fokus på uppgift och problemlösning.…”

“…För att kunna förstå den här typen av fenomen behöver hänsyn tas till komplexiteten. Olika beståndsdelar som på olika sätt är sammanbundna med varandra blir nödvändiga att studera var för sig för att på sikt kunna förstå helheten och kunna förklara sambanden dem emellan (Hackman, 2012).…”

A Neural Network Model for Team Viability

“…In fact, the literature is consensual about the need to consider different criteria to assess effectiveness [17,21]. We will focus our attention on team viability, which is in line with one of the dimensions of the Hackman's three dimensional effectiveness approach [17,18]. Team viability can be defined as the team's capacity to adapt to internal and external changes as well as the extent to which team members are able to continue to work together in the future [39].…”