Group Behavior and Performance

Hackman, J. Richard; Katz, Nancy

doi:10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002032

Cited by 121 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 308 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

105

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Responsibility for deciding when teams should be used to perform work does rest mainly with those who create them because teams are remarkably passive and accepting even when given work that is inappropriate for performance by a team, when the design of the team's task is flawed, or when contextual supports for teamwork are unavailable or inadequate (Hackman & Katz, 2010). At present, little is known about the roots of this passivity or what it would take to foster greater team proactivity about such matters.…”

Section: When Teams When Not?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When they function well, such teams can quickly and efficiently bring widely dispersed information and expertise to bear on the work. As increasing numbers of organizations have logged experience with distributed teams, however, it has become clear that they are not a panacea (for a review of the benefits and liabilities of these teams, see Hackman & Katz, 2010). A great deal of research on the proper design of distributed teams and their work is presently underway and shows no signs of abating.…”

Section: Distributed Teamsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Not what it was and not what it will be: The future of job design research

Oldham¹,

Hackman²

2010

J Organ Behavior

Self Cite

662

544

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: When Teams When Not?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Distributed Teamsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Not what it was and not what it will be: The future of job design research

Oldham¹,

Hackman²

2010

J Organ Behavior

Self Cite

662

544

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Portions of this article draw on or were adapted from Hackman (1985), Hackman (1987), Hackman (2003), Hackman (2011a,b), Hackman & Katz (2010), and Wageman, Fisher, & Hackman (2009 …”

Section: Acknowledgementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From causes to conditions in group research

2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

“…Our study also provides a critical perspective on team composition for today's global firms, which deploy inexperienced workers onto teams with varying experience (Hackman & Katz, 2010;Mortensen, 2010 …”

Section: Managerial Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Rich Get Richer: Enabling Conditions for Knowledge Use in Organizational Work Teams

Valentine¹,

Tan

Staats

et al. 2012

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper develops and tests a multi-level model that links individual and team experience with knowledge sourcing (specifically, knowledge repository (KR) use). Prior research theorizes that experienced workers source more than inexperienced workers because they have stronger information processing capabilities that motivate their search. Other research, however, suggests that teams source less as they gain experience because they develop and perpetuate set ways of thinking about problems. Which effect dominates the sourcing behavior of individuals working in teams? We argue that individual knowledge-sourcing behavior is shaped by both individual and team attributes and we provide an empirical test of new theory. Specifically we suggest that both individual capabilities and team average experience influence team member knowledge sourcing, and argue that there is an interaction between individual and team experience (meaning rookies and veterans working on inexperienced or experienced teams will be influenced differently). We find empirical support for this model. Team experience does not affect veteran team member knowledge sourcing, unless the team is very experienced; then, veterans slow their KR use. Rookies are more influenced by team composition: when working on teams with too little experience, too much experience, or a disparity of experience, rookie KR sourcing is limited. Yet on moderately experienced teams, rookies use almost on par with veterans. Importantly, limited KR use by highly experienced teams does not appear to be a savvy choice for exploiting team resources: KR use predicts team performance and the effect is not moderated by team experience.

show abstract

Group Behavior and Performance

Cited by 121 publications

References 308 publications

Not what it was and not what it will be: The future of job design research

Not what it was and not what it will be: The future of job design research

From causes to conditions in group research

The Rich Get Richer: Enabling Conditions for Knowledge Use in Organizational Work Teams

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About