Teams in Organizations: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models

Ilgen, Daniel R.; Hollenbeck, John R.; Johnson, Michael D.; Jundt, Dustin K.

doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250

Cited by 1,816 publications

(1,905 citation statements)

References 129 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,805

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the shaky state of evidence supporting the input-process-output model, it has shown great persistence in group research over the decades (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005). The model is so reasonable that it surely must be correct-if only we could come up with the proper way of selecting, measuring, and analyzing group interaction.…”

Section: Mediatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From causes to conditions in group research

2012

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

Section: Mediatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From causes to conditions in group research

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, because teams are often viewed as an effective method to facilitate goal attainment while also meeting employees' needs for a meaningful work environment (Manz, 1992), our findings may benefit both applied researchers and practitioners, as they reveal a previously unidentified boundary condition regarding the inverse relationship between dysfunctional team behavior and team performance. 1 In line with scholarly explanations (see Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005), we adopt the theoretical position that teams exist in context as they perform across time. Accordingly, we view team performance as an output at Time t n but recognize that team performance is also an input and part of the team process leading to performance output at Time t n ϩ 1 (Ilgen et al, 2005).…”

Section: Rationale For the Present Conceptual Schemementioning

confidence: 99%

Affective mechanisms linking dysfunctional behavior to performance in work teams: A moderated mediation study.

Cole¹,

Walter²,

Bruch³

2008

Journal of Applied Psychology

295

260

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study examines the association between dysfunctional team behavior and team performance. Data included measures of teams' dysfunctional behavior and negative affective tone as well as supervisors' ratings of teams' (nonverbal) negative emotional expressivity and performance. Utilizing a field sample of 61 work teams, the authors tested the proposed relationships with robust data analytic techniques. Results were consistent with the hypothesized conceptual scheme, in that negative team affective tone mediated the relationship between dysfunctional team behavior and performance when teams' nonverbal negative expressivity was high but not when nonverbal expressivity was low. On the basis of the findings, the authors conclude that the connection between dysfunctional behavior and performance in team situations is more complex than was previously believed-thereby yielding a pattern of moderated mediation. In sum, the findings demonstrated that team members' collective emotions and emotional processing represent key mechanisms in determining how dysfunctional team behavior is associated with team performance.

show abstract

“…This broader concept of capacity development is also reflected in a study about the capacity development efforts of the UNU (UNU/C/48/L.22), which was endorsed by the UNU Council in 2002 (UNU/C/49/L.14) and includes a set of guidelines and principles to guide the capacity development activities in the UNU System. 6 Generally speaking, capacity building is often only associated with strengthening the human capacities to improve the performance of individuals and teams -for instance, through opportunities for work place learning (Ilgen et al 2005). Capacity building in the context of innovation systems involves more than this general definition (as illustrated in Figure 1) and can be defined as:…”

Section: Unu Research and Capacity Building In Forestrymentioning

confidence: 99%