Time, Interaction, and Performance (TIP)

McGrath, Joseph E.

doi:10.1177/1046496491222001

Cited by 985 publications

(935 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

903

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Following methods used in psychology to study individual intelligence, Woolley et al [8] investigated the possibility of a collective intelligence factor: a latent factor describing a team's general ability to perform on a wide variety of tasks. They brought teams into the laboratory, had them perform a wide variety of tasks [6,9], and found that a team's performance on one type of task was closely related to its performance on all types. When they calculated a collective intelligence score based on the team's performance on the set of tasks, they found that it was only moderately related to the individual members' intelligence scores and was more predictive of future team performance than was individual members' average intelligence score [8] A series of studies have revealed factors related to collective intelligence, providing some insight into how to more reliably cultivate smart teams.…”

Section: Collective Intelligencementioning

confidence: 99%

Teamwork in Health Care: Maximizing Collective Intelligence via Inclusive Collaboration and Open Communication

Mayo¹,

Woolley

2016

AMA Journal of Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teams offer the potential to achieve more than any person could achieve working alone; yet, particularly in teams that span professional boundaries, it is critical to capitalize on the variety of knowledge, skills, and abilities available. This article reviews research from the field of organizational behavior to shed light on what makes for a collectively intelligent team. In doing so, we highlight the importance of moving beyond simply including smart people on a team to thinking about how those people can effectively coordinate and collaborate. In particular, we review the importance of two communication processes: ensuring that team members with relevant knowledge (1) speak up when one's expertise can be helpful and (2) influence the team's work so that the team does its collective best for the patient. The Promise and Challenge of Team-Based Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration in Health CareAcross health care, there is an increasing reliance on teams from a variety of specialties (e.g., nursing, physician specialties, physical therapy, social work) to care for patients. At the same time, medical error is estimated to be "the third most common cause of death in the US" [1], and teamwork failures (e.g., failures in communication) account for up to 70-80 percent of serious medical errors [2][3][4][5]. The shift to providing care in teams is well founded given the potential for improved performance that comes with teamwork [6], but, as demonstrated by these grave statistics, teamwork does not come without challenges. Consequently, there is a critical need for health care professionals, particularly those in leadership roles, to consider strategies for improving team-based approaches to providing quality patient care.Teams offer the promise to improve clinical care because they can aggregate, modify, combine, and apply a greater amount and variety of knowledge in order to make decisions, solve problems, generate ideas, and execute tasks more effectively and efficiently than any individual working alone [6]. Given this potential, a multidisciplinary team of health care professionals could ideally work together to determine diagnoses,

show abstract

Section: Collective Intelligencementioning

confidence: 99%

Teamwork in Health Care: Maximizing Collective Intelligence via Inclusive Collaboration and Open Communication

Mayo¹,

Woolley

2016

AMA Journal of Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, decades of research by social psychologists have provided explanations for the less-than-ideal performance of most social groups. "Process loss" saps the resources provided by individual members through coordination failures (Steiner, 1972), social loafing (Latané, Williams, & Harkins, 1979), groupthink (Janis, 1972;Turner & Pratkanis, 1998), and interpersonal competition (McGrath, 1984).…”

Section: Accuracy As a Criterion For Good Group Decision Rulesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Robust Beauty of Majority Rules in Group Decisions.

Hastie¹,

Kameda²

2005

Psychological Review

384

349

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How should groups make decisions? The authors provide an original evaluation of 9 group decision rules based on their adaptive success in a simulated test bed environment. When the adaptive success standard is applied, the majority and plurality rules fare quite well, performing at levels comparable to much more resource-demanding rules such as an individual judgment averaging rule. The plurality rule matches the computationally demanding Condorcet majority winner that is standard in evaluations of preferential choice. The authors also test the results from their theoretical analysis in a behavioral study of nominal human group decisions, and the essential findings are confirmed empirically. The conclusions of the present analysis support the popularity of majority and plurality rules in truth-seeking group decisions.Human societies rely on groups to make many important decisions. There is a deep-seated belief that groups are more accurate and more just than individuals. This belief is based on the commonsense notion that a group has more problem-solving resources than any individual member because "several heads are better than one." The belief also depends on the assumption that the group process is effective at eliciting and integrating its members' beliefs and preferences. The most popular decision rule in groups of all types is the majority rule. The majority rule has many virtues: It is "transparent" and the easiest of all social decision rules to execute; it is based on a simple principle of equal participation and equal power; it encourages the expression of sincere personal beliefs, rather than conformity; and it yields more effective problem solutions than typical (and sometimes even most accurate) members could achieve. The present article is an exploration of the capacity of the majority rule and the closely related plurality rule to produce accurate judgments.The majority rule is popular across the full spectrum of human groups from hunter-gatherer tribal societies (Boehm, 1996;Boyd & Richerson, 1985;Wilson, 1994) to modern industrial democracies (Mueller, 1989). Certainly, in ad hoc Western groups, it seems to be the decision rule most frequently adopted to make formal social choices in popular elections, legislatures, and committees. The second most popular explicit procedure in committees is an autocratic "leader decides" rule (e.g., Smith & Bliege-Bird, 2000). However, when no explicit decision rule is adopted by a group or when a designated leader appears to make the group's decision, the implicit decision rule is usually still essentially a majority rule (cf. Davis, 1973Davis, , 1982Kerr, Stasser, & Davis, 1979;Stasser, Kerr, & Davis, 1980). Even when a small group has an explicit rule other than a majority rule, the largest initial faction, that is, the plurality, is usually the ultimate winner (cf. There are several versions of majoritarian rules used in human societies. The most popular version in America is a majority-plurality rule in which the candidate that receives the most votes wins ...

show abstract

“…Team behavior depends on the demands of the task itself, and teams can be categorized into distinct types on the basis of these tasks (McGrath, 1984). One particularly common type of team (and the focus of the present investigation) is production and service teams.…”

Section: Team Routines and External Team Leader Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The External Leadership of Self-Managing Teams: Intervening in the Context of Novel and Disruptive Events.

Morgeson

2005

Journal of Applied Psychology

352

338

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relatively little empirical research has been conducted on external leaders of self-managing teams. The integration of functional leadership theory with research on team routines suggests that leaders can intervene in teams in several different ways, and the effectiveness of this intervention depends on the nature of the events the team encounters. External team leaders from 3 organizations first described a series of events (N ϭ 117), and leaders and team members then completed surveys to quantitatively describe the events. Results indicated that leader preparation and supportive coaching were positively related to team perceptions of leader effectiveness, with preparation becoming more strongly related to effectiveness as event novelty increased. More active leader intervention activities (active coaching and sense making) were negatively related to satisfaction with leadership yet were positively related to effectiveness as events became more disruptive.

show abstract

Time, Interaction, and Performance (TIP)

Cited by 985 publications

References 23 publications

Teamwork in Health Care: Maximizing Collective Intelligence via Inclusive Collaboration and Open Communication

Teamwork in Health Care: Maximizing Collective Intelligence via Inclusive Collaboration and Open Communication

The Robust Beauty of Majority Rules in Group Decisions.

The External Leadership of Self-Managing Teams: Intervening in the Context of Novel and Disruptive Events.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About