Team Psychology

1. Key Terms

1.1. Emergence

1.1.1. Take place over time, created by people interacting. Once it emerges it has the tendency to be somewhat stable.

1.2. Team

1.2.1. 2 or more individuals

1.2.2. who interact (face-to-face or virtual)

1.2.3. Have one or more common goals

1.2.4. Exist to perform task-relevant functions.

1.2.5. Exhibit work interdependicies (goals, values, outcomes)

1.2.5.1. And differntiated roles

1.2.5.1.1. Differentiated means ASSIGNED not just crafted (like a jury). There needs to be requirements.

1.2.6. Embedded in organizational systems.

1.2.7. With boundaries in dynamic linkages and task environment.

1.2.8. Bold things differentiate get us into organizations work teams from groups

1.3. Team Effectiveness

1.3.1. Performance assessed objectively or by relevant others outside the team.

1.3.2. Member need satisfaction.

1.3.2.1. Because a dissatisfied member is like a dead cell in a system...starts the disentigration of the system.

1.3.2.2. Or a pillar leaving a buildling.

1.3.3. Viability --- willingness of members to continue working together.

1.4. Conjunctive task

1.5. Comp modeling

1.5.1. Generative sufficiency.

1.5.1.1. Does the model do what you expect it to do?

1.6. Monte Carlo studies

1.6.1. Testing statistical methods and conclusions

1.7. Near vs. Far Transfer

1.7.1. Far away from where you where vs. you only get a little ways from the thing (near)

1.8. Team Adaptation

1.8.1. The manner or extent to which a theoretical unit (i.e., person, group, or organization) achieves correspondence between the unit’s behavior and a set of novel demands faced by the unit (LePine, 2005)

1.9. Composition

1.9.1. Isomorphism

1.9.1.1. Same - x, x, x

1.9.1.2. Simple. Average, additive.

1.10. Compilation

1.10.1. Discontinuity

1.10.1.1. Different - x,y,z

1.11. Processes

1.11.1. Members interdependent actions that convert inputs to outcomes through cognitive, verbal, and behavioral activities directed toward organizing taskwork to achieve collective goals

2. Composition

2.1. Exercise: How do you design a diverse, effective team to go to mars?

2.1.1. Use Bell (2007) and Bell et al. (2011)

2.1.2. Slide: Ideal Team Composition

2.1.3. Slide: Ideal Diversity

2.1.4. Screening out is good too

2.1.4.1. Why Hi-SEAS is looking at Dark Triad

2.2. SK's lit summary

2.2.1. Team Composition and Diversity literatures are largely seaprate.

2.2.2. Member characeristics are underlying key issue

2.2.3. Members as resources

2.2.3.1. Assets

2.2.3.2. Impediements

2.2.3.3. (to processes)

2.2.4. It's an input, usually

2.2.5. Outstanding problem: Team selection still based on individual selection.

2.2.5.1. Problem: Indiv selection does not maximize TEAM effectiveness.

2.3. Diversity

2.3.1. Harrison & Klein (2007): Name the diversity things

2.3.1.1. Demographic diversity: Race, education, background. A unit-level, compositional construct.

2.3.1.1.1. Diversity is relational demography ("frog-pond" characteristic)

2.3.1.2. Non-demographic diversity: Values, personality

2.3.1.3. Harrison & Klein's (2007) typology

2.3.1.4. Terms

2.3.1.5. 3 Types of diversity

2.3.1.5.1. Separation: Valence-less differences (e.g., Diffs in beliefs)

2.3.1.5.2. Variety: Diffs in knowledge, experience

2.3.1.5.3. Disparity: VALANCED diffs in valued things (e.g., money, social status)

2.3.1.5.4. SK: Those specific examples where content determines type of diversity...that's limiting.

2.4. Terms

2.4.1. Surface vs. Deep-level composition variable

2.4.1.1. Surface-level characteristics

2.4.1.1.1. Overt demographic hcaracteristscs that can be reasonably estimated after brief exposure (age, race, education, rank)

2.4.1.2. Deep-level characteristics

2.4.1.2.1. Underlying psychological characteristics such as personality values, attitudes.

2.4.2. Composition vs. Diversity

2.4.2.1. Composition: The characteristics

2.4.2.1.1. Bell (2007): The configuration of member attributes.

2.4.2.1.2. Focus is on what you want to see (e.g., "you want conscientious people on your team")

2.4.2.1.3. How the characteristics push the team forward.

2.4.2.1.4. Surface vs. deep: Combination focus

2.4.2.2. Diversity: The variance of those characteristics

2.4.2.2.1. Focus: How differences comp together

2.4.2.2.2. How people get along because of diverse characteristics.

2.4.2.2.3. Surface vs deep: Narrow focus

2.5. Multi-Level

2.5.1. Ployhart & Moliterno (2001: ML Model of human capital emergence

2.5.1.1. Context-generic: Good all the time, like IQ

2.5.1.1.1. Orgs buy this. They buy more educated people.

2.5.1.1.2. Also risky for firms to help with (like paying for your MBA), because those things make you generically valuable.

2.5.1.2. Context-specific: Specific experience in that organization.

2.5.1.2.1. You want to take smart people, and use in a way that's tied to the firm. Then they have firm-specific skills.

2.5.1.2.2. Like programming skills

2.5.1.3. Human Capital: A unit-level resource that is created from the meergence of individual's knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs)

2.5.1.4. Ployhart Table 1: Micro ignores macro, macro ignores micro

2.5.1.4.1. SK :The Micro-Macro devide

2.5.1.4.2. SK: Micro literature don't talk about how KSAOs lead to firm perf. Assume that KSAO relationships are "universalistic"

2.5.1.4.3. Macro literature only admits to a few KSAOs actually mattering.

2.5.1.5. Why care: Because efficiently using your human resources across levels is a strategic advantage.

2.5.1.6. Ployhart & Moliterno's model

2.5.2. The Micro-Macro

2.6. Performance

2.6.1. Bell (2007): Deep composition variables and Perf Meta

2.6.1.1. Goal: Use Meta to unify composition literature around proven composition vs. perf relationships

2.6.1.2. IV: Team composition (as single variable)

2.6.1.3. DV: Performance

2.6.1.4. Moderator 1: Lab or field?

2.6.1.4.1. Lab: Personality doesn't do much

2.6.1.4.2. Field: Personality matters a lot

2.6.1.5. Moderator 2: How did they operationalize team composition?

2.6.1.6. Related/tested Steiner's task typology (for testing operationalization of team composition)

2.7. Culture

2.7.1. Chao & Moon (2005): The Cultural Mosaic Meta Theory

2.7.1.1. Culture: includes implicit and explicit behavior patterns based on historically derived ideas and values.

2.7.1.2. Goal: Show that culture is more than values. Here's a framework for seeing an individual's unique collage of influences on that person.

2.7.1.3. Mosaic: A picture made of different colors and images

2.7.1.4. Table 1: Taxonomy of Mosaic tiles

2.7.1.4.1. SK: Geography is interesting because even though I've lived in MI for 30 years, I still consider myself a costal person.

2.7.1.4.2. Associative: Based on who you were around.

2.7.1.5. Insightful quote from Hermans and Kempen

2.7.1.6. Chao & Moon's model

2.7.1.7. Class: Cultural Mosaic vs. Faultines

2.7.1.7.1. Similar

2.7.1.7.2. Differences

2.8. High-stakes teams

2.8.1. Harder because you can't just count on mass quantities of selectees generally following things that work. It becomes probablistic

2.9. ID

2.9.1. Cognitive (can do)

2.9.2. Non-cognitive (will do)

2.9.3. Stable individual characteristics

2.9.4. Malleable Individual characteristics

2.9.4.1. Knowledge, skill, motivation

2.10. The future (SK): Moving towards configuration.

3. Leadership

3.1. Dynamic theory of leadership and team effectiveness (Kozlowski et al. 1996)

3.1.1. Contribution goal: Lack of dynamics, grounding in context. Integrative framework for leading teams in complex environments that covers emergent processes and workload dynamics.

3.1.1.1. Think it also introduces the notion of performance cycles.

3.1.1.2. Class: Leadership as Dynamic, Developmental and Task-Contingent roles.

3.1.1.2.1. This paper is about SITUATING theory.

3.1.2. Gap to fill

3.1.2.1. 1. Not much about how to lead complex/dynamic environment teams.

3.1.2.2. 2. Not much about ROLE of leader.

3.1.2.3. Existing framework issues

3.1.2.3.1. Not grounded in team context

3.1.2.3.2. Insisitive to emergent processes

3.1.2.3.3. Neglect team-level fluctuations/dyanamics in workload and task complexity.

3.1.3. Assumptions

3.1.3.1. Theory needs to be contextually grounded.

3.1.3.2. Temporal dynamics are a thing

3.1.3.2.1. Developmental time

3.1.3.2.2. Task cycles

3.1.4. Figure 1.

3.1.4.1. Idea: The leader can do things either developmentally or in terms of task cycles to influence underlying process.

3.1.4.2. Evnironmental: There's a problem space for the Aegis cruiser. The patient is changing over time.

3.1.4.3. Task attributes: Gotta get tube down their throat. Uh-oh cardiac arrest.

3.1.5. Figure 2: A dynamic model of leader role behavior

3.1.6. Propositions

3.1.6.1. 11. As team matures, leader shifts emphasis from individual goals to team goals.

3.1.6.2. 10. During intervention, Leader must create a performance orientation.

3.1.6.3. 14. As team matures, leader shifts instructional experiences from straightfoward wins to more complex challenges, to improve adaptability.

3.2. Outstanding issues

3.2.1. Leadership is a process, not a person

3.2.1.1. Unfolds over time

3.2.2. Integrative: leader, followers, context

3.2.3. Multi-level

3.3. Challenges

3.3.1. Cuasal assumptions

3.3.1.1. Leader influences followers

3.3.1.2. Followers influence leader

3.3.1.3. Leaders <=> followers

3.3.2. Situational constraints

3.3.2.1. High structure negates leadership (e.g., Einstein on the assembly line)

3.3.3. Perceptions - Good leadership is the eye of the beholder.

3.3.4. Developmental history (baby vs. old teams)

3.4. Day (2012): Approaches to leadership

3.4.1. Evoluntionar

3.4.2. Traits

3.4.3. Behaviors (Classical; Contingencies)

3.4.4. Bridging

3.4.5. Emerging

3.5. vs. leadership in general

3.5.1. Needs to be more tailored to context.

3.5.2. Kozlowski et al. 2009

3.5.2.1. Comparison table 5.1

3.5.2.2. 3 primary foci

3.5.2.2.1. Functional perspective

3.5.2.2.2. Task dynamics

3.5.2.2.3. Developmental dynamics

3.5.2.3. Research targets / How could we test this?

3.5.2.3.1. Try to disprove it.

3.6. Exemplars

3.6.1. Functional team leadership (Hackman & Walton 1986; Fleishman et al 1991)

3.6.2. Leadership as dyadic exchange (Graen & Scandura, 1987)

3.6.3. As a dynamic process (Koz et al 1996)

3.6.4. As coaching (Hackman & Wageman 2005)

3.6.5. As leberaging regulation and development (Koz et al 2009)

3.6.6. As functions organized by transition (Morgeson)

3.7. Context

3.7.1. Kozlowsk, Mak & Chao (2016)

3.7.1.1. Gap: Context matters. Mainstream LDR theory is context-agnostic.

3.7.1.2. Examines

3.7.1.2.1. 1. Team-centric Transformational Leadership

3.7.1.2.2. 2. Team-centric LMX

3.7.1.2.3. 3. Functional leaderhsip

3.7.1.2.4. 4. Shared leadership

3.7.1.2.5. Doesn't examine: Network conceptualization.

3.8. Functional Leadership

3.8.1. McGrath (1962)

3.8.1.1. The first leaderhship theory focused on teams.

3.8.1.2. Primary purpose of leaderhsip is to ensure that group fulfils all critical functions necesary to its own maintenance and the accomplishment of its task.

3.8.2. What is a function?

3.8.2.1. It's bigger than a behavior.

3.8.3. Functional Leadership Model (Hackman & Walton 1986)

3.8.3.1. Leader Monitoring functions

3.8.3.2. Intro

3.8.3.2.1. 1. Leadership bounded in groups that do work in "purposive social systems"

3.8.3.2.2. 2. Focus on person: If you're "the leader" of a team, then this applies to you, no matter how you got to be in that position.

3.8.3.2.3. 3. Normative & usable: Best practices generalize

3.8.3.3. Key leadership functions

3.8.3.3.1. Overall: Get done what isn't being done for group needs.

3.8.3.3.2. From McGrath 1962 I think

3.8.3.3.3. Figure 3-1: Summary of Critical Leadership functions

3.8.3.4. Questions

3.8.3.4.1. What factors should leaders give special attention to when a group's performance is substandard or when members appear to be unable to work together competently?

3.8.3.4.2. On what basis should people be selected for leadership roles.

3.8.3.4.3. When does a group need a leader?

3.8.3.4.4. What kind of leader do you need for new vs mature groups?

3.8.3.5. Theoretical extensions

3.8.3.5.1. McGrath's generic model applied to groupss.

3.8.3.6. Definitions

3.8.3.6.1. Group Effectiveness

3.8.3.7. Best practices for group effectiveness

3.8.3.7.1. Clear, engaging direction

3.8.3.7.2. Overall

3.8.3.8. Table 3.2: Conditions for team effectiveness with Bay of Pigs vs. Cuban Missle Crisis (good) examples

3.8.3.8.1. Not the "high meaningfulness" exists in both good/bad examples. Could act as a pressure.

3.8.3.8.2. Enabling performance situation

3.8.3.9. Team Design (Ingredients)

3.8.3.10. SK: Similar to Hackman 1992

3.8.3.11. Mike Q's:

3.8.3.11.1. Puts a lot of emphasis on the leader proactively doing things. I wonder if there's an inertia to be like "Everything's fine, so I can kick back and not have to deal with confrontation."

3.8.4. Hackman & Walton

3.8.5. Fleishman et al. (1991): Leadership Taxonomy

3.8.5.1. Provides a fiarly comphrehensive effort to catalog leadership functions (broadly construed) from 1940 through 1986.

3.8.5.2. Yields 65 systems shown in Table 1 ;

3.8.5.3. Observed similarities:

3.8.5.3.1. 1. Dimensions (facilitation and task accomplishment)

3.8.5.3.2. 2. Managmenet/administrative functions (human resources vs. material resources)

3.8.5.3.3. 3. Some shifts in nature of functions of interest over time...

3.8.6. Leadership in Teams: Functional approach to structures and processes. (Morgeson et al. 2010)

3.8.6.1. Table 1: Sources of Leadership in Teams

3.8.6.1.1. SK: Where did that come from?

3.8.6.2. Table 2: Who's the ideally-positioned leader to handle X process?

3.8.6.3. Assumption: Leadership satisfies critical team needs

3.8.6.4. Includes Leader Questionnaire that lists virtually all good things for team leadership.

3.8.6.5. Primise

3.8.6.6. SK Criticisms

3.8.6.6.1. Very leader-entric

3.8.6.6.2. Used overall leadership literature (vs. just team-centric), maybe to a fault.

3.8.6.6.3. Interpersonal processes are missing entirely.

3.8.6.6.4. Dimensions seem to heavily load on Transition Processes, light on action.

3.8.6.6.5. Nobody uses this measure!

3.9. LMX

3.9.1. SK: Of all the theories on leadership, LMX is the one I think about the most as a leader. This is the one that makes the most sense to me.

3.9.2. Major people

3.9.2.1. Bardnard - organizations as negotiated systems based on inducements and contributions.

3.9.2.1.1. Inducements = Rewards and punishments

3.9.2.2. Weick - individual behavior is contingent on other behavior = interact; reciprocal response cycle = double interact

3.9.2.3. Goes back to Katz and Kahn notion of structure as "recurrent patterns of interaction"

3.9.2.3.1. Duality of process and structure.

3.9.2.4. Theory by Graen & Scandura

3.9.2.4.1. SK: Having the imagination to use resources and break rules to get things done...you can do a lot with that.

3.9.3. Major Tenants

3.9.3.1. Dyads are fundamental organizing units.

3.9.3.2. Multiple interlocked behavior cycles create stable patterns of interaction.

3.9.4. Roles

3.9.4.1. Role Taking

3.9.4.1.1. Phase where superior samples or tests.

3.9.4.2. Role Making

3.9.4.3. Role Routinization

3.10. Coaching

3.10.1. Team Coaching: Hackman & Wageman (2005?)

3.10.1.1. Key features

3.10.1.2. Posit: Team effectiveness is a joint function of 3 functions.

3.10.1.3. Propositions

3.10.1.3.1. 1. Coaching focused on the performance processes (effort, KSA's) facilitate team effectiveness better than a focus on interpersonal relationships

3.10.1.3.2. 2. Timing: MOtivational coaching best at beginning, consultative at mid-oint and educational at end.

3.10.1.3.3. 3. Coaching interventions need to address performance processes that are salient for a given task.

3.10.1.3.4. Effective / Ineffective coaching vs Well-structured/badly-structured team

3.10.2. You need different kinds of mentoring when the team is ready for it.

3.11. Review: Team-Centric Leadership (Kozlowski, Mak, & Chao [2016]).

3.11.1. How did we structure the review?

3.11.1.1. 1. Conceptulization

3.11.1.1.1. Content, MLT, Process

3.11.1.1.2. Primary reserarch focus

3.11.1.1.3. Mapping to IPO

3.11.1.1.4. Moderators

3.11.1.2. 2. Methods and research design

3.11.1.2.1. Units of theory and analysis

3.11.1.2.2. Research settings (Lab/Field)

3.11.1.2.3. Research design (CSL-L)

3.11.1.2.4. Self-report-multisource data

3.11.1.2.5. Outcome criteria

3.11.2. What did we conclude about TFL?

3.11.2.1. Need to be able to boil moderators down to a narrower range.

3.11.2.2. You should break apart dimensions of TFL and put it in level.

3.11.2.2.1. Follower empowerment should go to individual level.

3.11.2.2.2. Leader behavior should be at top level.

3.11.3. What did we conclude about LMX?

3.11.3.1. It's still looking at individual-level outcomes.

3.11.3.2. Context is missing.

3.11.3.3. Missing team-level outcomes.

3.11.3.3.1. This would allow you to look at team-level differences.

3.11.4. What did we conclude about shared leadership?

3.11.4.1. It's a mess.

3.11.4.2. Social Network works best way to approach shared leadership.

3.11.5. Table 3. Overall Recommendations

3.12. Overall conclusions

3.12.1. Which theories are most useful?

3.12.1.1. SK: They all have some value depending on what you're trying to do. What's missing is the intersectionality.

3.12.2. Is team leadership different?

3.12.2.1. SK: Team leader vs. General leader. Contextualization is a key difference in team leadership vs. general, and that may still be relevant to overall leadership.

3.12.3. Leadership is a process. It's emergent.

3.12.4. Need to focus on leaders and followers as interdependent.

3.13. Shared leadership

3.13.1. Types

3.13.1.1. Traditional

3.13.1.1.1. Transactional/Interactional

3.13.1.1.2. Trait leadership theories

3.13.1.2. New Genre

3.13.1.2.1. Squishy stuff

3.13.1.2.2. Transformational leadership

3.13.1.3. Overall

3.13.1.3.1. Emergent leadership

3.13.1.3.2. Just about IF they have influence, not how they have it

3.13.2. Relationships

3.13.2.1. +team processes/emergent states

3.13.2.2. +performance

3.13.2.3. Weak relationship with task complexity

4. Team as HiveMind

4.1. Teams are like a conjoined being

4.1.1. Size of conjoined bridge is strength of interpersonal relationship

4.1.2. Closer merge means more emotional contagion.

4.1.3. Disatancing things (like fault lines, autonomy) shrink the merging.

4.1.4. Continuum from "separate" to "merged entity"

4.1.4.1. Low hiveness

4.1.4.2. High hiveness

4.2. Various things that bring together/apart

4.2.1. Justice / equity

4.3. Merged

4.3.1. Modeling

4.3.2. Contagion strength

4.4. Separate

5. Measuring

5.1. SK: Ratings suck for measuring performance.

5.1.1. use something objective

5.2. Lab studies

5.2.1. SK: Generally, student teams will be high in cohesion and report little conflict.

6. Affect

6.1. Terms

6.1.1. Trait affect

6.1.1.1. e.g., extraversion, affect in life

6.1.1.2. Tendency to respond to situations in stable and precictibale way

6.1.2. Emotions

6.1.2.1. Discrete, specific (e.g., fear)

6.1.2.2. Short love

6.1.3. Mood

6.1.3.1. More diffuse (e.g., feeling down)

6.1.3.2. Last longer

6.1.4. Convergence

6.1.4.1. Affect that is shared

6.1.4.2. Compositional

6.1.5. Divergence/Diversity

6.1.5.1. Affect that is NOT shared

6.1.5.2. Compilational

6.1.6. Culture

6.1.6.1. Norms, artifacts, and assumptoins about which affet shold be supressed/expressed.

6.1.7. Dynamism

6.1.7.1. Change over time.

6.2. Findings

6.2.1. Sharedness of affect is reciprocoally related to strength of interpersonal relationships.

6.3. Future

6.3.1. GSR or some kind of objective ESM

7. Levels

7.1. Top-down

7.1.1. Culture

7.1.1.1. Can be bottom-up when team is forming.

7.1.1.2. But after group has existed for a while, it's top-down.

7.1.2. Leadership

7.2. Bottom-up

7.2.1. Convergence

7.2.2. Divergence

7.3. Multi-level

7.3.1. Dynamics

8. Personality

8.1. Variance in Conscientiousness

8.1.1. SK: More conscientious teams less adaptable

8.1.1.1. When info channel died, C people just tried harder.

8.1.1.2. Lazy people noticed and adaptive.

8.1.2. MM: Lazy people innovate more

8.1.3. Josh: Depends on autonomy.

8.2. Predictiveness of personality heterogeneity

8.2.1. Bell (2007)

8.2.2. Basically everthing n.s except C and O

8.2.3. So on a too-global perspective, variance in personality doesn't matter according to Bell

8.2.3.1. But didn't control for task type

9. Faultlines

9.1. Hypothetical dividing lines that may split a group into subgroups based on one or more attributes (Lau & Murnighan)

9.1.1. Focus: Deomographics have primacy

9.2. Terms

9.2.1. Cross-categorization

9.2.1.1. The anti-faultline. A shared characteristic that reduces the effect of other fault lines.

9.2.1.2. Like everybody is asian, or everybody is a grad student.

9.2.1.2.1. Or everybody is a "good person trying to make a difference"?!

9.2.2. Table 1 (Thatcher et al)

9.2.2.1. Table 2 (Thatcher et al)

9.2.3. Self-categorization

9.2.3.1. You see yourself as part of an identity group

9.2.4. Social identity

9.2.4.1. People see themselves as being in the same group as people who have characteristics that are similar to yourself.

9.2.5. Optimal distinctiveness

9.2.5.1. People want a balance between similarity and difference.

9.2.5.1.1. Group full of clones

9.2.5.1.2. Group full of aliens

9.3. Pictures. Happens when: Homogenous subgroups

9.3.1. Good: Diversity, but no grouping/concentrating of diversity. Everybody on same level.

9.3.2. Bad: Subgroups separated by color AND level

9.3.3. Good-ish: Everybody same color and level. No faultlines.

9.4. Properties

9.4.1. Strength

9.4.1.1. Number of overlapping faultlines.

9.4.1.1.1. 2. Number of subgroups that could form

9.4.1.1.2. 1. the number of individual differences

9.4.1.2. Strength is about the amount SIMILARITY you see in group members.

9.4.1.3. Fau: Proportion of total variation in overall group characteristics explained by the strongest group split

9.4.1.3.1. Problem: You don't know what's driving the fault line.

9.4.1.3.2. Looking overall pattern, representing that in one statistics.

9.4.1.3.3. Still has some nice features and is useful, and the best we may have at the moment.

9.4.1.4. Distance: Another way to measure.

9.4.2. Latency/Activiation

9.4.2.1. Latent fault lines can be "activated"

9.4.2.2. Leaders might be able to do things to prevent activation, or heal activation.

9.4.2.3. 5 Triggers

9.4.2.3.1. Differential treatment

9.4.2.3.2. Different values

9.4.2.3.3. Assimilation

9.4.2.3.4. Insult of humilating actions

9.4.2.3.5. Simple contact

9.4.2.3.6. Courtney: Talking about black lives matter can trigger race faultline.

9.4.2.4. SK: This construct already predicts really well WITHOUT getting into activating them first.

9.4.2.4.1. Could be a really kick-ass construct if we get activated them.

9.4.2.4.2. MM: Maybe comp model?

9.4.3. Width

9.4.3.1. The distance between groups

9.4.4. Depth

9.4.4.1. Can be demographic, or at a deeper level.

9.4.4.2. Shallow: Race

9.4.4.3. Deep: Personality

9.5. Outcomes

9.5.1. Team functioning

9.5.2. Conflict

9.5.3. Information sharing

9.5.3.1. Learning

9.5.4. Satisfaction

9.5.5. HIGHER creativity

9.5.5.1. Because diversity

9.5.6. Cohesiveness

9.6. Sources of faultlines

9.6.1. Abilities

9.6.1.1. GMA

9.6.1.2. Skills

9.6.2. Personality

9.6.3. Demographic characgteristics

9.6.3.1. Gender

9.6.3.2. Age

9.7. Moderators

9.7.1. Autonomy

9.7.1.1. faultlines are more detrimental to team functioning when team autonomy is high.

9.7.2. Context

9.7.2.1. People will fight over football at a bar; just a joke in a workplace.

9.8. vs. Diversity

9.8.1. Diversity is measure of dispersion; faultlines isabout the allignment of diversity.

9.8.2. Diversity studies look at one variable at a time.

9.8.2.1. Faultlines look at multiple.

9.8.3. Thatcher & Patel tries to integrate faultlines and diversity.

9.9. Using it

9.9.1. Selection

9.9.2. Culture

9.9.2.1. Promote cross-categorization

9.9.2.1.1. Unifying commonalities that fill faults.

9.9.2.2. Prevent the triggers.

10. Team Lifecycle

10.1. Tucker's classic model

10.2. Gersick

10.2.1. MM: Criticisms: Only 8 groups in the study, but intentionally heterogeneous to show that the stages hold across team times.

10.2.2. Another point

10.2.3. Punctuated equilibrium

10.3. Kozlowski (1999)'s continuum

10.3.1. Role formation: Who can I rely on?

10.3.2. Compliation: Getting better at what we do.

10.3.2.1. Trying things out.

10.3.2.2. Adapting to challenges.

10.3.3. Soft transitions

10.4. Marks, M, & Z (2001).

10.4.1. What happens after "compilation" step in Koz (1999)?

11. Learning

11.1. Team Knowledge Emergence

11.1.1. Grand, Koz et al (in press)'s comp model of team learning

11.1.1.1. Capturing the knowledge in slices.

11.1.1.2. New kind of theory paper: Theory with data in it.

11.1.1.3. Steps: Building the comp model

11.1.1.3.1. 1. Core concepts and mechanisms.

11.1.1.3.2. 2. Translating those concepts and mechanisms into a computational model.

11.1.1.3.3. 3. Computational model gets put into computer code

11.1.1.3.4. 4. Get human data to see if we can prescript

11.1.1.4. Findings

11.2. A team is like a brain. When one area of the brain learns something, and links to other areas, that's team learning.

11.3. Mental models can be measured

11.3.1. Susan Mohammad has ideas

11.3.2. Pathfinder

11.4. Collective knowledge typology

11.4.1. Individual knowledge: Proportion of team knowledge possessed by individual

11.4.2. Knowledge pool: Of the whole knowledge, how much does the team have?

11.4.3. Knowledge configuration: How much and in what ways does knowledge overlap?

11.4.4. Knowledge Acquisition: How fast does indivudal learn?

11.4.5. Knowledge variability: Do people differ in learning speed?

11.4.5.1. Because if one slow, conjunctive.

11.5. Psychological safety.

11.6. Models

11.6.1. Chen et al. (2005)

11.6.1.1. Did not find a homology.

11.6.2. Deshon et al (2004): Indiv vs team goals, links between team & indiv motivation. Homology.

11.6.2.1. Siginfiicance: The first data-based homology in the literature.

11.6.2.2. Models

11.6.2.3. You can't work on indiv/team goals at same time

11.6.2.3.1. They're separate regulatory loops.

11.6.3. Chen et al. (2009)

11.6.3.1. Tested Kanfer's framework.

11.6.4. Edmonson et al. 2007

11.6.4.1. One of her models

11.6.5. You can get emergence that shows homology and then you can show that prior team performance has a constraining effect on individual perf.

11.6.6. Fiore et al. (2010)

11.6.6.1. Model

11.7. Hidden profiles

11.7.1. Each person on the team has unique knowledge that only they know, but it's hidden if they don't share it.

11.7.1.1. Classic experiment: Teams given unique information that will help them solve a problem better

11.7.1.1.1. People tend to share the common information.

11.7.2. People tend to share the common information.

11.7.2.1. Real world: If you incentive people to perform more, you can get more unique knowledge out.

11.7.3. Assumption: If the information gets shared it will get used.

11.7.3.1. People need to be trained to utilize shared information.

11.8. Misc google searches (for CoachComments)

11.8.1. Key factors

11.8.2. Summary model

11.9. Individual Learning

12. Adaptation

12.1. SK: It's a domain-specific process, not a construct.

12.2. White board: Main literature views on conceptualizaing adaptation

12.3. Learning vs. Adaptation

12.3.1. Learning is may just be a component of adaptation.

12.4. Papers

12.4.1. Burke at al. (2006)

12.4.1.1. Definitions

12.4.1.2. Model

12.4.1.2.1. SK: Not yet useful for driving research.

12.4.2. LePine (2005)

12.4.2.1. Experiment: Halfway through the task their communication channels break down.

12.4.2.1.1. Have to detect that the change occurred first.

12.4.2.2. Findings: As teams learn to use chat when first communication breaks down.

12.4.2.3. Gets at adaptability over time.

12.4.2.4. Tested the left side of Burke's model (before Burke had a model)

12.4.2.5. Defines adaptation: The manor or extent

12.4.2.6. Goal Orientation findings

13. Functioning

13.1. Outcomes

13.1.1. Information sharing

13.1.2. Learning

13.1.3. Conflict

13.1.4. Performance

13.1.5. Satisfaction

13.2. Fixes

13.2.1. Hackman and Wagemen's criteria for effective team functioning

13.3. Situtation

13.3.1. Earley & Mosakowski

13.3.2. More Earley & Mosakowski

14. Effectiveness

14.1. Task cycle drives developmental cycle

14.2. Motivation: Self-regulation model from Rick & Steve paper.

14.2.1. Includes notion of reducing the descrepency between current state and your goal.

14.2.2. Individual and team goals.

14.2.3. It's like a dual-regulatory loop.

14.2.3.1. Do I focus on my own goals, or the team goals?

14.2.4. Study manipulated feedback (individual or team)

14.2.5. Findings figure: Mostly homologous [I think]

14.3. Processes

14.3.1. Most measured as emergent states: Tell me via self-report after what kind of happened before.

14.4. SK: Most bad things that happen in teams happen because person and task don't match.

14.5. Levers

14.5.1. SK: This was the hardest and best to me, because it's about impact.

14.5.1.1. Nobody says "you should do this", but we did.

14.5.1.2. Most poplel are just describing existing things.

14.5.1.3. We should do more studying on what we know, and how to make levers work better. That's how we get impact.

15. Additional Misc Notes

15.1. Recogntion

15.1.1. Recognize one, you get positive spillover

15.1.1.1. In China

15.1.1.2. Especially when high network centrality.

15.2. Why teams?

15.2.1. SK: Because when steel factories died, society moved to knowledge work, and orgs discovered that teams could do more (innovation, etc) than indiv's alone.

15.3. Attachment style

15.3.1. Teams at intersection of Agency and Communion

15.4. Need to know

15.4.1. Universal, contingent, configural approaches (Moynihan & Peterson 2001)

15.4.2. SK: McGrath's IPO is not a causal framework, but people keep treating it that way.

15.4.3. Hackman (1992)'s prescriptive/normative model: Prescriptive models rare, but valuable. We should do that more [sk]

15.4.4. The value of models is helping you think about something, not so much about explaining how stuff works.

15.5. Real world Examples

15.5.1. Bad teamwork

15.5.1.1. USS Vincense 1988 shoots down airbus

15.5.1.2. Movie: Deepwater Horizon