(support for self-worth) based on between-superior–subordinate dyad differences (whole superior–subordinate dyads).
Etiology of the Effect
Why do we expect this dyad-level hypothesized effect to hold? Stated differently, from an evolutionary theory perspective (Gould, 2002), does the effect make a difference in terms of the human condition and survival? We believe that this effect may matter because without it, or an effect like this one, it seems unlikely that individuals would have seen benefits from interacting with others (making investments), even if only for a very short time. For example, those individuals who are likely to see returns (e.g., of a sexual nature) from interacting with others are those who are more likely to have children. Thus the capability implicit in the effect would be passed on in an evolutionary sense. Moreover, without this effect, it would be difficult for a child to survive because a child cannot fend for himself or herself.
Thus, if providing for the child did not provide some benefit to the parent or other caregiver, the child would be unable to survive.
An additional issue regarding this effect relates to change. The basic idea is that if a focal individual’s investments in another individual do not relate to that focal individual’s returns from the other individual, the dyadic relationship may collapse because it will be perceived as unfair. This effect can be viewed as underlying equity theory. For example, various changes may be made by members of the dyad to equalize or balance the investments and returns. In addition, the manner in which people learn what is equitable is expected, in part, to be a function of the previous reinforcement contingencies.
A THEORY OF GROUP DYNAMICS/TEAM
(Aligned with our theme of ‘‘simplicity,’’ we use the terms ‘‘group’’ and
‘‘team’’ interchangeably.) Group/team norms are the shared beliefs about members’ expected social behaviors. These norms can guide behavior, exert social control, and influence performance, either positively or negatively, at both individual and team/group levels of analysis. Group/team norms emerge formally or informally, are transmitted, and then persist through team members’ actions and beliefs. They lead to greater conformity in behavior, beliefs, and attitudes among group/team members, tend to be established early in the group/team formation and development cycle, and are based on interpersonal agreement that arises from members’ interac-tions, often resulting in cooperation. (For an extended discussion of these issues, seeBlau, 1964;Gouldner, 1960;Homans, 1958, 1961;Katz & Kahn, 1978;Kelley & Thibault, 1978;Thibault & Kelley, 1959.)
From a social exchange theory perspective (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1958, 1961; Katz & Kahn, 1978), norms create obligations that form from relationships among team members and from each member with the whole team. As a result, team members decrease the variability in their individual behaviors, and their behaviors converge on the agreed-upon norm. The norms then enhance group/team functioning as they facilitate team survival (keeping the team together and protecting it), provide regularity and predictability to team members’ expected behaviors, help the team avoid interpersonal problems, and express the team’s central values and identity (see Taggar & Ellis, 2007; Feldman, 1984). In short, group/team norms facilitate the alignment of individual needs, goals, and expected outcomes across the team so that it operates as a homogeneous entity (i.e., whole team or group).
In an interdisciplinary review of social exchange theory,Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005) note that theorists from multiple disciplines agree on the following points:
Social exchange involves a series of interactions that generate obligations.
These interactions, or transactions, are governed by rules or norms of exchange to which the parties must abide.
These interactions are viewed as interdependent and contingent on the actions or behaviors of the parties involved.
The resources or ‘‘commodities of exchange’’ may be economic or socioemotional in nature and involve short- or long-term time horizons.
Importantly, the interdependent transactions have the potential to generate high-quality relationships involving trust, loyalty, and mutual commitment that evolve over time.
Collectively, these points suggest the importance of interdependence and cohesion, and their association, which can build to ‘‘cohesive relationships’’
and cooperation over time in groups and teams. Following from the earlier social exchange discussion, interdependence comprises the interconnections among parties that result from their contingent transactions. Cohesion is the motivation to remain in the group or team and the mutual commitment to the other members of that group or team (see Shaw, 1976). In particular, cohesion seems to occur based on the key exchange rule of reciprocity (repayment in kind), which depends on interdependence or outcomes that are based on the parties’ combined efforts (see Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Gouldner, 1960; Homans, 1958, 1961; Blau, 1964). As such, a bidirectional transaction (e.g., investments and returns at the dyad level), involving mutual arrangements, is a basis for reciprocal exchange. When such contingent interpersonal transactions occur across various individuals and dyads within a group or team, the potential arises for (whole) group- or team-level interdependence and cohesion.
Specific Formulation
Team or group dynamics can focus on the entire team or unit and influence how they operate collectively. In this approach – and especially in high-performing teams – there is a key reliance on shared mental models and shared knowledge and cognition within the team or unit (Baba, Gluesing, Ratner, & Wagner, 2004; Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 2001; Gibson, 2001;
Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Mohammed &
Dumville, 2001). No one member of a team stands out always and everywhere; rather, roles and responsibilities are shared and distributed throughout the team depending on the issue, circumstance, expertise needed, time constraints, and other factors.
In brief, through team processes of communication, face-to-face interaction, collaboration, and cooperation, there is considerable knowledge acquisition and sharing in teams. Knowledge and information sharing lead to cognitive elaboration, wherein new knowledge structures are created and old structures are modified. Over time, cognitive convergence occurs such that team members gradually acquire enhanced overlap among their cognitive structures. Shared cognitive structures and knowledge, or shared mental models, then can reduce variance in team performance, enhance cohesiveness, build a positive team climate, and promote successful goal accomplishment. These shared mental models, or shared cognitions, are
similar, overlapping, compatible, or complementary knowledge or belief structures that represent features of the context such as task-specific knowledge, task-related knowledge, knowledge of team members, and attitudes and beliefs (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006;Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 2001).
As noted by these authors and others (e.g., Mohammed & Dumville, 2001), shared and overlapping knowledge and belief structures support the alignment of expectations that permit rapid and smooth coordination of behavior (via shared mental models), lead to greater availability of and access to a larger pool of information for problem solving and task completion, enhance the creation of new knowledge, enable team innovation and learning, and foster faster agreement on problem definition and strategic decisions. In turn, all of these elements result in enhanced team effectiveness and efficiency. As a process-based view, this approach involves
‘‘teamwork’’ with high levels of expended collective effort and high-quality interpersonal relationships. Cohesion, communication, cooperation, and conflict management are both drivers of and outcomes from this process.
In this approach, each team member is viewed as being capable of influencing and being influenced by every other member and the team as a whole. Thus team members have a collective influence on one another, which permits members to identify with and be motivated by the team. As such, the focus is on the team level, including how team members evaluate and perceive the influence of the team and the collective responsibility of the team. In this case, there is a shift in the level of analysis (or referent) from the individual to the entire team as a whole.
According to this perspective, highly effective teams are characterized as having a clear focus or vision regarding when members are willing to sacrifice individual goals and accomplishments for the team fulfillment of the mission.
Team members identify so closely with the team purpose and mission that they are willing to make individual sacrifices for the team and to enhance other team members’ potential and capabilities. This approach results in the building of team/shared mental models, as mentioned previously. Through the evolution of a collective belief structure that is shared among members, teams develop a shared understanding of their behaviors, values, and ideas;
develop a sense of cohesiveness; and set expectations of one another that facilitate learning and the ability of the team to lead itself collectively.
These notions can be summarized simply by considering the ideas of interdependence and cohesion, and their association, at the whole group/
team level of analysis. Here, interdependence may be viewed as a form of
‘‘positive functioning’’ in which members make contributions and receive
rewards based on cooperation and reciprocity. This notion stands in con-trast to dependence, which can have dysfunctional consequences as a result of over-reliance on conformity and sanctions. Interdependence is the degree to which the ‘‘contingent transactions’’ create interconnections or relation-ships among parties (group/team members): The more transactions, the more members rely on or are bonded to one another, and the more inter-dependence. Wageman (1995) notes that both task interdependence (from inputs and process; e.g., group/team task or technology requirements), also called structural interdependence, and outcome interdependence (from goals and rewards; e.g., social demands to work together to accomplish joint outcomes), also called psychological interdependence, to some extent determine how individuals experience or perceive interdependence in groups and teams. In particular, positive functioning interdependence could include the following elements:
Group potency: the group’s generalized belief about its ability or capacity to perform (Gibson, 1999)
Group efficacy: the group’s belief about its capability to perform a specific task (Gibson, Randel, & Earley, 2000)
Group effort: the amount of effort that group members are willing to exert to complete their tasks (Price & Mueller, 1986)
Cohesion is the degree to which members of groups/teams are motivated to remain in the same group/team (Shaw, 1976). As such, cohesion is an emergent notion that becomes relevant at the group/team level, is typically psychological and affective in nature, and indicates the degree of shared commitment and attraction among group/team members resulting from their transactions. Highly cohesive teams tend to have less absenteeism; high involvement in team activities; high levels of member coordination and cooperation during tasks; high satisfaction, productivity, and member interactions; a shared vision; and overall higher performance. In particular, cohesion is included in Cohen and Bailey’s (1997) discussion of group psychosocial traits as shared understandings, beliefs, or emotional tones.
These also include shared (team) mental models, and (group) affect, and are referred to as ‘‘real group-level phenomena’’ by Cohen and Bailey (1997).
In summary, these notions result in the following specific testable formulation:
Task interdependence (from inputs and process) and outcome interdependence (from goals and rewards – potency, efficacy, effort) are positively related to shared mental models and shared understandings, beliefs, and emotional tone (affect) based on between-workgroup or team differences (whole workgroups or teams).
Etiology of the Effect
Why do we expect this group-level hypothesized effect to hold? Stated differently, from an evolutionary theory perspective (Gould, 2002), does the effect make a difference in terms of the human condition and survival? We believe that this effect may matter because without it, or one similar to this effect, it seems unlikely that people would have cooperated with or bonded to one another. Specifically, when faced with the need to hunt or protect themselves, individuals are almost by definition interdependent with each other because they would likely be unable to eat or survive without one another. As a result, cooperation and cohesion serve as ways for human beings to compete successfully relative to other species. As a result, and in a somewhat interesting way, cooperation provides a way to compete with other species. Because those individuals who cooperate will likely survive, it is their capability for group-level cooperation and cohesion in response to interdependence that would be passed on in an evolutionary sense.
An additional issue regarding this effect is: How does change occur? Here, the point is that as the degree of interdependence faced by individuals increases, cooperation and cohesion increase among them. In other words, changes in the degree of cooperation and cohesion depend on changes in the degree of interdependence faced by individuals.