Top

Published in:

2021 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Did It Have to End This Way? Understanding the Consistency of Team Fracture

Authors : Mark E. Whiting, Allie Blaising, Chloe Barreau, Laura Fiuza, Nik Marda, Melissa Valentine, Michael S. Bernstein

Published in: Design Thinking Research

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Was a problematic team always doomed to frustration, or could it have ended another way? In this paper, we study the consistency of team fracture: a loss of team viability so severe that the team no longer wants to work together. Understanding whether team fracture is driven by the membership of the team, or by how their collaboration unfolded, motivates the design of interventions that either identify compatible teammates or ensure effective early interactions. We introduce an online experiment that reconvenes the same team without members realizing that they have worked together before, enabling us to temporarily erase previous team dynamics. Participants in our study completed a series of tasks across multiple teams, including one reconvened team, and privately blacklisted any teams that they would not want to work with again. We identify fractured teams as those blacklisted by half the members. We find that reconvened teams are strikingly polarized by task in the consistency of their fracture outcomes. On a creative task, teams might as well have been a completely different set of people: the same teams changed their fracture outcomes at a random chance rate. On a cognitive conflict and on an intellective task, the team instead replayed the same dynamics without realizing it, rarely changing their fracture outcomes. These results indicate that, for some tasks, team fracture can be strongly influenced by interactions in the first moments of a team’s collaboration, and that interventions targeting these initial moments may be critical to scaffolding long-lasting teams.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

previous chapter Organizational Learning Through a Process of Framing Orientations in Group Discourses

next chapter Design Thinking at Scale: A Multi Team Design Thinking Approach

To test the robustness of our effects, we analyzed the impact of varying this percentage in our analysis code and conducting otherwise identical analysis, e.g., one person voting to fracture at 25%, or a supermajority at 75% of the group voting to fracture. The main results remained consistent. So, we report the results for ≥50% in this paper.

Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 19(3), 235–258.CrossRef

Aube, C., & Rousseau, V. (2005). Team goal commitment and team effectiveness: The role of task interdependence and supportive behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9(3), 189.CrossRef

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of applied psychology, 83(3), 377.CrossRef

Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 989.CrossRef

Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3). Bell, Suzanne T. 20th Annual Conference of the Society-for-Industrial-and- Organizational-Psychology Apr, 2005 Los Angeles, CA Soc Ind & Org Psychol, pp. 595–615. ISSN: 0021-9010. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.595. URL: %3CGo%20to%20ISI%3E://WOS:000246257600001.

Bell, S. T., & Marentette, B. J. (2011). Team viability for long-term and ongoing organizational teams. Organizational Psychology Review, 1(4), 275–292. ISSN: 2041–3866. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386611405876. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2041386611405876

Brown, G., Crossley, C., & Robinson, S. L. (2014). Psychological ownership, territorial behavior, and being perceived as a team contributor: The critical role of trust in the work environment. Personnel Psychology, 67(2), 463–485.CrossRef

Cheng, J., Bernstein, M., Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., & Leskovec, J. (2017). Anyone can become a troll: causes of trolling behavior in online discussions. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, CSCW ’17 (pp. 1217–1230). Portland, OR: ACM. ISBN: 978-1-4503-4335-0. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998213 CrossRef

Cooperstein, J. N. (2017). Initial development of a team viability measure.

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.CrossRef

Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Ellstrand, A. E., & Johnson, J. L. (1998). Meta-analytic reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 19(3), 269–290.CrossRef

Dourish, P., & Bellotti, V. (1992). Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. In Proceedings of the 1992 ACM Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work CSCW ’92 (pp. 107–114). Toronto, ON: ACM. ISBN: 0-89791-542-9. https://doi.org/10.1145/143457.143468 CrossRef

Dow, S. P., Glassco, A., Kass, J., Schwarz, M., Schwartz, D. L., & Klemmer, S. R. (2010). Parallel prototyping leads to better design results, more divergence, and increased self-efficacy. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 17(4), 18.CrossRef

Driskell, J. E., Salas, E., & Johnston, J. (1999). Does stress lead to a loss of team perspective? Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3(4), 291.CrossRef

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.CrossRef

Edmondson, A. C. (2012). Teaming: How organizations learn, innovate, and compete in the knowledge economy. New York: Wiley.

Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1969). The causal texture of organizational environments. Systems Thinking, 1, 245–262.

Flaherty, S., & Moss, S. A. (2007). The impact of personality and team context on the relationship between workplace injustice and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(11), 2549–2575.CrossRef

Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: a model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4), 499–517. ISSN: 00018392. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2392936 CrossRef

Gonzales, A. L., Hancock, J. T., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). Language style matching as a predictor of social dynamics in small groups. Communication Research, 37(1), 3–19.CrossRef

Hackman, J. R. (1980). Work redesign and motivation. Professional Psychology, 11(3), 445.CrossRef

Harvey, W. (2001). Symmetry breaking and the social golfer problem. In Proceedings SymCon-01: Symmetry in Constraints, Co-located with CP (pp. 9–16).

Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003). Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization Science, 14(6), 615–632. ISSN: 10477039. http://ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=heh&AN=11787478&site=ehostlive&scope=site CrossRef

Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967–988.CrossRef

Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: a theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12, 435–449.CrossRef

Hoel, H., Einarsen, S., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). Organisational effects of bullying. In Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 145–161).

Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543.CrossRef

Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies, 12(1), 3–11.CrossRef

Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–251.

Jung, M. F. (2016). Coupling interactions and performance: Predicting team performance from thin slices of conflict. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 23(3), 18.CrossRef

Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K.-K. (2006). Conflict and performance in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(3), 237–274.CrossRef

Kittur, A., Nickerson, J. V., Bernstein, M., Gerber, E., Shaw, A., Zimmerman, J., et al. (2013). The future of crowd work. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW ’13 (pp. 1301–1318). San Antonio, TX: ACM. ISBN: 978-1-4503-1331-5. https://doi.org/10.1145/2441776.2441923. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2441776.2441923

Langfred, C. W. (2007). The downside of self-management: A longitudinal study of the effects tf conflict on trust, autonomy and task interdependence in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 885–900.CrossRef

Larson, J. R. (2010). In search of synergy in small group performance. London: Psychology Press.

Lasecki, W. S., Gordon, M., Koutra, D., Jung, M. F., Dow, S. P., & Bigham, J. P. (2014). Glance: Rapidly coding behavioral video with the crowd. In UIST ’14 (pp. 551–562). https://doi.org/10.1145/2642918.2647367

LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 273–307.CrossRef

Lykourentzou, I., Kraut, R. E., & Dow, S. P. (2017). Team dating leads to better online ad hoc collaborations. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, CSCW ’17 (pp. 2330–2343). Portland, OR: ACM. ISBN: 978-1-4503-4335-0. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998322 CrossRef

Mach, M., Dolan, S., & Tzafrir, S. (2010). The differential effect of team members’ trust on team performance: The mediation role of team cohesion. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(3), 771–794.CrossRef

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376.CrossRef

Marks, M. A., DeChurch, L. A., Mathieu, J. E., Panzer, F. J., & Alonso, A. (2005). Teamwork in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 964.CrossRef

McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance (Vol. 14). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Morrison, E. W., Wheeler-Smith, S. L., & Kamdar, D. (2011). Speaking up in groups: a cross-level study of group voice climate and voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 183.CrossRef

Mueller, F. (1994). Societal effect, organizational effect and globalization. Organization Studies, 15(3), 407–428.CrossRef

Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human–Computer Interaction, 15(2–3), 139–178.CrossRef

Preacher, K. J., & MacCallum, R. C. (2003). Repairing Tom Swift’s electric factor analysis machine. Understanding Statistics: Statistical Issues in Psychology, Education, and the Social Sciences, 2(1), 13–43.CrossRef

Prelec, D. (2004). A Bayesian truth serum for subjective data. Science, 306(5695), 462–466.CrossRef

Reagans, R., Zuckerman, E., & McEvily, B. (2004). How to make the team: Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(1), 101–133. ISSN: 0001-8392.

Riedl, C., & Woolley, A. W. (2017). Teams vs. crowds: A field test of the relative contribution of incentives, member ability and emergent collaboration to crowd-based problem solving performance. Academy of Management Discoveries, 3(4), 382–403.CrossRef

Rinker, T. W. (2016). Sentimentr: Calculate text polarity sentiment version 0.2.3. University at Buffalo/SUNY. Buffalo, New York. http://github.com/trinker/sentimentr

Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 61.CrossRef

Salehi, N., & Bernstein, M. S. (2018). Hive: Collective design through network rotation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW), 151.

Salehi, N., Irani, L. C., Bernstein, M. S., Alkhatib, A., Ogbe, E., & Milland, K. (2015). We are dynamo: Overcoming stalling and friction in collective action for crowd workers. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’15 (pp. 1621–1630). Seoul: ACM. ISBN: 978-1-4503-3145-6. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702508 CrossRef

Salehi, N., McCabe, A., Valentine, M., & Bernstein, M. (2017). Huddler: Convening stable and familiar crowd teams despite unpredictable availability. In CSCW ’17 (pp. 1700–1713). https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998300

Salganik, M. J., Dodds, P. S., & Watts, D. J. (2006). Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science, 311(5762), 854–856. ISSN: 00368075. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1121066 CrossRef

Sprigg, C. A., Jackson, P. R., & Parker, S. K. (2000). Production teamworking: The importance of interdependence and autonomy for employee strain and satisfaction. Human Relations, 53(11), 1519–1543.CrossRef

Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326.CrossRef

Tse, H. H. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2008). A study of exchange and emotions in team member relationships. Group & Organization Management, 33(2), 194–215.CrossRef

Vallas, S. (2003). Why teamwork fails: obstacles to workplace change in four manufacturing plants. American Sociological Review, 68. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519767

Valentine, M. (2018). When equity seems unfair: The role of justice enforceability in temporary team coordination. Academy of Management Journal, 61(6), 2081–2105.CrossRef

Valentine, M. A., Retelny, D., To, A., Rahmati, N., Doshi, T., & Bernstein, M. S. (2017). Flash organizations: Crowdsourcing complex work by structuring crowds as organizations. In CHI ’17 (pp. 3523–3537). https://doi.org/10.1145/30254533025811

Van De Ven, A. H., Delbecq, A. L., & Koenig, R. (1976). Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. American Sociological Review, 41(2), 322–338. ISSN: 00031224. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2094477 CrossRef

Van Vianen, A. E. M., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2001). Personality in teams: Its relationship to social cohesion, task cohesion, and team performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(2), 97–120.CrossRef

Watson, R. T., DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1988). Using a GDSS to facilitate group consensus: some intended and unintended consequences. MIS Quarterly, 12(3), 463–478. ISSN: 02767783. http://www.jstor.org/stable/249214 CrossRef

Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330(6004), 686–688. ISSN: 00368075. arXiv: arXiv:1011.1669v3. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193147

Woolley, A. W., Aggarwal, I., & Malone, T. W. (2015). Collective intelligence and group performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(6), 420–424.CrossRef

Zakaria, N., Amelinckx, A., & Wilemon, D. (2004). Working together apart? Building a knowledge-sharing culture for global virtual teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(1), 15–29.CrossRef

Title: Did It Have to End This Way? Understanding the Consistency of Team Fracture
Authors: Mark E. Whiting
Allie Blaising
Chloe Barreau
Laura Fiuza
Nik Marda
Melissa Valentine
Michael S. Bernstein
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Book: Design Thinking Research
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-62036-3

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-62037-0

Copyright Year: 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62037-0_11

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner