Class Notes (834,637)
Canada (508,661)
Psychology (6,246)

Lecture Notes 1-2-3.docx

6 Pages
Unlock Document

Psychology 3694F/G
Laura Allan

LECTURE 1&2 Teams= 2 or more people working towards a common goal working together interdependently (interconnected) Alpha Coefficient, Cronbach’s alpha, validity etc.: How much scale items/question hang together statistically. i.e. I like to party related to I like to talk for extroversion test. .7 or more is ideal. 1 dependent variable: Compare 2 means = t-test Compare 3+ means = ANOVA 2+ dependent: Compare 3+ means = MANOVA Attitudinal and behavioral effects of autonomous group working: a longitudinal field study: Question: Do teams in self-directed work groups report more favorable work attitudes then their counterparts in traditional jobs; do they miss work/quit more; do other employees with similar skills feel less satisfaction when working along side them? Evidence: Shift Process Workers: Established site: Traditional work design and autonomous group work. Greenfield Site: Autonomous group work. Day Maintenance Workers: Established Site: Traditional work design. Greenfield Site: Traditional work design (separated as a non self directed team from shift process workers – to determine hypo 3). MEASURES: Individual Level (Assessed twice, 12 months apart: 8 months & 20 after start-up) - Various perceptions of work measures i.e. job sat - Organizational commitment - Trust in management Aggregate-level (12-month period) - Turnover - Absence records Two types of workers: process workers and maintenance workers. Two plants, one with interconnected self-directed team and one with independent team. Greenfield plant with machine labor. Two years of shift work observed. Hypothesis 1 confirmed but traditional employees had higher commitment (which differs from past study). Hypo 2 not supported, in line with previous studies: could be because new plant was farther away. Hypo 3 supported: traditional employees (maintenance workers) upset with self-directed employees having less skill/more pay. Conclusion: see above Teams at work by Williams & Allen : Question: Are teams effective (using past research highlights) Evidence: Teams absolutely necessary in some cases, may have social-emotional benefits. Enhancing team effectiveness: - Team Design: U-shape, too small bad too big bad, self-directed team good. - Team Composition: personality, intelligence, attitudes and demographic variables. Absolutely effects team effectiveness. Team process: Behavioural: - co-operation helpful but can be bad if not doing their own job. - Communication important - Both task conflict and intraworker conflict bad Affective states: - cohesion (unity) is good. Same with trust, team belief, psychological safety (belief team is safe to share feelings etc). little research done on how to create these states. Cognitive states: - Shared mental models (SMM) which means the teams shared mental knowledge of key elements about team is important for good proformance, prevents misunderstanding, more time on task less conflict etc. Transactive memory (TM) is awareness of who knows what, creates effective teamwork More recent team perspectives: The role of time needs to be given more consideration. Teams need time to develop and thus study (forming; getting to know, storming; conflict etc, norming; trust and cohesion development, and performing; goal attainment) Most research looks at a few teams in depth or many teams not in depth, due to dynamic nature of teams more studies needed. Context in which teams are embedded: - teams are embedded within a larger group like a company. Can shape team, hinder or promote effective work. Team as a context in itself: As uncertainty and complexity increases conflict is more detrimental. Conclusion: Teams aren’t always effective. Complex and dynamic and thus hard to study. ROMANCE OF TEAMS (ALLEN & HECHT): Why do we believe in teams even though the data isn’t that conclusive? - Dramatic claims about the effectiveness of teams - Empirical data are much less impressive - Strong enthusiasm for teams in organizations Romance of teams: a widely held enthusiasm for and faith in team based work that seems out of proportion to – or even inconsistent with – the evidence regarding team effectiveness. Why does this romantic view exist? We are wired to derive: - social-emotional benefits from teams. Feel better with collective work usually. - Competence-related benefits. People feel smarter. People think them and their team are better than others and other teams before the task starts. During the tasks individuals think they aren’
More Less

Related notes for Psychology 3694F/G

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.