Discussion: View Thread

COMPILED RESPONSES: Help with literature on newcomers in work teams

  • 1.  COMPILED RESPONSES: Help with literature on newcomers in work teams

    Posted 09-26-2011 21:31
    Dear colleagues,

    Thank you very much for all the emails on team newcomers. Find below
    the compiled responses.

    1. Phillips, Katherine W., Elizabeth A. Mannix, Margaret A. Neale and
    Deborah H. Gruenfeld. 2004. Diverse Groups and Information Sharing:
    The Effects of Congruent Ties. Journal of Experimental Social
    Psychology. 40(4): 497-510.

    2. Phillips, Katherine W., Nancy Rothbard and Tracy Dumas. 2009. To
    Disclose or Not to Disclose? Status Distance and Self-disclosure in
    Diverse Environments. Academy of Management Review. 34(4)

    We examine the problem that people who are demographically different
    from one another face a fundamental challenge in achieving
    interpersonal closeness in organizational settings. We contribute to
    the literature by incorporating a discussion of how the status
    differences that accompany demographic diversity can influence the
    disclosure of personal information and ultimately interpersonal
    closeness. Moreover, we highlight the difficult choice on the part of
    individuals to strategically conceal or reveal status-relevant
    personal information to others.

    3. Phillips, Katherine W., Katie A. Liljenquist and Margaret A. Neale.
    2009. Is the Pain Worth the Gain? The Advantages and Liabilities of
    Agreeing with Socially Distinct Newcomers. Personality and Social
    Psychology Bulletin. 35: 336-350.

    This research investigates the impact of allying with socially
    dissimilar group members on members’ feelings and behavior, and the
    ultimate performance of the group. In the context of having a newcomer
    join a group, we conducted a 2 (social similarity of newcomer to
    oldtimers; in-group or out-group) x 3 (opinion agreement: newcomer has
    no opinion ally, 1 opinion ally, or 2 opinion allies) interacting
    group experiment with four-person groups. Groups with out-group
    newcomers perceived their group interactions as less effective, yet
    performed better than groups with in-group newcomers. Moreover, this
    result was not due to newcomers bringing new ideas to the group
    discussion. Instead, the behavior and feelings of oldtimers who agreed
    with newcomers (i.e., opinion allies to the newcomer) had a larger
    impact on the groups’ outcomes. The results add to the idea that
    surface-level (i.e., social) diversity may ultimately be beneficial
    for groups even when out-group members do not bring different
    deep-level task perspectives to the group.

    4. Zhong, Chen-Bo, Katherine W. Phillips, Geoffrey Leonardelli and Adam
    D. Galinsky. 2008. Negational Categorization and Intergroup Behavior.
    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 34(6): 793-806.

    Individuals define themselves, at times, as who they are (e.g., a
    psychologist) and, at other times, as who they are not (e.g., not an
    economist). Drawing on social identity, optimal distinctiveness, and
    balance theories, four studies examined the nature of negational
    identity relative to affirmational identity. One study explored the
    conditions that increase negational identification and found that
    activating the need for distinctiveness increased the accessibility of
    negational identities. Three additional studies revealed that
    negational categorization increased outgroup derogation relative to
    affirmational categorization and the authors argue that this effect is
    at least partially due to a focus on contrasting the self from the
    outgroup under negational categorization. Consistent with this
    argument, outgroup derogation following negational categorization was
    mitigated when connections to similar others were highlighted. By
    distinguishing negational identity from affirmational identity, a more
    complete picture of collective identity and intergroup behavior can
    start to emerge.

    5. Swaab, Roderick I., Daniel Diermeier, Katherine W. Phillips and
    Victoria Medvec. 2008. The Pros and Cons of Dyadic Conversations in
    Small Groups: The Impact of Group Norms and Task Type. Small Group
    Research. 39(3): 372-390.

    This research explores the impact of dyadic communication
    opportunities on group norms. We propose a link between dyadic
    communication and group norms such that the absence of dyadic
    communication enhances a norm of group unity whereas its presence
    enhances a norm of faction-forming. In two studies, we demonstrate
    that the presence of dyadic communication opportunities can both help
    and hurt group performance and that this depends on a fit between the
    content of the norm and the wider social context. In competitive
    negotiation tasks that benefit from group unity, the absence of dyadic
    communication results in a stronger focus on the group and its future
    as well as increased group performance. However, in problem solving
    tasks that benefit from faction-forming, the mere presence of dyadic
    communication opportunities leads to an increased openness to unique
    information, disagreement, and group performance. Implications for how
    to effectively manage technologies that create opportunities for
    dyadic communication during group discussions are considered.

    6. Rosette, Ashleigh S., Geoffrey Leonardelli and Katherine W. Phillips.
    2008. The White Standard: Racial Bias in Leader Categorization.
    Journal of Applied Psychology. 93: 758-777.

    7. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
    Volume 103, Issue 2, July 2007, Pages 159-178
    Group cognition, membership change, and performance: Investigating
    the benefits and detriments of collective knowledge☆ Kyle Lewisa,
    Maura Belliveaub, Benjamin Herndona, Joshua Kellera

    This study analyzes the effects of group membership change on group
    cogni tion and performance to determine how groups can simultaneously
    leverage oldtimers’ collective knowledge and a newcomer’s expertise.
    Our analysis focuses specifically on the interrelated effects of the
    two components of a transactive memory system (TMS)—TMS structure and
    TMS processes—to explain the cognitive mechanisms through which
    membership change affects group performance. Results from a laboratory
    study show that groups that experience partial membership change tend
    to rely on the TMS structure that oldtimers developed in their
    original group, and that doing so is ultimately detrimental to
    performance because it creates inefficient TMS processes. Results from
    a supplemental study indicate that these TMS process inefficiencies
    can be avoided when oldtimers are instructed to reflect upon their
    collective knowledge prior to task execution. We discuss the
    implications for managing group cognition in organizations where
    membership change is prevalent.
    &nbs p;


    8. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
    Volume 98, Issue 2, November 2005, Pages 121-132
    Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity
    Hoon-Seok Choia, ,Leigh Thompsonb

    The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of membership
    change on group creativity. Based on the literature suggesting
    stimulating effects of membership change in groups, we hypothesized
    that membership change would enhance the creativity of groups.
    Membership change involved randomly rotating a subset of group members
    among groups during a series of creative tasks. Using an idea
    generation paradigm, we compared the creativity of open groups (i.e.,
    groups that experienced a change in their membership across tasks)
    with that of closed groups (i.e., groups whose membership was
    invariant across tasks) in two experiments. In both experiments, we
    found that open groups generated more ideas and more different kinds
    of ideas than did closed groups. Moreover, Experiment 2 revealed that
    it was the productivity of “newcomers” (measured in terms of their
    creative idea generation in a previous task) that exerted a positive
    impact on groups. We also found that the entry of more productive
    newcomers increased the creativity of “oldtimers” (i.e., people who
    remained in one group across tasks). Implications for the role of
    membership change in groups are discussed.

    9. Nathan Bos, Judith Olson, Arik Cheshin, Yong-Suk Kim, Ning Nan, N.
    Sadat Shami. 2005.Traveling Blues: The Effect of Relocation on
    Partially Distributed Teams. Late Breaking Results: Short Papers.
    April 2-7.

    This experimental study looks at how relocation affected the
    collaboration patterns of partially-distributed work groups. Partially
    distributed teams have part of their membership together in one
    location and part joining at a distance. These teams have some
    characteristics of collocated teams, some of distributed (virtual)
    teams, and some dynamics that are unique. Previous experiments have
    shown that these teams are vulnerable to in-groups forming between the
    collocated and distributed members. In this study we switched the
    locations of some of the members about halfway through the experiment
    to see what effect it would have on these ingroups. People who changed
    from being isolated ‘telecommuters’ to collocators very quickly formed
    new collaborative relationships. People who were moved out of a
    collocated room had more trouble adjusting, and tried unsuccessfully
    to maintain previous ties. Overall, collocation was a more powerful
    determiner of collaboration patterns than previous relationships.

    10. Major, D.A., Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Chao, G.T. (1995). A longitudinal
    investigation of newcomer expectations . Journal of Applied
    Psychology, 80, 418-431.

    11. Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups.
    Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399.

    12. Fullagar, C. J. A., Gallagher, D. G., Gordon, M. E., & Clark, P. F.
    (1995). Impact of early socialization on union commitment and
    participation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology,
    80, 147-157.

    13. Chen, G. (2005). Newcomer adaptation in teams: Multilevel antecedents
    and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 101-116.

    14. Christina Scott-Young, Danny Samson. (2008) Project success and
    project team management: Evidence from capital projects in the process
    industries. Journal of Operations Management, 26, 749-766.

    Efficient project execution is a key business objective in many
    domains and particularly so for capital projects in the process
    industries, but existing project management research gives little
    direction about how project team factors influence three important
    capital project outcomes: cost, schedule, and operability. After an
    extensive cross-disciplinary review of the general team and project
    management literatures, we constructed and tested a theoretically
    based, five-dimensional model of organizational context, project team
    design, project team leadership, project team processes, and project
    outcome factors. We examined the model by means of an empirical study
    of 56 newly completed capital projects executed by 15 Fortune 500
    companies in the process industries. The results indicate the value of
    disaggregating project outcomes for research purposes. Different
    bundles of project team factors were found to drive project cost,
    schedule, and operability. Project team efficacy, cross-functional
    project teams, autonomous project team structure, and virtual office
    usage were the strongest predictors of project cost effectiveness.
    Continuity of project leadership, cross-functional project teams, and
    project manager incentives were the strongest predictors of project
    construction schedule. In contrast, clear project goals and an office
    design to facilitate effective communication were the main predictors
    of plant operability. Implications of these findings for researchers
    and project practitioners are discussed. One major practical
    implication of our findings is that project managers need to clearly
    focus and prioritize their goals for each project so they can adopt
    the appropriate bundles of project team practices that will facilitate
    their goal achievement.

    15. Eric Molleman* and Gerben S. van der Vegt. (2007) The performance
    evaluation of novices: The importance of competence in specific work
    activity clusters. Journal of occupational and organizational
    psychology, 80, 459-478.

    In this study, we examine the relationships between newcomers’
    competence in specific
    work activity clusters and the evaluation of their performance.
    Longitudinal data were
    gathered on 92 novice nurses from themselves and from the senior staff
    at three stages:
    before entering the job, 6 weeks after entry and 18 months after
    entry. Results showed
    that, after entry, a newcomer’s competence in the cluster of care
    activities contributed
    more to a positive performance evaluation than competence in the
    cluster of non-care
    activities. Competence in the non-care cluster was only found to contribute to a
    positive performance evaluation, if the newcomer also showed
    competence in the care
    cluster. Moreover, novices showed a greater improvement in their care competence
    than their non-care competence during the first 18 months of
    socialization. Finally, we
    found that after 18 months competence in the non-care cluster
    contributes more to a
    positive performance evaluation than competence in the care cluster.

    16. Kane, A. A. (2010). Unlocking knowledge transfer potential: Knowledge
    demonstrability and superordinate social identity. Organization
    Science, 21(3), 643-660.

    17. Kane, A. A., Argote, L., & Levine, J. M. (2005). Knowledge transfer
    between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and
    knowledge quality. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision
    Processes, 96(1), 56-71.

    18. Kane, A. A. & Rink, F. (2011) Newcomers as active agents: Team
    receptivity to integrating vs. differentiating identity strategies.
    Best Paper Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Academy of
    Management.

    19. Rink, F. A., & Ellemers, N. (2009). Temporary versus permanent group
    membership: How the future prospects of newcomers affect newcomer
    acceptance and newcomer influence. Personality and Social Psychology
    Bulletin, 35(6), 764–775.

    20. Hoon-Seok Choi,& John M Levine (2004). Minority influence in work
    teams: The impact of newcomers. Journal of Experimental Social
    Psychology, 40, 273-280.

    21. Hoon-Seok Choi, & Leigh Thompson (2005). Old wine in a new bottle:
    Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational
    Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 121-132.

    22. Stephen J. Sauer. (2011). Taking the Reins: The Effects of New
    Leader Status and Leadership Style on Team Performance. Journal of
    Applied Psychology, vol. 96, no.3, 574-587.

    New leaders face a challenging task when they take charge of their
    teams. They have to determine how best to guide the work process, and
    they must understand how their behaviors will affect the members of
    their team. This research examines how a newly assigned team leader’s
    status moderates subordinates’ reactions to different leadership
    styles to affect assessments of the leader’s self-confidence and
    effectiveness, and how this impacts team performance. Across 2
    experimental studies, results demonstrate that low-status leaders are
    rated as more effective when they use a directive style, whereas
    high-status leaders are viewed as more effective when they use a
    participative style, and this relationship is mediated by perceptions
    of self-confidence. In addition, teams whose leaders are viewed more
    favorably perform better on a complex group task. These findings imply
    that low-status individuals are able to enhance their level of
    personal power by drawing on whatever positional power they hold,
    whereas high-status individuals are better off relying solely on their
    personal power to influence others. This research also provides a
    clear demonstration that assessments of new leaders’ behaviors are
    subject to an appraisal that is clouded by observers’ status
    perceptions and attributions.




    M. Gloria González Morales



    On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 13:42, M. Gloria Gonzalez-Morales
    <gloriaglez@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Dear colleagues,
    >
    > Apologies for cross postings.
    >
    > One of my students, is working on newcomers in work teams and needs
    > some help for her literature review. See below her description:
    >
    > "For my thesis I am interested in if a team will have their
    > performance suffer when newcomers are added. I require information
    > that pertains to "newcomers" or "new members" to a group/team.  I am
    > interested in learning how this effects "performance" of the group.
    > Group dynamics are of interest when newcomers are involved. Other
    > literature that would be of help is that which focuses on the effects
    > of people leaving a team and how it effects their performance/
    > productivity. I would appreciate any help."
    >
    > Thank you for your time! You can email me directly.  I will get back
    > to the listserv with the compiled feedback in one email.
    >
    > Best regards,
    >
    > M. Gloria González Morales, PhD
    > ********************************************************************
    > Assistant Professor
    > Department of Psychology
    > MacKinnon Extension, Room 3002
    > University of Guelph
    > Guelph, ON. Canada N1G 2W1
    > phone: (519) 824-4120 ext. 52494
    > fax: (519) 837-8629
    > ********************************************************************
    > http://www.uoguelph.ca/iopsychology/Gonzalez.shtml
    > www.uoguelph.ca/iopsychology
    > www.erasmuswop.org
    > ********************************************************************
    >