Advertisement

Zusammenarbeit in altersdiversen Innovationsteams

  • Martin RatzmannEmail author
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Die Art und Weise, wie sich die Mitglieder in Innovationsteams begegnen, austauschen und zusammenarbeiten, wird in hohem Maß durch das Teamdesign und Rahmenbedingungen bestimmt. Die Vorteile altersdiverser Teams liegen in einer höheren Verfügbarkeit von unterschiedlichem Wissen. Durch die Kombination und Integration verschiedener Ansichten, Interpretationen, Entscheidungsregeln und mentaler Modelle kann der Erfolg von Teamarbeit gesteigert werden. Weil Altersunterschiede aber auch dazu beitragen können, die sozialen Prozesse innerhalb der Teams zu verschlechtern, zeigen wir kritische Bedingungen für die Zusammenarbeit in solchen Teams auf. Die Ergebnisse basieren auf einer Befragung von Innovationsprojekten aus 290 Unternehmen des Verarbeitenden Gewerbes.

Schlüsselwörter

Altersdiverse Innovationsteams Soziale Kategorisierung Teamspaltung Elaboration Wissensaustausch 

Literatur

  1. Atuahene-Gima, K., & Li, H. (2002). When does trust matter? Antecedents and contingent effects of supervisee trust on performance in selling new products in China and the United States. Journal of Marketing, 66(3), 61–81. doi:10.2307/3203455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Backes-Gellner, U., & Veen, S. (2013). Positive effects of ageing and age diversity in innovative companies – large-scale empirical evidence on company productivity. Human Resource Management Journal, 23(3), 279–295. doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bain, P. G., Mann, L., & Pirola-Merlo, A. (2001). The innovation imperative: The relationships between team climate, innovation, and performance in research and development teams. Small Group Research, 32(1), 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonner, J. M., Ruekert, R. W., & Walker, O. C. (2002). Upper management control of new product development projects and project performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19, 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group Research, 31(1), 89–106. doi:10.1177/104649640003100105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gaertner, S., Dovidio, J., Anastasio, A., Bachman, B., & Rust, M. (1993). The common in-group identity: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gilson, L. I., Mathieu, J. E., Shalley, C. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (2005). Creativity and Standardization: Complementary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness? Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 521–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47(1), 307–338. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.307.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organisations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Hrsg.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2. Aufl., Vol. 3, S. 269–314). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologist Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Hrsg.), Handbook of organizational behavior (S. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 269–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2011). The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12(4), 435–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1189–1199. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1189.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Horwitz, S. K. (2005). The compositional impact of team diversity on performance: Theoretical considerations. Human Resource Development Review, 4(2), 219–245. doi:10.1177/1534484305275847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. (2010). The faultline activation process and the effects of activated faultlines on coalition formation, conflict, and group outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision processes. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.11.008.112 1 2442.
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jehn, K. A., Bezrukova, K., & Thatcher, S. (2008). Conflict, diversity, and faultlines in workgroups. In C. K. W. DeDreu & M. J. Gelfand (Hrsg.), The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations (S. 179–210). The SIOP Frontiers Series, Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Jordan, M. I., & Russel, S. (1999). Categorization. In R. A. Wilson & F. C. Keil (Hrsg.), The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive science (S. 104–106). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work Group Diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 515–541. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085546.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008–1022. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Meyer, B., Shemla, M., & Schermuly, C. C. (2011). Social category salience moderates the effect of diversity faultlines on information elaboration. Small Group Research, 42(3), 257–282. doi:10.1177/1046496411398396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morris, M. W., Ames, D., & Knowles, E. (1999). Attribution theory. In R. A. Wilson & F. C. Keil (Hrsg.), The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive science (S. 46–48). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Myers, J. R. (2003). The search to belong: Rethinking intimacy, community, and small groups. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.Google Scholar
  26. Oakes, P. (2008). The root of all evil in intergroup relations? Unearthing the categorization process. In R. Brown & S. L. Gaertner (Hrsg.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (S. 3–21). Malden: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
  27. Palmer, V. (2006). Simulation of the categorization-elaboration model of diversity and work-group performance. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 9(3), 1–13.Google Scholar
  28. Ratzmann, M., Lehmann, C., & Bouncken, R. (2014). Konsequenzen einer alternden Belegschaft in FuEEinschränkungen oder Potenzial für den Innovationsprozess. GfA-Frühjahrskongress 2014: Gestaltung der Arbeitswelt der Zukunft, München.Google Scholar
  29. Rico, R., Molleman, E., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., & van der Vegt, G. S. (2007). The effects of diversity faultlines and team task autonomy on decision quality and social integration. Journal of Management, 33(1), 111–132. doi:10.1177/0149206306295307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ryan, E. B. (2007). Aging, identity, attitudes, and intergenerational communication. http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/15091_Chapter4.pdf. Zugegriffen: 15. Juni 2014.
  31. Ryan, E. B., Giles, H., Bartolucci, G., & Henwood, K. (1986). Psycholinguistic and social psychological components of communication by and with the elderly. Language & Communication. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(86)90002-9.
  32. Ryan, E. B., Hummert, M. L., & Boich, L. H. (1995). Communication predicaments of aging: Patronizing behavior toward older adults. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14(1–2), 144–166. doi:10.1177/0261927x95141008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thatcher, S. M. B., Jehn, K. A., & Zanutto, E. (2003). Cracks in diversity research: The effects of diversity faultlines on conflict and performance. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12(3), 217–241. doi:10.1023/a:1023325406946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2008). The social identity perspektive in intergroup relations: Theories, themes, and controversies. In R. Brown & S. L. Gaertner (Hrsg.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (S. 133–152). Malden: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
  35. Turner, K. L., & Makhija, M. V. (2006). The role of organizational controls in managing knowledge. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 197–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wegge, J., Schmidt, K.-H., Liebermann, S., & van Knippenberg, D. (2011). Jung und Alt in einem Team? Altersgemischte Teamarbeit erfordert Wertschätzung von Altersdiversität. In P. Gellèri & C. Winter (Hrsg.), Potentiale der Personalpsychologie. Einfluss personaldiagnostischer Maßnahmen auf den Berufs- und Unternehmenserfolg (S. 35–46). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  37. Zanutto, E., Bezrukova, K., & Jehn, K. (2011). Revisiting faultline conceptualization: measuring faultline strength and distance. Quality & Quantity, 45(3), 701–714. doi:10.1007/s11135-009-9299-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für Strategisches Management und OrganisationUniversität BayreuthBayreuthDeutschland

Personalised recommendations