Skip to main content

The Psychology of Effective Teamworking

  • Chapter
Teamwork

Abstract

Teams have become the building blocks of organizations (Lawler, Mohrman and Ledford, 1992). As organizations grow in size and become structurally more complex, groups of people are needed who work together in coordinated ways to achieve objectives that contribute to the overall aims, effectiveness and competitiveness of the organization. Team working provides the flexibility needed to respond effectively, appropriately and more quickly than competitors to the constantly changing demands in the organization’s environment, and provides a mechanism for bringing together the range of expertise, skills and knowledge required to complete complex work tasks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

eBook
USD 9.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ancona, D. F. and Caldwell, D. F. (1988) ‘Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organisational teams’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Applebaum, E. and Batt, R. (1994) The New American Workplace. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argryis, C. (1993) ‘On the nature of actionable knowledge’, The Psychologist, 6, 29–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bantel, K. A. (1993) ‘Strategic clarity in banking: Role of top management team demography’, Psychological Reports, 73, 1187–1201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bantel, K. A. and Jackson, S. E. (1989) ‘Top management and innovations in banking: Does the demography of the top team make a difference?, Strategic Management Journal, 10, 107–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, J. M. and Mount, M. K. (1998) ‘Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, D. (1991) ‘Managing the boss-less team: Lessons in distributed leadership’, Organizational Dynamics, Summer, 31–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, B, and Stewart, G. L. (1997) ‘Composition, process and performance in self managed groups. The role of personality’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 62–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyerlein, M. M., Johnson, D. A. and Beyerlein, S. T. (eds) (1996) Advances in the interdisciplinary study of work teams (Vol. 2): Knowledge work in teams. London: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billings, R. S., Milburn, T. W. and Schaalman, M. L. (1980) ‘A model of crisis perception: A theoretical and empirical analysis’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 300–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blakar, R. M. (1985) ‘Towards a theory of communication in terms of preconditions: A conceptual framework and some empirical explorations’ In H. Giles and R. N. St Clair (eds), Recent Advances in Language, Communication and Social Psychology. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bottger, P. C. and Yetton, P. W. (1987) ‘Improving group performance by training in individual problem solving’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 651–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, N., Wilson, C. and Beck, K. (1994) ‘Supervisory behavior and team performance amongst police patrol sergeants’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 69–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. J. (1988) Group Processes: Dynamics Within and Between Groups. London: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J. and Higgs, A. C. (1993) ‘Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups’, Personnel Psychology, 46, 823–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M. and Medsker, G. J. (1996) ‘Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension’, Personnel Psychology, 49, 429–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E. and Converse, S. A. (1993) ‘Shared mental models in expert team decision-making’ In N. J. Castellan (ed.) Individual and group decision making (pp. 221–246) Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E. and Spreitzer, G. M. (1994) ‘A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness’, CEO Publications No. T94–28 (271), University of Southern California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotton, J. L. (1993) Employee Involvement. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordery, J. L. (1996) ‘Autonomous work groups’ In M. A. West (ed.), The Handbook of Work Group Psychology. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. W. (1995) ‘Coercive power and concession making in bilateral negotiation’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 39, 646–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean, J. W. Jr and Sharfman, M. P. (1996) ‘Does decision process matter? A study of strategic decision making effectiveness’, Academy of Management Journal, 39 (2), 368–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drory, A. and Shamir, B. (1988) ‘Effects of organizational and life variables on job satisfaction and burnout’, Group and Organization Studies, 13 (4), 441–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edigo, C. (1990) ‘Teleconferencing as a technology to support cooperative work: Its possibilities and limitations’ In J. Galeghar, R. E. Kraut and C. Edigo (eds), Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L., Schacher, S. and Back, K. (1950) Social Pressures in Informal Groups: A Study of Human Factors in Housing. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Filley, A. C., House, R. J. and Kerr, S. (1976) Managerial process and organizational behaviour. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finholt, T., Sproull, L. and Keisler, S. (1990) ‘Communication and performance in ad hoc task groups’ In J. Galeghar, R. E. Kraut and C. Edigo (eds), Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselli, E. E. and Lodahl, T. M. (1958) ‘Patterns of managerial traits and group effectiveness’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 57, 61–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gladstein, D. (1984) ‘Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, P. S. (1986) Designing Effective Work Groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, P. S., Ravlin, E. C. and Argote, L. (1986) ‘Current thinking about groups: Setting the stage for new ideas’ In P. S. Goodman (eds), Designing Effective Work Groups (pp. 1–33). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, R. A. (1996) Fundamental considerations about work groups. In M. A. West (ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psychology (pp. 3–24) Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, R. A. and Dickson, M. W. (1996) ‘Teams in organisations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness’, Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 307–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, R. A. and Shea, G. P. (1992) ‘Group performance and intergroup relations in organisations’ In M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough (eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (vol. 3, pp. 269–313). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. (2002) Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Harvard, CN.: Harvard Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. (1992) ‘Group influences on individual in organisations’, In M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough (eds) Handbook of Industrial and Organisational Psychology (vol. 3). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. (1990) (ed.), Groups That Work (and Those That Don’t): Creating Conditions for Effective Teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R., Brousseau, K. R. and Weiss, J. A. (1976) ‘The interaction of task design and group performance strategies in determining group effectiveness’, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 350–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. and Lawler, E. E. (1971) ‘Employee reactions to job characteristics’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 55 (3), 259–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. and Morris, C. G. (1975) ‘Group task, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration’ In L. Berkowitz (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 8). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. and Oldham, G. R. (1975) ‘Development of the job diagnostic survey’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haward, R. Amir, Z., Borrill, C. S., Dawson, J., Scully, J, West, M. A. and Sainsbury, R. (2003) ‘Breast cancer teams: The impact of constitution, new cancer workload, and methods of operation on their effectiveness’, British Journal of Cancer, 89 (1), 15–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haythorn, W. W. (1968) ‘The composition of groups: A review of the literature’, Acta Psychologica, 28, 97–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedburg, B. L. T., Nystrom, P. C. and Starbuck, W. H. (1976) ‘Camping on seesaws: prescriptions for a self-designing organization’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 41–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, G. W. (1982) ‘Group versus individual performance: Are n+1 heads better than one?’, Psychological Bulletin, 91, 517–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirokawa, R. Y. (1990) ‘The role of communication in group decision-making efficacy: A task-contingency perspective’, Small Group Research, 21, 190–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, L. R. (1959) ‘Applying experimental research on group problem solving to organizations’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 27–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, L. R., Harburg, E. and Maier, N. R. F. (1962) ‘Differences and disagreement as factors in creative group problem solving’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, 206–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, L. R. and Maier, N. R. F. (1961) ‘Sex differences, sex composition, and group problem-solving’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 453 456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, M. and Abrams, D. (1988) Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollingshead, A. B. and McGrath, J. E. (1995) ‘Computer-assisted groups: A critical review of the empirical research’ In R. A. Guzzo and E. Salas (eds), Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoojberg, R. and Choi, J. (2000) ‘Which leadership roles matter to whom? An examination of rater effects on perceptions of effectiveness’, Leadership Quarterly, 11(3) 341–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isen, A. M. and Baron, R. A. (1991) ‘Positive affect as a factor in organizational Behavior’ In L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw (eds), Research in Organizational Behavior (vol. 13). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, L. A., Sullivan, L. A. and Hodge, L. N. (1993) ‘Stereotype effects on attributions, predictions and evaluations: No two social judgements are quite alike’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (1), 69–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. E. (1992) ‘Consequences of group composition for the interpersonal dynamics of strategic issue processing’, Advances in Strategic Management, 8, 345–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. E. (1996) ‘The consequences of diversity in multidisciplinary work teams’ In M. A. West (ed.) Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 53–75). Chichester, England: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A. and Peyronnin, K. (1991) ‘Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as collates of recruitment, promotions and turnover’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 675–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. E., May, K. E. and Witney, K. (1995) ‘Understanding the dynamics of diversity in decision-making teams’ In R. A. Guzzo, E. Salas, and Associates (eds) Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I. L. (1982) Groupthink: A Study of Foreign Policy Decisions and Fiascos, 2nd edn. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jervis, I. L. (1976) Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jussim, L. (1986) ‘Self-fulfilling prophecies: A theoretical and integrative review’, Psychological Review, 93(1), 429–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jussim, L., Coleman, L. M. and Lerch (1987) ‘The nature of stereotypes: A comparison and integration of 3 theories’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (3), 536–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katzenbach, J. R. and Smith, D. K. (1993) The wisdom of teams: Creating the high performance organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, R. T. (1992) ‘Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development research groups’, Journal of Management, 18 (3), 489–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kent, R. N. and McGrath, J. E. (1969) ‘Task and group characteristics as factors influencing group performance’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 429–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., Min, B. and Cha, J. (1999) ‘The roles of R & D team leaders in Korea: A contingent approach’, R & D Management, 29 (2), 153–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H. and Yukl, G. (1995) ‘Relationships of managerial effectiveness and advancement to self-reported leadership-reported leadership behaviors from the multiple-linkage model’, Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 361–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimble, C. E., Marsh, N. B. and Kiska, A. C. (1984) ‘Sex, age and cultural differences in self-reported assertiveness’, Psychological Reports, 55, 419–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitchell, S. (1997) ‘CEO characteristics and technological innovativeness: A Canadian perspective’, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14, 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klimoski, R. and Mohammed, S. (1994) ‘Team mental model: Construct or metaphor?’, Journal of Management, 20, 403–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Komaki, J. L., Desselles, M. L. and Bowman, E. D. (1989) ‘Definitely not a breeze: Extending an operant model of effective supervision to teams’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 522–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J. and Bell, B. S. (2002) ‘Work groups and teams in organizations’ In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ligen, and R. J. Klimoski (eds), Comprehensive handbook of psychology (vol. 12): Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 333–375). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraemer, K. L. and Pinsonneault, A. (1990) ‘Technology and groups: Assessments of the empirical research’ In J. Galeghar, R. E. Kraut and C. Edigo (eds) Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krauss, R. M. and Fussell, S. R. (1990) ‘Mutual Knowledge and communicable effectiveness’ In J. Galeghar, R. E. Kraut and C. Edigo (eds) Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaFrance, M. and Mayo, C. (1978) Moving Bodies: Nonverbal Communication in Social Relationships. Monterey, C. A.: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landsberger, H. A. (1955) ‘Interaction process analysis of the mediation of labor management disputes’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 522–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latham, G. P., Erez, M. and Locke, E. A. (1988) ‘Resolving scientific disputes by the joint design of crucial experiments by the antagonists: Application to the Erez Latham dispute regarding participation in goal setting’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4), 753–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, S. A. and Ledford, G. E. (1992) Employee involvement and total quality management: Practices and results in Fortune 1000 companies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, J. M. and D’Andrea-Tyson, L. (1990) ‘Participation, productivity, and the firm’s environment’ In A. S. Blinder (ed.) Paying for Productivity (pp. 183–237). Washington, DC: Brokkings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, J. M. and Moreland, R. L. (1990) ‘Progress in small group research’, Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 585–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyles, M. A. (1981) ‘Formulating strategic problems: Empirical analysis and problem development’, Strategic Management Journal, 2, 61–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macy, B. A. and Izumi, H. (1993) ‘Organizational change, design and work innovation: A meta-analysis of 131 North American field studies, 1961–1991’, Research in Organizational Change and Design (vol. 7). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier, N. R. F. (1970) Problem Solving and Creativity in Individuals and Groups. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier, N. R. F. and Solem, A. R. (1962) ‘Improving solutions by turning choice situations into problems’, Personnel Psychology, 15, 151–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Main, J. (1989) ‘At last, software CEOs can use’, Fortune, 13 March, 77–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, M. A., Zaccaro, S. J. and Mathieu, J. E. (2000) ‘Performance implications of leader briefings and team interaction training for team adaptation to novel environments’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 7971–986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martz, W. B., Jr., Vogel, R. R. and Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. (1992) ‘Electronic meeting systems: Results from the field’, Decision Support Systems, 8, 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E. and Connon-Bowers, J. A. (2000) ‘The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathison, D. L. and Tucker, R. K. (1982) ‘Sex differences in assertive behaviour: A research extension’, Psychological Reports, 51(3), 943–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maznevski, M. L. (1994) ‘Understanding our differences: Performance in decision making groups with diverse members’, Human Relations, 47(5), 531–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCain, B. R., O’Reilly, C. C. III and Pfeffer, J. (1983) ‘The effects of departmental demography on turnover’, Academy of Management Journal, 26, 626–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCall, M. W. Jr. (1983) ‘Developing Leadership’ In Galbraith, J. L., Lawler, E. E. III and Associates, Organizing for the Future: The New Logic for Managing Complex Organizations. Jossey Bass Series, pp. 256–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. E. (1984) Groups: Interaction and Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mclntyre, R. M. and Salas, E. (1995) ‘Measuring and managing for team performance: lessons from complex environments’ In R. Guzzo and Salas (eds), Team effectiveness and decision-making in organizations. San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miceli, M. P. and Near, J. P. (1985) ‘Characteristics of organisational climate and perceived wrong-doing associated with whistle-blowing decisions’, Personnel Psychology, 38, 525–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milliken, F. J. and Martins, L. L. (1996) ‘Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups’, Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 402–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitroff, J., Barabba, N. and Kilmann, R. (1977) ‘The application of behaviour and philosophical technologies to strategic planning: a case study of a large federal agency’, Management Studies 24, 44–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G. and Mohrman, A. M., Sr (1995) Designing Team-Based Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moos, R. H. and Spiesman, J. C. (1962) ‘Group compatibility and productivity’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 65, 190–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, R. L. and Levine, J. M. (1992) ‘The composition of small groups’ In E. J. Lawler, B. Markovsky, C. Ridgeway and H. A. Walker (eds) Advances in group processes (Vol. 9, pp. 237–280). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, B. and Copper, C. (1994) ‘The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration’, Psychological Bulletin 103, 27–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C. and Owens, P. (1996) ‘Making work groups more effective: The value of minority dissent’ In M. A. West (ed.), Handbook of work group psychology, (pp. 125–142). Chichester, England: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H. and Christiansen, N. D. (1999) ‘The relationship between work-team personality composition and the job performance of teams’, Group and Organizational Management, 24, 28–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, G. A. and Wright, J. (1999) ‘Team effectiveness: Beyond skills and cognitive Ability’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 376–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. F. and Barnett, W. P. (1989) ‘Work group demography, social integration and turnover’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, G. M. and Atkins, D. E. (1990) ‘Supporting collaboration with advanced multi-media electronic mail: The NSF EXPRESS project’ In J. Galeghar, R. E. Kraut and C. Edigo (eds), Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborn, A. F. (1957) Applied imagination. New York: Scribner’s.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouchi, W. G. (1980) ‘Markets, bureaucracies and clans’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelz, D. C. (1956) ‘Some social factors related to performance in a research organization’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1, 310–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redmond, M. V. (1989) ‘The functions of empathy (decentring) in human relations’, Human Relations, 42, 593–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redmond. M. V. (1992) A multi-dimensional theory and measure of decentring. Unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, R. E. and Shork, D. E. (1990) ‘Voice messaging, coordination and communication’ In J. Galeghar, R. E. Kraut and C. Edigo (eds), Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schachter, S. (1959) The Psychology of Affiliation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharf, A. (1989) ‘How to change seven rowdy people’, Industrial Management, 31, 20–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, W. C. (1955) ‘What makes groups productive?’, Human Relations, 8, 429–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, W. C. (1958) FIRO: A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal Behaviour. New York: Holt Rinehart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, W. C. (1967) JOY: Expanding Human Awareness. New York: Grove Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwenk, C. R. (1988) The Essence of Strategic Decision-making. Cambridge, NIA: Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwenk, C. R. and Thomas, H. (1983) ‘Formulating the mess: The role of decision aids in problem formulation’, Omega, 11, 239–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, M. E. (1981) Group dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, M. E. and Nickols, S. A. (1964) Group effectiveness as a function of group member compatibility and cooperation requirements of the task. (Technical report No. 4, ONR contract NR 170–266, Nonr-580 (111) Gainesville: University of Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, M. E. and Shaw, L. M. (1962) ‘Some effects of sociometric grouping upon learning in a second grade classroom’, Journal of Social Psychology 57, 453–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiflett, S. (1979) ‘Towards a general model of small group productivity’, Psychological Bulletin 86, 67–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smircich, L. (1983) ‘Organization as shared meaning’ In L. R. Pondy, P. Frost, G. Morgan and T. Dandridge (eds), Organizational Symbolism (pp. 55–65). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. G., Locke, E. A. and Barry, D. (1990) ‘Goal setting, planning and organizational performance: An experimental simulation’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 118–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P. Jr, O. Brannon, D. P. and Scully, J. A. (1994) ‘Top management team demography and process. The role of social integration and communication’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 412–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M. (1996) ‘Unconscious phenomena in work groups’ In M. A. West (ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psychology (pp. 143–157). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, I. D. (1972) Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. and Lubart, T. I. (1990) Defying the Crowd. Cultivating Creativity in a Culture of Conformity. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, M. J. and Campion, M. A. (1994) ‘The knowledge, skills and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource management’, Journal of Management, 20 (2), 503–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P. and Futrell, D. (1990) ‘Work teams: Applications and effectiveness’, American Psychologist, 45, 120–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundstrom, E., McIntyre, M., Halthill, T. and Richards, H. (2000) ‘Work groups from Hawthorne studies to work teams of the 1990’s and beyond’, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 4, 44–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1978) Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (European Monographs in Social Psychology, No. 14). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. C. (1979) ‘An integrative theory of intergroup conflict’ In W. G. Austin and S. Worchel (eds), Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R. L. and Salas, E. (1992) ‘Team building and its influence on team effectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments’ In K. Kelley (ed.), Issues, Theory and Research in Industrial/Organizational Psychology (pp. 117–153). London: North Holland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tannebaum, S. I., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996) ‘Promoting team effectiveness’ In M. A. West (ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psychology. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tesluk, P. E. and Mathieu, J. E. (1999) ‘Overcoming roadblocks to effectiveness: Incorporating management of performance barriers into the models of work group effectiveness’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 200–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tjosvold, D. (1985) ‘Implications of controversy research for management’, Journal of Management, 11, 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tjosvold, D. (1991) Team Organisation: An Enduring Competitive Advantage. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tziner, A. E. and Eden, D. (1985) ‘Effects of crew composition on crew performance: Does the whole equal the sum of its parts?’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 85–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulich, E. and Weber, W. G. (1996) ‘Dimensions, criteria and evaluation of work group autonomy’ In M. A. West (ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psychology (pp. 247–282). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unsworth, K. L. (1995) Perceptions of assertion in the workplace: The impact of ethnicity, sex and organizational status. Unpublished manuscript, University of Queensland, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D. R. and Nunamaker, J. F. (1990) ‘Design and assessment of a group decision support system’ In J. Galeghar, R. E. Kraut and C. Edigo (eds), Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vroom, V. H. (1964) Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, W. G., Pfeffer, J. and O’Reilly, C. A. (1984) ‘Organizational demography and turnover in top management groups’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 74–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, W. E., Kumar, K. and Michaelsen, L. K. (1993) ‘Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups’, Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weldon, E. and Weingart, L. R. (1993) ‘Group goals and group performance’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 307–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A. (1997) Developing Creativity in Organisations. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A. (2002) ‘Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups’, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A. and Anderson, N. (1996) ‘Innovation in top management teams’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 680–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiersema, M. F. and Bantel, K. A. (1992) ‘Top management team demography and corporate strategic change’, Academy of Management Journal, 35, 91–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willems, E. P. and Clark, R. D. III. (1971) ‘Shift toward risk and heterogeneity of Groups’, Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 7, 302–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, W. (1987) ‘Meta-analytic review of sex differences in group performance’, Psychological Bulletin, 102, 53–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yukl, G. A. (2002) Leadership in Organizations (5th edn) New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaccaro, S. J., Gualtieri, J. and Minionis, D. (1995) ‘Task cohesion as a facilitator of team decision making under temporal urgency’, Military Psychology, 7(2), 77–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zenger, T. R. and Lawrence, B. S. (1989) ‘Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure distributions on technical communication’, Academy of Management Journal, 32, 353–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2005 Carol S. Borrill and Michael A. West

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Borrill, C.S., West, M.A. (2005). The Psychology of Effective Teamworking. In: Gold, N. (eds) Teamwork. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230523203_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics