This article addresses the relative lack of empirical studies of how self-managed teams in high velocity environments handle unexpected critical incidents. It presents an interpretive case study of the LEGO Mindstorms project team, and focuses in particular on how this team responded to three critical incidents. Our study results in three core findings concerning how this team responded to the unexpected in its high velocity environment. These include: the importance of increasing presence; creating a context for a shared and emotionally grounded identity; and developing a shared set of guiding principles for action, behaviour, and decision-making. The authors further describe interconnections among these three core findings, proposing a higher-level ‘virtuous circle’ that illustrates how this team responded effectively to critical incidents.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abelson, R. Script processing in attitude formation and decision making. In J.S. Carroll & J.W. Payne (Eds), Cognition and social behaviour. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum , 1976, pp. 36–46.
2.
Albert, S. & Whetten, D. Organizational identity. In L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds), Research in organizational behavior 7. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press , 1985, pp. 263–295.
3.
Angelides, P. The development of an efficient technique for collecting and analysing qualitative data: The analysis of critical incidents . Qualitative Studies in Education, 2001, 14(3), 429–442 .
4.
Arrow, H., McGrath, J. & Berdahl, J. Small groups as complex systems. London: Sage , 2000.
5.
Asch, S.E. Social psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall , 1952.
6.
Ashforth, B. & Mael, F. Social identity theory and the organization . Academy of Management Review, 1989, 14(1), 20–39 .
7.
Bal, J. & Foster, P. Managing the virtual team and controlling effectiveness . International Journal of Production Research, 2000, 38(17), 4019–4032 .
8.
Barker, J. Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams . Administrative Science Quarterly, 1993, 38(3), 408–437 .
9.
Bartunek, J. Changing interpretive schemes and organizational restructuring: The example of a religious order . Administrative Science Quarterly, 1984, 29, 355–372 .
10.
Beck, D. & Fisch, R. Argumentation and emotional processes in group decision-making: Illustration of a multi-level interaction process analysis approach . Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2000, 3(2), 183–201 .
11.
Beech, N. & McCalman, J. Sex, lies and videotropes: Narrative and commitment in high technology teams . Journal of Applied Management Studies, 1997, 6(1), 77–92 .
12.
Bettenhausen, K. & Murnighan, J. The emergence of norms in competitive decision-making groups . Administrative Science Quarterly, 1985, 30, 350–372 .
13.
Bourgeois, L.J. & Eisenhardt, K.M. Strategic decision processes in high velocity environments: Four cases in the microcomputer industry . Management Science, 1988, 34(7), 816–835 .
14.
Brown, A. Organizational studies and identity: Towards a research agenda . Human Relations, 2001, 54(1), 113–121 .
15.
Cohen, S., Ledford, G. & Spreitzer, G. A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness . Human Relations, 1996, 49(5), 643–676 .
16.
Crowston, K. & Kammerer, K.K. Coordination and collective mind in software requirements development . IBM Systems Journal, 1998, 37(2), 227–245 .
17.
Czarniawska, B. A narrative approach to organization studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage , 1998.
18.
Daft, R. & Lengel, R. Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design . Management Science, 1986, 32(5), 554–571 .
19.
Desanctis, G. & Monge, P. Introduction to the special issue: Communication processes for virtual organizations . Organization Science, 1999, 10(6), 693–703 .
20.
Desanctis, G. & Scott Poole, M. Transitions in teamwork in new organizational forms. In B. Markovsky, M. Lovagilia & L. Troyer (Eds), Advances in group processes, Vol. 14. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press , 1997, pp. 157–176.
21.
Dougherty, D. Managing the risks of sustained product innovation: Developing work architectures of heedful interrelating. Working Paper WP 98–04,Reginald H.J. Jones Center, The Wharton School, 1998.
22.
Dutton, J. & Dukerich, J. Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation . Academy of Management Journal, 1991, 34, 517–554 .
23.
Dutton, J., Dukerich, J. & Harquail, C. Organizational images and member identification . Administrative Science Quarterly, 1994, 39, 239–263 .
24.
Dyer, W. & Wilkins, A. Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better theory: A rejoinder to Eisenhardt . Academy of Management Review, 1991, 16(3), 613–619 .
25.
Eisenhardt, K. Building theories from case study research . Academy of Management Review, 1989, 14(4), 532–550 .
26.
Eisenhardt, K. & Sull, D. Strategy as simple rules . Harvard Business Review, 2001, 79(1), 107–116 .
27.
Emery, F. & Trist, E. Socio-technical systems. In C. Churchman & M. Verhulst (Eds), Management science, models and techniques, Vol. 2. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon , 1960, pp. 83–97.
28.
Feldman, D. The development and enforcement of group norms . Academy of Management Review, 1984, 9(1), 47–53 .
29.
Flanagan, J. The critical incident technique . Psychological Bulletin, 1954, 51, 327–358 .
30.
Fukuyama, M. Critical incidents in multicultural counselling supervision: A phenomenological approach to supervision research . Counsellor Education & Supervision, 1994, 34(2), 142–151 .
31.
Gabbott, M. & Hogg, G. The glory of stories: Using critical incidents to understand service evaluation in the primary healthcare context . Journal of Marketing Management, 1996, 12, 493–503 .
32.
Gabriel, Y. The use of stories. In G. Symon & D. Cassell (Eds), Qualitative methods and analysis in organisational research: A practical guide. London: Sage , 1998, pp. 135–160.
33.
Giddens, A. The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press , 1984.
34.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine , 1967.
35.
Goffman, E. Behavior in public places. New York: Free Press , 1963.
36.
Gordon, J. Work teams: How far have they come? Training, 1992, 29, 59–65 .
37.
Hayles, K. How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press , 1999.
38.
Hogg, M. & Terry, D. Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts . Academy of Management Review, 2000, 25(1), 121–140 .
39.
Homans, G. The human group. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World , 1950.
40.
Jarvenpaa, S. & Leidner, D. Communication and trust in global virtual teams . Organization Science, 1999, 10(6), 791–815 .
41.
Johnson, J. Procedural justice perceptions among international joint venture managers. In P. Beamish & P. Killing (Eds), Cooperative strategies: North American perspectives. San Francisco, CA: New Lexington , 1997, pp. 197–226.
42.
Jordan, A. Critical incident story creation and culture formation in a self-directed work team . Journal of Organizational Change Management, 1996, 9(5), 27–35 .
43.
Kahn, W. Relational systems at work. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds), Research in organization behavior, Vol. 20, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press , 1998, pp. 39–76.
44.
Katzenbach, J. & Smith, D. The discipline of teams . Harvard Business Review, 1993, 71(2), 111–118 .
45.
Kessels, J. Socrates comes to market . Reason in Practice, 2001, 1(1), 49–71 .
46.
Knights, D. & McCabe, D. Bewitched, bothered and bewildered: The meaning and experience of teamworking for employees in an automobile company . Human Relations, 2000, 53(11), 1481–1518 .
47.
Labianca, G., Gray, B. & Brass, D. A grounded model of organizational schema change during empowerment . Organization Science,2000, 11(2), 235–257 .
48.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, G. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press , 1980.
49.
Langley, A. Strategies for theorizing from process data . Academy of Management Review, 1999, 24(4), 691–710 .
50.
Light, D. Surface data and deep structure: Observing the organization of professional training . Administrative Science Quarterly, 1979, 24(4), 551–559 .
51.
Lipman-Blumen, J. & Leavitt, J. Hot groups. New York: Oxford University Press , 1999.
52.
Lissack, M. & Roos, J. Be coherent, not visionary . Long Range Planning, 2001, 34(1), 53–70 .
53.
Lloyd, C. & Newell, H. Selling teams to the salesforce: Teamworking in the UK pharmaceutical industry. In S. Procter & F. Mueller (Eds), Teamworking. London: Macmillan Business , 2000, pp. 183–202.
54.
Marchington, M. Teamworking and employee involvement: Terminology, evaluation and context. In S. Procter & F. Mueller (Eds), Teamworking. London: Macmillan Business , 2000, pp. 60–80.
55.
McAllister, D. Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations . Academy of Management Journal, 1995, 38(1), 24–59 .
56.
McGrath, J., Kelly, J. & Machatka, D. The social psychology of time: Entrainment of behaviour in social and organizational settings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Applied Social Psychology Annual (Vol. 5). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage , 1984, pp. 21–44.
57.
Mohammed, S., Klimoski, R. & Rentsch, J. The measurement of team mental models: We have no shared schema . Organizational Research Methods, 2000, 3(2), 123–165 .
58.
Mohr, L. Explaining organizational behavior. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass , 1982.
59.
Neck, C. & Manz, C. From groupthink to teamthink: Toward the creation of constructive thought patterns in self-managing work teams . Human Relations, 1994, 47(8) 929–952 .
60.
Okhuysen, G. Structuring change: Familiarity and formal interventions in problem-solving groups . Academy of Management Journal, 2001, 44(4), 794–808 .
61.
Oliver, D. & Roos, J. Striking a balance: Complexity and knowledge landscapes. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill , 2000.
62.
Peterson, E., Mitchell, T., Thompson, L. & Burr, R. Collective efficacy and aspects of shared mental models as predictors of performance over time in work groups . Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2000, 3(3), 296–316 .
63.
Pinto, M.B., Pinto, J.K. & Prescott, J.E. Antecedents and consequences of project team cross-functional cooperation . Management Science, 1993, 39(10), 1281–1297 .
64.
Reason, P. & Rowan, J. Human inquiry: A sourcebook of new paradigm research. Chichester: Wiley , 1981.
65.
Rowley, T. & Moldoveanu, M. When will stakeholder groups act? An interest- and identitybased model of stakeholder group mobilization . Academy of Management Review, 2003, 28(2), 204–219 .
66.
Schneider, S.C. & Shrivastava, P. Basic assumptions in organizations . Human Relations, 1988, 41(7), 493–516 .
67.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. Austen (Eds), Psychology of intergroup relations, 2nd edn. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall , 1985, pp. 7–24.
68.
Tripp, D. Critical incidents in teaching. London: Routledge , 1993.
69.
Tsoukas, H. The validity of idiographic research explanations . Academy of Management Review, 1989, 14(4), 551–561 .
70.
Wagemen, R. Critical success factors for creating superb self-managing teams . Organizational Dynamics, 1997, 26(1), 49–61 .
71.
Waller, M.J. The timing of adaptive group responses to non-routine events . Academy of Management Journal, 1999, 42, 127–137 .
72.
Weick, K. The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster . Administrative Science Quarterly, 1993, 38(4), 628–652 .
73.
Weick, K. & Roberts, K.H. Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks . Administrative Science Quarterly, 1993, 38, 357–381 .
74.
Weick, K. & Sutcliffe, K. Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass , 2001.
