An activity description, debriefing guide, and instructional appendices are presented through which students may learn about the optimal use of work groups in addressing organizational tasks of varying functional complexity. Student groups assigned to four conditions design and build Lego® products, learning how fit or mismatch between task and group composition can improve quality, learning, and affective outcomes. Discussion centers on the student’s development both as a member and as a manager of such work groups. Favorable reactions to the utility of the activity were obtained from student participants and outside business facilitators.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Campion, M. A.
, Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850.
2.
Caplan, R. D.
(1987). Person-environment fit theory and organizations: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 248-267.
3.
Cohen, M. D.
, & Sproull, L. S. (Eds.). (1996). Organizational learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
Dennehy, R. F.
, Sims, R. R., & Collins, H. E. (1998). Debriefing experiential learning exercises: A theoretical and practical guide for success. Journal of Management Education, 22, 9-25.
5.
Flynn, B. B.
, Flynn, E. J., Amundson, S. D., & Schroeder, R. G. (1998). Product development speed and quality: A new set of synergies? In J. J. Stahl (Ed.), Handbook on total quality (pp. 245-271). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
6.
Hackman, J. R.
(1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
7.
Jehn, K.
(1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value-based intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 223-238.
8.
Kolb, D. A.
, Rubin, I. M., & Osland, J. S. (1991). Organizational behavior: An experiential approach. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
9.
Littlepage, G.
, Robison, W., & Reddington, K. (1997). Effects of task experience and group experience on group performance, member ability, and recognition of expertise. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 133-147.
10.
Locke, E. A.
, Tirnauer, D., Roberson, Q., Goldman, B., Latham, M. E., & Weldon, E. (in press). The importance of individualism in an age of groupism. In M. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Advances in theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
Recardo, R. J.
, Wade, D., Mention, C. A., III, & Jolly, J. A. (1996). Teams: Who needs them and why?Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Co.
12.
Stasser, G.
, Stewart, D. D., & Wittenbaum, G. M. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 244-265.
13.
Wood, R. E.
(1986). Task complexity: Definition of a construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 60-82.
