This study evolved from a concern with helping managers to increase the probability of creating effective task groups when they are not group members. A survey of 59 members of 10 different task groups in 5 different organizations was used to study the varying effects of contextual and internal group variables on group outcomes. Three dimensions of group context which can be manipulated by managers were studied: resource mix, motivating task, and environmental support. Regression analysis showed that contextual variables accounted for 41% of the variance in task accomplishment, while mainly internal group variables explained 48% of the variance in output quality. Limitations of the current study and directions for future research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Badawy, M.K. (1982) Developing managerial skills in engineers and scientists . New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold .
2.
Bowman, D.D., & Siegal, J.P. (1973). Process and performance: A longitudinal study of the reactions of small task groups to periodic performance feedback. Human Relations, 26, 433-448.
3.
Bushe, G.R. (1984). Increasing the probability of creating effective task groups the manager doesn't belong to: An empirically testable model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Academy of Management, Vancouver, British Columbia.
4.
Cooperrider, D.L., & Plath, A. (1980). Towards a meaningful open systems theory of group development potential in organizations. Unpublished paper, Case Western Reserve University, Department of Organizational Behavior.
5.
Cummings, T.G. (1981). Desigmng effective work groups. In P. C. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design (Vol. 2, pp. 250-271). New York: Oxford.
6.
Friedlander, F. (1987). The ecology of work groups. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior, (pp. 301-314). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
7.
Friedlander, F., & Schott, B. (1981). The use of task groups and task forces in organizational change. In R. Payne & C. Cooper (Eds.), Groups at work, (pp. 191-217). New York: Wiley.
8.
Gear, T.E., Marsh, N.R., & Sergent, P. (1985). Semi-automated feedback and team behavior. Human Relations, 38, 707-721.
9.
Gladstein, D.L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness . Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517.
10.
Goodman, P. S. (Ed.). (1986). Designing effective work groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11.
Goodman, P.S., Ravlin, E., & Schminke, M. (1987). Understanding groups in organizations. In L. L. Cummings & B. W. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 121-175). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
12.
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.
13.
Hackman, J.R., & Morris, C.G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction processes and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol. 8, pp. 45-99). New York: Academic Press.
14.
Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.
15.
Hare, A.P. (1976). Handbook of small group research. New York: Free Press.
16.
Hoffman, L.R. (1979). Applying experimental research on group problem solving to organizations. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science , 15, 375-391.
Libby, R., Trotman, K.T., & Zimmer, I. (1987). Member variation, recognition of expertise, and group performanceJournal of Applied Psychology, 72, 81-87.
20.
Locke, E.A. (1978). The ubiquity of the technique of goal setting in theories and approaches to employee motivation. Academy of Management Review, 3, 594-601.
21.
Maier, N. R. F. (Ed.). (1970). Problem solving and creativity. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole .
22.
McCormick, D.W. (1985). Environmental relations and group effectiveness in planned change projects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, Department of Organizational Behavior.
23.
Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations . American Sociological Review, 32, 194-208.
24.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
25.
Salancik, G.R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly , 23, 224-253.
26.
Shaw, M.E., & Penrod, W.T. (1962). Does more information available to a group improve group performance? Sociometry, 25, 377-390.
27.
Shea, G.P., & Guzzo, R.A. (1987). Group effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan Management Review, 28(Spring), 25-31.
28.
Thomas, J., & Griffin, R. (1983). The social information processing model of task design: A review of the literature. Academy of Management Review, 8, 672-682.
29.
Yantis, B., & Nixon, J.E. (1982). Interpersonal compatibility: Effect on simulation game outcomes. Simulation & Games, 13, 337-349.
30.
Zander, A. (1982). Making groups effective. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
