ORGB706: Group Behavior and Processes
Prof. Heather Vough
Term:
Date/Time:
Place:
Winter 2012
Monday 2:30-5:30
Bronfman 310
Email:
Phone:
Office:
Heather.vough@mcgill.ca
(514) 398-5218
Bronfman 318
CLASS OBJECTIVES
This class is designed to provide you with exposure to a broad range of topics relevant to groups and
teams in organizations. Each week you will be asked to do a number of readings of academic articles
from top journals that address fundamental questions in the management of groups and teams at work.
In addition to reading these articles, you are expected to critique them theoretically and
methodologically and be prepared to discuss your thoughts in the class sessions. In this way, your
involvement in this class should increase your awareness of theory about the management of teams as
well as the various methodologies used to measure and investigate teams.
In addition to the content of the course, we will spend considerable time working on skills fundamental
to a career in academia including writing academic papers for top journals, orally presenting your work,
and reviewing.
REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION
Below is an outline of the major assignments that you are expected to complete over the semester. Each
assignment should be turned in at the beginning of class on the date indicated, except the research
paper which is due in my inbox by 5pm on April 30th. Late assignments will be assessed a penalty of 5% if
they are turned in before the end of the class period and 10% off for every 24 hours they are late after
the deadline.
Assignment
Leadership of Seminar (2)
In-Class Participation
Reading Response papers (10)
Deconstruct/Reconstruct
Research Paper
Reviewing of peers’ papers
% of grade
20% (10% each)
10%
10%
10%
40%
 20% paper
 5% initial proposal
 10% response to reviews
 5% presentation
10%
Due Date
Varies
Each Class Period
Each Class Period
January 30th
April 30th
February 13th
April 30th
April 2nd or 16th
March 26th
Leadership of Seminar (10% x 2)
In each class session, one or two students will be responsible for leading the class. Who will lead which
class will be determined on the first day of classes, Jan 9th. Each student will have this responsibility two
times per semester. When it is your turn to lead class you are responsible for preparing the following:
 A brief integrative summary of the papers (max 3 pages). This will often include a figure or a
typology that brings together the different readings
 Questions to be discussed in class (handed out in class)
 A critique of the papers including identifying strengths and weaknesses (can be oral or written)
Your mark for class leadership will be based on your level of preparedness, thoroughness and depth of
your description of the articles, clarity in presentation of the articles, and insight provided on the
articles. Feel free to be creative with your class leadership, as long as it meets the above requirements.
The following questions may help you as you prepare to lead your sessions:
 What is the nature of the problem that led to the theory? Does the theory matter? Why or why
not?
 What are the strengths and weaknesses of the theory? Is there anything you disagree with or
find controversial? Why?
 What underlying assumptions have been made?
 What boundary conditions can you identify? In other words, in what contexts might this theory
apply or not apply?
 How do you see this literature related to other topics?
 Was the methodology used the most appropriate to study the phenomenon? If not, what other
approaches would you recommend?
 Do you trust the data analysis and interpretation? If not, what leads you to be skeptical?
In-Class Participation (15%)
Organizational behavior is a very broad field and it is difficult to fully capture even a subset of topics
related to teams in a 13 week course. Accordingly, it is imperative that you attend each of the class
sessions and come prepared to discuss the readings. Further, much of the learning that is done in this
class occurs as we exchange ideas, debate, and have conversations about concepts. In order to get the
most out of this class, you need to be actively involved in those conversations.
In-class participation involves being in class, answering questions asked by the class leaders and
professor, and expressing your own ideas and impressions of the readings. It also includes being
punctual and staying through the entire class session. Both the quantity and quality of your
contributions will be considered in your in-class participation score each week.
The questions listed above are also a good starting point for you as you prepare for class each week.
Reading Response Papers (10%)
In the course of preparing for class each week, you should prepare a brief response paper to the
readings for that week. These response papers should be no more than 2 pages in length and should not
be simply summaries of the readings. Rather, they should be your responses to the readings and should
include insights you have gained from the readings, links to other topics, or critiques/concerns about the
paper. As such, it is not necessary that you address each of the articles in your response papers, but you
should include at least two of the articles that you have read and the relationship between them. The
response papers will be assessed based on depth of insight into the focal topic of the week. You do NOT
need to do a response paper on the weeks that you are leading a class session nor for the March 26th
session in which we discuss reviewing.
Deconstruct/Reconstruct (10%)
The objective of this assignment is to help familiarize you with how to write a manuscript in a top
journal in your field. While the content of an article certainly influences your likelihood of publication, so
does the structure of your arguments. In this assignment, you will pick an article that you admire from
one of the top journals in your field and deconstruct and then reconstruct the introduction. In the
deconstruction section, you will go sentence by sentence and describe what the author has done in each
sentence. This is not a restatement of the author’s point, rather it is a description of what purpose each
sentence provides in the context of the whole article. The deconstruction should be done in outline
format. For example:
I.
Paragraph 1
a. Definition of key term
b. Link between key term and important outcomes at work
c. Elaboration on one particular relationship
d. Identification of gap in existing research….
II.
Paragraph 2…..
You will then reconstruct this format with your own research. In other words, you will take a research
project you are currently working on, or even an idea you would like to use for your paper in this class,
and replicate the structure of what the author has done. For example, if you are interested in
transactive memory systems and you did the above deconstruction, you might begin: “Transactive
memory systems are….(CITES). When teams develop effective transactive memory systems it helps them
learn and work together efficiently (CITES). In particular, when a group is able to develop a transactive
memory system they are able to capitalize on learning and apply novel ideas to new situations more
readily (CITES). However, there is little known about….” It is important to note that you should not be
using the same words or content as the article you are reconstructing. Rather, you are mimicking the
structure of the article.
Research Paper (45% total)
Research Paper (20%)
The central assignment in this course is the completion of the front end of a research paper
(introduction, literature review, methodology). This paper will be done in many steps over the course of
the semester (outlined below) but I encourage you to begin thinking about topics that interest you very
early on in the semester. The paper must directly address issues at the group or team level and must
incorporate some of the readings we have done in the class. However, you can also incorporate other
ideas and concepts from other areas, if relevant.
The research paper, due April 30th, will be assessed on a number of criteria including:
 Relevance to important issues for groups and teams
 Comprehensive understanding of the topics covered
 Presenting novel and interesting hypotheses or avenues for research



Appropriateness of methodology
Integration of feedback from professor and reviews
Clarity of exposition
Ideally, these papers will be relevant to your research interests and can be used as a springboard for full
papers to be submitted to conferences or journals.
As described below, you will be required to submit both an initial proposal and a rough draft of the
paper before the final paper is due. These versions must be submitted on the dates indicated.
Initial Proposal (5%)
In order to encourage you to begin thinking about your research topic early in the class, you will hand in
a 2 page initial proposal of the research paper you would like to do on February 13th. This proposal will
detail what topic you are interested in exploring, a brief overview of the current literature on that topic,
and a basic description of the methodology you would like to use to study the topic.
Presentation of Research (10%)
On April 2nd and 16th each student will have 15 minutes to present her or his research ideas. This is an
opportunity for you to learn about the work that other students are doing as well as to get feedback on
your ideas. The presentations should be done using Powerpoint and should mirror a professional
presentation, like those done at conferences. Your presentation will be assessed primarily on clarity of
the ideas that you present. In-class participation for these two days will be assessed partially on asking
questions of other students and actively engaging in their research.
Response to Reviews (10%)
After you have handed in your rough draft of your paper (on March 19th), your paper will be handed out
to 2 other members of the class for peer review. You will then receive your reviews the next week and
are required to respond to them in a professional manner. The reviews and your response to them will
be handed in on April 30th with the complete research paper. Responding to reviews in a respectful and
confident manner is a key skill in getting papers published. This is an opportunity to practice and get
feedback on that skill.
Reviewing of Peers’ Papers
We will have a workshop on March 19th in which we will discuss the review process. Before the
workshop you will be asked to read some commentaries by leading scholars on what is required of a
good review and what the obligations of the reviewer are. You will also be provided with a manuscript
that went through multiple revisions and the reviews of the manuscript, as well as the response to
reviewers for each round. After this workshop, you will be asked to provide reviews of the rough drafts
submitted by your peers. Each review should be done as you would a review for a journal. However, as
the manuscripts are rough, you should focus primarily on the ideas being conveyed and suggestions for
how to better convey them rather than on grammatical or organizational issues (though suggestions
regarding those may be helpful as well!).
Your mark on your reviews will be based on how constructive and thorough your reviews are as well as
the tone you take in reviews.
McGILL POLICIES
1. Academic Integrity: McGill University values academic integrity. Therefore, all students must
understand the meaning and consequences of cheating, plagiarism and other academic offences
under the Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures (see www.mcgill.ca/students/
srr/honest/ for more information).
2. Language of Submission for Written Work: In accord with McGill University’s Charter of
Students’ Rights, students in this course have the right to submit in English or in French any
written work that is to be graded.
3. Extraordinary Circumstances: In the event of extraordinary circumstances beyond the
University’s control, the content and/or evaluation scheme in this course is subject to change.
COURSE SCHEDULE
(All “additional” readings are not required for class)
Date and Topic
January 9th: Team
Interdependence
and Coordination
Readings
Team Interdependence
1. Wageman, R. 1995. Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40:
145-180.
2. Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. 1993. Complex interdependence in task-performing groups.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1): 61-72.
3. Barrick, M. R., Bradley, B. H., Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Colbert, A. E. 2007. The moderating role of top
management team interdependence: Implications for real teams and working groups. The Academy
of Management Journal, 50(3): 544-557.
Team Coordination
4. Van de Ven, A. H., Delbecq, A. L., & Koenig Jr, R. 1976. Determinants of coordination modes within
organizations. American Sociological Review: 322-338.
5. Rico, R., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., Gil, F., & Gibson, C. 2008. Team implicit coordination processes: A
team knowledge-based approach. The Academy of Management Review, 33(1): 163-184.
Additional:
Faraj, S., & Sproull, L. 2000. Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management
Science, 46(12): 1554-1568.
Van Der Vegt, G., Emans, B. J. M., & Van de Vliert, E. 2001. Patterns of interdependence in work teams: A
two-level investigation of the relations with job and team satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 54: 51-69.
January 16th:
Collective
Intelligence and
Information
Sharing
Information Sharing
1. Stasser, G., & Titus, W. 1985. Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased
information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(6): 14671478.
2. Phillips, K. W., Mannix, E. A., & Neale, M. A. 2004. Diverse groups and information sharing: The effects
of congruent ties. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(4): 497-510.
Assignments
Team Mental Models
3. Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. 1994. Team mental model: construct or metaphor? Journal of
Management, 20(2): 403-437.
4. Rentsch, J. R., & Klimoski, R. J. 2001. Why do ‘great minds’ think alike?: Antecedents of team member
schema agreement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2): 107-120.
Issues in Team Research:
5. Hoyle, R. H., & Crawford, A. M. 1994. Use of individual-level data to investigate group phenomena
issues and strategies. Small group research, 25(4): 464-485.
Additional:
Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. 1993. The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5): 959.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. 2009. Information sharing and team performance: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2): 535-546.
January 23rd:
Transactive
Memory Systems
1. Wegner, D. M. 1987. Transactive memory: A comtemporary analysis of the group mind, Theories of
Group Behavior: 185-208.
2. Liang, D. W., Moreland, R., & Argote, L. 1995. Group versus individual training and group
performance: The mediating factor of transactive memory. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,
Vol 21(4): Apr 1995, 1384-1393.
3. Austin, J. R. 2003. Transactive memory in organizational groups: The effects of content, consensus,
specialization, and accuracy on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 866-878.
4. Lewis, K. 2004. Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams: A longitudinal study of
transactive memory systems. Management Science: 1519-1533.
5. Brandon, D., & Hollingshead, A. B. 2004. Transactive memory systems in organizations: Matching
tasks, expertise, and people. Organization Science, 15(6): 633-644.
Additional:
Hollingshead, A. B. 2000. Perceptions of expertise and transactive memory in work relationships. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(3): 257-267.
Lewis, K., Lange, D., & Gillis, L. 2005. Transactive memory systems, learning, and learning transfer.
Organization Science, 16(6): 581-598.
January 30th:
Team
Development
Stage Models:
1. Tuckman, B. W. 1965. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6): 384399.
2. Wheelan, S. A., Davidson, B., & Tilin, F. 2003. Group Development Across Time. Small group research,
34(2): 223-245.
Punctuated equilibrium:
3. Gersick, C. J. 1988. Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development.
Academy of Management Journal, 31: 9-41.
I-P-O Model:
4. Ericksen, J., & Dyer, L. 2004. Right from the start: Exploring the effects of early team events on
subsequent project team development and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(3):
438-471.
Issues in Team Research:
5. Moritz, S. E., & Watson, C. B. 1998. Levels of analysis issues in group psychology: Using efficacy as an
example of a multilevel model. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2(4): 285-298.
Additional:
Gersick, C. J. 1991. Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium
paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16: 10-36.
February 6th:
Norms in Teams
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. 2005. Teams in organizations: From input-processoutput models to IMOI models. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 56: 517-543.
1.
1. Bettenhausen, K., & Murnighan, J. K. 1985. The emergence of norms in competitive decision-making
groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(3): 350-372.
2. Barker, J. R. 1993. Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 38(3): 408-437.
Deconstruct
and
Reconstruct
3. Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. 2001. The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence
and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(5):
956-974.
4. Moon, H., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Ilgen, D. R., West, B., Ellis, A. P. J., & Porter, C. O. L. H.
2004. Asymmetric adaptability: Dynamic team structures as one-way streets. The Academy of
Management Journal, 47(5): 681-695.
5. Ehrhart, M. G., & Naumann, S. E. 2004. Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: a group
norms approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6): 960-974.
Additional:
Feldman, D. C. 1984. The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management
Review, 9(1): 47-53.
February 13th:
Diversity in Teams
1. Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. 1998. Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics
of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 325-340.
2. Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. 1999. Why differences make a difference: A field study of
diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4): 741-763.
3. Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2002. Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional
diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. Academy of Management Journal,
45(5): 875-893.
4. Jackson, S. E., & Joshi, A. 2004. Diversity in social context: a multi attribute, multilevel analysis of team
diversity and sales performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(6): 675-702.
5. Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. E., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., & Singh, G. 2011. Inclusion and
diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research Journal of Management, 37(4):
1262-1289.
Additional:
Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. 2007. The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic
review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33(6): 987-1015.
Joshi, A., & Roh, H. 2009. The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. The
Academy of Management Journal, 52(3): 599-627.
Initial
Proposal Due
th
February 27 :
Status,
Stereotypes, and
Self-Verification
March 5th:
Intrateam Conflict
Winter Break Feb 20th-24th
1. Cohen, B. P., & Zhou, X. 1991. Status processes in enduring work groups. American Sociological
Review, 56(2): 179-188.
2. Ellemers, N., Wilke, H., & Van Knippenberg, A. 1993. Effects of the legitimacy of low group or
individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 64: 766-766.
3. Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. 1997. Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to group status and
distinctiveness: The role of group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(5):
538-553.
4. Polzer, J. T., Milton, L. P., & Swann, W. B. J. 2002. Capitalizing on diversity: Interpersonal congruence
in small work groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 296-324
5. Vough, H. C., Broschak, J. P., & Northcraft, G. B. 2005. Here today, gone tomorrow? Effects of
nonstandard employment status on workgroup processes and outcomes. In M. A. Neale, E. A. Mannix,
& M. Thomas-Hunt (Eds.), Research on Managing Groups and Teams, Vol. 7: 229-257. London:
Elsevier Press
Conflict:
1. Jehn, K. A. 1997. A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3): 530-557.
2. Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. 2003. Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams.
Organization Science, 14(6): 615-632.
3. Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. 2004. Surface-and deep-level diversity in workgroups: Examining the
moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25(8): 1015-1039.
Conflict Management:
4. Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. K. 2008. The critical role of conflict
resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies,
and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1): 170-188.
A different perspective:
5. Smith, K. K., & Berg, D. N. 1987. A paradoxical conception of group dynamics. Human Relations,
40(10): 633-658.
March 12th:
Decision-Making
Pitfalls in Teams
Additional:
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. 2003. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team
member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4): 741-749.
Groupthink
1. Aldag, R. J., & Fuller, S. R. 1993. Beyond fiasco: A reappraisal of the groupthink phenomenon and a
new model of group decision processes. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3): 533-552.
2. Leana, C. R. 1985. A partial test of Janis' groupthink model: Effects of group cohesiveness and leader
behavior on defective decision making. Journal of Management, 11(1): 5-17.
Group Polarization
3. Mackie, D. M. 1986. Social identification effects in group polarization. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 50(4): 720-728.
Abilene Paradox
4. Harvey, J. B. 1974. The Abilene paradox: The management of agreement. Organizational Dynamics,
17(1): 17-43.
Social Loafing
5. Price, K. H., Harrison, D. A., & Gavin, J. H. 2006. Withholding inputs in team contexts: Member
composition, interaction processes, evaluation structure, and social loafing. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(6): 1375-1384.
Additional:
Esser, J. K. 1998. Alive and Well after 25 Years: A Review of Groupthink Research* 1. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3): 116-141.
Isenberg, D. J. 1986. Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 50(6): 1141-1151.
Kim, Y. 2001. A comparative study of the" Abilene Paradox" and" Groupthink". Public Administration
Quarterly, 25(2): 168-189.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. 1993. Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4): 681-706.
March 19th:
Reviewing and the
Publication
Process
Reviewing
1. Harrison, D. 2002. Obligations and obfuscations in the review process. Academy of Management
Journal, 45(6): 1079-1084.
Rough Draft
Submitted for
Review
Responding To Reviews
2. Agarwal, R., Echambadi, R., Franco, A. M., & Sarkar, M. 2006. Reap rewards: Maximizing benefits from
reviewer comments. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(2): 191-196.
The Review Process
3. Seibert, S. E. 2006. Anatomy of an R&R (or, reviewers are an author's best friends...). The Academy of
Management Journal, 49(2): 203-207.
4. Rynes, S. L. 2006. Observations on" Anatomy of an R&R" and other reflections. The Academy of
Management Journal, 49(2): 208-214.
Example:
5. Vough, H. 2011. Not All Identifications Are Created Equal: Exploring Employee Accounts for
Workgroup, Organizational, and Professional Identification. Organization Science
March 26th:
Team Creativity
1. Taggar, S. 2002. Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A
multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2): 315-330.
2. Gilson, L. L., & Shalley, C. E. 2004. A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams’
engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management, 30(4): 453.
3. Pirola Merlo, A., & Mann, L. 2004. The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity:
Aggregating across people and time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2): 235-257.
4. Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J., & Evans, J. M. 2008. Unlocking the effects of gender faultlines on team
creativity: Is activation the key? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1): 225-234.
5. Baer, M., Leenders, R. T. A. J., Oldham, G. R., & Vadera, A. K. 2010. Win or lose the battle for
creativity: The power and perils of intergroup competition. The Academy of Management Journal,
53(4): 827-845.
Peer
Reviews Due
April 2nd:
Time and Process
in Teams
1. Ancona, D. G., Okhuysen, G. A., & Perlow, L. A. 2001. Taking time to integrate temporal research.
Academy of Management Review, 26(4): 512-529.
2. Arrow, H., Poole, M. S., Henry, K. B., Wheelan, S., & Moreland, R. 2004. Time, Change, and
Development. Small group research, 35(1): 73-105.
3. Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. 2001. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of
team processes. The Academy of Management Review, 26(3): 356-376.
4. Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Massey, A. P., & Song, M. 2001. Getting it together: Temporal coordination
and conflict management in global virtual teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6): 12511262.
5. Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. 2002. Time, teams, and task performance:
Changing effects of surface - and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management
Journal, 45(5): 1029-1045.
Presentations
April 16th:
Team Emotion
1. Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. 2001. Mood and Emotions in Small Groups and Work Teams.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1): 99-130.
2. Barsade, S. G. 2002. The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 644-675.
3. Barsade, S. G., Ward, A. J., Turner, J. D. F., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. 2000. To Your Heart's Content: A Model
of Affective Diversity in Top Management Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4): 802-836.
4. Pirola-Merlo, A., Hartel, C., Mann, L., & Hirst, G. 2002. How leaders influence the impact of affective
events on team climate and performance in R&D teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5): 561-581.
Presentations
April 30th
Final Paper