deliberate team development: developing teams in 90 days ...€¦ · deliberate team development:...

Running Head: DEVELOPING TEAMS IN 90 DAYS 1

Copyright ©Corinne Chalmers 2013

Deliberate Team Development: Developing Teams in 90 Days

Corinne Chalmers

DEVELOPING TEAMS IN 90 DAYS 2

2

Abstract

Because new leaders often only have a probationary 90 days to prove themselves, they may

benefit from coaching and facilitation that will help them expedite team development. Most

group development models describe how groups tend to evolve over time. These models

typically include an element of relational conflict that impedes performance. Though conflict

can erupt at any stage, it is most likely during the early phases of a group’s development when

trust and familiarity among members is unknown. A prescriptive approach to team development

is proposed that promotes healthy task conflict without sacrificing social cohesion. This is done

by deliberately forming a group with both task and relational considerations in mind; executing

activities that build social cohesion; explicitly crafting team norms; using conflict-preemptive

brainstorming and decision-making strategies; and using accountability processes that leverage

social identity theory.


3

Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 2

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ 3

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4

Group Development Models ............................................................................................... 5

Stages Development Models........................................................................................... 5

Equilibrium models ......................................................................................................... 6

A Deliberate Development Model .................................................................................. 8

Tools for Teamwork ........................................................................................................... 8

Form (Month 1 – 2)......................................................................................................... 8

Norm (Month 2) ............................................................................................................ 12

Brainstorm (Month 2 – 3) ............................................................................................. 13

Perform (Month 2 - 3) ................................................................................................... 14

Culture and Ethics ............................................................................................................. 15

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 17

References ......................................................................................................................... 18


4

Introduction

One of the most pivotal times in a leader’s career is the probationary 90-day period in a

new role when first impressions and early actions set the foundations for future success. New

leaders need to know how to assimilate into their existing teams, make adjustments to them if

needed, or build new teams quickly enough to make a positive impact in just a few

months. Leadership coaches and facilitators can be invaluable allies in helping with this

challenge.

Popular models of group development explain how groups tend to behave and develop

over time if left to natural influences. The Tuckman (1965) model, for example, suggests that

groups tend to develop using a potentially stressful and time-consuming trial and error approach

to finding group norms that will facilitate performance. Such descriptive group development

models provide the basis for a proposed normative model that coaches and facilitators can use to

help newly appointed leaders form and develop their teams more intentionally. Group

development can be proactively accelerated using tools and processes that shift interactional

dynamics from relationship to task in a way that preempts interpersonal conflict as the new team

deliberately forms, norms, brainstorms, and performs. That is, as the group intentionally selects,

crafts norms, uses conflict pre-emptive meeting strategies, and actively produces outcomes.

Several models of group dynamics will be examined as a basis for the proposed

development model. The proposed model will then be applied to the new leader

situation. Cultural and ethical considerations will be addressed followed by a discussion of

limitations and future research requirements.


5

Group Development Models

Stages Development Models

Bruce Tuckman’s (1965) descriptive model of group development describes a typical

five-stage process of group development: forming (orientation), storming (conflict), norming

(structure development), performing (work), and adjourning (dissolution). Initially, group

members are tentative and politely compliant as they gain familiarity with one another in the

orientation phase (Forsyth, 2013; Wheelan & Hochberger, 1996). This stage is characterized by

a high dependence on the team leader and apprehension about inclusion or rejection. Eventually,

the group may move to a stage marked by relational conflicts or task conflict over what to do and

how to do it. Prolonged conflict may lead to a breakdown or delay in group development. The

norming stage of Tuckman’s model describes the emergence of roles, responsibilities, and

standards that guide behavior and communication as the group increases in trust and

cohesiveness (Forsyth, 2013). In the performing stage of development, the emphasis shifts from

a relational orientation to a task-orientation focused on goals, performance, and production

(Forsyth, 2013; Wheelan & Hochberger, 1996). The dissolution stage of group development

involves closing the original group and can be accompanied by feelings of loss, uncertainty,

anticipation, relief, regret, or stress depending what prompted the transition and how members

perceive their future (Bridges, 1986). When a new leader joins a team, some partial dissolution

or reformation will occur that may trigger the associated feelings and concerns among the

existing members.

The Tuckman model is somewhat simplistic in that it describes a linear and successive

progression in clearly demarcated steps. In contrast, cyclical development models suggest that in

reality there is much more overlap and groups can move back and forth or skip some stages


6

altogether. For example, Bales and Cohen (1979) found that groups oscillate back and forth

between norming and performing as needed. Despite the differences, the cyclical models still

use Tuckman’s terminology to classify the major processes and characteristics of groups over

time (Forsyth, 2013).

These models are descriptive rather than prescriptive in that they describe what groups

tend to do through trial and error and not necessarily what they should do to perform

optimally. It follows that a new leader should assess the current stage of development of his or

her team and implement actions to proactively move the team to high performance. The Group

Development Questionnaire can be used to assess the team’s development or the members can

review the characteristics of each stage of the development model as described by Wheelan and

Hochberger (1996, p. 154) and estimate the group’s developmental maturity. Depending on the

results, a new leader may want to minimize the disruption of his or her entrance to a high-

performing team but re-form a team that has been stuck in the storming phase for too long.

Equilibrium models

Robert Freed Bales’ Systematic Multiple Level Observation of Groups (SYMLOG)

model helps identify existing group member’s orientation to various aspects of task and

relationship (Bales & Cohen, 1979). The equilibrium model of group development includes the

observation that group members seek to balance attention to task-related outcomes with

relationship-building activities (1979). Like the stage development theories, these models and

findings are more descriptive than normative. Bale’s work does not advise where to place the

emphasis or when. Borrowing from similar models in other disciplines however, may provide

more insight.


7

Blake and Mouton’s (1985) management styles model emphasizes the importance of

balancing a high concern for results with a high concern for people. Ames and Flynn (2007)

found that leaders who balance communications that are designed to achieve instrumental gain

with their impact on social relationships are less likely to be perceived as under or over

assertive. Finally, most conflict models strive for a collaborative approach that balances a high

concern for task with a high concern for relationships (Lewicki, Weiss, & Lewin, 1992). Yet

others have argued that in the case of leaders and individuals, the emphasis on relationship

versus task should be situation-dependent (Ames & Flynn, 2007; Hersey & Blanchard, 1982;

Lewicki, Weiss, & Lewin, 1992). Conflict negotiation strategies for example, use a stair-step

approach that focuses on developing rapport and respect before problem-solving (Grubb,

2010). By definition, the performing stage of Tuckman’s model is characterized by attention to

the task but most often the group has already created a relational foundation during the earlier

stages. This indicates that relationship may need to precede task in attentional focus for team

development.

Activities that promote trusting relationships may reduce or eliminate the time spent in

the storming stage of group development. Simons and Peterson (2000) determined from a

correlational study of 79 executive groups that intergroup trust moderates the potential for task

conflict to predict relational conflict in groups. In addition, Farh, Lee, and Farh (2010) have

provided support for moderate (and not high or low) task conflict in the early stages of group

development. Bales and Cohen (1979) advise that a long stretch of performance should be

followed by a cohesion-creating, interpersonal activity. These findings suggest that a relational-

focus while orienting the group may preempt relational conflict and allow a task focus during the


8

performing stage of the group’s development. A relational focus is also helpful to recharge the

group after a period of high performance.

A Deliberate Development Model

During team meetings and over the life-cycle of a team, a new leader is advised to focus

on building relationships before attending to the task. Specific tools and techniques should be

used to deliberately accelerate group development and preempt relational conflict. Adjusting

slightly for a prescriptive approach to Tuckman’s model and overlaying Bale’s Equilibrium

model produces the following cyclical approach to developing teams: forming, norming,

brainstorming, and performing where attention to relationship is emphasized in the forming stage

and attention to task is emphasized in the performing stage. The entire model is recursive such

that forming and norming are revisited at regular intervals.

Tools for Teamwork

Form (Month 1 – 2)

Communicate informally (Day 1 or before). New leaders should avoid being directive

or relying too much on position power before establishing some level of trust and credibility in

these early days (Northouse, 2010). New leaders should initially focus on relationship-oriented

interactions that allow informal communication interspersed with some neutral information-

seeking questions. Gorse and Emmit (2009) found that construction meetings produced better

outcomes when they included social-emotional interactions. These informal conversations

emphasized positive and social-emotional comments that either showed support or relieved

tension (Gorse & Emmit, 2009). Supporting comments show respect or admiration, encourage

friendliness, kindness, and commitment and can allay feelings of apprehension about inclusion or

rejection. Tension-relievers are light-hearted comments or jokes. Neutral task-oriented


9

questions seek additional information and clarification or back-ground information

(2009). Lunches, coffee breaks, and first meetings are a perfect opportunity for such informal

conversations either on the first day or during the “fuzzy front end” between being hired and

actually starting on the job (Watkins, 2013).

One objective of these early meetings with team members is to seek areas of

commonality. The similarity principle says that individuals tend to “seek out, affiliate with, or

be attracted to an individual who is similar to them in some way” (Forsyth, 2013, p. 124). It is

especially helpful when there are similarities in values, beliefs, and interests. Forsyth (2013)

uses the similarity principle to explain how cliques formed among groups like the impressionist

painters in the mid 1800’s. One way to get at common values in an informal conversation is to

discuss pet peeves.

Address hopes and fears (week 1). Social identity theory predicts the reluctance of a

group having a strong common identity to accept members (including new team leaders) that

might be perceived as deviant from the goals and values of the rest of the group (Felps, Mitchell,

& Byington, 2006). Whether done directly one-on-one or through a facilitator working with the

team members in private, the new leader is advised to proactively address initial team-member

hopes and fears as soon as possible. Some companies provide a facilitated meeting popularly

called “new leaders assimilation” for this purpose (Watkins, 2013). The new leader can use

some of the commonality findings from the informal communications done earlier in his

response to the team’s expressed hopes and fears.

Assess and adjust team membership (month 1). During the first month, new leaders

should look for both the task and relational fit of team players. The degree of emphasis on

relational fit is related to the extent that the team’s tasks require interdependence (Gully, Devine


10

& Whitney, 1995). A meta-analysis by Gully et al. (1995) found that when the task demands

coordination, communication, and mutual performance monitoring among members, cohesion

significantly predicts performance (p. 513). An example of a highly interdependent team might

be a team of executives in a matrix organization versus a group of functional leaders in an

autocratic, hierarchical organization.

Suitability is affected by many factors including personality traits, ability, types of tasks,

organizational culture fit, alignment of values and goals, diversity, and team size (Forsyth, 2013;

Kichuk, 1998; Wheelan, 2009). New leaders may use a variety of resources including the Parker

Team Player Survey, prior employee performance reviews, 360-degree competency surveys,

Values in Action Survey, observation in team meetings, and one-on-one meetings with team

members to assess whether the team meets all the needs of the task and is likely to be

productively cohesive.

Felps, Mitchell, and Byington (2006) provide guidelines as to “how, when, and why bad

apples spoil the whole barrel” (p. 175). Members who consistently withhold effort, demonstrate

negative affect, and violate interpersonal norms may habitually provoke negative reciprocity and

escalate unnecessary conflict to the detriment of team performance (2006). Care must be taken

however, that the deviant member isn’t being scape-goated for upsets with the new leader or

labeled as a black sheep due to differences in opinion during task conflict. Extra caution should

also be taken to abide by the ethics and laws pertaining to psychological testing and selection

methods (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, &

National Council on Measurement in Education, 1999; EEOC, 2010).

Build social cohesiveness (month 2). To further shore up the relational foundation, a

new leader can facilitate team members’ orientation to one another and to the group through


11

intentional team-building activities that include a strengths summary exercise, team-branding

exercise, and training in team dynamics. Klein et al. (2009) conducted a meta-analysis using 60

correlations that supports the efficacy of team-building activities in improving interpersonal

attraction and cognitive, process, and performance outcomes. Interpersonal attraction is one of

three components that drive social cohesion in groups (Forsyth, 2013). The other types of social

cohesion are group-level attraction (extent to which an individual is attracted to the group entity

itself) and social attraction which is the extent to which members identify with and like being

part of the group. Forsyth uses the example of the 1980 US Olympic hockey team who won the

gold medal against all odds as a model of social cohesiveness.

An off-site team-building workshop could open with informal conversation over

breakfast and then a hopes-and-fears discussion to set the relational foundation for the day. The

objective of the workshop would be to increase group efficacy and collective cohesion by

celebrating the complementary strengths of team members and linking them to social

identity. Collective cohesion increases when team members relate to the group through a shared

identity and sense of belonging (Forsyth, 2013). Collective efficacy, which is also related to

improved performance, occurs when team members believe they can accomplish the task

effectively (Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi, & Beauien, 2002). For example, a facilitator could guide

the group through a strengths or styles workshop such as Myers Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI)

or Parker Team Player Survey (PTPS) to bring out how each team member’s strengths and styles

benefits the team. Then collective cohesion can be enhanced by building social identity through

a team branding exercise to create a team motto, team logo, color scheme, and/or choosing a

mascot. A similar process used by psychologists with two groups of boys, The Eagles and the

Rattlers, at Robber’s Cave summer camp in 1954 was so successful that the boys identified with


12

the group and “accepted the groups’ characteristics as their own” (Forsyth, 2013, p. 491). To

prevent intergroup competition, branding criteria should seek to link team strengths with

organizational goals. Trust-building activities can then be used to reinforce social cohesiveness

periodically throughout the life of the team.

In Elliot’s (1998) between-subjects experiment involving 45 teams, the outcomes

produced by teams trained in various elements of effective teamwork were comparatively

superior to those who were trained in an unrelated topic or not at. Other researchers have found

a correlation between team member’s understanding of team dynamics and their team’s

effectiveness (Hirshfeld, Jordan, Field, Giles, & Armenakis, 2006). Trainers can educate the

new leader and his or her team on team dynamics while the new leader models the desired

behaviors and explains how they link to the team’s goals and functions. Explicit training in team

dynamics will also provide a foundation for the next step: establishing team norms.

Norm (Month 2)

By now the relational foundation should pave the way for new leaders to collaboratively

craft group norms. Spich and Keleman (1985) recommend an explicit norm structuring process

to increase task-group effectiveness. Behfar et al. (2008) contend that expressed formal norms

and formal decision-making processes are associated with reduced conflict. The new leader

should engage a facilitator to conduct a proactive norming exercise that would include

identifying and recording acceptable expectations for rules of engagement, standard meeting

protocols, decision-making processes, communication processes, and team player behaviors.

This norming workshop should be followed by a team-charter exercise to gain clarity and

buy-in to group-level mission, vision, goals, roles, responsibilities, etc. A meta-analytic study on

the influence of group goals supports that goal-setting facilitates group performance (O'Leary-


13

Kelly, Martocchio, & Frink, 1994). Roles and responsibilities should align with individual

attitudes, values, and skills, and be congruent with team and organizational level goals (Forsyth,

2013).

Brainstorm (Month 2 – 3)

The brainstorming phase of the deliberate development model represents the need for

new leaders to instill a habit of planning how to decide before diving into task

implementation. That is, pre-task activities should include planning processes that optimize

creativity and decision-making performance and preempt relational conflict. Sometimes as

cohesiveness increases, groupthink occurs in which individuals feel pressured to conform to the

group (Forsyth, 2013). In the Asch experiment for example, individuals felt compelled to

conform to confederates when they gave obviously wrong answers to questions about the

comparative length of printed lines (2013). Fortunately, members who identify strongly with the

group, are more, rather than less, likely to accept the interpersonal cost of dissent when it really

matters but this may take some time (Forsyth, 2013; Packer, 2008). One technique a new leader

can use to avoid group think and maximize creativity is the use of the nominal brainstorming

technique (Roth, Schleifer, & Switzer, 1995). Team members are asked to generate as many

ideas as possible independently before collecting and synthesizing the group’s ideas. People

produce fewer ideas in a group than alone possibly due to production blocking, social loafing,

and groupthink effects (Forsyth, 2013).

New leaders will likely need to rely heavily on the expertise of others in the first 90 days

while they are moving up the learning curve. Some suggested decision-making processes new

leaders can teach team members include formal deliberate debate, structured thinking-modes

processes, non-positional bargaining processes, or private voting techniques (Forsyth,


14

2013). The objective is to use processes that allow adequate information exchange and that

match the level of consensus needed for the situation without promoting relational conflict or

requiring excessive time and effort. Trained meeting facilitators can help provide that expertise

to newly formed groups.

Perform (Month 2 - 3)

A high concern for the task in the perform stage of the model can be supported by posting

and regularly updating a dashboard of team performance and by conducting group status

meetings. Meeting protocol should include publishing minutes with written commitments

including names and dates. If new leaders have followed the recommendations so far and are

measuring and reporting on clearly-defined goals and commitments, team members will help

hold one another accountable (Lencioni, 2003). New leaders can leverage the peer pressure that

comes from the social identity and collective cohesion of the group so that members are more

likely to hold themselves accountable as well.

Feedback and reward systems should be considered to increase team members’

mindfulness of their behaviors which can reduce unnecessary conflict (Nan, 2011). Haines and

Taggar (2006) warn however, that team members must believe in the effectiveness and value of

teamwork and the desired behaviors for such behavioral incentives to work. Mindfulness of

team behaviors may also be encouraged by including a standing agenda item (“what went well

and what to change”) at the end of status meetings for evaluation and feedback on desirable team

behaviors. Such an assessment can also be incorporated into post-mortem reviews of team

initiatives.


15

Culture and Ethics

Some modifications to the deliberate group development model may be needed for

culturally diverse teams (Appelbaum, 1998). Hofstede (1980) describes four pairs of opposing

cultural differences: high versus low distance power (unequal distribution of power), high versus

low uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, and masculinity versus femininity

(concern for material goods versus people). Understanding the differences in culture may be

important when developing social cohesiveness just as understanding and appreciating different

thinking styles is important. For culturally diverse groups, the Norms/Values Worksheet can be

used along with the MBTI and PTPS for the cohesiveness offsite workshop in month two

(Gardenswarlz & Rowe, 1993, p.133). The new leader could explain the stereotype content

model to describe all-or-nothing, black-and-white categorization of others based on culture,

thinking styles, or team player styles. This model points out that people tend to evaluate others

based on an assessment of warmth and competence (Forsyth, 2013). This evaluation is

associated with feelings of pity, contempt, admiration, or envy toward those being

assessed. Biases could be reduced by having the group think about times when each team

member was both friendly and competent. Blair, Ma, and Lenton (2001) substantially reduced

implicit stereotyping as measured by the implicit association test (IAT) by engaging participants

in such counter stereotypic mental imagery.

During the norm stage of deliberate development, a new leader must keep in mind that

team members also bring with them unique practices and procedures from past

employers. Discussion will bring out what some members may assume to be common

practice. The processes used in the form, norm, and brainstorm phases of the deliberate model

are crucial in reducing conflict especially when cultures having individualistic orientations, high


16

uncertainty avoidance and masculine members are involved (Appelbaum, 1998). On the other

hand, new leaders may need to dig for healthy task conflict using processes such as deliberate

debate when cultures of conformity are involved in order to avoid group think (Forsyth, 2013).

The use psychological assessments such as the Myers Briggs Type Indicator or Parker

Team Player Survey triggers several ethical considerations. First, assessments should never be

the sole basis for making employment decisions such as whether or not to be on the new team

without statistical evidence that ensure the tests do not negatively impact identifiable subgroups

especially those subject to discrimination. The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission

(EEOC) enforces “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

(ADEA) which prohibit the use of discriminatory employment tests and selection procedures”

(Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2010, p.1).

Team members should not be required to participate in psychological tests or to divulge

their results without their willing consent (American Educational Research Association,

American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education,

1999). In addition, the standards for psychological testing demand the use of trained and

experienced professionals commensurate with the qualifications specified by the manual for the

test being administered (1999). Finally, the actual testing documents and results of the test

should be kept confidential by those who have been privy to that information (1999). Coaches

and facilitators are generally bound by the ethics of confidentiality for all private information

shared by clients about themselves, their team members, or their organizations (APA, 2002).

Deliberately facilitating social and emotional cohesion may increase the risk for

inappropriate relationships developing among team members just as some coaching approaches


17

may increase the risk of inappropriate relationships between a coach and client (Allcorn,

2008). Codes 3.05 to 3.08 of the American Psychological Association’s code of ethics advises

coaches about the importance of vigilance to creating relationships free from harm or

exploitation such as harassment, coercion due to power differences, or conflict of interest. In the

same way, new leaders should be mindful of their position of authority and influence when

participating in team-building activities.

Conclusion

Several descriptive models of group development were compared and contrasted as a

basis for the application of the proposed deliberate development model. The proposed model

was applied to the scenario of a new leader’s challenge of developing a team in 90 days. Several

behavioral models and processes of group dynamics were presented and examples were provided

for application to the new leader challenge. Cultural and ethical considerations were discussed

and adjustments to the model were proposed.

The resulting conclusion is that group development can be proactively accelerated in at

least two ways: by shifting attention from relationship to task over time thereby preempting

interpersonal conflict; and by using tools and processes that deliberately facilitate the

development of the team’s cohesiveness, group norms, brainstorming and decision-making

processes, and performance accountability (form, norm, brainstorm, and perform).

The deliberate development model is pieced together from existing theory using

deductive reasoning and from empirical evidence using inductive reasoning. It is limited by a

lack of empirical support for the model as a whole. It is also unknown if other similar models

have already been proposed and tested. Future Research opportunities include such empirical


18

support to measure the effectiveness of teams developed using the model after 90 days and then

again periodically over the life of the group in a longitudinal study.

References

Allcorn, S. (2008). Psychoanalytically informed executive coaching. In D. R. Stober, &

A. M. Grant (Eds.), Evidence based coaching handbook: Putting best practices to work

for your clients. (pp. 129-149). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National

Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and

psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

American Psychological Association. (2002). American Psychological Association ethical

principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from

http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html

Ames, D. R., & Flynn, F. J. (2007). What breaks a leader: The curvilinear relation between

assertiveness and leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 307-

324. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.307

Appelbaum, S. H., Shapiro, B., & Elbaz, D. (1998). The management of multicultural group

conflict. Team Performance Management, 4(5), 211-211.

Bales, R. R., & Cohen, S. P. with Williamson, S. A. (1979). SYMLOG: A system for the multiple

level observation of groups. New York: Free Press.

Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. (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.


19

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1985). The managerial grid III: The key to leadership

excellence. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Co.

Bridges, W. (1986). Managing organizational transitions: Making the most of change. London:

Nicholas.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (2010, September 23). Fact sheet on employment

tests and selection procedures. Retrieved from

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/factemployment_procedures.html

Elliott, R. (1998). Team building: An isolated view of team dynamics training and its effect on

team performance. ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing.

Farh, J., Lee, C., & Farh, C. I. C. (2010). Task conflict and team creativity: A question of how

much and when. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1173-1180.

doi:10.1037/a0020015

Forsyth, D. R. (2013). Group dynamics (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Gardenswarlz, L., & Rowe, A. (1993). Managing diversity: A complete desk references and

planning guide. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Gorse, C. A., & Emmitt, S. (2009). Informal interaction in construction progress

meetings. Construction Management and Economics, 27(10), 983-993.

doi:10.1080/01446190903179710

Grubb, A. (2010). Modern day hostage (crisis) negotiation: The evolution of an art form within

the policing arena. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(5), 341-348. doi:

10.1016/j.avb.2010.06.002

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/factemployment_procedures.html


20

Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and

performance: Effects of levels of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group

Research, 26, 497–520

Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beauien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-

efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators

of observed relationships. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 819-832.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.819

Haines, V. Y., & Taggar, S. (2006). Antecedents of team reward attitude. Group Dynamics:

Theory, Research, and Practice,10(3), 194-205. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.10.3.194

Hirschfeld, R. R., Jordan, M. H., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., & Armenakis, A. A.

(2006). Becoming team players: Team members' mastery of teamwork knowledge as a

predictor of team task proficiency and observed teamwork effectiveness. The Journal of

Applied Psychology, 91(2), 467-474. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.467

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1982). Leadership style: Attitudes and behaviors. Training and

Development Journal, 36(5), 50-52

Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organizations: Do American theories apply

abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9(1), 42-63.

Kichuk, S. L., & Wiesner, W. H. (1998). Work teams: Selecting members for optimal

performance. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 39(1-2), 23-32.

doi:10.1037/h0086792

Klein, C., DiazGranados, D., Salas, E., Le, H., Burke, C. S., Lyons, R., & Goodwin, G. F.

(2009). Does team building work? Small Group Research, 40, 181–222.


21

Lencioni, P. M. (2003). The trouble with teamwork. Leader to Leader, 2003(29), 35-40.

doi:10.1002/ltl.36

Lewicki, R. J., Weiss, S. E., & Lewin, D. (1992). Models of conflict, negotiation and third party

intervention: A review and synthesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3), 209-

252. doi:10.1002/job.4030130303

Nan, S. (2011). Consciousness in culture-based conflict and conflict resolution. Conflict

Resolution Quarterly, 28(3), 239-262. doi:10.1002/crq.20022

Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Martocchio, J. J., & Frink, D. D. (1994). A review of the influence of

group goals on group performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1285-

1301.

Packer, D. J. (2008). On being both with us and against us: A normative conflict model of

dissent in social groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(1), 50-72.

Shell, G. R. (2001). Bargaining styles and negotiation: The Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode

instrument in negotiation training. Negotiation Journal, 17(2), 155-174.

doi:10.1023/A:1013280109471

Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top

management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology,

85, 102–111.

Spich, R. S., & Keleman, K. (1985). Explicit norm structuring process: A strategy for increasing

task-group effectiveness. Group & Organization Studies (Pre-1986), 10(1), 37.


22

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequences in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63,

381-399.

Watkins, M. D. (2013). The first 90 days: updated and expanded: Proven strategies for getting

up to speed faster and smarter. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Wheelan, S. A. (2009). Group size, group development, and group productivity. Small Group

Research, 40(2), 247-262. doi:10.1177/1046496408328703

Wheelan, S. A., Hochberger, J. M. (1996). Validation studies of the group development

questionnaire. Small Group Research, 27(1), 143-170. doi:10.1177/1046496496271007

deliberate team development: developing teams in 90 days ...€¦ · deliberate team development:...

Documents