team research: msu team lab

1

Team Research: MSU Team Lab

An Experimental Approach to Structural Issues in Command and Control

Perspective– Situation X Person Interaction

» Situation includes both task structure and task demands– Contingency Models– Mapping the Structural and Personal Space

» Horizontal space (Divisional and Functional)» Vertical space (Roles and Power/Status)

– Research: Past and Ongoing– Research: Future Directions

2

Research on Adaptation

Review and discuss 4 studies focused on adaptation in team-based work environments

Study Form of Adaptation Publication StatusTeam Adaptation & Postchange Performance: Effects of Team Composition in Terms of Members’ Cognitive Ability and Personality

Role structure adaptation as a means of adapting to communication losses during the course of performing a task

Published in Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88, 1, 27-39

Backing Up Behaviors in Teams: The Role of Personality and Legitimacy of Need

Backing up behaviors as a form of adapting to new adversary tactics


Team Learning: Collectively Connecting the Dots

Team learning as a means of adapting to new adversary technology


Adapting to Unexpected Changes in Team Size: The Role of Individual Differences & Team Processes

Adapting to unexpected reductions in team size

Data collected in Spring 2004; manuscript to be completed Fall 2004

3

Adapting to Communication Losses (Lepine, 2003)

Purpose: Examine the factors that allow teams to effectively adapt their routines in response to unforeseen changes in the work environment

Primary contribution:– Extension of individual-level, cognition-focused adaptation

research to consider team-level behavior

4

Adapting to Communication Losses Theory & Conceptual Model

Teams must be able to deal with unanticipated change and modify their routines (Argote & McGrath, 1993)

Key questions:– What variables predict the extent to which teams adjust their routines in response to

unforeseen change?– Do the same factors predict team performance prior to and after unforeseen change?

Member Cognitive AbilityMember Cognitive Ability

Member AchievementMember Achievement

Member DependabilityMember Dependability

Member Openness to Exp.Member Openness to Exp.

Role Structure AdaptationRole Structure AdaptationPost Change

Decision-Making Performance

Post Change Decision-Making

Performance

5

Adapting to Communication Losses Hypotheses

Hypotheses 2b, 3b, 4b, & 5b:– Member cognitive ability, achievement, and

openness to experience positively related to team decision-making performance after change

– Member dependability negatively related to team decision-making performance after change

Member Cognitive AbilityMember Cognitive Ability

Member AchievementMember Achievement

Member DependabilityMember Dependability

Member Openness to Exp.Member Openness to Exp.

Role Structure AdaptationRole Structure AdaptationPost Change

Decision-Making Performance

Post Change Decision-Making

Performance

+ Hypothesis 1

Hypothesis 2a, 3a, 4a, & 5a

+

−

+

+

Hypotheses 2c, 3c, 4c, & 5c:– Role structure adaptation mediates

relationship between member cognitive ability, achievement, dependability and openness to experience and team decision-making performance after change

6

Adapting to Communication Losses Research Design & Methods

TIDE2 decision-making simulation 73 three-person teams (college juniors and seniors) Random assignment to teams and roles Training and practice designed to facilitate development

of team routines Role structure adaptation measured using (a) count

method and (b) rated measure

7

Adapting to Communication Losses Findings & Implications

All hypotheses received empirical support

Suggests that the set of individual differences that predict team performance in a changing situation may be quite distinct from those that predict performance in more routine situations

Implication: Effective team staffing should consider the degree to which the team is likely to experience unexpected change

8

Adapting to New Adversary Tactics (Porter et al., 2003)

Purpose: Examine the effects of team member personality and legitimacy of need on backing up behaviors in teams

Primary contribution:– Differentiates help in terms of its legitimacy of need– Examines backing up behavior at the team-level– Provides an objective measure of whether help actually ensued

9

Adapting to New Adversary Tactics Conceptual Model & Hypotheses

InputInput

Legitimacy of need positively relates to backing up (H1)

Recipient conscientiousness and legitimacy of need interact to predict backing up (H2)

Recipient emotional stability and legitimacy of need interact to predict backing up (H3)

Recipient extraversion and legitimacy of need interact to predict backing up (H4)

Provider conscientiousness and legitimacy of need interact to predict backing up (H5)

Provider emotional stability and legitimacy of need interact to predict backing up (H6)

Provider agreeableness and legitimacy of need interact to predict backing up (H7)

Team ProcessTeam Process

Personality of back up recipient

Personality of back up provider

Legitimacy of need (direct & moderator effect)

Backing up behavior (# of help attacks)

Backing Up Behavior: Discretionary provision of resources and task-related effort to another member of one’s team that is intended to help that team member obtain the goals defined by his or her role when it is apparent that the team member is failing to reach those goals

10

Adapting to New Adversary Tactics Research Design & Methods

DDD decision-making simulation 71 four-person teams (college juniors and seniors) Individuals randomly assigned to teams / roles Teams randomly assigned to high or low-legitimacy

condition (based on resource allocation and workload distribution)

Hierarchical regression used to test moderation effects

11

Adapting to New Adversary Tactics Findings & Implications

Hypotheses 1, 2, 4, and 6 (no support for H3, H5 or H7)– Legitimacy of need predicts backing up behavior

– Legitimacy of need interacts with back up provider and recipient personality to predict backing up behavior

Implication: – Personality of the back up provider and recipient can differentially affect the

effectiveness of backing up behavior in teams» E.g., showing good discrimination on when to provide back up

– Effective team staffing should consider the degree to which team members will experience workload distribution imbalance – and compose the team accordingly

» E.g., conscientious and extraverted recipients

» E.g., emotionally stable providers

12

Adapting to New Adversary Technology (Ellis et al., 2003)

Purpose: Examine how project teams learn and how the speed of the learning process can be improved within teams of individuals with no prior history or knowledge of each other’s strengths and weaknesses

Primary contribution:– Expands traditional conceptualization of learning process at the individual

level to the team level» Recognizes that team members learn from their own direct experience AND the

experience of other team members

13

Adapting to New Adversary Technology Theory & Conceptual Model

InputInput

Team Learning– Relatively permanent change in the team’s

collective level of knowledge and skill produced by the shared experience of the team members

Accounts for multiple sources of learning in teams

– Individual team member’s ability to individually acquire knowledge and skill

– Team members’ ability to collectively share information


Member cognitive ability

Workload distribution (even/uneven)

Member agreeableness and openness to experience

Team structure– Pair-based– Functional– Divisional

Team learning

14

Adapting to New Adversary Technology Hypotheses

InputInput

Higher levels of general cognitive ability generates higher levels of team learning (H1)

Evenly distributed workloads will engender greater team learning than unevenly distributed workload (H2)

Higher levels of agreeableness will generate lower levels of team learning (H3)

Higher levels of openness to experience will generate higher levels of team learning (H4)

Project teams using pair-based structures will learn more than those structured functionally or divisionally (H5)


Member cognitive ability

Workload distribution (even/uneven)

Member agreeableness and openness to experience

Team structure– Pair-based– Functional– Divisional

Team learning

15

Adapting to New Adversary Technology Research Design & Methods

DDD decision-making simulation 109 four-person teams (college juniors and seniors) Individuals randomly assigned to teams / roles Teams randomly assigned to paired, functional and divisional structures Workload distribution manipulated within teams across 2 different 30-minute

simulations Team learning based on the nature of engagement toward a series of

Unknown targets– Effective engagement / efficient engagement

Repeated measures regression used to analyze data

16

Adapting to New Adversary Technology Findings & Implications

Findings support H1, H2, H3, and H5

Cognitive ability, agreeableness, workload distribution and team structure impact project team learning

Implication:

– For project teams operating in contexts that demand learning, effective team staffing should select individuals with high cognitive ability – and not all members should be high in agreeableness

– Ensuring even workload distribution and employing team structures where two members have access to the same information helps to eliminate learning barriers

17

Adapting to Reductions in Size (DeRue et al., 2005)

Purpose: Examine the factors that allow teams to effectively adapt in response to unforeseen reductions in team size

Primary contribution:– Examines the compositional factors and processes that enable

teams to effectively adapt to reductions in team size– Explores multiple forms of reductions in team size

18

Adapting to Reductions in Size Theory & Conceptual Model

InputInput

Examined 3 forms of reducing team size:

– Eliminate hierarchy (eliminate the team leader role)

– Integrate hierarchy (leader replaces displaced team member in action role)

– Maintain hierarchy (leader position remains; displaced team member not replaced)

MediatorsMediators

Team structure Task environment Individual differences Form of reduction in

team size

Trusting Structuring Bonding Adapting Learning

Post-Change Team Performance

Post-Change Team Performance

19

Adapting to Reductions in Size Research Design & Methods

DDD decision-making simulation

~75 five-person teams (college juniors and seniors)

Individuals randomly assigned to teams / roles

Teams randomly assigned to conditions

Data analysis in process

20

Adapting to Reductions in Size Preliminary Findings

Offense Scores (Game 2 Mean)

1170

1180

1190

1200

1210

1220

1230

1240

1250

Control EliminateLeader

IntegrateLeader

MaintainHierarchy

Defense Scores (Game 2 Mean)

36500

37000

37500

38000

38500

39000

39500

40000

40500


IntegrateLeader

MaintainHierarchy

Form of reduction significantly affects team performance– E.g., Leader may not be an adequate substitute for task performing roles– E.g., Losing the team leader has little impact on offensive performance but significantly detracts from

team’s ability to monitor the team environment

21

Adapting to Reductions in Size Preliminary Findings (cont.)

Losing a task performing team member engenders more structuring of roles and responsibilities in the team

Loss of team leader significantly hinders team bonding (potentially more task-focused)

Bonding (Game 2 Mean)

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4


IntegrateLeader

MaintainHierarchy

Structuring (Game 2 Mean)

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4


IntegrateLeader

MaintainHierarchy

22

Adapting to Reductions in Size Emerging Implications

Shifting traditional, hierarchical teams to self-managing teams with no formal leader does not always result in superior team performance

– Potential short-term bonding loss

– Loss of external monitoring function

If forced to downsize, which team members should stay / go?– Key considerations: Task environment? Short-term or long-term

perspective?

23

Structural Asymmetry Research

Review and discuss 4 studies focused on structure in team-based work environments

Study Form of Structure Publication StatusStructural Contingency Theory and Individual Differences: Examination of External and Internal Person-Team Fit

Horizontal resource allocation structures interact with the type of environment to determine team performance


Asymmetric Adaptability: Dynamic Team Structures as One-Way Streets

Horizontal resource allocation structural changes may not be as easy to make in one direction as they are in the other

In press at the Academy of Management Journal

The Asymmetric Nature of Structural Adaptation: The Impact of Centralizing and Decentralizing on Group Outcomes

Vertical decision-making authority structural changes may not be as easy to make in one direction as they are in the other

Manuscript under revision, to be submitted to the Journal of Applied Psychology

The Impact of Hybrid Team Structures on Performance and Adaptation: Beyond Mechanistic and Organic Prototypes

Hybrid horizontal and vertical structures outperform redundant ones

Data collected in Spring 2003; manuscript to be completed Fall 2004

24

Purpose

Examine the impact of team structure on team performance and effectiveness by addressing:– the fit of structural conditions to task demands– structural adaptability to changes in task demands– the internal fit of team members to team structures

25

Dimensions of Structure

26

Fixed Structures(Hollenbeck et al., 2002)

Structural Contingency Theory– No one best way to structure teams in organizations

Fit of Team Structure to Environment (External Fit)– Team performance will be an interactive effect of the team structure

and its task/problem environment Types of structure

– Divisional: People are grouped based on geographic region» Broad Roles» Highly independent

– Functional: People are grouped on the basis of the type of the work they perform

» Narrow/specialized roles» High levels of interdependence

27

Fit of individuals’ characteristics to the demands placed on team members by different structures

– In divisional structures, jobs are complex and have fairly high levels of autonomy

» High cognitive ability may be better here

– In functional structures, roles are fragmented and there are high levels of interdependence, making coordination very important

» Agreeable team members may be important

– In misaligned structures/environments, high levels of stress or conflict may occur

» Emotional stability is important in dealing with this

Fixed Structures(Hollenbeck et al., 2002)

28

Fixed Structures Hypotheses

External Fit:– H1: Functional structures will be superior in predictable

environments while divisional structures will be superior in random environments

Internal Fit:– H2: There will be a positive relationship between cognitive ability

and individual performance in divisional structures– H3: There will be a positive relationship between agreeableness

and individual performance in functional structures Joint Fit:

– H4: In teams with misaligned structures/environments, there will be a positive relationship between emotional stability and individual performance

29

Fixed Structures Methods

Design: 2 (structure) X 2 (task demand) between subjects

Sample: 80 4-person teams Task: DDD(MSU) Measures:

– Cognitive Ability (Wonderlic)– Agreeableness & Emot. Stability (NEO-PI-R)– Performance (team & Individual, DDD output)

30

Fixed Structures Results: External Fit

31

Fixed Structures Results: Internal and Joint Fit

H2: In aligned divisional structures, cognitive ability was positively related to individual performance (ΔR2 = .04, p < .05)

H3: In aligned functional structures, Individual performance was not related to agreeableness

H4: In misaligned divisional structures, emotional stability was positively related to individual performance (ΔR2 = .03, p < .05)– This relationship was not significant for misaligned

functional structures

32

Comparison of 2 types of structural shift– Functional Divisional– Divisional Functional

Stimulated by: Need to change; tendency to apply static findings to dynamic situations

Asymmetric Adaptability: structural changes may not be as easy to make in one direction as they are in the other– May be easier to switch from a divisional structure to a

functional structure, or vice versa

Structural Asymmetry(Moon et al., in press)

33

Structural AsymmetryTheory

Structural shifts may be more or less difficult depending on the types of norms teams develop

– Initial norms may carry over to impact future performance

In functional structures, norms are built for cooperation and communication

– These norms are not likely to hamper performance when a team switches to a divisional structure

In divisional structures, norms are built for independence– These norms will be detrimental to team performance when a team

switches to a functional structure

34

H1: Functional structures will be superior in predictable environments while divisional structures will be superior in random environments [Replication of Hollenbeck et al. (2002)]

H2: Teams switching from Div. to Fun. structures will perform worse upon switching than teams switching from Fun. to Div. structures

H3: Communication and coordination behaviors mediate the difference in performance between teams engaged in Div. to Fun. and Fun. to Div. structural adaptation

H4: The positive effects of Fun. to Div. structural adaptation will be stronger for teams that are high in general cognitive ability

Structural AsymmetryHypotheses

35

Structural AsymmetryMethods

Design: 2 (structure) x 2 (task demand) x 2 (time) Sample: 63 4-person teams Task: DDD (MSU) Measures:

– Cognitive Ability (Wonderlic)– Team Performance (DDD output)

36

Structural AsymmetryResults

H1: At time 1, functional structures were superior in predictable environments while divisional structures were superior in random environments (ΔR2 = .08, p < .05)

H2: At time 2, teams that switched from Fun. to Div. structures outperformed teams who switched from Div. to Fun. Structures (ΔR2 = .06, p < .05)

H3: Coordination behaviors mediated the relationship between structure and performance such that main effect of structural change on performance at time 2 was no longer significant when communication and coordination behaviors were controlled for

37

30000

31000

32000

33000

34000

35000

36000

37000

38000

39000

D-F structure F-D structure

Type of change

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

High G

Stage 2 ave

Low G

Structural AsymmetryResults

38

Dimensions of Structure

39

Built on notion of asymmetric adaptability by examining centralization as structure

– Vertical/role structure mode (centralization) rather than horizontal/task mode (departmentation)

Centralized: A designated leader has a degree of authority and control

– Ensure coordination– Better in task conditions that require error control

Decentralized: Team members have authority to make individual decisions

– Ease of learning/adapting – More innovative– Better in environments that demand speed or learning

Centralization Structures (Ellis et al., 2004)

40

Centralization Structures Theory

Norms developed initially may impact future performance

In centralized structures, norms are built for coordination– These should lead to higher accuracy, which may carry over

when teams switch structures In decentralized structures, norms are built for

independence and personal discretion– These should lead to higher speed, but may be harmful

when the team switches structures and they are removed

41

Centralization Structures Hypotheses

H1a: At time 1, teams with a centralized structure will be more accurate than teams with a decentralized structure

H1b: At time 1, teams with a decentralized structure will be faster than teams with a centralized structure

H2: Teams switching from Cen to Decen structures will be more successful at time 2 than teams switching from Decen to Cen structures

– i.e. retain accuracy and gain speed vs. lose speed but do not gain accuracy

42

Centralization Structures Methods

Design: 2 (structure) x 2 (time) between Sample: 93 4-person teams Task: DDD (MSU) with mixed task environment

(environment held constant) Measures:

– Performance (DDD output)» Speed» Accuracy

43

H1a: Centralized teams were more accurate than decentralized teams at time 1 (ΔR2 = . 30, p < .05)

H1b: Decentralized teams were faster than centralized teams at time 1 (ΔR2 = .11, p < .05)

H2: Teams switching from Cen to Decen gained accuracy, but did not lose speed. Teams switching from Decen to Cen did not gain accuracy, but lost speed

Centralization Structures Results

44

Redundant– Horizontal and vertical structure are parallel– Costs and benefits of both types of structures are similar

Complimentary (hybrid)– Horizontal and vertical structures compliment each other– Can reap the benefits associated with both types of

structures simultaneously

Mechanistic vs. Organic Structures(Jundt et al., 2004)

45

Mechanistic vs. Organic StructuresTheory

Fun Cen

Div Decen

Div Cen

Fun Decen

46

Teams having members with certain characteristics may be better able to make the necessary adjustments needed when changing structures. – May be especially true for the difficult O M shift

Emotional stability - Better able to deal with stress and anxiety

Extraversion – More assertive and talkative

Mechanistic vs. Organic StructuresTheory

47

H1: Teams switching from MO structures will outperform teams switching from OM structures at time 2

H2a: Hybrid teams will outperform mechanistic teams at time 1

H2b: Hybrid teams will adapt to structural change better than OM teams at time 2

H3: Teams with high mean levels of emotional stability will be able to more successfully make the organic to mechanistic (O M) structural shift

H4: Teams with high mean levels of extraversion will be able to more successfully make the (O M) structural shift

Mechanistic vs. Organic StructuresHypotheses

48

2 (Departmentation) x 2 (Centralization) between at time 1 Within team shift on both dimensions of structure at time 2

Mechanistic vs. Organic StructuresResearch Design

49

Sample: 64 4-person teams Task: MSU-DDD with mixed task environment Measures:

– Team performance (DDD output)– Emotional Stability & Extraversion: NEO-PI-R (Costa &

McCrae, 1992)

Mechanistic vs. Organic StructuresMethod

50

H1: M O teams outperformed O M teams at time 2, controlling for time 1 performance (b = 2.55, p < .01)

H2a: Hybrid teams outperformed mechanistic teams at time 1, (t [47] = 3.01, p <.01)

H2b: Controlling for time 1 performance, hybrid teams outperformed O M teams at time 2 (b = 1.93, p < .01)

Mechanistic vs. Organic StructuresResults

51

H3: teams making the difficult OM shift were more successful when team members were high on emotional stability (ΔR2 = .05, p < .05)

H4: teams making the difficult OM shift were more successful when team members were highly extroverted (ΔR2 = .07, p < .05)

Mechanistic vs. Organic StructuresResults

52

Structural contingencies on both horizontal and vertical dimensions impact team performance

Asymmetry effects found on horizontal dimension also observed on vertical dimension

Optimal team structures may involve both vertical and horizontal structural characteristics

– Hybrid structures may allow teams to perform well initially and still be able to switch structures successfully: “best of both worlds”

Individual differences impact team and individual performance as well as ease of structural adaptation

Mechanistic vs. Organic StructuresConclusions

53

Reward Structure Research

Review and discuss 4 studies focused on reward structures in team-based work environments

Study Form of Structure Publication StatusDecision Aid Study Teams may make different decisions on

altering their structure depending on the type of feedback provided to them

Data to be collected in the Fall, 2004

Cooperation, Competition, and Team Performance: Toward a Contingency Approach

Reward structures interact with performance dimension to determine team performance

Published in the Academy of Management Journal, 2003, 46, 5, 572-590

Cutthroat Cooperation: Asymmetrical Adaptation of Team Reward Structures

Reward structure changes may not be as easy to make in one direction as they are in the other

Under review at the Academy of Management Journal

Role Negotiation in Self-Managed Teams: A Conflict Trajectory Approach

The effectiveness of allowing team members to negotiate their roles depends on the team’s reward structure history

Under review at Administrative Science Quarterly

54

Decision Aid Study(Johnson et al., 2005)

Will teams alter their structure, roles, or process given feedback on their structural fit?

Does the nature of the feedback tool or the degree of centralization affect this decision?

55

Decision Aid StudyMethod

Time 1– Divisional structure– Predictable environment

Feedback provided

Decision

Time 2– Structure of their choice– Predictable environment

56

Decision Aid StudyMethod

Manipulated variables– Type of feedback

» Structural fit» Team member performance

– Centralization» Appointed leader» Self-managing

– Decision options» Structure only» Structure, process, roles

Dependent variables– Structural decision– Team performance

57

41 44 47 50 53 56 59 62 65

Decision Aid StudyStructural Fit Feedback

Optimal Fit

58

Decision Aid StudyTeam Member Performance Feedback

18.5 22 25.5 29 32.5 36 39.5 43 46.5 50 53.5 57 60.5 64 67.5 71 74.5 78 81.5

OptimalPerformance

59

Cooperative/Competitive Statics(Beersma et al., 2003)

Reward structure/performance fit– Does the team’s reward structure impact differential

components of performance?» Cooperative vs. competitive rewards

Personnel/reward structure fit– Do certain types of people operate better under certain

reward structures?» Personality» Ability

60

Cooperative/Competitive StaticsResults: External Fit

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Competition Cooperation

Reward Structure

Sta

ndard

ized P

erf

orm

ance

Speed

Accuracy

61

Cooperative/Competitive StaticsResults: External Fit

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5


Reward Structure

Sta

nd

ard

ized

Per

form

ance

Speed - Best

Accuracy - Best

Speed - Worst

Accuracy - Worst

62

Cooperative/Competitive StaticsResults: Internal Fit

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


Reward Structure

Sta

nd

ard

ized

Per

form

ance

High Extraversion

Low Extraversion

63

Cooperative/Competitive StaticsImplications

External fit– Competitive reward structures: Enhance speed,

decrease accuracy– Cooperative reward structures: Enhance accuracy,

decrease speed

Internal fit– Extroverted and agreeable people: Best suited for

cooperative reward structures– Introverted and disagreeable people: Best suited for

competitive reward structures

64

Cooperative/Competitive Dynamics(Johnson et al., 2004)

Do teams that move from cooperative to competitive reward structures perform differently than teams that move from competitive to cooperative structures?

How does communication within the team affect how well teams adapt under different reward structures?

65

Cooperative/Competitive DynamicsTheory

Two conditions caused by reward structure change– Friendly Competition: cooperative → competitive

» Establish norms of cooperation and interdependence» These norms are easily changed» Able to engage in constructive competition with each other

(Tjosvold, Johnson, & Johnson, 2003)

– Cutthroat Cooperation: competitive → cooperative» Establish norms of competition and independence» These norms are not easily changed» Not able to engage in constructive cooperation with each other

66

Cooperative/Competitive DynamicsResults

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Speed Accuracy

Sta

ndar

dize

d P

erfo

rman

ce .

Time 1 Competitive

Time 2 Competitive

Friendly Competition

67

Cooperative/Competitive DynamicsResults

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Speed Accuracy

Sta

ndar

dize

d P

erfo

rman

ce .

Time 1 Cooperative

Time 2 Cooperative

Cutthroat Cooperation

68

Cooperative/Competitive DynamicsImplications

Similar to resource allocation structures, changing reward structures appears to be a one-way street

Examples– Product development teams– Mergers and acquisitions– Department of Homeland Security

69

Cooperative/Competitive DynamicsFuture Research Directions

Overcoming Cutthroat Cooperation– Transitional reward structures– Hybrid reward structures– Separate teams (built for speed or accuracy)– Team composition

70

Supporting Cutthroat Cooperators(Beersma et al., 2004)

Does allowing team members to negotiate their roles enhance performance in cooperative reward structures?

Do people with certain personality characteristics negotiate roles more effectively?

71

Supporting Cutthroat CooperatorsTheory

Conflict trajectories– Positive and negative spirals– History effects– Team composition effects

Coordination efficiency– Information sharing– Workload sharing

72

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

No negotiation Negotiation

Acc

ura

cy o

f per

form

ance

Previous history ofcooperation

Previous history ofcompetition

Supporting Cutthroat CooperatorsResults

73

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

No negotiation Negotiation

Acc

ura

cy o

f per

form

ance

Low teamagreeableness

High teamagreeableness

Supporting Cutthroat CooperatorsResults

74

Team history– Previously competitive teams: Role negotiation de-

escalates conflict and enhances performance– Previously cooperative teams: Role negotiation

escalates conflict and hurts performance

Team composition– Agreeable teams benefited from role negotiation– Disagreeable teams were hurt by role negotiation

Supporting Cutthroat CooperatorsImplications

team research: msu team lab

Documents