Group dynamics (Literature review)

Reference: Cronin, M. A., Weingart, L. R., & Todorova, G. (2011). Dynamics in groups: Are we there yet?. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 571-612.

Abstract: We know that groups are dynamic entities, and yet we rarely study them as such. Previously hamstrung by limited theory, a decade of advances in understanding the fundamental nature of groups and change promised a revolution in group research. Our goal here is to review those theoretical developments and then examine their impact on our empirical understanding of group dynamics. Examining work done and not done, we will take stock of this work, identify the obstacles that seem to keep us focused more on group statics than dynamics, and then close by offering suggestions about not only what approaches to take when studying group dynamics, but also how the field can help develop these approaches. We hope that a review of the group dynamic literature in 2021 will celebrate our coming empirical accomplishments rather than lament a lack of them.

Notes: Always useful to see what recent literature reviews present in an area where many open questions are still present and even more are needed.

Creative Collaboration

Reference: Elsbach, K. D., & Flynn, F. J. (2013). Creative Collaboration and the Self‐Concept: A Study of Toy Designers. Journal of Management Studies, 50(4), 515-544.

Abstract: In this paper, we explored how collaborative behaviours were related to the self-concepts of creative workers. Our findings, derived from a qualitative study of corporate toy designers, showed that the personal (vs. social) identities of toy designers were most strongly related to collaborative behaviours. Further, collaborative behaviours defined as idea giving were most congruent with all toy designers' personal identities, while collaborative behaviours defined as idea taking were most incongruent with those identities. Finally, specific collaborative behaviours related to specific types of personal identities (e.g. the collaborative behaviour of ‘incorporating the ideas of others’ was especially incongruent with ‘artistic’ personal identities). Together, these results suggest that promoting collaboration among creative workers may require attention to not only idea-giving behaviours and social identities (as suggested by most extant theories), but also to idea-taking behaviours and personal identities. We discuss the implications of these findings for theories of creative collaboration and identity in organizations.

Notes: This is probably one of the best papers about creative collaboration that I've read in a while. Kimberly D. Elsbach did a very interesting and thorough job here, collecting massive amounts of data over long time periods of interviews and observations of product designers (unclear if they were a mix of industrial designers and design engineers). I think that sometimes qualitative research is considered not as rigorous as the average quantitative approach, but I'd use this as an example of what seems like a quite thorough and rigorous piece of work. The designers are then categorised as "artistic" or "problem solvers", which in principle I'd agree based on my years of experience working with designers, however the choice of words for these labels is rather unfortunate. I can also add that some designers are quite able to switch between these two archetypes depending on the situation, type of project, group or dyad dynamics, goals, etc. But overall, a very interesting contribution and I'll be citing this paper in my work. Ironically, in its first 2 years, it has only been cited 2 times. Another example of good research not being read enough.

A Framework for Cross-Disciplinary Team Learning and Performance

Title: A Framework for Cross-Disciplinary Team Learning and Performance
Authors: Schaffer, Scott P;Lei, Kimfong;Paulino, Lisette Reyes
Reference: Schaffer, Scott P;Lei, Kimfong;Paulino, Lisette Reyes (2008) A Framework for Cross-Disciplinary Team Learning and Performance, Performance Improvement Quarterly; 21, 3

Abstract: The construct of teamwork has been of considerable interest to researchers and practitioners across domains. The literature on teams includes many studies related to team composition, processes, and roles, but it pays much less attention to how teams learn and innovate. Studies examining how cross-disciplinary teams interact during projects are even less common. The study examined here was conceived to fill the need for a theoretical framework to describe how individuals from different disciplines evolve into a team that creates new forms of knowledge and innovative solutions or products. The framework, which was validated in a university service-learning program with over 25 teams, is a comprehensive theory merging two existing team models within a sociocultural system framework emphasizing the mediating aspects of the collective team and context. The theoretical foundations, the definitions, and dimensions of the framework are presented in this article.

Notes: Scanning the literature on creative teamwork, most papers seem to be about developing hypothetical models, and reinforcing some commonsensical and general ideas. The modified CDTL proposed here is interesting, well presented, yet fails to contribute anything new as the conclusions are that "cross-disciplinary team learning is more likely to be found when:

• Members shift from self-efficacy to collective efficacy
• They shift from individual process orientation to team goal orientation
• Shift from knowledge acquisition to creation
• Become aware of others' "functional discipline knowledge shifts"

Which to me seem like four different ways of saying that good teams are more likely when their members work more as a team than a collection of individuals, which is kind of circular and obvious. Will keep looking for more complete studies that lead to more detailed and reliable models.