WD5

Chapter 10, as well as your required resources, address employee attitudes and suggest that an increase in job performance is reliant on job satisfaction. The authors of our text suggest that highly satisfying jobs are more complex, requiring the worker to utilize a variety of skills and to deal with unpredictable situations (i.e. teaching, managing, engineering, etc.), unlike jobs where the work is repetitive and less thought-provoking (general laborers, factory workers, and the like). In addition, the work expectations are suggested to differ based on generations, which may likely also affect job satisfaction.

Consider the generation you fall into, based on the text:

The Traditionalists or Matures
The Baby Boomers
Generation X
Generation Y or the Millennials
Generation Z
Consider your own expectations. Do they align with what the content and outside sources suggest about the characteristics of these generational groups?
Applying this component (work expectations), consider you own goals for going back to school. Do your goals align with these expectations?
Do you think your educational/career goals align with the suggestions about job satisfaction? Do you desire to obtain a higher-level thinking career? If so, why? If not, why not?
After analyzing all of the factors, what do you think the implications might be on an organization’s productivity with the evolving employee expectations, need for work-life balance, and job satisfaction?

Do you think we will see changes in the future of how organizations achieve these goals? How?
Consider a goal you might assign to a group at your work, the organization where you volunteer, or other potential organization. (Examples: (a) to decrease the errors in timecard submissions, or (b) to successfully submit a group project to the instructor.) Applying Chapter 9, what potential strategies would be important to consider to assist a diverse multi-generational team in deciding on possible strategies and successfully meeting the goal?

Your initial post should be between 350 and 400 words.

287

10Health and Well-Being

Creatas Images/Thinkstock

Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to

• Describe the three components of employee attitudes.

• Discuss the causes and effects of employee attitudes on performance and behavior.

• Compare and contrast how workers from different generations view work.

• Explain how stress impacts employee performance.

• Discuss the factors that affect employee health, safety, violence, and stress.

• Identify emerging perspectives on organizational health and well-being.

• Describe how positivity influences worker happiness, health, and success at work.

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 287 4/20/17 5:43 PM

288

Section 10.1 The Importance of Employee Well-Being

10.1 The Importance of Employee Well-Being
Employers in the United States and worldwide are becoming increasingly aware of the impor-
tance of having healthy employees and maintaining a workplace that is conducive to employee
health and well-being. While the focus of research in this area has traditionally been on the
benefits of reducing insurance costs, this section will also cover the nonmonetary benefits to
both employees and organizations.

Reducing the Cost of Health Care Benefits
According to a study conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 2007, more than 168
million Americans received health insurance through their employers. This substantial num-
ber indicates the significant value employers place on their employees’ health, as well as
employees’ expectation that their employers will provide such benefits.

However, the costs of health care benefits have skyrocketed. For example, the 2011 annual
national survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust
showed that, on average, insurance premiums have more than doubled since the previous
decade, from $7,061 to $15,073 per employee for family coverage. Although some employ-
ers have tried to absorb as much of the added cost as possible, the substantial increases in
costs coupled with the economic recession has made cost containment challenging. This cost
increase—along with the introduction of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act, commonly known as Obamacare—resulted in a significant drop in employer-sponsored
health insurance. In 2011 many states witnessed as much as a 10% decrease in nonelderly
adult coverage; low-income persons were affected the most (Robert Wood Johnson Founda-
tion, 2013). This trend essentially shifts the decisions and costs of health care coverage to
employees, taxpayers, and society at large (Irwin, 2014).

Consequently, there has been increased emphasis on how workplaces can manage the costs
of health care. There have been two main approaches for doing so:

1. Reducing employer contributions: The Kaiser Family Foundation’s 2015 survey
shows a substantial increase in health insurance premiums of about 61% since
2005, and about 27% compared to 2010. In 2015 the average annual premium was
$6,251 for single coverage and $17,545 for family coverage. Even though employers
continue to cover the lion’s share of health insurance premiums, the relative cost to
employees is much higher. Considering that wages grew by only about 6% per year
since 1960, with record lows of about 6% decline during the peak of the 2008 eco-
nomic recession (Trading Economics, 2016), the impact on employees’ disposable
income has been substantially negative.

2. Enhancing employees’ health: In contrast to reactively managing health care costs
(by passing increases along to employees), many employers and employees are
finding it more effective to proactively promote employee health and well-being.
For example, the U.S.-based supermarket chain Safeway has kept its health care
costs steady for several years, while on average U.S. organizations have experienced
significant increases during the same time period. Safeway contained these costs by
emphasizing health, wellness, and preventive care. Four specific health conditions—
cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and obesity—account for 75% of all health
care costs. Safeway focused its energy and resources on monitoring, preventing, or

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 288 4/20/17 5:43 PM

289

Section 10.1 The Importance of Employee Well-Being

managing the causes of those four health conditions by promoting health initiatives
such as smoking cessation and weight control. As a result, it was able to significantly
reduce insurance premiums rather than reducing coverage or passing costs on to
employees (Strassel, 2009).

Increasing Employee Wellness
In addition to reducing health care costs for both employers and employees, many organi-
zations now view employee well-being as a goal in itself. Well-being is no longer limited to
physical health and safety; it also includes mental, social, psychological, and spiritual health
and well-being. For example, the U.S. Army established the Comprehensive Soldier and Fam-
ily Fitness training program in 2008 to proactively enhance health and well-being in soldiers
and their families. In this way, focusing on health and wellness is viewed as a preventive
measure and a positive alternative to the prevailing reactive treatment programs (Seligman
& Matthews, 2011). The program focuses on five dimensions of well-being: physical, emo-
tional, spiritual, social, and family (U.S. Army, 2013).

Ensuring that employees are happy, healthy, and safe speaks to the interests of a broad spec-
trum of stakeholders, including employees, customers, and society. Emphasizing employee
well-being as a valuable and worthy goal—and proactively pursuing that goal by enhancing
physical, mental, social, and psychological health and safety at work—aligns the organiza-
tion’s values, strategies, and human investments.

Find Out for Yourself: Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness
Watch the following video on the Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness training program.

Introduction to Comprehensive Soldier Fitness

Employee Wellness Programs
Growing understanding of the importance of employee health and wellness has promoted a
more integrated approach to the issue. Rather than offering distinct benefits such as health
insurance, paid time off, and employee assistance programs, employers are now adopting
more comprehensive employee wellness programs. Similar to the Comprehensive Soldier
and Family Fitness program, an employee wellness program is a systematically designed,
multicomponent program that promotes and supports employees’ physical, mental, social,
and psychological health, safety, and well-being. All of the program’s components are stra-
tegically integrated for maximum impact, and employees receive incentives for participating
in the program and achieving wellness-related goals and milestones. An employee wellness
program might include health screenings and assessments; health fairs, workshops, newslet-
ters, and other communication on wellness issues; discounted or free access to on- or off-site
healthy meal offerings, fitness facilities, smoking cessation classes, or weight loss programs;
or employee counseling. Participation incentives may include bonuses and awards, discounts
on insurance premiums, public recognition for achieving various milestones, or tokens such as
T-shirts, water bottles, pedometers, and more (California Department of Public Health, n.d.).

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 289 4/20/17 5:43 PM

290

Section 10.2 Developing Healthy Employee Attitudes

The primary distinction between these comprehensive programs and traditional health ini-
tiatives is that integrated programs emphasize a whole-person perspective and promote
wellness along a variety of dimensions. An integrated approach tends to be more effective
because it has a better chance of spreading across the organization, and this across-the-board
commitment is necessary for promoting a variety of wellness initiatives. For example, John-
son & Johnson has seen outstanding results from its employee wellness programs, including
a more than 50% reduction in high blood pressure, more than 65% smoking cessation, $250
million in health care cost savings, and 271% ROI! Other studies show reductions in absen-
teeism by as much as 80%, turnover rates cut in half, and more (Berry, Mirabito, & Baun,
2010). In sum, healthy employees tend to be happier, more productive, and less likely to leave
the organization, in addition to saving their organizations millions of dollars.

10.2 Developing Healthy Employee Attitudes
What would life be like without work? Simple, laid back, stress free—a veritable paradise of
rest and relaxation? Not necessarily. Without a job, how could people pay for food, shelter,
and clothing—the basic necessities of life? Work enables people to support themselves and
their families. Relationships with coworkers also provide social and emotional connections.
Although most of us regard work as a required chore at least some of the time, a large portion
of our overall life satisfaction stems from how satisfied we are with our jobs (Judge & Wata-
nabe, 1993; Bernardo, 2016). To this end, I/O psychologists have studied how to make work
environments more fulfilling.

Types of Employee Attitudes
Every day, people make positive or negative evaluations about specific people, places, and
situations in their lives, which they then use to guide their actions. These evaluations, called
attitudes, have cognitive, affective, and behavioral components (Eagly & Chaiken, 1999;
Schleicher, Watt, & Greguras, 2004). The cognitive component is a person’s beliefs about and
mental evaluations of something. For example, a person’s attitude toward work could include
cognitive beliefs such as “this job makes good use of my skills” or “this job doesn’t pay very
well.” Our mental evaluations have a strong impact on our beliefs, even beyond the objective
characteristics of a situation—hence the common adages “Attitude is everything” and “Per-
ception is reality.”

The affective component is a person’s feelings or emotional response to his or her cognitive
beliefs. People who believe their job effectively uses their skills may feel happy or satisfied;
people who believe their job doesn’t pay well might feel content or indifferent if they believe
the pay level is appropriate, or they may feel angry and disgruntled if they believe they
deserve more.

Finally, the behavioral component refers to people’s actions in response to their feelings and
beliefs. People who are satisfied with the good fit of their job might respond by working
harder, taking on extra tasks, supporting company policies, or speaking positively about the
company to others. On the other hand, people who are angry because they believe they are
being underpaid might react by complaining to coworkers, performing poorly, or even leaving
the company to find another job.

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 290 4/20/17 5:43 PM

291

Section 10.2 Developing Healthy Employee Attitudes

Although it may seem obvious to assume that our beliefs and feelings dictate our actions,
researchers have discovered that the link between cognitive and affective attitudes and resul-
tant behavior is only strong when the attitudes are closely related to the behaviors. For exam-
ple, beliefs and feelings about a manager may influence an employee’s actions when it comes
to volunteering to help that manager on a special project, but not when it comes to helping
coworkers on a team project. Interestingly, research shows that attitudes seem to be better
predictors of how people intend to behave than how they actually do behave (Ajzen, 1991). If
an employee is extremely satisfied with a job, he or she may have every intention of staying
with that organization for a long time—but whether that actually happens is another story.
Employee actions are informed not only by personal attitudes but by external factors: The
organization may go bankrupt, forcing a change in position, or a spouse could lose his or
her job, making it necessary to seek a higher paying job elsewhere. Therefore, even though
attitudes provide a good indication of probable actions, they cannot perfectly predict actual
behaviors, which can be influenced by situational constraints. Organizations, then, must focus
on attitudes that are strongly related to desired work behaviors.

Consider This: Your Attitudes Toward
Your Supervisor and Coworkers

1. Think about the best and the worst boss you have ever worked for. How did your
opinions of those individuals affect your actions toward them? Did you treat each other
similarly or differently? Why?

2. Now think about the best and the worst coworker you have ever had. Again, how did
your opinions of those individuals affect your actions toward them? Did you treat each
other similarly or differently? Why?

3. Can you think of other situations when your attitudes have influenced your behaviors?

Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment is a worker’s level of psychological attachment to the organiza-
tion. Meyer and Allen (1991) proposed that this attitude has three dimensions: affective, con-
tinuance, and normative. Affective commitment refers to employees’ emotional attachment
to their organization. Innovative, dynamic companies or those that have overcome obstacles
may engender their workers to have positive emotional attachments to them. Those who work
for Apple, for example, may be emotionally connected to the company because they are proud
if its vision, its world-changing products, or the legacy of its innovative founder, Steve Jobs.
Of the three components, affective commitment appears to be the most positively related to
organizational outcomes. Continuance commitment refers to how employees perceive the
economic value of staying with an organization. Employees may be significantly committed
to their job simply because they would experience economic hardship without it. Finally, nor-
mative commitment refers to the degree to which employees remain with an organization
because they feel a moral obligation to do so. For example, a physician might forgo the higher
pay and greater prestige that comes with working for a large university hospital in order to
work for a small rural clinic if he or she felt morally obligated to provide care for people who
live in an underserved community. Or someone may choose to work for the family business
out of a sense of obligation to his or her family. In other words, those who experience affective

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 291 4/20/17 5:43 PM

292

Section 10.2 Developing Healthy Employee Attitudes

commitment stay with an organization because they want to; those with continuance com-
mitment stay because they have to; and those with normative commitment stay because they
feel they ought to (Dunham, Grube, & Castaneda, 1994).

Decades of research support this three-factor
model of organizational commitment, although
the relative weights of the factors vary across
national cultures (Meyer et al., 2012). Further-
more, studies show that affective commitment is
much more important and effective in retaining
employees than continuance or normative com-
mitment (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topol-
nytsky, 2002). In other words, it is much more
important to give employees a place they love
to work than to merely entice them with lucra-
tive salaries, benefits, and future career pros-
pects. These types of incentives are often dubbed
“golden handcuffs” due to their focus on continu-
ance or normative commitment.

Organizational commitment is also related to
job performance and numerous other desirable

work outcomes such as job satisfaction, regular attendance, organizational citizenship behav-
iors (e.g., going above and beyond job requirements), and lower stress, burnout, and turnover
(Cohen, 1993; Meyer et al., 2002; Rikketa, 2002). However, the relationship between commit-
ment and performance becomes stronger the longer the individual has worked for the orga-
nization, which suggests that organizations can improve job performance in the long run by
taking steps to increase their employees’ commitment early in their careers (Wright & Bonett,
2002). In other words, by creating an environment in which employees want to work, orga-
nizations promote affective commitment and tend to see improved rates of both retention
and positive outcomes. Factors that can enhance organizational commitment include treating
employees equitably (Quirin, Donnelly, & O’Bryan, 2001) and providing a favorable work unit
culture (Lok & Crawford, 2001).

Employee Engagement
Employee engagement is the level of enthusiasm a person feels for his or her job. Employee
engagement has become popular among both I/O psychologists and HR managers because it
seems useful for predicting organizational outcomes. Highly engaged employees are emotion-
ally invested in their jobs to a degree that goes beyond either job satisfaction or organizational
commitment (Kahn, 1990); they perform their jobs with vigor, dedication, and absorption.
Vigor refers to high levels of energy and effort investment, as well as resilience and persis-
tence when faced with challenges. Dedication refers to a sense of pride and personal identifi-
cation with one’s work. And absorption is a pleasant sense of being completely immersed in
one’s work; one tends to lose track of time and naturally enjoys staying on task, as if the work
was a favorite hobby or exciting personal activity (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006). Thus,
highly engaged employees are willing to put all their energy and resources into their work to
ensure the organization’s success (Thomas, 2009).

Wesley Bocxe/Getty Images

Normative commitment might cause
a doctor to forgo a higher salary and
the prestige associated with working
for a large hospital in favor of working
for a small clinic or humanitarian
organization.

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 292 4/20/17 5:43 PM

293

Section 10.2 Developing Healthy Employee Attitudes

A Gallup Organization study of more than 1.4 million employees in nearly 50,000 business
units across 192 organizations, 49 industries, and 34 countries showed that unit-level engage-
ment is positively related to productivity, profit, customer satisfaction, safety, and quality and
negatively related to absenteeism, turnover, and employee theft (Sorensen, 2013). However,
some researchers theorize that employee engagement is not just a single attitude but an amal-
gamation of several, including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job involvement,
and even intrinsic motivation. Although the findings thus far are compelling, more research is
needed to better understand if and how employee engagement adds to our understanding of
worker well-being and performance.

Job Satisfaction
The most frequently studied work attitude is job satisfaction, which is how people feel about
their job based on its characteristics (Spector, 1997). People with high job satisfaction have
more positive feelings about their job, whereas dissatisfied people have negative feelings. A
survey of working adults by the Gallup Organization found 90% of respondents to be “at least
somewhat satisfied” with their jobs and 48% to be “very satisfied,” whereas only 2% were
“completely dissatisfied” (Saad, 2008). Because job satisfaction is associated with important
employee outcomes, most companies believe this attitude is especially important to measure
and influence.

One of the most important outcomes of job satisfaction is that it is associated with an increase
in job performance (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001). This relationship applies not
only to individual employees but to entire work units as well (Harter et al., 2002). Further-
more, when satisfaction and performance data are gathered for the entire organization, orga-
nizations that have a high number of satisfied employees tend to be more effective overall
than those that have a large percentage of dissatisfied employees.

Although the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance is significant, keep in
mind that it is not necessarily consistent. Sometimes, even highly satisfied employees cannot
perform well due to circumstances beyond their control. A malfunctioning computer, safety
concerns, or illness can interfere with even the best employee’s performance. Similarly, not
all dissatisfied workers will intentionally perform poorly. Personal and environmental factors
such as a desire to be promoted, ethical standards, cultural expectations, and economics can
inspire even the most disgruntled worker to perform to the best of his or her ability.

Research has also found that in addition to being more likely to perform well at their jobs,
highly satisfied workers are more willing to go beyond formal job expectations, talk posi-
tively about the organization, and proactively help other team members (Organ, Podsakoff,
& MacKenzie, 2006). These pro-organizational behaviors are referred to as organizational
citizenship behaviors (OCBs). Additional research suggests that the relationship between
job satisfaction and OCBs is influenced, in part, by workers’ perceptions of fairness (Konovsky
& Organ, 1996). Each time a worker experiences a fair outcome, process, or treatment, his or
her level of satisfaction grows, which results in increasingly greater trust in the organization.
Eventually, the worker begins to reciprocate these positive experiences by voluntarily putting
in extra effort and routinely going beyond the call of duty.

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 293 4/20/17 5:43 PM

294

Section 10.2 Developing Healthy Employee Attitudes

Find Out for Yourself: How Engaged Are You?
In a cross-national study, researchers Schaufeli, Bakker, and Salanova (2006) examined a sur-
vey measure that can be administered to employees in order to assess their level of engage-
ment. Complete the following survey based on this research, keeping in mind your current
workplace or a place where you have worked in the past.

Appendix Work and Well-Being Survey (UWES)

The following 17 statements are about how you feel at work. Please read each statement
carefully and decide if you ever feel this way about your job. If you have never had this feeling,
give that statement a score of “0” (zero). If you have had this feeling, indicate how often you
felt it by choosing the number (from 1 to 6; see Table 10.1) that best describes how frequently
you feel that way.

What Did You Learn?

1. Based on your responses, to what extent do you experience vigor, dedication, and
absorption in this job?

2. Why do you think that’s the case?
3. What should the organization do in order to maintain high engagement levels among its

employees? What changes do you recommend?

Table 10.1: Rating scale

Never
0

Never

Almost
never

1
A few

times a
year or

less

Rarely
2

Once a
month or

less

Some-
times

3
A few

times a
month

Often
4

Once a
week

Very
often

5
A few

times a
week

Always
6

Every day

1. At my work, I feel bursting with energy.a (VI1)
2. I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose. (DE1)
3. Time flies when I am working. (AB1)
4. At my job, I feel strong and vigorous.a (VI2)
5. I am enthusiastic about my job.a (DE2)
6. When I am working, I forget everything else around me. (AB2)
7. My job inspires me.a (DE3)
8. When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.a (VI3)
9. I feel happy when I am working intensely.a (AB3)

10. I am proud of the work that I do.a (DE4)
11. I am immersed in my work.a (AB4)
12. I can continue working for very long periods at a time. (VI4)
13. To me, my job is challenging. (DE5)
14. I get carried away when I am working.a (AB5)
15. At my job, I am very resilient, mentally. (VI5)
16. It is difficult to detach myself from my job. (AB6)
17. At my work, I always persevere, even when things do not go well. (VI6)

Source: Schaufeli and Bakker (2003).
Note: VI = Vigor scale; DE = Dedication scale; AB = Absorption scale.
aShortened version (Utrecht Work Engagement Scale–9 [UWES-9]).

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., and Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire:
A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub
.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0013164405282471. Reprinted by Permission of SAGE Publications, Inc.

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 294 4/20/17 5:43 PM

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0013164405282471

295

Section 10.2 Developing Healthy Employee Attitudes

Counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) are the opposite of OCBs; they include nega-
tive outcomes such as employee theft, absenteeism, and sabotage. As you might expect, one
of the causes of CWBs is job dissatisfaction. Employees who do not like their work environ-
ment tend to respond negatively. Although it is impossible to predict exactly how a dissatis-
fied worker will act, evidence suggests that these workers will find some way to get even.
Whether they steal, work slowly, or intentionally make mistakes, counterproductive employ-
ees cost organizations billions of dollars each year, accounting for even more loss than retail
shoplifters (Hollinger, 2009). To address CWBs, organizations should focus on fixing the real
problem—job dissatisfaction—instead of implementing costly control systems, which have
the potential to make the work environment even more negative and less trusting.

Job dissatisfaction is also one of the most common reasons why workers voluntarily quit (Grif-
feth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000). Turnover costs organizations dearly. Every time an employee
quits, the organization incurs substantial costs not only in the form of recruitment, selection,
and training, but in lost productivity as well. Turnover is most strongly related to job dissat-
isfaction when workers have other employment opportunities (Trevor, 2001). Dissatisfied
employees are thus more likely to act on their intentions to quit once alternative employ-
ment becomes available. Employees who do not or cannot quit may become less motivated
to report to work and may miss work more often than usual. Unlike turnover, however, the
relationship between absenteeism and job satisfaction is surprisingly weak (Scott & Taylor,
1985). Instead, it appears that other situational factors, such as personal or family illness,
work–family conflicts, or company sick-leave policies play a stronger role in employees’ deci-
sions to miss work.

Finally, job satisfaction has a strong relationship to life satisfaction (Judge & Watanabe, 1993).
According to Gallup polls, one of the most important needs of people around the world is a
“good job.” A good job is defined as constituting 30+ hours per week and offering a stable pay-
check. Having a good job is directly related to life satisfaction and general well-being. Unfor-
tunately, only about 45% of Americans currently have what would be considered a good job
by these standards (Gallup, 2016).

Consider This: Job Satisfaction
1. Think about the most satisfying job you’ve ever had. What made it so great? Your

coworkers? Your boss? Your salary? The work you performed? The location?
2. Think about the most dissatisfying job you’ve ever had. What made it so dissatisfying?
3. From your experience, are job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction driven by the same or

different factors?
4. Review Herzberg’s two-factor theory of motivation in Chapter 6. To what extent are

your experiences consistent with or different from the tenets of this theory?

Drivers of Employee Attitudes
Perceptions and evaluations of a job or its various facets can vary greatly from one person to
the next, even when the work is the same. What one person loves about a job, another per-
son may hate. I/O psychologists have studied many personal and environmental factors that
influence workers’ attitudes about their jobs, especially their job satisfaction.

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 295 4/20/17 5:43 PM

296

Section 10.2 Developing Healthy Employee Attitudes

Personality
As discussed in Chapter 3, personality is a strong predictor of job performance. It also shapes
employee attitudes and behaviors. Some employees never seem to be satisfied no matter how
good their work environment is; however, others seem to be happy even when working con-
ditions are difficult.

Interestingly, research suggests there could be a genetic component to attitudes. I/O psychol-
ogists have explored the role of genetics in job satisfaction by performing twin studies, which
look at similarities and differences between identical twins who have been raised in differ-
ent environments. The twin studies show a strong positive correlation between the subjects’
levels of job satisfaction: If one twin was satisfied, the other twin tended to be satisfied, too
(Arvey, Bouchard, Segal, & Abraham, 1989). This research suggests that genetic factors are at
least partly responsible for determining workers’ overall levels of job satisfaction. Regardless
of the work environment, then, people who have a more positive affective disposition will be
more likely to be satisfied with their job and committed to their company than people who
have a more negative affective disposition (Brief, Butcher, & Roberson, 1995).

In addition to dispositional affective tendencies, a person’s emotional stability affects job sat-
isfaction. Emotional contentment leads to greater worker happiness, which in turn results
in greater employee job satisfaction (Boehm & Lyubomirsky, 2008). Research has also docu-
mented positive relationships between job satisfaction and personality traits such as consci-
entiousness, extraversion, self-esteem, efficacy, and internal locus of control (Bowling, 2007;
Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002). Similar results have also been
reported on the linkages between the Big Five personality traits (see Chapter 3) and organi-
zational commitment (Erdheim, Wang, & Zickar, 2006).

Job Characteristics
A survey of 27,000 U.S. workers found that some jobs, such as firefighter, teacher, and power
plant engineer, are inherently more satisfying than others, such as laborer, assembly-line
worker, and cashier (Bryner, 2007). In general, highly satisfying jobs are more complex and
require workers to utilize a variety of skills and deal with unpredictable situations. Less sat-
isfying jobs, on the other hand, involve repeating the same relatively simple tasks throughout
the workday. As mentioned in Chapter 6’s discussion on motivation, jobs with greater com-
plexity tend to be more interesting, more challenging, and more likely to require responsibil-
ity (Maynard, Joseph, & Maynard, 2006). Workers will therefore experience high job satisfac-
tion when their jobs possess these intrinsically motivating characteristics—so long as they
enjoy intellectually stimulating work.

Another recent study explores the effects of overemployment and underemployment on
employee well-being. This study found that both overemployment (e.g., working very long
hours) and underemployment (e.g., working insufficient hours or being in a job that does
not sufficiently utilize one’s KSAs) can negatively affect well-being. However, these negative
effects tend to be short lived and dissipate over time. On the other hand, being consistently
overemployed for over 2 years can leave long-lasting negative effects on well-being (Angrave
& Charlwood, 2016).

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 296 4/20/17 5:43 PM

297

Section 10.2 Developing Healthy Employee Attitudes

Salary
Many people feel they are underpaid; but do these feelings actually impact workers’ job sat-
isfaction or general well-being? The answer is yes, but the relationship is not as straightfor-
ward as one might think. For workers who are poor, pay has a significant influence on job sat-
isfaction and happiness in general. However, as pay increases to a level that allows workers to
live comfortably, the relationship diminishes to nearly zero. Recall from Chapter 6 that Daniel
Kahneman and Angus Deaton’s study found that happiness is related to money only up to an
annual income of about $75,000 (in 2008/2009 dollars). So, while lack of money can make
you unhappy, more money does not make you happier (Kahneman & Deaton, 2010). Another
study found that workers in handsomely paid positions, such as executives, have approxi-
mately the same levels of job satisfaction as workers in much-lower-paying positions (Judge,
Piccolo, Podsakoff, Shaw, & Rich, 2010). Therefore, higher salaries alone do not lead to higher
levels of job satisfaction. A good salary may not compensate for a job’s unsatisfactory aspects
(such as poor working conditions or an overbearing boss). On the other hand, consistent with
Herzberg’s two-factor theory, positive aspects of the job itself (such as interesting work) can
compensate for a lower salary. Furthermore, some studies suggest that pay affects only con-
tinuance commitment but not affective or normative commitment.

Person–Organization Fit
Person–organization fit is the extent to which employees and their company share values;
people will be happiest and most successful working for organizations where there is a good
fit (Chatman, 1989). In fact, a meta-analysis of 172 studies found that a strong fit between
workers and their place of employment results in a very high level of worker job satisfac-
tion (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). Person–organization fit is also related to
organizational commitment (Valentine, Godkin, & Lucero, 2002). The relationship between
person–organization fit and job satisfaction and organizational commitment has also been
supported across cultures (Silverthorne, 2004). Organizations often use preemployment
personality inventories (see Chapter 3) to help determine whether prospective employees’
values will be a good fit with the company’s mission and the requirements of the specific posi-
tion for which they are applying. Matching persons to an organization can positively affect
employees and encourage them to achieve positive outcomes for the organization.

Organizational Justice
How our employers treat us strongly influences our job attitudes. People who believe they
are treated unfairly are likely to have more negative job attitudes, especially in areas of job
satisfaction and organizational commitment; they are also more likely to exhibit poorer job
performance (Cropanzano, Bowen, & Gilliland, 2007). To improve employees’ sense of organi-
zational justice, employers should treat them with dignity and respect, allow them to partici-
pate in decision-making processes, and provide them with information about why decisions
were made (review Chapter 6 for information on organizational justice).

Relationship With the Manager
One of the strongest predictors of work engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational com-
mitment is the manager–employee relationship. Indeed, it has been said that workers do not
leave companies; they leave managers (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999). Research shows that

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 297 4/20/17 5:43 PM

298

Section 10.2 Developing Healthy Employee Attitudes

when managers listen to employees, care about their opin-
ions, and value their performances, employees tend to feel
happy at work. Building trust-based relationships is also
critically important to long-term job satisfaction and orga-
nizational commitment (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Therefore,
organizations should take care to hire managers who have
positive people skills and train them to engage in activities
that build employee–manager trust, such as giving feed-
back, coaching, mentoring, and communicating respectfully.

Work–Life Balance
Changing workplace demographics are placing new
demands on both employers and employees. For example,
single-parent families and dual-income households have
become common in the industrialized world, as have the
attendant difficulties and conflicts that arise as people try
to achieve balance between their work and family lives.

The work–family balance has been found to be especially challenging for women because
they devote an average of 7 more hours per week to their families than do men (Rothbard &
Edwards, 2003), although fathers are taking on more responsibilities at home and increasingly
experiencing higher degrees of work–family conflict. In fact, in a recent study, 70% of men
reported that they would take a pay cut to spend more time with family, and 50% reported
that they would turn down a promotion if it would take away from family time (Brady, 2004).
Unfortunately, higher levels of work–family conflict, often caused by high job demands and
job insecurity, are strongly and consistently associated with lower job satisfaction (Ford,
Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007). Overall, it appears that when work life interferes with family
life, employees are more stressed and unhappy with their jobs. In contrast, social support at
work and the ability to influence what happens in the work environment can promote work–
life balance, satisfaction, and well-being (Behan, & Drobnic, 2010). Similar results were found
for schedule flexibility, particularly for women (Carlson, Grzywacz, & Kacmar, 2010).

Many organizations have taken steps to help working couples and single parents balance
their work and family obligations. For example, some companies provide on-site day care
facilities, which can help alleviate logistical concerns for workers who have small children.
Providing part-time and flexible work scheduling options are other ways organizations can
meet working parents’ needs. Each of these programs has been associated with higher levels
of employee job satisfaction and lower levels of absenteeism among employees with children
(Scandura & Lankau, 1997). Furthermore, a survey of 231 Fortune 500 companies found that
those that offered programs to promote work–family balance actually had higher stock values
than those that did not offer such benefits (Arthur, 2003).

However, employees with families are not the only ones who experience conflict between
their personal and professional lives. That is why opportunities for work–life balance have
now been expanded beyond the work–family front to enhance the satisfaction and commit-
ment of employees who have diverse needs. For example, younger and older workers view
flexible work arrangements and the opportunity to give back to the community as even more
important than pay, compared to the middle age group (Hewlett, Sherbin, & Sumberg, 2009).

Stockbyte/Thinkstock

A good employee–boss
relationship leads to
increased work engagement,
job satisfaction, and
organizational commitment.

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 298 4/20/17 5:43 PM

299

Section 10.2 Developing Healthy Employee Attitudes

Furthermore, research has moved beyond work–family conflict, and even work–life balance,
to what is referred to as work–family enrichment or work–life enrichment. The theory behind
work–family or work–life enrichment is that one life domain can actually have positive and
enriching, rather than negative or neutral, effects on another. Research shows that such
enrichment cannot simply happen by providing formal family-friendly benefits or policies.
Work–family enrichment requires supportive supervisors and effective job design (Baral &
Bhargava, 2010).

Find Out for Yourself: Your Work Attitudes—Part 1
Take a few minutes to consider which of the factors from the discussion above have the most
impact on your own job attitudes. In the spaces below, rate each factor from 1 to 5 (1 = not
important; 5 = extremely important):

___ Challenging work ___ Salary ___ Organizational fit

___ Organizational justice ___ Manager relationship ___ Work–life balance

If you are currently employed, rate your agreement with each of the following statements
based on your current job (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly disagree):

• I will stay at my employer because I want to.
• I will stay at my employer because I have to (I can’t afford to leave).
• I will stay at my employer because I ought to (it is the right thing to do).

What Did You Learn?

1. Which factors are most important to your organizational commitment? Work engage-
ment? Job satisfaction? Why?

2. For each factor, does your current job meet your needs? If so, how? If not, what could
your organization do to address your needs?

Find Out for Yourself: Your Work Attitudes—Part 2
Fortune magazine publishes an annual list of the top 100 companies to work for. Visit the
magazine’s website and review the policies and programs available to employees of some of
these companies.

Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For

What Did You Learn?

1. Which of these policies or programs would increase your job satisfaction? Organiza-
tional commitment? Work engagement?

2. Based on your review of these top companies, would you consider your current organi-
zation a “best place to work”? Why or why not?

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 299 4/20/17 5:43 PM

http://fortune.com/best-companies

300

Section 10.2 Developing Healthy Employee Attitudes

Generational Differences in Work Expectations
Particularly relevant to employee attitudes is
the fact that five generations of workers are cur-
rently participating in the workforce, and each has
its own set of expectations (Meister & Willyerd,
2010). Table 10.2 summarizes these generations.

Traditionalists were the first generation to be
grouped by age. Young adults in this generation
and generations prior were expected to work or
start a family even before finishing a secondary
education, which many never completed. Financial
resources and public assistance programs were
limited, particularly in the 1930s due to the Great
Depression. As a result, this generation considers
work to be a privilege. Members of this generation
believe in hard work and dedication; they work
long hours and expect others to do the same.

Baby boomers are the most educated generation
and continue to be driven by both personal and
professional development. They are characterized by their long hours of hard work, extrinsic
motivation, and loyalty and commitment to their employers at the expense of work–life bal-
ance (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008). They value job security and a stable working environment
(Wong, Gardiner, Lang, & Coulon, 2008).

On the other hand, Generation Xers have grown up around change and diversity and rarely
stay long at any one organization. According to a recent LinkedIn study (see Figure 10.1),
on average, members of Generation X changed jobs twice in their first 10 years out of col-
lege (Berger, 2016). They seek better opportunities, whether these include a higher salary,
improved benefits, or better working conditions (Collins, Hair, & Rocco, 2009; Twenge, Camp-
bell, Hoffman, & Lance, 2010; Wong et al., 2008). They value individualism, skepticism, and
the desire to enjoy life. This joy for life is centered on a desire for work–life balance that stems
from having watched their parents work many long hours (Dries, Pepermans, & De Kerpel,
2008; Collins et al., 2009).

Table 10.2: The five generations currently participating in the workplace

Generation Birth date Top values

Traditionalists or matures Before 1946 Family, hard work, loyalty, scarce
resources

Baby boomers Between 1946 and 1964 Job security, stable working environment

Generation X Between 1965 and 1976 Individualism, skepticism, work–life
balance

Generation Y or millennials Between 1977 and 1997 New opportunities, self-development,
transparency, social responsibility

Generation Z After 1997 Technology, independence

Lewis Smith/CartoonStock

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 300 4/20/17 5:44 PM

301

2006−2010 Grad

2001−2005 Grad

1996−2000 Grad

1991−1995 Grad

1986–1990 Grad

First 5 years post graduation Next 5 years

1 2 3 4

Section 10.2 Developing Healthy Employee Attitudes

Members of Generation Y, also known as millennials, are very comfortable with technology
and change and worry less about job security and job commitment (Twenge et al., 2010). They
like to be challenged by new opportunities and self-development. Members of this generation
have seen the devastation that unethical companies such as Enron, Tyco, and Arthur Ander-
sen have caused to families and careers, so they seem more concerned with an organization’s
values than any other factor. They are civic minded and instill a sense of moralism into all
aspects of their lives (Dries et al., 2008). They demand transparency and social responsibil-
ity from their employers. For example, a PricewaterhouseCoopers (2008) study showed that
86% of millennials would consider leaving an employer whose behavior no longer met their
corporate responsibility expectations.

Generation Z is the youngest generation. This generation has never lived without ready access
to personal computers and the Internet. Members learn to rely on technology at a very young
age. Having lived through the Great Recession of 2008 may have instilled in this generation a
sense of insecurity and independence.

Employers are finding it necessary to shun traditional climb-the-ladder career opportunities
and carrot-and-stick approaches in favor of allowing employees to rely on intrinsic motiva-
tors that encourage them to pursue the career paths of their choice. Younger generations
do not want a slow trip up the corporate ladder that includes a midyear evaluation, a yearly
evaluation, and other traditional measures. They are looking for nonmonetary rewards such
as increased flexibility, work-at-home options, control over their schedules, and additional
opportunities to develop their knowledge and skills during work hours or through employer-
financed educational or learning opportunities (D’Amato & Herzfeldt, 2008). They are seek-
ing a nonlinear career that will evolve and change; it should ideally include stops at several
companies over a period of years and feature multiple career paths that meaningfully take
advantage of their talents and realize their passions and full potential. The 2008 recession
added to this challenge. The constant fear of downsizing, pay cuts, and relocations made

Figure 10.1: Average number of companies each generation works for

“Will This Year’s College Grad’s Job-Hop More Than Previous Grads?” by G. Berger, 2016 (https://blog.linkedin.
com/2016/04/12/will-this-year_s-college-grads-job-hop-more-than-previous-grads).

2006−2010 Grad
2001−2005 Grad
1996−2000 Grad
1991−1995 Grad
1986–1990 Grad
First 5 years post graduation Next 5 years
1 2 3 4

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 301 4/20/17 5:44 PM

302

Section 10.3 Employee Health

employees uneasy as they scoured the landscape for more secure opportunities, which weak-
ened employee commitment and motivation.

Large-scale changes in the U.S. population’s demographic makeup have created the most
diverse incoming American labor force in history. However, these changes have also resulted
in challenges to the nation’s global competitiveness (Collins et al., 2009; Meister & Willyerd,
2010). Based on the most current census data available, the U.S. workforce is in the middle of
an extensive demographic revolution (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Between 2010 and 2050,
the United States is projected to experience substantial growth in its older population. The
U.S. Census Bureau projects that in 2050, the number of Americans aged 65 or older will reach
over 88 million, which is double the number of seniors there were in 2011. Concurrently,
between 2010 and 2050, the U.S. population is projected to grow from 310 million to 439
million, an increase of 42%. The nation will also become more racially and ethnically diverse.
By 2042 the U.S. population will be more non-White than White (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010),
resulting in a minority population and an increase in diversity that will yield yet another gen-
eration with its own unique set of worker expectations.

Consider This: Generational Differences in Work Expectations
1. To which generational group do you belong?
2. To what extent do the chapter’s research findings regarding your generation’s work

expectations resonate with you?

Find Out for Yourself: Generational Differences
in Work Expectations

Find at least one member from each of the five generations who you personally know and who
is currently employed. They can be family members, friends, coworkers, or acquaintances.
Have a brief conversation with these individuals about their work expectations.

What Did You Learn?

1. To what extent are their responses consistent with the research findings previously dis-
cussed regarding their respective generations’ work expectations?

2. To what extent do your respondents agree with the descriptions of the work expecta-
tions of other generations?

10.3 Employee Health
Thus far, we have discussed factors that are associated with and help lead to workers’ psycho-
logical well-being. However, even the most psychologically fulfilling job can be harmful to a
worker’s health. Some jobs are just plain dangerous. Each year, millions of workers are hurt,
sickened, or even killed while doing their job. When examining the overall health of an organi-
zation, it is important to understand how job safety, workplace violence, and workplace stress
affect workers’ physical health.

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 302 4/20/17 5:44 PM

303

Section 10.3 Employee Health

Job Safety
In 2015, 4,836 people died from injuries suffered in American workplaces, which amounts to
approximately 13 people dying each day while on the job (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016c).
Even more shocking is the fact that, during the same year, almost 3 million U.S. workers suf-

fered nonfatal work injuries. Although these
numbers are down by almost 25% compared to
a decade ago, the cost of on-the-job accidents is
still enormous. In addition to these indirect costs,
direct costs from worker’s compensation claims
can be staggering. In 2008 claims for the 10 most
debilitating types of workplace injuries and ill-
nesses cost organizations $53.4 billion (Liberty
Mutual Research Institute for Safety, 2010).

I/O psychologists have long tried to identify ways
to reduce accidents and improve workplace safety.
Over time, they have been able to identify a num-
ber of key safety considerations. Hazards, or situ-
ations that could potentially threaten a person’s

health or life, can be very predictive of workplace accidents. Poor equipment design and a lack
of safety devices on machinery are especially dangerous. However, lighting, temperature, and
vibration hazards pose less serious risks (Melamed, Luz, Najenson, Jucha, & Green, 1989).

In addition to hazard prevention, making sure workers have reasonable workloads plays
an important role in keeping them safe. A workload is the amount of work an employee is
assigned or expected to perform in a given amount of time. When an employee’s workload is
too high, he or she will often compensate by taking shortcuts, such as using incorrect tools,
removing safety devices, ignoring safety protocols, or looking the other way when others vio-
late safety protocols. Accidents often happen when workers try to meet the demands of their
workload at the expense of safety (Hofmann & Tetrick, 2003).

Shift work, or work that does not follow a traditional 9-to-5 schedule, can also decrease
employee safety. Round-the-clock scheduling is especially common in industries such as man-
ufacturing, public safety (i.e., police and firefighters), and public service (i.e., health care and
call centers). Workers are more likely to be injured while working nighttime shifts (Smith,
Folkard, & Poole, 1994); the proportion of nighttime fatal injuries is almost double that of
daytime fatal injuries (Williamson & Feyer, 1995). People are more susceptible to nighttime
injuries for obvious reasons: Working at night is inconsistent with the typical wake–sleep
cycle and can lead to fatigue, irritability, and reduced alertness and vigilance—outcomes that
in turn lead to errors and injuries (Dinges, 1995).

Finally, accidents are more likely to occur when a workplace’s climate of safety is poor. This
environmental factor refers to the relative importance (or unimportance) an organiza-
tion places on safety as evidenced by its policies, procedures, and practices. To ensure that
employees follow official policies and procedures, companies should implement practices,
such as adequate safety training for employees and thorough and frequent safety inspections,
and mandate that supervisors communicate with employees about the importance of safety.
Each of these practices has been shown to improve an organization’s climate of safety and
decrease accidents (Hansez & Chmeil, 2010; Neal & Griffin, 2004).

Thinkstock Images/Stockbyte/Thinkstock

Millions of U.S. workers suffer work-
related injuries every year.

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 303 4/20/17 5:44 PM

304

Section 10.3 Employee Health

Workplace Violence
Clark French remembers coworkers scattering like deer from a “popping”
noise inside the Royal Oak Post Office 20 years ago today. The morning of
November 14, 1991, something French and other postal employees had
feared for weeks occurred: Thomas Paul McIlvane, a disgruntled, recently
fired coworker, showed up at the post office armed with a sawed-off .22-cali-
ber rifle. “Someone started running and then all of us—like deer—ran to get
out,” said French, now 57. “Then I was shot. And I knew I had to keep running
because he must be right behind me, and I didn’t want to be an easy target.”
Within minutes, McIlvane had killed four of French’s coworkers and shot him-
self to death. (Adapted from Martindale, 2011)

When violent incidents like this occur in the workplace, the media erupts. Television, print
media, radio, and now the Internet report these events loudly and often. Because of the
heightened attention it receives, workplace violence often seems more common than it actu-
ally is. In reality, acts of workplace violence are rare; approximately just 6% of Americans
have experienced physical violence at work (Schat, Frone, & Kelloway, 2006). Employees who
deal directly with the public, handle money, and work alone at night—such as convenience
store clerks, taxi drivers, and pizza delivery drivers—are particularly susceptible to violent
acts perpetrated by strangers. Indeed, most workplace fatalities come at the hands of strang-
ers, not disgruntled employees.

Bullying and psychological abuse are less publicized but more common forms of workplace
aggression. In one study 41% of employees reported having experienced an act of psychologi-
cal aggression (Schat et al., 2006). Another study involving 2,000 public sector workers found
that 71% experienced at least one act of incivility sometime over the course of the previ-
ous 5 years. This study also showed that employees who are subjected to aggressive actions
report lower job satisfaction, greater psychological stress, and increased turnover (Cortina,
Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Lim, Cortina, & Magley, 2008). Abusive supervision is
particularly detrimental to employees’ performance, attitudes, and well-being (Mackey, Frie-
der, Brees, & Martinko, 2015).

Find Out for Yourself: Safety Regulations
Visit the OSHA website and review the “Regulations” tab.

OSHA Laws & Regulations

What Did You Learn?

1. What hazards does the federal government regulate? Why are these regulations impor-
tant for preventing workplace accidents, illness, and death?

2. Without OSHA, how might today’s work environment be different?

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 304 4/20/17 5:44 PM

https://www.osha.gov/law-regs.html

305

Section 10.3 Employee Health

Most of the research on workplace violence has attempted to identify characteristics that
indicate which people are more likely to act aggressively. Contrary to common belief, research
does not support the notion that violent workers are likely to be mentally ill (Barling, Dupré, &
Kelloway, 2009). However, even though no one personality trait can perfectly predict who will
be aggressive, some traits have been found to play a role in a person’s likelihood of engaging
in violent or aggressive acts, including dispositional anger, negative affectivity (pessimism),
narcissism, and type A personality. Dispositional anger, which is a person’s tendency to
experience anger in almost any situation, shows a direct link with workplace aggression. In a
study of 115 workers in two companies, employees with a higher level of dispositional anger
exhibited a greater preponderance of aggressive behaviors (Douglas & Martinko, 2001).

Workplace Stress
Most people are familiar with stress and its ability to impair physical wellness. Workplace
stress is made up of the harmful physical and emotional responses caused by a poor match
between a job’s demands and an individual’s capabilities, resources, or needs (National Insti-
tute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1999). Unfortunately, workplace stress abounds in
the organizational environment. One in six workers in the United Kingdom reported being
extremely stressed at work (Health and Safety Executive, 2008), and an online survey by the
American Psychological Association found that 74% of respondents cited work as the pri-
mary cause of their stress (Anderson, 2008). In the same survey, more than half of all respon-
dents reported that stress was not only harming their job performance but also that they had
considered leaving their organization because of it.

The cost of this common problem should not be underestimated. Stress results in lower
worker productivity and motivation, as well as increased errors, accidents, turnover, and
counterproductive behaviors. People who report high work stress miss more days of work
than those who are less stressed (Holland, 2008). Most importantly, stress makes people sick,
resulting in high health care costs for companies and much misery for workers. A study of
more than 10,000 British government workers found that the risk of heart disease was 68%
greater for workers who reported chronic job stress than for those who reported little or none
(Chandola et al., 2008). Another study showed that stress is significantly positively related to
worker depression (Blackmore et al., 2007). Finally, a study of 46,000 workers found that
those with high stress levels were responsible for nearly 50% higher health care costs than
their low-stress counterparts (Goetzel et al., 1998). When workers had both high levels of
stress and depression, the difference in health care costs skyrocketed to 150%, accounting for
an increase of more than $1,700 per person annually.

I/O psychologists have identified a number of stressors in the work environment that can
result in worker dissatisfaction and stress (see also Figure 10.2):

• Role conflict, which is two or more incompatible demands at work or across work
and nonwork roles

• Role ambiguity, which occurs when role responsibilities and functions are vague or
unclear

• Workload incompatibility, which occurs when the amount of work to be accom-
plished exceeds the employee’s capabilities

• Job insecurity, which is the feeling that one’s job status is insecure or unstable

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 305 4/20/17 5:44 PM

306

Technostress
and repetitive-

motion disorder

Role conflict
and

role ambiguity

Job insecurity
and

unemployment

Role overload
or

underload

Significant
life change

JOB
STRESS

Section 10.3 Employee Health

Employees who feel little or no control over their stressors also experience increased stress
(Thompson & Prottas, 2005). In other words, people get stressed out over stress! When peo-
ple feel as though they have control over their work environment, stressors are more likely
to be viewed as challenges to overcome. Overcoming challenges leads to job fulfillment and
increased job satisfaction. In contrast, workers who feel that they have little control perceive
stressors as obstacles that hinder their progress and frustrate their goal pursuit. Conse-
quently, they feel helpless and unable to manage their workload, which results in dissatisfac-
tion and resentment.

Organizations can help alleviate stress by clearly defining job roles and expectations, increas-
ing workers’ control over their jobs, and even training workers on techniques to control stress
(i.e., relaxation). However, everyone responds to stress in different ways. A work environment
that is debilitating for one employee might be exhilarating for another. Personality studies
provide some insight into why employees experience stress differently. Workers who are high
in extraversion and conscientiousness are more likely to look at stressors as challenges to
overcome and to utilize problem-solving coping strategies (Watson & Hubbard, 1996). Fur-
thermore, people who are characterized as being high in hardiness, or the belief that they
control the events in their lives, are better able to positively reappraise their situation and
engage in quality problem solving as compared to those low in hardiness (Crowley, Hayslip,
& Hobdy, 2003). Finally, individuals who have an internal locus of control are more likely to
perceive work stressors as manageable and unthreatening (Ng, Sorensen, & Eby, 2006). For
highly stressful jobs, organizations can use preemployment personality inventories to help
identify workers who are more likely to perform well under or react positively to stress.

Figure 10.2: Causes of job stress

From Applying Psychology: Individual & Organizational Effectiveness (6 ed., p. 240), by A. J. DuBrin, 2004, Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson. Reprinted by permission of Pearson Education Inc., New York, NY.

Technostress
and repetitive-
motion disorder
Role conflict
and
role ambiguity
Job insecurity
and
unemployment
Role overload
or
underload
Significant
life change
JOB
STRESS

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 306 4/20/17 5:44 PM

307

Section 10.4 Organizational Health

It is important to note that not all types of stress are negative. A moderate level of stress
can be motivating, and positive events such as getting a promotion or enjoying well-earned
recognition can yield a positive form of stress known as eustress. Moreover, many causes of
stress are not work related, such as aspects of a worker’s personal life. Additionally, even
work-related stress may stem from contextual factors that may not be directly related to the
tasks assigned to a worker. Examples include relationships with coworkers, career progress,
change, poor leadership, and organizational policies. Although an organization can help alle-
viate some of these sources of stress, many may be beyond its control. Thus, many organiza-
tions also help workers deal with their stress by providing stress management programs that
teach effective coping mechanisms.

10.4 Organizational Health
Unlike employee health, little is known or agreed upon among I/O psychologists about orga-
nizational health and well-being. Externally, investors characterize healthy organizations as
those that are profitable according to established accounting standards and financial ratios.
Society identifies healthy organizations by their positive reputations, socially responsible
actions, and sustainable practices. Internally, managers and employees assess organizational
health through efficiency measures such as productivity and optimal resource allocation, as
well as effectiveness dimensions such as creativity and innovation, flexibility and adaptabil-
ity to change, effective communication, positive organizational culture, and ethical practices.
Recently, however, more formalized perspectives have emerged to identify critical dimen-
sions of organizational health and well-being.

Built-to-Change Organizations
A critical characteristic of healthy organizations is the ability to change and adapt to their
environments. Most classic organizational-change theories view change as moving an orga-
nization from its current state to a desired state of higher efficiency or effectiveness. In this
paradigm, change is a goal-oriented process, with specified performance standards and out-
comes that add value for specific stakeholders. For example, a change that targets HR may
assess the breadth and depth of the current workforce’s KSAs in relation to market trends
and predicted talent needs and design ways to develop the workforce’s competencies and
capabilities accordingly. Similar processes may be applied to develop material, technology,
and other more tangible resources.

Although this structured approach to change is necessary and can help meet organizational
goals, it may also hinder the organization’s ability to change in the future. Many years ago,
Kurt Lewin’s (1951) force-field theory offered three stages for organizational change:

1. Unfreezing, which involves preparing the organization for change (by dealing with
resistance to change, communicating the benefits of change, ensuring that resources
are available to implement the change, and ensuring that people are committed to
making the change)

2. Change, which involves implementing the changes
3. Refreezing, which involves restabilizing the organization (by creating new

structures, cultural dimensions, and processes after the changes have been
successfully implemented)

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 307 4/20/17 5:44 PM

308

Section 10.4 Organizational Health

Lewin’s model emphasizes that after an organization is “unfrozen” and change is imple-
mented, the organization needs to be “refrozen” at a new, more desirable state; this is what
sustains the change. However, the new structural, cultural, and process dimensions may cre-
ate resistance to future changes. Even though additional changes can yield successes in the
desired performance dimensions, they often require another cycle of unfreezing newly cre-
ated structures, cultures, and processes (Lawler & Worley, 2006).

Periodic change may be appropriate for steady, predictable environments or as a normal part
of any organization’s life cycle (Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001). On the other hand, today’s fast-
paced business environment places a higher emphasis on organizational agility. Survival and
success in this environment require that organizations not only be able to build sustainable
competitive advantage by implementing evolutionary and revolutionary change; they must
also be able to develop robust strategies that prepare them to quickly and effectively respond
to multiple environmental scenarios; in other words, organizations must be built to change
(Lawler & Worley, 2006).

Building Talent-Based Competitive Advantage
When organizations are built to change, talent management is central to organizational devel-
opment and change (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 2002). People have always been viewed as integral to
change, because change is planned, implemented, and evaluated by people. However, the rela-
tionship between people and change has been predominantly negative, as people are often
viewed as a source of resistance to change due to fear, inflexibility, or unwillingness to change
(Ford, Ford, & D’Amelio, 2008; Kegan & Lahey, 2001). To meet the challenges of fast-paced,
dynamic, and hard-to-predict environmental change, many organizations are choosing to
become more human-capital-centric rather than structure-centric. A human-capital-centric
organization has been defined as “one that aligns its features (reporting systems, compensa-
tion, division and department structure, information systems, and so on) toward the creation
of working relationships that attract talented individuals and enable them to work together in
an effective manner” (Lawler, 2008, p. 9). This special treatment of talent goes beyond merely
relying on the quantity and quality of HR, which characterizes most organizations in today’s
service economy.

Learning From Virtuous Spirals
The direct, reciprocal correspondence between strategy and talent management in a human-
capital-centric organization can promote its ability to experience and intentionally learn from
virtuous spirals. These are periods of dynamic alignment with the environment when the
organization is able to seamlessly string together a series of temporary competitive advan-
tages. For example, an organization can use its success in creating and marketing a new prod-
uct line to learn more about its competencies and capabilities, as well as its employees’ talents
and strengths. This in turn can inform future strategic direction and fuel continuous research
and development of new products that would align those competencies, capabilities, talents,
and strengths with future market needs.

Furthermore, the organization’s members may experience similar virtuous spirals on an indi-
vidual level (Lawler, 2003), which leads to a strong employer and leadership brand (Ulrich

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 308 4/20/17 5:44 PM

309

Section 10.5 Positivity Matters: Can Happiness Make You Healthier and More Successful?

& Smallwood, 2007). This in turn can sustain the organization’s human-capital-centric iden-
tity and strategic intent. An organization that recognizes and promotes its competencies and
capabilities, as well as its employees’ talents and strengths, will likely pursue a strategic direc-
tion that will be attractive to similar-minded investors, employees, and community partners,
who in turn can leverage those same sources of competitive advantage.

Appreciative Inquiry
Appreciative inquiry is another positive approach to organizational health and well-being
that a number of organizations have successfully applied over the past decade. Appreciative
inquiry is “the cooperative, coevolutionary search for the best in people, their organizations,
and the world around them” (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005, p. 8). This search involves sys-
tematically discovering “what gives life to an organization or a community when it is most
effective and most capable in economic, ecological, and human terms” (Cooperrider & Whit-
ney, 2005, p. 8).

Appreciative inquiry diverges from the more common problem-oriented approaches and
views organizations not as problems to be solved but rather as potential sources of life, mean-
ing, and fulfillment. Emphasis is on the organization’s strengths and capabilities, what makes
it unique, and how it functions when it is at its best. Understanding these positive character-
istics and their underlying conditions facilitates their maintenance and replication over time,
which can lead to sustainable competitive advantage. In other words, emphasizing what is
positive in an organization promotes its health and well-being over time.

10.5 Positivity Matters: Can Happiness Make You
Healthier and More Successful?
Happiness and well-being have received more attention in more affluent populations and
nations such as the United States, where the pursuit of happiness is considered a consti-
tutional right. However, these subjects have also received increased attention worldwide,
across a variety of cultures. In response, well-
being experts such as Ed Diener (2000) have pro-
posed a national index of happiness that raises
happiness to a level comparable with economic,
social, and political priorities that have tradition-
ally received more emphasis and resources. As
discussed earlier, the importance of worker hap-
piness is becoming increasingly recognized due
to the connection between physical and mental
well-being and the escalating costs of health care
and resulting decrease in productivity. However,
the question remains: Does happiness make
people healthier and more successful, or is it that
healthier and more successful people just have
more reasons to be happy? Chris Madden/CartoonStock

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 309 4/20/17 5:44 PM

310

Section 10.5 Positivity Matters: Can Happiness Make You Healthier and More Successful?

Positivity and Success
As you know from previous chapters, a correlation between two variables does not explain
which one causes the other or the mechanisms through which that causation takes place.
Until recently, this applied to the correlation between positivity and happiness. A few years
ago, happiness expert Sonja Lyubomirsky and her colleagues conducted a meta-analytical
study that integrated the findings of many previous studies. They were able to show that posi-
tivity and happiness indeed cause success, rather than the other way around. Happiness leads
to positive outcomes in numerous life domains, including higher work productivity, stron-
ger relationships, and even better physical and mental health (Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener,
2005). Therefore, in order to improve the chances of experiencing successful outcomes in the
workplace, organizations should make happiness a strategic priority.

Increasing Your Own Level of Positivity
Positivity and happiness are determined by many factors. Although some of these factors
are genetic, others are hardwired at a very early age due to cultural factors and parenting
styles. Positivity also tends to be influenced by circumstances such as age, income, marital
status, looks, daily interactions, and even the weather. Many people have given up on trying
to become happier, adopting the deterministic belief that their level of happiness is beyond
their control. There is even extensive literature on the possibility of a “hedonic treadmill” that
makes people revert back to their original levels of happiness and well-being after tempo-
rarily experiencing happiness or unhappiness (Kim-Pietro, Diener, Tamir, Scollon, & Diener,
2005). There is some truth to this theory; recent research shows that about 50% of our hap-
piness level is determined by a set point, or a happiness baseline that is controlled by stable
factors (e.g., genetics). Another 10% is determined by situational factors. However, this leaves
40% open to development by intentionally engaging in happiness-inducing activities (Lyu-
bomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005).

Many psychological interventions, when properly implemented, have been shown to success-
fully increase happiness levels (Fredrickson, 2009; Luthans et al., 2015; Lyubomirsky, 2007).
These include the following methods:

• Setting challenging and meaningful goals
• Disputing negative thinking and deliberately practicing positive self-talk
• Choosing to forgive others and letting go of grudges and hard feelings
• Counting one’s blessings and intentionally expressing gratitude for them
• Visualizing future success
• Practicing healthy habits such as a balanced diet, adequate sleep, and regular

exercise

These approaches are backed by an extensive tradition in psychological research and prac-
tice. They all use as their foundation the notion that people’s appraisals of events are more
influential on their well-being than the actual, objective dimensions of those events (Kim-
Pietro et al., 2005). For example, a job transfer can be interpreted positively (as a promotion
or opportunity for added visibility and exposure to new information) or negatively (as being
unwanted or increasing the probability of failure). Well-being can be increased, with measur-
able impact on success in and beyond the workplace, when employees are taught to more
positively interpret their circumstances.

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 310 4/20/17 5:44 PM

311

Section 10.5 Positivity Matters: Can Happiness Make You Healthier and More Successful?

Making Employees Happier
Although intentionally undertaking certain individual activities can increase happiness, con-
text also plays an important role. For example, perceived supervisory and organizational
support is a strong predictor of employee positivity and well-being (Glaser, Tatum, Nebeker,
Sorenson, & Aiello, 1999; Luthans, Norman, Avolio, & Avey, 2008). Positive leaders also pro-
mote positivity in their followers. These followers in turn can learn strategies to maintain
higher positivity levels, both through the leader’s influence and independently (Avolio &
Luthans, 2006).

Spillover and crossover effects have also been recognized as having direct influence on
employees’ happiness and well-being. Spillover effects cause positivity in one life domain to
influence positivity in another (Judge & Ilies, 2004). Crossover effects occur when the posi-
tivity of one individual in one domain influences the positivity of others in different domains
(Bakker, Westman, & Van Emmerik, 2009). For example, a positive experience at work can
increase one’s positivity at home, which in turn can increase one’s positivity at work. These
findings further expand on the importance of work–life balance, wellness, stress reduction,
and conflict management in the workplace.

Consider This: Increasing Your Happiness Level
Review the list of ways to increase your level of happiness:

• Set challenging and meaningful goals.
• Dispute negative thinking and deliberately practice positive self-talk.
• Choose to forgive others and let go of grudges and hard feelings.
• Count one’s blessings and intentionally express gratitude for them.
• Visualize future success.
• Practice healthy habits such as a balanced diet, adequate sleep, and regular exercise.

Next, rank these methods from high to low in terms of which resonate with you most based
on your personality, comfort level, or need to pursue them. Try the first method on your list
this week and commit to pursue it for at least 1 full week. At the end of the week, reflect on the
outcome. Have you felt happier? If this method has worked for you, incorporate it into your
weekly schedule and commit to it for a longer period of time. If not, repeat this exercise, going
down your list of preferences, until you find a method that works for you.

Find Out for Yourself: Your Happiness Level
Visit the University of Pennsylvania’s Authentic Happiness website and take some of the tests
provided to assess your level of positivity and happiness.

Authentic Happiness Questionnaire Center

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 311 4/20/17 5:44 PM

https://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/testcenter

312

Summary and Conclusion

How Can Happy Employees Make Their Organization More
Successful?
In addition to the conventional wisdom that happy workers are productive workers, when
employees are happy at work, their engagement levels may increase. The Gallup Organiza-
tion has conducted numerous studies on organizations and found that engaged employees
have higher productivity and can significantly increase business-unit profitability (Harter et
al., 2002). The reason why is that engaged employees have higher vitality and energy lev-
els, experience better interactions with coworkers and customers, identify more closely with
their organization, and consequently are generally more willing and able to perform well and
go beyond their immediate role expectations.

Summary and Conclusion

Employees’ physical, mental, psychological, and social well-being is critical for individual and
organizational success. Indicators of employee well-being include positive attitudes such as
job satisfaction, work engagement, and organizational commitment; positive behaviors such
as high productivity, organizational citizenship behavior, and safe practices; and low levels
of aggression, stress, burnout, and counterproductive work behaviors. Numerous factors can
shape employee well-being, including personality, job characteristics, working conditions,
person–organization fit, work–life balance, relationships with managers and coworkers, and
employee expectations. Managers should learn to proactively promote and support employee
well-being. They should also learn to recognize the symptoms of negativity and poor physical
or psychological health and manage their causes. Organizations, too, can be healthy by adopt-
ing values and practices that are consistent with their strengths and capabilities. They can
leverage these characteristics toward continuous change and improvement to meet changing
market demands and build a sustainable, talent-based competitive edge.

Consider This: Spillover and Crossover Effects
1. To what extent does your mood at work affect your mood at home, and vice versa?

Think about some examples from the past week.
2. To what extent does your mood affect your family members’ moods and behaviors?

Think about some examples from the past week.
3. Have you ever had a bad day at work simply because someone you live with (your

spouse, significant other, or roommate) had discussed their own bad day at work with
you the night before? What were some of the symptoms of this crossover effect?

affective commitment Employees’ emo-
tional attachment to their organization.

appreciative inquiry The cooperative,
coevolutionary search for the best in people
and their organizations, as well as the world
around them.

Key Terms

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 312 4/20/17 5:44 PM

313

Summary and Conclusion

attitudes Cognitive, affective, and behav-
ioral evaluations about specific people,
places, or situations.

continuance commitment Employees’
perceptions of the economic value of staying
with an organization.

counterproductive work behaviors
(CWBs) The opposite of organizational
citizenship behaviors; negative behaviors
against the organization.

crossover effects Effects that occur when
the mood of one individual in one domain
influences the moods of others in different
domains.

dispositional anger A person’s tendency to
experience anger in almost any situation.

employee engagement The level of enthu-
siasm a person feels for his or her job.

employee wellness program A systemati-
cally designed, multicomponent program
that promotes and supports employees’
physical, mental, social, and psychological
health, safety, and well-being.

hardiness The belief that one controls the
events in one’s life.

human-capital-centric organization An
organization that aligns its features toward
the creation of working relationships that
attract talented individuals and enable them
to work together effectively.

job insecurity The feeling that one’s job is
not permanent.

job satisfaction The feelings people have
about their job based on its characteristics.

normative commitment The degree to
which employees remain with an organiza-
tion because they feel a moral obligation to
do so.

organizational citizenship behaviors
(OCBs) Pro-organizational behaviors that
go beyond formal job expectations.

organizational commitment A worker’s
level of psychological attachment to the
organization that is composed of three
dimensions: affective, normative, and
continuance.

person–organization fit The extent to
which employees and their company share
values; people will be happiest and most
successful working for organizations in
which there is a good fit.

role ambiguity A condition that occurs
when one is vague or unclear about one’s
role responsibilities and functions.

role conflict Two or more incompatible
demands at work or across work and non-
work roles.

spillover effects Effects that occur when
the mood in one life domain influences
another life domain.

virtuous spirals Periods of dynamic
alignment with the environment when the
organization is able to seamlessly string
together a series of temporary competitive
advantages.

workload The amount of work an
employee is assigned or expected to perform
in a given amount of time.

workload incompatibility A situation
in which the amount of work to be accom-
plished exceeds the employee’s capabilities.

workplace stress Harmful physical and
emotional responses caused by a poor match
between a job’s demands and an individual’s
capabilities, resources, or needs.

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 313 4/20/17 5:44 PM

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 314 4/20/17 5:44 PM

257

9Groups and Teams

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to

• Compare and contrast organizational groups and teams.

• Identify the characteristics of effective teams.

• Describe various types of teams.

• Apply the stages of team development.

• Determine when to use teams.

• Explain the process for and challenges of team decision making.

• Explain the contagion effects of positivity in teams.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 257 4/20/17 5:36 PM

258

Section 9.1 The Importance of Groups and Teams

9.1 The Importance of Groups and Teams
The use of groups and teams has become increasingly common not only in organizational
settings but also in education, public policy, and international relations. However, groups and
teams can present significant challenges in terms of their design and implementation. Con-
sider the following example.

A large agricultural manufacturing company decides to update its GPS-
enabled precision farming products with a revolutionary new color touch-
screen display, a significant advancement over its unwieldy, now obsolete
monochrome version. To thwart possible competitors, the company quickly
assembles a team comprising members from across the company, includ-
ing sales, marketing, product quality, engineering, and supply management,
and sets a 6-month project timeline. At first, team members embrace their
assignment with energy and conviction. However, as challenges arise and the
original excitement begins to wane, the team begins to experience conflict.
Never having worked together prior to this assignment and not having estab-
lished trust before beginning the project, team members start to turn work
disagreements into personal attacks. Soon team members stop attending
meetings and begin completing assignments individually, meeting only when
absolutely necessary.

As the project’s due date nears, the team members realize they have made
critical errors due to lack of communication on certain design elements. The
project is delayed and delayed again. Eventually, the team delivers the final
product—nearly a year behind schedule and $1 million over budget.

Although unfortunate, the above scenario is relatively common. In fact, one survey of IT teams
found that nearly 75% of them failed to meet one or more important project milestones (Bull
Survey, 1998). This statistic becomes even more alarming when you consider that organiza-
tions often use teams as an attempt to increase work productivity. Are all teams doomed to
failure? Is teamwork an impractical notion? Thankfully, the answer to both questions is no.

Consider This: Working in Teams
Recall several situations in which you worked with a team to complete a task or achieve a goal.

Questions to Consider

1. To what extent did you enjoy your team experiences? What were some of the charac-
teristics of each of these teams, tasks, and environments that you believe contributed to
your positive (or negative) experience?

2. Which of the above tasks or projects do you believe would have been better completed
individually? Why?

3. Which of the above tasks or projects do you believe were better suited to be completed
in teams? Why?

4. In which of the above tasks or projects do you believe that working in teams or individu-
ally would have made no difference? Explain.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 258 4/20/17 5:36 PM

259

Section 9.1 The Importance of Groups and Teams

Research shows that with careful planning, hard work, and commitment, organizations can
create effective teams. However, given scenarios like the one above, is it worth it to do so? In
other words, do effective teams produce spectacularly better results than individually run
projects? Based on research findings, the answer is that it depends on the team and the tasks
assigned to it. I/O psychologists help organizations make practical decisions that allow them
to design, maintain, and leverage effective teams.

Comparing Groups and Teams
The terms group and team are often used interchangeably to describe a collection of people
who work together to achieve a common goal. Even though a work team is a type of work
group, it is very different from basic work groups both in terms of processes and outcome

In this section, we describe the similarities and differences between work groups and work
teams.

A work group consists of two or more individuals who interact and share ideas in order to
achieve a common goal. Most people have experienced working in a dependent work group,
such as the traditional departmental group led by a strong manager. Workers in this type of
group depend largely on the manager to set goals, assign tasks, and resolve conflicts. In inde-
pendent work groups, on the other hand, workers tend to complete tasks and assignments
with little direct managerial supervision and
only basic direction. Think of teachers who work
at the same school: As a group, all wish to pro-
mote the success of the school and its students,
and most will work together from time to time,
especially when dealing with changes or chal-
lenges. However, the principal does not tell every
teacher every day how to teach a subject, develop
curriculum, or motivate students.

Beyond dependent and independent work
groups, some groups can develop into true work
teams. Interdependence is the key: Members
of work teams are truly unable to achieve their
goals by themselves and must rely on the skills,
expertise, information, and resources of other
team members. Teams exist to accomplish goals
that require collective responsibility. In other
words, success and failure are attributable to the
team as a whole, not just to one person. Instead of having one supervisor to dictate members’
every move, teams have the authority to decide how to interact, function, and make decisions.
Whereas other types of work groups are more inclusive and can thus be quite large, work
teams tend to include only a few members that possess complementary skills (Katzenbach
& Smith, 1993). Finally, work teams function within the broader organizational context, with
and alongside other teams.

To return to the example of a school and its teachers, an instance of a team within a school
would be a Student Assistance Team, which is formed when a student experiences significant
performance difficulties within the general classroom. The student’s classroom teacher or

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

Although the terms group and team
are often used interchangeably, they
are not the same. Teams require
interdependence, relying on the skills,
expertise, knowledge, and resources of
each member to achieve a shared goal.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 259 4/20/17 5:36 PM

260

Section 9.2 Developing Teams

teachers, school professionals (counselor, nurse, psychologist, etc.), one or more administra-
tors, and other specialists as needed work together to devise a specific plan to promote the
student’s future success. The Student Assistance Team meets regularly to assess progress
and make revisions to and recommendations for the student’s Individual Education Plan. The
team is interdependent, and members must trust each other, communicate extensively, col-
laborate when challenges arise, and share responsibility in order to meet the student’s needs
and promote the student’s highest level of success.

Although all types of groups can be organizationally useful, this chapter focuses mainly on
teams and their place within and significance to the organization. Teams have become increas-
ingly important to organizations and have been estimated to be used by over 80% of U.S.
companies (Blanchard, 2006). Why? Quite simply, employees who work as teams are better
able to solve problems than employees who work alone. However, as much as management
might wish to make use of this problem-solving resource, one cannot simply throw people
together and call them a team. The synergy and positive group dynamics created within a true
team are not instant; teams are built only through careful thought and hard work. Further-
more, creating teams can be costly and time consuming. The challenge is how best to enable
organizations to improve their chances of creating effective teams without wasting valuable
resources. To address this challenge, it is important for I/O psychologists to understand how
teams work, how to create and make them successful, and finally, when not to use them.

Find Out for Yourself: The Use of Groups and Teams
Browse the websites of the most recognized organizations in your current or desired field
of employment—or of 10 organizations you are interested in for various reasons (e.g., for
employment, as an investment, because it provides a regularly purchased product or service).
Look for the organizations’ values as well as statements and information about their structure,
culture, and processes.

What Did You Learn?

1. Which of these organizations mention teams and teamwork as one of the strategies they
use to accomplish their goals? As a goal in and of itself ? As a critical success factor?

2. In your opinion, which statements on the websites ring true, and which statements
seem to be there for marketing or public relations purposes?

3. How many of those organizations present specific, quantifiable evidence for how impor-
tant teams are to the success of their operations?

9.2 Developing Teams
Organizations use teams for all sorts of reasons—to solve problems, make decisions, design
products, implement services, and manage projects. Selecting the right type of team for the
task is critical to achieving the desired goals. However, assigning a group of individuals to a
task does not automatically make them function as a team. In addition to being the right type,
teams must also be developed in order to be functional and productive.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 260 4/20/17 5:36 PM

261

Section 9.2 Developing Teams

Types of Teams
Different types of teams are better suited to working on different types of tasks. Five com-
mon types of work teams are self-managed teams, manager-led teams, cross-functional teams,
project teams, and virtual teams.

Self-Managed Teams
A self-managed work team (SMWT) is a group of people who work together to accomplish
a goal by managing their own work. Together, members make decisions, assign tasks, plan
and schedule work processes, and solve work problems. A central notion of the SMWT is that
team members are better suited to evaluate processes and make decisions than managers or
any other officially designated leader, and that this collaborative environment will increase
productivity, enhance quality, reduce cycle time, and hasten responses to the rapidly changing
workplace.

Naturally, the key question is whether SMWTs are actually as good as they sound. In fact,
much data supports the SMWT. Sirkin (1993) indicates that SMWTs can produce greater
worker satisfaction, reduced costs, improved decision making, and increased market share.
SMWTs also share leadership responsibilities, which has been found to increase effectiveness
in terms of team performance and team attitudes, especially when the team’s work is com-
plex in nature (Wang, Waldman, & Zhang, 2014). For manufacturing giant Procter & Gamble,
SMWTs helped reduce costs by 30% to 50%; for General Mills, they increased productivity
by 40% as compared to traditional factories; and for Federal Express, they reduced service
glitches by 13% in just 1 year (Fisher, 1993). In a longitudinal study, Banker, Field, Schroeder,
and Sinha (1996) found that in the 2 years after their inception, SMWTs in an electromechani-
cal assembly plant were able to improve both quality and labor production.

Despite the continuous parade of success stories, not all companies have been satisfied with
SMWTs. Contrary to expectations, newly formed SMWTs do not instantly and miraculously
revolutionize an organization’s business. Instead, members of SMWTs often make a slow tran-
sition from their old work style to the new one and sometimes do not adopt the team-based
style at all. As Wageman (1997) notes, some members of SMWTs can have trouble adjusting,
choosing to “divide their work and do it independently, showing no inclination to join in a
collective effort to improve their work strategies, take responsibility for different decisions,
or solve problems” (p. 50). Of course, resistance by team members to the SMWT concept will
negate the potential benefits this work format has to offer.

The effectiveness of self-managed teams depends on the degree to which their structure is
aligned with the tasks to be accomplished. Structurally aligned teams have higher perfor-
mance. Moreover, when change is necessary, aligned teams focus on the structural changes
that can help them continue to restore alignment and effectiveness. For example, they may
implement changes in team members’ roles or reward systems to meet the new demands of
their situation. In contrast, structurally misaligned teams tend to focus on changes in pro-
cesses and personnel. For example, they may blame, remove, or replace members perceived
to be low performers, or they may focus on monitoring, evaluating, or adapting the mission,
goals, or performance. While these activities are generally valuable, emphasizing them can
slow down adaptation and change, which can cause performance to deteriorate (Johnson,
Hollenbek, DeRue, Barns, & Jundt, 2013).

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 261 4/20/17 5:36 PM

262

Section 9.2 Developing Teams

Manager-Led Teams
The most common type of team is the tradi-
tional manager-led team. Here, in contrast to
the SMWT, a manager acts as team leader and
is responsible for defining goals, methods, and
functions. The team has little operational input
and is responsible only for completing the work
outlined by the manager. Examples of manager-
led teams include military squadrons, sports
teams, and assembly-line crews.

Manager-led teams have a number of advantages
and disadvantages. On the positive side, the man-
ager has maximum control over team members
and the work they perform, which allows the

manager to use his or her experience to actively guide the team to optimal performance. The
manager can then ensure that the work of team members is adequately coordinated and inte-
grated to reduce duplication and redundancies. At the same time, the manager can work to
avoid gaps in team performance as a result of uncompleted tasks. Manager-led teams also
encourage team members to spend their energy on work actions instead of the planning, goal
setting, managing, and other duties associated with SMWTs. On the other hand, members of
manager-led teams may experience less autonomy and empowerment than they would in an
SMWT; this can be a serious drawback for workers who value these characteristics. Addition-
ally, an overly controlling team leader may inspire too much conformity, resulting in poor
decisions and mistakes that could have been corrected in a more open environment. Overall,
manager-led teams are ideally suited for straightforward tasks in which there is a clear goal.

Cross-Functional Teams
Suppose an insurance company plans to bring a new disability insurance product to market.
Management puts together a team made up of actuarial, marketing, sales, and finance profes-
sionals, along with representatives from support areas such as HR, information technology,
customer service, compliance, and the legal department. This team is an example of a cross-
functional team, in which representatives of approximately the same hierarchical level from
many functional areas of an organization combine forces to solve problems.

Cross-functional teams can be quite powerful because of their ability to leverage the diverse
expertise, skills, and abilities from throughout the entire organization. However, they can be
problematic, largely because of the amount of time needed for the group to coalesce into
a fully functioning team. Because members of cross-functional teams typically do not work
together outside of the team, they will need time to build trust and get to know and under-
stand their fellow team members’ diverse perspectives. As you can guess, cross-functional
teams are susceptible to conflict, especially when they are in the early stages of development
and are working to define goals and outcomes.

To minimize conflict, cross-functional teams can appoint a leader to help direct and unify the
team as it clarifies goals and processes at the beginning of the project. However, manager-led
cross-functional teams can experience another type of conflict. Members of these teams now

Roy Delgado/CartoonStock

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 262 4/20/17 5:36 PM

263

Section 9.2 Developing Teams

have to report to at least two leaders: the team leader and their functional department lead-
ers. If they are involved in multiple projects, members may need to report to multiple team
leaders in addition to their functional leaders. Each individual leader often has different pri-
orities, and each may try to compete for the employee’s time, attention, and expertise.

Consider This: Who Should Be on the Team?
Below are several examples of work projects. Read the description of each project and recom-
mend which type of team is best suited for it. (If a cross-functional team is necessary, note
which functional areas should be represented.)

Project 1: A wireless phone provider would like to introduce a new shared plan that
would attract a 25% share of the market for family plans over the next 2 years and yield at
least 5% profit margin above the current margin of existing plans.

Project 2: A chain of physicians’ offices would like to update and improve its patient
database.

Project 3: A department store would like to implement a new inventory system, called
Just in Time, in which it holds limited inventories but develops close relationships with
suppliers and links into their inventory systems so that suppliers are signaled to restock
items when the store’s inventories hit a certain threshold.

Project 4: A privately held organization is considering going public.

Project 5: A grocery store would like to designate a group of employees to choose
items for weekly promotions and design the weekly sales flyer mailed throughout the
neighborhood.

Project Teams
Project teams have a number of defining characteristics. First, these teams are relatively
small. Second, they are temporary and usually disband at the project’s end. Third, they are
created for a specific reason and are given a very clear goal to accomplish. Finally, they are
led by a project manager, who coordinates the people and materials needed to complete the
task. For example, management might assemble a project team composed of a team leader
and representatives from each of the major departments in order to plan and implement a
company-wide changeover to a new type of financial accounting software. This team would
exist solely to accomplish its goal and would likely dissolve as soon as employees had transi-
tioned to the new software.

Because project teams exist outside the formal chain of command, they encourage team
members to identify with the project, which often leads to high team morale and productiv-
ity. Additionally, because project teams typically work toward very clear goals, it is easier to
determine their level of success or failure. However, team members continue to perform their
regular duties and responsibilities in their own departments and report to their managers
within the permanent organizational structure. As with cross-functional teams, project teams
can sometimes cause role conflict if the project workload and schedule are not adequately
coordinated with project team members’ permanent roles.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 263 4/20/17 5:36 PM

264

Section 9.2 Developing Teams

Virtual Teams
Virtual teams are groups of individuals who
work across time, space, and organizational
boundaries and interact primarily through elec-
tronic communications (Minton-Eversole, 2012).
Up to this point, we have described teams that
interact face-to-face. However, technological
advancements have made it possible for a physi-
cally dispersed team to collaborate via electronic
communication. These virtual teams interact and
collaborate through electronic meetings, e-mail,
instant messages, and social networking sites.
Being open to the concept of the virtual team is
an increasingly important way for organizations
to recruit and retain highly valuable employees
who do not want to relocate, and to draw from
diverse talent pools for short-term assignments.

According to a recent survey, nearly half of organizations today use virtual teams. However,
multinational organizations are more than twice as likely to use virtual teams as U.S.-based
organizations (66% versus 28%, respectively). Government agencies are least likely to use
virtual teams (9%). Almost 40% of organizations that use virtual teams report increased pro-
ductivity. Other equally important reasons to use virtual teams include travel cost savings and
facilitating global collaboration (Minton-Eversole, 2012).

However, virtual teams are quite different from traditional teams. The absence of face-to-
face interaction creates significant challenges (Driskell, Radtke, & Salas, 2003). For example,
research shows that virtual teams using primarily text-based media (e.g., e-mail, instant mes-
saging, or texts) are less likely to build trusting relationships than are virtual teams using
media that simulate face-to-face interactions (e.g., Skype or videoconferencing; Bos, Gergle,
Olson, & Olson, 2001). Another disadvantage stems from the relative anonymity that exists
within the virtual world, lowering inhibitions and making it easier for people to make inap-
propriate comments or flamboyant statements they would not normally make in a face-to-face
interaction (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991). These types of comments can hurt feelings, impair team-
work, and reduce team performance. As you can see, the biggest challenges for virtual teams
are communication and building effective team relations. These challenges alone compromise
the effectiveness of over 50% of virtual teams. Other important challenges include time differ-
ences, work distribution, cultural differences, and leadership (Minton-Eversole, 2012).

Despite these challenges, the use of virtual teams is a growing trend. Organizations must
thus consider how best to implement this type of team and ensure its optimum effective-
ness. If possible, organizations should consider having members of the virtual team meet and
interact face-to-face prior to entering the virtual environment. Additionally, workers should
receive training on how to work in the virtual realm. A survey of 440 organizations found
that those companies that implemented such training programs (e.g., learning how to use
and communicate effectively with electronic media and how to collaborate in a virtual envi-
ronment) were more likely to experience success with their virtual teams, reporting them as
a positive competitive advantage for their organization (Rosen, Furst, & Blackburn, 2007).
The surveyed managers also reported that the traditional methods of communication, goal

Jon Feingersh/Blend Images/Thinkstock

Virtual teams allow colleagues to interact
and collaborate through electronic
meetings, e-mail, instant messages, and
social networking sites. This enables
organizations to draw from diverse talent
pools and retain highly skilled employees.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 264 4/20/17 5:36 PM

265

Section 9.2 Developing Teams

setting, performance management, reward allocation, coaching, and feedback were not as
effective in the virtual environment; they needed to adjust their methods to effectively man-
age the team.

Similarly, supportive structures and shared leadership are more effective than hierarchical
leadership in virtual teams. Keep in mind that being a virtual team is a matter of degree. In
today’s networked world, even face-to-face teams interact virtually through e-mail, instant
messaging, and conferencing programs such as Skype, GoToMeeting, and WebEx. Similarly,
many virtual teams have opportunities for face-to-face interaction. However, the more virtual
a team’s interactions tend to be, the more important it becomes for that team to be supported
and empowered to make decisions through shared leadership and other participative pro-
cesses, rather than being led in a traditional, hierarchical manner (Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014;
Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, & Gipson, 2004).

Consider This: Virtual Project Teams
Think about a recent project you were involved in. It can be a class project, a project at work, or
a personal or family project. Identify the tasks and participants involved as well as the timeline
for completing the project. Now, imagine completing the same project virtually. If the project
is tangible (such as a home improvement project), imagine having to remotely offer guidance
to the person or team completing the project on the ground.

Questions to Consider

1. Which communication media would you use?
2. How would each of the tasks be adapted to be more effectively completed?
3. Which of the members of the project team could be remote, and which ones would have

to be local?
4. How should the schedule be adapted?
5. What would be some of the advantages and challenges of moving this project to a virtual

environment?

Stages of Team Development
As previously stated, effective teams do not develop instantly. Over time, groups progress
through five stages: forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning (Maples, 1988;
Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977).

• Stage 1: Forming. In this initial stage, members are eager to learn about the new team’s
purpose, structure, and power. This period of orientation involves members getting to
know each other, and it ends when the individuals see themselves as part of a team.

• Stage 2: Storming. Teams in the storming stage often experience conflict. This can be
something of a shakedown period, with hostility, infighting, tension, and confrontation
as members attempt to clarify expectations, assign roles, and determine the distribu-
tion of power. Not everyone will be happy with the decisions made or roles assigned,
and the storming can continue until challenges are resolved. The storming stage ends
after the team has established a clear hierarchy and basic assignment of roles.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 265 4/20/17 5:36 PM

266

Section 9.2 Developing Teams

• Stage 3: Norming. In the norming stage, the team begins to structure itself by estab-
lishing roles and deeper social relationships. Members begin to identify with the
team and develop cohesiveness and commitment. Team norms evolve, and members
know what behaviors will be acceptable (and unacceptable) to their teammates.
Challenges are met with support and advice, and individuals volunteer to assist one
another if necessary.

• Stage 4: Performing. In this stage, the team moves from foundational stages (get-
ting to know each other and setting ground rules and roles) to accomplishing its key
tasks. Team members believe they are working for a common purpose and become
an efficiently functioning unit. The team becomes a well-oiled machine, meeting
regularly to discuss successes, address challenges, and brainstorm new opportuni-
ties. When working together, each team member has an equal say in the project, and
disagreements are discussed and dealt with constructively.

• Stage 5: Adjourning. For temporary work teams, such as task forces, project teams,
and committees, the final stage of development is the dissolution of the team at the
completion of the project. After meeting one last time to evaluate the project and tie
up loose ends, the team members leave the group, having formed important rela-
tionships they can build on in the future.

Teams must address each stage effectively, or they risk having to go back and deal with unre-
solved issues from earlier stages. As you can guess, one of the key goals for managers is to
help teams move quickly and successfully through the first three stages to the performing
stage. This can be tricky, because each team is unique, and some teams spend more time in
the early stages than others.

Team Dynamics and Emergence Patterns
Traditional models of team development such as the forming, storming, norming, performing,
and adjourning model have been recently criticized for being too static (Cronin, 2015). Teams
are dynamic entities that are constantly changing beyond these predictable stages. For exam-
ple, every time members leave or are added to the team, it may need to get involved in some
additional forming, storming, and norming. In today’s dynamic business environment, the
“rules of the game” change all the time. When teams face changes in sequence and patterns
of events, they can experience unexpected storming that may require flexibility and frequent
renorming. Thus, it is almost impossible to “catch” a team at one particular stage of develop-
ment. In reality, these stages may be occurring concurrently and dynamically at all times.

Although it makes sense to think of teams as dynamic entities, this poses notable challenges
for the scientific study of teams (Cronin, 2015). In general, most researchers take a “snap-
shot” approach. They collect their data at one or more points in time, analyze it, and make
deductions about relationships between the variables they study. Even longitudinal studies
that span several years and collect data over time, or experimental studies that use interven-
tions to manipulate some factors and observe their impact on outcomes of interest, are still
considered static. They may resemble multiple snapshots, but they are nowhere near a high-
resolution video capture of the richness and dynamism of these situations.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 266 4/20/17 5:36 PM

267

Section 9.3 Effectiveness of Teams

Similar to team development stages, team phenomena are also dynamic. For example, the
“teamness” of a team emerges over time. As you will learn later in this chapter, teams develop
collective characteristics, thought patterns, and emotions that are unique and different
from those of the team’s individual members. Therefore, most researchers use an “average”
approach when they measure team phenomena. For example, it is very common in research
studies to measure the level of work engagement of each team member, and then take the
average as a representation of team engagement (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). However,
the average is not always representative of a team phenomenon. For example, let’s compare
the engagement levels of two hypothetical teams. In the first team, all members are moder-
ately engaged. In the second team, half the members are highly engaged and the other half are
highly disengaged. The average level of engagement in these two teams may be the same, but
the dynamics of these two teams are likely to be very different.

To better understand team phenomena, scholars have recommended a number of approaches.
One approach is to try to understand some team phenomena, like diversity, in terms of the
level of agreement or dispersion across team members. Team diversity is not some kind of
“average” that can be taken across team members to represent the team’s level of diversity.
Instead, each member’s uniqueness and variability across members are more meaningful
representations of team diversity.

Other team phenomena are more appropriately understood in terms of “maximum emer-
gence,” or the team’s highest contributor. For example, in leaderless or self-managed teams,
leadership emerges depending on unique characteristics or behaviors of the emergent leader.
It is not necessary for every member of the team to exhibit these characteristics, only for one
member to be determined as the highest contributor of these characteristics.

Another pattern is “minimum emergence,” where the adage “We are only as strong as our
weakest link” applies. For example, one member’s deficient performance can cause the whole
team to fail. Finally, in some cases the average, dispersion, minimum, or maximum do not mat-
ter as much as the “profile” or combination of team members’ abilities. In these truly dynamic
cases, the mix of team members, like pieces of a puzzle, forms the full picture that deter-
mines the team’s effectiveness. Unfortunately, these cases are the hardest to study. However,
new scientific research methods have emerged to study such complex phenomena and show
substantial promise in shedding additional light on team dynamism (Chan, 1998; Kozlowski,
Chao, Grand, Braun, & Kuljanin, 2013; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).

9.3 Effectiveness of Teams
The extensive study of teams has resulted in a better understanding of why some are more
effective than others. One of the most frequently cited conceptualizations of team effective-
ness originates from a systems perspective, which proposes that the team works as a system:
Team inputs lead to team processes, which in turn lead to team outcomes (Williams & Allen,
2008). As shown in Figure 9.1, this input-process-outcome model provides an effective heu-
ristic for understanding team effectiveness (McGrath, 1964).

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 267 4/20/17 5:36 PM

268

· Task design
· Team size
· Composition of team
– Personality
– Cognitive ability
– Demographics

Inputs

Team design

· Reward system
· Management support
· Culture

Context variables

· Information sharing
· Group conflict
· Goal setting
· Team efficacy
· Shared mental models

Processes

· Performance
· Efficiency
· Member satisfaction

Effectiveness

Section 9.3 Effectiveness of Teams

Team Task Design
Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) job characteristics model (see Chapter 6) was designed to
show how individual-level jobs could be enriched to improve both individual and organi-
zational outcomes. Interestingly, it appears that many of these techniques apply not only to
individual workers but to teams of workers as well. Additionally, concepts from the job char-
acteristics model could explain team member motivation and effectiveness.

Like individual tasks, team tasks are more motivating if they possess the five job-design char-
acteristics: skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. The basic
nature of the work team tends to promote these characteristics: Team tasks provide variety
because they require workers to use many different skills and learn new skills; they provide
task identity because team members usually work on tasks from start to finish; and they
provide significance because teams usually work on projects that are important for the orga-
nization. Additionally, members of all effective teams enjoy some autonomy in deciding how
to handle their assigned tasks. Finally, the overall success or failure of the team’s finished
product provides the team with feedback about its performance. The five job-design char-
acteristics should motivate members not only to perform well on the team task but also to
cooperate with the other team members (Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993).

Team Composition
A major driver of a team’s effectiveness is its composition. Forming a team, however, can be
complicated—not only because the organization must consider the various attributes work-
ers will need, but also because of the manner in which those individual attributes should be
configured (Levine & Moreland, 1990). Although researchers have investigated the ways in
which a number of different characteristics affect team performance, four have been found
to have the greatest influence: member personality, member cognitive ability, team diversity,
and team size.

Figure 9.1: Input-process-outcome model of team effectiveness

· Task design
· Team size
· Composition of team
– Personality
– Cognitive ability
– Demographics
Inputs
Team design
· Reward system
· Management support
· Culture
Context variables
· Information sharing
· Group conflict
· Goal setting
· Team efficacy
· Shared mental models
Processes
· Performance
· Efficiency
· Member satisfaction
Effectiveness

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 268 4/20/17 5:36 PM

269

Area of best
performance

Low agreeability High agreeability

Best Performance

P
e
rf

o
rm

a
n

c
e

Agreeableness

High

Low High

Section 9.3 Effectiveness of Teams

Personality
Personality has been found to have an effect on both individual employee and team perfor-
mance. Although all of the Big Five personality variables (extraversion, conscientiousness,
agreeableness, openness to experience, and emotional stability) have shown some relation-
ship to team performance, agreeableness and emotional stability show the strongest rela-
tionship (Bell, 2007; Peeters, Van Tuijl, Rutte, & Reymen, 2006). As you might expect, teams
composed of emotionally stable individuals are more successful than those composed of
emotionally unstable individuals. A more interesting inverted-U-shaped relationship exists
between team performance and agreeableness: Teams are less effective both when team
members have a high level of agreeability and when they have a low level of agreeability (see
Figure 9.2). Highly agreeable team members usually get along, but they may not want to chal-
lenge each other sufficiently to explore new options. Team members with low levels of agree-
ability, on the other hand, may have too much conflict, which can be dysfunctional. A moder-
ate amount of conflict tends to be most effective; hence the inverted-U-shaped relationship.
Teams have also been found to benefit differentially from team conflict based on the prevalent
personality traits of team members. For example, conflict tends to enhance performance in
teams with higher emotional stability and openness to experience but tends to have a nega-
tive effect on performance in teams that have lower levels of these personality traits (Bradley,
Klotz, Postlethwaite, & Brown, 2013). Similarly interesting is the role of conscientiousness in
promoting teamwork quality. Vîrgă and colleagues (2014) found that conscientiousness buf-
fers the harmful effects of relationship conflict on teamwork quality.

Figure 9.2: Inverted-U-shaped relationship between team performance and
agreeableness

Area of best
performance
Low agreeability High agreeability
Best Performance
P
e
rf
o
rm
a
n
c
e
Agreeableness
High
Low High

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 269 4/20/17 5:36 PM

270

Section 9.3 Effectiveness of Teams

In addition to Big Five personality characteristics, two other personality traits have an impor-
tant influence on team effectiveness: tolerance for ambiguity and the need for autonomy.
Because teams often solve problems or perform new tasks for which no clear solution, orga-
nization, or method has yet been established, people who have a low tolerance for ambigu-
ity tend to find working on teams frustrating and unfulfilling and are thus less motivated to
embrace this type of work environment (Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001). A person’s relative need
for autonomy is also important to team dynamics (Kirkman, 2000). Workers who have a high
need for autonomy tend to flourish on teams because they have more freedom and indepen-
dence to develop and implement their own ideas.

Consider This: Teams and EI
A recurring theme of this text is the importance of EI in the organizational context. Read the
following article from the Harvard Business Review for a discussion on the importance of EI
for teams.

Building the Emotional Intelligence of Groups

Questions to Consider

1. Why is it important for teams to build EI?
2. How does team EI differ from individual EI?

Cognitive Abilities
An individual’s cognitive ability is the strongest single predictor of job success (see Chap-
ter 3). This result also appears to hold true in the team work environment. A meta-analytic
study conducted by Stewart (2006) found that the average cognitive ability of a team’s mem-
bers is strongly related to team performance, regardless of task type. Even though it appears
that, in most cases, high-ability teams have a significant advantage over lower ability teams,
higher cognitive ability may not be an advantage in some situations. For example, if the task
is simple, high-ability teams are likely to lose interest or become bored. Conversely, lower
ability teams confronted with the same task will remain focused, regardless of whether they
are intellectually stimulated. Therefore, organizations should save their high-ability teams to
work on the most challenging and complex assignments.

Team Diversity
Within the workplace, diversity is popularly believed to positively increase team effective-
ness. However, researchers have discovered that surface-level demographic diversity, such
as race, gender, and age, can have a negative effect on team performance (Mannix & Neale,
2005). Apparently, demographic diversity can disrupt team communication and cohesion
while also increasing member conflict (Mohammed, Cannon-Bowers, & Foo, 2010), at least
initially, although these effects tend to dissipate over time (Chatman & Flynn, 2001).

On the other hand, more recent studies demonstrate that the relationship between demo-
graphic diversity and organizational performance is not linear; it is instead industry specific
and depends on organizational strategy. For example, gender and racial diversity have been

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 270 4/20/17 5:36 PM

https://hbr.org/2001/03/building-the-emotional-intelligence-of-groups

271

Section 9.3 Effectiveness of Teams

shown to have a nonlinear relationship with organizational performance, moderated by two
dimensions of the organization’s strategy: entrepreneurial orientation and risk taking (Rich-
ard, Barnett, Dwyer, & Chadwick, 2004). A study of the banking industry also showed that
racial diversity can have a positive effect on organizational performance when banks pursue
an innovative strategy but a negative effect in banks that are low on innovation (Richard,
McMillan, Chadwick, & Dwyer, 2003). Overall, meta-analytical findings show that cultur-
ally diverse teams gain from increased creativity and satisfaction but realize losses due to
increased task conflict and decreased social integration; net gains or losses depend on the
context (Stahl, Maznevski, Voigt, & Jonsen, 2010).

Whereas demographic diversity can challenge a
team’s effectiveness, task-related diversity tends
to improve it. Teams whose members represent a
variety of educational backgrounds, experiences,
tenure, skill sets, and so forth have been shown
to be more effective than teams with less task-
related diversity (Horowitz & Horowitz, 2007).
As is the case with demographic diversity, the
significance of task-related diversity may also
depend on the type of task the team is assigned.
Specifically, teams with low task-related diver-
sity perform better on low-difficulty tasks but
worse on high-difficulty tasks (Bowers, Pharmer,
& Salas, 2000).

Similar to task-related diversity, Liang and colleagues (Liang, Liu, Lin, & Lin 2007) found that
the knowledge diversity of team members was positively related to team performance. On the
other hand, they found that value diversity was related to relationship conflict and, in turn,
lower team performance. This is especially relevant in today’s local and global business envi-
ronments, given increasing cultural diversity. Cultural diversity can be manifested in terms
of varied values and beliefs, which can be challenging to reconcile. However, research shows
that cultural diversity can enhance performance when team members’ goals are focused on
learning, rather than just on performance. Although performance is important, overemphasiz-
ing it can lead to what are called avoidance goals, which emphasize tried-and-true processes
and avoiding mistakes. On the other hand, a learning orientation results in what are called
approach goals. Approach goals encourage pursuit of new challenges and exploration of new
solutions, which can reduce conflict, encourage collaboration, promote information sharing,
and enhance team performance (Pieterse, Van Knippenberg, & Van Dierendonck, 2013).

Team Size
Determining how many people to include on a team can be critical to its overall success. Lead-
ers often choose to follow the maxim “The more, the merrier,” believing that greater input will
result in more accurate decisions and better results. However, too many people on a team can
impair team performance, reduce cohesiveness, increase conflict, and interfere with coordi-
nation. Research suggests that the most effective teams are made up of five to nine members
who possess the combination of KSAOs required to solve the problem (Thompson, 2003). In
general, it is best for managers to create teams with the smallest number of workers needed
to get the job done.

Rawpixel Ltd/iStock/Thinkstock

Culturally diverse teams profit from
increased creativity, effectiveness, and
satisfaction.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 271 4/20/17 5:36 PM

272

Section 9.3 Effectiveness of Teams

Context for Team Success
Many contextual factors, such as support, rewards, and culture, play a significant role in a
team’s success or failure. As Richard Hackman (1999) explains, “There are no free-standing
groups, as each is embedded in several larger contexts—whether they be the organization, its
environment (e.g., marketplace or industry), or the wider culture in which the team operates”
(p. 238).

Support
Organizations can send mixed messages about their support for teams and their tasks. When
managers say that they value their teams but do not give them the autonomy to make their
own decisions, this suggests that management is not really on board with the team concept
(Mathieu, Gilson, & Ruddy, 2006). The actions taken by the organization to either support or
restrict teams will influence the way team members feel about their team, its goals, and their
participation on it.

Rewards
Typical performance appraisals and compensation programs are designed for individuals and
do not work within a team-based environment. Organizations need to modify their systems
to evaluate both individual- and team-based behaviors and performance outcomes (McClurg,
2001). Including incentives and rewards that relate to team performance will encourage team
members to concentrate on team outcomes and shift their focus from personal to collective
work and accountability.

Culture
Some researchers have suggested that a country’s culture may affect team performance,
with four cultural characteristics being especially influential: collectivism, power distance,
a “doing” orientation, and determinism (Nicholls, Lane, & Brechu, 1999; Kirkman & Shap-
iro, 2001). As discussed in previous chapters, collectivist societies (such as many in Asia)
emphasize the harmony, success, and needs of the group over personal needs and desires.
Thus, teams should be more successful in these societies because workers already have much
experience working as part of a group and, because of cultural norms, will be less likely to
instigate competition within the team. In contrast, individualistic cultures emphasize the suc-
cess and goals of the individual, so teams can be more challenging to implement. In individu-
alistic cultures, it is particularly important to promote teamwork through team rewards and
job design in order to align individual and team goals. If jobs continue to be designed and
rewarded based on individual achievement, as is the case in many U.S. organizations, teams
can be unsuccessful; team goals tend to conflict with individual goals, which can reduce team
members’ commitment to team goals.

Power distance is the relative importance cultures place on hierarchical structure, author-
ity, and acceptance of unequal distribution of power. Cultures with high power distance—
in which leadership leans toward or is openly totalitarian and subordinates expect specific
instructions and guidance on work tasks—may have more difficulty implementing successful
teams, because workers may be unfamiliar or uncomfortable with the higher levels of auton-
omy and task ambiguity inherent in the team work concept.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 272 4/20/17 5:36 PM

273

Section 9.3 Effectiveness of Teams

Cultures that promote and appreciate a high “doing” orientation should have more success
implementing team work models than cultures that are more appreciative of reflection and
contemplation. Americans have a very high doing orientation—we idealize the go-getter at
work, admire people who take the initiative, characterize children who are bold and outspo-
ken as leaders, and become frustrated with coworkers who can’t multitask. Everything is in
constant motion and done for a purpose; we often judge others (or ourselves) as lazy or frivo-
lous for taking time to think, reflect, or talk about nothing in particular. Organizations expect
their teams and the people on them to meet deadlines, take action, think proactively, speak
up, and be efficient.

Finally, determinism, or the degree to which people believe they control what happens in
their lives, can impact team effectiveness. Some cultures perceive their environments as
unchangeable and their positions and duties as fixed and determined by others. These highly
deterministic cultures may not be as successful in implementing teams as cultures in which
people feel they have the power to address problems and improve their situation. It makes
sense to predict that, in order to be successful, team members need to believe that their work
is meaningful and will solve the problem.

Consider This: Too Much of a Good Thing?
1. When might a high doing orientation be detrimental to a team? Can you think of a spe-

cific task or situation that would be better served by a team that is more contemplative?
2. Can you think of specific tasks or situations where individualism, determinism, and/or

high power distance can be conducive to effective team dynamics? What about a task or
situation where collectivism, low power distance, and/or low determinism can compro-
mise the team’s effectiveness?

Team Cohesion
Team cohesion is the tendency for a team to stick together and remain united in the pursuit
of its objectives (Carron, Brawley, & Widemeyer, 1998). The notion that closely knit teams
are more effective than those that are more loosely bound is so widely held that most team-
training programs include segments with the specific goal of enhancing team cohesion (Healy,
Milbourne, Aaronson, & Errichetti, 2004). It is surprising, then, that research does not defini-
tively support this belief. A classic study by Schachter and his associates (Schachter, Ellertson,
McBride, & Gregory, 1951) revealed an interesting set of relationships between team cohe-
sion and performance. Cohesion was associated with higher productivity when the environ-
ment was positive but with lower productivity when the environment was negative. In other
words, cohesion acted as a double-edged sword. In positive work environments, cohesion can
magnify the functional dynamics that lead to higher productivity, but in negative work envi-
ronments, cohesion can exacerbate negative behaviors and further compromise performance.

A meta-analytical study by Mullen and Cooper (1994) found that team cohesion has only
a weak effect on team performance, though the relationship tends to be stronger for small
teams than for larger ones. However, in a more recent comprehensive study, the relationship

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 273 4/20/17 5:36 PM

274

Section 9.3 Effectiveness of Teams

between team cohesion and performance was found to be reciprocal and to grow over time.
In other words, this relationship becomes stronger the longer a team works together, and the
more cohesive a team becomes, the better it performs (Mathieu, Kukenberger, D’Innocenzo, &
Reilly, 2015). Other research has shown a stronger relationship between team cohesion and
performance when teams exhibit high interdependence (Gully & Devine, 1995). Interestingly,
although there is some debate about whether team cohesion directly affects overall team per-
formance, it does seem to have an effect on specific aspects of performance. For example,
Beal, Cohen, Burke, and McLendon (2003) found that team cohesion is a strong predictor of
team performance on behavior and efficiency measures but not on effectiveness measures.
Finally, cohesive teams are more likely to accept group goals, decisions, and norms, which can
help improve a team’s overall functionality.

Team Processes
A cohesive team is able to produce work that is greater (in quantity, creativity, innovation,
efficiency, etc.) than the sum of the work its members can produce independently. This effect,
called synergy, is one of the major reasons organizations are attracted to the team work
concept. But how do teams create synergy, and what can organizations do to promote it? In a
nutshell, synergy evolves through the development and accrual of interpersonal interactions,
also called team processes, including information sharing, conflict, collective efficacy, goal set-
ting, and shared mental models.

Information Sharing
Information sharing is one of the most fundamental team processes. Whether it occurs within
the team (during team meetings, breakout sessions, etc.) or outside the team (one team mem-
ber calling another for help while working on an individual component of the project), com-
munication will positively impact team performance (Barry & Stewart, 1997). If a team mem-
ber hoards data or keeps key information secret in a bid for power or self-promotion, the
whole team—and the project itself—suffers, because the other team members must waste
precious time and resources hunting for information they should already be putting to use.
One way to improve a team’s level of information sharing is to increase its task-related diver-
sity (using members who represent a variety of educational backgrounds, experiences, ten-
ure, skill sets, etc.; Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2001).

Conflict
Another team process that affects team performance is conflict. The term conflict often carries
a negative connotation, suggesting dysfunction, interpersonal challenges, and hostility. With
teams, however, there is a difference between conflict that arises in the course of working
on the task, called task conflict, and conflict that stems from interpersonal disagreements
between team members, called relationship conflict. Relationship conflict is usually detri-
mental to a team’s effectiveness. Although a certain amount of task conflict occurs in even the
best teams, research demonstrates that it does not facilitate positive team performance (De
Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Successful teams take steps to manage conflict by (a) proactively
setting ground rules for dealing with disagreement and (b) transforming conflict into compe-
tition (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 2000).

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 274 4/20/17 5:36 PM

275

Section 9.3 Effectiveness of Teams

Collective Efficacy
Effective teams believe in themselves and have confidence they will be successful, a charac-
teristic known as collective efficacy (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). Collective efficacy
has been defined as “a group’s shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to organize and exe-
cute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainments” (Bandura, 1997,
p. 477). This collective efficacy develops in teams over time as they share small successes, and
each success serves to make the team believe it will be successful in the future (Tasa, Taggar,
& Seijts, 2007). Extensive research has shown that collective efficacy is positively related to
team performance (Gully et al., 2002; Stajkovic et al., 2009).

Efficacy is not the only psychological resource that can emerge at the team level. Research
supports the emergence of other positive psychological resources in teams and organiza-
tions, such as compassion and resilience (Hamel & Välikangas, 2003). Similar to the many
synergies experienced in larger groups, these positive characteristics are more than the sum
of their individual parts. For example, a resilient team is not simply a team that is composed
of resilient individuals. When resilience occurs at the collective level, it takes on unique char-
acteristics such as resilient systems and practices. Similarly, team emotions take on unique
characteristics that are influenced by, and in turn influence, the emotions of team members
(Barsade & Gibson, 2014).

Goal Setting
Effective teams also use goal setting to translate
the common purpose of the group into specific,
actionable goals and then devise strategies to
accomplish them. Just as they do with individu-
als (see Chapter 8), specific and challenging
goals lead to improved team performance and
help focus the team’s effort in the right direction.
Additionally, such goals have been found to raise
a team’s levels of energy and effort, which leads
to high performance (Weldon & Weingart, 1993).
To be effective, teams should articulate specific
goals that both challenge their capabilities and
include a defined deadline.

Shared Mental Models
Much recent attention has been paid to the ability of team members to apply a shared under-
standing of how the team’s work will be done. Teams that are able to construct shared men-
tal models of team processes, tasks, and roles are more likely to outperform teams that
construct highly divergent mental models (Mohammed & Dumville, 2001). Teams that share
mental models benefit from fewer misunderstandings among members, which promotes
rapid coordination, reduced conflict, and ultimately, more time spent performing the task
(Williams & Allen, 2008). On the other hand, teams whose members have divergent ideas
on how to complete the assigned task will likely struggle to get work done, because they will
spend more time arguing than actually doing their job.

Dave Carpenter/CartoonStock

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 275 4/20/17 5:36 PM

276

Section 9.3 Effectiveness of Teams

Social Loafing and Free Riding
Two of the most detrimental team processes are social loafing and free riding, which occur
when a member or members of a team coast through a project, letting others do the brunt of
the work. Social loafing and free riding both lead to process losses within groups; however,
social loafing is a less deliberate reduction in individual effort. Free riding, on the other hand,
occurs when an individual believes others will pick up the slack, so he or she does less work
(Forsyth, 2010). Social loafing and free riding are more common when individual contribu-
tions are not easily identifiable. Therefore, teams can reduce social loafing and free riding by
making each member of the team accountable to an identifiable segment of the work effort.
By proactively setting both individual and team tasks, the team will ensure that everyone
takes an equal share of the work—and enjoys an equal measure of the team’s success.

Consider This: Social Loafing
Social loafing is a common problem in teamwork. For example, one team member may not
show up for meetings on time or perform the tasks assigned to him. Another team member
may do minimal work and depend on the rest of the team to carry her through the project.

Questions to Consider

1. Review your experiences of being part of a team (at work, in school, on the playing field,
or elsewhere). Were any of your team members (or you!) guilty of social loafing?

2. What did your team do, if anything, to address loafers?
3. What could you or your team have done differently to prevent loafing?

High-Performance Work Teams
Some teams have been found to exhibit exceptionally high levels of effectiveness. These teams
are referred to as high-performance work teams. These teams possess a combination of the
factors discussed throughout this chapter. Riggio (2011) identifies 10 practices of these types
of teams:

1. Define and create interdependencies.
2. Establish goals.
3. Determine how teams will make decisions.
4. Provide clear and constant feedback.
5. Keep team membership stable.
6. Allow team members to challenge the status quo.
7. Learn how to identify and attract talent.
8. Use team-based reward systems.
9. Create a learning environment.

10. Focus on the collective mission.

A study by MIT’s Human Dynamics Lab (Pentland, 2012) shows that highly effective teams
tend to communicate more frequently and intensely than a typical team, not only in terms of

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 276 4/20/17 5:36 PM

277

Section 9.3 Effectiveness of Teams

the content communicated, but also in terms of voice tone and body language. Highly effective
teams display a lot of energy and engagement when communicating with team members and
often take the opportunity to communicate outside the team and bring back valuable infor-
mation and new perspectives. Communication also tends to be short, focused, and spread
equally among team members. Interestingly, effective teams tend to engage in a lot of side
conversations, about 50% of the time. This contradicts conventional wisdom, in which side
conversations are considered disruptive and usually discouraged.

Find Out for Yourself: Teams at Whole Foods
Whole Foods, an American supermarket chain, is recognized for its unique structure, which is
designed entirely around teams, from the front lines all the way to the top of the organization,
including the founders. Read this article to gain insights into how Whole Foods uses teams
to increase the quality of hiring and in turn how high-quality teams can improve the perfor-
mance and effectiveness of the organization.

Why Whole Foods Builds Its Entire Business on Teams

What Did You Learn?

1. What strikes you as most distinctive about Whole Foods’ team-based structure?
2. Why do you think Whole Foods’ team-based structure is conducive to high-performance

work teams?
3. What are the most important factors within the organization’s structure and culture

that cause this team-based structure to work? Consider aspects of job design, recruit-
ment, selection, performance appraisal, and reward systems.

4. Do you think you would personally enjoy working for Whole Foods? Why or why not?

Consider This: Models of Team Effectiveness
Over the years, many models of team effectiveness have emerged. Of course teams are unique,
and no one model can capture all of their characteristics and success criteria, so it is helpful to
examine multiple models. I/O psychologist Kenneth De Meuse (2009) summarizes and com-
pares some of these models in the following article.

A Comparative Analysis of the Korn/Ferry T7 Model
With Other Popular Team Models

Questions to Consider

1. What are the most notable similarities between the models discussed in this article?
2. What are the most notable differences?
3. Did you observe any consistencies, inconsistencies, or trends between older and newer

models? Why do you think that’s the case?

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 277 4/20/17 5:36 PM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidburkus/2016/06/08/why-whole-foods-build-their-entire-business-on-teams/#7175c0fe483d

http://www.kornferry.com/media/lominger_pdf/teamswhitepaper080409

278

Section 9.4 Decision Making in Teams

9.4 Decision Making in Teams
“Two heads are better than one.” This common saying describes the essence of team decision
making, a process in which multiple individuals act collectively to analyze a problem and
select a solution or solutions that best address the problem. There are, of course, advantages
and disadvantages of team decision making as well as practical techniques to help teams
make better decisions.

Advantages of Team Decision Making
There are a number of reasons why organizations utilize teams. Because teams are able to
leverage more resources, such as KSAOs, time, and energy, they are able to generate more
complete knowledge and information to use in the decision-making process. Additionally,
team decision making can take advantage of the diverse strengths and expertise of its mem-
bers, which enables the team to generate more, higher quality alternatives. As a result, teams
are often more likely than a single individual to reach a superior solution.

Another benefit of team decision making has to do with the way people accept solutions to
problems, especially difficult ones. Teams develop a collective understanding of the chosen
course of action, which promotes a sense of ownership of the decision. Team members can
say, “We made this choice,” instead of, “Someone made this choice for us,” so they are more
likely to support the decision, commit to it, and encourage others to accept it.

Disadvantages of Team Decision Making
Although teams hold great potential for performing superior work and producing superior
results, potential pitfalls do exist. Generally speaking, team decision making is more time con-
suming than individual decision making, which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to use
when decisions need to be made quickly. Additionally, teams can fall prey to a domineering
team member, which, if the member is of low or medium ability, can result in poor outcomes.
Finally, conformity pressures can influence team decisions, leading to group polarization and
groupthink.

Group Polarization
Team decision-making situations almost always involve some degree of risk or uncertainty.
Research has found a tendency for group polarization, or convergence on extreme posi-
tions on either side of an issue. For example, the risky shift phenomenon occurs when, after
discussion, a team makes decisions that are riskier than those advocated by individual team
members. The cautious shift, on the other hand, occurs when discussion prompts teams
to make decisions that are more conservative than those originally proposed by individual
members (Isenberg, 1986; Stoner, 1968). Why does this polarization occur? In both cases
individuals propose various ideas, and then the entire team engages in discussion. Discus-
sion can prompt individuals to generate more and more information in support of their pre-
ferred solution, resulting in an ever more polarizing game of one-upmanship. Caught in a
desire to support one side or defeat another, team members feel pressure to take sides, and
polarization escalates until the final solution is much more extreme than anything originally
intended. Another possible reason for group polarization is accountability and responsibility.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 278 4/20/17 5:36 PM

279

Section 9.4 Decision Making in Teams

Individuals sometimes choose to acquiesce to an extreme decision instead of continuing to
work on a tough challenge, because if the action fails, they can shrug and say, “Well, I told you
that would never work. It’s your fault, not mine!”

Groupthink
One of the most serious and detrimental disadvantages of team decision making is group-
think. In his 1972 book, Victims of Groupthink, Irving Janis describes this phenomenon as
the “deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment resulting from in-
group pressure” (p. 9). Groupthink occurs when views dissenting from the majority opinion
are suppressed and alternative courses of action are not fully explored.

Groupthink has been the main driver of some of the most damaging decision-making fail-
ures in American history. The disaster of the Space Shuttle Challenger is a tragic example of
how social pressure and conformity lead teams to make poor decisions. In response to heavy
demands to meet strict launch timelines, NASA
officials chose not to spend time investigating
their engineers’ concerns about the potential for
O-ring failure and proceeded with the scheduled
launch, resulting in the shuttle’s destruction and
the death of all its crew members (Moorhead,
Ference, & Neck, 1991).

There are many reasons why teams fall vic-
tim to groupthink (see Figure 9.3). Teams with
high cohesiveness are more likely to experience
groupthink, as are those with members who
place a high value on consensus and a need for
approval. Such teams make a collective effort to
rationalize and discount potential warning signs.
Additionally, teams that isolate themselves from
or do not look for conflicting sources of informa-
tion begin to believe that the lack of dissenting
information is proof that their solution is the best one. The most common cause of group-
think, however, is a charismatic or powerful leader who champions a specific idea or solution.
In such situations, the other team members feel social pressure to censor their ideas, align
themselves with the leader, and avoid questioning the leader’s direction. To address this issue,
Janis (1982) developed five practical steps teams can use to help avoid the groupthink trap:

1. Team leaders should explicitly encourage dissent and criticism.
2. Team leaders should gain participation from all members before stating their own

opinion.
3. Team members can create a separate team with its own leader to tackle the same

problem.
4. Team members should ask trusted advisors to provide feedback on the team’s

decision-making process and to challenge the team’s decisions.
5. Team members should appoint one person to serve as devil’s advocate, who pur-

posefully takes the contrary perspective.

NASA

Groupthink has contributed to some
of the most damaging decision-making
failures in American history, including
the 1986 catastrophe involving the
Challenger Space Shuttle.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 279 4/20/17 5:36 PM

280

Precursors of groupthink

Group
unity

Inaccessibility

Biased
leaders

Stressful
decision
making

Warning signs of groupthink

Belief in group immunity. Belief in total agre
e
m

e
n
t a

m
o
n
g
g

ro
up m

em
bers. Peer pressure. Informational filters

. Ju
stif

yin
g.

L
ab

el
lin

g.
R

es
tr

ic
tio

n
o

f
p
e
rs

o
n
a
l c

o
n
ce

rn
s

or
d

ou
bt

B
eli

ef
in

gro
up m

orality.

= Faultydecision making

Section 9.4 Decision Making in Teams

Each of these techniques legitimizes the value of disagreement in the decision-making pro-
cess and helps teams capitalize on the fact that dissenting perspectives reduce conformity
and groupthink.

Over the decades, some of the underlying assumptions of Janis’s theory have been questioned
by scholars who have noted that groupthink can actually be related to positive performance
outcomes. Team activities were found to be more important predictors of team performance
than groupthink alone (Choi & Kim, 1999). Some research even negates the existence of
groupthink, in essence casting doubt on the concept (Grossman, 2011). Ironically, this would
actually make the idea of groupthink, which has been supported for decades by scholars and
practitioners alike, a clear example of groupthink! However, these more recent findings do
not negate the importance of Janis’s practical steps, outlined above, to ensure that team mem-
bers engage in productive activities.

Team Decision-Making Techniques
There are numerous techniques teams can employ to help them make better decisions. Two
of the most common team decision-making methods are brainstorming and the nominal
group technique.

Brainstorming
Brainstorming is a process in which team members attempt to increase the number and
creativity of solutions by verbally suggesting ideas or alternative courses of action. A typical

Figure 9.3: Groupthink

Adapted from Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment, by I. L. Janis and L. Mann, 1977,
New York, NY: Free Press.

Precursors of groupthink
Group
unity
Inaccessibility
Biased
leaders
Stressful
decision
making
+
Warning signs of groupthink
Belief in group immunity. Belief in total agre
e
m
e
n
t a
m
o
n
g
g
ro
up m
em
bers. Peer pressure. Informational filters
. Ju
stif
yin
g.
L
ab
el
lin
g.
R
es
tr
ic
tio
n
o
f
p
e
rs
o
n
a
l c
o
n
ce
rn
s
or
d
ou
bt
s.
B
eli
ef
in
gro
up m
orality.
= Faultydecision making

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 280 4/20/17 5:36 PM

281

Section 9.5 When Teams Are a Bad Idea

brainstorming session is relatively unstructured and begins with the leader describing the
problem. Team members then generate as many solutions as possible for a given amount of
time. No criticism or evaluation is allowed; all ideas, no matter how unusual, are recorded.
Once the time has expired or the group members have run out of ideas, the group begins
evaluating the utility of each of the suggestions.

Although brainstorming tends to generate an abundance of possible solutions, it is an ineffi-
cient way to solve problems. Research consistently shows that individuals working alone can
generate more solutions than a brainstorming group. Production blocking, which occurs
when individual participants lose their train of thought and become cognitively blocked,
limiting their potential to share, is one reason (Kerr & Tindale, 2004). Another is individual
team member shyness. Finally, some team members may keep controversial or unusual ideas
to themselves due to fear of being personally judged by other group members. Thus, even
though brainstorming is a popular and much used technique, it is flawed.

Nominal Group Technique
The nominal group technique has been shown to produce much better results than brain-
storming. This method is a structured decision-making process in which team members gen-
erate ideas on their own, without any interaction, and then bring their ideas to the entire
group to be evaluated. The process involves four steps:

1. Prior to group discussion, each individual composes a comprehensive written list of
ideas or proposed alternatives.

2. Individuals gather as a team and present, in turn, one item from their list until all
ideas or alternatives have been presented and recorded. No discussion occurs at this
point.

3. The team discusses the ideas for clarity.
4. Each team member privately puts the ideas in rank order. The solution with the

highest aggregate ranking is chosen.

The nominal group technique has a number of advantages over brainstorming. First, it has
been shown to produce more effective decisions (Faure, 2004). Second, the pressure to con-
form is limited, because members work independently. And third, because ideas are pre-
sented and recorded in an orderly fashion, production block is reduced. Thus, if you ever
have the option of choosing between brainstorming and nominal group technique to make an
important team decision, you would be better served by the latter.

9.5 When Teams Are a Bad Idea
Organizations have become enamored with teams—not because they are necessarily the best
way to increase productivity but because “everyone” is using them. However, in certain situ-
ations, teams can be a big mistake. For example, creating cohesive teams takes a consider-
able amount of time and effort. When speed is essential, new, inexperienced teams may make
more blunders than they are worth (Staats, Milkman, & Fox, 2012). Additionally, teams put
a big burden on team members and leaders to share information, manage conflict, and solve
complex problems, which can lead to team members’ frustration and burnout.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 281 4/20/17 5:36 PM

282

Section 9.6 Collective Positivity: Can Positivity Be Contagious?

Specific conditions do exist under which only teams should be used. For example, when tasks
are highly interdependent, employees are required to collaborate in order to perform their
jobs. An example of highly interdependent jobs is a surgical team: Nurses, doctors, techni-
cians, and specialists each rely on communication with and the complementary skills of the
others to complete a successful operation. These individuals must work as a team or risk the
safety of their patients.

On the other hand, if jobs are relatively independent or sequential, teams can add an unneces-
sary layer of coordination that can be impractical and time consuming. For example, a large
transportation company decided to implement teams across most of its operations. The
implementation process was torturous, especially for drivers who are on the road most of the
time, but senior management persisted and demanded that all operations should convert to
the new team design. Sacrificing road time to attend team meetings was costly to the orga-
nization and frustrating to the teams, who complied with the changes but without any real
engagement or commitment to the new design. Deliveries became chronically late, customer
complaints increased, turnover skyrocketed, and the initiative was abandoned within 1 year.

Before rushing into implementing the team concept, organizations must assess whether the
problem is better addressed with individual or collective effort. Are multiple individuals
required to complete the task? If so, organizations must then determine the complexity of the
project. Teams are best suited for situations that are challenging and complex, whereas sim-
ple problems that require limited input and information sharing should be left to individuals.

Teams are often viewed as a universal remedy within the organization. They can, however,
be overused and poorly designed, and they are almost always a bad idea when they are not
needed. Ultimately, it is important that organizations use teams only when there is true inter-
dependence between team members and the task requires leveraging their diverse skills.

9.6 Collective Positivity: Can Positivity Be Contagious?
Positivity can benefit not only individuals, but also groups and organizations. Research shows
that positivity as well as negativity can be contagious. Encounters with positive individuals
can lift our spirits and make us more positive and energetic. On the other hand, interactions
with negative individuals can make us feel down, defeated, or discouraged. These findings
were revealed in a fascinating set of experiments in which a trained actor was embedded
in groups assigned to negotiate the distribution of a limited bonus pool across their depart-
ments. Regardless of the intensity of the emotions expressed by the actor, or even the degree
of pleasantness of the actor to the other members, positive mood expressions produced a
ripple effect that shaped the group’s interactions, improving cooperation and group perfor-
mance and decreasing group conflict (Barsade, 2002).

The contagious effects of managers’ positive emotions and moods on their employees have
also been demonstrated as a mechanism for effective leadership (Barsade & Gibson, 2014;
Bono & Ilies, 2006). Positivity should therefore be taken into consideration when forming
teams, selecting team leaders and members, and training employees to become effective con-
tributors to their teams. Leadership styles also affect team functioning beyond their effects

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 282 4/20/17 5:36 PM

283

Section 9.6 Collective Positivity: Can Positivity Be Contagious?

on individual performance. For example, although LMX quality (see Chapter 7) is generally
positively related to employee performance at the individual level, bimodal LMX differentia-
tion (treating team members differently based on their classification into an in-group and
out-group) has a negative effect on team coordination and ultimately causes the team’s finan-
cial performance to suffer (Li & Liao, 2014).

However, just selecting positive individuals will not automatically make a positive team or
organization. Positive organizing is also needed, in which the organization’s context, pro-
cesses, and outcomes also become more positive in order to facilitate positive organizational
phenomena (Cameron & Caza, 2004). For example, as discussed earlier, team members need
to build collective efficacy, a shared belief in their joint abilities to achieve their goals (Ban-
dura, 1997). However, collective efficacy is not the sum of the individual efficacies of the team
members. In fact, if team members possess extremely high levels of efficacy, they may become
overconfident, which may hinder their motivation or desire to collaborate with other team
members. Therefore, for collective efficacy to develop among team members, trusting rela-
tionships, open communication, and information sharing may be more important than the
individual efficacy of each team member.

Recently, there has also been an increasing interest in organizational resiliency, or the ability
of an organization to survive and recover from crises. Again, however, organizational resil-
iency is not the same as individual resiliency. A resilient organization (or group) does not
necessarily make its members more resilient, nor does a resilient group of individuals nec-
essarily make a resilient team or organization. In fact, the processes leading to individual
resiliency may sometimes be detrimental for groups and organizations. For example, indi-
viduals may bounce back from adversity at the expense of others, using coping mechanisms
and strategies that resemble survival of the fittest (Coutu, 2002), which are not conducive to
team or organizational resiliency. On the other hand, the dynamic processes that help teams
adapt to change and recover from crises need to go beyond the capabilities and limitations of
any one individual. These processes include flexibility, ability to learn and evolve, and norms
of respectful interaction (Weick, 1993).

Consider This: A Recent Crisis or Challenge
Think about a challenging situation that you have recently faced and successfully overcome in
the context of work, family, or social relationships.

Questions to Consider

1. How did you overcome the crisis or challenge you faced?
2. To what extent did you do it alone? What were some of the personal resources you drew

upon?
3. To what extent did you get help from others? What were some of the ways others con-

tributed to your success in overcoming this crisis or challenge?
4. In hindsight, which aspects of the situation were best handled alone, and which aspects

should have been handled with the help of others? Use the knowledge you gained from
this chapter to explain your answer.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 283 4/20/17 5:36 PM

284

Summary and Conclusion

Currently, many organizations are focusing heavily on groups and teams to solve difficult
and complex problems. However, the team outcomes show mixed results. First, not all tasks
and projects lend themselves to teamwork. Second, just because a group of individuals are
assigned a common goal does not mean that they will function as a team and realize the syn-
ergies expected from teamwork. Numerous individual, group, organizational, and contextual
factors will shape the dynamics of the group and make it more or less effective. Managers
are strongly advised to consider those factors and thoroughly analyze them, rather than just
choosing to design operations around teams simply because everyone else in their industry
is doing the same. If analysis reveals that teams are the correct approach, then many factors
discussed in this chapter should be evaluated and adopted in order to facilitate teamwork,
motivate team members, promote positive team dynamics, and ultimately increase teams’
effectiveness within the organization.

brainstorming A process in which team
members attempt to increase the num-
ber and creativity of solutions by verbally
suggesting ideas or alternative courses of
action.

cautious shift A phenomenon that occurs
when discussion prompts teams to make
decisions that are more conservative than
those originally proposed by individual
members.

collective efficacy A group’s shared belief
in its capabilities to organize and execute
courses of action that will produce a given
level of attainment.

collectivist Tending to value harmony, suc-
cess, and the needs of the group over indi-
viduals’ personal needs and desires.

cross-functional team A team in which
representatives of approximately the same
hierarchical level from many functional
areas of an organization combine forces to
solve problems.

determinism The degree to which people
believe they control what happens in their
lives.

“doing” orientation The tendency to value
action over contemplation.

free riding A belief that sometimes occurs
in a team context, where a team member
believes the other members will pick up the
slack so he or she does less work.

group polarization Convergence on
extreme positions on either side of an issue.

groupthink Deterioration of mental effi-
ciency, reality testing, and moral judgment
resulting from in-group pressure.

manager-led team The traditional, most
common type of team, in which a manager
acts as team leader and is responsible for
defining goals, methods, and functions, and
the team has little operational input and is
responsible only for completing the work
outlined by the manager.

Key Terms

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 284 4/20/17 5:36 PM

285

Summary and Conclusion

nominal group technique A structured
decision-making process in which team
members generate ideas on their own,
without any interaction, and then bring their
ideas to the entire group to be evaluated.

power distance The relative importance
cultures place on hierarchical structure,
authority, and acceptance of unequal distri-
bution of power.

production blocking Individual team
members lose their train of thought and
become cognitively blocked, limiting their
potential to generate solutions.

project teams Relatively small teams that
are temporary, created for a specific reason,
given a clear goal, and usually disband at
project’s end; usually led by a project man-
ager, who coordinates the people and mate-
rials needed to complete the task.

relationship conflict Conflict that stems
from interpersonal disagreements between
team members.

risky shift A phenomenon that occurs
when, after discussion, a team makes deci-
sions that are riskier than those originally
advocated by individual team members.

self-managed work team (SMWT) A
group of people who work together to
accomplish a goal by managing their own
work in a collaborative environment without
an officially designated leader.

shared mental model A team’s shared
understanding of team processes, tasks,
roles, and how the team’s work will be done.

social loafing Coasting through a team
project, letting other members of the team
do the brunt of the work.

synergy The notion that the total is greater
than the sum of its independent parts.

task conflict Conflict that arises in a team
in the course of working on a task.

team cohesion The tendency for a team
to stick together and remain united in the
pursuit of its objectives.

virtual teams Groups of individuals who
work across time, space, and organizational
boundaries and who interact primarily
through electronic communications.

work group Two or more individuals who
interact and share ideas in order to achieve a
common goal.

work teams Work groups characterized by
interdependence; collective responsibility
for outcomes; authority to decide how to
interact, function, and make decisions; and
exclusiveness to a few members who pos-
sess complementary skills.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 285 4/20/17 5:37 PM

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 286 4/20/17 5:37 PM

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ WD5 ”

Get high-quality paper

Guarantee! All work is written by expert writers!

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now